EPTIn the unlikely situation that happens I just hope democrats won't squander an opportunity like that like they did with the affordable healthcare act.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4135
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
In the unlikely situation that happens I just hope democrats won't squander an opportunity like that like they did with the affordable healthcare act. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18864 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in a 6-2 vote that domestic abusers convicted of misdemeanors can be barred from owning weapons. The majority opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, concludes that misdemeanor assault convictions for domestic violence are sufficient to invoke a federal ban on firearms possession. The plaintiffs in this case, Stephen Voisine and William Armstrong, both of Maine, had pleaded guilty in state court to misdemeanor assault charges after slapping or shoving their romantic partners. Several years later, each man was found to have firearms and ammunition in their possession in violation of a federal law affecting convicted domestic abusers. Both argued that the weapons ban should not apply to them because their misdemeanor cases were for "reckless conduct" rather than intentional abuse. Their appeal had been rejected by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but the plaintiffs carried it on to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear it. Five justices concurred in Kagan's opinion, while Justice Clarence Thomas dissented and Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented in part. Source | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On June 28 2016 00:17 Danglars wrote: Another win for the planned parenthood crowd, but anyone interested in rule of law and the merits of the argument should be sickened to their stomach. It should please everyone concerned only with striking down laws they disagree with, not those that care about women's access to abortions (excluding those that agree Gosnell should still be practicing). Additionally, it's yet another blow to self-government since every following court should feel emboldened to ignore traditional court purview if the lawyers-as-justice-legislators simply want to invalidate laws. Maybe if "rule of law" and "states rights" wasn't just a lame excuse to screw women or any other random group over people would actually care about it. Conservatives have been wielding 'the law' as a club for decades and now they're upset because they're losing their grip . | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On June 28 2016 00:17 Danglars wrote: It's absolutely amazing how easily justices can sweep away the rule-book when it comes to abortion law adjudicating. As Alito put it, supremecourt.gov + Show Spoiler + In an effort to get around this hornbook rule, the Court cites a potpourri of our decisions that have no bearing on the question at issue. Some are not even about res judicata.5 And the cases that do concern res judicata, Abie State Bank v. Bryan, 282 U. S. 765, 772 (1931), Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corp., 349 U. S. 322, 328 (1955), and Third Nat. Bank of Louisville v. Stone, 174 U. S. 432, 434 (1899), endorse the unremarkable proposition that a prior judgment does not preclude new claims based on acts occurring after the time of the first judgment.6 But petitioners’ second facial challenge is not based on new acts postdating the first suit. Even the factual claims by petitioners did not satisfy the burden of proof. Simply counting the number of clinics closed during the time of this law does not satisfy the burden of proof that challenged provisions caused this (other provisions of law were held constitutional, other funding schemes for abortions being withdrawn, changing demands, cited by Alito). That's not to mention failures to properly calculate availability/capacity of compliant clinics. Another win for the planned parenthood crowd, but anyone interested in rule of law and the merits of the argument should be sickened to their stomach. It should please everyone concerned only with striking down laws they disagree with, not those that care about women's access to abortions (excluding those that agree Gosnell should still be practicing). Additionally, it's yet another blow to self-government since every following court should feel emboldened to ignore traditional court purview if the lawyers-as-justice-legislators simply want to invalidate laws. You put too much value in appeals to tradition. What once was, will not always be. Forgive the stupid example, but slavery was once legal. Things change. Abortion, gay rights, and every other socially conservative position, are all going to be shot in the head one by one in the coming years. Why? Because society has moved on. It goes against previous rules, but that's nothing new. Societies grow and evolve, and that means old shitty laws getting torn apart. | ||
|
Ravianna26
