Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 113
  1. #76
    Guest Member S Landreth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    left of center
    Posts
    9,874


    The White House said President Joe Biden does not agree with fellow Democrats’ calls for the U.S. Supreme Court to be expanded in the wake of recent rulings on guns and abortion that he has called disappointing and troubling.

    “That is something that the president does not agree with,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters Saturday when asked about Biden’s stance on adding justices. “That is not something that he wants to do.”

    Several Democrats have called for additional seats to be added to the nine-member court, which currently has a 6-3 conservative majority.

    These lawmakers include Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Rep. Mondaire Jones of New York, Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

    “This court has lost legitimacy, they have burned whatever legitimacy they may have still had,” Warren, who has previously called for adding at least four more justices, said in an interview Sunday with ABC News’ “This Week.” “I believe we need to get some confidence back in our court, and that means we need more justices on the United State Supreme Court.”

    The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York state law, enacted in 1913, that limited carrying concealed handguns outside the home. The following day, it reversed its 1973 ruling that women have a constitutional right to abortion.

    “This ruling contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all,” Biden said of the gun rights decision.

    On abortion, he said the court’s ruling puts the country on an “extreme and dangerous path.”

    Warren, in an op-ed published Saturday with Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.), called on Biden to declare a public health emergency in the wake of the court’s abortion ruling. Warren and Smith said such a declaration would “protect abortion access for all Americans, unlocking critical resources and authority that states and the federal government can use to meet the surge in demand for reproductive health services.”

    Jean-Pierre said the White House is concerned about additional limitations being imposed on women’s access to contraception and other reproductive healthcare following the court’s ruling. Though she didn’t immediately have a strategy to share, she said Biden is “going to continue to look at solutions” and determine legally “what else we can do.”

    Democrats early last year unveiled a bill that would expand the number of Supreme Court seats to 13, but that measure has stalled in Congress. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said then that she had “no plans to bring it to the floor” but that a future consideration is “not out of the question.”

    “It has been done before in the history of our country a long time ago,” Pelosi said of prior changes to the number of justices, “and the growth of our country, the size of our country, the growth of our challenges in terms of the economy, etc, might necessitate such a thing, but in answer to your question, I have no plans to bring it to the floor.”

    Polls have shown that the majority of Americans support federal protections of abortion rights. One recent poll by CBS News/YouGov found that 59% of Americans disapprove of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Of those polled, 67% of the women disapprove.

    __________


    • Majority of Americans disapprove of overturning Roe v. Wade


    Fifty-nine percent of Americans disapprove of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and take away the federal protections of abortion rights, according to a new CBS News/YouGov reaction poll. Among women polled, 67% disapprove.

    Why it matters: The new polling upholds what surveys before the decision showed us — that the majority of Americans support Roe.


    • 52% call the court's decision a "step backward" for America, 31% say it's a "step forward," and 17% say neither.


    Between the lines: Opinion is starkly divided along party lines. 78% of Republicans approve of the decision, compared with 38% of independents and 17% of Democrats.

    What to watch: The public believes the court will reexamine other civil rights set by precedent.


    • 57% think it's likely same-sex marriage rights will be limited, and 55% think access to birth control will be limited.


    https://www.axios.com/2022/06/26/cbs...bortion-rights
    Last edited by S Landreth; 27-06-2022 at 04:52 AM.
    Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

  2. #77
    Days Work Done! Norton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 08:43 PM
    Location
    Roiet
    Posts
    33,077
    Quote Originally Posted by S Landreth View Post
    The White House said President Joe Biden does not agree with fellow Democrats’ calls for the U.S. Supreme Court to be expanded in the wake of recent rulings on guns and abortion that he has called disappointing and troubling.
    Nor should he. Would be near impossible and would change nothing.

  3. #78
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:46 AM
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by S Landreth View Post
    silly
    Why is that silly?

  4. #79
    Guest Member S Landreth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    left of center
    Posts
    9,874
    ^Of all posters, you should know this better than me. But we’ll run a short exercise for Cujo.

    First, some facts……

    The federal court system has three main levels: district courts (the trial court), circuit courts which are the first level of appeal, and the Supreme Court of the United States, the final level of appeal in the federal system. There are 94 district courts, 13 circuit courts, and one Supreme Court throughout the country.

