The Supreme Court discussion thread
7 States have passed bills this year which place new restrictions on abortion. Alabama's new law, in particular, is a ne
Tha dobbs didn't remove any right because there wasn't any right to begin with. Dobbs removed a limitation of state rights in deciding how much to allow abortion. And you can move to where the state regulates abortion in a way you like.Something you can't do to avoid the effects on your life of commerce clause abuses.the difference is enormous, and you know it. California wants
Most people recognize this country grew into a superpower because of the strong federal govt, not the state system. Only the "state rights" nutters think that going backwards makes any sense. Their opinions on how to govern here carry about as much weight as Italian nutters.
Most people recognize this country grew into a superpower because of the strong federal govt, not the state system. Only the "state rights" nutters think that going backwards makes any sense. Their opinions on how to govern here carry about as much weight as Italian nutters.
The USA was already a super power before FDR, they won WW1 with the commerce clause still being interpreted as before mostly, with almost 0 federal regulation and so on.
You might be confusing the need for significant fiscal power (16a) was an important element to achieve that (which I can agree with) with the idea that imposing the same standards to butcher meat in different states is what made the USA great (lol at that).
Federal militaries require federal tax revenues.
Economic success requires competition between regulatory models
Isn't he proving that beyond "probably cause" with every post. He is like the nutters that believe income taxes are unconstitutional and cite all kinds of irrelevant **** to make their argument.
Isn't he proving that beyond "probably cause" with every post. He is like the nutters that believe income taxes are unconstitutional and cite all kinds of irrelevant **** to make their argument.
The EO of a socialist president was confirmed legal and constitutional violating the constitution by the court. That's the left winning.
The SCOTUS which judged Korematsu was composed of 8 FDR nominees, and 1 Hoover nominee.
6 FDR communist nominees voted for the legality of the racist and inconstitutional EO by FDR. The Hoover nominee and 2 more decent a little less communist judges voted against.
Calling any decision of that court anything but leftist is absurd.
You could call it democrats who gave into to racist conservative concerns at the expense of individual liberty for concerns about national safety. Your labeling it leftist isn't very convincing given that it fits with many of the fascist theories you continue to put forward here.
if FDR and his SCOTUS aren't leftist words have no meaning.
keep in mind leftism wasn't necessarily cultural progressive at the time.
The topic is leftist judges raped the constitution more than right-wing judges in the last 80+ years.
Doesn't have to be in a direction current leftists agree with.
Che Guevara hated homosexuals, still an iconic leftist.
in fact you avoided trollson comment before, now you decide to try to die on the hill of "FDR and the SCOTUS where he nominated everyone except one person wasn't actually on the left", have fun
The USA was already a super power before FDR, they won WW1 with the commerce clause still being interpreted as before mostly, with almost 0 federal regulation and so on.You might be confusing the need for significant fiscal power (16a) was an important element to achieve that (which I can agree with) with the idea that imposing the same standards to butcher meat in different st
I think your history is pretty off. The Marshal Court first used the Commerce Clause in the early 1800's. It was then used demonstratively again in the late 30s and early 40s with FDR.
I don't think the USA won WW1 (certainly we were Allies) in the same sense that we ended WW2. The term "superpower" can into play after WW2 and the advancement of nuclear weapons and the concept of USA and USSR being the world police. Advocates of states rights did not build and grow the nation.
But again,the Commerce Clause is used to take power away from state govts, not the individual rights of the citizens. It's not the same no matter how many times to try to claim.
Again, why do you think the state constitutions list out individual rights if they are synonymous?
i
in fact you avoided trollson comment before, now you decide to try to die on the hill of "FDR and the SCOTUS where he nominated everyone except one person wasn't actually on the left", have fun
Lol you can't stay on topic, can you? I responded to Trolly because of your avoidance and your ridiculous mantra that everything you disagree with is leftist values. In that case I think the Democratic judges gave in and responded as conservatives would. "Incarcerate the potential enemies of society" is a conservative principle, as you constantly preach.
lol
Black's views were not uniformly liberal. During World War II, he wrote the majority opinion in Korematsu v. United States (1944), which upheld the internment of Japanese Americans ordered by the president Franklin Roosevelt.
The USA was already a super power before FDR, they won WW1 with the commerce clause still being interpreted as before mostly, with almost 0 federal regulation and so on.
It's true that Wickard v. Filburn (a New Deal decision) effectively ushered in an era of the broadest possible interpretation of the Commerce Clause. But long before FDR, the Commerce Clause was interpreted very broadly as authorization for Congress to pass legislation that did not obviously relate to what you would think of as "commerce."
It's true that Wickard v. Filburn (a New Deal decision) effectively ushered in an era of the broadest possible interpretation of the Commerce Clause. But long before FDR, the Commerce Clause was interpreted very broadly as authorization for Congress to pass legislation that did not obviously relate to what you would think of as "commerce."
Please post more. You're one of the few here where you know your **** and if you don't, you actually do some research and that you don't have an obvious results-driven agenda.
Please post more. You're one of the few here where you know your **** and if you don't, you actually do some research and that you don't have an obvious results-driven agenda.
+1
Aren't we supposed to preserve what's worked? Even if something was decided wrongly, after 50 years of people getting used to it and not causing people outrage, seems like a good case for letting the ruling stand. Otherwise it sounds just like the supposed sins of progressivism, ruling to get an outcome one prefers without regards to the wisdom of society.
You mean how all anti black legislation worked for over a century?
No
Communists wouldn't be in favor of detaining people they suspected are related to a crime?
Communists wouldn't be in favor of detaining people they suspected are related to a crime?
I assure you that none of Supreme Court justices were Communists.
These debates never go anywhere. Luciom called them communists because he has a highly idiosyncratic definition of the word.
These debates never go anywhere. Luciom called them communists because he has a highly idiosyncratic definition of the word.
Luciom thinks Hitler was a communist lol.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/ng-inter...
Dunno what i was expecting here, at least Gorsuch as usual is on the right side of the law.
Treating unrealized capital gains as income is absurd but at least leftists will cheerish the decision and the vote of Alito agreeing with them especially i guess right?
Anyone with a passing familiary with American con law history knows the commerce clause was getting increasingly powerful well before the Great Depression, almost as soon as it became obvious the colonies' economies were so interwined it was hard to determine what is NOT interstate commerce.
Anyone with a passing familiary with American con law history knows the commerce clause was getting increasingly powerful well before the Great Depression, almost as soon as it became obvious the colonies' economies were so interwined it was hard to determine what is NOT interstate commerce.
Ever heard of the Lochner era?
Anyone with a passing familiary with American con law history knows the commerce clause was getting increasingly powerful well before the Great Depression, almost as soon as it became obvious the colonies' economies were so interwined it was hard to determine what is NOT interstate commerce.
That was the exact point I made.
Are you under the impression that most of the laissez faire decisions in the Lochner era were grounded in a narrow construction of the Commerce Clause? That is incorrect.
They were grounded in an expansive interpretation of the 14th amendment and the notion that substantive due process included protections for economic freedoms.
The Lochner era is widely regarded as a period of extreme judicial activism. Here is a summary:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lochner_...
It's understandable that a non-lawyer from Italy would be a little hazy about the doctrinal underpinnings of U.S. Supreme Court decisions from the early 20th century. But it also would be better if you had some awareness of what you do not know.
8-1 against the 5th circuit court of appeal, Thomas dissenting for the lulz, the feds can ban people subject to domestic violence-related restraining orders from owning guns.
And again i don't expect the left to admit this SCOTUS just applies the law.
/When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment/
Which is obvious historically and so is obvious constitutionally.
8-1 against the 5th circuit court of appeal, Thomas dissenting for the lulz, the feds can ban people subject to domestic violence-related restraining orders from owning guns.And again i don't expect the left to admit this SCOTUS just applies the law./When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be
The SCOTUS is neither as a apolitical as you would like to believe nor as obscenely political as some critics would have you believe.
There are boundaries to the influence of politics on SCOTUS decisions no matter who is on the court. Also, many cases before the Court do not have an overt political component. For those reasons, it isn't that unusual to see 8-1 or 9-0 decisions, although it is less common than it was 40 years ago.
