Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

These ads will disappear if you register on the forum

Photo

The Future of the U.S Supreme Court

2016 Election U.S. Supreme Court Labor Unions Corporate Personhood Voting Rights Act

  • Please log in to reply
132 replies to this topic

#1
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,038 posts

The October 12, 2015 issue of The Nation has a very interesting series of articles reviewing decisions of the Roberts court.  I am very glad that they did this because I have been wanting to see a list of some of the more outrageous decisions of the court all discussed in one place. The list helps to point out how undeserving the Court is of its relatively favorable public approval ratings. Although some of the decisions discussed (see also below) are those in which honest people can honestly disagree, others are so obviously slanted toward corporate rights at the expense of labor and consumer rights as to be totally infuriating in their nature. This from a court that secured its new conservative recruits through an obviously biased ruling in favor of Bush in the 2000 election.  

 

In Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 and Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared that voluntary efforts of Seattle and Louisville to desegregate their public schools violated the equal-protection clause of the constitution.[i]  June 2007 A.D.

In District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court declared for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.  Justice Scalia treated the “well regulated Militia” clause as merely “prefatory” and having no real operational effect.[ii]  2008 A.D.

In Ashcroft v. Iqbal the Supreme Court insisted that Iqbal’s pleading had to state facts showing that his claim was “plausible,” a significantly more demanding standard for plaintiffs than what was previously in place.  This created an unfair burden of proof on those who simply want to initiate a suit to go through the discovery process in which such plaintiffs can subpoena corporation for records that might be useful to prove their cases. This established a stricter standard than the standard in place prior to the Iqbal ruling  [iii] 2009 A.D.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission conferred the rights of person-hood upon corporations and equated political donations with free speech. [iv] January 10, 2010 A.D.

In Wal-Mart v. Dukes and AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion the Supreme Court made it more difficult to satisfy the rules of a class action or forced plaintiffs into individual arbitration.  2011 A.D.

In Knox v. SEIU the Supreme Court casts doubt on fair-share representation fees.   Such fees were collected from public sector employees to pay for the costs incurred by unions where such unions act as the duly selected bargaining agent for such employees.[v] 2012 A.D.

In Shelby County v. Holder the Supreme Court struck down a key enforcement provision of the voting rights act.  Under Section 5, jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination had to clear any changes in voting practices and procedures with either the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington D.C.[vi] 2013 A.D.

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby the Supreme Court held that the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate violated the religious-freedom rights of a corporation.[vii] 2014 A.D.


 

Now, obviously a great deal will depend upon the outcome of the 2016 election.  What I wonder is: to what extreme will the court go if a Republican wins that election and reinforces the court with further conservative appointees.  What will happen if Anthony Kennedy, who at least stood up for gay civil rights, is replaced by a more conservative justice?

 

 


[i] The Nation, “Erasing Brown” October 12, 2015


[ii] The Nation, “Wrong on Gun Rights” October 12, 2015


[iii] The Nation, “Closing the Door” October 12, 2015


[iv] The Nation, “Super-PAC Tsunami” October 12, 2015.


[v] The Nation, “Unions in Jeopardy” October 12, 2015


[vi] The Nation, “Voting Rights Axed” October 12, 2015


[vii] The Nation, “For-Profit Faith” October 12, 2015


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#2
Unity

Unity

    Information Organism

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,477 posts
Yeah, Bush really fucked us with that election he stole. Thank the lords of kobol that'll be the last supreme court nominee the Reps get for awhile as demographics mean the elderly bitter old man vote is going away

#3
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,802 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth


 

What will happen if Anthony Kennedy, who at least stood up for gay civil rights, is replaced by a more conservative justice?

Well, I doubt that Obergefell (sp?) will get overturned in such a case due to the fact that the American people are becoming more and more supportive of legalized same-sex marriage. However, Roe v. Wade might get repealed in such a case.



