What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

******Official SCOTUS Thread****** (1 Viewer)

Dear Justice Roberts

It is time for you to save your dignity and retire. Stop lying to yourself that the conservative block on the court actually hold any of the values that you eloquently defend and try to protect. Stop lying to yourself that you can hold back the shredding of centuries of goodwill earned by the court from these justices. Keep the respect that those that generally believe that for such a smart and seemingly decent man, with experience that most of us will dream of is just wrong most of the time. As opposed to the rest of right wing on the court which goes beyond merely being wrong. We think of you as honest, the others put their dishonesty right in their decisions. We think of you as trying to just uphold the law and constitution despite your flawed understanding of it, rather than those that could care less. Yes, I know your decency will cause you to reject this premise, but deep down you know it is true. It is time to escape.
 
Ben Meiselas@meiselasb
The fact that an actual Supreme Court Justice (Clarence Thomas) would even consider this Trump nonsense Application to Vacate the 11th Circuit’s Stay and demand a response from the DOJ is yet another scar on this Supreme Court, regardless of what the outcome ultimately is.
Click to expand...
Even having someone married to a Trump seditionist hearing this case is a travesty.

Putting the coup in couple, those two.
 
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
-fish- said:
Jackson turning "history and tradition" against the conservative justices. Using originalism to fight the conservative activism. Someone actually read the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...
The transcript on this is amazeballs.
Click to expand...
I'm a big fan of Justice Jackson based on her testimony at her confirmation hearings.

But I don't understand her point in that transcript. She says that the 14th Amendment was intended to end racial discrimination against blacks, and therefore it's not race-neutral? It was intended to give black citizens the same civil rights enjoyed by white citizens, to end unequal treatment under the law. I don't see how that's inconsistent with race-neutrality. She might be drawing a distinction between equality and neutrality, but I don't see a basis for that distinction in her summary of the relevant history. I don't think her point is that since the 14th Amendment originally intended to end racial discrimination against blacks, it therefore shouldn't be interpreted as forbidding racial discrimination against Asians. But if that's not her implication, what's she getting at?

I've read only the three pages linked to in that tweet; maybe there's more to it than that...
 
Definitely out of my depth here, but...

When I heard it and read it, I thought the point was that instead of saying "blacks and whites must be treated equally", the framers of the 14th (13th and 15th too I've read) were saying that black freedmen in fact needed to be treated differently in order to right the inequality that existed.

IOW, equality was the desired outcome. And not something that was required procedurally.

ETA: part of that interpretation is that it sounded like she was using it to specifically rebut the procedural argument by the Alabama AG and defend the VRA generally as valid in light of the 14th.
 
Last edited:
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
-fish- said:
Jackson turning "history and tradition" against the conservative justices. Using originalism to fight the conservative activism. Someone actually read the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...
The transcript on this is amazeballs.
Click to expand...

Maurile Tremblay said:
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
-fish- said:
Jackson turning "history and tradition" against the conservative justices. Using originalism to fight the conservative activism. Someone actually read the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...
The transcript on this is amazeballs.
Click to expand...
I'm a big fan of Justice Jackson based on her testimony at her confirmation hearings.

But I don't understand her point in that transcript. She says that the 14th Amendment was intended to end racial discrimination against blacks, and therefore it's not race-neutral? It was intended to give black citizens the same civil rights enjoyed by white citizens, to end unequal treatment under the law. I don't see how that's inconsistent with race-neutrality. She might be drawing a distinction between equality and neutrality, but I don't see a basis for that distinction in her summary of the relevant history. I don't think her point is that since the 14th Amendment originally intended to end racial discrimination against blacks, it therefore shouldn't be interpreted as forbidding racial discrimination against Asians. But if that's not her implication, what's she getting at?

I've read only the three pages linked to in that tweet; maybe there's more to it than that...
Click to expand...

I think what's missing is that the Alabama solicitor general is arguing that the lower court erred in ordering a re-drawing of the district maps that takes race into account. and Gorsuch's comments were in support of that race-neutral approach. She is saying that if you look at "history and tradition" the Voting Rights Act wasn't race neutral, and the 14th Amendment not only doesn't require laws to be race-neutral, it is expected that they won't be.
 
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
When I heard it and read it, I thought the point was that instead of saying "blacks and whites must be treated equally", the framers of the 14th (13th and 15th too I've read) were saying that black freedmen in fact needed to be treated differently in order to right the inequality that existed.
Click to expand...
But nothing in those three pages represents the framers as saying anything like that. She says that the framers wanted blacks to be treated similarly to whites, not that they wanted blacks to be treated differently from whites. Treating them differently was what the 14th Amendment sought to put an end to, according to Justice Jackson in that statement.
 
-fish- said:
I think what's missing is that the Alabama solicitor general is arguing that the lower court erred in ordering a re-drawing of the district maps that takes race into account. and Gorsuch's comments were in support of that race-neutral approach. She is saying that if you look at "history and tradition" the Voting Rights Act of 1966 wasn't race neutral, and the 14th Amendment not only doesn't require laws to be race-neutral, it is expected that they won't be.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I think the details of the redistricting case probably matter here, and I'm not familiar with them.
 
Maurile Tremblay said:
But nothing in those three pages represents the framers as saying anything like that. She says that the framers wanted blacks to be treated similarly to whites, not that they wanted blacks to be treated differently from whites.
Click to expand...
She's says the 14th amendment people wanted freed blacks to be "brought to" equal not "treated" equal. I think there's a huge difference in the word choice there. No?
 
Maurile Tremblay said:
-fish- said:
I think what's missing is that the Alabama solicitor general is arguing that the lower court erred in ordering a re-drawing of the district maps that takes race into account. and Gorsuch's comments were in support of that race-neutral approach. She is saying that if you look at "history and tradition" the Voting Rights Act of 1966 wasn't race neutral, and the 14th Amendment not only doesn't require laws to be race-neutral, it is expected that they won't be.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I think the details of the redistricting case probably matter here, and I'm not familiar with them.
Click to expand...
I edited too slowly. That should have been Civil Rights Act of 1866.
 
So Ketanji Brown evidently likes to talk. Through the first 8 cases she's spoken 11,000 words. Barrett is next with 4500 or so. Thomas has 76. :p
 
Lindsey Graham throwing a Hail Mary at the SCOTUS, to try and overturn a lower court ruling that he has to testify in the Georgia case where he and Trump tried to have votes thrown out to tip the state's electoral college votes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
How The Activist MSM Is Burying Alleged SCOTUS Kavanaugh Assassination Attempt (5/12/22 6:22 PST)
Replies
47
Views
2K
Boston
Boston
Max Power
Eric Swalwell tweets thread
2 3
Replies
132
Views
4K
Max Power
Max Power
(HULK)
Non-Partisan Funny Things in Politics
Replies
4
Views
619
dgreen
dgreen

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top