SCOTUS

[seacoaster]

Be prepared to hate Amy Coney Barrett!! Smarter than Gorsuch, attractive

You're holding your IQ scale upside-down if you think she's smarter than Gorsuch.

And why is "attractive" on your list of attributes? Is Gorsuch "attractive"?

PB has a little thing for Dr. Birx. Let's not dive too deep. I'm begging you.

[Peter Brown]

Be prepared to hate Amy Coney Barrett!! Smarter than Gorsuch, attractive

You're holding your IQ scale upside-down if you think she's smarter than Gorsuch.

And why is "attractive" on your list of attributes? Is Gorsuch "attractive"?

I do find the nature of being attractive a pleasant attribute. Yes I do. No shame admitting it either! Most people if they are honest would agree.

Gorsuch is handsome no doubt, but that isn't the way I go, so I say that strictly as an observer with no dog in the hunt, so to speak.

[Peter Brown]

Be prepared to hate Amy Coney Barrett!! Smarter than Gorsuch, attractive

You're holding your IQ scale upside-down if you think she's smarter than Gorsuch.

And why is "attractive" on your list of attributes? Is Gorsuch "attractive"?

PB has a little thing for Dr. Birx. Let's not dive too deep. I'm begging you.

She's attractive, man. You can not deny that! Not my age category, but the lady carries herself sublimely. Her husband is a lucky dude.

Big fan!

[Peter Brown]

Me, I don’t love Neil Gorsuch. I don’t hold it against him personally that he is illegitimate, however. Not his fault that McConnell is a traitor to the constitution.

Sorry, but Gorsuch is just as much of a traitor to the Constitution as McConnell. The principled thing for Gorsuch to do was to refuse the nomination.

Be prepared to hate Amy Coney Barrett!! Smarter than Gorsuch, attractive, well-spoken, well-liked, and unfortunately for Dems, a bit of a Constitutionalist freak, and will take RBG's seat as soon as it's free.

She and Gorsuch will preserve American exceptionalism. Rock and roll.

Back to work!

I can't believe I am asking this, but there is no PB Glossary, so here goes: what is a "constitutionalist"?

i am not doing this again, too long of an answer. Scalia was one. Gorsuch another. Those are the only two that I consider true contitutionalists. Barrett is a 3rd and I can not wait to support her nomination!

[seacoaster]

Me, I don’t love Neil Gorsuch. I don’t hold it against him personally that he is illegitimate, however. Not his fault that McConnell is a traitor to the constitution.

Sorry, but Gorsuch is just as much of a traitor to the Constitution as McConnell. The principled thing for Gorsuch to do was to refuse the nomination.

Be prepared to hate Amy Coney Barrett!! Smarter than Gorsuch, attractive, well-spoken, well-liked, and unfortunately for Dems, a bit of a Constitutionalist freak, and will take RBG's seat as soon as it's free.

She and Gorsuch will preserve American exceptionalism. Rock and roll.

Back to work!

I can't believe I am asking this, but there is no PB Glossary, so here goes: what is a "constitutionalist"?

i am not doing this again, too long of an answer. Scalia was one. Gorsuch another. Those are the only two that I consider true contitutionalists. Barrett is a 3rd and I can not wait to support her nomination!

Agreed; if the answer was "long," I am happy to forego it. Thanks and "back to work."

[MDlaxfan76]

Me, I don’t love Neil Gorsuch. I don’t hold it against him personally that he is illegitimate, however. Not his fault that McConnell is a traitor to the constitution.

Sorry, but Gorsuch is just as much of a traitor to the Constitution as McConnell. The principled thing for Gorsuch to do was to refuse the nomination.

Be prepared to hate Amy Coney Barrett!! Smarter than Gorsuch, attractive, well-spoken, well-liked, and unfortunately for Dems, a bit of a Constitutionalist freak, and will take RBG's seat as soon as it's free.

She and Gorsuch will preserve American exceptionalism. Rock and roll.

Back to work!

I can't believe I am asking this, but there is no PB Glossary, so here goes: what is a "constitutionalist"?

i am not doing this again, too long of an answer. Scalia was one. Gorsuch another. Those are the only two that I consider true contitutionalists. Barrett is a 3rd and I can not wait to support her nomination!

