This is the Republican Party

[astonmartin708]

Ironic you brought up 303 Creative. My website designer (and client) was recently asked to build a website advocating the “evils” of abortion. She is strongly pro-choice. She calls me up and asks me if she can decline based on her political and personal beliefs. People look at these decisions only based on the fact pattern at hand and fail to consider precedent and how they will affect other situations. I believe it was not only the correct application of law but the proper moral decision due to its vast implications on both sides of the political aisle. For example, if a member of the Klan walks in my office asking me to perform the legal work for the purchase of his business, I believe I should have the freedom to decline to help him purchase that property. He can go someone else

There is a vast difference in denying service for someone’s actions and denying them service for the inherent nature of their being.

People tend to have inherent and often inert traits (race, familial religion, nationality, creed, gender / gender identity, sexual orientation)

Being a Klan member is not part of those traits.

Regardless what your opinion is, the country is moving more and more towards a societal intolerance for the intolerant, and toward protections against intolerance of constitutional defined classes. Rulings that subvert that evolution will eventually be viewed poorly, just like Dredd Scott. No matter if it was based on valid precedent or interpretation of the law at the time, it was still regressive. I’m just telling you what the millennial and gen z generations are moving towards you don’t have to like it. I’m sure souther segregationists in the 60’s and 70’s wouldn't have liked what the boomer and genx generations did for civil rights.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

There is a vast difference in denying service for someone’s actions and denying them service for the inherent nature of their being.

People tend to have inherent and often inert traits (race, familial religion, nationality, creed, gender / gender identity, sexual orientation)

Being a Klan member is not part of those traits.

Regardless what your opinion is, the country is moving more and more towards a societal intolerance for the intolerant, and toward protections against intolerance of constitutional defined classes. Rulings that subvert that evolution will eventually be viewed poorly, just like Dredd Scott. No matter if it was based on valid precedent or interpretation of the law at the time, it was still regressive. I’m just telling you what the millennial and gen z generations are moving towards you don’t have to like it. I’m sure souther segregationists in the 60’s and 70’s wouldn't have liked what the boomer and genx generations did for civil rights.

It's not so simple of an argument as that. The country as a whole is not moving so rapidly as you think. You must take your polls of gen z and millenials in large cities, instead of suburbs and rural areas. And a lot of people's viewpoint's change or become more nuanced as they age. If the US were changing so rapidly, then we wouldn't have this dichotomy in society that is on the verge of causing civil conflict.

 

[lawpoke87]

There is a vast difference in denying service for someone’s actions and denying them service for the inherent nature of their being.

People tend to have inherent and often inert traits (race, familial religion, nationality, creed, gender / gender identity, sexual orientation)

Being a Klan member is not part of those traits.

Regardless what your opinion is, the country is moving more and more towards a societal intolerance for the intolerant, and toward protections against intolerance of constitutional defined classes. Rulings that subvert that evolution will eventually be viewed poorly, just like Dredd Scott. No matter if it was based on valid precedent or interpretation of the law at the time, it was still regressive. I’m just telling you what the millennial and gen z generations are moving towards you don’t have to like it. I’m sure souther segregationists in the 60’s and 70’s wouldn't have liked what the boomer and genx generations did for civil rights.

My specific example (which you ignored) was of my website designer wanting to refuse to create an anti abortion website due to her personal beliefs. There is very little difference between my real life experience and the 303 Creative case. Again….precedents have far reaching effects. People simply either ignore or can’t overcome their political biases when it comes to look beyond current fact patterns. We see it everyday and the social media echo chamber so many people live in make the situation worse.

 

[astonmartin708]

My specific example (which you ignored) was of my website designer wanting to refuse to create an anti abortion website due to her personal beliefs. There is very little difference between my real life experience and the 303 Creative case. Again….precedents have far reaching effects. People simply either ignore or can’t overcome their political biases when it comes to look beyond current fact patterns. We see it everyday and the social media echo chamber so many people live in make the situation worse.

I didnt ignore your example. It is not the same thing as the court case. One is refusal of a political movement or people who believe that a medical procedure should be legal…. Thats not what the case dealt with. It dealt with discrimination due to sexual identity which is inherent to a person and not an adopted political position. (that’s why I made the same differentiation between your Klan example). Being a klan member is an adopted trait.

Finally, I think it’s funny that you’re so worried about the extended implications of this ruling... if anything this type of ruling is a step backwards towards the days of segregation, arguing that businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, including those listed in the civil rights act. Let’s see how opinions change in Oklahoma when a business starts to refuse service to Baptists.

