BREAKING: Ruth Ginsburg hospitalized after suffering fall.

Dec 3, 2013
18,476
12,211
565
#51
I am curious. Do you have any recent examples of mental health legislation that was blocked?

I agree that doing something about this issue would help more than changing gun laws (although I find the NRA's hardline opposition to even upgrading background checks rather repulsive), but it doesn't seem to have become a priority for either party. That could change if, say, both sides agreed to move on with a mental health reform now.
I this thread here:

https://www.neogaf.com/threads/yet-...-including-deputy-and-security-guard.1467795/

Californians push to not have someone evaluated for mental health issues, because of "stigma". It could have possibly barred him from owning a firearm, since if you are evaluated as mentally unstable, you will be flagged for the background check and/or have to give up your firearms you currently own.
 
Likes: pramod
D

Deleted member 77995

Unconfirmed Member
#52
Of course. The Christian bakery case comes to mind. Had it been the Supreme Court was left leaning, they would have ruled against the Christian baker, thus ending freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
That still doesn't showcase how the Supreme Court is being used as a loophole to fit an agenda not to mention that Supreme Court justices are not supposed to "lean left" or "lean right." Baseless conjecture is simply not useful.
 
Apr 15, 2018
2,457
2,823
230
#54
I hope she recovers. In all honesty, she should have retired under Obama.

Right now...the U.S. population is already so divided and polarized that if Republicans think replacing her with a super conservative judge won't have any negative consequences, they're kidding themselves. Yes, it'll solidify the kind of court they want, but it will also make the political environment that much worse.

Which is why I hope she remains at least until Trump is out (the other alternative of expecting him to nominate someone who is a moderate conservative for the position seems rather unlikely to happen), but that's going to be entirely up to her own decision and health status.
The fucking hubris of democrats.😂 Would you give a damn about the polarization and division a packed liberal court would cause?
 

old

Member
May 11, 2013
4,938
156
365
#55
I don't want to give the GOP ideas here, but I could totally see Trump creating a new executive order that if a Justice can't walk or work then they have to retire to force RGB out. A 5-4 majority is nice. A 6-3 majority is even better.

You might think. No way. That's crazy even for Trump. The Supreme Court would rule against it. I'm not entirely confident. Nothing is too crazy for Trump. He shits on tradition and decorum for breakfast. Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch will do whatever their GOP masters tell them. Then it all comes down to how much do we trust Roberts to stand behind what's right. He is questionable at best.
 
Last edited:
Jun 1, 2013
14,894
309
500
#56
> Mass Shooting
> Conservatives offer thoughts and prayers
> Liberals say fuck your thoughts and prayers
> RBG breaks 3 ribs
> Liberals now offering & asking for thoughts and prayers
Indeed. Fuck thoughts and prayers. Bunch of crap. Try and actually do something and not just write that you are "praying".


Btw, where do you see those liberal asking for thoughts and prayers?
 
Last edited:
Mar 12, 2014
3,638
2,164
415
#57
Any evidence of the SCOTUS you're talking about?
-----
On-topic, justices are supposed to be impartial and outside of the sphere of influence. They aren't beholden to re-election or having to consider how decisions will be used against them by an opponent's campaign trail. It's why someone like Roberts could repeatedly be the swing vote on controversial issues and not have to deal with blowback from conservatives. Anyone here who is hoping for a lopsided court to vote zealously in favor of conservative ideals either doesn't understand the purpose of the Supreme Court in the first place or, in having a complete understanding of the Court, isn't interested in justice.
You are actually completely wrong. The reason why so many people prefer conservative judges is because they are considered more likely to enforce the constitution as written, and less likely to legislate from the bench. There is a reason why certain circuits are where the vast majority of liberal minded people seek to litigate matters. That is because they failed to get a legislative achievement, and expect liberal minded judges to find a way to legislate their demands from the bench. Justice does not require decisions from someone who thinks it's ok to assume constitutional powers delegated elsewhere unto themselves. It's actually the other way around, so that people know the law before they get to court instead of after the court makes it.
 
Likes: danielberg
D

Deleted member 77995

Unconfirmed Member
#58
You are actually completely wrong. The reason why so many people prefer conservative judges is because they are considered more likely to enforce the constitution as written, and less likely to legislate from the bench. There is a reason why certain circuits are where the vast majority of liberal minded people seek to litigate matters. That is because they failed to get a legislative achievement, and expect liberal minded judges to find a way to legislate their demands from the bench. Justice does not require decisions from someone who thinks it's ok to assume constitutional powers delegated elsewhere unto themselves. It's actually the other way around, so that people know the law before they get to court instead of after the court makes it.
Nothing you've said contradicts what I've said. Justices aren't appointed to strengthen party lines even if they're sometimes with that hope. People who think that the Supreme Court exists to supplement party ideologies are going to be pretty disappointed. A conservative interpretation of the constitution is not the same as conservative ideology...
 