Agreed; if the answer was "long," I am happy to forego it. Thanks and "back to work."

I think he's simply confused. But ahh well.

[njbill]

there is no PB Glossary

Actually, they are available on Amazon. If you buy one, you will then be asked if you also want to purchase the RRR to English Dictionary.

[a fan]

Me, I don’t love Neil Gorsuch. I don’t hold it against him personally that he is illegitimate, however. Not his fault that McConnell is a traitor to the constitution.

Sorry, but Gorsuch is just as much of a traitor to the Constitution as McConnell. The principled thing for Gorsuch to do was to refuse the nomination.

Be prepared to hate Amy Coney Barrett!! Smarter than Gorsuch, attractive, well-spoken, well-liked, and unfortunately for Dems, a bit of a Constitutionalist freak, and will take RBG's seat as soon as it's free.

She and Gorsuch will preserve American exceptionalism. Rock and roll.

Back to work!

I can't believe I am asking this, but there is no PB Glossary, so here goes: what is a "constitutionalist"?

i am not doing this again, too long of an answer. Scalia was one. Gorsuch another.

[seacoaster]

there is no PB Glossary

Actually, they are available on Amazon. If you buy one, you will then be asked if you also want to purchase the RRR to English Dictionary.

Hah! I leave RRR translation efforts to our Distiller-in-Chief.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/23/supreme ... -case.html

[Peter Brown]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/23/supreme ... -case.html

I thought the conservatives always voted with each other and are fascists! Especially Brett Kavanaugh! Rapist!! (insert Howard Dean scream)

One of the more amusing and constant lies by our media (which libs absolutely eat up!) is that their fellow SCOTUS libs are the beknighted paragon examplars of truth and justice, when what they really are are just bought and paid for DNC shills. The only one of the 4 libs that even considers occasionally venturing off the DNC reservation (but only when her vote doesn't count!) is Kagan; Kagan wants that sweet re-invite to the Bohemian Grove every summer hence the occasional head fake 'I swear I'm neutral'.

Meanwhile, Roberts/Gorsuch/Kavanaugh constantly confound their liberal critics on meaningful votes like this one. Which should tell the lib board posters here, but of course won't, is that the kind of justice you want on SCOTUS is what you think is 'conservative', since they are the only ones who actually pause to consider the law when issuing opinions.

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/23/supreme ... -case.html

I thought the conservatives always voted with each other and are fascists! Especially Brett Kavanaugh! Rapist!! (insert Howard Dean scream)

One of the more amusing and constant lies by our media (which libs absolutely eat up!) is that their fellow SCOTUS libs are the beknighted paragon examplars of truth and justice, when what they really are are just bought and paid for DNC shills. The only one of the 4 lis that even considers occasionally venturing off the DNC reservation (but only when her vote doesn't count!) is Kagan; Kagan wants that sweet re-invite to the Bohemian Grove every summer hence the occasional head fake 'I swear I'm neutral'.

Meanwhile, Roberts/Gorsuch/Kavanaugh constantly confound their liberal critics on meaningful votes like this one. Which should tell the lib board posters here, but of course won't, is that the kind of justice you want on SCOTUS is what you think is 'conservative', since they ar the only ones who actually pause to consider the law when issuing opinions.

Doesn't it tell you something, PB, when the Trump/Barr case is so bad that they lose even Kavanaugh as well as Roberts?

That's my takeaway.

[Peter Brown]

I thought the conservatives always voted with each other and are fascists! Especially Brett Kavanaugh! Rapist!! (insert Howard Dean scream)

One of the more amusing and constant lies by our media (which libs absolutely eat up!) is that their fellow SCOTUS libs are the beknighted paragon examplars of truth and justice, when what they really are are just bought and paid for DNC shills. The only one of the 4 lis that even considers occasionally venturing off the DNC reservation (but only when her vote doesn't count!) is Kagan; Kagan wants that sweet re-invite to the Bohemian Grove every summer hence the occasional head fake 'I swear I'm neutral'.

Meanwhile, Roberts/Gorsuch/Kavanaugh constantly confound their liberal critics on meaningful votes like this one. Which should tell the lib board posters here, but of course won't, is that the kind of justice you want on SCOTUS is what you think is 'conservative', since they ar the only ones who actually pause to consider the law when issuing opinions.

