Wordle - daily game
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - Apr 23, 2024 - 9:38pm
The Moon
- haresfur - Apr 23, 2024 - 9:29pm
April 2024 Photo Theme - Happenstance
- fractalv - Apr 23, 2024 - 8:32pm
Dialing 1-800-Manbird
- Bill_J - Apr 23, 2024 - 7:15pm
China
- R_P - Apr 23, 2024 - 5:35pm
Would you drive this car for dating with ur girl?
- islander - Apr 23, 2024 - 4:54pm
The Obituary Page
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 23, 2024 - 3:53pm
Trump
- haresfur - Apr 23, 2024 - 2:44pm
Joe Biden
- R_P - Apr 23, 2024 - 2:36pm
Israel
- black321 - Apr 23, 2024 - 2:24pm
Radio Paradise Comments
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 23, 2024 - 2:07pm
Economix
- islander - Apr 23, 2024 - 12:11pm
USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - Apr 23, 2024 - 11:05am
NY Times Strands
- rgio - Apr 23, 2024 - 10:13am
NYTimes Connections
- geoff_morphini - Apr 23, 2024 - 8:41am
One Partying State - Wyoming News
- sunybuny - Apr 23, 2024 - 6:53am
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- sunybuny - Apr 23, 2024 - 6:52am
Today in History
- Red_Dragon - Apr 23, 2024 - 6:33am
YouTube: Music-Videos
- Red_Dragon - Apr 22, 2024 - 7:42pm
Ukraine
- haresfur - Apr 22, 2024 - 6:19pm
songs that ROCK!
- Steely_D - Apr 22, 2024 - 1:50pm
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- q4Fry - Apr 22, 2024 - 11:57am
Song of the Day
- oldviolin - Apr 22, 2024 - 9:59am
Republican Party
- R_P - Apr 22, 2024 - 9:36am
Mini Meetups - Post Here!
- ScottFromWyoming - Apr 22, 2024 - 8:59am
Malaysia
- dcruzj - Apr 22, 2024 - 7:30am
Mixtape Culture Club
- miamizsun - Apr 22, 2024 - 7:02am
Canada
- westslope - Apr 22, 2024 - 6:23am
Russia
- NoEnzLefttoSplit - Apr 22, 2024 - 1:03am
Broccoli for cats - you gotta see this!
- Bill_J - Apr 21, 2024 - 6:16pm
TV shows you watch
- Manbird - Apr 21, 2024 - 5:25pm
Name My Band
- DaveInSaoMiguel - Apr 21, 2024 - 3:06pm
What's that smell?
- oldviolin - Apr 21, 2024 - 1:59pm
Main Mix Playlist
- thisbody - Apr 21, 2024 - 12:04pm
George Orwell
- oldviolin - Apr 21, 2024 - 11:36am
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - Apr 20, 2024 - 7:44pm
What Did You See Today?
- Welly - Apr 20, 2024 - 4:50pm
Radio Paradise on multiple Echo speakers via an Alexa Rou...
- victory806 - Apr 20, 2024 - 2:11pm
Libertarian Party
- R_P - Apr 20, 2024 - 11:18am
Remembering the Good Old Days
- kurtster - Apr 20, 2024 - 2:37am
Vinyl Only Spin List
- kurtster - Apr 19, 2024 - 9:21pm
The Abortion Wars
- Red_Dragon - Apr 19, 2024 - 9:07pm
Words I didn't know...yrs ago
- Bill_J - Apr 19, 2024 - 7:06pm
Things that make you go Hmmmm.....
- Bill_J - Apr 19, 2024 - 6:59pm
Baseball, anyone?
- Red_Dragon - Apr 19, 2024 - 6:51pm
MILESTONES: Famous People, Dead Today, Born Today, Etc.
- Bill_J - Apr 19, 2024 - 6:44pm
2024 Elections!
- steeler - Apr 19, 2024 - 5:49pm
Ask an Atheist
- R_P - Apr 19, 2024 - 3:04pm
Country Up The Bumpkin
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 19, 2024 - 7:55am
how do you feel right now?
- miamizsun - Apr 19, 2024 - 6:02am
When I need a Laugh I ...
- miamizsun - Apr 19, 2024 - 5:43am
Live Music
- oldviolin - Apr 18, 2024 - 3:24pm
What Makes You Laugh?
- oldviolin - Apr 18, 2024 - 2:49pm
Robots
- miamizsun - Apr 18, 2024 - 2:18pm
Museum Of Bad Album Covers
- Steve - Apr 18, 2024 - 6:58am
Europe
- haresfur - Apr 17, 2024 - 6:47pm
Business as Usual
- black321 - Apr 17, 2024 - 1:48pm
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum
- VV - Apr 17, 2024 - 1:26pm
Science in the News
- Red_Dragon - Apr 17, 2024 - 11:14am
Magic Eye optical Illusions
- Proclivities - Apr 17, 2024 - 10:08am
Just for the Haiku of it. . .
- oldviolin - Apr 17, 2024 - 9:01am
HALF A WORLD
- oldviolin - Apr 17, 2024 - 8:52am
Little known information... maybe even facts
- R_P - Apr 16, 2024 - 3:29pm
260,000 Posts in one thread?
- oldviolin - Apr 16, 2024 - 10:10am
WTF??!!
- rgio - Apr 16, 2024 - 5:23am
Australia has Disappeared
- haresfur - Apr 16, 2024 - 4:58am
Earthquake
- miamizsun - Apr 16, 2024 - 4:46am
It's the economy stupid.
- miamizsun - Apr 16, 2024 - 4:28am
Eclectic Sound-Drops
- thisbody - Apr 14, 2024 - 11:27am
Synchronization
- ReggieDXB - Apr 13, 2024 - 11:40pm
Other Medical Stuff
- geoff_morphini - Apr 13, 2024 - 7:54am
Photos you have taken of your walks or hikes.
- KurtfromLaQuinta - Apr 12, 2024 - 3:50pm
Things You Thought Today
- Red_Dragon - Apr 12, 2024 - 3:05pm
Poetry Forum
- oldviolin - Apr 12, 2024 - 8:45am
Dear Bill
- oldviolin - Apr 12, 2024 - 8:16am
|
Index »
Regional/Local »
USA/Canada »
Supreme Court Rulings
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 14, 15, 16, 17 Next |
kurtster
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 1, 2011 - 6:16pm |
|
jadewahoo wrote: kurtster wrote:How come no one is talking about this ruling handed down last week ? The left got its wish by putting businesses on the defensive over hiring illegals, a major point of the left in the debate over solving illegal immigration. In fact many on the left here have supported the notion that scrutinizing businesses should be the first action taken in slowing down the things that draw illegals here. Where is the celebration ? The law was even signed into law by then Arizona governor and now HLS chief, Janet Napolitano. The silence is deafening ... Our newest Justice, Kagan, recused herself because she was the solicitor for the administration, but is not planning on recusing herself when Obama's HC Bill arrives for a ruling, even though she advised on the construction of the Bill. Kurt, Kurt, Kurt... this is not a 'left' agenda. It is a reasonable approach to one very important element of the illegal immigration problem. Indeed, it is supported here, in Arizona, by the Right equally. No, not by the Corportocracy, it is true... because there are profits to be had from hiring illegals for sub-humane wages, paying no withholding taxes, contributing nothing into the Social Security fund, Unemployment dues and a host of other thefts from the commonweal by these corporations. That is right, they are stealing it from you, the American taxpayer. And, as a consequence, the hired illegals are not contributing to the common kitty either. No, it is not a 'left' agenda, it is an American, patriotic agenda. It is an important piece in the handling of the problem of illegal immigration. You know... that problem that has you so concerned so much of the time. Quite frankly, I am thrilled with this ruling for the reasons you stated above. Its right for the right reasons. And it also reinforces State's Rights and the 10th as well. I admit to the cheap shot on the left, but the silence over this ruling everywhere has had me a bit mystified, and as we know that doesn't take too much to accomplish.
|
|
hippiechick
Location: topsy turvy land Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 1, 2011 - 6:12pm |
|
jadewahoo wrote: kurtster wrote:How come no one is talking about this ruling handed down last week ? The left got its wish by putting businesses on the defensive over hiring illegals, a major point of the left in the debate over solving illegal immigration. In fact many on the left here have supported the notion that scrutinizing businesses should be the first action taken in slowing down the things that draw illegals here. Where is the celebration ? The law was even signed into law by then Arizona governor and now HLS chief, Janet Napolitano. The silence is deafening ... Our newest Justice, Kagan, recused herself because she was the solicitor for the administration, but is not planning on recusing herself when Obama's HC Bill arrives for a ruling, even though she advised on the construction of the Bill. Kurt, Kurt, Kurt... this is not a 'left' agenda. It is a reasonable approach to one very important element of the illegal immigration problem. Indeed, it is supported here, in Arizona, by the Right equally. No, not by the Corportocracy, it is true... because there are profits to be had from hiring illegals for sub-humane wages, paying no withholding taxes, contributing nothing into the Social Security fund, Unemployment dues and a host of other thefts from the commonweal by these corporations. That is right, they are stealing it from you, the American taxpayer. And, as a consequence, the hired illegals are not contributing to the common kitty either. No, it is not a 'left' agenda, it is an American, patriotic agenda. It is an important piece in the handling of the problem of illegal immigration. You know... that problem that has you so concerned so much of the time. Well said
|
|
jadewahoo
Location: Puerto Viejo, Costa Rica Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 1, 2011 - 6:07pm |
|
kurtster wrote:How come no one is talking about this ruling handed down last week ? The left got its wish by putting businesses on the defensive over hiring illegals, a major point of the left in the debate over solving illegal immigration. In fact many on the left here have supported the notion that scrutinizing businesses should be the first action taken in slowing down the things that draw illegals here. Where is the celebration ? The law was even signed into law by then Arizona governor and now HLS chief, Janet Napolitano. The silence is deafening ... Our newest Justice, Kagan, recused herself because she was the solicitor for the administration, but is not planning on recusing herself when Obama's HC Bill arrives for a ruling, even though she advised on the construction of the Bill. Kurt, Kurt, Kurt... this is not a 'left' agenda. It is a reasonable approach to one very important element of the illegal immigration problem. Indeed, it is supported here, in Arizona, by the Right equally. No, not by the Corportocracy, it is true... because there are profits to be had from hiring illegals for sub-humane wages, paying no withholding taxes, contributing nothing into the Social Security fund, Unemployment dues and a host of other thefts from the commonweal by these corporations. That is right, they are stealing it from you, the American taxpayer. And, as a consequence, the hired illegals are not contributing to the common kitty either. No, it is not a 'left' agenda, it is an American, patriotic agenda. It is an important piece in the handling of the problem of illegal immigration. You know... that problem that has you so concerned so much of the time.
|
|
hippiechick
Location: topsy turvy land Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 1, 2011 - 6:05pm |
|
kurtster wrote:How come no one is talking about this ruling handed down last week ? The left got its wish by putting businesses on the defensive over hiring illegals, a major point of the left in the debate over solving illegal immigration. In fact many on the left here have supported the notion that scrutinizing businesses should be the first action taken in slowing down the things that draw illegals here. Where is the celebration ? The law was even signed into law by then Arizona governor and now HLS chief, Janet Napolitano. The silence is deafening ... Our newest Justice, Kagan, recused herself because she was the solicitor for the administration, but is not planning on recusing herself when Obama's HC Bill arrives for a ruling, even though she advised on the construction of the Bill. Well, good! Businesses should be punished for hiring illegals. They send buses to the border and cart them in and make slaves out of them.
|
|
kurtster
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 1, 2011 - 5:58pm |
|
How come no one is talking about this ruling handed down last week ? The left got its wish by putting businesses on the defensive over hiring illegals, a major point of the left in the debate over solving illegal immigration. In fact many on the left here have supported the notion that scrutinizing businesses should be the first action taken in slowing down the things that draw illegals here. Where is the celebration ? The law was even signed into law by then Arizona governor and now HLS chief, Janet Napolitano. The silence is deafening ... Our newest Justice, Kagan, recused herself because she was the solicitor for the administration, but is not planning on recusing herself when Obama's HC Bill arrives for a ruling, even though she advised on the construction of the Bill.
|
|
mzpro5
Location: Budda'spet, Hungry Gender:
|
Posted:
Oct 4, 2010 - 11:32am |
|
romeotuma wrote: Does your use of passive voice mean you speak for the Silent Majority?
No just speaking for myself. Is there a reason you are sounding confrontational about this? Or am I misinterpreting?
|
|
mzpro5
Location: Budda'spet, Hungry Gender:
|
Posted:
Oct 4, 2010 - 11:24am |
|
romeotuma wrote: Actually, I have multitudinous points... first, let me mention in passing, this forum says Supreme Court Rulings, not Only Supreme Court Rulings for 2010, so I am on subject for the forum...
second, I was demonstrating that the Supreme Court is not infallible...
third, first it was slaves, then it was the children, now it is the illegal aliens who pick our cotton and vegetables for cheap pay... the child labor law revoked by the Supreme Court was mostly about kids picking cotton...
yet many xenophobic Americans express vitriol to the contemporary illegal alien workers who provide their cheap food and fabric in the current postmodern world...
fourth, I was just pointing out facts in history and letting them speak for themselves...
All good points but none that could be discerned from your original post.
|
|
Lazy8
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Oct 4, 2010 - 11:09am |
|
romeotuma wrote:Um, yeah...in 1918, reversed in 1941. Did you have a point or something?
|
|
kurtster
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
Posted:
Oct 4, 2010 - 10:26am |
|
hippie wrote:Anyone know if she plays golf? Hey look over there, a squirrel.
|
|
steeler
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
|
Posted:
Oct 4, 2010 - 10:24am |
|
kurtster wrote: Yes.
It does not serve the best interest of the country to appoint a Justice that cannot fully participate. She already had to leave the chambers this AM for the second case being presented.
Although the most recusals in a first term would apply to a Solicitor General, the principle would spread further than that — for instance, folk considered and/or nominated by Geoerge W. Bush had been serving in his administration in legal capacities that likely would have required them to recuse themselves from numerous cases in first term (Former AG Gonzalez, former President's counsel Meiers). There also have been a lot of Justices who ascended from the Circuit Courts of Appeals, most notably from the D.C. Circuit, from which Chief Justice Roberts came. As a result, these newly minted Justices have to recuse themselves from cases decided by them in that capacity. I doubt that anyone wants to exclude Circuit Court judges from serving on the Supreme Court unless they first resign from the bench and do somethng else for a few years. Less problematic, but still a source of recusals would be an academic (e.g., law professor) who has opined definitively on an issue before the court. So, a slippery slope . . .
|
|
hippie
Location: In the studio Gender:
|
Posted:
Oct 4, 2010 - 10:21am |
|
kurtster wrote: Yes.
It does not serve the best interest of the country to appoint a Justice that cannot fully participate. She already had to leave the chambers this AM for the second case being presented.
Anyone know if she plays golf? Hey look over there, a squirrel.
|
|
kurtster
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
Posted:
Oct 4, 2010 - 10:15am |
|
steeler wrote:
This is primarily due to the fact she served as Solicitor General. Can't argue the cases (even if you did not physically appear before the Court in each of them) and decide them.
Are you arguing that a recent Solicitor General should be disqualified from consideration until enough time has passed to eliminate recusals?
Yes. It does not serve the best interest of the country to appoint a Justice that cannot fully participate. She already had to leave the chambers this AM for the second case being presented.
|
|
hippie
Location: In the studio Gender:
|
Posted:
Oct 4, 2010 - 10:14am |
|
|
|
steeler
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
|
Posted:
Oct 4, 2010 - 10:12am |
|
kurtster wrote:Oh goody, the SCOTUS has started its fall session today.
