Jump to content

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)


Simon

Recommended Posts

IIRC, Justice Gorsuch was touted as an Originalist / Textualist by the Republicans during his confirmation. 

 

If true, then the key bit in the majority opinion that he wrote should come as no surprise.

 

In Title VII, Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender. The answer is clear. An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first responsibility of a judge is supposed to be to what the law actually says, interpreted through their formal knowledge and experience. Of course personal bias can't be avoided, but they're supposed to strive for objectivity as much as humanly possible. I applaud Justice Gorsuch for holding himself to that standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A militia member shot a protestor in Albuquerque New Mexico. The protest was targeted at a statue of a conquistador (the mayor said it will be taken down as a public safety measure for now) and the militia wanted to protect it / counterprotest. The militia member was attacked with hands and skateboards and such, and had been backing away using pepper spray to cover his retreat. Anyway, he's been taken into police custody for shooting the protestor.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/16/albuquerque-militia-shooting-protest/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Old Man said:

 

Lol Gorsuch stays bought nine times out of ten.  We're talking about spoiled brats here.

 

I'll actually defend Gorsuch here, though before yesterday he was a consistent political enemy to me. Gorsuch's legal credentials are impeccable, and I believe he's quite serious about his convictions regarding a textual approach to interpreting the Constitution and other laws. That usually puts him on the socially conservative side of issues, but I don't think he operates out of loyalty to the ever-moving goalposts of Neocons. The only unbiased objection I can raise to his confirmation as a Supreme Court justice is the shenanigans involved in the Senate refusing to do its constitutional duty and consider the nomination of Merrick Garland during Obama's term to fill the vacancy he ended up filling. While I may not like Gorsuch's stance on a number of issues, I can't call his his motives into question. He's the only Trump appointee I can think of who was both eminently qualified for his position and free of the slightest whiff of personal scandal.

 

Regarding drunken man-baby Kavanaugh, on the other hand... it's best if I don't get started.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, I think it's a pretty remarkable. Two important Supreme Court decisions in a week where the Court ruled based on what the law actually says rather than on what someone thinks it should say.

 

Conservatives have got to be loving this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pariah said:

Still, I think it's a pretty remarkable. Two important Supreme Court decisions in a week where the Court ruled based on what the law actually says rather than on what someone thinks it should say.

 

Conservatives have got to be loving this!

 

I don't like to be cynical, but I can't help but think that Robert's just gave Trump the biggest gift that he could give him. The nation watching thousands and thousands of telegenic, articulate and often accentless young people get deported right before the election wasn't going to do anything positive for Trump's reelection chances.

 

 

Don't get me wrong. I would not have had the decision go the other direction just to bolster the chances of Trump losing, even though if reelected he may deport the kids latter. I am elated that they are getting to stay in the US for now, and if Trump loses they won't have to worry about it latter. I am just questioning Robert's motives, that is all.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BNakagawa said:

well, they posted 88 of them and the first sentence had 14 words in it. And the graphic was a symbol used to indicate political enemies of the state, so...

 

A symbol used by the Nazis, no less.  Like, there's a literal Nazi in the White House right now running for reelection.  Am I taking crazy pills?  How did I wind up in this warped alternate reality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Pariah said:

Still, I think it's a pretty remarkable. Two important Supreme Court decisions in a week where the Court ruled based on what the law actually says rather than on what someone thinks it should say.

 

Conservatives have got to be loving this!

Actual conservatives are actually loving this.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Old Man said:

 

A symbol used by the Nazis, no less.  Like, there's a literal Nazi in the White House right now running for reelection.  Am I taking crazy pills?  How did I wind up in this warped alternate reality?

 

Remember that time you rolled 88d6? Well, that's what created this shitty reality. Thanks a lot!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

I'm not convinced Trump himself suggested or even understood the symbolism. That would imply knowledge and awareness, neither of which is a strong suit of this President. But someone in the White House with authority to post those ads does, and that's bad enough.

Stephen Miller, no doubt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GM Joe said:

Remember that time you rolled 88d6? Well....

 

I mean, it's the plain combination of 88 ads using a symbol associated with Nazi's identifying political enemies that's not a great look.  The fourteen words thing might not be great either:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words

 

But keep in mind we've had a couple people in the White House literally flash 'white power' symbols at cameras.  (edit- or rather, tried to make it look like they were doing it, which then became a thing to actually do it by white nationalists)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...