Likes: OSC
Mar 12, 2014
3,638
2,164
415
#59
Nothing you've said contradicts what I've said. Justices aren't appointed to strengthen party lines even if they're sometimes with that hope. People who think that the Supreme Court exists to supplement party ideologies are going to be pretty disappointed. A conservative interpretation of the constitution is not the same as conservative ideology...
Conservative judges are appointed because they are expected to have a conservative interpretation of the constitution. They are not appointed because they will reject things like the legislative budget over too much government spending. Even on abortion - the conservative judicial constitutional position is not that abortion is bad or good. It is "does the constitution actually say abortion cannot be limited by the government?" On things like the right to counsel - the conservative judicial position would not be one that decides if the government must pay for it. The conservative judicial position would be "does the constitution say the government must pay for it, or is that something the legislature would need to decide."

I believe you misunderstand what conservative ideals are with respect to judicial appointments. The media tries it hardest to make people misunderstand, so I am not shocked. They have to, because arguing that "he is bad because he will only look at the text of the constitution", is not nearly as great a motivator as "he wants to make sure you cannot have an abortion."

In fairness, plenty of right leaning people feel that the conservative judicial position is abortion is bad.
 
Last edited:
Jun 20, 2018
1,938
1,990
240
#60
Conservative judges are appointed because they are expected to have a conservative interpretation of the constitution. They are not appointed because they will reject things like the legislative budget over too much government spending. Even on abortion - the conservative judicial constitutional position is not that abortion is bad or good. It is "does the constitution actually say abortion cannot be limited by the government?" On things like the right to counsel - the conservative judicial position would not be one that decides if the government must pay for it. The conservative judicial position would be "does the constitution say the government must pay for it, or is that something the legislature would need to decide."

I believe you misunderstand what conservative ideals are with respect to judicial appointments. The media tries it hardest to make people misunderstand, so I am not shocked. They have to, because arguing that "he is bad because he will only look at the text of the constitution", is not nearly as great a motivator as "he wants to make sure you cannot have an abortion."
It all comes back to republicans getting played because they are actually the only ones that care about the constitution while democrats literally dont give a shit about it and use it mainly to advance their political agenda by redefining it when they want and using it as weapon reading it literal when it suits them against republicans who again are the only ones actually giving a shit... because they are fools still not getting how they are played. Its honestly tiresome lol
 
Last edited:
Mar 12, 2014
3,638
2,164
415
#61
It all comes back to republicans getting played because they are actually the only ones that care about the constitution while democrats literally dont give a shit about it and use it mainly to advance their political agenda by redefining it when they want and using it as weapon reading it literal when it suits them against republicans that actually give a shit about the consitituon... because they are fools still not getting how they are played. Its honestly tiresome lol
Damn right they get played. They are the worst at messaging and run to the hills instead of standing tall and explaining their points when uncomfortable narratives are thrown at them. Which is why Trump was able to decimate the entire party while running to be their nominee, and the two years post-election. They didn't know what to do.

As an aside, Mitch looks like gold right now to his party. But without Trump he'd be a meme. And does he really think the filibuster will exist once the day comes when the Dems control the House, Senate and Whitehouse again?
 
Last edited:
Likes: JareBear
D

Deleted member 77995

Unconfirmed Member
#62
I believe you misunderstand what conservative ideals are with respect to judicial appointments.
That is precisely my entire point. Conservative judges do not serve Republicans and liberal judges do not serve Democrats. This is not a "win" for Trump or any other such nonsense. We should all be hoping for nonpartisan judges to uphold the constitution, not bend the knee to party lines. A lot of liberals and conservatives on this board would be very disappointed if they actually understood how often party lines are crossed. The original post that this specific comment chain links back to is about "agendas" which speaking of in regards to the Supreme Court reeks of ignorance or at worst intentional dishonesty.
 
Likes: NickFire
Mar 12, 2014
3,638
2,164
415
#63
That is precisely my entire point. Conservative judges do not serve Republicans and liberal judges do not serve Democrats. This is not a "win" for Trump or any other such nonsense. We should all be hoping for nonpartisan judges to uphold the constitution, not bend the knee to party lines. A lot of liberals and conservatives on this board would be very disappointed if they actually understood how often party lines are crossed. The original post that this specific comment chain links back to is about "agendas" which speaking of in regards to the Supreme Court reeks of ignorance or at worst intentional dishonesty.
Agree with everything except for it not being a win for Trump if he gets to appoint someone else. That is a huge political win for any president, and presumably as a former democrat Trump understands what conservative means in terms of judicial interpretation. He talks about abortion being bad and all, but if I was betting the over under on the number hes paid for, with the line being zero, I'm taking the over.
 
