Agree Agree:  108
Likes Likes:  83
Page 2 of 24 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 354
  1. #16
    Contests
    Awards Showcase

    James7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Gaithersburg, MD
    Posts
    6,027
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2014-15

    I'm not sure. The lack of limits creates a division from how the other highly politicized term positions work. Granted, replacing a justice has itself become super political now, too, anyway. I guess I don't know that I see a simple solution to make it work as intended (i.e. divorced of political parties as they are part of the nomination/confirmation process).
    I disapprove of this message

  2. #17
    Forum Director
    Forum Moderator

    Awards Showcase

    Asteroids Champion, 123 GO Champion, Ball Of Madness Champion, Solitare Champion, Deal or No Deal Champion, Connect 4 Champion, Penguin Arcade Champion, Yeti Sports 8- Jungle Swing Champion, Putt it in Golf Champion, Yetisports 10 - Icicle Climb Champion, mahjong Champion, 247 Mini Golf Champion, Flash Golf Champion, Battleship Champion, Solitaire Golf SLingo Champion, Slingo Para-Dice Champion, Yeti 1 Greece Champion, Yeti Sports 3 - Seal Bounce Champion, Archery Champion dryrunguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    South Central PA
    Posts
    51,425
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2014-15

    Quote Originally Posted by GlennHarman View Post
    I think their denial of Alabama's request for a stay speaks volumes. But still, I also am "still nervous". Chris and I live in one of the few states without marriage equality (Ohio), and it pisses me off.

    I do think that if they were to rule that the states could decide on their own whether to have gay marriage, MANY of the current list of 37 (counting Alabama) would go back to forbidding it. I think one could definitely count on such states as Oklahoma, Kansas, Alabama, both Carolinas, Indiana, Utah, Idaho, Alaska, Montana, and Wyoming reversing the law there. And several others would be worrisome.....West Virginia, Virginia, Florida, and maybe even Iowa would be risky for going back. The last poll I saw in Iowa showed that same-sex marriage there would likely lose out in a state-wide referendum. That merely shows how conservative much of Iowa is.....after all, they've now had marriage equality for almost 6 years, and the sky hasn't fallen there yet.

    GH
    Iowa would be a very different story if more of its gay residents knew how to castrate a pig.

  3. #18

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2014-15

    I agree with Ponchi on the concept that there should be some limit on how long these people stay in the SC. I guess I think that is there was NO chance of a second term, meaning it would be 15 years and out, that that would still theoretically lessen the political influence people could have on the court members.

    But there has become this political gulf between factions on the court, that I am sure is not what was envisioned when this non-partisan court was created. There is absolutely no question in my mind that this court would be better off without Thomas (who of course should never have even come close to being confirmed), and Scalia. I think one could argue that both have shown the kind of incompetence and extremely partisan behavior that should be reason enough to get rid of them. That having been said, if there were a mechanism for getting rid of justices, in our current ridiculously wide chasm between the parties, every time a different party was in power, there would be a house-cleaning. So maybe the best option would be a time limit with no chance for re-appointment. We would lose people who were still effective, but we would avoid so much completely dead weight on there for decades.

    G

  4. #19
    Forum Director
    Forum Moderator

    Awards Showcase

    Asteroids Champion, 123 GO Champion, Ball Of Madness Champion, Solitare Champion, Deal or No Deal Champion, Connect 4 Champion, Penguin Arcade Champion, Yeti Sports 8- Jungle Swing Champion, Putt it in Golf Champion, Yetisports 10 - Icicle Climb Champion, mahjong Champion, 247 Mini Golf Champion, Flash Golf Champion, Battleship Champion, Solitaire Golf SLingo Champion, Slingo Para-Dice Champion, Yeti 1 Greece Champion, Yeti Sports 3 - Seal Bounce Champion, Archery Champion dryrunguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    South Central PA
    Posts
    51,425
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2014-15



    Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Obama Health Care Law

    The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a challenge to the reach of the Obama health care law, rescuing the program from a potentially fatal legal challenge for the second time since Obamacare's inception.

    By a 6-3 vote, the justices said consumers qualify for a subsidy that lowers the cost of premiums whether they buy their coverage through federal or state exchanges. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion.

    "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter," the court wrote in its majority opinion .

    Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the dissenters, said people should start calling the law "SCOTUScare."

    "This Court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere. We should start calling this law SCOTUScare."

    More than six million lower-income Americans who get their health insurance through the federal marketplace or exchange — HealthCare.Gov — depend on the subsidies, reducing their premiums an average of 72 percent, saving an average of $270 a month.

    Opponents of the law claimed that the actual wording of the Affordable Care Act passed by Congress made subsidies available only to insurance customers who bought their policies through "an exchange established by the state" where the policyholders live.

    If the challengers had prevailed, customers who bought their insurance on the federal exchange — by far the majority of those insured by Obamacare — would have lost the subsidies. Only 16 states now have their own health exchanges up and running.

    The health insurance industry had warned that if the challenge succeeded, the Affordable Care Act would have entered a "death spiral" — with costs rising for a shrinking number of participants, eventually causing the system to collapse.

    Among the law's provisions are requirements that insurance companies cover people with pre-existing conditions and that nearly all Americans obtain health insurance. Congress knew that those components of the health care system would not work, the Obama administration had argued, if the subsidies that make insurance affordable for millions of people were available only on state exchanges.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/oba...sy-centurylink

  5. #20

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2014-15

    Quote Originally Posted by dryrunguy View Post


    Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Obama Health Care Law

    The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a challenge to the reach of the Obama health care law, rescuing the program from a potentially fatal legal challenge for the second time since Obamacare's inception.

    By a 6-3 vote, the justices said consumers qualify for a subsidy that lowers the cost of premiums whether they buy their coverage through federal or state exchanges. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion.

    "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter," the court wrote in its majority opinion .

    Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the dissenters, said people should start calling the law "SCOTUScare."

    "This Court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere. We should start calling this law SCOTUScare."

    More than six million lower-income Americans who get their health insurance through the federal marketplace or exchange — HealthCare.Gov — depend on the subsidies, reducing their premiums an average of 72 percent, saving an average of $270 a month.

    Opponents of the law claimed that the actual wording of the Affordable Care Act passed by Congress made subsidies available only to insurance customers who bought their policies through "an exchange established by the state" where the policyholders live.

    If the challengers had prevailed, customers who bought their insurance on the federal exchange — by far the majority of those insured by Obamacare — would have lost the subsidies. Only 16 states now have their own health exchanges up and running.

    The health insurance industry had warned that if the challenge succeeded, the Affordable Care Act would have entered a "death spiral" — with costs rising for a shrinking number of participants, eventually causing the system to collapse.

    Among the law's provisions are requirements that insurance companies cover people with pre-existing conditions and that nearly all Americans obtain health insurance. Congress knew that those components of the health care system would not work, the Obama administration had argued, if the subsidies that make insurance affordable for millions of people were available only on state exchanges.

    http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/oba...sy-centurylink
    "Even if you dance for your enemy on the rock, he will accuse you of splashing water on him." ~ African Proverb




  6. #21

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2014-15

    The Right Wing is against Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and now the ACA. I don't understand why? I mean I've read all the screaming about socialism but do they really want to take the country as a whole back to the conditions of the 19th and early 20th century? We're seeing that in Kansas and Louisiana already. To what purpose?
    "Even if you dance for your enemy on the rock, he will accuse you of splashing water on him." ~ African Proverb




  7. #22
    Forum Director
    Forum Moderator

    Awards Showcase

    Asteroids Champion, 123 GO Champion, Ball Of Madness Champion, Solitare Champion, Deal or No Deal Champion, Connect 4 Champion, Penguin Arcade Champion, Yeti Sports 8- Jungle Swing Champion, Putt it in Golf Champion, Yetisports 10 - Icicle Climb Champion, mahjong Champion, 247 Mini Golf Champion, Flash Golf Champion, Battleship Champion, Solitaire Golf SLingo Champion, Slingo Para-Dice Champion, Yeti 1 Greece Champion, Yeti Sports 3 - Seal Bounce Champion, Archery Champion dryrunguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    South Central PA
    Posts
    51,425
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2014-15

    Quote Originally Posted by Ti-Amie View Post
    The Right Wing is against Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and now the ACA. I don't understand why? I mean I've read all the screaming about socialism but do they really want to take the country as a whole back to the conditions of the 19th and early 20th century? We're seeing that in Kansas and Louisiana already. To what purpose?
    Simple. To annihilate the poor.

  8. #23

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2014-15

    SCOTUS rejects effort to weaken Fair Housing Act
    06/25/15 10:16 AM—Updated 06/25/15 11:40 AM

    By Zachary Roth

    The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Thursday to reject a case that could have significantly weakened the Fair Housing Act (FHA), a landmark civil rights law. The ruling means the law will continue to cover actions in the housing sphere with a discriminatory result—known as disparate impact—not just intentional discrimination.

    “Recognition of disparate-impact claims is consistent with the FHA’s central purpose,” Justice Anthony Kennedy, wrote in the court’s majority opinion. Kennedy was joined by Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented.

    Kennedy wrote that the use of disparate impact must be limited, so that it doesn’t simply cover any action that happens to affect one group more than another. But he noted that disparate impact under the FHA has played a key role in promoting racial equality in housing and fighting discrimination.

    “[S]ince the passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1968 and against the backdrop of disparate-impact liability in nearly every jurisdiction, many cities have become more diverse,” Kennedy wrote. “The FHA must play an important part in avoiding the Kerner Commission’s grim prophecy that ‘[o]ur Nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white—separate and unequal.’ … The Court acknowledges the Fair Housing Act’s continuing role in moving the Nation toward a more integrated society.”

    In a dissent, Thomas argued that disparate impact as a concept is unconstitutional.

    “Racial imbalances do not always disfavor minorities,” Thomas wrote at one point. “[F]or roughly a quarter-century now, over 70 percent of National Basketball Association players have been black.”


    In a separate dissent, Roberts, Alito, and Scalia argued that Congress didn’t intend to include disparate impact in the FHA.

    The Fair Housing Act, passed in 1968 a week after the death of Martin Luther King Jr., is a key part of the panoply of civil rights legislation that transformed the country half a century ago.

    The case, Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Community Project, Inc., arose when a Texas non-profit, The Inclusive Communities Project, claimed the state was approving tax credits for low-income housing only in heavily African-American neighborhoods of Dallas, and denying tax credits in white neighborhoods. That approach, they said, has prolonged the city’s racial segregation, making it harder for poor blacks to have a shot at upward mobility. In response, Texas argued that it was just trying to comply with federal mandates governing the use of tax credits, and that, since it wasn’t intentionally discriminating, it wasn’t running afoul of the FHA.

    (...)

    Disparate impact has been central to how the FHA has been used in the past to stop housing discrimination. For instance, in 2011, the lender Countrywide agreed to pay $335 million to settle allegations that it charged 200,000 minority borrowers more than white borrowers who posed the same credit risk. If the FHA hadn’t allowed disparate impact, the government would have had to find evidence of intentional racial bias in Countrywide’s lending policies, a high bar to meet. That would have made it far more difficult to hold Countrywide accountable.

    “The Supreme Court has rightly recognized disparate impact claims and the important role they play in promoting fairness and inclusion in American society,” said Jon Greenbaum, chief counsel of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “Focusing on the effects of a policy or practice, rather than the intent behind it, is the most effective way of dismantling structural barriers to equal opportunity and is necessary because discrimination is often subtle and covert.”

    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/scotus-re...ir-housing-act
    "Even if you dance for your enemy on the rock, he will accuse you of splashing water on him." ~ African Proverb




  9. #24
    Forum Director
    Forum Moderator

    Awards Showcase

    Asteroids Champion, 123 GO Champion, Ball Of Madness Champion, Solitare Champion, Deal or No Deal Champion, Connect 4 Champion, Penguin Arcade Champion, Yeti Sports 8- Jungle Swing Champion, Putt it in Golf Champion, Yetisports 10 - Icicle Climb Champion, mahjong Champion, 247 Mini Golf Champion, Flash Golf Champion, Battleship Champion, Solitaire Golf SLingo Champion, Slingo Para-Dice Champion, Yeti 1 Greece Champion, Yeti Sports 3 - Seal Bounce Champion, Archery Champion dryrunguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    South Central PA
    Posts
    51,425
    Blog Entries
    11

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2014-15

    Quote Originally Posted by Ti-Amie View Post

    In a dissent, Thomas argued that disparate impact as a concept is unconstitutional.

    “Racial imbalances do not always disfavor minorities,” Thomas wrote at one point. “[F]or roughly a quarter-century now, over 70 percent of National Basketball Association players have been black.”


    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/scotus-re...ir-housing-act
    Oh FFS.

  10. #25

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2014-15

    We have GHWBush to thank for forcing this mediocrity (using the term loosely) on the country. He replaced a man of the caliber of Thurgood Marshall who must be spinning in his grave.
    "Even if you dance for your enemy on the rock, he will accuse you of splashing water on him." ~ African Proverb




  11. #26

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2014-15

    Quote Originally Posted by Ti-Amie View Post
    The Right Wing is against Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and now the ACA. I don't understand why? I mean I've read all the screaming about socialism but do they really want to take the country as a whole back to the conditions of the 19th and early 20th century? We're seeing that in Kansas and Louisiana already. To what purpose?
    Well, if you ask them the most likely answer is going to be that you can't afford all this government largess without stealing (taxes = stealing for them) even more money from hard working middle class Americans. What I think but they probably wouldn't say is that there is a social disconnect between them and those who they think consider a social underclass. They don't see much in common with them as citizens and don't see why they should help more than they are already.
    Roger forever

  12. #27

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2014-15

    Quote Originally Posted by suliso View Post
    Well, if you ask them the most likely answer is going to be that you can't afford all this government largess without stealing (taxes = stealing for them) even more money from hard working middle class Americans. What I think but they probably wouldn't say is that there is a social disconnect between them and those who they think consider a social underclass. They don't see much in common with them as citizens and don't see why they should help more than they are already.
    The irony of course is that without the New Deal and the rise of unions there would be no middle class. They're against the New Deal and against unions. So those of the middle class who support their ideas are simply ignorant or insane.
    "Even if you dance for your enemy on the rock, he will accuse you of splashing water on him." ~ African Proverb




  13. #28

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2014-15

    The entire Thomas dissent that includes the NBA comments is simply horrible.



    I'm by no means a legal scholar or used to reading legal documents but what is his point?
    "Even if you dance for your enemy on the rock, he will accuse you of splashing water on him." ~ African Proverb




  14. #29
    Senior Staff
    Forum Moderator

    Awards Showcase

    shtexas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    24,707

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2014-15

    I'm baffled.

  15. #30
    Everyday Warrior MJ2004's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,639

    Re: Supreme Court Watch 2014-15

    The Jews in Poland? Really?
    Last edited by MJ2004; 06-25-2015 at 12:56 PM.

Page 2 of 24 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •