[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Wordle - daily game - islander - Aug 13, 2022 - 10:34pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - Steely_D - Aug 13, 2022 - 8:36pm
 
Trump - Steely_D - Aug 13, 2022 - 8:34pm
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - fractalv - Aug 13, 2022 - 6:19pm
 
Fix My Car - Red_Dragon - Aug 13, 2022 - 5:43pm
 
DARWIN AWARDS! - POST YOUR NOMINATION! - Coaxial - Aug 13, 2022 - 5:03pm
 
China - R_P - Aug 13, 2022 - 3:29pm
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - GeneP59 - Aug 13, 2022 - 2:50pm
 
Brian Eno - R_P - Aug 13, 2022 - 1:23pm
 
Name My Band - oldviolin - Aug 13, 2022 - 11:15am
 
Democratic Party - Red_Dragon - Aug 13, 2022 - 8:38am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - Coaxial - Aug 13, 2022 - 7:24am
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - Coaxial - Aug 13, 2022 - 7:03am
 
Health Care - miamizsun - Aug 13, 2022 - 6:37am
 
Counting with Pictures - ScottN - Aug 13, 2022 - 6:34am
 
Sweet horrible irony. - miamizsun - Aug 13, 2022 - 6:32am
 
What is the meaning of this? - oldviolin - Aug 12, 2022 - 3:33pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - GeneP59 - Aug 12, 2022 - 12:59pm
 
Abiogenesis! - R_P - Aug 12, 2022 - 12:02pm
 
PASS THE BEER - kcar - Aug 12, 2022 - 11:33am
 
It's the economy stupid. - rgio - Aug 12, 2022 - 9:06am
 
What's Precious and Sacred to Islam? - Red_Dragon - Aug 12, 2022 - 8:38am
 
Floyd forum - Proclivities - Aug 12, 2022 - 8:12am
 
Today in History - sunybuny - Aug 12, 2022 - 6:46am
 
So... what's been happening here lately? - sunybuny - Aug 12, 2022 - 5:44am
 
Time to lawyer up! - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Aug 11, 2022 - 10:52pm
 
Climate Change - Red_Dragon - Aug 11, 2022 - 5:11pm
 
Ukraine - black321 - Aug 11, 2022 - 2:31pm
 
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see - Proclivities - Aug 11, 2022 - 10:35am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Aug 11, 2022 - 10:04am
 
How to Use RP? - kcar - Aug 11, 2022 - 9:53am
 
Republican Party - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Aug 11, 2022 - 9:20am
 
Got Road Rage? - Red_Dragon - Aug 11, 2022 - 8:12am
 
Russia - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Aug 11, 2022 - 7:52am
 
RightWingNutZ - Red_Dragon - Aug 11, 2022 - 5:53am
 
>>>>>>Knitted - Antigone - Aug 11, 2022 - 2:37am
 
RPeep News You Should Know - ScottN - Aug 10, 2022 - 10:26pm
 
The Obituary Page - ScottFromWyoming - Aug 10, 2022 - 9:34pm
 
India - Red_Dragon - Aug 10, 2022 - 4:36pm
 
COVID-19 - R_P - Aug 10, 2022 - 4:08pm
 
godnarb: the Lunchurch - ScottFromWyoming - Aug 10, 2022 - 11:24am
 
Peace - thisbody - Aug 10, 2022 - 8:59am
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - black321 - Aug 10, 2022 - 7:01am
 
Derplahoma! - sunybuny - Aug 10, 2022 - 6:02am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - GeneP59 - Aug 9, 2022 - 4:37pm
 
Museum Of Bad Album Covers - KurtfromLaQuinta - Aug 9, 2022 - 4:19pm
 
MQA Stream Coming to BLUOS - robin2 - Aug 9, 2022 - 11:47am
 
RPeeps who would have a sense of humor if they were not s... - miamizsun - Aug 9, 2022 - 10:14am
 
Things that make you happy - GeneP59 - Aug 9, 2022 - 8:47am
 
unusual time signatures - ScottFromWyoming - Aug 9, 2022 - 8:26am
 
Best/worst white reggae/ska/rcksteady - thisbody - Aug 9, 2022 - 6:54am
 
More reggae, less Marley please - thisbody - Aug 9, 2022 - 6:48am
 
Media Bias - Red_Dragon - Aug 9, 2022 - 6:34am
 
Things Forgotten. - Steely_D - Aug 8, 2022 - 10:24pm
 
Things You Thought Today - oldviolin - Aug 8, 2022 - 7:28pm
 
Cheney, Dick - ScottFromWyoming - Aug 8, 2022 - 10:36am
 
Joe Biden - ScottFromWyoming - Aug 8, 2022 - 10:18am
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - GeneP59 - Aug 8, 2022 - 9:56am
 
Food - ScottFromWyoming - Aug 8, 2022 - 9:56am
 
John Lennon's Jukebox - thisbody - Aug 8, 2022 - 4:55am
 
Portishead S. O. S. - geoff_morphini - Aug 7, 2022 - 10:43pm
 
Environment - Red_Dragon - Aug 7, 2022 - 6:51pm
 
Automotive Lust - R_P - Aug 7, 2022 - 1:48pm
 
Ridiculous or Funny Spam - Steely_D - Aug 7, 2022 - 10:47am
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - oldviolin - Aug 7, 2022 - 10:18am
 
Tech & Science - Red_Dragon - Aug 6, 2022 - 3:17pm
 
The Abortion Wars - black321 - Aug 6, 2022 - 8:39am
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - BlueHeronDruid - Aug 5, 2022 - 8:37pm
 
Live Music - oldviolin - Aug 5, 2022 - 12:58pm
 
Guns - Red_Dragon - Aug 5, 2022 - 10:09am
 
Least Successful Phishing Scams - geoff_morphini - Aug 5, 2022 - 9:19am
 
Graphs, Charts & Maps - miamizsun - Aug 5, 2022 - 7:09am
 
Favorite Flags - Proclivities - Aug 5, 2022 - 6:33am
 
Afghanistan - Red_Dragon - Aug 5, 2022 - 5:29am
 
What the hell OV? - oldviolin - Aug 4, 2022 - 7:34pm
 
Index » Regional/Local » USA/Canada » Supreme Court Rulings Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13 ... 15, 16, 17  Next
Post to this Topic
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 30, 2014 - 7:31am

 n4ku wrote:
Breaking: SCOTUS holds govt can’t require closely held corps w/ religious owners to provide contraception coverage.

Under the Hobby Lobby decision, the government can pay for the coverage itself so that women receive it.

 
This is great news !

Justice Kennedy wrote his own separate opinion stating that his biggest problem with all of this is that the part of the HC regulation this deals with was written by an unelected and unaccountable bureaucracy.

 
n4ku

n4ku Avatar



Posted: Jun 30, 2014 - 7:21am

Breaking: SCOTUS holds govt can’t require closely held corps w/ religious owners to provide contraception coverage.

Under the Hobby Lobby decision, the government can pay for the coverage itself so that women receive it.
n4ku

n4ku Avatar



Posted: Jun 30, 2014 - 7:06am

Breaking: SCOTUS limits power to compel contributions to public employee unions but does not forbid it. The decision says that union bargaining fees cannot be imposed on employees that are not full public employees.

The above from @SCOTUSblog on Twitter, which is NOT the official blog of the Supreme Court.
n4ku

n4ku Avatar



Posted: Jun 30, 2014 - 7:04am

Bumping this for those who wish to debate the rulings coming down today.

