Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SCOTUS’ greatest impact

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    SCOTUS’ greatest impact

    With the looming pick that will presumably tilt SCOTUS more conservatively what do you think will be their greatest and most impactful decision?

    I believe it could be Voter ID laws which could curtail nefarious voting habits in certain areas and render the left’s embrace of illegal immigrants somewhat negated. This isn’t to say the right doesn’t engage in this practice but it seems they don’t do it to the degree of the left.

    What say you?

    #2
    R vs w
    Immigration

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by systemnt View Post
      R vs w
      Immigration
      As much as I disagree with R vs W, it shouldn’t be touched. It won’t accomplish the intended goal and will go against decades of established decisions. It is a bomb that will blow up in our face.... I could go on... but in general I’d prefer we give polarizing social issues a wide berth..

      Comment


        #4
        I hope it's to reaffirm as much of the bill of rights as possible.
        Redistricting and voter fraud are also big on the list
        And then there is protection of the POTUS from the crooked deep state DOJ and others.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Playa View Post
          As much as I disagree with R vs W, it shouldn’t be touched. It won’t accomplish the intended goal and will go against decades of established decisions. It is a bomb that will blow up in our face.... I could go on... but in general I’d prefer we give polarizing social issues a wide berth..
          Ill just say this. If the shoe was on the other foot theyd have a boot on your throat. No quarter to the marxists. Theyd declare the COTUS unconstitutional and would destroy centuries not decades of precedent if they had the pics right now.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by J Sweet View Post
            Ill just say this. If the shoe was on the other foot theyd have a boot on your throat. No quarter to the marxists. Theyd declare the COTUS unconstitutional and would destroy centuries not decades of precedent if they had the pics right now.
            I’m surprised to see you post such, not that I disagree with the premise, you are probably correct. Surprised you would entertain the idea of SCOTUS entertaining a) decided law & b) gov’t stocking their noses in personal affairs.

            I just think the backlash would be greater than the reward and likely lead to exactly what you stated

            Comment


              #7
              Personally I don't have a problem with abortion (if you want to kill your kid, go for it) just don't be asking me to fund it... No GOVERNMENT MONEY for abortion.. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

              Comment


                #8
                Mike if the participants were forward thinkers they wouldn’t need abortions in the 1st place. Consequently their life decisions often mean they lack funds for the procedure. If they can’t fund a few thousand for that, how do you ever expect them to pay for the lifecycle of a child? Who then shoulders that financial burden?

                Social conservatives will never admit it but it cost far less to abort than to “raise” the unwanted children

                Comment


                  #9
                  I prefer voting laws with ID for sure ! How can it be racist to not have a voter ID because you don’t have money ?

                  Roe vs Wade does need to be re-visited. Why ? Well, the decision back then was based in part to the knowledge known pertaining to human life.

                  Today, because of technology, we have more clarity on life. A fetus has a heart beat. Does a heartbeat constitute a living being ? Personally I do believe it does, but I’m not a sitting judge.

                  I think things like this should be tabled with new discovery thru modern science by way of technology.

                  Technology has taught us Saturn does not have 3 rings, and that there are more planets. We owe it to science [emoji436] discovery to better society and not be stuck in dogma.


                  Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Playa View Post
                    Mike if the participants were forward thinkers they wouldn’t need abortions in the 1st place. Consequently their life decisions often mean they lack funds for the procedure. If they can’t fund a few thousand for that, how do you ever expect them to pay for the lifecycle of a child? Who then shoulders that financial burden?

                    Social conservatives will never admit it but it cost far less to abort than to “raise” the unwanted children
                    Frankly... that's their problem, I shouldn't be forced to take care of anyone.... that's a choice we all should have to make.. it isn't the government's right to make that choice for me, certainly not from the constitution..

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Why no one talks about controlling where you lay your seed ? Aren’t we responsible adults and having sex is for adults ? But instead we act like kids, thinking with our wrong “head” and create unwanted kids. We as a country should use more diligence before we have sex. The fetus pays our price for being careless. Really isn’t moral. I’m not Mr. Morality but as a adult I should be more responsible.


                      Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Hopefully mandatory drug testing AND proof of citizenship for ALL welfare recipients and ANY other form of government assistance.. ..

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Per the OP question.
                          Hopefully follow the constitution and Bill of Rights...….nothing more, nothing less!
                          Originally posted by Playa View Post
                          Mike if the participants were forward thinkers they wouldn’t need abortions in the 1st place. Consequently their life decisions often mean they lack funds for the procedure. If they can’t fund a few thousand for that, how do you ever expect them to pay for the lifecycle of a child? Who then shoulders that financial burden?

                          Social conservatives will never admit it but it cost far less to abort than to “raise” the unwanted children
                          Interesting and I would agree that this is valid questioning on your part. Folks yell and scream about having that "choice" as an American citizen. Then the same folks yell and scream when tons of their tax dollars are used to pay for various welfare programs during a life cycle. Cant have it both ways but I don't think many are forward thinking on either side of that issue!
                          Hopefully the courts don't get bogged down in that quagmire!

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Landrover View Post
                            Per the OP question.
                            Hopefully follow the constitution and Bill of Rights...….nothing more, nothing less!

                            Interesting and I would agree that this is valid questioning on your part. Folks yell and scream about having that "choice" as an American citizen. Then the same folks yell and scream when tons of their tax dollars are used to pay for various welfare programs during a life cycle. Cant have it both ways but I don't think many are forward thinking on either side of that issue!
                            Hopefully the courts don't get bogged down in that quagmire!
                            One time in the past, the Supreme Court considered a case that involved life, liberty, and personhood on one side and money/finances on the other side. They chose to put money above personhood in the Dred Scott case, and that was clearly a bad decision. The fact that their decision was "precedent" didn't mean that the bad decision shouldn't be reversed. It was terrible case law. Even the Supreme Court can make the wrong decision sometimes, as it did back then with Dred Scott. Whenever they screw up, their "precedent" should be overturned as soon as possible. Fixing wrong decisions will rarely be able to be done without ruffling some feathers. Living under wrong decisions is even worse. Fix it.

                            That being said, it's way too early to count any chickens. Democrat presidents aren't the only ones who have nominated bad judges. Some of the most disappointing justices have been nominated by Republicans too. Hopefully Trump's next pick will be a solid originalist and not another judge who likes to legislate from the bench.

                            If we do end up with a solid majority on the court that will apply the constitution and laws, as written, THAT will be the greatest impact all by itself. That will mean that an unelected group of 5 lawyers who are willing to rewrite legislation won't be thwarting the will of the people any longer.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Shane View Post
                              One time in the past, the Supreme Court considered a case that involved life, liberty, and personhood on one side and money/finances on the other side. They chose to put money above personhood in the Dred Scott case, and that was clearly a bad decision. The fact that their decision was "precedent" didn't mean that the bad decision shouldn't be reversed. It was terrible case law. Even the Supreme Court can make the wrong decision sometimes, as it did back then with Dred Scott. Whenever they screw up, their "precedent" should be overturned as soon as possible. Fixing wrong decisions will rarely be able to be done without ruffling some feathers. Living under wrong decisions is even worse. Fix it.

                              That being said, it's way too early to count any chickens. Democrat presidents aren't the only ones who have nominated bad judges. Some of the most disappointing justices have been nominated by Republicans too. Hopefully Trump's next pick will be a solid originalist and not another judge who likes to legislate from the bench.

                              If we do end up with a solid majority on the court that will apply the constitution and laws, as written, THAT will be the greatest impact all by itself. That will mean that an unelected group of 5 lawyers who are willing to rewrite legislation won't be thwarting the will of the people any longer.
                              ABsoulutely they can and have had horrid decisions on multiple fronts over our history. Dred Scott came down to a property rights issue...…...of a HUMAN being before the civil war. Abortion is hugely rooted in religious beliefs and muddled in what a WOman chooses to do with their body. Could be quite interesting to see if it comes up.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X