d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate >
Poll > Trump 2020 > Trump Vs. Pack O' Dems
Prev1480481482483484983Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
  Guests cannot view or vote in polls. Please register or login.
Member
Posts: 105,129
Joined: Apr 25 2006
Gold: 10,475.00
Jun 28 2020 09:21pm
Quote (Handcuffs @ Jun 28 2020 06:05pm)
It doesn't matter to Trump supporters. Trump does nothing wrong, ever.

It would be absolutely WILD to see Obama have done the same things, and to see the responses from resident Trump supporters.





So you're saying you're gonna vote for Trump. Alright man. :D
Member
Posts: 27,048
Joined: Dec 21 2007
Gold: 14,569.69
Jun 28 2020 09:27pm
Quote (Ghot @ Jun 28 2020 08:21pm)
So you're saying you're gonna vote for Trump. Alright man. :D


so obviously it doesn't bother you
Member
Posts: 50,748
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 5,146.00
Jun 29 2020 08:19am
SCOTUS decisions are rolling in every 10 minutes
first decision was USAID, nobody really cares
second decision was June medical
same question in Louisiana as the Texas abortion law, both word for word identical requiring admitting privileges

very interestingly, in a 5-4 decision, Justice Roberts was the swing vote. He had a dissent vote to uphold the Texas law, but in this case he has a majority vote to strike down the Louisiana law, because as he writes, even if he disagrees with the decision, because the cases are identical he must cite stare decisis and honor the previous ruling of the court. So he's now upholding the decision he voted against in the previous case, and he was the critical swing;

Quote
"I joined the dissent in Whole Woman’s Health and continue to believe that the case was wrongly decided. The question today however is not whether Whole Woman’s Health was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case."
Member
Posts: 50,748
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 5,146.00
Jun 29 2020 08:29am
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/seila-law-llc-v-consumer-financial-protection-bureau/

Seila Law LLC vs CFPB has been decided.
The single, non-fireable director structure of the CFPB has been declared unconstitutional
Roberts writes for the majority saying that the CFPB violates the constitution by concentrating unaccountable power in one person, which is reserved for the executive branch's president:

Quote
(2) The CFPB’s single-Director configuration is also incompatible with the structure of the Constitution, which—with the sole exception of the Presidency—scrupulously avoids concentrating power in the hands of any single individual. The Framers’ constitutional strategy is straightforward: divide power everywhere except for the Presidency, and render the President directly accountable to the people through regular elections. In that scheme, individual executive officials may wield significant authority, but that authority remains subject to the ongoing supervision and control of the elected President. The CFPB’s
single-Director structure contravenes this carefully calibrated system by vesting significant governmental power in the hands of a single individual who is neither elected by the people nor meaningfully controlled (through the threat of removal) by someone who is. The Director may unilaterally, without meaningful supervision, issue final regulations, oversee adjudications, set enforcement priorities, initiate prosecutions, and determine what penalties to impose on private parties. And the Director may do so without even having to rely on Congress for appropriations. While the CFPB’s independent, single-Director structure is sufficient to render the agency unconstitutional, the Director’s five-year term and receipt of funds outside the appropriations process heighten the concern that the agency will “slip from the Executive’s control, and thus from that of the people.”


The CFPB director now serves at the pleasure of the president and can be fired and replaced at the president's order.
The section of the law that protected the CFPB director from firing is severed from the Dodd-Frank Act, and the CFPB is allowed to continue existing as an agency and Dodd-Frank stays in effect, but no more unaccountable power structure.

Elizabeth Warren just got fucking tomahawked

This post was edited by Goomshill on Jun 29 2020 08:32am
Member
Posts: 105,129
Joined: Apr 25 2006
Gold: 10,475.00
Jun 30 2020 10:29am






Member
Posts: 28,870
Joined: Aug 11 2013
Gold: 10,712.00
Jun 30 2020 10:54am
Quote (Goomshill @ Jun 29 2020 10:19am)
SCOTUS decisions are rolling in every 10 minutes
first decision was USAID, nobody really cares
second decision was June medical
same question in Louisiana as the Texas abortion law, both word for word identical requiring admitting privileges

very interestingly, in a 5-4 decision, Justice Roberts was the swing vote. He had a dissent vote to uphold the Texas law, but in this case he has a majority vote to strike down the Louisiana law, because as he writes, even if he disagrees with the decision, because the cases are identical he must cite stare decisis and honor the previous ruling of the court. So he's now upholding the decision he voted against in the previous case, and he was the critical swing;


Roberts makes no sense. Stare decisis from a decision from 3 years ago? "Even though i think this is wrong, i'll vote completely contradictory to my recent stance on this same issue"

I think the guy is losing his backbone, sounds to me like he's more concerned with going with the flow of the political winds rather than being ideologically and philosophically consistent.
Member
Posts: 54,084
Joined: May 26 2005
Gold: 4,945.67
Jun 30 2020 11:06am
Quote (ofthevoid @ 30 Jun 2020 18:54)
Roberts makes no sense. Stare decisis from a decision from 3 years ago? "Even though i think this is wrong, i'll vote completely contradictory to my recent stance on this same issue"

I think the guy is losing his backbone, sounds to me like he's more concerned with going with the flow of the political winds rather than being ideologically and philosophically consistent.


Yeah, I think he's more concerned with continuing to be welcome at DC dinner parties than with judicial consistency. I mean, has there ever been a really big policy decision that the Roberts Court decided 5-4 in favor of the conservative cause? Sure, they gave Trump and conservative causes some wins on procedural cases or small policy issues, but every time big policy-cases come down to the wire, Roberts breaks ranks and sides with the liberals. It's starting to piss me off tbh.
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 286.00
Jun 30 2020 11:12am
Quote (Black XistenZ @ Jun 30 2020 01:06pm)
Yeah, I think he's more concerned with continuing to be welcome at DC dinner parties than with judicial consistency. I mean, has there ever been a really big policy decision that the Roberts Court decided 5-4 in favor of the conservative cause? Sure, they gave Trump and conservative causes some wins on procedural cases or small policy issues, but every time big policy-cases come down to the wire, Roberts breaks ranks and sides with the liberals. It's starting to piss me off tbh.


Has he gone against limited government excessive taxation? That is conservatism.

They aren't gonna legislate your culture war :/

I see his rulings as consistent with the constitution and SCOTUS precedent. He has doubled down in congression regulation of interstate commerce, money as speech, and hasn't done anything to truly harm his conservative credentials.

He isn't legislating the Right's efforts to control where people can poop and pee? Or nullified settled reproductive rights necessary to survive in capitalist america?

Also, its hard to respect the constitution as it exists without being a liberal. The culture/race warriors are always trying to interpret the Constitution as applying only to them. The right to bear arms for whites, etc. I don't think Roberts will legislate that for you people.

This post was edited by Skinned on Jun 30 2020 11:13am
Member
Posts: 64,763
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 0.00
Jun 30 2020 12:15pm
Quote (ofthevoid @ Jun 30 2020 11:54am)
Roberts makes no sense. Stare decisis from a decision from 3 years ago? "Even though i think this is wrong, i'll vote completely contradictory to my recent stance on this same issue"

I think the guy is losing his backbone, sounds to me like he's more concerned with going with the flow of the political winds rather than being ideologically and philosophically consistent.


I also agree that this is a chickenshit decision.
Member
Posts: 32,103
Joined: Dec 29 2009
Gold: 0.00
Jun 30 2020 01:13pm
Quote (Ghot @ Jun 30 2020 11:29am)


Republicans already have that covered with all the black people they've purged from the voter rolls.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1480481482483484983Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll