[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Wordle - daily game - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Aug 18, 2022 - 9:02pm
 
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see - ScottFromWyoming - Aug 18, 2022 - 8:11pm
 
Republican Party - kcar - Aug 18, 2022 - 6:33pm
 
Little known information...maybe even facts - Bill_J - Aug 18, 2022 - 6:30pm
 
Trump - Red_Dragon - Aug 18, 2022 - 6:29pm
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - Bill_J - Aug 18, 2022 - 5:25pm
 
Climate Change - R_P - Aug 18, 2022 - 3:30pm
 
Happy friendship Day - Coaxial - Aug 18, 2022 - 3:13pm
 
Live FLAC support in Sonos API - jarro - Aug 18, 2022 - 2:54pm
 
Minor quibble - why no Tedeschi Trucks Band? - trachshack - Aug 18, 2022 - 1:43pm
 
Things You Thought Today - Proclivities - Aug 18, 2022 - 1:23pm
 
Rare Beatles Art - ScottFromWyoming - Aug 18, 2022 - 12:53pm
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - oldviolin - Aug 18, 2022 - 10:24am
 
Questions. - miamizsun - Aug 18, 2022 - 9:52am
 
Poetry Forum - oldviolin - Aug 18, 2022 - 9:28am
 
Maarjamaa - oldviolin - Aug 18, 2022 - 7:56am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - miamizsun - Aug 18, 2022 - 6:08am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Aug 18, 2022 - 5:46am
 
Fix My Car - KurtfromLaQuinta - Aug 17, 2022 - 8:44pm
 
Cheney, Dick - Manbird - Aug 17, 2022 - 7:43pm
 
Guns - Red_Dragon - Aug 17, 2022 - 3:55pm
 
Environment - Red_Dragon - Aug 17, 2022 - 3:06pm
 
Counting with Pictures - ScottN - Aug 17, 2022 - 2:17pm
 
What Did You Do Today? - GeneP59 - Aug 17, 2022 - 1:43pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - ColdMiser - Aug 17, 2022 - 12:06pm
 
RadioParadise FAQ List Submission - ScottFromWyoming - Aug 17, 2022 - 10:51am
 
Live Music - oldviolin - Aug 17, 2022 - 9:52am
 
Derplahoma! - Red_Dragon - Aug 17, 2022 - 9:44am
 
XPRIZE & Singularity University - miamizsun - Aug 17, 2022 - 8:41am
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - ptooey - Aug 17, 2022 - 7:03am
 
Russia - miamizsun - Aug 17, 2022 - 5:44am
 
Nuclear power - saviour or scourge? - miamizsun - Aug 17, 2022 - 5:14am
 
Joe Biden - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Aug 16, 2022 - 10:50pm
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - R_P - Aug 16, 2022 - 7:19pm
 
The Obituary Page - Antigone - Aug 16, 2022 - 5:33pm
 
Amazon Products (May Contain Spam) - haresfur - Aug 16, 2022 - 4:02pm
 
Democratic Party - Red_Dragon - Aug 16, 2022 - 2:29pm
 
The Hat Project - kcar - Aug 16, 2022 - 2:20pm
 
Ukraine - Red_Dragon - Aug 16, 2022 - 4:37am
 
Breaking News - Red_Dragon - Aug 15, 2022 - 6:42pm
 
Words that should be put on the substitutes bench for a year - oldviolin - Aug 15, 2022 - 9:31am
 
Interesting Words - Steely_D - Aug 15, 2022 - 8:19am
 
• • •  What's For Dinner ? • • •  - Manbird - Aug 14, 2022 - 8:40pm
 
RightWingNutZ - Red_Dragon - Aug 14, 2022 - 3:36pm
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - Manbird - Aug 14, 2022 - 2:14pm
 
COVID-19 - R_P - Aug 14, 2022 - 1:31pm
 
RPeep News You Should Know - islander - Aug 14, 2022 - 1:17pm
 
Automotive Lust - R_P - Aug 14, 2022 - 11:34am
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - acaciascapes - Aug 14, 2022 - 9:20am
 
DARWIN AWARDS! - POST YOUR NOMINATION! - Coaxial - Aug 13, 2022 - 5:03pm
 
China - R_P - Aug 13, 2022 - 3:29pm
 
Brian Eno - R_P - Aug 13, 2022 - 1:23pm
 
Name My Band - oldviolin - Aug 13, 2022 - 11:15am
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - Coaxial - Aug 13, 2022 - 7:03am
 
Health Care - miamizsun - Aug 13, 2022 - 6:37am
 
Sweet horrible irony. - miamizsun - Aug 13, 2022 - 6:32am
 
What is the meaning of this? - oldviolin - Aug 12, 2022 - 3:33pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - GeneP59 - Aug 12, 2022 - 12:59pm
 
Abiogenesis! - R_P - Aug 12, 2022 - 12:02pm
 
PASS THE BEER - kcar - Aug 12, 2022 - 11:33am
 
It's the economy stupid. - rgio - Aug 12, 2022 - 9:06am
 
What's Precious and Sacred to Islam? - Red_Dragon - Aug 12, 2022 - 8:38am
 
Floyd forum - Proclivities - Aug 12, 2022 - 8:12am
 
So... what's been happening here lately? - sunybuny - Aug 12, 2022 - 5:44am
 
Time to lawyer up! - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Aug 11, 2022 - 10:52pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Aug 11, 2022 - 10:04am
 
How to Use RP? - kcar - Aug 11, 2022 - 9:53am
 
Got Road Rage? - Red_Dragon - Aug 11, 2022 - 8:12am
 
>>>>>>Knitted - Antigone - Aug 11, 2022 - 2:37am
 
India - Red_Dragon - Aug 10, 2022 - 4:36pm
 
godnarb: the Lunchurch - ScottFromWyoming - Aug 10, 2022 - 11:24am
 
Peace - thisbody - Aug 10, 2022 - 8:59am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - GeneP59 - Aug 9, 2022 - 4:37pm
 
Museum Of Bad Album Covers - KurtfromLaQuinta - Aug 9, 2022 - 4:19pm
 
MQA Stream Coming to BLUOS - robin2 - Aug 9, 2022 - 11:47am
 
Index » Regional/Local » USA/Canada » Supreme Court Rulings Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 14, 15, 16, 17  Next
Post to this Topic
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


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 ...

High court backs Arizona immigration law that punishes businesses

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.  {#Wink}

hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


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 ...

High court backs Arizona immigration law that punishes businesses

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

jadewahoo Avatar

Location: Puerto Viejo, Costa Rica
Gender: Male


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 ...

High court backs Arizona immigration law that punishes businesses

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

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


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 ...

High court backs Arizona immigration law that punishes businesses

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

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


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 ...

High court backs Arizona immigration law that punishes businesses

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

mzpro5 Avatar

Location: Budda'spet, Hungry
Gender: Male


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

mzpro5 Avatar

Location: Budda'spet, Hungry
Gender: Male


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

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 4, 2010 - 11:09am

 romeotuma wrote:
Um, yeah...in 1918, reversed in 1941. Did you have a point or something?

kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 4, 2010 - 10:26am

 hippie wrote:


Anyone know if she plays golf? {#Roflol}

Hey look over there, a squirrel.
{#Cowboy}

 



steeler

steeler Avatar

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

hippie Avatar

Location: In the studio
Gender: Male


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? {#Roflol}

Hey look over there, a squirrel.


{#Cowboy}
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


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

hippie Avatar

Location: In the studio
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 4, 2010 - 10:14am

 melissab wrote:

Hiya sweetie, how you?

 

Horny. {#Mrgreen}
{#Hug}{#Kiss}


{#Cowboy}
steeler

steeler Avatar

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

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 4, 2010 - 10:11am

 hippiechick wrote:

I see you have been watching Fox again
 
As evidently, do you.

melissab

melissab Avatar

Location: Green Country
Gender: Female


Posted: Oct 4, 2010 - 10:10am

 hippie wrote:


Just like you read Huffington Post 24/7 and link to the every chance you get.

{#Cowboy}
 
Hiya sweetie, how you?
hippie

hippie Avatar

Location: In the studio
Gender: Male


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.

{#Cowboy}
cc_rider

cc_rider Avatar

Location: Bastrop
Gender: Male


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.{#Mrgreen}
  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

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


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

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


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.{#Mrgreen}

Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 14, 15, 16, 17  Next