Supreme Court rejects case of woman ejected from Bush speech

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

So what do you expect from a Court packed with father & son appointees, which in fact "elected" the son ?

Yawn.... so 2000. And STILL totally made up.

1. "Court packed with father & son appointees" Your math is not very good:

Ginsberg selected by Clinton.
Scalia by Reagan.
Kennedy by Reagan
Breyer by Clinton
Sotomayor by Obama
Kagan by Obama

That leaves 3, 1 by HW, 2 by W Bush.

2. "which in fact "elected" the son"

Your history is not very good..... "W" could not have appointed any until AFTER he was elected.

Typical... and totally wrong.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

It is disgusting to me, to see that at this point in the poll, 50% think this behavior is ok ... :( ... I would think that regardless of party affiliation, people could see how bad this is. I guess I've had a misconception about how people in this country really feel.

They do not surprise me at all.

Interesting times are coming

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

So what do you expect from a Court packed with father & son appointees, which in fact "elected" the son ?

Yawn.... so 2000. And STILL totally made up.

1. "Court packed with father & son appointees" Your math is not very good:

Ginsberg selected by Clinton.
Scalia by Reagan.
Kennedy by Reagan
Breyer by Clinton
Sotomayor by Obama
Kagan by Obama

That leaves 3, 1 by HW, 2 by W Bush.

2. "which in fact "elected" the son"

Your history is not very good..... "W" could not have appointed any until AFTER he was elected.

Typical... and totally wrong.

OK, here are the raw facts: the 5 SC justices who were in the deciding majority were Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas. Kennedy, O'Connor and Scalia were appointed by Reagan while Bush-I was his VP. Rehnquist was appointed to the Court by Nixon, and then he was appointed Chief Justice by Reagan while Bush-I was his VP. Thomas was appointed by Bush-I.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So what do you expect from a Court packed with father & son appointees, which in fact "elected" the son ?

Yawn.... so 2000. And STILL totally made up.

1. "Court packed with father & son appointees" Your math is not very good:

Ginsberg selected by Clinton.
Scalia by Reagan.
Kennedy by Reagan
Breyer by Clinton
Sotomayor by Obama
Kagan by Obama

That leaves 3, 1 by HW, 2 by W Bush.

2. "which in fact "elected" the son"

Your history is not very good..... "W" could not have appointed any until AFTER he was elected.

Typical... and totally wrong.

OK, here are the raw facts: the 5 SC justices who were in the deciding majority were Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas. Kennedy, O'Connor and Scalia were appointed by Reagan while Bush-I was his VP. Rehnquist was appointed to the Court by Nixon, and then he was appointed Chief Justice by Reagan while Bush-I was his VP. Thomas was appointed by Bush-I.

But But But..... there was no bias based on political party in that decision.....rrrriiiiiiiiiight

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

OK, here are the raw facts: the 5 SC justices who were in the deciding majority were Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas. Kennedy, O'Connor and Scalia were appointed by Reagan while Bush-I was his VP. Rehnquist was appointed to the Court by Nixon, and then he was appointed Chief Justice by Reagan while Bush-I was his VP. Thomas was appointed by Bush-I.

Does the VP appoint Justices?

If not, then only one was appointed by a Bush and that was Sr. So, "a Court packed with father & son appointees" would be incorrect... Unless:

1. The VP appoints to the SC (they don't).
2. One is considered "packing" (it isn't).

And you out of all of us should know a SC ruling is often down party lines.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

OK, here are the raw facts: the 5 SC justices who were in the deciding majority were Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas. Kennedy, O'Connor and Scalia were appointed by Reagan while Bush-I was his VP. Rehnquist was appointed to the Court by Nixon, and then he was appointed Chief Justice by Reagan while Bush-I was his VP. Thomas was appointed by Bush-I.

Does the VP appoint Justices?

If not, then only one was appointed by a Bush and that was Sr. So, "a Court packed with father & son appointees" would be incorrect... Unless:

1. The VP appoints to the SC (they don't).
2. One is considered "packing" (it isn't).

And you out of all of us should know a SC ruling is often down party lines.

Stop pretending that you're naive. While you're at it, stop pretending that we are. The chance that any one of those 5 SC justices would have voted against George H. W. Bush's son was virtually nil.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Stop pretending that you're naive. While you're at it, stop pretending that we are.

Got it you can't find facts so you go personal. He claimed that the "Father and Son appointed justices" handed Jr the office.

The FACTS are that only one Justice was appointed by a Bush (Thomas) and that the Justices ruled pretty much like most SC decisions.... Divided down "party" lines.

Quote

The chance that any one of those 5 SC justices would have voted against George H. W. Bush's son was virtually nil.

And the chances that the two Obama appointees will support 2nd Amendment rights is also NIL.... Your point?

You can take the overly simplistic "The Justices gave back". OR, you can look at the more complex situation that Justices normally decide based on their leanings and how they interpret the Constitution.

But to claim the Justices threw the election to Bush is just a lame Bumper Sticker BS slogan. And a serious case of not understanding the SC and a serious case of head in the sand pure political BS.

[Andy9o8 2]

I think there'd have been a fair chance that Kennedy and/or O'Connor might have voted the other way had it not been Bush's Kid. They're usually more intellctually honest than that. The other three, of course, (Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas) are hard-core Fascisti.

But you're right; when it comes to understanding the SC, I'm generally pretty stupid.

[skipbelt 0]

i notice it hasn't been repealled ! obuma is awful in all the ways you hate , and awful in so many more bonus ways !

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Stop pretending that you're naive. While you're at it, stop pretending that we are. The chance that any one of those 5 SC justices would have voted against George H. W. Bush's son was virtually nil.

Take your own advice - the chance that any one of those 5 SC justices would have voted against the existing Florida election law was virtually nil.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

But you're right; when it comes to understanding the SC, I'm generally pretty stupid.

Given this line: "The other three, of course, (Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas) are hard-core Fascisti.", evidently so.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

OK, here are the raw facts: the 5 SC justices who were in the deciding majority were Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas. Kennedy, O'Connor and Scalia were appointed by Reagan while Bush-I was his VP. Rehnquist was appointed to the Court by Nixon, and then he was appointed Chief Justice by Reagan while Bush-I was his VP. Thomas was appointed by Bush-I.

Does the VP appoint Justices?

If not, then only one was appointed by a Bush and that was Sr. So, "a Court packed with father & son appointees" would be incorrect... Unless:

1. The VP appoints to the SC (they don't).
2. One is considered "packing" (it isn't).

And you out of all of us should know a SC ruling is often down party lines.

Stop pretending that you're naive. While you're at it, stop pretending that we are. The chance that any one of those 5 SC justices would have voted against George H. W. Bush's son was virtually nil.

Primer to clear confusion in Bush v. Gore.
There were two issues:
(1) Was the Florida Recount being done in a constitutional manner? Oh, yeah. The Supreme court found 7-2 (no, not 5-4) (Kennedy, O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist plus Souter and Breyer - only Ginsburg and Stevens did not agree) that the differing standards for votes between counties was a violation of the Equal Protection clause. So it was pretty heavily on the side of Bush that Florida was doing things in a bad way.

The second issue was, "What do we do about it?" The 5-4 decision was about the remedy. On one hand, there was a side that thought that the Florida Supreme Court should be able to establish the standards of what constituted a legal vote and then count all votes by hand, extending the amount of time to perform a reqcount (which had to be by December 12).

On the other side were those that believed that a law is a law and that December 12 2000 was the deadline to certify under Florida law and that rewriting statutes is not for Courts to do.

The SCOTUS majority found the latter. (Note - the SCOTUS majority was in agreement with the 3 Florida Supreme Court Justices (all democratic appointees) who dissented from the Florida Supreme Court Majority by stating that the recount that Gore was attempting was a violation of equal protection.)

My thoughts focus a lot on the 7-2 decision. The strategy used by the Gore campaign was not to recount all votes. The only thing Gore wanted were recounts in heavily democratic counties where the odds were in his favor. He gamed it, and looked for rules that would benefit him. Bush, on the other hand, fought any recounts.

I'm tried of each side arguing that their side was clean. Neither side was. I will, however, find that the first step - that the recount was being performed in an unconstitutional way - is a big thing for me.

But I'm sorry about this. I should be making an allegation that it was because of Bush's lackeys or that Al Gore is a sore loser. Such adds nothing of substance. Instead, I'll conclude with echoing Ruth Bader Ginsburg's thoughts that leaving political decisions in the hands of a court are by their nature foolhardy...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

plus Souter and Breyer

Souter was appointed by Bush-I. Breyer obviously must have been drunk. You have to get up pretty early to get that shit past me.

Anyhow, Bush Lite is old news now. Now it's payback time.

[skipbelt 0]

sometimes the mind of the lib is displayed with crystal clarity. refreshing actually !

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

She was removed from the audience because of an antiwar bumper sticker on her car. The justices, on a 7-2 vote, let stand a ruling that the action by Bush aides did not violate the 1st Amendment.

I'm not a big fan of Bush, but I'm on his side on this one, at least in terms of his right to have made that decision. It would clearly be unreasonable to interpret the 1st to mean that the president has an obligation to listen individually to the views of each and every one of the 300 million Americans. Even in 1790, when the 1st was written and the population was only 4 million, that would have been unreasonable.

Clearly the founders intended that the president be able to make choices in who he listens to. Since he is properly the boss of the Executive Branch, he gets to listen to anyone he chooses to in carrying out his duties.

She wasn't denied the right to express her views. Bush simply refused to listen. That was certainly his prerogative.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

She was removed from the audience because of an antiwar bumper sticker on her car. The justices, on a 7-2 vote, let stand a ruling that the action by Bush aides did not violate the 1st Amendment.

I'm not a big fan of Bush, but I'm on his side on this one, at least in terms of his right to have made that decision. It would clearly be unreasonable to interpret the 1st to mean that the president has an obligation to listen individually to the views of each and every one of the 300 million Americans. Even in 1790, when the 1st was written and the population was only 4 million, that would have been unreasonable.

Clearly the founders intended that the president be able to make choices in who he listens to. Since he is properly the boss of the Executive Branch, he gets to listen to anyone he chooses to in carrying out his duties.

She wasn't denied the right to express her views. Bush simply refused to listen. That was certainly his prerogative.

I think you misunderstand the facts. The event was simply a speech Bush was making, and the woman was simply a member of the audience that was there to listen to the speech. She wasn't trying to force the President to listen to her; she wasn't trying to speak at all - she was simply attending.

[skipbelt 0]

there certainly is misunderstanding !

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

She wasn't trying to force the President to listen to her

They (Bush' team) clearly thought she might try to do so and decided not to take the risk. That was their prerogative, not hers. Every administration, Dem or Rep, deals with these kinds of issues. It is clearly each President's right to do so in his/her own way.

Also, a bumper sticker definitely IS an attempt to express one's views to those who might prefer not to listen. It is usually seen as fairly innocuous but, again, the President had the right to interpret it differently. Someone driving a car with a bumper sticker expressing a controversial view is, by definition, not interested solely in listening quietly.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

Quote

She was removed from the audience because of an antiwar bumper sticker on her car. The justices, on a 7-2 vote, let stand a ruling that the action by Bush aides did not violate the 1st Amendment.

I'm not a big fan of Bush, but I'm on his side on this one, at least in terms of his right to have made that decision. It would clearly be unreasonable to interpret the 1st to mean that the president has an obligation to listen individually to the views of each and every one of the 300 million Americans. Even in 1790, when the 1st was written and the population was only 4 million, that would have been unreasonable.

Clearly the founders intended that the president be able to make choices in who he listens to. Since he is properly the boss of the Executive Branch, he gets to listen to anyone he chooses to in carrying out his duties.

She wasn't denied the right to express her views. Bush simply refused to listen. That was certainly his prerogative.

A more complete lack of comprehension of the facts of the matter cannot be possible.

RWCs simply can't hang with facts. Then they spew tripe that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Awesome...

This country really IS fucked. People this clueless vote in elections...

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

Quote

So what do you expect from a Court packed with father & son appointees, which in fact "elected" the son ?

Yawn.... so 2000. And STILL totally made up.

1. "Court packed with father & son appointees" Your math is not very good:

Ginsberg selected by Clinton.
Scalia by Reagan.
Kennedy by Reagan
Breyer by Clinton
Sotomayor by Obama
Kagan by Obama

That leaves 3, 1 by HW, 2 by W Bush.

2. "which in fact "elected" the son"

Your history is not very good..... "W" could not have appointed any until AFTER he was elected.

Typical... and totally wrong.

RWCs labor under the illusion that Reagan was a good president and that he actually was in charge during the time he held the office. The reality is that he was all fucked up by Alzheimers disease when he was elected. It got much worse during his second term. Bush 1 was running the show. Anyone who thinks otherwise was not an aware adult during those times.

Bush 1 was blackmailed by Clinton's team into running a really shitty attempt at a second term. Clinton won the battle, but lost the war, as the rescums went after him for jacking around Bush 1.

RWCs have been busy ruining the USA since Reagan "won" the election. The results of the war on the middle class got us where we are today. The RWCs are leading the charge right down the toilet. They are VERY proud of their success in ruining the USA.

[SivaGanesha 2]

Quote

RWCs simply can't hang with facts. Then they spew tripe that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Uhhh...the Supreme Court vote was 7-2 on this. That means that a significant part of the Court's liberal wing sided with Bush on this--this is clearly NOT just a liberal-conservative partisan issue.

If this were a "RWC" sort of thing one would expect a 5-4 vote one way or the other.

"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

[skipbelt 0]

often a "right" is confused with a " privilege " !

[billvon 3,118]

>often a "right" is confused with a " privilege " !

This is a case about the right to free speech. Does that mean that you think that the right to free speech is actually a privilege?

[skipbelt 0]

attending a speech is free speech ?

[skipbelt 0]

censorship , or wiretapping , will this upset the libs?...
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9191058/DHS_scoured_social_media_sites_during_Obama_inauguration_for_items_of_interest_