- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 1/22/24 at 7:56 pm to udtiger
So you want the Court to rescue us from ourselves and our inaction?
Posted on 1/22/24 at 7:59 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
And so they should just keep doing it?
The exact proof that you don’t have a problem when the progressive side does it, but expect the conservative side to be principled.
Posted on 1/22/24 at 8:00 pm to Bobby OG Johnson
quote:
The DOJ is currently going after Catholics Christians parents anyone with white skin or anyone who dares to be a Republican Do I even need to add all the current discrimination taking place in schools colleges & corporate America with no recourse? It is the truth & people are rotting in prisons and jails for political persecution right this very second Your constant pacifist posting to anything that concerns anything right wing while making constant excuses for the Dem side of things is clear as day
What does any of that have to do with the Court or this thread?
quote:
You stink to high heavens
I have no idea where you live, but I’m willing to bet we’ve voted the exact same way in every common election we’ve both voted in.
Posted on 1/22/24 at 8:01 pm to Open Your Eyes
quote:
The exact proof that you don’t have a problem when the progressive side does it, but expect the conservative side to be principled.
Huh? This isn’t even a principled matter. No one even touched the merits of this case. This is a procedural decision regarding the burden of proof for issuing an injunction.
Name a reported SCOTUS decision that you deem a progressive overreach and an abomination. I bet that I agree with you.
This post was edited on 1/22/24 at 8:05 pm
Posted on 1/22/24 at 8:05 pm to Indefatigable
I think Roberts is saying that SCOTUS should get out of the policy making and enforcing business. Both the Republicans and Democrats have been all too happy to do essentially nothing on many issues hoping that SCOTUS bails them out and they can blame their utter failure on the Court.
But, is not the River itself the responsibility of the Federal government?
But, is not the River itself the responsibility of the Federal government?
Posted on 1/22/24 at 8:06 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
I think Roberts is saying that SCOTUS should get out of the policy making and enforcing business.
Roberts’ great mistake was Sibelius. He forever lost the ability to convince people that hes impartial. Doesn’t matter whether he is or not, to be fair to many like those in this thread who can never forgive him or the court for that decision.
Truly a horrendous legal decision and, when coupled with the follow-on case that Texas brought after the Trump tax cuts were passed, it’s just….bad. It opened the door for the sentiments that people are now expressing.
I’m trying to please everyone, he ensured that no one believes him.
This post was edited on 1/22/24 at 8:09 pm
Posted on 1/22/24 at 8:15 pm to Indefatigable
I did not like Sebelius from a political standpoint but I ended up reading his decision in particular over and I think he was trying to say that if you don't like the law, then extol your representatives to deal with it, not the Court...so he finds a provision in the law that he could use( that was not argued) that sends the message that he does not want to be a policy making arm.
Posted on 1/22/24 at 8:17 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
This isn’t even a principled matter.
How many times have you said in this thread that the Supreme Court should not be creating policy while defending their latest abomination of a decision? And you’re going to sit here and pretend this isn’t about principles?
quote:
This is a procedural decision regarding the burden of proof for issuing an injunction.
If it’s procedural then it should be black and white, and the 4 dissenting votes shouldn’t exist. So how is it that they do?
quote:
Name a reported SCOTUS decision that you deem a progressive overreach and an abomination. I bet that I agree with you.
This one.
Posted on 1/22/24 at 8:21 pm to Open Your Eyes
Posted on 1/22/24 at 8:31 pm to Open Your Eyes
NavyTiger will now tell you it's nuanced.
Posted on 1/22/24 at 8:39 pm to TidenUP
quote:
NavyTiger will now tell you it's nuanced.
Like I said earlier, him and the rest of the milquetoast brigade shaking their fists at nuances and principles only have that expectation when it’s the conservative side that’s supposed to be having them. As they sit and watch idly as the progressives give no thought to any of those things while ramrodding through all of their devastating policies.
The milquetoast brigade are spineless and weak, and a huge part of the reason this country is where it is today.
Posted on 1/22/24 at 8:40 pm to Open Your Eyes
quote:
The exact proof that you don’t have a problem when the progressive side does it, but expect the conservative side to be principled.
What happened to wrong is wrong?
I do not believe the solution to a left leaning activist court is a right leaning activist court.
If that’s what we need… we have already lost.
Posted on 1/22/24 at 8:41 pm to Open Your Eyes
quote:
This one.
Link to the reported decision?
I get that you’re mad about the outcome and throwing a tantrum.
This post was edited on 1/22/24 at 8:42 pm
Posted on 1/22/24 at 8:42 pm to Fun Bunch
Barrett is turning into a communist pig
Posted on 1/22/24 at 8:43 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
I did not like Sebelius from a political standpoint but I ended up reading his decision in particular over and I think he was trying to say that if you don't like the law, then extol your representatives to deal with it, not the Court...so he finds a provision in the law that he could use( that was not argued) that sends the message that he does not want to be a policy making arm.
Ok. Then let’s say it was a tax (the mandate). Its status as a tax was the only reason the ACA was constitutional in Sibelius.
Why was the law not rendered unconstitutional by the elimination of the “tax”?
Sibelius and the follow-on case from the Trump years (Texas I believe) really injured Roberts as a jurist IMO. I get his goal of appearing nonpartisan, and I actually agree with it. Sometimes the Court needs to correct for overcorrection. But not at the expense of legal analysis.
This post was edited on 1/22/24 at 8:49 pm
Posted on 1/22/24 at 8:54 pm to LSUFanHouston
quote:
What happened to wrong is wrong?
It’s probably somewhere next to how you claim to be a “small government conservative” and support things like the civil rights act and ADA.
quote:
I do not believe the solution to a left leaning activist court is a right leaning activist court. If that’s what we need… we have already lost.
Don’t forget to drink an extra gallon of milk with your toast.
Posted on 1/22/24 at 8:57 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Link to the reported decision?
You’ve replied to the op in this thread, you can link yourself.
quote:
I get that you’re mad about the outcome
I get that you’re happy about the outcome.
quote:
and throwing a tantrum.
That would be a great description for you in this thread whenever someone accurately points out how useless the Supreme Court has made itself.
Posted on 1/22/24 at 8:59 pm to Fun Bunch
I knew Amy was a wolf in Sheep’s clothing.
Posted on 1/22/24 at 9:04 pm to Placekicker
Here’s a Charlie Brown post. This court isn’t deciding things based on merits. They’re doing what their overlords tell them to do.
When Trump gets in office (if), the SCOTUS will have no problem hamstringing his federal enforcement of immigration law based upon some “clear precedent.”
We are not living in a Republic.
Page 13 of 15
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News