Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
squistion

******Official SCOTUS Thread******

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

How do you fix gerrymandering?  Whoever draws the districts is going to do so to give their side an advantage.

Have a federal "I draw, you pick" law enacted.

 

On 6/29/2019 at 6:32 PM, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

NY, CA, IL, NJ come to mind as likely possibilities.  Maybe VA, WA, PA.  I'm sure there are a few other heavily Dem states with a Republican or two that can be redistricted out of Congress.

California already enjoys many extra seats thanks to the burgeoning non-citizen population substantially upping their population ratio (crazy when you think about it).  This would make them a juggernaut.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

How do you fix gerrymandering?  Whoever draws the districts is going to do so to give their side an advantage.

Non-partisan commissions are used by several states.

You can also agree ahead of time on the features you want (eg. compactness of district) and let a computer optimize the results using code both sides agree to.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Say a democrat became president.  Could they not bar two of the conservative justices from the court/district?  Then tell congress to take them to court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Daywalker said:

How many supreme court justices do you need to have a quorum?  Say a few for whatever reason could not vote.

I thought it was 4 that want to hear a case. The case can be from any court, not just an appellate court decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Daywalker said:

Say a democrat became president.  Could they not bar two of the conservative justices from the court/district?  Then tell congress to take them to court.

Why wait until 2021?  Trump should remove RBG from the court and replace her with Rudi.  You wouldn't have any principled objection, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Why wait until 2021?  Trump should remove RBG from the court and replace her with Rudi.  You wouldn't have any principled objection, right?

It has already happened with Garland.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Daywalker said:

It has already happened with Garland.  

a) No it didn't.  Garland was never actually on the supreme court.  You're talking about removing justices who are already serving, and that was never the case with Garland.

b) What happened with Garland was wrong.  He should have been confirmed.  You are part of the problem if you support this sort of thing.

c) I've mentioned before how, when it comes to judicial appointments, both sides whine about what they view as process violations committed by the other side, while then turning around and immediately ramping up the process violations by a notch or two as soon as they get the chance.  Your proposal is a good illustration of that.  Again, you are part of the problem.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

a) No it didn't.  Garland was never actually on the supreme court.  You're talking about removing justices who are already serving, and that was never the case with Garland.

b) What happened with Garland was wrong.  He should have been confirmed.  You are part of the problem if you support this sort of thing.

c) I've mentioned before how, when it comes to judicial appointments, both sides whine about what they view as process violations committed by the other side, while then turning around and immediately ramping up the process violations by a notch or two as soon as they get the chance.  Your proposal is a good illustration of that.  Again, you are part of the problem.

The problem is in 2012 the voters put Obama in office partly to have their will shown in the SCOTUS.  That was ignored because the founders didnt write a perfect document.

Now things like the gerrmander case and the refusal to turn over tax returns are small potatoes and the norm.

The trust and the system is broken.  To act otherwise is sticking your head in the sand.  It is not patriotic.  Time to wake up to the new norm.

Edited by Daywalker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/30/2019 at 10:56 AM, Ramblin Wreck said:

How do you fix gerrymandering?  Whoever draws the districts is going to do so to give their side an advantage.

Do it the scientific way it was intended to be done. I’ve created revised commissioner districts for a certain FL County and a particular commissioner specifically told me he did not want a certain neighborhood in his district. WTF? Objectivity is dead.

Edited by Osaurus
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Daywalker said:

Take the new norm to its endgame.  Force a change.  

Yeah, if your position is "Let's burn this thing to the ground," then you're part of the problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"A nervous lawyer was stumbling through an argument, and several times addressed members of the Court as ‘Judge.’ The Chief Justice became more irritated each time that title was used, and finally interrupted the lawyer...

‘Counselor,’ the Chief Justice intoned, ‘the members of this Court are Justices, not Judges, and you should address them accordingly.’ The lawyer was mortified by this criticism, and began a long, hand-wringing apology....

Justice John Paul Stevens leaned forward in his chair, and said, ‘Don’t feel badly, counselor. The Constitution makes the same mistake.’

 

Rest in peace, Justice Stevens.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Perry_Grossman/status/1151304161901916160

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, identikit said:

Padma looks stoned.

Normal.

She's had dinner with both Salman Rushdie and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. That would factor into a great  "Who'd You Like To..." list.  

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rockaction said:

She's had dinner with both Salaman Rushdie and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. That would factor into a great  "Who'd You Like To..." list.  

She was married to Rushdie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, identikit said:

She was married to Rushdie.

Yup. Likely had dinner with him.  

  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2019 at 5:44 AM, Punxsutawney Phil said:

She gave a great interview to NPR, published today.  https://www.npr.org/2019/07/24/744633713/justice-ginsburg-i-am-very-much-alive

One of several great quotes:

Quote

"There was a senator, I think it was after my pancreatic cancer, who announced with great glee that I was going to be dead within six months," she recalled. "That senator, whose name I have forgotten, is now himself dead, and I," she added with a smile, "am very much alive."

 

 

  • Like 5
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"There was a senator, I think it was after my pancreatic cancer, who announced with great glee that I was going to be dead within six months," she recalled. "That senator, whose name I have forgotten, is now himself dead, and I," she added with a smile, "am very much alive."

:lmao: Stone Cold.  

The moral here, kids, is don't step to RBG.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread on the meaning of yesterday's USSC decision on the border fence (wall) construction injunction.

****

Nothing in SCOTUS's decision indicates that the Trump administration has acted consistent with relevant statutes, including Sec. 8005. Instead, it simply indicates that these plaintiffs aren't the right ones to challenge a violation of Sec. 8005.

...Or the current plaintiffs—who represent individuals who recreate in border areas—may be within the "zone of interests" for other statutes that Trump's plan may violate.

...Plaintiffs should be concerned, however, with how SCOTUS appears to have weighed the government's assertions of irreparable harm versus the plaintiffs' in issuing such a broad stay—particularly given the obvious benefits of Breyer's proposed compromise. This implies a majority more or less bought the USG's argument about the parties' "lopsided" interests and gave great weight to USG assertions regarding the policy need for the border wall—deference that could tilt various other parts of the legal debate in the USG's favor.

****

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mario Kart said:

As I clicked on the link, I thought to myself, "This is going to be a waste of time because there's no way the article will quote or link to the text of the proposed amendment."

I'm starting to agree with Trump about the media being the enemies of the people.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Punxsutawney Phil said:

She will be back planking in no time. She's already beat cancer before, no biggie (pun intended).  Besides she only needs to stay on another year.

17 months.

Dems could beat Trump in November, take the Senate with 65 seats, and Many-faced Mitch would ram it through in December.

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:(

NBC News‏Verified account @NBCNews 11m11 minutes ago

BREAKING: Supreme Court allows Trump admin. to enforce toughest restriction yet on migrant asylum requests

As a result of the ruling, the government can now refuse to consider a request for asylum from anyone who failed to apply for it in another country after leaving home but before coming to the US.

As a practical matter, it means that migrants from Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador cannot seek asylum in the US if they didn't first ask for it in Mexico.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/supreme-court-allows-enforcement-trump-asylum-limits-n1052751?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.