The Courts under Trump - Mega Thread

[TGHusker]

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

 

How do you know that there were discrepancies if she didn't share the notes?

 

 

Is there a person who is not a conservative who doesn't have ties to George Soros?  I'm not conservative. Do I have ties to George Soros?

The bold  --   -- couldn't resist.   

 

One would think that Soros was the Anti-Christ and the Koch Brothers were his opposite False Prophets (to capture both sides of the evil spectrum).  Both are polarizing figures in American politics. 

[knapplc]

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

On 10/9/2018 at 11:33 AM, Ric Flair said:

 

Replacing Scalia with Gorsuch was only controversial because of the way the Garland nomination was handled. It was trading one comservative for another.

 

Replacing Kennedy with Kavanaugh is a game-changer. Suddenly a bunch if 5-4 decisions liberals love, on everything from gay marriage to abortion to gerrymandering were in potential danger. The Dems were willing to go to the mattresses to prevent that.

 

So...you're in favor of eliminating gay marriage and abortion, and supportive of gerrymandering?

[Guy Chamberlin]

On 10/19/2018 at 9:00 PM, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

So...you're in favor of eliminating gay marriage and abortion, and supportive of gerrymandering?

 

Come on. You've had all weekend to think about it.

[Guy Chamberlin]

For extra credit, how does the Citizens United ruling align with your understanding of American democracy?

 

[Danny Bateman]

SCOTUS protecting Wilbur Ross on the census citizenship question. I don't find it odd at all Gorsuch (or Thomas) would rule in such a way as to help Republicans. 

 

[Danny Bateman]

They've got their Supreme Court and damn it, they're going to use it!

 

Remember when Republicans decried executive overreach? Funny how they did a 180 on that.

 

Quote

Sessions said in a recent speech that a robust response to what he considers activist judges is necessary to protect the separation of powers and to deter “encroachment” on the president’s power.

 

“If the judiciary can subject the executive branch to new, disruptive and invasive reviews, the power of the judiciary is enhanced, while the power of the executive has been diminished,” Sessions said in a speech prepared for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
 

“That is a tilt we cannot abide. Executive branch officers do not work for the judiciary. We work for the president of the United States.”

-----
“Federal district judges are not empowered to fashion immigration policy, combat climate change, solve the opioid crisis or run police departments,” he said in the Heritage speech. “The legislative and executive branches . . . are the constitutionally authorized branches to do these things, and if these branches haven’t do so to the satisfaction of an unaccountable judge, it’s not because they need judicial expertise or advice. Usually, it’s because the problems are hard.”

 

(They don't really care about constitutionality. They care about doing Republican things. Judges are only unaccountable when they don't allow Republican things.)

 

 

[Ric Flair]

On 10/19/2018 at 11:00 PM, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

So...you're in favor of eliminating gay marriage and abortion, and supportive of gerrymandering?

 

Personally? The fact you can’t understand the difference between one’s personal views and one’s constitutional views is what makes you a liberal. There should be times when your opinions come into conflict with the Constitution and the Constitution has to win out.

On 10/22/2018 at 3:31 PM, Guy Chamberlin said:

For extra credit, how does the Citizens United ruling align with your understanding of American democracy?

 

 

Surely free speech isn’t too complex a concept for you to grasp?

[Guy Chamberlin]

13 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Personally? The fact you can’t understand the difference between one’s personal views and one’s constitutional views is what makes you a liberal. There should be times when your opinions come into conflict with the Constitution and the Constitution has to win out.

 

Surely free speech isn’t too complex a concept for you to grasp?

 

Pretty easy to grasp what Citizen's United was about, too.

 

Personally? I'd say weighting "free" speech to favor corporations able to invest far more money in our political process than individuals is antithetical to the whole point of representational democracy.  

 

The Constitution remained just vague enough for 9 judges to split 5-4 along party lines. 

 

So please. Your vote has very much to do with whether abortion and gay marriage are outlawed, if gerrymandering and voter suppression can be justified, and if corporations have unchecked influence over our electoral process. 

 

So answer the question. 

[Ric Flair]

17 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Pretty easy to grasp what Citizen's United was about, too.

 

Personally? I'd say weighting "free" speech to favor corporations able to invest far more money in our political process than individuals is antithetical to the whole point of representational democracy.  

 

The Constitution remained just vague enough for 9 judges to split 5-4 along party lines. 

 

So please. Your vote has very much to do with whether abortion and gay marriage are outlawed, if gerrymandering and voter suppression can be justified, and if corporations have unchecked influence over our electoral process. 

 

So answer the question. 

 

Citizens United was about free speech. If a group like the ACLU can participate in politics, why can’t the Koch Brothers or Apple? 

 

Rich people have always been able to leverage their wealth to have an outsized influence on politics. So what?

 

What constitutes gerrymandering is a matter of opinion. I personally favor gay marriage and oppose abortion, but think the courts probably should have stayed out of both issues.

 

 

[RedDenver]

9 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Citizens United was about free speech. If a group like the ACLU can participate in politics, why can’t the Koch Brothers or Apple? 

 

Rich people have always been able to leverage their wealth to have an outsized influence on politics. So what?

There's a HUGE difference in free speech and whether money constitutes speech. All of us have equal opportunity to voice our opinions but how much money we can spend to do so is very much not equal or free. Plus Citizens United had the absolutely moronic opinion that corporations (a legal entity) somehow are equivalent to people in the rights they get under the Constitution.

 

Until we get money out of politics, we will live more and more in an oligarchy and less and less in a democracy.

[Guy Chamberlin]

2 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Citizens United was about free speech. If a group like the ACLU can participate in politics, why can’t the Koch Brothers or Apple? 

 

Rich people have always been able to leverage their wealth to have an outsized influence on politics. So what?

 

What constitutes gerrymandering is a matter of opinion. I personally favor gay marriage and oppose abortion, but think the courts probably should have stayed out of both issues.

 

 

 

That's a pretty good answer. Thanks.

 

But election financing, as flawed an open to abuse as it is, probably should work to curtail the "money" part of free speech and be as transparent as possible. Everyone can "participate" in politics. Apple can take out ads for whatever Apple wants. The Koch Brothers can run commercials advocating Koch Brothers beliefs. But neither Sheldon Adelson nor George Soros nor a Mark Zuckerberg hoping to influence internet policy should be able to hide their massive unchecked contributions to politicians and a ballot initiatives. Especially in the case of corporations, where upper management is "speaking" on behalf of 20,000 rank and file employees who may not feel the same way at all. 

 

For a country that supposedly celebrates the individual, we should at least pretend not to favor our corporate overlords. 

 

Also, for the record, the gerrymandering and voter suppression going on at the moment isn't really open to interpretation; it's being undertaken in broad daylight by state Republicans to reduce and marginalize people with a record of voting Democrat. 

[Ric Flair]

5 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

There's a HUGE difference in free speech and whether money constitutes speech. All of us have equal opportunity to voice our opinions but how much money we can spend to do so is very much not equal or free. Plus Citizens United had the absolutely moronic opinion that corporations (a legal entity) somehow are equivalent to people in the rights they get under the Constitution.

 

Until we get money out of politics, we will live more and more in an oligarchy and less and less in a democracy.

 

Putting limitations on how much speech someone can engage in is a violation of the First Amendment.

[Ric Flair]

6 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

That's a pretty good answer. Thanks.

 

But election financing, as flawed an open to abuse as it is, probably should work to curtail the "money" part of free speech and be as transparent as possible. Everyone can "participate" in politics. Apple can take out ads for whatever Apple wants. The Koch Brothers can run commercials advocating Koch Brothers beliefs. But neither Sheldon Adelson nor George Soros nor a Mark Zuckerberg hoping to influence internet policy should be able to hide their massive unchecked contributions to politicians and a ballot initiatives. Especially in the case of corporations, where upper management is "speaking" on behalf of 20,000 rank and file employees who may not feel the same way at all. 

 

For a country that supposedly celebrates the individual, we should at least pretend not to favor our corporate overlords. 

 

Also, for the record, the gerrymandering and voter suppression going on at the moment isn't really open to interpretation; it's being undertaken in broad daylight by state Republicans to reduce and marginalize people with a record of voting Democrat. 

 

I’m in agreement on complete transparency, but oppose any limits on donations, funding, or spending as violations of the First Amendment. If the Koch Brothers or George Soros want to spend billions to elect Congressman Smith, then they should be able to. But the public should know about it and be able to question why.

 

Corporations and their management are ultimately responsible to the shareholders as owners.

[RedDenver]

13 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Putting limitations on how much speech someone can engage in is a violation of the First Amendment.

How much money you can spend is not a limit on speech but on spending. And corporations aren't a "someone".