Corderlain
Banned
The REEEEEEE'ing Reddit is critical mass
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Breaking: Justice Kennedy announces retirement from SCOTUS
- Thread starter infinitys_7th
- Start date
bucyou
Member
this could be a thread. i feel the same way,I just can't associate with that intolerant, batshit crazy trash that they spew.
TheShadowLord
Member
I think it wrong to label all who are on the left as part of the same hivemind.That's the same notion of some of the users you see on resetera or gawker in regards to Republicans. It doesn't do anyone good.
Captain Zyrain
Member
It's really something. I feel like this is an extension of outrage culture plus social media popularity contests, where now everyone has to feel outraged at something at all times.. Otherwise they're bored or not fulfilled or something. They need the adoration or 'likes' so much they need to keep the pedal to the metal 24/7.
It's just people going round and round frothing at the mouth and riling each other up. You can clearly see it on forums, Twitter, etc.
But then some new shiny thing comes along to be outraged about and off they go. What was the big, life altering thing that happened before the illegal immigrant family things? I can't remember.. And it's surely not being talked about anymore. Stormy Daniel's says hi.
It's so common and predictable now that it just feels cheap.
It's just people going round and round frothing at the mouth and riling each other up. You can clearly see it on forums, Twitter, etc.
But then some new shiny thing comes along to be outraged about and off they go. What was the big, life altering thing that happened before the illegal immigrant family things? I can't remember.. And it's surely not being talked about anymore. Stormy Daniel's says hi.
It's so common and predictable now that it just feels cheap.
TheShadowLord
Member
i would go with first gen iphone on that one
Last edited:
bucyou
Member
I agree with your point. For me, its all on the internet. I meet and work with people of all backgrounds and views, but any dissent is kept respectful and its easier in real life to empathize with one another, something that is sadly lost on the mostly anonymous internet forums. The outrage machine is in full effect, I was going to mention the "hollywood" reaction, but 2 posts above posted some tweets that relate the point.
Captain Zyrain
Member
Damn those social media hot takes.. I've said it before, obviously social media doesn't equal the real world.. But it might someday.
Kids growing up now will use it even more than we do, so who knows how much influence a verified person on Twitter will have? Gross to think about.
If November comes and the blue wave is a knee slapper.. I don't want to imagine what social media will look like.
Kids growing up now will use it even more than we do, so who knows how much influence a verified person on Twitter will have? Gross to think about.
If November comes and the blue wave is a knee slapper.. I don't want to imagine what social media will look like.
TTOOLL
Member
It reads like a parody, really.
Like, exactly nothing has changed and what the USA has today will definitely not change either.
It's depressing how far from reality some "enlightened" people are.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Even if Roe v Wade bites the dust (unlikely but who knows), we'll still find a way to have safe, legal, abortions in most states.
mercenar1e
Member
this is excellent news and i hope more Republicans are placed in the Supreme Court.
LordPezix
Member
*checks* - page 44 vs page 2. Whao.
TheLaughingStock
Member
The Democrats who nominated Hillary Clinton for president will have to live with that poor decision for the rest of their lives. Pres. Trump is going to leave a lasting imprint on the US and *remember* some Democrats encouraged him to run thinking he would be a cakewalk. Joke is on them.
MrRogers
Member
Great news! Ginsberg and Breyer are next. If Trump gets a full two terms, breyer might be able to outlast that, but no way in hell Ginsberg is going to last that long. She barely has enough energy to stay awake in court, never mind the onset of mild dementia and general cognitive decline/overall health due to advanced old age, she'll simply be unfit for the position.
Last edited:
This is verbatim where I am at. What's even more insane about it, is that I'm not supposed to even have an opinion about it.
The democratic party has strayed so far away from the center, where the majority of civil discourse lies, that its imploding in on itself like a neutron star. The democratic party is actively alienating the majority with zero olive branches either.
"Sit down, shut up, and vote as we tell you".
Uh, I'll pass.
LordPezix
Member
I'm a little mind boggled at how many people here want a full wash to a conservative side.
If you're conservative you should be hoping for a 5-4 and not anything better.
Once you have an overwhelming commonality you more than easily prop yourself up for a Bandwagon effect.
Tribalism is dangerous. Literally why we have the saying "two minds are better than one".
PonyStation4
Member
It's likely that Trump gets 2 more picks as Breyer (79) and Ginsberg (85) may die soon. Ginsberg is barely holding on as is. 4 picks is unprecedented, Republicans would own the Supreme Court for 40+ years. I think only now people are starting to realize how important this past election was for both sides, it was a big turning point for the country.
Last edited:
Captain Zyrain
Member
Ha!
Fox Mulder
Member
i certainly thought he was a joke, but also thought hillary really fucking sucked. Trump may have never ran if Obama hadn't joked him at that dinner though.
I don't want a hard swing of the court in either direction really, but the reactions on the left to this news is a bit embarrassing. Trump could likely get two more if he gets a 2nd term too.
Last edited:
Grinchy
Banned
Man, as someone who avoids Twitter like the plague, it's interesting to lift the rock up every now and then and watch the ants scurry around in fear.
QuickSilverD
Member
couldn't "should be up to the states" be a good enough reason to overturn Roe v Wade? Isn't that how it was before?
dropkick!
Member
Even if I am a liberal, I would want conservatives... or i say CONSTITUTIONALIST, to control the SCOtUS. Liberal judges tend to push their agenda on their jobs as judges and pretty much legislate on the bench. Constitutional judges on the other hand... care about what the law says... particularly the constitution. (Duh)
If you care about the checks and balances of our government, you want the judges to be as grounded as possible.
TheShadowLord
Member
Yeah, that is what I thought as well
Even if the left's worst case comes to fruition, all that will happen is the conservative court will give more power to the 10th amendment which the liberal justices completely ignore and allow states to decide on marriage and abortion.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
PuppetMaster
Member
I agree with this. Especially compared to politicians in the legislature. Justices are some of the most excellent people in government. And just some of the best Americans period. Even ones with personal view that I don't agree with.
The people on both sides who hate some of them, want them dead etc: These are typically people who cannot come to their own opinions about things. They just believe the dogma along party lines.
The 10th would only apply for things not ruled on yet, or existing rulings that get overturned. For example of Roe v Wade is overturned. Then yes, states could go back to democratically voting whether or not to allow it in their state. And if enough states agree, it could even become an amendment to the Constitution. Because there is no constitutional statue banning abortion. As not even the most "hardline" conservative justices have attempted an interpretation of the constitution that outright bans abortion. They just disagree on whether the current constitution allows for it.
But if a state wanted to vote on going back to segregation or slavery something, that would not be allowed by the 10th. Because that has been clearly ruled on as being unconstitutional.
Last edited:
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
That's the anti-Roe position. Abortion and gay marriage would be left to the states without the intervention of the Supreme Court declaring the law of the land in all 50 states based on the Court's interpretation of the Constitution.
So if Roe or Obergefell were overturned, those issues would be left to each individual state.
The Court can revisit previous rulings, (if someone with standing brings suit and they choose to accept it), if they find the original ruling was out of line with the Constitution. The Court tries to defer to precedent, but precedent does not supersede 2 documents, the Constitution of the US and to a lesser extent the Declaration of Independence.
For example, in the government worker union case that just got ruled on 5-4, the court overturned precedent that allowed coerced union dues for government unions. From the Chicago Tribune, "The idea behind the “fair share” fees struck down Wednesday is that unions negotiate on behalf of all employees within a workplace, and workers who benefit from bargaining should help cover that cost even if they don’t agree with the union’s politics. It’s a legal precedent that the high court set in 1977 in a case known as Abood v. Detroit Board of Education that Wednesday’s 5-4 decision has now reversed."
I am not sure we disagree, yes I understand that having 5 anti-Roe v. Wade justices doesn't automatically overturn it. A suit has to be brought, make its way through the court system, be accepted by the Supreme Court, and the justices have to vote to overturn precedent. My point simply was that a conservative court would not ban abortion if they overturned precedent, they would send it back to the states to decide.