    Once the federal district court has decided a case, the case can be appealed to a United States court of appeal. There are twelve federal circuits that divide the country into different regions. The Fifth Circuit, for example, includes the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.


    The exercise........

    Example: Let’s say Trump’s attorneys were successful in winning a case (voter fraud/stolen/won election night/absentee ballots/Dominion voting technology/non-citizens voting/election workers/election was rigged/etc) that made it all the way up to Fifth Circuit where they were able to convince the court of one of the many that I mentioned.

    That’s it! It doesn’t go to the Supreme Court because it doesn’t exist any longer.

    Now, Trump’s attorneys were successful in convincing ONE court (the 5th Circuit) to side with them. However, the other 11 Federal Circuit Courts (not including the Federal Circuit) also heard similar cases and weren’t convinced.

    Does Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi recognize Trump as their president and the rest of the country recognize Biden as the legitimate president?

    If the case goes to the Supreme Court, it will be settled.

  5. #80
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    86,480
    WASHINGTON — In the most important case of his 17-year tenure, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. found himself entirely alone.He had worked for seven months to persuade his colleagues to join him in merely chipping away at Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a constitutional right to abortion. But he was outflanked by the five justices to his right, who instead reduced Roe to rubble.


    In the process, they humiliated the nominal leader of the court and rejected major elements of his jurisprudence.


    The moment was a turning point for the chief justice. Just two years ago, after the retirement of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy made him the new swing justice, he commanded a kind of influence that sent experts hunting for historical comparisons. Not since 1937 had the chief justice also been the court’s fulcrum, able to cast the decisive vote in closely divided cases.


    Chief Justice Roberts mostly used that power to nudge the court to the right in measured steps, understanding himself to be the custodian of the court’s prestige and authority. He avoided what he called jolts to the legal system, and he tried to decide cases narrowly.


    But that was before a crucial switch. When Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative appointed by President Donald J. Trump, succeeded Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the liberal icon, after her death in 2020, Chief Justice Roberts’s power fizzled.


    “This is no longer John Roberts’s court,” Mary Ziegler, a law professor and historian at the University of California, Davis, said on Friday.


    The chief justice is now in many ways a marginal figure. The five other conservatives are impatient and ambitious, and they do not need his vote to achieve their goals. Voting with the court’s three liberals cannot be a particularly appealing alternative for the chief justice, not least because it generally means losing.


    Chief Justice Roberts’s concurring opinion in Friday’s decision, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, illustrated his present and perhaps future unhappy lot. He had tried for seven months to persuade a single colleague to join his incremental approach in the case, starting with carefully planned questioning when the case was argued in December. He failed utterly.


    In the end, the chief justice filed a concurring opinion in which he spoke for no one but himself.


    “It leaves one to wonder whether he is still running the show,” said Allison Orr Larsen, a law professor at the College of William & Mary.


    The chief justice will face other challenges. Though Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, said that “nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,” both liberal and conservative members of the court expressed doubts.


    Justice Clarence Thomas, for instance, wrote in a concurring opinion that the court should go on to overrule three “demonstrably erroneous decisions” — on same-sex marriage, gay intimacy and contraception — based on the logic of Friday’s opinion.


    In Friday’s abortion decision, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that he was ready to sustain the Mississippi law at issue in the case, one that banned most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The only question before the court was whether that law was constitutional, and he said it was.


    “But that is all I would say,” he wrote, “out of adherence to a simple yet fundamental principle of judicial restraint: If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more.”


    He chastised his colleagues on both sides of the issue for possessing unwarranted self-confidence.


    “Both the court’s opinion and the dissent display a relentless freedom from doubt on the legal issue that I cannot share,” he wrote. “I am not sure, for example, that a ban on terminating a pregnancy from the moment of conception must be treated the same under the Constitution as a ban after 15 weeks.”


    The failure of his proposed approach was telling, Professor Larsen said.


    “It sounds like the justices are talking past each other,” she said. “There is very little evidence of moderation or narrowing grounds to accommodate another’s point of view.”


    The chief justice acknowledged that his proposed ruling was at odds with the part of Roe v. Wade that said states may not ban abortions before fetal viability, around 23 weeks. He was prepared to discard that line. “The court rightly rejects the arbitrary viability rule today,” he wrote, noting that many developed nations use a 12-week cutoff.


    But there was more to Roe than the viability line, Chief Justice Roberts wrote. The court should have stopped short, he wrote, of taking “the dramatic step of altogether eliminating the abortion right first recognized in Roe.”


    Justice Alito rejected that approach.


    “If we held only that Mississippi’s 15-week rule is constitutional, we would soon be called upon to pass on the constitutionality of a panoply of laws with shorter deadlines or no deadline at all,” he wrote. “The ‘measured course’ charted by the concurrence would be fraught with turmoil until the court answered the question that the concurrence seeks to defer.”


    The chief justice’s proposal was characteristic of his cautious style, one that has fallen out of favor at the court.


    “It is only where there is no valid narrower ground of decision that we should go on to address a broader issue, such as whether a constitutional decision should be overturned,” he wrote on Friday, citing his opinion in a 2007 campaign finance decision that planted the seeds that blossomed into the Citizens United ruling in 2010.


    That two-step approach was typical of Chief Justice Roberts.


    The first step of the approach in 2007 frustrated Justice Antonin Scalia, who accused him in a concurrence of effectively overruling a major precedent “without saying so.”


    “This faux judicial restraint is judicial obfuscation,” Justice Scalia, who died in 2016, wrote at the time. But Justice Scalia did not have the votes to insist on speed. Chief Justice Roberts’s current colleagues do.


    Meet The Times’s Supreme Court Reporter
    Adam Liptak, who has been covering the Supreme Court since 2008, started at The Times as a copy boy in 1984. He left to attend Yale Law School, became a practicing lawyer and worked in The Times’s corporate legal department before returning to the newsroom. Learn about how he approaches covering the court.


    At his confirmation hearing in 2005, Chief Justice Roberts said the Supreme Court should be wary of overturning precedents, in part because doing so threatens the court’s legitimacy.


    “It is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent,” he said. “Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness.”


    He used similar language in criticizing the majority on Friday.


    “The court’s decision to overrule Roe and Casey is a serious jolt to the legal system — regardless of how you view those cases,” he wrote. “A narrower decision rejecting the misguided viability line would be markedly less unsettling, and nothing more is needed to decide this case.”


    There are, to be sure, areas in which there is little or no daylight between Chief Justice Roberts and his more conservative colleagues, including race, religion, voting rights and campaign finance. In other areas, as in a death penalty decision on Thursday, he may be able to forge a coalition with the three liberals and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.


    But Chief Justice Roberts, 67, may have a hard time protecting the institutional values he prizes. The court has been buffeted by plummeting approval ratings, by the leaked draft of Friday’s majority opinion, by revelations about the efforts of Virginia Thomas, the wife of Justice Thomas, to overturn the 2020 election, and by Justice Thomas’s failure to recuse himself from a related case.


    Tensions are so high that federal officials arrested an armed man this month outside Justice Kavanaugh’s home and charged him with trying to kill the justice. There have been protests outside the justices’ homes in anticipation of the Roe ruling. Ten days ago, Congress approved legislation extending police protection to the justices’ immediate families.


    The climate — and a court that routinely divides along partisan lines in major cases — has increasingly undercut Chief Justice Roberts’s public assertions that the court is not political.


    “We don’t work as Democrats or Republicans,” he said in 2016. Two years later, he reiterated that position in an extraordinary rebuke of President Donald J. Trump after Mr. Trump responded to an administration loss in a lower court by criticizing the judge who issued it as an “Obama judge.”


    “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Chief Justice Roberts said in a sharp public statement that nonetheless went against substantial evidence to the contrary even then.


    On Friday, all three Democratic appointees voted to strike down the Mississippi law and all six Republican ones voted to uphold it.


    His concurring opinion and his institutionalist impulses notwithstanding, Chief Justice Roberts may have a hard time convincing the public that party affiliations say nothing about how the justices conduct their work.

    June 24, 2022: The Day Chief Justice Roberts Lost His Court - The New York Times
    Warning: Be cautious if you are a fragile pink

  6. #81
    Thailand Expat
    Bonecollector's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2021
    Last Online
    Today @ 03:47 AM
    Location
    Bangkok
    Posts
    1,118
    I am gonna add that the whole of American politics and society is an absolute joke, both left and right. This whole new saga is just a natural response to all the craziness the left have been pushing. If the left do not want shock treatment from the right, then try and be a little more mainstream and stop using minorities of race or gender as only tools to get elected.

    Again I will state for the record that this is a horrendous and backward act but honestly it has only arrived at your doorstep because both sides in America are so fucking vindictive. The America we see today is definitely not what the founding fathers had in mind.
    One should listen twice as much as one speaks

  7. #82
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    86,480
    Yes, even AOC keeps beating the drum about calling people LatinX when they patently do not wish to be known by that term.

    The Democrats are actually losing Latino voters for this reason.

    It's Newspeak and people are not interested, but the stupid far left are too fucking dumb to understand the consequences.

  8. #83
    Thailand Expat AntRobertson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    41,469
    Quote Originally Posted by Backspin View Post
    Just go to home depot and get a pair of needle nose pliers and a shop-vac.
    There's just no 'Off' switch to your compulsive need to demonstrate what a moron you are for attention is there.

  9. #84
    I am not a cat
    nidhogg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    17,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonecollector View Post
    both sides in America are so fucking vindictive.
    Agree with this. But in terms of ruthlessness, the Republicans leave the Dems in the dust. They scorched Merrick, speed rushed Amy Coney. Coupled with Kavanaugh and Gorsuch pretty much out right lying and we end up where we are.

    I can only hope that Clarence Thomas ends up rolling back so much he ends up wifeless and on a plantation.

    And, I do have to say this - I still put a fair bit of blame for this mess on the apparent hubris of Bader Ginsberg.

  10. #85
    Days Work Done! Norton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 08:43 PM
    Location
    Roiet
    Posts
    33,077
    Quote Originally Posted by nidhogg View Post
    I still put a fair bit of blame for this mess on the apparent hubris of Bader Ginsberg.
    Interesting view Nid. Care to elaborate?

  11. #86
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    86,480
    Quote Originally Posted by nidhogg View Post
    And, I do have to say this - I still put a fair bit of blame for this mess on the apparent hubris of Bader Ginsberg.
    At best that would have made it 5-4 instead of 6-3. No difference to the outcome whatsoever.

  12. #87
    I am not a cat
    nidhogg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    17,650
    Quote Originally Posted by Norton View Post
    Interesting view Nid. Care to elaborate?
    She was asked many times under Obama to retire and refused to do so. Even then she was old (77-80 years old depending on which year) and in poor heath, but said she would remain as long as she was "mentally sharp". Her repeated decisions not to retire when a suitable replacement could be appointed has lead to the 6-3 monstrosity we have today.

  13. #88
    Days Work Done! Norton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 08:43 PM
    Location
    Roiet
    Posts
    33,077
    Quote Originally Posted by nidhogg View Post
    She was asked many times under Obama to retire and refused to do so. Even then she was old (77-80 years old depending on which year) and in poor heath, but said she would remain as long as she was "mentally sharp". Her repeated decisions not to retire when a suitable replacement could be appointed has lead to the 6-3 monstrosity we have today.
    Thought that was where you were going but some might argue her unrelenting voice for gender equality, women's interests, and civil rights and liberties caused more than a fair bit of the divisivness we see today.
    Last edited by Norton; 28-06-2022 at 03:24 PM.

  14. #89
    Thailand Expat
    YourDaddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Council flat. Thanks suckers!
    Posts
    4,301
    Abortion clinics and associations in Serbia @ Women on Waves


    Abortions in state health institutions are covered by health insurance. Abortions in private clinics charge in the range from 180 – 300 EUR.

  15. #90
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    86,480
    Quote Originally Posted by YourDaddy View Post
    Abortion clinics and associations in Serbia @ Women on Waves


    Abortions in state health institutions are covered by health insurance. Abortions in private clinics charge in the range from 180 – 300 EUR.
    As exciting as it is, what does it have to do with Roe vs Wade?

  16. #91
    Thailand Expat
    malmomike77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    6,943
    its a start

    Ketanji Brown Jackson sworn in as first black woman on US top court

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62003518

  17. #92
    I am not a cat
    nidhogg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    17,650
    So, one of the basis for overturning Roe versus Wade was:

    “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Alito wrote.


    “The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely — the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” Alito wrote.


    “That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ and ’implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” he added.

    Turns out they were wrong on the long history of abortion in the Sates. Worth a read:

    Man Points Out His Findings That Supreme Court's Statement About Abortion Is Wrong, Starts A Debate On Twitter | Bored Panda

  18. #93
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    86,480
    If a man telling a woman what they may or may not do with their body is not an invasion of privacy, I don't know what the fuck is.

  19. #94
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    86,480
    And if you think these vile Republican c u n t s were going to stop there:

    The Supreme Court curbed the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to broadly regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants, a major defeat for the Biden administration's attempts to slash emissions at a moment when scientists are sounding alarms about the accelerating pace of global warming.

    In addition, the court cut back agency authority in general invoking the so-called "major questions" doctrine -- a ruling that will impact the federal government's authority to regulate in other areas of climate policy, as well as regulation of the internet and worker safety.
    The decision issued Thursday will send shockwaves across the federal government, threatening agency action that comes without clear congressional authorization.


    The ruling was 6-3. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the conservative majority, with the three liberal justices dissenting. Roberts said that "our precedent counsels skepticism toward EPA's claim" that the law "empowers it to devise carbon emissions caps based on a generation shifting approach."


    "Under our precedents, this is a major questions case," Roberts wrote, adding that "there is little reason to think Congress assigned such decisions to the Agency."
    Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law, said the ruling "could be cataclysmic for modern administrative law."

    Supreme Court curbs EPA's ability to fight climate change - CNNPolitics


  20. #95
    Days Work Done! Norton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 08:43 PM
    Location
    Roiet
    Posts
    33,077
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    If a man telling a woman what they may or may not do with their body is not an invasion of privacy, I don't know what the fuck is.
    Plenty of women telling women this as well. If and when our politicians stop pandering to the extremes of both sides, I am sure a reasonable federal law will follow. Same goes for gun contol and immigration.

  21. #96
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    86,480
    Quote Originally Posted by Norton View Post
    Plenty of women telling women this as well. If and when our politicians stop pandering to the extremes of both sides, I am sure a reasonable federal law will follow. Same goes for gun contol and immigration.
    Christ on a bike, you are nailed on for TD Optimist of the Year 2022 you are.


  22. #97
    Thailand Expat panama hat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 06:32 PM
    Location
    Way, Way South of the border now - thank God!
    Posts
    32,235
    Quote Originally Posted by Norton View Post
    If and when our politicians stop pandering to the extremes of both sides
    I fail to see an extreme left anywhere . . . and certainly not with any power whatsoever. Far right? Yup . . . Ultra-conservative? Definitely.

  23. #98
    Days Work Done! Norton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 08:43 PM
    Location
    Roiet
    Posts
    33,077
    Quote Originally Posted by harrybarracuda View Post
    Christ on a bike, you are nailed on for TD Optimist of the Year 2022 you are.

    Aware a big "IF" but still an if.

  24. #99
    กงเกวียนกำเกวียน HuangLao's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    สุโขทัย
    Posts
    9,883
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonecollector View Post
    I am gonna add that the whole of American politics and society is an absolute joke, both left and right. This whole new saga is just a natural response to all the craziness the left have been pushing. If the left do not want shock treatment from the right, then try and be a little more mainstream and stop using minorities of race or gender as only tools to get elected.

    Again I will state for the record that this is a horrendous and backward act but honestly it has only arrived at your doorstep because both sides in America are so fucking vindictive. The America we see today is definitely not what the founding fathers had in mind.


    What did the founding fathers ​have in mind?

  25. #100
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    86,480
    Quote Originally Posted by panama hat View Post
    I fail to see an extreme left anywhere . . . and certainly not with any power whatsoever. Far right? Yup . . . Ultra-conservative? Definitely.
    The far left in the US is a bigger threat to the 1st Amendment than the right is.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •