Saw this pending decision and found it quite fascinating. It's been to the SCOTUS now 3 times, several interesting issues and angles to this case. Seems relevant beyond it as there are many times when one state's citizens seek satisfaction from abuse in another state's courts in similar manner. Kinda laughed at the reduction of the award to a pithy $50K from the $380Million originally awarded. Not surprising as government crooks seemingly seek to protect their own, especially in the courts. Gotta play golf together on Monday, apparently and perhaps worried about those handicaps.

The initial comment from "LCS" was priceless, and appears exemplative of CA's problems with overgovernmentalization.

Anyhoo, take a peek before it mysteriously disappears, but be sure to read it with popcorn...

linky: US Supreme Court Considers Scope of States’ Sovereign Immunity

While on the subject...fun, fun fun 'til daddy takes the T-bird away...

linky: Oral Arguments Could Get Interesting When FUCT Free Speech Case Hits SCOTUS

Trump was right? goodness gracious!

Quote:WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday endorsed the U.S. government's authority to detain immigrants awaiting deportation anytime - potentially even years - after they have completed prison terms for criminal convictions, handing President Donald Trump a victory as he pursues hardline immigration policies.

The court ruled 5-4 along ideological lines, with its conservative justices in the majority and its liberal justices dissenting, that federal authorities could pick up such immigrants and place them into indefinite detention anytime, not just immediately after they finish their prison sentences....

linky: U.S. Supreme Court hands Trump a victory on immigration detention

So the Democrats want to:

-pack the supreme court
-lower the voting age to 16
-abolish the electoral college


Funny...their answer to losing seems to be: we must change the rules!

Any one know when the supreme court is ruling on the case where half of Oklahoma may legally belong to native americans?

(03-19-2019 12:43 PM)TTT Wrote:  So the Democrats want to:

-pack the supreme court
-lower the voting age to 16
-abolish the electoral college


Funny...their answer to losing seems to be: we must change the rules!

It’s not just the rules they want to change.

(03-19-2019 12:45 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  Any one know when the supreme court is ruling on the case where half of Oklahoma may legally belong to native americans?

According to Elizabeth Warren, it already does. They are all Indian.

(03-19-2019 12:45 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  Any one know when the supreme court is ruling on the case where half of Oklahoma may legally belong to native americans?

Have they even agreed to hear that case? My guess is that they would refuse to hear it outright so they dont have to rule on it.
If they do rull on it, they'll probably use the US breaking treaties over and over and over and over and over with practically every tribe as precedential evidence that its ok.

There's zero way they will rule in favor of the tribes and give that land back. At most, they may rule in favor of the tribe merely for optics but offer nothing as reward. Sort of the 'Yea that was a mistake. Have a nice day.'

(03-19-2019 01:49 PM)q5sys Wrote:  

(03-19-2019 12:45 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  Any one know when the supreme court is ruling on the case where half of Oklahoma may legally belong to native americans?

Have they even agreed to hear that case? My guess is that they would refuse to hear it outright so they dont have to rule on it.
If they do rull on it, they'll probably use the US breaking treaties over and over and over and over and over with practically every tribe as precedential evidence that its ok.

There's zero way they will rule in favor of the tribes and give that land back. At most, they may rule in favor of the tribe merely for optics but offer nothing as reward. Sort of the 'Yea that was a mistake. Have a nice day.'

link to NYT article on it

They already heard legal arguments on it. Legal arguments are strong for the tribe, but cant see the supremes giving half of oklahoma to the tribe.

(03-19-2019 12:30 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Trump was right? goodness gracious!

Quote:WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday endorsed the U.S. government's authority to detain immigrants awaiting deportation anytime - potentially even years - after they have completed prison terms for criminal convictions, handing President Donald Trump a victory as he pursues hardline immigration policies.

The court ruled 5-4 along ideological lines, with its conservative justices in the majority and its liberal justices dissenting, that federal authorities could pick up such immigrants and place them into indefinite detention anytime, not just immediately after they finish their prison sentences....

linky: U.S. Supreme Court hands Trump a victory on immigration detention

Always a good day when the activists on the 9th Circuit gets slapped down.

If you've never read an actual Supreme Court decision, I encourage you to read what Justice Thomas wrote in this case:

Decided May 28, 2019
Box v. Planned Parenthood
link to Supreme Court decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18...3_3d9g.pdf
JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring (20 pp).

Justice Clarence Thomas slams Planned Parenthood for using abortion to 'achieve eugenic goals'
May 28, 2019 03:33 PM

Quote:In a gloriously brutal concurring opinion published Tuesday, Justice Clarence Thomas took on Planned Parenthood, the meaning of abortion, and birth control. While writing a concurring opinion in Box v. Planned Parenthood, Thomas likened abortion to eugenics and scolded Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for nonsensical opinions in the same case.

As if he had been waiting all of his 27 years on the court for the right case to come to his desk so he could unleash hell on Planned Parenthood, Thomas agreed with Indiana’s law and said, “this law and other laws like it promote a State’s compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics.” In a lengthy diatribe connecting Planned Parenthood’s roots to cherry-picking abortionists today, he wrote:

“The use of abortion to achieve eugenic goals is not merely hypothetical. The foundations for legalizing abortion in America were laid during the early 20th-century birth-control movement. That movement developed alongside the American eugenics movement. And significantly, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger recognized the eugenic potential of her cause. She emphasized and embraced the notion that birth control ‘opens the way to the eugenist.’”

Thomas went on like this, giving a multi-page history lesson on eugenics and birth control, occasionally excoriating Ginsburg’s opinion on this case by way of footnote — as Supreme Court justices do. Even though the court won’t hear further argument on this particular case, Thomas said the time will come. ”Given the potential for abortion to become a tool of eugenic manipulation, the Court will soon need to confront the constitutionality of laws like Indiana’s.”

link: U.S. Supreme Court to decide if public has free access to Georgia code

Quote:For copyright purposes, “the people” are the “constructive authors” of the annotated code, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said. “And because they are the authors, the people are the owners of these works, meaning that the works are intrinsically public domain material and, therefore, uncopyrightable.”

But state lawmakers appealed that ruling, and now the high court has agreed to hear it.

Especially hurtful to those who may try to go pro-se. Of course the people should have free access to the annotated codes that govern their lives and rights. That it is even a question shows where many probelems in our society lie.

(03-19-2019 12:30 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Trump was right? goodness gracious!

Quote:WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday endorsed the U.S. government's authority to detain immigrants awaiting deportation anytime - potentially even years - after they have completed prison terms for criminal convictions, handing President Donald Trump a victory as he pursues hardline immigration policies.

The court ruled 5-4 along ideological lines, with its conservative justices in the majority and its liberal justices dissenting, that federal authorities could pick up such immigrants and place them into indefinite detention anytime, not just immediately after they finish their prison sentences....

linky: U.S. Supreme Court hands Trump a victory on immigration detention

How can there be such an obvious ideological slant to the issue that the votes cast so accurately reflect the politics of those voting. I thought these people were, at least in theory, supposed to be politically neutral, at least in their rulings, basing their decisions on case law and the constitution rather than the prevailing thought of their party.

If Trump does nothing else during his term I applaud his efforts to balance the SCOTUS, it's just a damn shame he has to.

(06-25-2019 06:30 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(03-19-2019 12:30 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Trump was right? goodness gracious!

Quote:WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday endorsed the U.S. government's authority to detain immigrants awaiting deportation anytime - potentially even years - after they have completed prison terms for criminal convictions, handing President Donald Trump a victory as he pursues hardline immigration policies.

The court ruled 5-4 along ideological lines, with its conservative justices in the majority and its liberal justices dissenting, that federal authorities could pick up such immigrants and place them into indefinite detention anytime, not just immediately after they finish their prison sentences....

linky: U.S. Supreme Court hands Trump a victory on immigration detention

How can there be such an obvious ideological slant to the issue that the votes cast so accurately reflect the politics of those voting. I thought these people were, at least in theory, supposed to be politically neutral, at least in their rulings, basing their decisions on case law and the constitution rather than the prevailing thought of their party.

If Trump does nothing else during his term I applaud his efforts to balance the SCOTUS, it's just a damn shame he has to.

I agree, it's a shame that it has come to this. But after 40 years of left and far-left politicization with decision after decision "inventing" new non-enumerated "rights", something has to be done, and unfortunately the only way right now is politicizational re-balancing, which is really just reasserting the US Constitution as it was intended, not as it has been more recently and activistically invented.

When you look at recent nominees/appointments to SCOTUS and the votes that got them there, you see one side trying to be reasonable as far as qualification and the other so hyper-partisan that no one but a certified water-carrier for their pet issues can ever be approved, qualified or not. And with the Kavenaugh nomination we see a new higher level of politicization of seeking to falsely destroy any nominee that would dare to think anythnig other than far-left PC.

I hope Trump gets 2 or 3 more nominations. Roberts is proving more unreliable than not, which is disappointing. It'd be nice if we could return to a more Constitutional court after we get rid of all these non-existent invented rights and get back to the business of building a great country that is the envy of our enemies again instead of apologizing and bowing to them.

(06-25-2019 11:51 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 06:30 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(03-19-2019 12:30 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Trump was right? goodness gracious!

Quote:WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday endorsed the U.S. government's authority to detain immigrants awaiting deportation anytime - potentially even years - after they have completed prison terms for criminal convictions, handing President Donald Trump a victory as he pursues hardline immigration policies.

The court ruled 5-4 along ideological lines, with its conservative justices in the majority and its liberal justices dissenting, that federal authorities could pick up such immigrants and place them into indefinite detention anytime, not just immediately after they finish their prison sentences....

linky: U.S. Supreme Court hands Trump a victory on immigration detention

How can there be such an obvious ideological slant to the issue that the votes cast so accurately reflect the politics of those voting. I thought these people were, at least in theory, supposed to be politically neutral, at least in their rulings, basing their decisions on case law and the constitution rather than the prevailing thought of their party.

If Trump does nothing else during his term I applaud his efforts to balance the SCOTUS, it's just a damn shame he has to.

I agree, it's a shame that it has come to this. But after 40 years of left and far-left politicization with decision after decision "inventing" new non-enumerated "rights", something has to be done, and unfortunately the only way right now is politicizational re-balancing, which is really just reasserting the US Constitution as it was intended, not as it has been more recently and activistically invented.

When you look at recent nominees/appointments to SCOTUS and the votes that got them there, you see one side trying to be reasonable as far as qualification and the other so hyper-partisan that no one but a certified water-carrier for their pet issues can ever be approved, qualified or not. And with the Kavenaugh nomination we see a new higher level of politicization of seeking to falsely destroy any nominee that would dare to think anythnig other than far-left PC.

I hope Trump gets 2 or 3 more nominations. Roberts is proving more unreliable than not, which is disappointing. It'd be nice if we could return to a more Constitutional court after we get rid of all these non-existent invented rights and get back to the business of building a great country that is the envy of our enemies again instead of apologizing and bowing to them.

Exactly right, if it's not delineated in the constitution it doesn't exist as a right. It's pretty simple really, at least up until you get liberal activist judges deciding that the constitution is a living, fluid document and subject to broad interpretation.

(06-26-2019 05:16 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 11:51 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(06-25-2019 06:30 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(03-19-2019 12:30 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Trump was right? goodness gracious!

Quote:WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday endorsed the U.S. government's authority to detain immigrants awaiting deportation anytime - potentially even years - after they have completed prison terms for criminal convictions, handing President Donald Trump a victory as he pursues hardline immigration policies.

The court ruled 5-4 along ideological lines, with its conservative justices in the majority and its liberal justices dissenting, that federal authorities could pick up such immigrants and place them into indefinite detention anytime, not just immediately after they finish their prison sentences....

linky: U.S. Supreme Court hands Trump a victory on immigration detention

How can there be such an obvious ideological slant to the issue that the votes cast so accurately reflect the politics of those voting. I thought these people were, at least in theory, supposed to be politically neutral, at least in their rulings, basing their decisions on case law and the constitution rather than the prevailing thought of their party.

If Trump does nothing else during his term I applaud his efforts to balance the SCOTUS, it's just a damn shame he has to.

I agree, it's a shame that it has come to this. But after 40 years of left and far-left politicization with decision after decision "inventing" new non-enumerated "rights", something has to be done, and unfortunately the only way right now is politicizational re-balancing, which is really just reasserting the US Constitution as it was intended, not as it has been more recently and activistically invented.

When you look at recent nominees/appointments to SCOTUS and the votes that got them there, you see one side trying to be reasonable as far as qualification and the other so hyper-partisan that no one but a certified water-carrier for their pet issues can ever be approved, qualified or not. And with the Kavenaugh nomination we see a new higher level of politicization of seeking to falsely destroy any nominee that would dare to think anythnig other than far-left PC.

I hope Trump gets 2 or 3 more nominations. Roberts is proving more unreliable than not, which is disappointing. It'd be nice if we could return to a more Constitutional court after we get rid of all these non-existent invented rights and get back to the business of building a great country that is the envy of our enemies again instead of apologizing and bowing to them.

Exactly right, if it's not delineated in the constitution it doesn't exist as a right. It's pretty simple really, at least up until you get liberal activist judges deciding that the constitution is a living, fluid document and subject to broad interpretation.

That's not true at all. We have a common law code (inherited from Britain), not a civil law code (inherited from France).

In civil law, judges have to abide by the letter of the law. In common law, judges are allowed to interpret what is fair if there is no applicable written law. In effect, judges are allowed to create laws under a common law system.

The Founding Fathers clearly instituted British Common Law in the United States. They even went further than the Brits by establishing the US judicial system as a 3rd co-equal branch of government with the power of judicial review over laws passed by the legislature.

If you want civil law, go to France you commie freak (I'm kidding about the commie part ).

BREAKING:

Quote:The Supreme Court temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s attempts to include a question about citizenship on the 2020 census in a 5-4 ruling on Thursday, with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the left.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/sup...us-for-now

(06-27-2019 10:03 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  BREAKING:

Quote:The Supreme Court temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s attempts to include a question about citizenship on the 2020 census in a 5-4 ruling on Thursday, with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the left.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/sup...us-for-now

They punted for now. They will revisit this at a later date.

Having said that the ruling should have been 9-0 to include the question.

(06-27-2019 10:19 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(06-27-2019 10:03 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  BREAKING:

Quote:The Supreme Court temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s attempts to include a question about citizenship on the 2020 census in a 5-4 ruling on Thursday, with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the left.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/sup...us-for-now

They punted for now. They will revisit this at a later date.

Having said that the ruling should have been 9-0 to include the question.

Only someone intent on subversion would oppose it.

Roberts is a real snake in the grass.