2A advocates should pray for a full recovery

[noharleyyet]

What is grounds for impeachment?

 

[Gr8bawana]

View attachment 217281

Yeah that about sums it up.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I am always torn when Gr8 clicks an emoji on one of my posts - usually, I get the "sad face" from him/her, and I have to ask myself have I gone too far, but then when he gives me the rare, "happy face" I ask myself if I had missed something or posted in error because knowing he/she agrees with me on a topic doesn't feel quite right either I guess that's what I get for being a contrarian by nature

 

[noharleyyet]

My 18 month old granddaughter cracks me up with her shock face. Too bad she'll come to know the nuances of meretricious connotation.

 

[4ohSick]

But let's be clear - this will be a well-funded and vocal campaign until the left gets back "their" majority on SCOTUS. They also have teams working up talking points to impeach Kavanaugh for some other college party allegations. Add to this court-packing and the Biden committee on that topic. The left has owned the court for 70 years and they will not respect a conservative majority. It will be an endless flood of well-funded and large media coordinated attacks on all 6 conservative justices, the supreme court as an institution and continued pandering for packing for the next 20 years. If the left can't own the court they will burn it to the ground.

I can't claim to know more than you about SCOTUS, but in my lifetime (~30 years) there's been a mid-right lean for as long as I've been aware of it. At any rate, I think saying the left owned it for 70 years is a bit of an exaggeration.

How Supreme Court Ideology Has Shifted Over Time

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson made history in June when she was sworn in as the fi

www.allsides.com

But I look forward to learning more when you inevitably prove me wrong!

 

[4ohSick]

I can't claim to know more than you about SCOTUS, but in my lifetime (~30 years) there's been a mid-right lean for as long as I've been aware of it. At any rate, I think saying the left owned it for 70 years is a bit of an exaggeration.

Also to clarify, I think SCOTUS has been a decent representation of the center. So if you put the current republican party as "right", then yes, they've been well left of that.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

meretricious

see Dall Sheep hunting in Texas

 

[noharleyyet]

I can't claim to know more than you about SCOTUS, but in my lifetime (~30 years) there's been a mid-right lean for as long as I've been aware of it. At any rate, I think saying the left owned it for 70 years is a bit of an exaggeration.

How Supreme Court Ideology Has Shifted Over Time

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson made history in June when she was sworn in as the fi

www.allsides.com

But I look forward to learning more when you inevitably prove me wrong!

Well, there is that one time Roberts took a hard left.

 

[406dn]

First of all, recusal gives justices broad latitude, and unless he had actual knowledge of his wife's involvement (which we don't know) and knowledge her texts were subject of the case, his recusal would be unnecessary. Even if he failed to recuse, there is no law that says this meets the standard for impeachment. And as noted, even if it did there is zero chance of getting the necessary votes.

But let's be clear - this will be a well-funded and vocal campaign until the left gets back "their" majority on SCOTUS. They also have teams working up talking points to impeach Kavanaugh for some other college party allegations. Add to this court-packing and the Biden committee on that topic. The left has owned the court for 70 years and they will not respect a conservative majority. It will be an endless flood of well-funded and large media coordinated attacks on all 6 conservative justices, the supreme court as an institution and continued pandering for packing for the next 20 years. If the left can't own the court they will burn it to the ground.

And we are just getting started - odds are that this term sees gun control laws subject to strict scrutiny, and much of Wade/Casey will be shifted in favor of state regulation of abortion. This will invoke a level of vitriol this country has not seen since the Vietnam/60's era. Buckle up.

EXCUSE me, Bush vs Gore NEVER goes the way it did with a left owned court. That dog just doesn't hunt. The Heller case doesn't go that way with a left owned court. The Citizens United case does not go the way it did with a left owned court.

The is plenty of evidence of the right not respecting decisions going back to at least Brown vs the Board of Education.

I will agree that there is plenty of vitriol ahead.

 

[noharleyyet]

Stapp It....

 

[VikingsGuy]

I can't claim to know more than you about SCOTUS, but in my lifetime (~30 years) there's been a mid-right lean for as long as I've been aware of it. At any rate, I think saying the left owned it for 70 years is a bit of an exaggeration.

How Supreme Court Ideology Has Shifted Over Time

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson made history in June when she was sworn in as the fi

www.allsides.com

But I look forward to learning more when you inevitably prove me wrong!

A matter of where one defines "middle" I suppose. I certainly can't argue you are wrong in general, but I tend to look at the court through the lens of the big-ticket social rulings like Roe, Affirm. Action, 2A, same-sex marriage, tribal rights and the like - in that sense, it has been definitely creative left of center with the penumbra et al for 70. But if you look at pro-corporate and pro-speech stuff etc it moved 20 years ago after just 50 years to the left.

(Just to be clear - except for 2A issues I tend to align somewhere in the mix of Kennedy/Roberts/Gorsuch so I am not driving for an aggressive move to the right, just observing things as the play out)

 

[VikingsGuy]

EXCUSE me, Bush vs Gore NEVER goes the way it did with a left owned court. That dog just doesn't hunt. The Heller case doesn't go that way with a left owned court. The Citizens United case does not go the way it did with a left owned court.

The is plenty of evidence of the right not respecting decisions going back to at least Brown vs the Board of Education.

I will agree that there is plenty of vitriol ahead.

Bush v Gore was payback for 50 years of liberal courts making up the law via phantom "equal protection" arguments to fit their need. Heller was definitely right of center. Citizens is interesting - because it is a free speech case - a topic the left pushed hard in the 60s and 70s, but now the right defends in the 2000s. That shift is worth a whole thread on its own.

But nonetheless, basis the types of cases I referenced a moment ago in a reply to 4ohsick, I stand by my general thoughts. But no court is 100% left or 100% right even when judged by current standards. Heck the court that gave us Roe and similar social rulings, repeatedly did nothing to shoot down sodomy laws targeting same-sex couples when they had ample chances. So a mixed bag, always.

 

[406dn]

Bush v Gore was payback for 50 years of liberal courts making up the law via phantom "equal protection" arguments to fit their need. Heller was definitely right of center. Citizens is interesting - because it is a free speech case - a topic the left pushed hard in the 60s and 70s, but now the right defends in the 2000s. That shift is worth a whole thread on its own.

But nonetheless, basis the types of cases I referenced a moment ago in a reply to 4ohsick, I stand by my general thoughts. But no court is 100% left or 100% right even when judged by current standards. Heck the court that gave us Roe and similar social rulings, repeatedly did nothing to shoot down sodomy laws targeting same-sex couples when they had ample chances. So a mixed bag, always.

That is unsettling that the Supreme Court would choose a dispute over a presidential election recount, to do a payback. That sure garners respect.

I was fairly certain when it went to the Supreme Court that the vote would be 5-4.

Now, regarding Citizen's United. It is often framed as free speech. That somehow money equals speech. It is the law of the land, you can already see the fruit it bears. I will always be of the opinion that money is more akin to property than it is to speech.

Mostly I took offense to your assertion that the left has owned the courts for 70 years. In this post you qualify that some.

I'll say that right now, with the shenanigans that McConnell pulled with Garland and Ginsburg's death, the right will own the Supreme Court for the foreseeable future.

 

[Irrelevant]

Citizens is interesting - because it is a free speech case

I find it interesting when phrased like that. Because that wasn't the reality of the situation. The ruling was an acknowledgement that democracy, in the US, is for sale.

At some point the actual citizens will demand this wrong be righted.

 

[Jason73]

That is unsettling that the Supreme Court would choose a dispute over a presidential election recount, to do a payback. That sure garners respect.

I was fairly certain when it went to the Supreme Court that the vote would be 5-4.

Now, regarding Citizen's United. It is often framed as free speech. That somehow money equals speech. It is the law of the land, you can already see the fruit it bears. I will always be of the opinion that money is more akin to property than it is to speech.

Mostly I took offense to your assertion that the left has owned the courts for 70 years. In this post you qualify that some.

I'll say that right now, with the shenanigans that McConnell pulled with Garland and Ginsburg's death, the right will own the Supreme Court for the foreseeable future.

Jackson seems like a person that can be a good justice. I think she should be appointed. Garland? Are you kidding me? That guy shouldn't even be able to practice law.

 

[406dn]

Jackson seems like a person that can be a good justice. I think she should be appointed. Garland? Are you kidding me? That guy shouldn't even be able to practice law.

Irrespective of Garland's abilities, he should have been either confirmed, or voted down. Then another nomination could have been considered.

The nominations to the Supreme Court have been contentious for a long time. That likely harms the court's moral authority. But they'e done their share to harm their reputation themselves.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Irrespective of Garland's abilities, he should have been either confirmed, or voted down. Then another nomination could have been considered.

The nominations to the Supreme Court have been contentious for a long time. That likely harms the court's moral authority. But they'e done their share to harm their reputation themselves.

Agreed when need to get back to the era of 95% confirmation votes.

 

[Jason73]

Irrespective of Garland's abilities, he should have been either confirmed, or voted down. Then another nomination could have been considered.

The nominations to the Supreme Court have been contentious for a long time. That likely harms the court's moral authority. But they'e done their share to harm their reputation themselves.

Or maybe there should have been a bit more thought into the nominee. I get what you are saying but, "Come on Man!!!!".

 

[mtmuley]

Come on Man!!!!".

Coined by Keyshawn Johnson the football player and made kind of mainstream. The President picked it up. Man. mtmuley

 

[VikingsGuy]

I find it interesting when phrased like that. Because that wasn't the reality of the situation. The ruling was an acknowledgement that democracy, in the US, is for sale.

I understand you don’t like it, but your post is simply incorrect.