United States44 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 28 2016 04:03 Ravianna26 wrote: Someone should tell those 5 fools on the court that abortions have been decreasing, because only an evil monster wants abortions to happen. This court opinion is one of the worst court opinions in history and reinforces why electing Donald Trump is so crucial. a) that's kinda rude; more importantly there's plenty of worse court opinions in history. also, donald is pro-choice iirc, or at least not very pro-life. So, mostly just falsities. Those peeps on the supreme court are also far wiser than you. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 28 2016 04:03 Ravianna26 wrote: Someone should tell those 5 fools on the court that abortions have been decreasing, because only an evil monster wants abortions to happen. This court opinion is one of the worst court opinions in history and reinforces why electing Donald Trump is so crucial. I am pretty sure that would have zero impact on their decision. Edit: Well then, that was fast. Though it appears he was a previous offender. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On June 28 2016 04:03 Ravianna26 wrote: Someone should tell those 5 fools on the court that abortions have been decreasing, because only an evil monster wants abortions to happen. This court opinion is one of the worst court opinions in history and reinforces why electing Donald Trump is so crucial. User was temp banned for this post. My Poe-o-meter broke this election season | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 28 2016 04:26 ticklishmusic wrote: My Poe-o-meter broke this election season Teen Edgelord is shocked that he is called a regressive racist after trolling popular forum with language uses by ultra conservatives and white supremacists. Experts in Poe’s law are baffled. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
In the end, the Trump campaign will flounder as it tries to somehow appeal to democrats, moderates and people of color. Hispanic turnout will continue to rise beyond expected numbers as the DNC realizes the money is well spent organizing huge outreach events for Hispanics. Alternatively, Trump always planned to ditch the crazed dude. He was a good manager for a primary, and is now going to use Lewandowski as an excuse for why he was so harsh before. He will take a totally new tone from now until the general. He will NOW go center. This theory will likely get proven wrong within a week. If Trump doesn't do well in the news this week, he will lob another grenade next Monday or Tuesday. | ||
|
amazingxkcd
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
On June 28 2016 06:26 Mohdoo wrote: Opinion: Lewandowski was Trump's best shot at getting elected because he chose to roll with the person Trump is, and realized early on that any attempt to squelch the Trump would simply not work. Trump and his new manager will do well at first and Trump will play a bit more by the rules as he is continually told to change his tone and be a more normal person. This will ultimately just mean Trump not being in the headlines. Clinton will continue to outspend the living hell out of Trump and gain a huge early lead. Trump will be discouraged by this and somewhat revolt against this new campaign he has, because what he was doing before worked better, even if he's not giving this new perspective a proper chance. In the end, the Trump campaign will flounder as it tries to somehow appeal to democrats, moderates and people of color. Hispanic turnout will continue to rise beyond expected numbers as the DNC realizes the money is well spent organizing huge outreach events for Hispanics. Alternatively, Trump always planned to ditch the crazed dude. He was a good manager for a primary, and is now going to use Lewandowski as an excuse for why he was so harsh before. He will take a totally new tone from now until the general. He will NOW go center. This theory will likely get proven wrong within a week. If Trump doesn't do well in the news this week, he will lob another grenade next Monday or Tuesday. the alternate theory is Trump's 3rd act; pivot flaming messages into a moderate frame to garner popular support | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On June 28 2016 06:26 Mohdoo wrote: Opinion: Lewandowski was Trump's best shot at getting elected because he chose to roll with the person Trump is, and realized early on that any attempt to squelch the Trump would simply not work. Trump and his new manager will do well at first and Trump will play a bit more by the rules as he is continually told to change his tone and be a more normal person. This will ultimately just mean Trump not being in the headlines. Clinton will continue to outspend the living hell out of Trump and gain a huge early lead. Trump will be discouraged by this and somewhat revolt against this new campaign he has, because what he was doing before worked better, even if he's not giving this new perspective a proper chance. In the end, the Trump campaign will flounder as it tries to somehow appeal to democrats, moderates and people of color. Hispanic turnout will continue to rise beyond expected numbers as the DNC realizes the money is well spent organizing huge outreach events for Hispanics. Alternatively, Trump always planned to ditch the crazed dude. He was a good manager for a primary, and is now going to use Lewandowski as an excuse for why he was so harsh before. He will take a totally new tone from now until the general. He will NOW go center. This theory will likely get proven wrong within a week. If Trump doesn't do well in the news this week, he will lob another grenade next Monday or Tuesday. He works for CNN now as a panelist who can directly support Trump in the MSM. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
| ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24059 Posts
Colorado Poll | ||
|
Impervious
Canada4222 Posts
| ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On June 28 2016 09:15 GreenHorizons wrote: For all the stink about how bad this last few weeks were for Trump, he's statistically tied in several battleground states like Colorado still. Colorado Poll Well those are really the only states that matter in the general tbh. Especially Florida and Ohio | ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
On June 28 2016 07:13 GGTeMpLaR wrote: He works for CNN now as a panelist who can directly support Trump in the MSM. Tell me again about MSM bias. I love stories about the Clinton News Network. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On June 28 2016 09:59 CannonsNCarriers wrote: Tell me again about MSM bias. I love stories about the Clinton News Network. Not sure if you're being serious or not? Have you read the story? | ||
| ||