Doesn't it tell you something, PB, when the Trump/Barr case is so bad that they lose even Kavanaugh as well as Roberts?

That's my takeaway.

Not at all. Every administration will defend cases or bring cases that reflect the political bent of that administration. And in all honesty, I hardly even understand this case (I happen to be a big backer of clean water proposals, so my heart lies with the Hawaii Wildlife Fund). This case is complicated and you probably should read multiple articles before deciding what the decision actually meant. This Reuters article is very different in tone from the CNBC one, for example:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN2252HB


The real message is when libs always scream that SCOTUS is made up of 5 solidly and automatically robotic conservative jurists, the truth could not be further away. It is a very rare sight to see the 4 liberal jurists break from each other, and when they do, the cases are meaningless or the vote tallies do not change the balance. The 'conservatives' often break from each other, even on meaningful cases.

[MDlaxfan76]

True, the 'conservatives' do not always vote together on every issue. However, not true that the 'liberals' always vote as a block though.

And, yes, it is complicated.

But in reality, most votes are 9-0 or 8-1.

Here's the question for you, PB, do you think that Trump in 3 years and change has had less or more cases go against his Administration's position than did Obama in 8 years?

[seacoaster]

The case is part of the ongoing doctrinal fight over statutory interpretation, which has been going on at the Supreme Court for decades now. Thomas and Gorsuch are part of the cabal that demands that regulators go only to the text of the statute, and do no more. In this case, they cavil with the majority (the Chief, Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Kavanaugh) looking beyond the text. Here is Thomas's opening:

"Based on the statutory text and structure, I would hold that a permit is required only when a point source discharges pollutants directly into navigable
waters. The Court adopts this interpretation in part, concluding that a permit is required for “a direct discharge.” Ante, at 15. But the Court then departs from the statutory text by requiring a permit for “the functional equivalent of a direct discharge,” ibid., which it defines through an open-ended inquiry into congressional intent and practical considerations. Because I would adhere to the text, I respectfully dissent."

The text-only crowd would tell you, I think, that all they want is for Congress to do a better job at defining the scope of the executive agency's/administrator's powers, because otherwise too much discretion is left in the hands of un-elected and less than accountable (prepare yourself for the dread word...) "bureaucrats." The problem with this is, well, reality. Congress has always been a sausage factory, and sometimes cuts deals in the name of consensus, deliberately leaving it to the agency charged with enforcement to propose and promulgate regulations. Over time, the challenge is made in the Courts and the courts look to the Congress's intentions, expressed in the legislative history. Where the proponents of tighter definitions should now go is back to the Congress.

[cradleandshoot]

True, the 'conservatives' do not always vote together on every issue. However, not true that the 'liberals' always vote as a block though.

And, yes, it is complicated.

But in reality, most votes are 9-0 or 8-1.

Here's the question for you, PB, do you think that Trump in 3 years and change has had less or more cases go against his Administration's position than did Obama in 8 years?

Have to disagree with you here MD. I can't think of the last time on a major decision the liberal wing has not been 100% in lockstep with FLP ideology. They know and understand when it is time to get their FLP ducks in a nice strait row. No wobbling to the right is allowed.

[MDlaxfan76]

True, the 'conservatives' do not always vote together on every issue. However, not true that the 'liberals' always vote as a block though.

And, yes, it is complicated.

But in reality, most votes are 9-0 or 8-1.

Here's the question for you, PB, do you think that Trump in 3 years and change has had less or more cases go against his Administration's position than did Obama in 8 years?

Have to disagree with you here MD. I can't think of the last time on a major decision the liberal wing has not been 100% in lockstep with FLP ideology. They know and understand when it is time to get their FLP ducks in a nice strait row. No wobbling to the right is allowed.

Not true, we just had one in which Kagan was with Roberts, etc.

The more interesting question is the comparative record of the Admin's of Trump and Obama. For that matter, could have said Trump and Bush.

The Trump DOJ is taking positions which force reasonable Justices to rule against them...with some regularity.

[cradleandshoot]

True, the 'conservatives' do not always vote together on every issue. However, not true that the 'liberals' always vote as a block though.

And, yes, it is complicated.

But in reality, most votes are 9-0 or 8-1.

Here's the question for you, PB, do you think that Trump in 3 years and change has had less or more cases go against his Administration's position than did Obama in 8 years?

Have to disagree with you here MD. I can't think of the last time on a major decision the liberal wing has not been 100% in lockstep with FLP ideology. They know and understand when it is time to get their FLP ducks in a nice strait row. No wobbling to the right is allowed.

Not true, we just had one in which Kagan was with Roberts, etc.

The more interesting question is the comparative record of the Admin's of Trump and Obama. For that matter, could have said Trump and Bush.

The Trump DOJ is taking positions which force reasonable Justices to rule against them...with some regularity.

So much for just calling balls and strikes. I do not think this is unique just to Trump DOJ. The SCOTUS has become a battle zone between left and right. I may be too naive, I thought the SCOTUS made decisions based on how they interpret the constitution. It seems they now have to consider public opinion in their decision making.

[MDlaxfan76]

True, the 'conservatives' do not always vote together on every issue. However, not true that the 'liberals' always vote as a block though.

And, yes, it is complicated.

But in reality, most votes are 9-0 or 8-1.

Here's the question for you, PB, do you think that Trump in 3 years and change has had less or more cases go against his Administration's position than did Obama in 8 years?

Have to disagree with you here MD. I can't think of the last time on a major decision the liberal wing has not been 100% in lockstep with FLP ideology. They know and understand when it is time to get their FLP ducks in a nice strait row. No wobbling to the right is allowed.

Not true, we just had one in which Kagan was with Roberts, etc.

The more interesting question is the comparative record of the Admin's of Trump and Obama. For that matter, could have said Trump and Bush.

The Trump DOJ is taking positions which force reasonable Justices to rule against them...with some regularity.

So much for just calling balls and strikes. I do not think this is unique just to Trump DOJ. The SCOTUS has become a battle zone between left and right. I may be too naive, I thought the SCOTUS made decisions based on how they interpret the constitution. It seems they now have to consider public opinion in their decision making.

Quite the opposite...the conservative Justices are ruling against the Trump DOJ...because the positions being taken simply don't pass constitutional muster...that's because those positions are so extreme as to be untenable. Even so, they often hold onto a couple of conservatives.

[cradleandshoot]

True, the 'conservatives' do not always vote together on every issue. However, not true that the 'liberals' always vote as a block though.

And, yes, it is complicated.

But in reality, most votes are 9-0 or 8-1.

Here's the question for you, PB, do you think that Trump in 3 years and change has had less or more cases go against his Administration's position than did Obama in 8 years?

Have to disagree with you here MD. I can't think of the last time on a major decision the liberal wing has not been 100% in lockstep with FLP ideology. They know and understand when it is time to get their FLP ducks in a nice strait row. No wobbling to the right is allowed.

Not true, we just had one in which Kagan was with Roberts, etc.

The more interesting question is the comparative record of the Admin's of Trump and Obama. For that matter, could have said Trump and Bush.

The Trump DOJ is taking positions which force reasonable Justices to rule against them...with some regularity.

So much for just calling balls and strikes. I do not think this is unique just to Trump DOJ. The SCOTUS has become a battle zone between left and right. I may be too naive, I thought the SCOTUS made decisions based on how they interpret the constitution. It seems they now have to consider public opinion in their decision making.

Quite the opposite...the conservative Justices are ruling against the Trump DOJ...because the positions being taken simply don't pass constitutional muster...that's because those positions are so extreme as to be untenable. Even so, they often hold onto a couple of conservatives.

You have me way over my head here. The SCOTUS stuff always fascinates me. When I had cable I could listen to the cases being heard in front of the court for hours. The legal opinions they come up with on both sides are often way too complicated for my pay grade. The one thing I do know is if Trump was not happy with any SCOTUS judge you would certainly read his tweets. My self I gave up reading anything from Trump a long time ago. That is one of the benefits of not having cable. I have become addicted again to watching old reruns of Adam 12 and Dragnet. Just the facts mam... great line. Simple things are better than trying to figure out anything that goes on in DC.