US Supreme Court Watch - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Doug64
#15174643
@Pants-of-dog, no, simply holding a pro-life opinion is not enough reason for a judge to recuse themselves, or the opposite is also true—that holding a pro-choice opinion is grounds for recusal. Which would mean that pretty much all the judges in the country would have to recuse themselves on questions of abortion. Likewise, a judge that personally opposes the death penalty isn’t required to recuse themselves in cases where the death penalty is an option, though a judge that refuses to apply the death penalty when the law calls for it is in trouble. A justice’s job is to apply the Constitution or law as it is intended, regardless of their personal opinion. Unless you’re a Perfectionist, of course, believing that justices should rule according to how they think the constitution/law ought to be applied, regardless of the original intention, in which case you have to grant that Conservative judges have the same right to apply their beliefs of what the constitution/law ought to be as Liberal justices.

Mind, I could see, say, Barrett participating in a case involving the death penalty, deciding that the legal argument comes down on the side of the death penalty but that her religious beliefs don’t allow her to support it, and not casting a final vote. I haven’t given that situation much thought, but currently I would have no problem with that.

Drlee wrote:I have no problem with this. I freely admit that people believe fetuses are babies. I do too at some point in the pregnancy. I also abhor abortion. Would I ban it? I would vote to very severely restrict it. I would not vote to harass women to stop them from having one. I would simply restrict abortion to very specific times and situations.

Then we are pretty much in agreement, the only question being what the specific times/situations should be—for me, it’s rape/incest (essentially, any situation where the woman isn’t given a real choice in whether she risks becoming pregnant), early in the pregnancy.

But for this thread, the real question is who gets to set that standard—who gets to decide when a baby becomes an actual person—and IMHO the Constitution clearly gives that to the states rather than the Federal government and certainly not nine unelected justices. Though it would be interesting to see how the justices would react to Congress giving US citizenship—and all the rights that go with that status—to babies from the moment of conception.... :D
#15174645
@Doug64

Like I said, the massive amounts of funding she received and her outspoken religious beliefs are why she should recuse herself.

But she will not. And this is how large churches and other groups can openly pay for judicial activism that suits them.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15175068
But for this thread, the real question is who gets to set that standard—who gets to decide when a baby becomes an actual person—and IMHO the Constitution clearly gives that to the states rather than the Federal government and certainly not nine unelected justices.


Well two points. I agree that abortion should be an issue handled by the states after a point. Should women have the right to an abortion? They are the majority. If they want legal abortion in their state let them vote for it. I would hope they would vote for the kinds of government programs that would make it easier and desirable for women to want to keep their babies but there is little evidence that they will.

Though it would be interesting to see how the justices would react to Congress giving US citizenship—and all the rights that go with that status—to babies from the moment of conception...


It would be an interesting thing. It is a reasonable place to start a long-needed debate. It would extend to some kinds of birth control also; most notably the so-called morning after pill.

One thing is certain. Using current statistics, the banning of abortion will dramatically increase the browning of America. It puzzles me that many on the right seem to have failed to figure this out. Whites represent the lowest percentage of abortions/population while blacks the highest by about 3X. In 2017, in the 27 states that report such numbers, there were 280,000 white abortions and 295,000 black abortions. On color lines it was 280,000 white abortions and 571,000 POC abortions. It is laudable that so many republicans embrace this browning of America. One might have concluded that we are racist but as we are the anti-abortion party, clearly we are not.


@Pants-of-dog Like I said, the massive amounts of funding she received and her outspoken religious beliefs are why she should recuse herself.


So I understand that you want an atheism test for judges? Do you want to exclude from public office and the judiciary, all of these who are devoutly religious people? Should Ruth Bader Ginsburg have been censured or recuse herself from the debate on woman's rights because she coauthored (with a Rabbi) an article entitled, "The Heroic and Visionary Women of Passover"? She was raised a conservative Jew and taught at Jewish summer camps until she left for college.

As for funding, I am with you if we are to take all of the money out of politics. We can't, we will not so that is a moot point. There is nothing to be gained by your mentioning it.

But she will not. And this is how large churches and other groups can openly pay for judicial activism that suits them.


Do you have some evidence of her religiously inspired judicial activism in her previous roles as a judge? She claims to be an originalist and consequently (wrongly* but ardently) eschews what she considers judicial activism on those grounds.

Barrett has spoken out on this subject time and again. She testified before congress saying, " “The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People.”

This clearly points out two important beliefs on her part. First that she opposed judicial activism and secondly that she believes that the court is NOT "accountable to the people". So what remains appears to be a jurist who believes that courts are accountable to the law and that the Supreme Court is accountable to the constitution.

So again POD. Where is your evidence that ACB is interested at all in judicial activism, or has acted on it before? And where is your evidence that a judge holding strong religious beliefs as RBG did, is a bad thing and inconsistent with good Jurisprudence?

It is my opinion that the term judicial activism is most frequently used by the loser to denigrate any judge whose legal opinion becomes inconvenient.

Let me further point out that there are many established legal experts on both sides of the argument who find Roe V. Wade to be a bad decision.


*The founders embraced judicial activism and expected judges to make laws through the mechanism of embracing common law. 12 states still do.
By late
#15175161
The SC should hear an abortion case in June. We won't get the decision for a while. But I can almost guarantee it will be interesting.
By Doug64
#15176222
Drlee wrote:One thing is certain. Using current statistics, the banning of abortion will dramatically increase the browning of America. It puzzles me that many on the right seem to have failed to figure this out. Whites represent the lowest percentage of abortions/population while blacks the highest by about 3X. In 2017, in the 27 states that report such numbers, there were 280,000 white abortions and 295,000 black abortions. On color lines it was 280,000 white abortions and 571,000 POC abortions. It is laudable that so many republicans embrace this browning of America. One might have concluded that we are racist but as we are the anti-abortion party, clearly we are not.

Exactly right, one of the points of evidence of the non-racist nature of Conservatives--and the racist nature of a number of those that supported abortion. Though not including Margaret Sanger--as much of a racist as she was, and as much as that helped drive her crusade to provide birth control, she drew the line at abortion.

*The founders embraced judicial activism and expected judges to make laws through the mechanism of embracing common law. 12 states still do.

Don't confuse Common Law with Statutory Law and especially Constitutional Law. I doubt you're going to find many legal experts that will (publicly) agree that common law-style judicial creation and modification of laws should be applied to either legislative statutes or constitutions.

And another unanimous Supreme Court decision, this time involving undocumented aliens!

Supreme Court unanimously rejects border jumper’s demand for path to citizenship
The Supreme Court on Monday shot down an attempt by an immigrant who is in the U.S. illegally to claim that he is entitled to a pathway to citizenship because he was granted a deportation amnesty under the Temporary Protected Status program.

Jose Santos Sanchez, a citizen of El Salvador, had argued that once he won TPS under the law he qualified for an adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident — obtaining a green card. But the justices said that was a misreading of the law.

The case turned on the way the law is written, with Mr. Sanchez arguing that TPS meant he was now in nonimmigrant status, which is a prerequisite to get a green card.

But Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the unanimous court, said another part of immigration law requires that those applying for green cards enter the country lawfully.

“Sanchez was not lawfully admitted, and his TPS does not alter that fact. He therefore cannot become a permanent resident of this country,” Justice Kagan wrote.

Mr. Sanchez crossed the border illegally in 1997, and his wife did so the year after.

They were still here in 2001 when earthquakes rocked their home, and the U.S. government conferred TPS on hundreds of thousands of Salvadorans living in the U.S., granting them a reprieve from deportation and entitling them to work permits and some taxpayer benefits. But TPS, while a tentative legal status, did not erase their initial illegal entry, the court ruled.

About 200,000 Salvadorans are still living under TPS two decades after the earthquake, with the U.S. government holding that their home country still hasn’t recovered. The Trump administration tried to end the status, but courts blocked that move.

A dozen countries are designated for TPS — El Salvador has the largest population among them.

Some TPS residents can apply for green cards, the key intermediate step before winning U.S. citizenship.

That includes undocumented immigrants who came legally — such as on a student visa — then overstayed, and were out of status at the time the TPS declaration was issued. Those migrants, Justice Kagan said, were admitted lawfully, and so they meet the criteria.

But far more TPS holders likely fall into the category with Mr. Sanchez as border crossers. Had he won his case, it could have opened the door to hundreds of thousands of new green card cases.

Democrats on Capitol Hill are pushing legislation that would grant a full pathway to citizenship to TPS holders no matter how they arrived. That bill has cleared the House but has not seen action in the Senate.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15176353
The SCOTUS is correct on this. We cannot nor should we grant citizenship to those who enter illegally with a few exceptions. Clearly the so-called "dreamers" should be granted citizenship. They had no choice, no ill intent and this is as much their country as anyone else raised here. As for those who entered illegally but have been here for decades? Reagan thought they should be granted amnesty and a path to citizenship. I agreed with him then and I do now.

The fact is that Republicans do not want these long term residents to have citizenship because they fear they will vote democrat. And, judging by the outright hostility they have seen from republicans they should vote that way. Neither side is really for deporting any significant number of them. Especially now that we are in a labor shortage that will last until we stop paying people not to go back to work.
By Doug64
#15176719
@Drlee, the Supreme Court is right about this, because it is applying the law as written--any time you get a unanimous decision, someone clearly pushed the case farther than they should have (though the fact that Sanchez won in the district court should be a serious black mark for that judge). More than that, is a question for Congress. Though I'll half agree with you--long-time illegal residents should receive "lawful permanent resident" status, but not citizenship, ever (though those brought here as minor children should). But that is contingent on first effectively shutting down illegal migration, either across our borders or through overstaying visas, or they'll just be replaced by a new wave ... as happened with Reagan.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15176748
@Drlee, the Supreme Court is right about this, because it is applying the law as written--any time you get a unanimous decision, someone clearly pushed the case farther than they should have (though the fact that Sanchez won in the district court should be a serious black mark for that judge).


Correct. He should have lost and the Districe Judge was way out of line.

More than that, is a question for Congress. Though I'll half agree with you--long-time illegal residents should receive "lawful permanent resident" status, but not citizenship, ever (though those brought here as minor children should).


So your conclusion on this is based on the fact that they will not vote Republican? I don't like illegal immigration either and have repeatedly proposed a permanent solution for it. Simple, cost effective and humane. But if we are going to let people live and work here permanently we should allow them representation lest we accept a permanent underclass. Or implement my solution.

But that is contingent on first effectively shutting down illegal migration, either across our borders or through overstaying visas, or they'll just be replaced by a new wave ... as happened with Reagan.


It did. No doubt about it. And until we enforce the immigration laws in the marketplace and make it illegal and severely punished to employ undocumented workers, it will continue. We have to impose workplace enforcement that makes hiring illegals a threat to the business license and a real criminal offense. The checks required would be easy and cheap to implement.

So you see Doug. On this issue we are both on the conservative side. Not the neocon side but the classic conservative side.
#15176751
The United States is going to do the path to citizenship for a lot of long term non-criminal immigrant workers. They need them plain and simple. Not only that they need to start educating en masse those children of immigrant workers so they can become high earning workers and make money for the state. The state is going to be in deep debt for decades and needs a bunch of Latin American young people with fine educations paying taxes and consuming for a long time to come.

In terms of abortion the only way to improve things there is to get universal free child care and a host of supports for women. The ones who don't want to keep them and have trouble terminating the pregnancy? Adoption. But that also means supporting monetarily families willing to adopt children and matching them with decent people with good values. No one wants more responsibilities and that is what kids are in today's society. A lot of responsibility. If they don't allocate big bucks for support services the abortion thing if banned by the SCOTUS will generate back alley dangerous abortions and mostly create deaths of reproductive age young women.

No one understands now that infertility is growing increasingly common. The ones having children whether wanted or not? If they don't get the real dollar-backed support won't have any incentive to go through the extreme discomfort of an unwanted pregnancy all the way to term. If it means more debt, more anxiety, and no support for child care, and help? They won't choose life.

https://www.singlecare.com/blog/news/in ... tatistics/

A lot of nations all over the world have to deal with immigrants who enter their borders without authorization. One should do research on the ones who deport immigrants without authorization policies that are very humane and effective. Not let it devolve into racism or resentment.

I know Mexico had and still does enormous amounts of Central American refugee immigrants and many from Cuba. The new immigrants to the USA are mostly from India, China, Cuba and Mexico. I think the USA needs to realize that is where the new immigrants are going to come from. None are European nations. Accept the future as non European for the USA and things will go much better for the people who are prejudiced against Asians and Latinos. Because you got a wave of aggressive violence against both groups. Stop being aggressive violent idiots and accept the European immigrant population is from the 20th century not the 21st.
User avatar
By Drlee
#15176752
I know Mexico had and still does enormous amounts of Central American refugee immigrants and many from Cuba. The new immigrants to the USA are mostly from India, China, Cuba and Mexico. I think the USA needs to realize that is where the new immigrants are going to come from. None are European nations. Accept the future as non European for the USA and things will go much better for the people who are prejudiced against Asians and Latinos. Because you got a wave of aggressive violence against both groups. Stop being aggressive violent idiots and accept the European immigrant population is from the 20th century not the 21st.


Yup. The US in inexorably turning brown. That is inescapable even if one wanted to escape it. The reason I am so adamant about enforcing immigration laws is that they create a permanent under class. Until we have to have "A Day Without a Mexican", we will never see that.

Republican minoritorian rule, which they are being very successful at implementing right now is not very much different from Apartheid. This is not theoretical. It is here now. A minority of people, almost all white, control the government and will for the next 20-30 years. They have baked it in. Short of a revolution we can just get over it. Opposing the Republican Apartheid is the Democratic Party. The largest congregation of big-tent wimps to ever urge its disorganized bulk across the protesting face of American politics.
#15176757
Drlee wrote:Yup. The US in inexorably turning brown. That is inescapable even if one wanted to escape it. The reason I am so adamant about enforcing immigration laws is that they create a permanent under class. Until we have to have "A Day Without a Mexican", we will never see that.

Republican minoritorian rule, which they are being very successful at implementing right now is not very much different from Apartheid. This is not theoretical. It is here now. A minority of people, almost all white, control the government and will for the next 20-30 years. They have baked it in. Short of a revolution we can just get over it. Opposing the Republican Apartheid is the Democratic Party. The largest congregation of big-tent wimps to ever urge its disorganized bulk across the protesting face of American politics.

The US won't be relevant 30 years later. It doesn't really matter what Mexicans and other migrant from South American continent do to the US. A Mexican in America will be still a loser. They are migrating to wrong place.

China, a nation state and homogenous population group, will be the number one country. Later India, which is also another nation state and a homogenous population group, will hold that title. Maybe some day Arab related Middle East groups will rule the world. Middle Eastern people also are very close to each other genetically.
#15176764
Istanbuller wrote:India, which is also another nation state and a homogenous population group

Are you serious? :eh:
#15176767
@Drlee

Drlee wrote:Republican minoritorian rule, which they are being very successful at implementing right now is not very much different from Apartheid. This is not theoretical. It is here now. A minority of people, almost all white, control the government


It seems that way right now.

Drlee wrote: Short of a revolution we can just get over it. Opposing the Republican Apartheid is the Democratic Party. The largest congregation of big-tent wimps to ever urge its disorganized bulk across the protesting face of American politics.


Ohh, we are not going to get over it. We are going to fight it like any good American will. But we'll be smart about it. A violent revolution won't solve any problems and will just bring about blood shed and create more problems. Black and brown people deserve to govern and be represented in power just like any other American citizen. We're certainly not going to just lie down and accept minority apartheid rule by whites only. But we'll be smart about fighting back and it won't be through any sort of violent revolution as that creates more problems than it solves. The republicans should expect resistance to their anti-democratic methods and ideology. I guarantee you, we'll find a way to fight back, but we'll do it the smart way. It's better to outsmart rather than outfight the enemy or your opponent.
By late
#15176769
Politics_Observer wrote:
Ohh, we are not going to get over it. We are going to fight it like any good American will. But we'll be smart about it. A violent revolution won't solve any problems and will just bring about blood shed and create more problems. Black and brown people deserve to govern and be represented in power just like any other American citizen. We're certainly not going to just lie down and accept minority apartheid rule by whites only. But we'll be smart about fighting back and it won't be through any sort of violent revolution as that creates more problems than it solves. The republicans should expect resistance to their anti-democratic methods and ideology. I guarantee you, we'll find a way to fight back, but we'll do it the smart way. It's better to outsmart rather than outfight the enemy or your opponent.



I don't think there is a smart way. (that Dems are willing to do)
#15176775
@late

You can't depend on politicians to do anything. The people themselves have to take action and rely on a strategy that involves economic boycotts, strikes, and protests where protestors are not armed and are peaceful. The notion of violent revolution will just backfire and cause more problems. Violent revolutions are less likely to succeed than non-violent revolutions. And even those violent revolutions that do succeed, generally they end up creating an undemocratic government themselves and becoming oppressors themselves, which in turn increases the chances that they themselves will get overthrown too. Non-violent revolutions are more likely to overthrow a tyrannical government and replace it with a democratic government that respects the rights of all the people and are less likely to be overthrown itself afterwards. It's like I said, it's better to outsmart rather than outfight an enemy or opponent.
#15176782
Potemkin wrote:Are you serious? :eh:

Yes, I am serious. Tribal and religious divisions within Indian population still exist till today. But that doesn't make them different people. India's population is pretty much homogenous compared to America and Eruopean countries.

USA has no chance of succeeding against both China and India. It just took a decade for China to catch US economy. Indians will experience same thing. India's economy will be skyrocketing when America will be cursed with socialism plague of Latin America.
#15176783
Istanbuller wrote:Yes, I am serious. Tribal and religious divisions within Indian population still exist till today. But that doesn't make them different people. India's population is pretty much homogenous compared to America and Eruopean countries.

I was going to post a reply to this, but I thought to myself: what's the fucking point? So I didn't. :)

USA has no chance of succeeding against both China and India. It just took a decade for China to catch US economy.

More like four decades. Or about two centuries, depending on how you want to look at it. ;)

Indians will experience same thing. India's economy will be skyrocketing when America will be cursed with socialism plague of Latin America.

Thanks for that, Nostradamus. Lol.
#15176786
Potemkin wrote:More like four decades. Or about two centuries, depending on how you want to look at it. ;)

China wasn't really competing 4 decades ago. China's economic journey began in early 2000s. :)

China might overtake US in 3-5 years. It also depends on exchange rate. Yuan gains more strength, China catches more quickly.
By late
#15176789
Politics_Observer wrote:
It's like I said, it's better to outsmart rather than outfight an enemy or opponent.



Dems are hoping that between the FBI cracking down on the psychos, and the normal tendency of voters to head for the middle of the road, they can let the wackos do themselves in.

Republicans have a simple plan, dismantle the government and rule over the ashes.

It will work.
Is Marxism old-fashioned?

3- Existence of surplus-value taken by the capi[…]

Did You Get Vaccinated?

@Politics_Observer Well at least you didn't call[…]

Truman is probably a Japanese.

Truman being secretly Japanese and hiding it by s[…]

GPT3 can do some basic coding and tasks. It can[…]