Justice Alito flew "stop the steal" symbol

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(05-30-2024, 11:57 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I am not really complaining about Alito, either. I just want people to admit that justices and judges are political actors and stop pretending they aren't.

I think they all do and do their best to insulate their decisions from their political beliefs.

That said, when a decision goes against a given party, they are accused of partisan politics.

Roe being overturned.

States voting to take DJT off their ballots.

Multiple questions about the judge in DJT's case.


It's the best we got.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-30-2024, 01:30 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: I think they all do and do their best to insulate their decisions from their political beliefs.

That said, when a decision goes against a given party, they are accused of partisan politics.

Roe being overturned.

States voting to take DJT off their ballots.

Multiple questions about the judge in DJT's case.


It's the best we got.

The main problem is that, for most people, judicial activism is a decision they don't like.  This point is constantly misconstrued by many on this board, but the original Roe decision was a far more greater case of judicial activism than the decision overturning it.  Saying a voluntary medical procedure falls under the 14th Amendments right to privacy is a huge stretch.  Dobbs merely stated it was a issue for the states to decide, which fits far more neatly into the Constitution's standard that any power not directly ascribed to the federal government is the purview of the individual states.

IN another thread we had a poster bemoaning the two SCOTUS justices they believed thought the same as Butker, while ignoring the three liberal justices that largely think the exact same way they do.  Why is one ok and the other not?  because you like one and dislike the other.  We certainly want our justices to be impartial while performing their job function, but outside of that they're allowed to have any opinion they want.  Much like the judge in the NYC Trump case.  

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-30-2024, 11:57 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I am not really complaining about Alito, either. I just want people to admit that justices and judges are political actors and stop pretending they aren't.

I understand your POV, but it's pretty clear which side most of them are on.  That only works in an Ideological world, and we don't live in that one.

(05-30-2024, 12:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not arguing whether they currently are or are not.  But is it not possible for a bench officer to have political opinions and not allow them to sway their judicial impartiality?  Claiming otherwise makes one sound like a Trump supporter regarding his NYC case.

That's the important part. 

[Dill]

(05-30-2024, 04:02 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Is this on the same level as Nancy ripping up Trump's SotU speech papers on National TV?
Nah, not even close, Nancy became a Karen on national TV. 

No. 

Are you missing the context and status of the actors here altogether? 

[Dill]

(05-30-2024, 04:21 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: if you think the man always wins final say, then you don't know women. Besides, If he told you the truth,  there would be alot less marriages.

It's just words. Why do you take it so personally? When you married your wife, did you request the Obey part to be taken out or not or did she tell you to have it taken out? My wife wasn't fond of that term, but wasn't going to not marry be because of it, so I requested it to be excluded with out her knowing. But again, just words and everyone interprets them differently. 

Of course the man does not always have the final say.  

Some marriages are based on equality. 

Why do you say I am "taking it personally" when I criticize the use of a public forum to expand and secure traditional gender politics.
Are you taking it personally when I criticize him? Or is this just a public debate over values and gender roles.

When you say "just words," are you arguing that platform and message neither have nor were intended to have any political effect whatsoever?  
Would someone be invited to speak and then put all that time into a persuasive argument on the assumption the result would be "just words"? 

[Belsnickel]

(05-30-2024, 12:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not arguing whether they currently are or are not.  But is it not possible for a bench officer to have political opinions and not allow them to sway their judicial impartiality?  Claiming otherwise makes one sound like a Trump supporter regarding his NYC case.

I would say it is possible, but I see it as a lower probability the higher up the court system one goes. A trial court judge is going to get their hand smacked if they are too heavy-handed on the partisanship. Appellate judges, less likely but still possible, especially depending on the circuit. I think SCOTUS justices inject their partisanship into most things, though, and you see it in the opinions they write. This is because they don't have to answer to anyone.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-30-2024, 08:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would say it is possible, but I see it as a lower probability the higher up the court system one goes. A trial court judge is going to get their hand smacked if they are too heavy-handed on the partisanship. Appellate judges, less likely but still possible, especially depending on the circuit. I think SCOTUS justices inject their partisanship into most things, though, and you see it in the opinions they write. This is because they don't have to answer to anyone.

Fairly argued.  Of course, the problem with them being accountable to someone makes their position subject to political whim, ruining the purpose of the lifetime appointment.  Quite a nice catch 22.

[Belsnickel]

(05-30-2024, 08:09 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Fairly argued.  Of course, the problem with them being accountable to someone makes their position subject to political whim, ruining the purpose of the lifetime appointment.  Quite a nice catch 22.

This is why I favor my method for SCOTUS reform. A new justice is appointed every two years with the most senior justice serving as chief for two years. Once a justice has served 18 years, or 9 appointment terms, they "retire." Retirement in this case simply means they may still sit in a circuit and may be brought into the main bench if there is a recusal or an emergency requiring a ninth. So they remain as justices but they are not "active."

This removes the politicization of the court by allowing each POTUS to nominate two justices during their term. No POTUS would be able to stack the court with a majority because the most they could appoint would be four. It also means there is a constant rotation of jurists on the bench, avoiding things like justices holding on far longer than they should.

[*pally*]

(05-30-2024, 08:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is why I favor my method for SCOTUS reform. A new justice is appointed every two years with the most senior justice serving as chief for two years. Once a justice has served 18 years, or 9 appointment terms, they "retire." Retirement in this case simply means they may still sit in a circuit and may be brought into the main bench if there is a recusal or an emergency requiring a ninth. So they remain as justices but they are not "active."

This removes the politicization of the court by allowing each POTUS to nominate two justices during their term. No POTUS would be able to stack the court with a majority because the most they could appoint would be four. It also means there is a constant rotation of jurists on the bench, avoiding things like justices holding on far longer than they should.

I would also increase the size of the court to 13 to match the number of US Federal Districts.  The Justices rotate their assigned district every session

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-30-2024, 07:31 PM)Dill Wrote: Of course the man does not always have the final say.  

Some marriages are based on equality. 

Why do you say I am "taking it personally" when I criticize the use of a public forum to expand and secure traditional gender politics.
Are you taking it personally when I criticize him? Or is this just a public debate over values and gender roles.

When you say "just words," are you arguing that platform and message neither have nor were intended to have any political effect whatsoever?  
Would someone be invited to speak and then put all that time into a persuasive argument on the assumption the result would be "just words"? 

Some are and some aren't, People have a right to have an opinion and life their lives the way they want that doesn't mean it HAS to match yours or mine or for that matter anyone elses, as long as it's legal and both are consenting adults, then that's their business. 
Wait Isn't this the whole LGBTQIA+ motto? Practice what you preach. 

yes it is just words, he's sharing his life experience and perceptions with others. What someone does with that info is entirely up to them. 

I always do my best to answer your questions, but you don't answer mine. 
Did you remove the "obey" part from your wife's vows? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-30-2024, 08:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is why I favor my method for SCOTUS reform. A new justice is appointed every two years with the most senior justice serving as chief for two years. Once a justice has served 18 years, or 9 appointment terms, they "retire." Retirement in this case simply means they may still sit in a circuit and may be brought into the main bench if there is a recusal or an emergency requiring a ninth. So they remain as justices but they are not "active."

This removes the politicization of the court by allowing each POTUS to nominate two justices during their term. No POTUS would be able to stack the court with a majority because the most they could appoint would be four. It also means there is a constant rotation of jurists on the bench, avoiding things like justices holding on far longer than they should.

I actually quite like this idea.  The only issue I see immediately is what happens if there's no circuit opening for a "retired SCOTUS justice?  I don't know how feasible that is, but it's the first thing I thought of.  Other than that, I think this is solid.

(05-30-2024, 08:25 PM)pally Wrote: I would also increase the size of the court to 13 to match the number of US Federal Districts.  The Justices rotate their assigned district every session

I'd be fine with this as well, as long as both parties got two nominees of their choice during the expansion, regardless of who's POTUS.  The whole Senate confirmation process would have to be amended a bit for these extra appointees as well, otherwise the party in control would simply stymie all the other party's top picks.

[Belsnickel]

(05-30-2024, 08:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I actually quite like this idea.  The only issue I see immediately is what happens if there's no circuit opening for a "retired SCOTUS justice?  I don't know how feasible that is, but it's the first thing I thought of.  Other than that, I think this is solid.


I'd be fine with this as well, as long as both parties got two nominees of their choice during the expansion, regardless of who's POTUS.  The whole Senate confirmation process would have to be amended a bit for these extra appointees as well, otherwise the party in control would simply stymie all the other party's top picks.

Speaking to the confirmation process, I think it should be in the Constitution that the justices require a 2/3rds majority. As they are Constitutional officers, their bar should be higher. I don't care about the other roles, but those in particular should be higher.

As to the circuit positions, that part may not even be necessary. They could just keep them on something like IRR for the military and they can go teach, speak, or write to make their money with the understanding that they could be called up if needed.

[Dill]

(05-30-2024, 08:29 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Some are and some aren't, People have a right to have an opinion and life their lives the way they want that doesn't mean it HAS to match yours or mine or for that matter anyone elses, as long as it's legal and both are consenting adults, then that's their business. 
Wait Isn't this the whole LGBTQIA+ motto? Practice what you preach. 

yes it is just words, he's sharing his life experience and perceptions with others. What someone does with that info is entirely up to them. 

I always do my best to answer your questions, but you don't answer mine. 
Did you remove the "obey" part from your wife's vows? 

I think we both "love, honored and obeyed." We had a ceremony with both a catholic priest and a Baptist minister (my father). 
But I don't really remember. That was in 1977. 

