supreme court decisions of late

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by huisache, Jun 29, 2020.

  1. bystander

    bystander 5,000+ Posts

    I think this is analogous to the famous, "Facts on the ground" used by Israel and others to justify no right of return for the Palestinians. You load up the facts on the ground and nothing else fits.
     
  2. OUBubba

    OUBubba Reluctant and Bullied Sponsor

    I'm Creek and Liz Warren level Cherokee (in my mom's narrative but not documented as they moved to Tennessee and then to Beaumont before "removal" and moved to Spur after the 1900 hurricane).
     
  3. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    As I understand it this ruling applies to how and where crimes are tried. I think I would rather take my chances in a US court than a tribal one
     
  4. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    That does bring up the issue that we dont really want Oklahoma
    Nobody does
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    LOL, I think this means the court majority for this decision is racist

     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2020
  6. Monahorns

    Monahorns 5,000+ Posts

    The 5 tribes were mixed in holding slavery. Some did some didn't. Some sides with the Union some didn't. Coulter is telling half truths.
     
  7. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    Because we're lazy and careless. Yes, those are the reasons.

    The same way they would with any other politician. They would find out what that politician supports and then pay attention to what he does.

    The list is too long to get into that here, and that isn't the point.

    Who cares what they'll "allow?" Elect politicians who will say "No" to them and write the laws not to favor them. They have no power to allow or disallow anything.

    Yes. Pass the laws that do the opposite of what they want, and the administrators won't have a choice.

    Yes I do. I'm married to one.

    You don't have to be certified to be a school board member. Plenty of school board members are local business owners. They aren't certified in anything.

    I agree, but we've chosen to have public schools. We're 1 percenters.

    Vote for politicians endorsed by Empower Texas.

    .

    This is insanity.

    No, it isn't. Congress ultimately has the power to set monetary and banking policy. It delegated that power to the Fed, which does its bidding. If the Fed went away, Congress would do what the Fed currently does because we (the public) would want it to.

    That's because your fellow citizens don't want them to.

    I agree. However, we're a tiny minority. We don't decide elections.

    "We" is the people who elect the politicians who pass the laws and appropriate the money to create and operate public schools.

    Almost every Republican congressional leader in the 1990s. They even tried to do it but failed. Why? Because the public rejected that effort at the ballot box. See the 1996 election.

    Yes, they can. Until the '60s they basically did. Even now, the federal government only pitches in about 9 percent of the money. If we really wanted to get out from under the federal mandates, we could do it. A small hike in the sales tax would cover it even if we didn't want to cut spending. But we don't want to do that. It's our choice.

    No, it was never forced on them and still isn't. They can turn down the money. And no, the states didn't have much of a problem with it when the federal programs were created (which didn't come with the DoE but with the ESEA passed earlier). State legislatures generally don't turn down money. Besides, it gives them an easy boogie man as you're illustrating.
     
  8. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    It's a type of man-kini stereotypically worn by well-built men (especially but not always gay men). Basically it's just a waistband and a small pouch to hold the equipment.

    I'd be ok with that. We've had one UT alumnus. It was Justice Tom Clark (the father of the wingnut former AG Ramsey Clark). He wasn't a particularly respected Justice by either side.

    And I have no special love for UT Law School. I didn't go there. I was the wrong color, so I got wait-listed. By the time they got to me, I had already gotten into Baylor, so **** 'em. I don't have any special love for Baylor either. All they did was give me what I paid for just like Walmart does.

    Since I'm in the middle of a move, I haven't had a chance to read the decisions, but any case that screws with Oklahoma is pretty much ok with me.

    As for the Trump case, I haven't read it. However, I think his tax returns should be treated the same as anyone else's tax returns. They should be just as hard and just as easy to get them.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Sangre Naranjada

    Sangre Naranjada Winebibber

    Oh, you mean a banana hammock. Like Barry, I don't think I had ever heard the term freedom pouch.
     
  10. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    My brother called it a freedom pouch, and he was in the Navy, so I defer to him on pretty much anything that's lewd.
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  11. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    They better hurry up and change the name before the Supremes just gives the bar to the Native Americans

     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  12. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    What kind of sad empty life does someone live who would actually take the time to organize and start a petition for a bar in Stillwater Ok?

    Bubba was that you?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  13. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    It's a religious thing for them. If you look at it that way, it makes a lot more sense.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. OUBubba

    OUBubba Reluctant and Bullied Sponsor

    LOL. I'm in your head.
     
