- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court, in an unsigned unanimous opinion, announced on Monday that it would not rule in a major case on access to contraception, and instructed lower courts to explore whether a compromise was possible.
The ruling was the latest indication that the eight-member Supreme Court is exploring every avenue to avoid 4-to-4 deadlocks, even if the resulting action does not decide the question the justices had agreed to address.
Supreme Court should not be a retirement nursing home. 65 and out.
Supreme Court should not be a retirement nursing home. 65 and out.
Another day, another 4-4- deadlock in the Supreme Court. This time, instead of making a decision, they punted the ball back to the lower courts, in an attempt to avoid yet another deadlock.
This case involves an employer not wanting to even sign a paper stating that contraception violates their religion, because signing the paper saying that contraception violates their religion violates their religion. How freaking convoluted is that bit of pretzel logic?
Now that Scalia has been dead a while, I feel free to state that Scalia's death is a good thing for America. Scalia was not only an extremist ideologue, but at the time of his death, he was taking a vacation paid for by a man who had a case before the Supreme Court. That, of course, gives an appearance of taking a bribe, even if he didn't take one. Not too smart. Legislators have gone to prison for doing the exact same thing. And, had he still been alive, he would have been free to continue waging his "culture war" for the Republican Party, which he was a shill for. Good riddance.
Article is here.
Another day, another 4-4- deadlock in the Supreme Court. This time, instead of making a decision, they punted the ball back to the lower courts, in an attempt to avoid yet another deadlock.
This case involves an employer not wanting to even sign a paper stating that contraception violates their religion, because signing the paper saying that contraception violates their religion violates their religion. How freaking convoluted is that bit of pretzel logic?
Now that Scalia has been dead a while, I feel free to state that Scalia's death is a good thing for America. Scalia was not only an extremist ideologue, but at the time of his death, he was taking a vacation paid for by a man who had a case before the Supreme Court. That, of course, gives an appearance of taking a bribe, even if he didn't take one. Not too smart. Legislators have gone to prison for doing the exact same thing. And, had he still been alive, he would have been free to continue waging his "culture war" for the Republican Party, which he was a shill for. Good riddance.
Article is here.
Yea! And the same should be true of Presidents!
Oh **** - that means both Trump and Hillary are disqualified.
Supreme Court should not be a retirement nursing home. 65 and out.
Another day, another 4-4- deadlock in the Supreme Court. This time, instead of making a decision, they punted the ball back to the lower courts, in an attempt to avoid yet another deadlock.
This case involves an employer not wanting to even sign a paper stating that contraception violates their religion, because signing the paper saying that contraception violates their religion violates their religion. How freaking convoluted is that bit of pretzel logic?
Now that Scalia has been dead a while, I feel free to state that Scalia's death is a good thing for America. Scalia was not only an extremist ideologue, but at the time of his death, he was taking a vacation paid for by a man who had a case before the Supreme Court. That, of course, gives an appearance of taking a bribe, even if he didn't take one. Not too smart. Legislators have gone to prison for doing the exact same thing. And, had he still been alive, he would have been free to continue waging his "culture war" for the Republican Party, which he was a shill for. Good riddance.
Article is here.
Supreme Court should not be a retirement nursing home. 65 and out.
While this is just another sign of the need to appoint a new justice to the court such that these types of weak precedent (or non-precedent) can be avoided, I am at least encouraged to see that the Court is being creative in their attempt to push for a solution that has a slightly more lasting and widespread impact when compared to a mere 4-4 decision.
Why? Do you think the job is too strenuous for the older folks?
You bet. When a guy is 75, every bone and muscle hurts. The longer you sit, the more it hurts.
You hear constant ringing in your head.
Every 15 minutes is pee pee time. Every 4 hours is nap time.
And, as he is listening to all that legal mambo jumbo going on for what seems forever, he is thinking about his house on the beach in Florida, and how few years he has left to enjoy it with his grandkids.
Then, just to be done, they give us Roe.
You bet. When a guy is 75, every bone and muscle hurts. The longer you sit, the more it hurts.
You hear constant ringing in your head.
Every 15 minutes is pee pee time. Every 4 hours is nap time.
And, as he is listening to all that legal mambo jumbo going on for what seems forever, he is thinking about his house on the beach in Florida, and how few years he has left to enjoy it with his grandkids.
Then, just to be done, they give us Roe.
Yeah tell that to my folks. They'll get back from vacation in a week and a half, my guess is they've hiked over 200 miles during the last month, I know a couple of them have been 12+ miles with significant elevation gains. Granted they're only 74 though. :2razz:
How much discomfort depends on the person, and varies a great deal, from none to intense. Age is not the determining factor.
Most people, even old people, have a longer attention span than you seem to. Age is not what determines attention span.
For those who have studied the law, it is not "mambo jumbo".
Are you starting "your age is how you feel - not just subtracting two numbers" movement?
Either the law is constitutional, or it is not. If the ACA trumps religious freedom, then all they need to do is say so or, if they can't determine that due to a split, then lower court rulings should stand. "Crafting a solution" is legislating from the bench.
The justices know that the government doesn't have the power to force people to purchase a product they don't want. They're trying to distance themselves from Obamacare so they don't get splashed with **** when it goes bellyup.
No one is being forced to purchase a product in this case.
There's no mandate to purchase insurance under Obamacare? When did that get changed?
In case you missed it, the Supreme Court already decided that the mandate is Constitutional. That was four years ago. This case is about the exemption process for contraceptive/birth control coverage.
It's an illegal ruling. The court knows that and now they're trying to keep their hands as clean as possible.
No, the authors of the law were just clever enough to write it in such a way that it passes Constitutional muster. There's no Constitutionally outlined limit on Congress' power to levy taxes. You are not being forced to purchase a product. You are choosing to purchase a product in exchange for a tax exemption.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?