Jul 1, 2009
17,166
566
735
Greensboro, NC
#65
I hope she recovers. In all honesty, she should have retired under Obama.

Right now...the U.S. population is already so divided and polarized that if Republicans think replacing her with a super conservative judge won't have any negative consequences, they're kidding themselves. Yes, it'll solidify the kind of court they want, but it will also make the political environment that much worse.

Which is why I hope she remains at least until Trump is out (the other alternative of expecting him to nominate someone who is a moderate conservative for the position seems rather unlikely to happen), but that's going to be entirely up to her own decision and health status.
Yeah, she should have retired to protect that seat for another few decades. These are the kinds of games that have to be played with the SC now.

I think it's already gone. Ginsberg is 85, Thomas is 70, Breyer is 80, and even Alito is 68. I still think Trump definitely gets another pick maybe two. Then we're at the point where the SC is rock solid right for decades and it'll just push Dems to court packing when they have the power.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Madonis
Oct 21, 2018
462
236
170
#69
The fucking hubris of democrats.😂 Would you give a damn about the polarization and division a packed liberal court would cause?
Actually, I did consider that. Generally speaking, it's better for the highest courts of the land to be relatively moderate on balance rather than leaning too much towards either side. That is, if you want the Supreme Court to be respected by both sides, providing stability and a moderating influence. Too much change, as well as too much lack thereof, can become a problem.

Yeah, she should have retired to protect that seat for another few decades. These are the kinds of games that have to be played with the SC now.

I think it's already gone. Ginsberg is 85, Thomas is 70, Breyer is 80, and even Alito is 68. I still think Trump definitely gets another pick maybe two. Then we're at the point where the SC is rock solid right for decades and it'll just push Dems to court packing when they have the power.
Either that or some of these conservative picks will grow less so over time, which Republicans obviously hate and try to avoid but has already happened before. Human beings can change. It'll probably happen again, sooner or later, but who knows when? If Chief Justice Roberts is smart though, at least he will try to bring some balance to certain decisions, even if it upsets the more "no, everything has to be for us!" conservatives.
 
Last edited:
Sep 11, 2007
5,147
392
920
#72
I don't want to give the GOP ideas here, but I could totally see Trump creating a new executive order that if a Justice can't walk or work then they have to retire to force RGB out.
I don't think that would fly. Probably unconstitutional if the constitution specifies SC justices have life tenure. (which I believe it does)
 
Jul 31, 2014
1,277
134
295
Finland
#73
> Mass Shooting
> Conservatives offer thoughts and prayers
> Liberals say fuck your thoughts and prayers
> RBG breaks 3 ribs
> Liberals now offering & asking for thoughts and prayers
I think we have established by now that praying does not help stop bullets or help stop gun violence.

But I’d still rather see the prayer comment than the “this is no time to talk about it” horseshit. There’s never enough time to talk about it because the next shooting is only few days away.
 

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,226
905
540
#80
Of course. The Christian bakery case comes to mind. Had it been the Supreme Court was left leaning, they would have ruled against the Christian baker, thus ending freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
Well it's good no current religion officially codified racism into it's dogma or else society would be truly fucked! Instead we only legally get to shit upon gay people instead of shitting upon every minority group we dislike.
 
Last edited:
Jun 1, 2013
14,894
309
500
#81
Recently I have come to believe that thought and intention can alter reality. I wonder if massive good will (group prayers) do have some power.
Nah, unless you have some proof, it just a load of bullshit.

But hell, I'll bite. How many people is requried for this sort of power and what exactly does this power do and for whom? Have you seen this power with your own eyes? How do you know this power is working? Have you contacted whoever is given this power to check that it's working?

Please respect other peoples religion.

Just because you don’t believe in something doesn’t mean it has no effect.
Nah, thoughts and prayers do aboslutely nothing because if it did, why are there still mass shootings? With the amount of thoughts and prayers people are writing to the victims on social media you should have thought there were no mass shootings.

Sure, I can respect other people, but I still think religion is a bunch of mass controlling bullcrap.

Are you literally trolling well wishes, how mature.
I don't see how that's trolling, so please specify, how those words I typed can be considered trolling ,or is it because you don't like or agree with what I wrote you consider it trolling?
 
Last edited:
Mar 4, 2014
1,511
180
380
#83
It all comes back to republicans getting played because they are actually the only ones that care about the constitution while democrats literally dont give a shit about it and use it mainly to advance their political agenda by redefining it when they want and using it as weapon reading it literal when it suits them against republicans who again are the only ones actually giving a shit... because they are fools still not getting how they are played. Its honestly tiresome lol
Exactly. Plenty on the left are quite open with their dislike of the Constitution (Bc it’s too limiting, it was written by slave owners, the 2nd amendment etc..), so both sides are looking at this from completely different perspectives.

I think conservatives should be more open about the fact that they like the system the founders created and want to use those mechanisms to make changes (legislation, constitutional amendments etc). Part of that mindset is constitutionalist judges vs activist judges that the left prefers. I think most Americans would agree with that perspective and don’t want our system changed just because they don’t get their way. There is a reason it’s the left that talks about getting rid of the electoral college or changing the Senate so small rural states no longer have equal day (as the founders intended).
 
Sep 4, 2018
2,426
2,656
255
#84
I don't want to give the GOP ideas here, but I could totally see Trump creating a new executive order that if a Justice can't walk or work then they have to retire to force RGB out. A 5-4 majority is nice. A 6-3 majority is even better.

You might think. No way. That's crazy even for Trump. The Supreme Court would rule against it. I'm not entirely confident. Nothing is too crazy for Trump. He shits on tradition and decorum for breakfast. Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch will do whatever their GOP masters tell them. Then it all comes down to how much do we trust Roberts to stand behind what's right. He is questionable at best.
i mean if you want to get scared about a hypothetical thing that you imagine might happen in the future go ahead. it seems like Trump can just let Time do it's job, if this lady is in her 80s and breaking ribs and stuff. no need to invent a hypothetical doomsday scenario and get worked up over it. just wait 2 years, or failing that, 6 years, given that he will probably win a 2nd term.

the lifetime appointments thing is dumb, but yeah so many things about the system are dumb, where to start. imo Dems only pretend to go against the system. easy to talk a big game when you have no skin in it. whenever they are in charge they cling to norms and "upsetting future voters" and bipartisanship in order to appease their corporate donors (spoilers: they are the same as Republican corporate donors)
 
Last edited:
Jun 1, 2013
14,894
309
500
#86
Yeah, I have no proof, I just believe it. 'The power of positive/negative thinking' is more than just a slogan I think.
I don't think so. Why? Because there's no proof and evidence. I like proof and evidence. Proof and evidence gives a theory a lot of credibility.
 
Mar 12, 2014
3,638
2,164
415
#94
Decapitated trump head after winning presidency= horrible, awful, immature attack

Dead puppeted RBG after breaking ribs =...?
Are you intentionally lying or just incapable of seeing the clear as day difference. The meme is using a superimposed picture of her sleeping during a political event and specifically says she is unconscious.
 
Jul 15, 2017
97
62
210
#95
Decapitated trump head after winning presidency= horrible, awful, immature attack

Dead puppeted RBG after breaking ribs =...?
Well to be fair, we're parodying a movie with the RGB thing. I'm not a fan of it to be honest. I don't like her but still, that's not my jam.

The Trump thing is straight up middle eastern ISIS beheading crap. It's not a joke. That's a big difference.
 
Oct 21, 2018
526
265
180
#96
Well to be fair, we're parodying a movie with the RGB thing. I'm not a fan of it to be honest. I don't like her but still, that's not my jam.

The Trump thing is straight up middle eastern ISIS beheading crap. It's not a joke. That's a big difference.
You’re saying that Kathy Griffith was seriously suggesting beheading Trump?
 
Last edited:
Mar 18, 2018
1,490
994
230
#98
I don't want to give the GOP ideas here, but I could totally see Trump creating a new executive order that if a Justice can't walk or work then they have to retire to force RGB out. A 5-4 majority is nice. A 6-3 majority is even better.

You might think. No way. That's crazy even for Trump. The Supreme Court would rule against it. I'm not entirely confident. Nothing is too crazy for Trump. He shits on tradition and decorum for breakfast. Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch will do whatever their GOP masters tell them. Then it all comes down to how much do we trust Roberts to stand behind what's right. He is questionable at best.
This reads like fan fiction.
 

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,430
1,467
340
Moore Park Beach
I don't want to give the GOP ideas here, but I could totally see Trump creating a new executive order that if a Justice can't walk or work then they have to retire to force RGB out. A 5-4 majority is nice. A 6-3 majority is even better.

You might think. No way. That's crazy even for Trump. The Supreme Court would rule against it. I'm not entirely confident. Nothing is too crazy for Trump. He shits on tradition and decorum for breakfast. Kavanaugh, Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch will do whatever their GOP masters tell them. Then it all comes down to how much do we trust Roberts to stand behind what's right. He is questionable at best.
Are you serious? Why on earth would he need to do that? He still has 6 more years. No way RGB will last that long. It is even a possibility that the next 6 years will bring the SCOTUS to a 7-2 majority.