Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


squistion

Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

But more than happy to answer any questions about it.  It’s about a pretty obscure law not really something a lot of people care about.  The more interesting parts are just about Cruz and his motivations and everything.

I deposed his campaign manager but we didn’t end up deposing Cruz himself. That would have been fun.

It's all fun and games until Zodiac comes calling.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, CletiusMaximus said:

 

There are remaining argument dates next week Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, and five more argument dates in January.  https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/2021TermCourtCalendar.pdf

There is a somewhat interesting case being argued next week that involves a school tuition-assistance program in Maine that is limited to "non-sectarian" schools (so it excludes religious schools.) That's Carson v. Makin.

There's a really arcane case involving Medicaid that I'm interested in purely for professional reasons - being argued in January.

There are a couple immigration cases, a case involving religious freedom/first amendment (Christian group flying a cross/flag at City Hall), and a campaign finance case involving Ted Cruz (which I think is maybe @fatguyinalittlecoat's case?)

 

 

I'm working on a case now where I'm hoping we get to depose Leonardo DiCaprio.  Just kidding, we definitely aren't deposing DiCaprio, but he is a tangent part of the case I'm working on.  Check out Billion Dollar Whale.  It's a book about the case we're working on right now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally had some time do a deep dive into the hearing, the arguments made and the questions asked by the justices.   Roe is toast.  None of the conservative justices look to be trying to carve a middle ground with Roberts.  This will be a 5-4 vote gutting Roe and a seismic shift in American life is coming in short order.  

This could have an enormous impact on the midterms (assuming the decision comes out in early summer).  A women’s right to choose is maintained as a fundamental one in the entire first world.  That right will now be determined in state legislatures as part of the political process going forward.  I doubt the female electorate takes this draconian infringement on their autonomy lying down.  
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, zoonation said:

Finally had some time do a deep dive into the hearing, the arguments made and the questions asked by the justices.   Roe is toast.  None of the conservative justices look to be trying to carve a middle ground with

Roberts

.  This will be a 5-4 vote gutting Roe and a seismic shift in American life is coming in short order.  

 

This could have an enormous impact on the midterms (assuming the decision comes out in early summer).  A women’s right to choose is maintained as a fundamental one in the entire first world.  That right will now be determined in state legislatures as part of the political process going forward.  I doubt the female electorate takes this draconian infringement on their autonomy lying down.  
 

 

Draconian?  You guys - always with the fear-mongering.  You just can't help yourselves.

No one is losing any rights.  :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

 

Draconian?  You guys - always with the fear-mongering.  You just can't help yourselves.

No one is losing any rights.  :shrug:

Can you explain your thoughts on the bolded further?   If one has the right to do something now, then a law changes giving states the ability to remove that right how is it someone isn’t losing any rights?

  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

Can you explain your thoughts on the bolded further?   If one has the right to do something now, then a law changes giving states the ability to remove that right how is it someone isn’t losing any rights?

 

All they are doing is moving it to 15 weeks.  Plenty of time to make a decision.

So they aren't "removing" anything, but only changing the time frame.

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

That’s a big assumption at this point.  

So losing rights absolutely is still on the table agree?

 

I don't agree that abortion is a "right".  Roe v Wade is built upon a foundation of sand so, IMO only, they can't lose anything because it never should have been decided like that in the first place. 

It's a States-rights issue.  If states want to allow it or not allow it I'm okay with that, but it's not a "right".  Anymore than having a Driver's License is "a right".

Edited by BladeRunner
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

 

I don't agree that abortion is a "right".  Roe v Wade is built upon a foundation of sand so, IMO only, they can't lose anything because it never should have been decided like that in the first place. 

It's a States-rights issue.  If states want to allow it or not allow it I'm okay with that, but it's not a "right".

Agreeing with a current right does not negate that it’s a right.  As of now it is one whether you’d agree with it or not.  

I don’t agree with a religions right not to pay taxes, but as of now it’s their right.  
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

Agreeing with a current right does not negate that it’s a right.  As of now it is one whether you’d agree with it or not.  

I don’t agree with a religions right not to pay taxes, but as of now it’s their right.  

 

fair enough.  I'm not on board with religions not paying taxes either.  I say they need to lose that "right" as well.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

 

fair enough.  I'm not on board with religions not paying taxes either.  I say they need to lose that "right" as well.

For the record I agree with you I think it lands at 15 days.  But it’s also still possible women could lose the right all together.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, dkp993 said:

Agreeing with a current right does not negate that it’s a right.  As of now it is one whether you’d agree with it or not.  

I don’t agree with a religions right not to pay taxes, but as of now it’s their right.  
 

 

 

That's not a right, it's an exemption.

  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2021 at 8:23 AM, IvanKaramazov said:

Has anybody ever actually tried to raise the "there's no enumerated right to buy ammunition" in front of an actual judge before?  How was that received?

And then there's the Chris Rock gambit of making ammunition extremely expensive via taxes.

It's not illegal, but you might have to mortgage your house to shoot at the range for a year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, zoonation said:

Ah. You have no idea what is going on. I should have known.  

 

Spare us your fake outrage, Francis.

Do us a favor and go fearmonger somewhere else.  It's "THE ABORTION APOCOLYPSE!" seems like an extreme over-exaggeration.

 

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

And then there's the Chris Rock gambit of making ammunition extremely expensive via taxes.

It's not illegal, but you might have to mortgage your house to shoot at the range for a year. 

 

It's been tried before.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/2021/10/21/22739075/cook-county-gun-ammunition-taxes-illinois-state-supreme-court-theis-preckwinkle
 

Quote

 

"In a 6-0 decision, Supreme Court Justice Mary Jane Theis wrote in an opinion filed Thursday the county’s firearm and ammunition tax ordinances violate the constitution’s uniformity clause, and the taxes 'impose a burden on the exercise of a fundamental right protected by the second amendment.'

'While the taxes do not directly burden a law-abiding citizen’s right to use a firearm for self-defense, they do directly burden a law-abiding citizen’s right to acquire a firearm and the necessary ammunition for self-defense,' Theis wrote."

 

 

So I would say that banning ammunition, even though it may not fall under "arms" in the 2nd Amendment would place an undue burden on the right to bear arms.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

If you don't know any pro-life women, you might consider the possibility that you're living in a bubble.

Well, there's also the option that lots of people don't talk politics with acquaintances.  But yes, it's reasonably likely that some of those women with whom we don't talk politics are pro-life.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/4/2021 at 11:42 AM, zoonation said:

Finally had some time do a deep dive into the hearing, the arguments made and the questions asked by the justices.   Roe is toast.  None of the conservative justices look to be trying to carve a middle ground with Roberts.  This will be a 5-4 vote gutting Roe and a seismic shift in American life is coming in short order.  

This could have an enormous impact on the midterms (assuming the decision comes out in early summer).  A women’s right to choose is maintained as a fundamental one in the entire first world.  That right will now be determined in state legislatures as part of the political process going forward.  I doubt the female electorate takes this draconian infringement on their autonomy lying down.  
 

The entire first world has a cutoff at some reasonable viability time - 20 weeks or so.  For us to also have some sanity put in place here would be a wonderful move for a civil society.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/5/2021 at 8:22 AM, IvanKaramazov said:

I see it's time for our monthly reminder that women are about as pro-life as men.

Go back and ask women if they think abortion should be illegal after 6 weeks.  That poll does not address the reality that is coming and you're a fool if you think women will be split if the proper question is asked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, zoonation said:

Go back and ask women if they think abortion should be illegal after 6 weeks.  That poll does not address the reality that is coming and you're a fool if you think women will be split if the proper question is asked.

They've been polling the abortion topic for my entire lifetime.  We know that surveys about abortion are sensitive to framing issues, but there's absolutely no empirical evidence at all backing up the assumption of a big gender gap on this topic.  It just doesn't exist, and the polling has been super-consistent on that one.

  • Like 3
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zoonation said:

Go back and ask women if they think abortion should be illegal after 6 weeks.  That poll does not address the reality that is coming and you're a fool if you think women will be split if the proper question is asked.

Nice deflection.

So now when the poll doesn't fit THE MESSAGE suddenly the poll is wrong.:😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zoonation said:

Go back and ask women if they think abortion should be illegal after 6 weeks.  That poll does not address the reality that is coming and you're a fool if you think women will be split if the proper question is asked.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/07/roe-v-wade-abortion-rights-poll-523856

I don't think abortion is a major voting issue.  Inflation, immigration, CRT in schools, COVID...most voters will vote based on those topics and very few will be one issue abortion voters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IvanKaramazov said:

They've been polling the abortion topic for my entire lifetime.  We know that surveys about abortion are sensitive to framing issues, but there's absolutely no empirical evidence at all backing up the assumption of a big gender gap on this topic.  It just doesn't exist, and the polling has been super-consistent on that one.

Again, they have not polled women about what their reality is about to become in red states.  We are going to see 6 week cutoffs, in line with Texas, across the board in the red states.

The 45% "legal under certain conditions" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that poll you linked.  I am prepared to agree that we do not know how women will align if and when the proper question is asked, but I'm prepared to bet a lot of money that it will skew heavily against laws that place severe restrictions on abortion rights, like a 6 week ban.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/07/roe-v-wade-abortion-rights-poll-523856

I don't think abortion is a major voting issue.  Inflation, immigration, CRT in schools, COVID...most voters will vote based on those topics and very few will be one issue abortion voters.

Go back and ask?  That's how they got the poll!  :doh:

They literally went out and asked for the poll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/07/roe-v-wade-abortion-rights-poll-523856

I don't think abortion is a major voting issue.  Inflation, immigration, CRT in schools, COVID...most voters will vote based on those topics and very few will be one issue abortion voters.

you could be right.  i will wait and see what the reality is on the ground when the laws are drastically changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, zoonation said:

Again, they have not polled women about what their reality is about to become in red states.  We are going to see 6 week cutoffs, in line with Texas, across the board in the red states.

The 45% "legal under certain conditions" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that poll you linked.  I am prepared to agree that we do not know how women will align if and when the proper question is asked, but I'm prepared to bet a lot of money that it will skew heavily against laws that place severe restrictions on abortion rights, like a 6 week ban.

more fear-mongering. Always got to amp up to 11.

the reality probably is more like 15 weeks at worst

Which is plenty of time

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Go back and ask?  That's how they got the poll!  :doh:

They literally went out and asked for the poll.

Listen, it is clear you are struggling with basic concepts here.  So, respectfully, please stop responding to my posts.  I've never ignored someone in 18 years here, but I am getting close in this case.

Edited by zoonation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/07/roe-v-wade-abortion-rights-poll-523856

I don't think abortion is a major voting issue.  Inflation, immigration, CRT in schools, COVID...most voters will vote based on those topics and very few will be one issue abortion voters.

Gallup says that 1 in 4 voters will only vote for a candidate who is aligned with them on abortion.   That's pretty major.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/313316/one-four-americans-consider-abortion-key-voting-issue.aspx

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, zoonation said:

Listen, it is clear you are struggling with basic concepts here.  So, respectfully, please stop responding to my posts.  I've never ignored someone in 18 years here, but I am getting close in this case.

Yeah, I think we know who's struggling here. And it isn't me.

You just keep here fear mongering and acting like we got the abortion apocalypse on hand. Don't worry, you'll be able to get your abortions whenever you want them as long as they fit in the window of the law. Which is what they have to do now anyways. They ain't going away. 

You live in Canada anyways. I'm sure you'll be fine.

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, -fish- said:

Gallup says that 1 in 4 voters will only vote for a candidate who is aligned with them on abortion.   That's pretty major.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/313316/one-four-americans-consider-abortion-key-voting-issue.aspx

 

 

Not really. 

"Currently, 30% of those in the pro-life camp and 19% in the pro-choice camp say they are single-issue voters when it comes to abortion."  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, zoonation said:

Again, they have not polled women about what their reality is about to become in red states.  We are going to see 6 week cutoffs, in line with Texas, across the board in the red states.

The 45% "legal under certain conditions" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that poll you linked.  I am prepared to agree that we do not know how women will align if and when the proper question is asked, but I'm prepared to bet a lot of money that it will skew heavily against laws that place severe restrictions on abortion rights, like a 6 week ban.

I think you and Ivan are talking past each other.  You're suggesting women will poll differently once the question is changed.  Ivan is suggesting that, historically, women haven't polled terribly differently than men.  I think you could both be right; women will poll differently AND they still won't poll terribly differently than men because men will poll differently as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:

 

The reality is that many States abortion laws will be unaffected even if the SC overturns Roe/Casey.    

Yes.  Many (all) blue states.  If Roe is gutted the red states will all follow Texas.  Do you honestly think they won't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:

 

Not really. 

"Currently, 30% of those in the pro-life camp and 19% in the pro-choice camp say they are single-issue voters when it comes to abortion."  

 


I’m not a math guy, but this link says that 47% are pro-life and 49% are pro-choice. Doing the math and using your numbers above, I end up with 23.4% or, roughly, 1 in 4 people. Now voters doesn’t necessarily equate to respondents, but your data does seem to support the assertion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

I think you and Ivan are talking past each other.  You're suggesting women will poll differently once the question is changed.  Ivan is suggesting that, historically, women haven't polled terribly differently than men.  I think you could both be right; women will poll differently AND they still won't poll terribly differently than men because men will poll differently as well.

Could be.  My only point is that historical polls on this issue are not reliable indicators for how women will poll if the question is focused on 6 weeks.  I suspect that number changes drastically for women.  I suspect it likely will for men too, but am not sure if that is the case or not.

I take Ivan's point that the historical numbers do not vary much between men and women on abortion polls.   

I think this is going to be a big deal if they take it to 6 weeks like Texas.  Maybe I am wrong.  I guess we will see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Snotbubbles said:

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/07/roe-v-wade-abortion-rights-poll-523856

I don't think abortion is a major voting issue.  Inflation, immigration, CRT in schools, COVID...most voters will vote based on those topics and very few will be one issue abortion voters.

I suspect that overturning Roe could have some negative long-term effects for the GOP that are pretty much impossible to pick up in polling. 

If you went back to the 1980s, for example, "winning the cold war" would have been an issue kind of like abortion, in the sense that it's something that folks care about but it's never the single most important thing in the world either.  But anti-communism was the glue that held the Reagan coalition together.  When the USSR fell apart, the GOP lost that as a unifying cause and I would argue that it's been kind of adrift ever since.

If Roe goes away, are Republican voters still going to care that much about judicial nominations?  Nobody in the Republican party cares about Miranda or Gideon or really even Kelo at this point.  My sense is that 95% of people who vote Republican because of judges were really just doing so because of Roe.  Trump wouldn't have been elected in 2016 if it weren't for Roe, and I have a feeling that dis-engaging those voters is going to be felt by the party down the road.  Not backlash -- just satisfied complacency from a constituency that's had it's most immediate need addressed.      

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The gender gap in the nineties was even tighter than now, I think. That might be also what Ivan is thinking of. I think it has grown. Much like dawgtrails linked to, I thought there had been movement along the lines of a widening gender gap. I have to say I only did a few hours of research one night in one of the past two years, but came to that conclusion. We shall see.

I think the point that the respondents will change once faced with a six-week deadline is not a bad point at all, and you might see a wider gap than otherwise predicted by historical polling. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Snotbubbles said:
30 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

Not really? That seems like 1 in 4 to me?

 

That's not really major.  The difference between voters who are pro-life and pro-choice isn't a great chasm that would swing an election on an issue.

Ahh I see where you were going. I thought you were arguing the actual numbers not the likeliehood it affects elections. I can buy that to a degree, but a 30 - 19 difference is significant, IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I suspect that overturning Roe could have some negative long-term effects for the GOP that are pretty much impossible to pick up in polling. 

If you went back to the 1980s, for example, "winning the cold war" would have been an issue kind of like abortion, in the sense that it's something that folks care about but it's never the single most important thing in the world either.  But anti-communism was the glue that held the Reagan coalition together.  When the USSR fell apart, the GOP lost that as a unifying cause and I would argue that it's been kind of adrift ever since.

If Roe goes away, are Republican voters still going to care that much about judicial nominations?  Nobody in the Republican party cares about Miranda or Gideon or really even Kelo at this point.  My sense is that 95% of people who vote Republican because of judges were really just doing so because of Roe.  Trump wouldn't have been elected in 2016 if it weren't for Roe, and I have a feeling that dis-engaging those voters is going to be felt by the party down the road.  Not backlash -- just satisfied complacency from a constituency that's had it's most immediate need addressed.      

 

They'll move on to a new issue like transgender participating in women's sports or something.  I don't know, maybe immigration and border issues will be the new rallying cry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of your stance on abortion, it should be concerning that we may be entering a time where it becomes common practice for the Supreme Court to go back and overturn previous decisions of constitutional issues based on purely on the partisan make up of the SC justices.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
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.
×
  • Create New...