Last edited:
No. Why would that be a good reason?
Win Congress and pass a law. This isn't Dred Scott we are talking about.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
That was the situation pre-Obergefell after some states began recognizing same sex marriage. It was a gray area and worked out on an ad hoc basis in different ways.
danielberg
Neophyte
Some dems now suddenly preach term limits is anyone even falling for half the acts they now put on?
I mean for real lol
I mean for real lol
pramod
Banned
Sorry if this is off-topic, but Trump's approval rating is nearing his all-time high:
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/394384-poll-trump-approval-rating-ticks-up-to-47-percent
Even his approval among Hispanics increased. How can that be explained?
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/394384-poll-trump-approval-rating-ticks-up-to-47-percent
Even his approval among Hispanics increased. How can that be explained?
LordPezix
Member
Well this is where I disagree.
Judges from both sides have agendas/ideals that they wish to see fulfilled, I believe this to be only human nature.
I know the constitution is very important to people but I am of the camp that looks at it as laws created by independents reflective of the current times as a progressive sheild against the very mistreatment they sacrificed for.
We shouldn't consider a constitution to be nigh unchangable as that is go go against the inevitability of change that is ever common in human history.
I would like to see SCOTUS as a body of progressives and traditionalists that approach issues based not solely on constitutional laws, but also the unwritten laws of human integrity and valued morals for which everyone, regardless of your political stance, with good intentions, can agree upon.
We shouldn't fear change, nor be too hastly to adopt it, but rather ensure a system thats primary concern is the livelyhood, dignity, and freedoms of its citizens.
ResurrectedContrarian
Suffers with mild autism
Get ready for Amy Coney Barrett, who strategically fits the bill all too perfectly:
- already mentioned on the short list
- female, so it trolls the libs, which Trump is likely to enjoy
- attractive, which is sure to be a plus for Trump, realistically
- vocal pro-life female, plays very well to base; see also: owning the libs
- former clerk to Scalia, well known in his camp
- her confirmation hearings to the 7th circuit a year ago led Feinstein to utter some damaging anti-religious bigotry ("the dogma lives loudly in you" as a dismissive and exasperated remark) which were given a ton of play in religious circles, and which are enormously damaging to the Left's ability to take any votes from that side. Just the circus of her hearing and the kinds of things that will be said about her beliefs will be a campaign video all of its own.
- relatively young, so she'd hold the seat for many decades
- already mentioned on the short list
- female, so it trolls the libs, which Trump is likely to enjoy
- attractive, which is sure to be a plus for Trump, realistically
- vocal pro-life female, plays very well to base; see also: owning the libs
- former clerk to Scalia, well known in his camp
- her confirmation hearings to the 7th circuit a year ago led Feinstein to utter some damaging anti-religious bigotry ("the dogma lives loudly in you" as a dismissive and exasperated remark) which were given a ton of play in religious circles, and which are enormously damaging to the Left's ability to take any votes from that side. Just the circus of her hearing and the kinds of things that will be said about her beliefs will be a campaign video all of its own.
- relatively young, so she'd hold the seat for many decades
Last edited:
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
He did better with black and Hispanic voters than Romney as well.
PuppetMaster
Member
The law DOES allow for changes to the constitution. It has been amendend many times. It is just not via the Supreme Court! It is via the democratically elected legislature. This is by design.
Last edited:
LordPezix
Member
Yes I know. Which is why I said that the decision process and basis in which the SCOTUS upholds shouldnt be of only the constitution but of also the unwritten laws of human dignity and such.
Maybe I didn't make it clear as to what I was trying to say.
Please note that this is in response to the Constitutional judges in the comment I quoted in my post that you quoted.
Also also: Let us hope that any new amendments don't take 202 years to be ratified
Last edited:
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Hoo boy, you aren't kidding. There's another thread about emigrating from the US where they unironically talk about moving to various rich white countries in Europe or the anglosphere. I'm sure they are all more deserving of limited slots than refugees from Africa and the middle East.
Fox Mulder
Member
Lol, nobody ever threatens to move to Mexico.
Similar threads
- Locked