The US Supreme Court

Post Reply
User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 40340
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Svartalf » Sun Sep 05, 2021 8:42 am

pErvinalia wrote:
Sun Sep 05, 2021 5:36 am
He dreams of making her climate hot.
making he feel hot and bothered?
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
pErvinalia
On the good stuff
Posts: 59295
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:08 pm
About me: Spelling 'were' 'where'
Location: dystopia
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by pErvinalia » Sun Sep 05, 2021 9:05 am

Hot and horny! :hehe:
Sent from my penis using wankertalk.
"The Western world is fucking awesome because of mostly white men" - DaveDodo007.
"Socialized medicine is just exactly as morally defensible as gassing and cooking Jews" - Seth. Yes, he really did say that..
"Seth you are a boon to this community" - Cunt.
"I am seriously thinking of going on a spree killing" - Svartalf.

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 5700
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Tue Dec 07, 2021 5:52 am

All aboard--this train is bound for glory.

'The religious right wants states' tax dollars, and the Supreme Court is likely to agree'
The plaintiffs in Carson v. Makin, a case being heard next Wednesday, December 8, begin their brief to the Supreme Court with an absolutely ridiculous historical comparison.

“In the 19th century, Maine’s public schools expelled students for adhering to their faith,” they claim, citing one example of a Catholic student expelled for not completing lessons off a Protestant bible. Now, according to the brief, Maine is committing a similarly repugnant sin against religious people by refusing to pay state residents’ tuition at private religious schools.

Under this reasoning, there is no relevant difference between denying a public education to a Catholic student and refusing to pay for private religious education. “The times are different,” the plaintiffs’ brief claims, “but the result is the same: denial of educational opportunity through religious discrimination.”

Carson, in other words, represents a significant escalation in the war over whether the government can enact policies of which religious people — and religious conservatives on the Supreme Court — disapprove. It moves the battleground from whether religious conservatives can seek exemptions from individual laws to whether they can also demand that the public actively fund their faith.

Typically, the Court’s “religious liberty” docket involves laws and policies that prohibit religious parties from acting in a way they believe is consistent with their faith. A church wishes to hold a crowded service, for example, in violation of a public health order limiting the number of people who can gather at one time during a pandemic. Or, an employer wishes to provide its employees with a health plan that excludes birth control in violation of a federal regulation requiring the insurance to cover contraceptive care.

But Carson is not like these cases. It claims the state of Maine must spend existing tax revenue from its secular residents to pay the private school tuition of some religious students. No one in Maine is prohibited from sending their children to a religious private school. The plaintiffs in Carson already send at least one child to such schools. The question is whether the Constitution requires the government — and, by extension, anyone who pays taxes to that government — to subsidize religious education.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73014
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by JimC » Tue Dec 07, 2021 6:01 am

Here, religious schools have had a certain amount of government money for many years, and there seems no real pressure to change that. The amount is roughly equivalent to teacher's salaries; fees make up the rest...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 40340
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Svartalf » Tue Dec 07, 2021 6:13 am

L'Emmerdeur wrote:
Tue Dec 07, 2021 5:52 am
All aboard--this train is bound for glory.

'The religious right wants states' tax dollars, and the Supreme Court is likely to agree'
The plaintiffs in Carson v. Makin, a case being heard next Wednesday, December 8, begin their brief to the Supreme Court with an absolutely ridiculous historical comparison.

“In the 19th century, Maine’s public schools expelled students for adhering to their faith,” they claim, citing one example of a Catholic student expelled for not completing lessons off a Protestant bible. Now, according to the brief, Maine is committing a similarly repugnant sin against religious people by refusing to pay state residents’ tuition at private religious schools.

Under this reasoning, there is no relevant difference between denying a public education to a Catholic student and refusing to pay for private religious education. “The times are different,” the plaintiffs’ brief claims, “but the result is the same: denial of educational opportunity through religious discrimination.”

Carson, in other words, represents a significant escalation in the war over whether the government can enact policies of which religious people — and religious conservatives on the Supreme Court — disapprove. It moves the battleground from whether religious conservatives can seek exemptions from individual laws to whether they can also demand that the public actively fund their faith.

Typically, the Court’s “religious liberty” docket involves laws and policies that prohibit religious parties from acting in a way they believe is consistent with their faith. A church wishes to hold a crowded service, for example, in violation of a public health order limiting the number of people who can gather at one time during a pandemic. Or, an employer wishes to provide its employees with a health plan that excludes birth control in violation of a federal regulation requiring the insurance to cover contraceptive care.

But Carson is not like these cases. It claims the state of Maine must spend existing tax revenue from its secular residents to pay the private school tuition of some religious students. No one in Maine is prohibited from sending their children to a religious private school. The plaintiffs in Carson already send at least one child to such schools. The question is whether the Constitution requires the government — and, by extension, anyone who pays taxes to that government — to subsidize religious education.
WTF???? Churches are notorious for misuse of their tax exempt status, and now the Nazgûl want not only to go on letting them get away with their ill gotten gains, but want to give them state funds? the EFFING SCOTUS?!?
I mean, giving public money to a religious organisation is tantamount to establishing a church and utterly contrary to all constitutional principles, is it not?
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 5700
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Tue Dec 07, 2021 8:07 am

School voucher systems in the US already funnel taxpayer money to religious schools. When (most likely) the 'conservatives' in the US Supreme Court rule the favor of the religious plaintiffs in this case, it will only make the relationship a bit less convoluted. I agree that it violates the principle of separation of church and state, but Dominionists have been making steady progress in the US and are a significant element in the Republican Party.

