SCOTUS thread

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Would you confirm Kavanaugh?

Yes
16
57%
No
12
43%
 
Total votes : 28

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Jul 11, 2018 5:23 pm

In getting back to the earlier case on Janus about unions....we are seeing the crafting of some utterly ridiculous bills now that are trying to prop up unions as they are losing money from members electing out.

Here is one:

Assemblyman Richard Gottfried (D-Manhattan), a longtime labor ally, plans to introduce legislation that would allow unions to include collective-bargaining costs in their contracts with government agencies to replace the mandatory fees banned under last month’s Janus v. ­AFSCME ruling.

“I would call it a workaround,” said Gottfried, who has served for 50 years in Albany. “I don’t think there’s a lot of logic to the Janus decision to start with, but New York state — in our Constitution and law — has long recognized that public employees have the right to collectively bargain.”


https://nypost.com/2018/07/04/dem-lawma ... -decision/


How in the world is it going to be legal to have taxpayers subsidize unions by making the gov't pay a special negotiating fee to unions? If people that work in the gov't can't be coerced to support union political speech, how can it be legal for taxpayers to be coerced to support union political speech?

This is utterly insane
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6711
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 350 times
Been thanked: 293 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby NavyBuc » Wed Jul 11, 2018 6:00 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
NavyBuc wrote:
Yeah not so much care about the Colbert part. Just find it funny that others that arent comedians are making a big deal of it. But Colbert is a comedian who I wish wouldn’t get so damn serious about politics so much. Same goes for Kimmel.

But would you be okay if Colbert and and Kimmel made jokes from a political viewpoint you agree with?


I don't care if they make jokes on my side of the political view or against it. I could care less. It's when they go on these serious escapades where they lash out against someone. That's not their job. They're getting paid as comedians, not as politicians. Stick to your comedy scripts. And same goes for the right-wing comedians who did it to Obama. Be entertainers, not critics.
NavyBuc
 
Posts: 1263
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:07 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed Jul 11, 2018 6:13 pm

NavyBuc wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:But would you be okay if Colbert and and Kimmel made jokes from a political viewpoint you agree with?


I don't care if they make jokes on my side of the political view or against it. I could care less. It's when they go on these serious escapades where they lash out against someone. That's not their job. They're getting paid as comedians, not as politicians. Stick to your comedy scripts. And same goes for the right-wing comedians who did it to Obama. Be entertainers, not critics.

Dude. Turn the channel.

Or do like I do and not watch in the first place.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14371
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 666 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby uscbucsfan » Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:04 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:In getting back to the earlier case on Janus about unions....we are seeing the crafting of some utterly ridiculous bills now that are trying to prop up unions as they are losing money from members electing out.

Here is one:

Assemblyman Richard Gottfried (D-Manhattan), a longtime labor ally, plans to introduce legislation that would allow unions to include collective-bargaining costs in their contracts with government agencies to replace the mandatory fees banned under last month’s Janus v. ­AFSCME ruling.

“I would call it a workaround,” said Gottfried, who has served for 50 years in Albany. “I don’t think there’s a lot of logic to the Janus decision to start with, but New York state — in our Constitution and law — has long recognized that public employees have the right to collectively bargain.”


https://nypost.com/2018/07/04/dem-lawma ... -decision/


How in the world is it going to be legal to have taxpayers subsidize unions by making the gov't pay a special negotiating fee to unions? If people that work in the gov't can't be coerced to support union political speech, how can it be legal for taxpayers to be coerced to support union political speech?

This is utterly insane


Bills like this are common place after a massive ruling like the Janus case. In most places they don't go anywhere, but in states which they do, it will be argued that it's the cost of doing business with the union. I mean just reading his quote that it's a "workaround" says to me that this would never hold up.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 5204
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 115 times
Been thanked: 144 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby MJW » Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:46 pm

So far, the compelling arguments against confirming Kavanaugh:

- He drinks beer, sometimes from a keg.
- He bought baseball tickets for himself and his buddies on his credit card.
- His name is "Brett," which is hilarious for some reason.
- He won't interpret the Constitution the way the people making these arguments want him to interpret it.

I'll be interested to see what the opposition mounts during the hearings.
Image
User avatar
MJW
 
Posts: 9018
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:17 am
Location: Nebraska
Has thanked: 211 times
Been thanked: 404 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Brazen331 » Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:55 pm

MJW wrote:So far, the compelling arguments against confirming Kavanaugh:

- He drinks beer, sometimes from a keg.
- He bought baseball tickets for himself and his buddies on his credit card.
- His name is "Brett," which is hilarious for some reason.
- He won't interpret the Constitution the way the people making these arguments want him to interpret it.

I'll be interested to see what the opposition mounts during the hearings.


I heard that the argument the Left was making regarding his name is that it sounds too fratboyish.

This is pretty much the safest, most establishment pick he could have made. I also think this guy is a prime candidate to devolve into a Liberal which so often happens with Republican picks.
Brazen331
 
Posts: 2999
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:25 am
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby MJW » Wed Jul 11, 2018 11:57 pm

Brazen331 wrote:
MJW wrote:So far, the compelling arguments against confirming Kavanaugh:

- He drinks beer, sometimes from a keg.
- He bought baseball tickets for himself and his buddies on his credit card.
- His name is "Brett," which is hilarious for some reason.
- He won't interpret the Constitution the way the people making these arguments want him to interpret it.

I'll be interested to see what the opposition mounts during the hearings.


I heard that the argument the Left was making regarding his name is that it sounds too fratboyish.

This is pretty much the safest, most establishment pick he could have made. I also think this guy is a prime candidate to devolve into a Liberal which so often happens with Republican picks.


I agree, the John Roberts Georgetown Insider is strong in this one. I almost get the sense that Trump simply didn't want to expend the political capital needed for a contentious nomination process, so he went for the EZ Pass option.
Image
User avatar
MJW
 
Posts: 9018
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:17 am
Location: Nebraska
Has thanked: 211 times
Been thanked: 404 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Brazen331 » Thu Jul 12, 2018 3:34 am

MJW wrote:
Brazen331 wrote:
I heard that the argument the Left was making regarding his name is that it sounds too fratboyish.

This is pretty much the safest, most establishment pick he could have made. I also think this guy is a prime candidate to devolve into a Liberal which so often happens with Republican picks.


I agree, the John Roberts Georgetown Insider is strong in this one. I almost get the sense that Trump simply didn't want to expend the political capital needed for a contentious nomination process, so he went for the EZ Pass option.


He did. Frat boy Brett was the only one of the 4 that he could get through before November. I am convinced Barrett was his choice but McConnell told him she could not get through this year.

But yeah, he could have stood firm cuz the Dems are not taking the Senate. They are actually going to lose a seat or 2 probably.
Brazen331
 
Posts: 2999
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:25 am
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby bucfanclw » Thu Jul 12, 2018 7:51 am

MJW wrote:So far, the compelling arguments against confirming Kavanaugh:

- He drinks beer, sometimes from a keg.
- He bought baseball tickets for himself and his buddies on his credit card.
- His name is "Brett," which is hilarious for some reason.
- He won't interpret the Constitution the way the people making these arguments want him to interpret it.

I'll be interested to see what the opposition mounts during the hearings.

I also saw one of them call him a "cabbage patch headed neocon". They're so filled with hatred.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 4019
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 163 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Brazen331 » Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:17 am

bucfanclw wrote:
MJW wrote:So far, the compelling arguments against confirming Kavanaugh:

- He drinks beer, sometimes from a keg.
- He bought baseball tickets for himself and his buddies on his credit card.
- His name is "Brett," which is hilarious for some reason.
- He won't interpret the Constitution the way the people making these arguments want him to interpret it.

I'll be interested to see what the opposition mounts during the hearings.

I also saw one of them call him a "cabbage patch headed neocon". They're so filled with hatred.


I think you made that up, Clewy. That is so you. I think you should go ahead and take credit for it.
Brazen331
 
Posts: 2999
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:25 am
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby DreadNaught » Thu Jul 12, 2018 8:57 am

The baseball tickets critique was amusing. As if purchasing baseball tickets on a credit card is some type of disqualifying behavior.

Overall I just think the Left in general despises the limits the Constitution places on their intended agenda and thus whines whenever an 'originalist/textualist' judge is nominated. It limits the lefts ability to have the SCOTUS legislate from the bench, which was NEVER the intention of the judicial branch of government. That is what we have Congress for.

Call me a right-winger but my take is that our Constitution is pretty awesome and rock solid document and the SCOTUS's mission is to uphold and protect the Constitution. So what is wrong with judges that are interpret it as written instead of what they think it should mean?

We have the ability to amend the Constitution in this country. We don't need to judges interpreting it to align with a political agenda regardless of their personal politics/ideology.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 13577
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 550 times
Been thanked: 589 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby bucfanclw » Thu Jul 12, 2018 10:54 am

Brazen331 wrote:
bucfanclw wrote:I also saw one of them call him a "cabbage patch headed neocon". They're so filled with hatred.


I think you made that up, Clewy. That is so you. I think you should go ahead and take credit for it.

Nope. I found it. Turns out it was Kimmel.

https://abc.go.com/shows/jimmy-kimmel-live/SCOTUS-Trump-Kavanaugh
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 4019
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 163 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby DreadNaught » Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:22 am

I'm glad we all can agree that anything muttered from a comedian shouldn't be taken seriously. Let's keep to that standard next time one tries to take off the clown nose and make some type of serious political statement.

:drinkingcheers:
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 13577
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 550 times
Been thanked: 589 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:24 am

:roll:
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14371
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 666 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:34 am

DreadNaught wrote:I'm glad we all can agree that anything muttered from a comedian shouldn't be taken seriously. Let's keep to that standard next time one tries to take off the clown nose and make some type of serious political statement.

:drinkingcheers:



In all fairness, I give comedians the same "listen" I give to everyone. If they make rational arguments, I'm more than happy to listen and try to learn. If they spurt out one-liners during their late night shows, I don't think of it as anything other than them chasing the almighty dollar (which is fair enough) and summarily dismiss their ideas as nothing but entertainment. If there are people stupid enough to give them authority, so be it. Those people tend to give authority to anyone that agrees with their position.

There are lots of comedians in the long form space that are actually incredibly articulate and well reasoned.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6711
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 350 times
Been thanked: 293 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:55 am

Zarniwoop wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:I'm glad we all can agree that anything muttered from a comedian shouldn't be taken seriously. Let's keep to that standard next time one tries to take off the clown nose and make some type of serious political statement.

:drinkingcheers:



In all fairness, I give comedians the same "listen" I give to everyone. If they make rational arguments, I'm more than happy to listen and try to learn. If they spurt out one-liners during their late night shows, I don't think of it as anything other than them chasing the almighty dollar (which is fair enough) and summarily dismiss their ideas as nothing but entertainment. If there are people stupid enough to give them authority, so be it. Those people tend to give authority to anyone that agrees with their position.

There are lots of comedians in the long form space that are actually incredibly articulate and well reasoned.

I think he was being cheeky.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14371
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 666 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:08 pm

I quoted him but my response wasn’t directed to what he wrote...my bad. It was actually just my serious thoughts on the topic in general .... the “in all seriousness” referred to my earlier silly post


My bad for being lazy
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6711
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 350 times
Been thanked: 293 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:13 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:I quoted him but my response wasn’t directed to what he wrote...my bad. It was actually just my serious thoughts on the topic in general .... the “in all seriousness” referred to my earlier silly post


My bad for being lazy

I'm not feeling it today either.

we should go talk about some random **** in off-topic.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14371
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 160 times
Been thanked: 666 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby deltbucs » Thu Jul 12, 2018 12:30 pm

Brazen331 wrote:
MJW wrote:So far, the compelling arguments against confirming Kavanaugh:

- He drinks beer, sometimes from a keg.
- He bought baseball tickets for himself and his buddies on his credit card.
- His name is "Brett," which is hilarious for some reason.
- He won't interpret the Constitution the way the people making these arguments want him to interpret it.

I'll be interested to see what the opposition mounts during the hearings.


I heard that the argument the Left was making regarding his name is that it sounds too fratboyish.

LOL!! I seriously can't stop laughing at people that think that a late night show host was being serious when saying his name sounds "fratboyish" and that's an argument against his nomination. Faux News must be really low on material. 3 people in this thread already. Funny ****. Lemmings gunna lemming.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 5301
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 219 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Ken Carson » Thu Jul 12, 2018 1:07 pm

deltbucs wrote:LOL!! I seriously can't stop laughing at people that think that a late night show host was being serious when saying his name sounds "fratboyish" and that's an argument against his nomination. Faux News must be really low on material. 3 people in this thread already. Funny ****. Lemmings gunna lemming.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3637
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 187 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby RedLeader » Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:25 pm

If anything, it probably speaks volumes about the pick, right?


I mean, if all they got is first name stereotypes and credit card receipts, id say the pick is a win! ;)
User avatar
RedLeader
 
Posts: 2923
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:27 pm
Location: G14 Classified
Has thanked: 110 times
Been thanked: 104 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby MJW » Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:14 pm

deltbucs wrote:
Brazen331 wrote:
I heard that the argument the Left was making regarding his name is that it sounds too fratboyish.

LOL!! I seriously can't stop laughing at people that think that a late night show host was being serious when saying his name sounds "fratboyish" and that's an argument against his nomination. Faux News must be really low on material. 3 people in this thread already. Funny ****. Lemmings gunna lemming.


Actually, I was looking at this. But you do you Captain Irony.

https://twitter.com/NARAL/status/1016835475494064128
Image
User avatar
MJW
 
Posts: 9018
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:17 am
Location: Nebraska
Has thanked: 211 times
Been thanked: 404 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby MJW » Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:24 pm

RedLeader wrote:If anything, it probably speaks volumes about the pick, right?


I mean, if all they got is first name stereotypes and credit card receipts, id say the pick is a win! ;)


They tried to bring up his lack of minority law clerks during his career. Apparently he hired 5 black clerks during his 12 years as a Circuit Court Judge.

Then someone realized that the Princess Leia of Woke Herself, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, hired 0 black clerks during her 13 years in the same capacity.

That line of attack died a quick death.
Image
User avatar
MJW
 
Posts: 9018
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:17 am
Location: Nebraska
Has thanked: 211 times
Been thanked: 404 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Brazen331 » Thu Jul 12, 2018 11:49 pm

MJW wrote:
deltbucs wrote:LOL!! I seriously can't stop laughing at people that think that a late night show host was being serious when saying his name sounds "fratboyish" and that's an argument against his nomination. Faux News must be really low on material. 3 people in this thread already. Funny ****. Lemmings gunna lemming.


Actually, I was looking at this. But you do you Captain Irony.

https://twitter.com/NARAL/status/1016835475494064128


You burst Delt’s bubble again. He was probably thinking he actually made a point...finally but it was just another fail.
Brazen331
 
Posts: 2999
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:25 am
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby RedLeader » Fri Jul 13, 2018 12:08 am

Take it easy on delt. He just wants to fit in.

Plus, he apparently suffers from pseudo-bulbar..

‘seriously’.
User avatar
RedLeader
 
Posts: 2923
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:27 pm
Location: G14 Classified
Has thanked: 110 times
Been thanked: 104 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Brazen331 » Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:34 am

RedLeader wrote:Take it easy on delt. He just wants to fit in.

Plus, he apparently suffers from pseudo-bulbar..

‘seriously’.


I think we should give Delt a nickname...I’m thinking maybe Special-Ed or Short Bus would work great.
Brazen331
 
Posts: 2999
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:25 am
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby deltbucs » Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:14 am

Looks like I struck a nerve with The Three Stooges . LOL!!
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 5301
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 219 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby bucfanclw » Fri Jul 13, 2018 7:39 am

Yeah, they're getting awful defensive over this. It's almost like they're upset they're not getting as much push back on the nomination as they had hoped.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 4019
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 163 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby NavyBuc » Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:32 am

bucfanclw wrote:Yeah, they're getting awful defensive over this. It's almost like they're upset they're not getting as much push back on the nomination as they had hoped.


If you listen to Chuck Schumer and Cory Booker, there's plenty of pushback. But the pushback isn't going to be enough. Manchin-D is already hinting he's going to vote yes on the pick. I think the media is making too big a deal out of this being "a battle." Unless there's some secret skeleton hiding in his closet, like a nickname that is worse than his frat boy name, then this is going to be a very boring hearing in a few weeks.
NavyBuc
 
Posts: 1263
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:07 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby uscbucsfan » Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:36 am

NavyBuc wrote:
bucfanclw wrote:Yeah, they're getting awful defensive over this. It's almost like they're upset they're not getting as much push back on the nomination as they had hoped.


If you listen to Chuck Schumer and Cory Booker, there's plenty of pushback. But the pushback isn't going to be enough. Manchin-D is already hinting he's going to vote yes on the pick. I think the media is making too big a deal out of this being "a battle." Unless there's some secret skeleton hiding in his closet, like a nickname that is worse than his frat boy name, then this is going to be a very boring hearing in a few weeks.

You seem to be overly bothered by this nickname thing.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 5204
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 115 times
Been thanked: 144 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: deltbucs, Deuce, Ken Carson, PanteraCanes, Rocker, Teitan and 14 guests