 

[lawpoke87]

I didnt ignore your example. It is not the same thing as the court case. One is refusal of a political movement or people who believe that a medical procedure should be legal…. Thats not what the case dealt with. It dealt with discrimination due to sexual identity which is inherent to a person and not an adopted political position. (that’s why I made the same differentiation between your Klan example). Being a klan member is an adopted trait.

Did you read the actual decision and the application of law? The experience of my client is on point.

On June 30, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its decision, ruling in favor of 303 Creative. The Court concluded that CADA violates the First Amendment because, in its view, the Act “seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance.”

 

[astonmartin708]

Did you read the actual decision and the application of law? The experience of my client is on point.

On June 30, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its decision, ruling in favor of 303 Creative. The Court concluded that CADA violates the First Amendment because, in its view, the Act “seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance.”

Let’s start putting up the whites only drinking bathroom signs now. (Sarcasm) I’m sure there are some folks left alive in Oklahoma who would argue that minorities using their bathrooms or sitting next to their kids in schools defies their conscience about a matter of significance.

The court’s opinion is much more destructive to the fabric of society than it is protective to certain intolerant classes. Honestly, society is moving towards saying, “I don’t care what your deeply held belief is. You don’t get to use it to be an asshole to your neighbor”

Again, it’s a vailed attempt to regress past progress aimed at making our citizens to be more civil to each other. How far back to you feel we should regress? Irish need not apply?

 

[lawpoke87]

Let’s start putting up the whites only drinking bathroom signs now. (Sarcasm) I’m sure there are some folks left alive in Oklahoma who would argue that minorities using their bathrooms or sitting next to their kids in schools defies their conscience about a matter of significance.

The court’s opinion is much more destructive to the fabric of society than it is protective to certain intolerant classes. Honestly, society is moving towards saying, “I don’t care what your deeply held belief is. You don’t get to use it to be an asshole to your neighbor”

Again, it’s a vailed attempt to regress past progress aimed at making our citizens to be more civil to each other. How far back to you feel we should regress? Irish need not apply?

What does your hyperbole have to do with whether my experience with my client was applicable to the court ruling as you argued it wasn’t.

 

[astonmartin708]

What does your hyperbole have to do with whether my experience with my client was applicable to the court ruling as you argued it wasn’t.

My examples are hyperbole only in that their past precedent has not yet been retested by jerkoffs since this court case.

As far as your client‘s situation goes, that’s what I’m saying! The court, by equating your client’s type of situation with the one from the actual case misruled on the case. They shouldn’t be equal, no matter what Mr. Gorsuch and his other majority holders opined. They are not logically the same. One does not choose to be gay. They choose to support abortion.

The only gray area that actually exists in this topic to me is that of religion and sexual identity because they are technically choices; however we have historically seen that those groups, just like other minorities have been persecuted.

 

[astonmartin708]

What does your hyperbole have to do with whether my experience with my client was applicable to the court ruling as you argued it wasn’t.

My examples are hyperbole only in that their past precedent has not yet been retested by random jerkoffs since this court case.

As far as your client‘s situation goes, that’s what I’m saying! The court, by equating your clients type of situation with the one from the actual case misruled on the case. They shouldn’t be equal, no matter what Mr Gorsuch opined. If you make them equal then anyone can refuse service for any reason and that just promotes widespread intolerance, especially intolerance based on things that are intrinsic to human identity.

 

[lawpoke87]

My examples are hyperbole only in that their past precedent has not yet been retested by jerkoffs since this court case.

As far as your client‘s situation goes, that’s what I’m saying! The court, by equating your client’s type of situation with the one from the actual case misruled on the case. They shouldn’t be equal, no matter what Mr. Gorsuch and his other majority holders opined. They are not logically the same. One does not choose to be gay. They choose to support abortion.

I wasn’t speaking as to your personal opinion. No offense but Aston’s personal opinion is inconsequential when it comes to the legal application of the court’s ruling. My statement was based on the wording of the court’s decision. I find no wording limiting one’s personal beliefs must arise from a born condition. My advice to my client was legally sound based on the decision imo.

 

[astonmartin708]

I wasn’t speaking as to your personal opinion. No offense but Aston’s personal opinion is inconsequential when it comes to the legal application of the court’s ruling. My statement was based on the wording of the court’s decision. I find no wording limiting one’s personal beliefs must arise from a born condition. My advice to my client was legally sound based on the decision imo.

Apologies. Never read that this was your actual legal service, I thought you were dealing with an anecdote from a client who was paying for something else. Yes, your legal application is correct given the court's verbiage, as you stated; however, I don't think the courts opinion was correct. (I do think your client should have been okay in their situation if it were the one that the court was hearing)

Do remember, that people's opinions do matter when it comes to the law. Even when it's a minority opinion like the people who were fighting to overturn Roe, the simple fact that a large number of people feel the court's opinion was poor can matter someday. Unfortunately for me, that day will probably be 20-30 years from now when the current court starts dying off. (Stupid Bernie Bros!)

 

[lawpoke87]

Apologies. Never read that this was your actual legal service, I thought you were dealing with an anecdote from a client who was paying for something else. Yes, your legal application is correct given the court's verbiage, as you stated; however, I don't think the courts opinion was correct. (I do think your client should have been okay in their situation if it were the one that the court was hearing)

Do remember, that people's opinions do matter when it comes to the law. Even when it's a minority opinion like the people who were fighting to overturn Roe, the simple fact that a large number of people feel the court's opinion was poor can matter someday. Unfortunately for me, that day will probably be 20-30 years from now when the current court starts dying off. (Stupid Bernie Bros!)

Next time the Dems have control of the WH and both chambers they need to draft and pass legislation legalizing reasonable abortion access. Of course I’ve been saying this for years. The extreme left and moderate parts of the Dem party are going to need to compromise here.

Abortion is one issue where the far left Dems and the far right Pubs are both unhinged imo. However, the Dems will have the power once they control all three chambers to pass needed legislation.

 

[astonmartin708]

Next time the Dems have control of the WH and both chambers they need to draft and pass legislation legalizing reasonable abortion access. Of course I’ve been saying this for years. The extreme left and moderate parts of the Dem party are going to need to compromise here.

Honestly, I don't think legislation will be a fix. It would just be repealed by a subsequent congress. It needs to be constitutionally protected if supporters want to permanently protect it.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Apologies. Never read that this was your actual legal service, I thought you were dealing with an anecdote from a client who was paying for something else. Yes, your legal application is correct given the court's verbiage, as you stated; however, I don't think the courts opinion was correct. (I do think your client should have been okay in their situation if it were the one that the court was hearing)

Do remember, that people's opinions do matter when it comes to the law. Even when it's a minority opinion like the people who were fighting to overturn Roe, the simple fact that a large number of people feel the court's opinion was poor can matter someday. Unfortunately for me, that day will probably be 20-30 years from now when the current court starts dying off. (Stupid Bernie Bros!)

If the President's fall right, it could be Jackson as the only Democrat appointed Justice. That really irritates me that Trump/Congress took advantage. If somebody leaves or dies in the last 5 or 6 months of a presidency, that I can understand. What the republicans did here was underhanded. Then Ginsburg died in 4 months before Trump was out of office. It should be a 5/4 or 4/5 Supreme Court now. I wish that was regulated.

 

[HuffyCane]

There is a vast difference in denying service for someone’s actions and denying them service for the inherent nature of their being.

People tend to have inherent and often inert traits (race, familial religion, nationality, creed, gender / gender identity, sexual orientation)

Being a Klan member is not part of those traits.

Regardless what your opinion is, the country is moving more and more towards a societal intolerance for the intolerant, and toward protections against intolerance of constitutional defined classes. Rulings that subvert that evolution will eventually be viewed poorly, just like Dredd Scott. No matter if it was based on valid precedent or interpretation of the law at the time, it was still regressive. I’m just telling you what the millennial and gen z generations are moving towards you don’t have to like it. I’m sure souther segregationists in the 60’s and 70’s wouldn't have liked what the boomer and genx generations did for civil rights.

Don’t look now but the 18-22 age group is appalled by millennials and trending conservative. And are very alarmed at the free exchange of ideas that may be frustrated by AI. It’s true that they tend to be socially liberal in their private lives and views but there’s growing data that they put those aside when they vote. Your average 18-22 male voter, regardless of race, with some deviation for location, is about 6 points more conservative than the Mill Gen.

At least in actual voting performance in swing state precincts that determine national elections. Nobody cares what a stoned kid in a coffee shop in Portland thinks. Everybody cares what a 24 saving for a down payment thinks in the suburbs of Philly. So save me the trouble of ignoring an article you are tempted to link from some Axios article that used online polling and boosted on the coasts.

It appears to be driven by fiscal policy, especially among men. They are rejecting the obvious failure of Biden and have no faith in old school Republican or Populist America First economic policies. Focus groups are consistently coming back with messages like they don’t know what they believe but they believe that millennials have inflated the housing prices and they have no faith in the government to resolve it for them in time to start a family.

I was reading a report the other day that was fascinating about 18-22 women being less likely to vote for a woman because they believe it’s impossible for a woman to govern effectively in the current system because it is stacked against them. The dudes were nearly uniform in their belief that women were too weak to govern effectively in the current system. Overwhelming majorities had negative conclusions about the current system for polarized reasons. But both groups, men and women, had a pragmatic approach about the desirability of a national female candidate. The era of Hope and Change appears to be on hold until everybody can afford a down payment.

 

[lawpoke87]

Honestly, I don't think legislation will be a fix. It would just be repealed by a subsequent congress. It needs to be constitutionally protected if supporters want to permanently protect it.

Republicans will never have enough votes in the House and Senate to repeal a reasonable law which guarantees access to abortions imo. Nor do they want any part of that national discussion where they are the actors

 

[HuffyCane]

Next time the Dems have control of the WH and both chambers they need to draft and pass legislation legalizing reasonable abortion access. Of course I’ve been saying this for years. The extreme left and moderate parts of the Dem party are going to need to compromise here.

Abortion is one issue where the far left Dems and the far right Pubs are both unhinged imo. However, the Dems will have the power once they control all three chambers to pass needed legislation.

They will need 60 votes in the Senate to do that - which they will never get in the near future given the staggered nature of Senate races. Even if they could - you are talking about disrupting a multibillion dollar fundraising, messaging and advocacy machine. They will use dark money on the back side to buy no votes from purple state Dems and pressure leadership to delay or take no action once they can show the vote is in doubt.

Very few people working issue politics are true believers. They are folks who are out of power or if their friends are in power they aren’t part of the in crowd. They are trying to pay off their second vacation home. They aren’t going to allow anything stupid to happen like a legislative victory that puts them out of business.

 

[lawpoke87]

They will need 60 votes in the Senate to do that - which they will never get in the near future given the staggered nature of Senate races. Even if they could - you are talking about disrupting a multibillion dollar fundraising, messaging and advocacy machine. They will use dark money on the back side to buy no votes from purple state Dems and pressure leadership to delay or take no action once they can show the vote is in doubt.

Very few people working issue politics are true believers. They are folks who are out of power or if their friends are in power they aren’t part of the in crowd. They are trying to pay off their second vacation home. They aren’t going to allow anything stupid to happen like a legislative victory that puts them out of business.

They would need 58 Dems and independents as it stands now. Assuming Collins and Murkowski would be both supportive. Never know I suppose but certainly an uphill climb.

 

[HuffyCane]

They would need 58 Dems and independents as it stands now. Assuming Collins and Murkowski would be both supportive. Never know I suppose but certainly an uphill climb.

Everest.

I’m telling you, they will never knowingly let go of that cash cow.

See the overall. That’s why lawfare and activist courts are such an issue. It’s not just that Congress is polarized. Even if it wasn’t the issue politics true believers can’t count on folks who raise money and get elected on their issues to resolve it. So they fund lawsuits to try to legislate from the bench.

Gay marriage wasn’t a polarizing issue in 1989. A majority of Americans favored it, even in the Bible Belt. But a bi-partisan group of friends who went to prep school, the Ivy League together then worked on the Hill against each other cordially started comparing notes on what raised the most money. To their surprise, on both sides of the aisle, the direct mail response on gay marriage was off the charts. So they worked together to gin up debate at the state level and select Congressional districts. They all made hundreds of millions of dollars over the next two decades trying for a legislative fix. Until finally Justice Kennedy, a conservative, decided the issue in way nearly all Americans begrudgingly admit is the correct result even if they don’t agree with it. IOW, the result matched polling in 1989.

Watching the news and discussing politics is good entertainment. Keeps the brain flowing. But what you see on TV has absolutely nothing to do with how the system really works. And I say that as someone who regularly watches their friends give interviews on MSNBC and Fox.

 

[HuffyCane]

If the President's fall right, it could be Jackson as the only Democrat appointed Justice. That really irritates me that Trump/Congress took advantage. If somebody leaves or dies in the last 5 or 6 months of a presidency, that I can understand. What the republicans did here was underhanded. Then Ginsburg died in 4 months before Trump was out of office. It should be a 5/4 or 4/5 Supreme Court now. I wish that was regulated.

It’s regulated by a document called the Constitution of the United States. It’s only underhanded because you are uncomfortable with the result.

