Alito's Flag Pole

[Nationalist]

7 minutes ago, Aristides said:

I am saying that. You will never hear a Canadian supreme court justice expressing political views. They have more respect for their position and responsibilities in a constitutional democracy.

A judges job is to be impartial, that's why we have them.

Hmm...

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canadas-supreme-court-is-off-balance-as-large-and-liberal-consensus-on/

Face it...Libbies cannot separate their "feelings" from law. Thus they make "foppish" laws that allow for constant change...according to their "feelings" at any given time in the future. The Libbies did exactly that with gun laws in the states. An unelected fckin' bureaucracy can change their rules and in doing so, change the law.

 

[User]

7 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Whether one agrees with the decision or not is irrelevant. The point is, a court was intentionally stacked by politicians to achieve a political goal. That is not what a supreme court is for.

Politicians? Which one was a mere politician?

Everyone appointed had a career in law, as a judge before this. 

31 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Bullshit. The Republicans and Trump were very open about their intentions when they stacked the court. 

You clearly do not understand the meaning of "stack" the court. Replacing existing justices through the existing legal mechanisms is not "stacking" the court. 

Expanding the court and increasing its size in one go, beyond existing legal frameworks and norms to "stack" the court is stacking the court. 

[User]

3 hours ago, myata said:

The only cause for justice in a democracy is it being impartial: the decisions are guided by the common principles in the law, not political views and affiliations of the justices. Justice, is about the impartial and apolitical rule of law, not another rule of majority.

Clearly, in the US now this is increasingly not the case. Clearly, the decisions split on political lines indicate degradation of impartiality. This is not a great news for one of the world's oldest democracies. It's not about whose fault it is, it's about the outcome: without objective, impartial justice U.S. will be bound only to further and still more bitter split. With no obvious or easy way back. Not good.

Where was a ruling not impartial?

You have jumped a long way from a judges wife flying a flag to claiming they are not being impartial in their rulings. 

[Nationalist]

11 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Whether one agrees with the decision or not is irrelevant. The point is, a court was intentionally stacked by politicians to achieve a political goal. That is not what a supreme court is for.

Judges like Thomas couldn't do more to destroy the court's credibility if he was actually trying.

Lol...Do I think McConnell did what he did for political reasons? Hell ya! Frankly I don't think McConnell gives 2 figs about unborn babies OR the constitution. But since it's imposition, Roe V Wade was on shakey constitutional grounds. Why? Because it was imposed based on "feelings" instead of the constitution.!

There is no argument that can adequately refute that...

But you are free to try BECAUSE of the same constitution. 

[Aristides]

26 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Lol...Do I think McConnell did what he did for political reasons? Hell ya! Frankly I don't think McConnell gives 2 figs about unborn babies OR the constitution. But since it's imposition, Roe V Wade was on shakey constitutional grounds. Why? Because it was imposed based on "feelings" instead of the constitution.!

There is no argument that can adequately refute that...

But you are free to try BECAUSE of the same constitution. 

The SCOTUS has been intentionally politicized. That's why only 25% of Americans think it is doing its job.

[Aristides]

37 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Hmm...

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-canadas-supreme-court-is-off-balance-as-large-and-liberal-consensus-on/

Face it...Libbies cannot separate their "feelings" from law. Thus they make "foppish" laws that allow for constant change...according to their "feelings" at any given time in the future. The Libbies did exactly that with gun laws in the states. An unelected fckin' bureaucracy can change their rules and in doing so, change the law.

 

The supreme court interprets the Constitution and Charter. They didn't write those documents. We know you like dictators but who else would you rely on to do it?

[myata]

1 hour ago, User said:

Where was a ruling not impartial?

You weren't reading. Try again.

[User]

Just now, myata said:

You weren't reading. Try again.

You try again. 

 

[myata]

The end of impartial, independent of politics justice will add a load of troubles to already struggling democracy. This is a stark reminder that are strewn through the history: no system is perfect and is assured to run forever. Each and every political system requires citizens attention, responsibility will and intelligence to change it when and where is needed. Another time, and another proof that there's no way out of this equation. Want the system to run itself with absolute minimum of your attention? Jump, cheer and go home like after a ball game? Yes you can: by letting it become a tyranny. No, no good ways out.

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

The SCOTUS has been intentionally politicized. That's why only 25% of Americans think it is doing its job.

Oh give it a rest. Libbies did the very same in order to impose Roe.

Edited May 25, 2024 by Nationalist

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

The supreme court interprets the Constitution and Charter. They didn't write those documents. We know you like dictators but who else would you rely on to do it?

The SCOTUS enforces the highest law of the USA. The Constitution. It's laws are Supreme in America. One of them is the independence of the states to manage state issues, as defined in The Constitution.

The very same is supposed to be the case here.

And I do recognize your projection. It's not me trying to argue the Charter and the Constitution are mere suggestions...like speed limits in Quebec...

Our nations created our own rules of conduct for our new societies. The Libbies are constantly trying to argue our rules of conduct are fluid...to be "interpreted"...and to be outright broken when it "feels" good. Your beliefs actively erode society. The edicts of Libbie rule this last decade have produced nothing but social division, cultural division, poverty, war and general social chaos. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, myata said:

You weren't reading. Try again.

So no, there weren't any that weren't impartial. Imagine that

[gatomontes99]

Why Didn't the left get all up in arms when the SCOTUS nominee couldn't define a woman?

Why didn't the left get all up in arms when Sotomayor took gifts from rich friends?

Of course, we should turn their tactics on them. So allow me to be a lefty for a moment...

This uproar about Alito proves the left hates democracy and the first amendment. They are fascists.

The same can be said about their opposition to Thomas. That proves they are racist.

...oops...those are actually true. Guess I'm not a good lefty impersonator.

[Aristides]

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Oh give it a rest. Libbies did the very same in order to impose Roe.

Bullshit. The SCOTUS that ruled on Roe vs Wade in 1973 had six Republican appointees including the Chief Justice and only three Democrat appointees. Look it up for yourself.

[Nationalist]

13 hours ago, Aristides said:

Bullshit. The SCOTUS that ruled on Roe vs Wade in 1973 had six Republican appointees including the Chief Justice and only three Democrat appointees. Look it up for yourself.

Interesting...and unexpected. 

You are correct in this case. I did some digging and found the trimester implementation was very much like the current laws in most states now.

Why are Libbies so up in arms over this, when in most states the rules set out by the '73 decision are the same as they have now?

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Interesting...and unexpected. 

You are correct in this case. I did some digging and found the trimester implementation was very much like the current laws in most states now.

Why are Libbies so up in arms over this, when in most states the rules set out by the '73 decision are the same as they have now?

It's important to remember that in both of these cases this was not a question as much about the pros and cons or specifics of abortion, but rather whether or not it was covered by the constitution. If it's not a constitutional issue then the federal government has no right to weigh in on it.

The original decision stretched a little beyond that. And it has always been argued that they made a very poor case as to why it should be constitutionally protected.

And what the libbies are angry about at the end of the day is that they wanted it to be a constitutional right and therefore they would be able to exercise more federal control over it. They like concentrating power at the federal level, it puts the power in their hands rather than having to deal with 52 states.

The more recent case says that in the court's opinion it is not actually a constitutional right. So even though not much has actually changed in most states the fact that the libs will now have to fight 52 individual battles over it rather than one and that power has been taken from the federal level and spread to the state level honks them off. They don't like states having more power and the feds less, and they don't like any opposition to their views. 

 

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

It's important to remember that in both of these cases this was not a question as much about the pros and cons or specifics of abortion, but rather whether or not it was covered by the constitution. If it's not a constitutional issue then the federal government has no right to weigh in on it.

The original decision stretched a little beyond that. And it has always been argued that they made a very poor case as to why it should be constitutionally protected.

And what the libbies are angry about at the end of the day is that they wanted it to be a constitutional right and therefore they would be able to exercise more federal control over it. They like concentrating power at the federal level, it puts the power in their hands rather than having to deal with 52 states.

The more recent case says that in the court's opinion it is not actually a constitutional right. So even though not much has actually changed in most states the fact that the libs will now have to fight 52 individual battles over it rather than one and that power has been taken from the federal level and spread to the state level honks them off. They don't like states having more power and the feds less, and they don't like any opposition to their views. 

 

And that is quite true.

[Aristides]

6 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Interesting...and unexpected. 

You are correct in this case. I did some digging and found the trimester implementation was very much like the current laws in most states now.

Why are Libbies so up in arms over this, when in most states the rules set out by the '73 decision are the same as they have now?

That was back when the SCOTUS had some integrity and took its non political role seriously. Just goes to show how far the US system has sunk in the last 50 years. They can't do anything without politicizing it and I'm afraid we are heading in the same direction.

They aren't the same as they have now. State laws are all over the map, from complete bans and jail sentences for anyone who gives or gets abortions, even going after them if they go out of state or support a woman who goes out of state, to pro choice states. 

[Nationalist]

9 minutes ago, Aristides said:

That was back when the SCOTUS had some integrity and took its non political role seriously. Just goes to show how far the US system has sunk in the last 50 years. They can't do anything without politicizing it and I'm afraid we are heading in the same direction.

They aren't the same as they have now. State laws are all over the map, from complete bans and jail sentences for anyone who gives or gets abortions, even going after them if they go out of state or support a woman who goes out of state, to pro choice states. 

And if this bothers you, why not try to change the laws of those states legally instead of warping the constitution in order to have a federal law?

[Aristides]

4 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

And if this bothers you, why not try to change the laws of those states legally instead of warping the constitution in order to have a federal law?

Sure, why should all the women in the country have equal rights and control over their own bodies? They are just women.

Edited May 26, 2024 by Aristides

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Sure, why should all the women in the country have equal rights and control over their own bodies? They are just women.

That is not the question!

Pay attention please.

Why warp the constitution?

[Aristides]

29 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

That is not the question!

Pay attention please.

Why warp the constitution?

Yes it is. Instead of all American women having equal rights, they are now at the mercy of state governments. 

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Yes it is. Instead of all American women having equal rights, they are now at the mercy of state governments. 

Equal rights? What the fck does this have to do with "rights"? Women get pregnant...I'm sorry...ONLY women get pregnant. I didn't design our bodies. Nor did any of us. It is what it is.

The US Constitution is the highest law of the USA. That's what they designed and agree upon. That there must remain some independence of states. I think the idea is brilliant. You evidently don't. That's tough.

Edited May 26, 2024 by Nationalist

[Aristides]

28 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Equal rights? What the fck does this have to do with "rights"? Women get pregnant...I'm sorry...ONLY women get pregnant. I didn't design our bodies. Nor did any of us. It is what it is.

The US Constitution is the highest law of the USA. That's what they designed and agree upon. That there must remain some independence of states. I think the idea is brilliant. You evidently don't. That's tough.

Equal rights for women regardless of where they live. Yes only women can get pregnant so men should stay the f*ck out of it.

Edited May 26, 2024 by Aristides

[Nationalist]

2 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Equal rights for women regardless of where they live. Yes only women can get pregnant so men should stay the f*ck out of it.

What?

You blather on about "equal rights" then deny men any rights what so ever to the baby THEY produced?

A piece of advice...

Find a mate who makes rational decisions for you.