BurtReynolds wrote:It's funny watching Bill Kristol suddenly turn against overturning Roe after decades of limp-dicked writing saying it should be overturned. What a shocking surprise!
I’ve also noticed this. He’s the anti-trump republican who gets too into the identity. JD Vance is going the opposite way.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue May 10, 2022 1:54 am
by BurtReynolds
He's an actor paid to represent the Republican party (poorly) to liberals, and that was always his only job.
He's the reason why the term RINO was invented.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue May 10, 2022 1:56 am
by BurtReynolds
Kristol in every TV appearance with democrats: "yeah I basically agree with you, but maybe we should slow down a bit. No need to rush things. Also we should give more money to Israel and invade more countries."
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue May 10, 2022 2:43 am
by simple schoolboy
BurtReynolds wrote:Kristol in every TV appearance with democrats: "yeah I basically agree with you, but maybe we should slow down a bit. No need to rush things. Also we should give more money to Israel and invade more countries."
Many such cases.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Wed May 18, 2022 11:23 pm
by simple schoolboy
Not SCOTUS, but 5th circuit:
I hope the courts continue to dismantle the administrative state. Hopefully they do the ATF next.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Thu May 19, 2022 2:53 am
by simple schoolboy
Gorsuch is on record wanting to overturn Chevron. Apparently his mother was the head of the EPA at the time of the ruling in question. What would Freud say about this?
Sticking with my general interpretation of the Religion Clause as "government shall neither favor nor disfavor religion", I'm inclined to think that the Court got this one right.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue June 21, 2022 4:07 pm
by 4/5
Yeah, not a surprising result. And I'm assuming the dissent said that this is an establishment not a free-exercise issue?
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue June 21, 2022 6:48 pm
by simple schoolboy
Green Habit wrote:Sticking with my general interpretation of the Religion Clause as "government shall neither favor nor disfavor religion", I'm inclined to think that the Court got this one right.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue June 21, 2022 7:35 pm
by Green Habit
4/5 wrote:Yeah, not a surprising result. And I'm assuming the dissent said that this is an establishment not a free-exercise issue?
Breyer has a good challenge to my core view here, I'll have to consider this further.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue June 21, 2022 7:36 pm
by Green Habit
simple schoolboy wrote:
Green Habit wrote:Sticking with my general interpretation of the Religion Clause as "government shall neither favor nor disfavor religion", I'm inclined to think that the Court got this one right.
I think the trollier one is someone starting their own religion and building their own school for it.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue June 21, 2022 7:45 pm
by simple schoolboy
Green Habit wrote:
4/5 wrote:Yeah, not a surprising result. And I'm assuming the dissent said that this is an establishment not a free-exercise issue?
Breyer has a good challenge to my core view here, I'll have to consider this further.
The impetus for the original law was anti-catholic bias, so I don't know how this analysis holds up. Promoting religion over non-religion seems just dandy.
Re: The Supreme Court
Posted: Tue June 21, 2022 7:46 pm
by simple schoolboy
Green Habit wrote:
simple schoolboy wrote:
Green Habit wrote:Sticking with my general interpretation of the Religion Clause as "government shall neither favor nor disfavor religion", I'm inclined to think that the Court got this one right.
I think the trollier one is someone starting their own religion and building their own school for it.
Several folks were talking about church of Satan schools. Good luck funding a school with like 5 students.