Ginsberg could have resigned at any time. She chose not to. She enjoyed the limelight, book deals, free foreign trips and crashing Georgetown dinner parties and diplomatic receptions roaring drunk as much as anyone who has been in DC as long as her. She didn’t want to give it up.

She’s to blame for your difficulties, not the Constitution.

 

[HuffyCane]

Republicans will never have enough votes in the House and Senate to repeal a reasonable law which guarantees access to abortions imo. Nor do they want any part of that national discussion where they are the actors

The numbers on this are alarming.

The Republican Party has been the minority party in terms of registrations since the 1930’s.

They win by forcing turnout amongst women in the suburbs, mostly college educated women who describe themselves as independent regardless of registration. So overall registrations don’t matter that much.

But the number of women first time registrations as Republican the last couple of years is shockingly low in the places that matter and being hidden in part by young men trending right. Whether it’s Trump, abortion, sending their brothers and husbands to wars, or a mix, is hard to tell I’m told by the wizards doing the numbers.

The current trend slightly right due in part to the economy is preventing the need to set off alarm bells. But if Biden wins and the economy starts favoring young people again, the Republican Party had better look out.

The potato soup of your average Republican watch party is a real problem long term. If it turns into a sausage plate, that problem will arrive much much faster.

 

[lawpoke87]

The numbers on this are alarming.

The Republican Party has been the minority party in terms of registrations since the 1930’s.

They win by forcing turnout amongst women in the suburbs, mostly college educated women who describe themselves as independent regardless of registration. So overall registrations don’t matter that much.

But the number of women first time registrations as Republican the last couple of years is shockingly low in the places that matter and being hidden in part by young men trending right. Whether it’s Trump, abortion, sending their brothers and husbands to wars, or a mix, is hard to tell I’m told by the wizards doing the numbers.

The current trend slightly right due in part to the economy is preventing the need to set off alarm bells. But if Biden wins and the economy starts favoring young people again, the Republican Party had better look out.

The potato soup of your average Republican watch party is a real problem long term. If it turns into a sausage plate, that problem will arrive much much faster.

Pubs are going to have to make significant inroads with Hispanic voters if they are to remain a viable political party longterm imo. Something I don’t believe is out of the question.

 

[HuffyCane]

Contrary to what many read and think, Hispanic voting has always fluctuated and never below 30 and around 35% to 40% Republican going back to Nixon. Those numbers grow as the population grows, now the second largest voting bloc in the country.

An exception would be W who took 45% of the Hispanic vote and could be credibly called the first Hispanic President if Bill Clinton was the first Black President. Republican nominees tend to be from high Hispanic population states. Texas, California, Arizona. Romney’s father was born in Mexico. Ford was from Michigan and tanked with Hispanic voters when he tried to eat a tamale with the husk still on.

Most are values voters. Abortion specifically. Male Hispanic voters tend to fluctuate more than women depending upon the degree of emphasis on small business in the messaging. Joe the Plumber went over well. That was just as much about Hispanic men as it was working class whites in PA.

Trump is at 46% right now nationally. It’s a majority in the swing state precincts that matter but the population is low so those numbers aren’t decisive.

In 2016 there were counties along the Mexican border in Texas that voted for Hillary by 40 points that Trump won in 2020.

The Republican future with Hispanics will be just fine. Wouldn’t surprise me at all if a Hispanic woman emerges as a credible candidate in 2024.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

It’s regulated by a document called the Constitution of the United States. It’s only underhanded because you are uncomfortable with the result.

Ginsberg could have resigned at any time. She chose not to. She enjoyed the limelight, book deals, free foreign trips and crashing Georgetown dinner parties and diplomatic receptions roaring drunk as much as anyone who has been in DC as long as her. She didn’t want to give it up.

She’s to blame for your difficulties, not the Constitution.

Did you not read all of my post. Republicans wouldn't approve an Obama nominee that he was trying to get through for a year, but they did approve a Trump nominee who died 4 months before Trump was out of office. You shouldn't be able to have it both ways. Either Obama should have been able to put a nominee through instead of Gorsuch, or Elizabeth Coney Barret's spot should have been appointed by Biden.

This has nothing to do with me being uncomfortable with the result. It has to do with what is fair in the way it is written in the constitution & what is fair apart from the constitution. It is right because the Democrats will have free reign to do it back to the Republicans next time around. Neither party should be able to consistently block multiple nominations in order to push it through to the next presidential term. And it wasn't following the spirit of how the constitution was written to do it that way.

And if you want to make it personal,(about Ginsbergs habits) we can bring up Thomas' habits. But it should not be about any one Justice's habits, it should be about following the spirit of the constitution as well as the word.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Don’t look now but the 18-22 age group is appalled by millennials and trending conservative. And are very alarmed at the free exchange of ideas that may be frustrated by AI. It’s true that they tend to be socially liberal in their private lives and views but there’s growing data that they put those aside when they vote. Your average 18-22 male voter, regardless of race, with some deviation for location, is about 6 points more conservative than the Mill Gen.

At least in actual voting performance in swing state precincts that determine national elections. Nobody cares what a stoned kid in a coffee shop in Portland thinks. Everybody cares what a 24 saving for a down payment thinks in the suburbs of Philly. So save me the trouble of ignoring an article you are tempted to link from some Axios article that used online polling and boosted on the coasts.

It appears to be driven by fiscal policy, especially among men. They are rejecting the obvious failure of Biden and have no faith in old school Republican or Populist America First economic policies. Focus groups are consistently coming back with messages like they don’t know what they believe but they believe that millennials have inflated the housing prices and they have no faith in the government to resolve it for them in time to start a family.

I was reading a report the other day that was fascinating about 18-22 women being less likely to vote for a woman because they believe it’s impossible for a woman to govern effectively in the current system because it is stacked against them. The dudes were nearly uniform in their belief that women were too weak to govern effectively in the current system. Overwhelming majorities had negative conclusions about the current system for polarized reasons. But both groups, men and women, had a pragmatic approach about the desirability of a national female candidate. The era of Hope and Change appears to be on hold until everybody can afford a down payment.

I have a small problem with how you are applying polling to the issue. I am assuming you are talking about polls or one poll dealing w/ that age group, of whom those polled actually voted. Most people who vote that young tend more conservative. The stoner in anywhere USA, will calm down his or her lifestyle and become conservative or liberal later in life, when they begin to vote.

That the poll of young voters tending more conservative is normal during most eras. So that kind of poll will lean at least a little more conservative than the general populace that votes in that age group, 10 or 15 years from now. So that isn't exactly a sign of where we will be with that generation then.

 

[HuffyCane]

Did you not read all of my post. Republicans wouldn't approve an Obama nominee that he was trying to get through for a year, but they did approve a Trump nominee who died 4 months before Trump was out of office. You shouldn't be able to have it both ways. Either Obama should have been able to put a nominee through instead of Gorsuch, or Elizabeth Coney Barret's spot should have been appointed by Biden.

This has nothing to do with me being uncomfortable with the result. It has to do with what is fair in the way it is written in the constitution & what is fair apart from the constitution. It is right because the Democrats will have free reign to do it back to the Republicans next time around. Neither party should be able to consistently block multiple nominations in order to push it through to the next presidential term. And it wasn't following the spirit of how the constitution was written to do it that way.

And if you want to make it personal,(about Ginsbergs habits) we can bring up Thomas' habits. But it should not be about any one Justice's habits, it should be about following the spirit of the constitution as well as the word.

Spirit is in the eye of the beholder.

If it was intended the way you say, it would have been written that way.

No Democratic operative who does this stuff for money at a high level would admit it, but they all acknowledge deep down they would do the same.

If Republicans in the Senate mis-apply what is provided for in the Constitution in a way the public disagrees with, they are held accountable in the next election.

Thats why our system works better than any other idea I’ve heard about yet.

 

[HuffyCane]

I have a small problem with how you are applying polling to the issue. I am assuming you are talking about polls or one poll dealing w/ that age group, of whom those polled actually voted. Most people who vote that young tend more conservative. The stoner in anywhere USA, will calm down his or her lifestyle and become conservative or liberal later in life, when they begin to vote.

That the poll of young voters tending more conservative is normal during most eras. So that kind of poll will lean at least a little more conservative than the general populace that votes in that age group, 10 or 15 years from now. So that isn't exactly a sign of where we will be with that generation then.

Not just likely voters (whatever the heck that means) but voters in that age group who actually voted last cycle and reside in well defined areas within swing states that both sides agree decides those states and therefore can be decisive in Presidential elections when using certain strategies. IOW, the voters that matter. As Clinton found out the hard way.

Disagree with your assertion that younger people who actually vote tend conservative. Registrations and actual votes cast on a national basis favor Dems by a wide margin. I’m talking about specific areas of the country. Not just counties or city blocks, but in some cases one side of the street and not the other. And on some sides of the street, some young Republicans and not others.

You would be shocked at the granular data Get Out The Vote folks have on you, how they up load it to the web, and push it out to volunteers on the street to their cell phones to make sure everything is done to get you out to vote. And not waste time on people who will vote for sure or never in a million years vote.

Again, as Bernie Sanders operatives working for Clinton found out with their clipboards and notecards.

 

[lawpoke87]

Colorado Dems just lost 9-0 in the Supreme Court in their effort to keep Trump off the ballot. Don’t see unanimous rulings very often

 

[HuffyCane]

I will be very surprised if it is not an opinion by the Chief Justice and its not 9-0 in favor of President Trump.

There might be a special concurrence by Kagan but I doubt it.

This isn’t some random state Supreme Court where all the justices are re-appointed by reliably Democratic governors. As is the case in Colorado. They must vote the party line to keep their jobs.

This is the U.S. Supreme Court.

They think about the separation of powers, the 10th Amendment, and insulation from political influence in ways your average Harvard law school graduate with 30 years of appellate judicial experience can’t even dream of.

The ruling is going to be swift and severe and consistent with all the other decisions at the trial level in other states that threw this lawsuit into the waste paper basket where it belongs - along with all the junk election contest and recount litigation from 2020.

Don’t believe me? President Trump waived the right to oral argument today on the merits. He’s spent hundreds of millions of dollars running for the most powerful office in the world, and he isn’t going to argue in person for something that could disqualify him. It is arguably the most important constitutional decision before the Court since Reconstruction. And he doesn’t want his day in court. He doesn’t think he needs it. And he’s right.

*takes a bow*

 

[HuffyCane]

As a member of the bar of the U.S. Supreme Court, I am proud of it as an institution today. I was only able to skim the decision, I will have to read it and think about it at length later. First impressions:

As predicted, each Justice takes seriously their responsibilities to defend our government institutions and the integrity of each, not just the court.

My first reaction is that the opinion relies in part on the remarks of the floor debates at the time of the adoption of the amendment. Hard shell textualists, of which the court is accused of being frequently, will recoil in horror at seeing a present day court rely upon a single Congressman's remarks to understand what was meant or intended by the full body when the particular words were adopted. The Court is not hard line. It was willing to concede multiple ways of resolving these important questions and willing to incorporate those perspectives to obtain a consensus opinion as I predicted. Our court system works, despite the best efforts of political hacks to discredit it.

Second, the remarks of the Sotomayor led concurrence in part appear to be well taken. The Court appears to have exceeded the boundaries necessary to resolve the question. That is unusual especially for a Court whose individual Justices in a typical working majority talk a lot in their individual capacity about judicial restraint. I need to think about that some more.

Third, Justice Barrett appears to be writing like the mother of many small children she is. Chiding both sides for bickering and talking about unity. Taking the path that college educated independent women voters in the suburbs can self identify with. Should be interesting how her role plays out in the future with the Court given her choice to speak out here in such a high profile case. She may discover she has less support from both sides.

Fourth, I predict the MSNBC spin machine will attempt to cast this as a 6-3 decision even though it is clearly unanimous and uses the word unanimous at the end of the opinion. If so, it is our press that is broken, not our country.

 

[lawpoke87]

Unsettling that the highest court in Colorado would knowingly violate the Constitution based solely on politics. Such is the state of this country I suppose.

 

[HuffyCane]

Unsettling that the highest court in Colorado would knowingly violate the Constitution based solely on politics. Such is the state of this country I suppose.

Everybody’s got a house payment and a boss in this process. Never forget that.

They did what they had to do to continue to pay their bills and be popular at the parties they get invited to.

There are very few martyrs in American politics. Even the scapegoats get taken care of in the end. One way or another.

If there’s a problem here, it’s how the Colorado Supreme Court selects judges not how they behave. You would expect better of them sure, but then again given the structure you can’t expect anything else.

 

[lawpoke87]

The Colorado Secretary of State weighs in. Keep in mind she’s an attorney. Lines up with Huffy’s analysis. Not sure how you can be “stripped” of an authority you never constitutional had but here we are in 2024

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Spirit is in the eye of the beholder.

If it was intended the way you say, it would have been written that way.

No Democratic operative who does this stuff for money at a high level would admit it, but they all acknowledge deep down they would do the same.

If Republicans in the Senate mis-apply what is provided for in the Constitution in a way the public disagrees with, they are held accountable in the next election.

Thats why our system works better than any other idea I’ve heard about yet.

That's BS. Republicans have never done it before & Democrats have never done it before. This is the first time. and it's because parties are now ignoring all sense of decorum. Voters don't hold them accountable, they just accept it as the way it is now, when they wish it was 10 or 20 years ago when it was different. Besides, voters go with the flow. If it's one party who changes the rules because they can, the voters of that party don't generally hold them accountable, they just bitch the next time around when the other party is doing the same.

This system is being strained right now because all norms are being ignored and the system didn't define those norms in a very specific way. It's not working better than any other idea or system we've heard about right now. It used to work better than any other system, before Trump. Trump is taking advantage along with idiots like Gaetz, Majorie Taylor Greene, etc.

The dictates of the government weren't written specifically, in order to let them expand and contract with the times, not be gamed by someone like Trump. Our democracy is being tested and it isn't doing very well. There were individuals in Congress and Congress as a whole who were testing it before Trump. But Trump just threw out every rule he could warp to fit his own design, and got his converts to win elections and help him do even more damage.

 

[HuffyCane]

As a member of the bar of the U.S. Supreme Court, I am proud of it as an institution today. I was only able to skim the decision, I will have to read it and think about it at length later. First impressions:

As predicted, each Justice takes seriously their responsibilities to defend our government institutions and the integrity of each, not just the court.

My first reaction is that the opinion relies in part on the remarks of the floor debates at the time of the adoption of the amendment. Hard shell textualists, of which the court is accused of being frequently, will recoil in horror at seeing a present day court rely upon a single Congressman's remarks to understand what was meant or intended by the full body when the particular words were adopted. The Court is not hard line. It was willing to concede multiple ways of resolving these important questions and willing to incorporate those perspectives to obtain a consensus opinion as I predicted. Our court system works, despite the best efforts of political hacks to discredit it.

Second, the remarks of the Sotomayor led concurrence in part appear to be well taken. The Court appears to have exceeded the boundaries necessary to resolve the question. That is unusual especially for a Court whose individual Justices in a typical working majority talk a lot in their individual capacity about judicial restraint. I need to think about that some more.

Third, Justice Barrett appears to be writing like the mother of many small children she is. Chiding both sides for bickering and talking about unity. Taking the path that college educated independent women voters in the suburbs can self identify with. Should be interesting how her role plays out in the future with the Court given her choice to speak out here in such a high profile case. She may discover she has less support from both sides.

Fourth, I predict the MSNBC spin machine will attempt to cast this as a 6-3 decision even though it is clearly unanimous and uses the word unanimous at the end of the opinion. If so, it is our press that is broken, not our country.

Fifth, the grammar and word choice in this opinion is notable.

Listen to how Barack Obama gave speeches and listen to LBJ. LBJ was trained as a country school teacher. He spoke slowly. He used very short sentences and the most very basic grammar possible when addressing the nation. He understood his audience was the public and his base was New Deal Democrats most without formal education. Obama for all his impressive oratory spoke at times like he was lecturing at the University of Chicago again.

This opinion at several points spends sentences explaining concepts in plain short words and sentences that could be explained to lawyers in a single word or phrase of a legal significance.

It’s clearly an attempt to send a message to the public that they want the public to learn and understand what they are doing and to be clear for future generations why they did what they did.

It may also be a message to the other two branches to get their act in order and start working together.

 

[drboobay]

I am no lawyer but it seemed wrong to leave someone off the ballot that had not been convicted of the offense noted constitutionally. It seems the court went further than this, however.

 

[lawpoke87]

I am no lawyer but it seemed wrong to leave someone off the ballot that had not been convicted of the offense noted constitutionally. It seems the court went further than this, however.

I read it as a message to states to quit removing candidates for federal office from their ballots as that is a Congressional responsibility under Section 3.

 

[aTUfan]

Unsettling that the highest court in Colorado would knowingly violate the Constitution based solely on politics. Such is the state of this country I suppose.

isn't Colorado guilty of tampering with the election and trying to change the ultimate result? when is their trial.

 

[astonmartin708]

Republicans will never have enough votes in the House and Senate to repeal a reasonable law which guarantees access to abortions imo. Nor do they want any part of that national discussion where they are the actors

That is not a guarantee. It's a hope. Also, it would need such a Democratic majority to happen at all, that it's unlikely in the first place given.

 

[lawpoke87]

That is not a guarantee. It's a hope. Also, it would need such a Democratic majority to happen at all, that it's unlikely in the first place given.

It will be an uphill climb. Confidence in our state courts to render unbiased decisons isn’t currently very high among a number of Pubs.