LaxPower Back-Up Stick

"It turns out that the justices could not resist transforming Ramos into yet another quarrel over stare decisis, or respect for precedent. Gorsuch, Ginsburg, and Breyer say Powell’s concurrence has no precedential force because it’s just one man’s opinion, based on a theory that’s no longer good law. Sotomayor and Kavanaugh seem to think it is real precedent but should still be overruled. Thomas never cared about precedent and still doesn’t. Meanwhile, Alito, Roberts, and Kagan accused the majority of cavalierly overturning an entrenched precedent with no plausible justification, subjecting Oregon and Louisiana to “a potential tsunami of litigation.”

This contretemps over precedent is really just another skirmish in the court’s endless war over abortion rights. The five conservative justices have made clear they don’t think the Constitution protects the right to terminate a pregnancy. The real question is whether any of them will still stand by the court’s abortion precedents out of a duty to stare decisis. Kagan, the court’s most faithful observer of stare decisis, joined Alito’s dissent because she has been hammering the conservatives for trashing precedent when it suits them. She doesn’t want to be a hypocrite and abandon her principles just because she prefers a certain outcome. If the conservative justices overturn Roe v. Wade, Kagan can pillory them for flouting a principle she holds dear.

Sotomayor, too, was frustrated by Gorsuch’s dismissive approach to precedent. She penned a brief dissent declaring that stare decisis, while generally important, is “at its nadir” in criminal procedure cases that “implicate fundamental constitutional protections.” Kavanaugh, by contrast, wrote a cryptic concurrence setting out his own test for stare decisis that seems tailored to justify overturning Roe on the grounds that it is “grievously or egregiously wrong.”

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 20, 2020 7:29 pm
I'm not sure what the hoopla here is but glad to see you favor something that addresses Jim Crow structures.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but would you have had the same view on this if Gorsuch or Kav had argued that the Constitution doesn't speak to non-unanimous verdicts, or, more likely, that the State's rights trumped any such quibbles?

Hope your 'true conservative' pals out by the still follow your logic too.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 8:49 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 20, 2020 7:29 pm
I'm not sure what the hoopla here is but glad to see you favor something that addresses Jim Crow structures.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but would you have had the same view on this if Gorsuch or Kav had argued that the Constitution doesn't speak to non-unanimous verdicts, or, more likely, that the State's rights trumped any such quibbles?

Hope your 'true conservative' pals out by the still follow your logic too.

MDlax and a fan miss every forest as they marvel at a certain tree.

The Ramos decision is a decision which affects every American regardless of race. I realize you have a difficult time separating race from so many issues, so I think the best I can offer is, perhaps one day you'll meet a citizen in Oregon (very white!) who now no longer can be sentenced to life in prison with a non-unanimous jury. Perhaps they will explain why this decision is about civil rights and not race.

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 8:41 am i believe there is very little possibility that the "Clown Man" of yours gets re-elected. I feel like the nation is just flat tired of his schtick. Hasn't expended his base one whit, and has, in point of fact, alienated a large swath of the electorate. Just one man's opinion...

As for Roe...well, this crew sure does seem poised to nuke it. How do you think the electorate will respond to that?

..

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 5:20 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 8:49 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 20, 2020 7:29 pm
I'm not sure what the hoopla here is but glad to see you favor something that addresses Jim Crow structures.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but would you have had the same view on this if Gorsuch or Kav had argued that the Constitution doesn't speak to non-unanimous verdicts, or, more likely, that the State's rights trumped any such quibbles?

Hope your 'true conservative' pals out by the still follow your logic too.

MDlax and a fan miss every forest as they marvel at a certain tree.

The Ramos decision is a decision which affects every American regardless of race. I realize you have a difficult time separating race from so many issues, so I think the best I can offer is, perhaps one day you'll meet a citizen in Oregon (very white!) who now no longer can be sentenced to life in prison with a non-unanimous jury. Perhaps they will explain why this decision is about civil rights and not race.

huh? Sell it to your 'true conservative' friends PB.
We all know whose 'civil rights' weren't protected under Jim Crow.

But glad to see you're standing up for civil rights now, just be careful to tiptoe when explaining to your pals that it means that accused rapist of their wives and daughters no longer can be put to death if a jury member disagrees...then tell them which race the rapist is...