In the first few decades of the republic several states had established religions; Massachusetts was Congregationalist up to 1833. All the US Supreme Court has to do is throw precedent aside, rule that the 14th Amendment was never intended to apply to the 1st Amendment establishment clause, and then states would be free to once again establish religion.

It looks like the 'conservative' majority of justices is set to throw a firmly established precedent aside in the current revisiting of Roe v. Wade. Consider a Trump presidency from 2024, and what may happen with the US Supreme Court thereafter--Breyer pops his clogs, you have a 7 to 2 'conservative' majority, and things could get really interesting. While some may scoff at the idea I suggest (states establishing religion once again) I don't think it's completely out of the question.

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 40340
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Svartalf » Tue Dec 07, 2021 8:50 am

Dominionists... those gofos ought to have the honesty to secede from the union rather than make TP of the constitution and defecate on the memory of the Founding Fathers.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 47192
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Tero » Wed Dec 08, 2021 4:19 pm

91253E3E-4DA6-4E90-A343-7F4C491CDC9C.jpeg
It's OK to funnel public money to religious groups. But not to contraceptives at Planned Parenthood. Because they will spend it on abortion.
https://esapolitics.blogspot.com
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/
Said Peter...what you're requesting just isn't my bag
Said Daemon, who's sorry too, but y'see we didn't have no choice
And our hands they are many and we'd be of one voice
We've come all the way from Wigan to get up and state
Our case for survival before it's too late

Turn stone to bread, said Daemon Duncetan
Turn stone to bread right away...

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 40340
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Svartalf » Wed Dec 08, 2021 4:55 pm

Dominionists should be sent somewhere, and given their own state, separate from the Union. Do you think one could convince Utah to cede territory to the Godly Republic of the Great Salt Lake?
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 5700
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Thu Dec 09, 2021 5:06 am

They're making progress. Why should they be content with just one state?

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 40340
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Svartalf » Thu Dec 09, 2021 5:33 am

I'm saying such as they have no place in the post 1776 US of A, this is no longer the commonwealth of Massachusetts
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
L'Emmerdeur
Posts: 5700
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 11:04 pm
About me: Yuh wust nightmaya!
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by L'Emmerdeur » Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:13 am

It looks like the US Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson (reviewing Roe v. Wade) will decide it can dispense with rights not enumerated in the US Constitution. Previously these rights were recognized as existing in the structure of the Constitution. If/When the court overturns Roe it will open the door to government eliminating any rights not enumerated, the 9th Amendment be damned. The late Judge Bork, who infamously declared the 9th Amendment no more significant than an inkblot, will have triumphed.

'Ending Roe will imperil a wide range of rights the Consitution is thought to protect'
The legal argument around the right to abortion comes down to whether the right is protected in the constitution. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court wrote that, "This right of privacy … founded in the 14th Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action … is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

While many have argued abortion should have been protected through stronger constitutional grounds (I explain Justice Ginsburg’s Equal Protection argument in an earlier article), the constitutional protection remains in the right to privacy and personal liberty.

...

In oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson, Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart, arguing for a 15-week abortion ban, claimed abortion was not protected in the text of the Constitution but tried to distance any decision overturning Roe from also overturning a right to privacy.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out that any argument for overturning Roe and Casey, that abortion is not protected in the text of the Constitution, would clearly endanger other cases that rely on rights “discerned from the structure of the Constitution.” Even Marbury v. Madison, which protects the Supreme Court’s authority for judicial review, is based on a right “discerned from the structure of the Constitution” and not from the text.
The article goes into much more detail regarding the question, and flays Mississippi's disingenuous arguments. Not that it matters--I expect the 'conservative' justices will happily parrot Mississippi and even come up with further bad faith bullshit to vindicate themselves in taking away womens' rights.

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 47192
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Tero » Sat Dec 11, 2021 2:40 am

Court decided to do...nothing...more or less, about Texas law.
https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/6242096001
https://esapolitics.blogspot.com
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/
Said Peter...what you're requesting just isn't my bag
Said Daemon, who's sorry too, but y'see we didn't have no choice
And our hands they are many and we'd be of one voice
We've come all the way from Wigan to get up and state
Our case for survival before it's too late

Turn stone to bread, said Daemon Duncetan
Turn stone to bread right away...

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73014
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by JimC » Sat Dec 11, 2021 3:22 am

The US should just accept reality, and dissolve into 51 separate nations...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 47192
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The US Supreme Court

Post by Tero » Sun Dec 12, 2021 2:57 pm

AD0597C6-72A0-4D30-A538-C54CF0CC3013.jpeg
https://esapolitics.blogspot.com
http://esabirdsne.blogspot.com/
Said Peter...what you're requesting just isn't my bag
Said Daemon, who's sorry too, but y'see we didn't have no choice
And our hands they are many and we'd be of one voice
We've come all the way from Wigan to get up and state
Our case for survival before it's too late

Turn stone to bread, said Daemon Duncetan
Turn stone to bread right away...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests