USA! USA! USA!
- R_P - May 16, 2024 - 5:46pm
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests
- haresfur - May 16, 2024 - 5:38pm
Israel
- R_P - May 16, 2024 - 4:24pm
NYTimes Connections
- Steely_D - May 16, 2024 - 3:57pm
NY Times Strands
- Steely_D - May 16, 2024 - 3:47pm
Radio Paradise Comments
- Steely_D - May 16, 2024 - 3:46pm
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- RPnate1 - May 16, 2024 - 3:33pm
Other Medical Stuff
- pilgrim - May 16, 2024 - 1:06pm
Your Local News
- Proclivities - May 16, 2024 - 12:51pm
Today in History
- ScottFromWyoming - May 16, 2024 - 12:20pm
Alexa Show
- thisbody - May 16, 2024 - 12:15pm
What can you hear right now?
- thisbody - May 16, 2024 - 11:00am
Things You Thought Today
- thisbody - May 16, 2024 - 10:25am
Wordle - daily game
- islander - May 16, 2024 - 7:13am
Joe Biden
- Steely_D - May 16, 2024 - 1:02am
Climate Change
- R_P - May 15, 2024 - 9:38pm
Strange signs, marquees, billboards, etc.
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 15, 2024 - 4:13pm
how do you feel right now?
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 15, 2024 - 4:10pm
China
- R_P - May 15, 2024 - 1:40pm
Dialing 1-800-Manbird
- oldviolin - May 15, 2024 - 1:13pm
What the hell OV?
- oldviolin - May 15, 2024 - 12:38pm
Song of the Day
- oldviolin - May 15, 2024 - 11:50am
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •
- oldviolin - May 15, 2024 - 11:48am
Science is bullsh*t
- oldviolin - May 15, 2024 - 11:44am
NASA & other news from space
- Beaker - May 15, 2024 - 9:29am
Artificial Intelligence
- thisbody - May 15, 2024 - 8:25am
Human Rights (Can Science Point The Way)
- miamizsun - May 15, 2024 - 5:50am
Play the Blues
- Steely_D - May 15, 2024 - 1:50am
Music library
- mbellenberg - May 15, 2024 - 1:01am
Animal Resistance
- R_P - May 14, 2024 - 6:37pm
2024 Elections!
- R_P - May 14, 2024 - 6:00pm
May 2024 Photo Theme - Peaceful
- fractalv - May 14, 2024 - 5:02pm
Fascism In America
- Red_Dragon - May 14, 2024 - 4:27pm
punk? hip-hop? metal? noise? garage?
- thisbody - May 14, 2024 - 1:27pm
The Obituary Page
- thisbody - May 14, 2024 - 12:41pm
Social Media Are Changing Everything
- Red_Dragon - May 14, 2024 - 8:08am
Internet connection
- ai63 - May 14, 2024 - 7:53am
Congress
- Red_Dragon - May 13, 2024 - 8:22pm
Ukraine
- R_P - May 13, 2024 - 5:50pm
What The Hell Buddy?
- oldviolin - May 13, 2024 - 1:25pm
Surfing!
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 13, 2024 - 1:21pm
Bad Poetry
- oldviolin - May 13, 2024 - 11:38am
What Did You See Today?
- kurtster - May 13, 2024 - 10:35am
See This Film
- Red_Dragon - May 13, 2024 - 8:35am
Podcast recommendations???
- ColdMiser - May 13, 2024 - 7:50am
News of the Weird
- Red_Dragon - May 13, 2024 - 5:05am
Mixtape Culture Club
- Lazy8 - May 12, 2024 - 10:26pm
Trump
- Steely_D - May 12, 2024 - 3:35pm
Those Lovable Policemen
- R_P - May 12, 2024 - 11:31am
Vinyl Only Spin List
- kurtster - May 12, 2024 - 9:16am
The All-Things Beatles Forum
- Steely_D - May 12, 2024 - 9:04am
Baseball, anyone?
- Red_Dragon - May 12, 2024 - 6:52am
Poetry Forum
- ScottN - May 12, 2024 - 6:32am
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- miamizsun - May 11, 2024 - 10:37am
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see
- oldviolin - May 11, 2024 - 8:43am
Beer
- ScottFromWyoming - May 10, 2024 - 8:58pm
It's the economy stupid.
- thisbody - May 10, 2024 - 3:21pm
Oh dear god, BEES!
- R_P - May 10, 2024 - 3:11pm
Tornado!
- miamizsun - May 10, 2024 - 2:49pm
The 1960s
- kcar - May 10, 2024 - 2:49pm
Name My Band
- GeneP59 - May 10, 2024 - 9:35am
Marko Haavisto & Poutahaukat
- thisbody - May 10, 2024 - 7:57am
Living in America
- Proclivities - May 10, 2024 - 6:45am
Virginia News
- Red_Dragon - May 10, 2024 - 5:42am
Outstanding Covers
- Steely_D - May 10, 2024 - 12:56am
Democratic Party
- R_P - May 9, 2024 - 3:06pm
RP on HomePod mini
- RPnate1 - May 9, 2024 - 10:52am
Interesting Words
- Proclivities - May 9, 2024 - 10:22am
Breaking News
- maryte - May 9, 2024 - 7:17am
Guns
- Red_Dragon - May 9, 2024 - 6:16am
Spambags on RP
- Steely_D - May 8, 2024 - 2:30pm
Suggestion for new RP Channel: Modern / Family
- Ruuddie - May 8, 2024 - 11:46am
Gaming, Shopping, and More? Samsung's Metaverse Plans for...
- alexhoxdson - May 8, 2024 - 7:00am
SLOVENIA
- novitibo - May 8, 2024 - 1:38am
Reviews and Pix from your concerts and shows you couldn't...
- haresfur - May 7, 2024 - 10:46pm
|
Index »
Regional/Local »
USA/Canada »
Supreme Court Rulings
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 14, 15, 16, 17 Next |
kurtster
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 1, 2011 - 6:16pm |
|
jadewahoo wrote: kurtster wrote:How come no one is talking about this ruling handed down last week ? The left got its wish by putting businesses on the defensive over hiring illegals, a major point of the left in the debate over solving illegal immigration. In fact many on the left here have supported the notion that scrutinizing businesses should be the first action taken in slowing down the things that draw illegals here. Where is the celebration ? The law was even signed into law by then Arizona governor and now HLS chief, Janet Napolitano. The silence is deafening ... Our newest Justice, Kagan, recused herself because she was the solicitor for the administration, but is not planning on recusing herself when Obama's HC Bill arrives for a ruling, even though she advised on the construction of the Bill. Kurt, Kurt, Kurt... this is not a 'left' agenda. It is a reasonable approach to one very important element of the illegal immigration problem. Indeed, it is supported here, in Arizona, by the Right equally. No, not by the Corportocracy, it is true... because there are profits to be had from hiring illegals for sub-humane wages, paying no withholding taxes, contributing nothing into the Social Security fund, Unemployment dues and a host of other thefts from the commonweal by these corporations. That is right, they are stealing it from you, the American taxpayer. And, as a consequence, the hired illegals are not contributing to the common kitty either. No, it is not a 'left' agenda, it is an American, patriotic agenda. It is an important piece in the handling of the problem of illegal immigration. You know... that problem that has you so concerned so much of the time. Quite frankly, I am thrilled with this ruling for the reasons you stated above. Its right for the right reasons. And it also reinforces State's Rights and the 10th as well. I admit to the cheap shot on the left, but the silence over this ruling everywhere has had me a bit mystified, and as we know that doesn't take too much to accomplish.
|
|
hippiechick
Location: topsy turvy land Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 1, 2011 - 6:12pm |
|
jadewahoo wrote: kurtster wrote:How come no one is talking about this ruling handed down last week ? The left got its wish by putting businesses on the defensive over hiring illegals, a major point of the left in the debate over solving illegal immigration. In fact many on the left here have supported the notion that scrutinizing businesses should be the first action taken in slowing down the things that draw illegals here. Where is the celebration ? The law was even signed into law by then Arizona governor and now HLS chief, Janet Napolitano. The silence is deafening ... Our newest Justice, Kagan, recused herself because she was the solicitor for the administration, but is not planning on recusing herself when Obama's HC Bill arrives for a ruling, even though she advised on the construction of the Bill. Kurt, Kurt, Kurt... this is not a 'left' agenda. It is a reasonable approach to one very important element of the illegal immigration problem. Indeed, it is supported here, in Arizona, by the Right equally. No, not by the Corportocracy, it is true... because there are profits to be had from hiring illegals for sub-humane wages, paying no withholding taxes, contributing nothing into the Social Security fund, Unemployment dues and a host of other thefts from the commonweal by these corporations. That is right, they are stealing it from you, the American taxpayer. And, as a consequence, the hired illegals are not contributing to the common kitty either. No, it is not a 'left' agenda, it is an American, patriotic agenda. It is an important piece in the handling of the problem of illegal immigration. You know... that problem that has you so concerned so much of the time. Well said
|
|
jadewahoo
Location: Puerto Viejo, Costa Rica Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 1, 2011 - 6:07pm |
|
kurtster wrote:How come no one is talking about this ruling handed down last week ? The left got its wish by putting businesses on the defensive over hiring illegals, a major point of the left in the debate over solving illegal immigration. In fact many on the left here have supported the notion that scrutinizing businesses should be the first action taken in slowing down the things that draw illegals here. Where is the celebration ? The law was even signed into law by then Arizona governor and now HLS chief, Janet Napolitano. The silence is deafening ... Our newest Justice, Kagan, recused herself because she was the solicitor for the administration, but is not planning on recusing herself when Obama's HC Bill arrives for a ruling, even though she advised on the construction of the Bill. Kurt, Kurt, Kurt... this is not a 'left' agenda. It is a reasonable approach to one very important element of the illegal immigration problem. Indeed, it is supported here, in Arizona, by the Right equally. No, not by the Corportocracy, it is true... because there are profits to be had from hiring illegals for sub-humane wages, paying no withholding taxes, contributing nothing into the Social Security fund, Unemployment dues and a host of other thefts from the commonweal by these corporations. That is right, they are stealing it from you, the American taxpayer. And, as a consequence, the hired illegals are not contributing to the common kitty either. No, it is not a 'left' agenda, it is an American, patriotic agenda. It is an important piece in the handling of the problem of illegal immigration. You know... that problem that has you so concerned so much of the time.
|
|
hippiechick
Location: topsy turvy land Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 1, 2011 - 6:05pm |
|
kurtster wrote:How come no one is talking about this ruling handed down last week ? The left got its wish by putting businesses on the defensive over hiring illegals, a major point of the left in the debate over solving illegal immigration. In fact many on the left here have supported the notion that scrutinizing businesses should be the first action taken in slowing down the things that draw illegals here. Where is the celebration ? The law was even signed into law by then Arizona governor and now HLS chief, Janet Napolitano. The silence is deafening ... Our newest Justice, Kagan, recused herself because she was the solicitor for the administration, but is not planning on recusing herself when Obama's HC Bill arrives for a ruling, even though she advised on the construction of the Bill. Well, good! Businesses should be punished for hiring illegals. They send buses to the border and cart them in and make slaves out of them.
|
|
kurtster
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
Posted:
Jun 1, 2011 - 5:58pm |
|
How come no one is talking about this ruling handed down last week ? The left got its wish by putting businesses on the defensive over hiring illegals, a major point of the left in the debate over solving illegal immigration. In fact many on the left here have supported the notion that scrutinizing businesses should be the first action taken in slowing down the things that draw illegals here. Where is the celebration ? The law was even signed into law by then Arizona governor and now HLS chief, Janet Napolitano. The silence is deafening ... Our newest Justice, Kagan, recused herself because she was the solicitor for the administration, but is not planning on recusing herself when Obama's HC Bill arrives for a ruling, even though she advised on the construction of the Bill.
|
|
mzpro5
Location: Budda'spet, Hungry Gender:
|
Posted:
Oct 4, 2010 - 11:32am |
|
romeotuma wrote: Does your use of passive voice mean you speak for the Silent Majority?
No just speaking for myself. Is there a reason you are sounding confrontational about this? Or am I misinterpreting?
|
|
mzpro5
Location: Budda'spet, Hungry Gender:
|
Posted:
Oct 4, 2010 - 11:24am |
|
romeotuma wrote: Actually, I have multitudinous points... first, let me mention in passing, this forum says Supreme Court Rulings, not Only Supreme Court Rulings for 2010, so I am on subject for the forum...
second, I was demonstrating that the Supreme Court is not infallible...
third, first it was slaves, then it was the children, now it is the illegal aliens who pick our cotton and vegetables for cheap pay... the child labor law revoked by the Supreme Court was mostly about kids picking cotton...
yet many xenophobic Americans express vitriol to the contemporary illegal alien workers who provide their cheap food and fabric in the current postmodern world...
fourth, I was just pointing out facts in history and letting them speak for themselves...
All good points but none that could be discerned from your original post.
|
|
Lazy8
Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana Gender:
|
Posted:
Oct 4, 2010 - 11:09am |
|
romeotuma wrote:Um, yeah...in 1918, reversed in 1941. Did you have a point or something?
|
|
kurtster
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
Posted:
Oct 4, 2010 - 10:26am |
|
hippie wrote:Anyone know if she plays golf? Hey look over there, a squirrel.
|
|
steeler
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
|
Posted:
Oct 4, 2010 - 10:24am |
|
kurtster wrote: Yes.
It does not serve the best interest of the country to appoint a Justice that cannot fully participate. She already had to leave the chambers this AM for the second case being presented.
Although the most recusals in a first term would apply to a Solicitor General, the principle would spread further than that — for instance, folk considered and/or nominated by Geoerge W. Bush had been serving in his administration in legal capacities that likely would have required them to recuse themselves from numerous cases in first term (Former AG Gonzalez, former President's counsel Meiers). There also have been a lot of Justices who ascended from the Circuit Courts of Appeals, most notably from the D.C. Circuit, from which Chief Justice Roberts came. As a result, these newly minted Justices have to recuse themselves from cases decided by them in that capacity. I doubt that anyone wants to exclude Circuit Court judges from serving on the Supreme Court unless they first resign from the bench and do somethng else for a few years. Less problematic, but still a source of recusals would be an academic (e.g., law professor) who has opined definitively on an issue before the court. So, a slippery slope . . .
|
|
hippie
Location: In the studio Gender:
|
Posted:
Oct 4, 2010 - 10:21am |
|
kurtster wrote: Yes.
It does not serve the best interest of the country to appoint a Justice that cannot fully participate. She already had to leave the chambers this AM for the second case being presented.
Anyone know if she plays golf? Hey look over there, a squirrel.
|
|
kurtster
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
Posted:
Oct 4, 2010 - 10:15am |
|
steeler wrote:
This is primarily due to the fact she served as Solicitor General. Can't argue the cases (even if you did not physically appear before the Court in each of them) and decide them.
Are you arguing that a recent Solicitor General should be disqualified from consideration until enough time has passed to eliminate recusals?
Yes. It does not serve the best interest of the country to appoint a Justice that cannot fully participate. She already had to leave the chambers this AM for the second case being presented.
|
|
hippie
Location: In the studio Gender:
|
Posted:
Oct 4, 2010 - 10:14am |
|
|
|
steeler
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
|
Posted:
Oct 4, 2010 - 10:12am |
|
kurtster wrote:Oh goody, the SCOTUS has started its fall session today.
BHO's wisdom shines through once again as his latest appointment, Justice Kagan has already agreed to recuse herself on 25 of the so far 53 cases on the dockett. The potential for 4 - 4 ties now exists, with no ruling letting the lower court's opinion stand.
Why appoint someone who cannot fully participate ? This was bought up during her confirmation, yet it went through anyway. Is this a new way to stack the court ?
Perhaps it was in anticipation of an unusually heavy case load of States challenging the Federal Government such as Arizona HB 1070 and Obamacare. HB 1070 goes through the most decidedly liberal 9th Circuit and a ruling against Arizona in the 9th could end up standing due to a tie. Perhaps the same outcome on the challenges to Obamacare.
This country has been robbed once again of due process by default and poor judgement. But that's only my opinion.
This is primarily due to the fact she served as Solicitor General. Can't argue the cases (even if you did not physically appear before the Court in each of them) and decide them. Are you arguing that a recent Solicitor General should be disqualified from consideration until enough time has passed to eliminate recusals?
|
|
kurtster
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
Posted:
Oct 4, 2010 - 10:11am |
|
hippiechick wrote: I see you have been watching Fox again
As evidently, do you.
|
|
melissab
Location: Green Country Gender:
|
Posted:
Oct 4, 2010 - 10:10am |
|
hippie wrote:Just like you read Huffington Post 24/7 and link to the every chance you get. Hiya sweetie, how you?
|
|
hippie
Location: In the studio Gender:
|
Posted:
Oct 4, 2010 - 10:08am |
|
hippiechick wrote: I see you have been watching Fox again
Just like you read Huffington Post 24/7 and link to the every chance you get.
|
|
cc_rider
Location: Bastrop Gender:
|
Posted:
Oct 4, 2010 - 10:07am |
|
kurtster wrote:Who appoints the temporary Justice ? That could lead to whomever is in charge finding the right one to support the ruling desired. That is not good. It would cast to much doubt on the integrity on decisions. We elect ours here in Ohio as well, BTW. I know one of ours personally. Hope I never get in a situation where I have to look at him from across the bench. I don't know how they're suggesting the Justice pro tem would be appointed. Maybe on a rotating schedule. If they had to go through Congressional approval, there'd be gridlock. Well, even MORE gridlock.
|
|
hippiechick
Location: topsy turvy land Gender:
|
Posted:
Oct 4, 2010 - 10:04am |
|
kurtster wrote:Oh goody, the SCOTUS has started its fall session today.
BHO's wisdom shines through once again as his latest appointment, Justice Kagan has already agreed to recuse herself on 25 of the so far 53 cases on the dockett. The potential for 4 - 4 ties now exists, with no ruling letting the lower court's opinion stand.
Why appoint someone who cannot fully participate ? This was bought up during her confirmation, yet it went through anyway. Is this a new way to stack the court ?
Perhaps it was in anticipation of an unusually heavy case load of States challenging the Federal Government such as Arizona HB 1070 and Obamacare. HB 1070 goes through the most decidedly liberal 9th Circuit and a ruling against Arizona in the 9th could end up standing due to a tie. Perhaps the same outcome on the challenges to Obamacare.
This country has been robbed once again of due process by default and poor judgement. But that's only my opinion.
I see you have been watching Fox again
|
|
kurtster
Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:
|
Posted:
Oct 4, 2010 - 10:00am |
|
cc_rider wrote: There is some noise being made about temporarily appointing retired Justices to serve in such instances. Makes sense to me.
At least she had the decency to recuse herself. In Texas, judges have no compunction ruling on cases in which they have vested financial interest. Course, we elect them too, so we get what we deserve, huh?
Who appoints the temporary Justice ? That could lead to whomever is in charge finding the right one to support the ruling desired. That is not good. It would cast to much doubt on the integrity on decisions. We elect ours here in Ohio as well, BTW. I know one of ours personally. Hope I never get in a situation where I have to look at him from across the bench.
|
|
|