But hey, you forgot to actually respond to my question as to how you would see this if Gorsuch had come down the other way, based on some sort of "Constitutionalist" argument...

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 5:37 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 5:20 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 8:49 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 20, 2020 7:29 pm
I'm not sure what the hoopla here is but glad to see you favor something that addresses Jim Crow structures.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but would you have had the same view on this if Gorsuch or Kav had argued that the Constitution doesn't speak to non-unanimous verdicts, or, more likely, that the State's rights trumped any such quibbles?

Hope your 'true conservative' pals out by the still follow your logic too.

MDlax and a fan miss every forest as they marvel at a certain tree.

The Ramos decision is a decision which affects every American regardless of race. I realize you have a difficult time separating race from so many issues, so I think the best I can offer is, perhaps one day you'll meet a citizen in Oregon (very white!) who now no longer can be sentenced to life in prison with a non-unanimous jury. Perhaps they will explain why this decision is about civil rights and not race.

huh? Sell it to your 'true conservative' friends PB.
We all know whose 'civil rights' weren't protected under Jim Crow.

But glad to see you're standing up for civil rights now, just be careful to tiptoe when explaining to your pals that it means that accused rapist of their wives and daughters no longer can be put to death if a jury member disagrees...then tell them which race the rapist is...

But hey, you forgot to actually respond to my question as to how you would see this if Gorsuch had come down the other way, based on some sort of "Constitutionalist" argument...

'
Always about race...a dead giveaway that you're not a conservative, btw...

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 5:40 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 5:37 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 5:20 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 8:49 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 20, 2020 7:29 pm
I'm not sure what the hoopla here is but glad to see you favor something that addresses Jim Crow structures.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but would you have had the same view on this if Gorsuch or Kav had argued that the Constitution doesn't speak to non-unanimous verdicts, or, more likely, that the State's rights trumped any such quibbles?

Hope your 'true conservative' pals out by the still follow your logic too.

MDlax and a fan miss every forest as they marvel at a certain tree.

The Ramos decision is a decision which affects every American regardless of race. I realize you have a difficult time separating race from so many issues, so I think the best I can offer is, perhaps one day you'll meet a citizen in Oregon (very white!) who now no longer can be sentenced to life in prison with a non-unanimous jury. Perhaps they will explain why this decision is about civil rights and not race.

huh? Sell it to your 'true conservative' friends PB.
We all know whose 'civil rights' weren't protected under Jim Crow.

But glad to see you're standing up for civil rights now, just be careful to tiptoe when explaining to your pals that it means that accused rapist of their wives and daughters no longer can be put to death if a jury member disagrees...then tell them which race the rapist is...

But hey, you forgot to actually respond to my question as to how you would see this if Gorsuch had come down the other way, based on some sort of "Constitutionalist" argument...

'
Always about race...a dead giveaway that you're not a conservative, btw...

really?
So, in order to be a conservative you needed to what, support Jim Crow?

After all, we really shouldn't think that was about race...

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 5:37 pm MDlax and a fan miss every forest as they marvel at a certain tree.

The Ramos decision.....

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 5:41 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 5:40 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 5:37 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 5:20 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 8:49 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 20, 2020 7:29 pm
I'm not sure what the hoopla here is but glad to see you favor something that addresses Jim Crow structures.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but would you have had the same view on this if Gorsuch or Kav had argued that the Constitution doesn't speak to non-unanimous verdicts, or, more likely, that the State's rights trumped any such quibbles?

Hope your 'true conservative' pals out by the still follow your logic too.

MDlax and a fan miss every forest as they marvel at a certain tree.

The Ramos decision is a decision which affects every American regardless of race. I realize you have a difficult time separating race from so many issues, so I think the best I can offer is, perhaps one day you'll meet a citizen in Oregon (very white!) who now no longer can be sentenced to life in prison with a non-unanimous jury. Perhaps they will explain why this decision is about civil rights and not race.

huh? Sell it to your 'true conservative' friends PB.
We all know whose 'civil rights' weren't protected under Jim Crow.

But glad to see you're standing up for civil rights now, just be careful to tiptoe when explaining to your pals that it means that accused rapist of their wives and daughters no longer can be put to death if a jury member disagrees...then tell them which race the rapist is...

But hey, you forgot to actually respond to my question as to how you would see this if Gorsuch had come down the other way, based on some sort of "Constitutionalist" argument...

'
Always about race...a dead giveaway that you're not a conservative, btw...

really?
So, in order to be a conservative you needed to what, support Jim Crow?

After all, we really shouldn't think that was about race...

Words to live by: I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

Ignore the skin color and focus on the person.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 5:41 pm The same old horse dump here from the same old people. Roe v Wade should have been an issue the court sent back to the states to decide. Each state should decide, like NYS and other abortion loving states have done. In the real world the states would put the issue up for their voters to decide. The SCOTUS stepped on their dingus when they took this case to begin with. They have kept their foot on their dingus ever since. Then again, in the real world, no abortion loving democrat is ever going to actually let the people decide this issue. No way Jose. Oh wait, i can hear the whining and crying from the abortion loving lefties here already. CRADLE, why you want to deny a women her right to health care? Excuse me if I'm wrong but isn't the purpose for quality health care to save lives? How exactly is murdering an unborn baby a health care right? Only in the twisted mind of FLP folks does such back asswards logic make any sense.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 5:41 pm The same old horse dump here from the same old people. Roe v Wade should have been an issue the court sent back to the states to decide. Each state should decide, like NYS and other abortion loving states have done. In the real world the states would put the issue up for their voters to decide. The SCOTUS stepped on their dingus when they took this case to begin with. They have kept their foot on their dingus ever since. Then again, in the real world, no abortion loving democrat is ever going to actually let the people decide this issue. No way Jose. Oh wait, i can hear the whining and crying from the abortion loving lefties here already. CRADLE, why you want to deny a women her right to health care? Excuse me if I'm wrong but isn't the purpose for quality health care to save lives? How exactly is murdering an unborn baby a health care right? Only in the twisted mind of FLP folks does such back asswards logic make any sense.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 5:41 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 5:40 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 5:37 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 5:20 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 8:49 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 20, 2020 7:29 pm
I'm not sure what the hoopla here is but glad to see you favor something that addresses Jim Crow structures.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but would you have had the same view on this if Gorsuch or Kav had argued that the Constitution doesn't speak to non-unanimous verdicts, or, more likely, that the State's rights trumped any such quibbles?

Hope your 'true conservative' pals out by the still follow your logic too.

MDlax and a fan miss every forest as they marvel at a certain tree.

The Ramos decision is a decision which affects every American regardless of race. I realize you have a difficult time separating race from so many issues, so I think the best I can offer is, perhaps one day you'll meet a citizen in Oregon (very white!) who now no longer can be sentenced to life in prison with a non-unanimous jury. Perhaps they will explain why this decision is about civil rights and not race.

huh? Sell it to your 'true conservative' friends PB.
We all know whose 'civil rights' weren't protected under Jim Crow.

But glad to see you're standing up for civil rights now, just be careful to tiptoe when explaining to your pals that it means that accused rapist of their wives and daughters no longer can be put to death if a jury member disagrees...then tell them which race the rapist is...

But hey, you forgot to actually respond to my question as to how you would see this if Gorsuch had come down the other way, based on some sort of "Constitutionalist" argument...

'
Always about race...a dead giveaway that you're not a conservative, btw...

really?
So, in order to be a conservative you needed to what, support Jim Crow?

After all, we really shouldn't think that was about race...

Words to live by: I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

Ignore the skin color and focus on the person.

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 5:43 pm

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 5:37 pm MDlax and a fan miss every forest as they marvel at a certain tree.

The Ramos decision.....

Show me where I said one single word of praise or criticism about this SCOTUS decision.

I didn't give you an opinion on the case. Try paying attention.

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 7:01 pm Who's Ron? You lost me.

Yep. He's opening the State. You're going to run out of things to complain about soon....

njbill wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 7:46 pm If you p*ss off the Chief, you might not get many opinions assigned to you. Better lighten up there, Neil baby.

https://qz.com/1841535/scotus-chief-rob ... fund-case/