Be nice.
hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Mar 26, 2013 - 5:57am


meower

meower Avatar

Location: i believe, i believe, it's silly, but I believe
Gender: Female


Posted: Mar 26, 2013 - 5:44am

I announce natural persons to arise; I announce justice triumphant; I announce uncompromising liberty and equality; I announce the justification of candor, and the justification of pride. I announce that the identity of These States is a single identity only; I announce the Union more and more compact, indissoluble; I announce splendors and majesties to make all the previous politics of the earth insignificant. I announce adhesiveness—I say it shall be limitless, unloosen’d; I say you shall yet find the friend you were looking for. I announce a man or woman coming—perhaps you are the one, (So long!) I announce the great individual, fluid as Nature, chaste, affectionate, compassionate, fully armed. I announce a life that shall be copious, vehement, spiritual, bold; I announce an end that shall lightly and joyfully meet its translation; I announce myriads of youths, beautiful, gigantic, sweet-blooded; I announce a race of splendid and savage old men.

 

 

Walt Whitman 


meower

meower Avatar

Location: i believe, i believe, it's silly, but I believe
Gender: Female


Posted: Mar 26, 2013 - 5:07am


bokey

bokey Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 10, 2012 - 6:46pm

 Zep wrote:

In PG (and many other places), it's the placement of some high denomination bills that do the trick.  

 
The Feds are keeping a close watch since our former County Executive plea bargained his way down to only doing 7 years for corruption. All the other charges were dropped.

    I got turned down on a couple RFP's in my own county in Md. but got the contract for handing most of Fairfax County, Va. 's recyclables.

 I even had a recycling center in Ward 6 in DC for awhile, but couldn't deal with Nadine Winters. -edit, googled for nostalgia and it's now a ~600K condo. It used to be a historic firehouse.


Zep

Zep Avatar



Posted: Oct 10, 2012 - 6:24pm

 bokey wrote:
As a resident of PG, I'd say it's well past time.

If I can ever get back to work I don't understand why I wouldn't be given minority preference on any county RFP's.If 26.6 % isn't a minority and 65.4% is,somebody flunked math.
 
In PG (and many other places), it's the placement of some high denomination bills that do the trick. 
bokey

bokey Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 10, 2012 - 4:57pm

 Zep wrote:

Abigail Fisher was denied admission at U-Tex and sued. She argued that the Texas admission standards goes farther than the standards allowed under Grutter, a case decided by the court in 2003. In that case, which involved the University of Michigan Law School, the court decided that race could be a factor in deciding admissions, so long as the decision was aimed at creating a diverse student body.  

Grutter was decided by a different court (Rhenquist, O'Connor, etc). Alito and Roberts are now on the court. Also, Kagan recused herself due to her work as Solicitor General on Fisher. With Fisher being the appellant, the case will require five votes to reverse, which is likely: Robert, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy, the likely swing vote. A 4-4 decision upholds the court below, and the decision stands.  
 

 
As a resident of PG, I'd say it's well past time.

If I can ever get back to work I don't understand why I wouldn't be given minority preference on any county RFP's. If 26. 6 % isn't a minority and 65. 4% is, somebody flunked math.


Zep

Zep Avatar



Posted: Oct 10, 2012 - 4:40pm

 hippiechick wrote:
This could change the future of affirmative action

Fisher v. University of Texas: Supreme Court Takes Up Affirmative Action

 
Abigail Fisher was denied admission at U-Tex and sued. She argued that the Texas admission standards goes farther than the standards allowed under Grutter, a case decided by the court in 2003. In that case, which involved the University of Michigan Law School, the court decided that race could be a factor in deciding admissions, so long as the decision was aimed at creating a diverse student body. 

Grutter was decided by a different court (Rhenquist, O'Connor, etc). Alito and Roberts are now on the court. Also, Kagan recused herself due to her work as Solicitor General on Fisher. With Fisher being the appellant, the case will require five votes to reverse, which is likely: Robert, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy, the likely swing vote. A 4-4 decision upholds the court below, and the decision stands. 
 


hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Oct 10, 2012 - 12:16pm

This could change the future of affirmative action

Fisher v. University of Texas: Supreme Court Takes Up Affirmative Action


Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Jun 27, 2012 - 12:12pm

hippiechick wrote:
{#Whisper} Justice Ginsburg is on the Supreme Court. She IS power.
hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Jun 27, 2012 - 11:15am

Justice Scalia must resign


ScottN

ScottN Avatar

Location: Half inch above the K/T boundary
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 21, 2012 - 8:47am

 hippiechick wrote: 
MONEY $$$ is mother's milk to politics. Free Speech rights ya know.  You have all the right to spend gazillions on getting your candidate elected so he/she can favor your interests.  To hell with mounting debt, health care, unemployment...you know those little social problems that can be just waived away.  We're doomed!

hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Feb 21, 2012 - 8:04am

Occupy the Super PACs

Justice Ginsburg knows the Citizens United decision was a mistake. Now she appears to be ready to speak truth to power.


Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 5, 2012 - 11:23am

 romeotuma wrote:
Yes, Colbert can mock the decision... (which was not necessarily the "correct" decision—  I see it as much murkier than any easy absolutes...)

no, Colbert cannot lead a movement to overturn the (simultaneously incorrect and) correct decision—  it will take Congress to do that...

I don't think Colbert is misleading anybody about the decision...  don't be such a Disneylander and use some common sense...  here is criticism of Citizens United expressed by Justice Stevens—


"At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."

The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision by the Supreme Court was a direct response to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act passed by Congress in 2002, which prohibited corporations and unions from broadcasting communications that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary...

I'm with the ACLU always so I am not of any absolute opposition to Citizens United, and I didn't particularly like the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act when it passed, but we don't need international corporations buying our politicians, either...

I understand your phobia of the government, but corporations are equally fearsome if they control the government...  none of this is easy or simple, and it is good that we are discussing it, and it is good that Colbert is providing a valuable service to the citizens of the USA rather than just making his money off of Dick jokes...

it's ironic that you are dismissive about the article that I pasted on my last response, because the concerns for civil liberties are all caused by ominous government empowerment...

and what are you referring to when you say, "But you don't have the power to do so unchallenged"?  Whoever said I did?


What more basic example of freedom of speech is there in a democracy than advocating for or against a candidate in an election? What the McCain-Feingold monstrosity did was limit that freedom based on who was talking.

That can't be anything but wrong. And Justice Stevens should know better.

Yes, I dislike government seizing power it doesn't deserve. The power to control who gets to speak up about who runs the government, say.

The Supremes could have made some ridiculous hair-splitting decision that preserved that power, but it would have had to shred the first amendment to do it. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech...unless someone is speaking too much. And we'll let you know how much too much is. After all, we're Congress! Who better to decide who's had enough to say about Congress?

The "unchallenged" bit was a reference to that last point. When any faction in a democracy is muzzled their opponents get to tell the story while they have to sit there and take the abuse.

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 5, 2012 - 11:04am

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:
Ultimately we can all live with the Supreme Court's decision, I guess. But isn't the real issue the fact that these dollars can be anonymous? That a corporation or private person with a grudge can put huge amounts of money into a SuperPAC, and that SPac can say and do things on behalf of a candidate that the candidate would never get away with? We make candidates say "I'm Jack Sprat and I approved this message," which is stupid to have to say that but it cut down on the outlandish tall tales a campaign could say about the other side, and if one side is outspending the other 20 to 1, what chance does the underfunded guy have against a falsehood.
 
I'm stopping mid-thought because I don't know wtf I'm talking about. But to me, Colbert's not just ranting about the huge amounts of money being spent (and in some cases it's clearly more than is necessary to get the message heard), he's ranting about the fact that it can be more anonymous and full of half-truths and innuendo and the candidate can say "not my ad, I didn't approve it, I have no idea who told them to say my esteemed opponent is a closet toad-licker. "

Let's assume this actually is a problem (not just a gripe) for the sake of argument. Why do we have to solve this problem with yet another law?

A quick refresher on what a law is: do this or fail to do that and armed men will take you to jail. If you won't go they can kill you.

So let's say you get a law passed that prohibits saying anything about any political contest without identifying yourself and the people who paid for the message. Stand up in a public park and give a testimonial and you're an upright citizen participating in democracy, put up a poster on a phone pole without your name and address on it and you're a felon, enemy of the state, off to prison.

Let's say I do that—post an opinion online on who's fit to be elected anonymously. Here, for instance. Just to prove a point.

Arrest me. For a political crime. Now I'm a political prisoner.

Is that how we want the power of the state used?

Oh, but that's different! No money was spent. Sure it was, just not by me. And so what? Why does free attention from a biased press not count, but an ad one column away in the same paper does?

This ridiculous dodge of phony organizations doing hit pieces is itself a byproduct of limits on campaign contributions. The fact that they are anonymous is not why the ads are so dishonest; they are dishonest because they think lying will work. They are anonymous because the donors don't want who they are to color the campaign, or they don't want their political views to to make them enemies.

As one of, what, two or three Democrats in Wyoming I think you can understand that motivation. Try supporting right-to-work legislation in Chicago, or gay marriage in Mississippi.

If anonymity is a problem make it an issue in the campaign. Far better than having the district attorney prosecuting his opponent for campaign law violations.

(former member)

(former member) Avatar

Location: hotel in Las Vegas
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 4, 2012 - 6:40pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
So...Colbert can mock the decision (even tho it was the correct decision) and lead a movement to overturn that correct decision, mislead people about what the decision was about and what it means and that's cool 'cuz he hates all the right people.

The issue is more complex than free speech, but free speech trumps those complexities. Colbert, for instance, has the right to play demagog. You have the right to cut & paste your opinions. But you don't have the power to do so unchallenged. That's why we need free speech for everybody.
 

Yes, Colbert can mock the decision... (which was not necessarily the "correct" decision—  I see it as much murkier than any easy absolutes...)

no, Colbert cannot lead a movement to overturn the (simultaneously incorrect and) correct decision—  it will take Congress to do that...

I don't think Colbert is misleading anybody about the decision...  don't be such a Disneylander and use some common sense...  here is criticism of Citizens United expressed by Justice Stevens—


"At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."

The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision by the Supreme Court was a direct response to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act passed by Congress in 2002, which prohibited corporations and unions from broadcasting communications that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary...

I'm with the ACLU always so I am not of any absolute opposition to Citizens United, and I didn't particularly like the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act when it passed, but we don't need international corporations buying our politicians, either...

I understand your phobia of the government, but corporations are equally fearsome if they control the government...  none of this is easy or simple, and it is good that we are discussing it, and it is good that Colbert is providing a valuable service to the citizens of the USA rather than just making his money off of Dick jokes...

it's ironic that you are dismissive about the article that I pasted on my last response, because the concerns for civil liberties are all caused by ominous government empowerment...

and what are you referring to when you say, "But you don't have the power to do so unchallenged"?  Whoever said I did? 


 


ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 4, 2012 - 5:40pm

Ultimately we can all live with the Supreme Court's decision, I guess. But isn't the real issue the fact that these dollars can be anonymous? That a corporation or private person with a grudge can put huge amounts of money into a SuperPAC, and that SPac can say and do things on behalf of a candidate that the candidate would never get away with? We make candidates say "I'm Jack Sprat and I approved this message," which is stupid to have to say that but it cut down on the outlandish tall tales a campaign could say about the other side, and if one side is outspending the other 20 to 1, what chance does the underfunded guy have against a falsehood.
 
I'm stopping mid-thought because I don't know wtf I'm talking about. But to me, Colbert's not just ranting about the huge amounts of money being spent (and in some cases it's clearly more than is necessary to get the message heard), he's ranting about the fact that it can be more anonymous and full of half-truths and innuendo and the candidate can say "not my ad, I didn't approve it, I have no idea who told them to say my esteemed opponent is a closet toad-licker.
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 11, 12, 13 ... 15, 16, 17  Next