BHO's wisdom shines through once again as his latest appointment, Justice Kagan has already agreed to recuse herself on 25 of the so far 53 cases on the dockett. The potential for 4 - 4 ties now exists, with no ruling letting the lower court's opinion stand.
Why appoint someone who cannot fully participate ? This was bought up during her confirmation, yet it went through anyway. Is this a new way to stack the court ?
Perhaps it was in anticipation of an unusually heavy case load of States challenging the Federal Government such as Arizona HB 1070 and Obamacare. HB 1070 goes through the most decidedly liberal 9th Circuit and a ruling against Arizona in the 9th could end up standing due to a tie. Perhaps the same outcome on the challenges to Obamacare.
This country has been robbed once again of due process by default and poor judgement. But that's only my opinion.
This is primarily due to the fact she served as Solicitor General. Can't argue the cases (even if you did not physically appear before the Court in each of them) and decide them. Are you arguing that a recent Solicitor General should be disqualified from consideration until enough time has passed to eliminate recusals?
|
|
kurtster
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
Posted:
Oct 4, 2010 - 10:11am |
|
hippiechick wrote: I see you have been watching Fox again
As evidently, do you.
|
|
melissab
Location: Green Country Gender:
|
Posted:
Oct 4, 2010 - 10:10am |
|
hippie wrote:Just like you read Huffington Post 24/7 and link to the every chance you get. Hiya sweetie, how you?
|
|
hippie
Location: In the studio Gender:
|
Posted:
Oct 4, 2010 - 10:08am |
|
hippiechick wrote: I see you have been watching Fox again
Just like you read Huffington Post 24/7 and link to the every chance you get.
|
|
cc_rider
Location: Bastrop Gender:
|
Posted:
Oct 4, 2010 - 10:07am |
|
kurtster wrote:Who appoints the temporary Justice ? That could lead to whomever is in charge finding the right one to support the ruling desired. That is not good. It would cast to much doubt on the integrity on decisions. We elect ours here in Ohio as well, BTW. I know one of ours personally. Hope I never get in a situation where I have to look at him from across the bench. I don't know how they're suggesting the Justice pro tem would be appointed. Maybe on a rotating schedule. If they had to go through Congressional approval, there'd be gridlock. Well, even MORE gridlock.
|
|
hippiechick
Location: topsy turvy land Gender:
|
Posted:
Oct 4, 2010 - 10:04am |
|
kurtster wrote:Oh goody, the SCOTUS has started its fall session today.
BHO's wisdom shines through once again as his latest appointment, Justice Kagan has already agreed to recuse herself on 25 of the so far 53 cases on the dockett. The potential for 4 - 4 ties now exists, with no ruling letting the lower court's opinion stand.
Why appoint someone who cannot fully participate ? This was bought up during her confirmation, yet it went through anyway. Is this a new way to stack the court ?
Perhaps it was in anticipation of an unusually heavy case load of States challenging the Federal Government such as Arizona HB 1070 and Obamacare. HB 1070 goes through the most decidedly liberal 9th Circuit and a ruling against Arizona in the 9th could end up standing due to a tie. Perhaps the same outcome on the challenges to Obamacare.
This country has been robbed once again of due process by default and poor judgement. But that's only my opinion.
I see you have been watching Fox again
|
|
kurtster
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
Posted:
Oct 4, 2010 - 10:00am |
|
cc_rider wrote: There is some noise being made about temporarily appointing retired Justices to serve in such instances. Makes sense to me.
At least she had the decency to recuse herself. In Texas, judges have no compunction ruling on cases in which they have vested financial interest. Course, we elect them too, so we get what we deserve, huh?
Who appoints the temporary Justice ? That could lead to whomever is in charge finding the right one to support the ruling desired. That is not good. It would cast to much doubt on the integrity on decisions. We elect ours here in Ohio as well, BTW. I know one of ours personally. Hope I never get in a situation where I have to look at him from across the bench.
|
|
|