  15. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  16. Phil Elliott

    Phil Elliott 2,500+ Posts

    As long as they don't mess with Shortcakes Diner, I am good.
     
  17. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  18. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Supreme Court denies NCAA request on athlete benefits
    "Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan on Tuesday denied the NCAA’s request for a stay of an injunction that will end association-wide limits on education-related benefits that college athletes can receive.

    Barring the NCAA’s ability to convince U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken to change the injunction’s effective date, Kagan’s ruling sets the stage for at least one recruiting cycle in which schools will be able to decide on a conference-level basis whether to allow offers to football, men’s basketball and/or women’s basketball players that go beyond covering the full cost of attending school.

    Wilken issued the injunction in March 2019, when she ruled that that the NCAA's limits on what Bowl Subdivision football players and Division I men's and women’s basketball players can receive for playing sports "unreasonably restrain trade" in violation of antitrust laws. The case was brought on behalf of plaintiffs led by former West Virginia football player Shawne Alston...."
     
  19. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    I am just noticing this one - a nice surprise
    Kavanaugh/SCOTUS just dropped a big turd on George Soros. Organizations affiliated with Soros’ Open Society lack protection under the 1st Amendment. And they can be treated as international threats as this impacts supporters in the US and abroad. So typical of Soros isnt it? He hates the US but loves to hide behind the Constitution to do his dirty work.

    [​IMG]
    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-177_b97c.pdf
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Horn6721

    Horn6721 10,000+ Posts

    I just like being reminded of this
    "As a matter of American constitutional law, foreign citizens outside U. S. territory do not possess rights under the U. S. Constitution"

    But JF explain what this ruling means please
     
  21. NJlonghorn

    NJlonghorn 1,000+ Posts

    I don’t know where you get your ****, @Joe Fan, but it sure is creative!! Thanks for the good laugh.

    This case had absolutely nothing to do with whether the US Government can treat Soros’s organization, AOSI, as an “international threat”. It was a free-speech case, and your “dropped a big turd on Soros” analysis is silly.

    For starters, AOSI was just one of several plaintiffs in the case. Another plaintiff was World Vision International, an evangelical-Christian relief organization. Are they also anti-American and an international threat? Did the Supreme Court also drop a turd on them?

    For those curious about the case itself, as opposed to @Joe Fan's partisan spin -- The issue was whether the US Government can require US charities’ foreign affiliates to make certain public statements as a precondition to receiving AIDS-relief funding. Most notably, the law required relief agencies to make a public statement against prostitution, and to take no action inconsistent with that statement. The plaintiff agencies, liberal and conservative alike, were concerned that this requirement would undermine their ability to fight the spread of AIDS within the prostitution industry.

    AOSI’s position was supported by amicus briefs from numerous conservative organizations, including the Adventist Development and Relief Agency International; the Cato Institute; and the Washington Legal Foundation. I find it really hard to believe that those organizations would support Soros in a position that was anti-American.

    Indeed, to the contrary, the amici raised very valid concerns about other mandatory-speech requirements that could be imposed in the future. For example, a future law could condition Federal funding for overseas charitable work on issuance of a statement supporting abortion rights. Under the decision @Joe Fan is praising, that requirement would be permissible.
     
  22. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Anyone who receives money from Soros or a Soros group should register under FARA
    And, if they dont, there is now precedent for them to be charged
     
    • Like Like x 1
  23. NJlonghorn

    NJlonghorn 1,000+ Posts

    Charged with what? And what precedent?
     
  24. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    This is also how liberals see the Constitution

     
  25. nashhorn

    nashhorn 5,000+ Posts

    Brilliant. The youth of today, but to be honest I thought I detected her about to grin at one point and then caught herself.
     
  26. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Grinning ruins the concealer
     
  27. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

     
    • Like Like x 2
  28. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    Can you believe the Court liberals and Roberts disagree with this?

    "Government is not free to disregard the First Amendment in times of crisis."
    -- Justice Gorsuch

    Thanks goodness HRC did not get those picks
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  29. bystander

    bystander 5,000+ Posts

    During the time of the implementation of the Patriot Act, Liberals were fond of this quote:

    "Those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither."

    Times have changed...
     
  30. Joe Fan

    Joe Fan 10,000+ Posts

    They want what they want and they want it now
    They lack foresight and dont really seem to care what their actions today might mean in the future. The blueprint is simple, get power immediately (by any means), worry about everything else later
     

Share This Page