#4
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,802 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

Yeah, Bush really fucked us with that election he stole. Thank the lords of kobol that'll be the last supreme court nominee the Reps get for awhile as demographics mean the elderly bitter old man vote is going away

Also, frankly, I feel like I must point out that the fact that Gore purposely misrepresented and exploited Bush's November 2, 2000 statement that Social Security was not a federal program reduced the amount of sympathy that I feel for Gore after the 2000 election was stolen from him. After all, if Gore wouldn't have done this, then Bush would have probably won Florida and the 2000 election with or without U.S. Supreme Court intervention.



#5
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,038 posts

 

Yeah, Bush really fucked us with that election he stole. Thank the lords of kobol that'll be the last supreme court nominee the Reps get for awhile as demographics mean the elderly bitter old man vote is going away

Also, frankly, I feel like I must point out that the fact that Gore purposely misrepresented and exploited Bush's November 2, 2000 statement that Social Security was not a federal program reduced the amount of sympathy that I feel for Gore after the 2000 election was stolen from him. After all, if Gore wouldn't have done this, then Bush would have probably won Florida and the 2000 election with or without U.S. Supreme Court intervention.

 

 

Citation needed.  I would like to be able to read what Gore said in context.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#6
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,802 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

 

 

Yeah, Bush really fucked us with that election he stole. Thank the lords of kobol that'll be the last supreme court nominee the Reps get for awhile as demographics mean the elderly bitter old man vote is going away

Also, frankly, I feel like I must point out that the fact that Gore purposely misrepresented and exploited Bush's November 2, 2000 statement that Social Security was not a federal program reduced the amount of sympathy that I feel for Gore after the 2000 election was stolen from him. After all, if Gore wouldn't have done this, then Bush would have probably won Florida and the 2000 election with or without U.S. Supreme Court intervention.

 

 

Citation needed.  I would like to be able to read what Gore said in context.

Very well :):
     
Here is the relevant November 2, 2000 Bush speech with the relevant part:

http://www.cnn.com/T...1/02/se.05.html

"This frightens some in Washington because they want the federal government controlling the Social Security, like it's some kind of federal program. We understand differently though. You see, it's your money, not the government's money. You ought to be allowed to invest it the way you see fit."

Here is a book which talks about the content of the relevant Al Gore ad about this:

https://books.google...am gore&f=false

Here are four newspaper articles which mention the fact that this Al Gore ad ran in both Pennsylvania and Florida:

http://articles.balt...l-security-gore

"The vice president's team quickly produced an ad that will appear in the crucial battleground states of Florida and Pennsylvania beginning today.

The ad intones: "Is Social Security a federal program? Of course, it is, but it seems George Bush doesn't understand that."

It concludes: "George Bush: Is he ready to lead America?""

 

http://articles.balt...social-security

"A new Gore commercial, now airing in Florida and in Pennsylvania, which has the second-largest senior voting bloc, plays off a Bush gaffe last week, when the Republican seemed to suggest that he did not know that Social Security was a federal program. The ad repeats Gore's frequent criticisms of Bush's Social Security proposal and questions the Texan's readiness to be president."

http://articles.lati...4/news/mn-46936

"For the second straight day, Gore launched a television ad questioning the Texas governor's readiness to serve as president. The newest commercial, airing only in the contested states of Pennsylvania and Florida, recounts Bush's Social Security remark and asks: "Is he ready to lead America?""

http://cjonline.com/...lsecurity.shtml

"The vice president's team quickly produced an ad that will appear in the crucial battleground states of Florida and Pennsylvania beginning Saturday.

The ad intones: "Is Social Security a federal program? Of course it is, but it seems George Bush doesn't understand that."

It concludes, "George Bush: Is he ready to lead America?""



#7
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,802 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

Is there anything else that you need, caltrek? :)



#8
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,038 posts

Is there anything else that you need, caltrek? :)

 

Sleep.


  • Futurist likes this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#9
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,038 posts

Not that I would justify what Gore did, but I would point out the terrain that Gore operated upon.  It was Gore who was accussed of claiming that he started the investigation of Love Canal (he said no such thing. Rather, he gave an accurate account of receiving a letter from a girl who complained about the Love Canal problem, a problem that had already received sufficient local attention for that girl to be aware of it).  It was Gore who was accussed of claiming that he invented the internet, when all he ever claimed was that he was involved in its initial regulation. It was Gore who was laughed at after for claiming that Love Story was based on his time in college.  The author did say that Gore was in fact one of the persons upon whom he based his book.

 

Gore was flat mis-quoted.  Bush was just taken out of context.  That Gore deserved to have the election stolen from him due to this slight of hand is like saying that at jaywalker should be given the death penalty. Moreover, it was th right of the citizens to elect their leader which should really be the focus of the debate, not who best deserved a promotion. The two are intertwined, by the principles of electoral democracy should be far more important in weight.


  • Futurist likes this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#10
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,802 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

1. Not that I would justify what Gore did, but I would point out the terrain that Gore operated upon.  It was Gore who was accussed of claiming that he started the investigation of Love Canal (he said no such thing. Rather, he gave an accurate account of receiving a letter from a girl who complained about the Love Canal problem, a problem that had already received sufficient local attention for that girl to be aware of it).  It was Gore who was accussed of claiming that he invented the internet, when all he ever claimed was that he was involved in its initial regulation. It was Gore who was laughed at after for claiming that Love Story was based on his time in college.  The author did say that Gore was in fact one of the persons upon whom he based his book.

 

2. Gore was flat mis-quoted.  Bush was just taken out of context.

 

3. That Gore deserved to have the election stolen from him due to this slight of hand is like saying that at jaywalker should be given the death penalty. Moreover, it was th right of the citizens to elect their leader which should really be the focus of the debate, not who best deserved a promotion. The two are intertwined, by the principles of electoral democracy should be far more important in weight.

1. Yes, I am well-aware that the media appears to have been more anti-Gore than anti-Bush in 2000; indeed, this might be a good magazine article about this:

www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/10/gore200710

Also, though, did Bush's campaign ever make ads about this or openly use these mis-quotations in order to attack Gore? Or was it simply the media who did this?

2. Well, Bush had a sentence of his where he misspoke taken out of context.

 

3. I completely agree with you on this, caltrek.

In addition to this, though, out of curiosity--can you please respond to my Al Gore Foreign Policy thread, caltrek? I think that it is located somewhere below this thread in this section of this forum. :)



#11
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,038 posts

Genrally, I don't like to pend a lot of energy on what if scenarios.  Since you have made a special request, I will try to look at your other thread.  I have provided a link so that I can more easliy find it later.

 

http://www.futuretim...he-present-day/


  • Futurist likes this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#12
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,038 posts

Justice Anthony Scalia Found Dead

 

(See link below)

 

http://www.msn.com/e...id=ansmsnnews11

 

 

Just heard of this development highly relevant to this thread.

 

 

 

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead of apparent natural cause Saturday on a luxury resort in West Texas, federal officials said. 

 

Scalia has been one of the most conservative justices on the court. His death will give Obama an opportunity to nominate a more progressively minded justice to the court.
 


  • Yuli Ban and Futurist like this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#13
Unity

Unity

    Information Organism

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,477 posts
R.I.P.

I'll refrain from posting about this for a little bit out of respect.
  • Futurist likes this

#14
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,426 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

I am shameless, so I'll say what needs to be said.

 

Will, remember what you said about us not being able to stop global warming in time because the SCOTUS was acting too conservatively? Looks like you spoke too soon.

 

http://www.theonion....tle-socia-52356


  • Futurist likes this

And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#15
Yuli Ban

Yuli Ban

    Born Again Singularitarian

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,426 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans, LA

The Simply Breathtaking Consequences Of Justice Scalia’s Death

Twenty-four hours ago, Republicans were headed into what remains of the current Supreme Court term with a solid majority and a docket strewn with some of the most consequential cases in decades. Affirmative action, abortion, birth control, immigration, an effort to shift congressional power to Republicans — all of these issues are before the justices this term.
The issues remain before the Court, but the balance of power just changed. Justice Antonin Scalia, the longest-serving member of the Court and one of its most outspoken conservatives, is dead. When the sun rose this morning, Republicans enjoyed a 5-4 majority on the nation’s highest Court. It sets on an evenly divided bench.
President Obama will undoubtedly nominate someone to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court (pro tip: you should probably get used to hearing the words “Judge Sri Srinivasan” a whole lot in the coming months). The GOP-controlled Senate, meanwhile, is overwhelmingly likely to refuse to confirm anyone Obama nominates. News of Scalia’s death had barely broken when one Senate Judiciary Committee member’s communications director offered this assessment...

 
AND...

 

The Fate of the Earth
 
As a final note, it’s worth nothing that Scalia’s last act as a Supreme Court justice may have been to supply the fifth vote in a series of orders handed down on Tuesday halting President Obama’smost ambitious effort to fight climate change. If the Court remains evenly divided in this case, it could matter a great deal that the two judges assigned to this case in the court below are Democratic appointees. If they vote to uphold the administration’s policies, that order will stand unless there is a fifth justice who votes to reverse that decision.


  • Futurist likes this

And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.


#16
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,802 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

Justice Anthony Scalia Found Dead

 

(See link below)

 

http://www.msn.com/e...id=ansmsnnews11

 

 

Just heard of this development highly relevant to this thread.

 

 

 

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead of apparent natural cause Saturday on a luxury resort in West Texas, federal officials said. 

 

Scalia has been one of the most conservative justices on the court. His death will give Obama an opportunity to nominate a more progressively minded justice to the court.

Yes; correct! Indeed, my money is on this guy:

https://en.wikipedia.../Sri_Srinivasan

 

M_Id_375107_Sri_Srinivasan.jpg

 

If nominated and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, then he will be both the first Indian-American and the first Hindu U.S. Supreme Court justice. :)



#17
Futurist

Futurist

    Aspiring cross-dresser

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,802 posts
  • LocationSouthern California, United States of America, Planet Earth

Also, frankly, I wonder if Ginsburg and/or Breyer will retire sometime within the next 4 or 8 years if a Democrat will win the U.S. Presidency in 2016 and possibly in 2020 as well.

Indeed, any thoughts on this?



#18
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,038 posts

http://www.democracy...ves_split_court

 

 

http://www.democracy...esident_obama_s

 

http://www.democracy...he_constitution

 

 

The links above are to some very good interviews on Democracy Now! concerning the death of Scalia and the impact on the future of the court.   Like it or not, the issue is becoming very political very fast.  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already stated his intent to block confirmation no matter who is nominated.  That he would do that behind the scenes is not a surprise.  That he would declare his intentions in such a brazen manner is probably unprecedented.

 

P.S. to Futurist.  I trust that these interviews will satisfy your thirst for comments regarding the potential for retirement of Ginsburg and/or Breyer in the near future.   If not, please feel free to restate your request, perhaps with a little more focus to it.  


  • Futurist likes this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#19
Unity

Unity

    Information Organism

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,477 posts
I have heard conservatives ssying that McConnell has no spine. Just for reference the longest confirmation battle was 125 days. President Obama still has 300 days in office. Good luck trying to block it.

#20
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,038 posts

If the Republicans are to be pressured to at least have an up and down vote on any nomination, it looks like Democrats may have some work to do in making the case for such an outcome.

 

http://www.upi.com/T...7691455805662/ 

 

 

WASHINGTON, Feb. 18 (UPI) -- A CBS poll found Americans are closely divided on who should appoint the new U.S. Supreme Court  justice after the death of Antonio Scalia.

The poll found 47 percent of those polled would like President Barack Obama to appoint the new justice before the election in November, while 46 percent would prefer the new justice be appointed by the next president. Pollsters also found 82 percent of Republicans would like the next president to appoint the replacement, while 77 percent of Democrats want Obama to make the appointment...

 

Approval of the high court's performance has also seen an uptick since the poll began in 2012 with 49 percent approval to 37 percent disapproval, the poll found.

  • Futurist likes this

The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users