Sounds like you are disagreeing with Butker. He was not arguing for everyone's right to have an opinion and live their lives their way.
He was very clear there is a bad way for women to live their lives, fostered by "diabolical lies." 

And he had some rather negative words for lives which didn't match his; a guy arguing women back into the home is not 
treating others lives as their own business. 

You hear a serious, full on argument for traditional gender roles and your take away is that he's some kind of gender libertarian,
no problem with life choices based on "diabolical lies."

You write as if he's only "sharing" to celebrate diversity, not reminding women of their ONE true calling.  

[Millhouse]

Someone on my Facebook changed their background picture to an upside down American flag after the guilty verdict came in. Known him for over 30 years or so, but not close friends or anything. Just someone I added to my friend list by request.

Now unfriended.

Also unfriended someone else Ive known since I was a kid, because of something similar. Unfriended on there as well. Never really was friends with him either, but I just don't like seeing any political stuff on my Facebook feeds from anyone, especially support for that guy. Some people losing their damn minds over this.

[samhain]

(06-01-2024, 09:35 AM)Millhouse Wrote: Someone on my Facebook changed their background picture to an upside down American flag after the guilty verdict came in. Known him for over 30 years or so, but not close friends or anything. Just someone I added to my friend list by request.

Now unfriended.

Also unfriended someone else Ive known since I was a kid, because of something similar. Unfriended on there as well. Never really was friends with him either, but I just don't like seeing any political stuff on my Facebook feeds from anyone, especially support for that guy. Some people losing their damn minds over this.

It doesn't make me feel great to say this, but the best thing for this country would be if both of these elderly gentlemen passed away before October.  Not violently and not with any foul play.  Just have a nice few days with the wives, kids, and grandkids, go to sleep happy, then peacefully pass.  Maybe at Camp David, maybe at Mar-A Lago.  It happens to guys that age all the time.  

I know it would be unprecedented, but the chances aren't zero, either.  

IMO the responses to recent events on my Facebook feed were pretty underwhelming. I was pleasantly surprised.

Force both parties to move ahead.

[*pally*]

(06-01-2024, 07:09 PM)samhain Wrote: It doesn't make me feel great to say this, but the best thing for this country would be if both of these elderly gentlemen passed away before October.  Not violently and not with any foul play.  Just have a nice few days with the wives, kids, and grandkids, go to sleep happy, then peacefully pass.  Maybe at Camp David, maybe at Mar-A Lago.  It happens to guys that age all the time.  

I know it would be unprecedented, but the chances aren't zero, either.  

IMO the responses to recent events on my Facebook feed were pretty underwhelming. I was pleasantly surprised.

Force both parties to move ahead.

There is no way Trump die quietly that doesn’t give rise to giant conspiracy theories. Shoot, I suspect he could be struck by lightning in front of his rally crowd and they will claim it was Biden ordering one of MTG’s Jewish space lasers to zap him. Trump will become a martyr to the MAGA cause

[hollodero]

(06-01-2024, 09:35 AM)Millhouse Wrote: Someone on my Facebook changed their background picture to an upside down American flag after the guilty verdict came in. Known him for over 30 years or so, but not close friends or anything. Just someone I added to my friend list by request.

Now unfriended.

You unfriend people just because they have beef with their neighbour? That seems harsh.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-02-2024, 06:46 AM)hollodero Wrote: You unfriend people just because they have beef with their neighbour? That seems harsh.

was triggered. It's not unusual for Dems to do that way to much mis-information on FB. 

[hollodero]

(06-02-2024, 07:50 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: was triggered. It's not unusual for Dems to do that way to much mis-information on FB. 

Ehm, the language barrier rears its ugly head here. I can not quite follow your point (that's quite certainly on non-native me).

Btw. i was just referring to the excuse of "my wife argued with the neighbour, hence the upside-down flag" argument. Which, no matter how one sees Alito, is just stupid.

[GMDino]

(06-02-2024, 06:46 AM)hollodero Wrote: You unfriend people just because they have beef with their neighbour? That seems harsh.

I have several friends who will cut social media ties with people they feel are wrong.  On the left and the right.

My mother is one of them.

I have removed very few people and only a handful of them were because of politics. 

Millhouse said they weren't close friends so I agree.  If I don't really know the person and they are posting things I don't want to see I don't see why I need to be "friends" on social media.

But there is a very sharp divide in this country right now.

I had one friend, going back over 30 years, block me on FB because I disagreed with an article she posted about an "illegal immigrant crime".  Turns out she was wrong after she blocked me.  And what's funny about here is she was a free spirit, everyone love everyone love everyone type.  Even dropped her religion after school because she found it oppressive.  And she seemed to still be that way...except when it comes to politics.

It's weird.

In fact this is one of the few places I discuss politics on line.  Most of my social media friends elsewhere don't post a lot about it either.  Occasionally I see a meme that is god-awful and wrong, but not to the level there was in 2015-2020.