Watched a news segment over the weekend about Gorsuch and his backing of the corporate interests over people and am wondering who the next supreme court justice may be......
Conservatives prepare for Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement
Justice Neil Gorsuch has been on the bench for less than a month and conservatives are already preparing for the next Supreme Court confirmation fight. The only hitch: there's no vacancy.
But that hasn't stopped some Republicans, including President Donald Trump, from talking openly about a next seat and even possibly trying to woo 80-year-old Justice Anthony Kennedy into retirement.
Friends and associates believe Kennedy is seriously considering retirement. In general, the burdens of age and demands at the court weigh in one direction. His deep interest -- and leading role -- in America's constitutional democracy weigh in the other.
The question appears not to be whether Kennedy will retire soon, but when -- at the end of this June, or next?
Replacing staunch conservative Justice Antonin Scalia with the likeminded 49-year-old Gorsuch may not change the direction of the court. The political and legal stakes, however, would be dramatically higher if Trump has the opportunity to fill Kennedy's seat. Kennedy, a centrist conservative, has cast a key vote for gay marriage, abortion rights, affirmative action, and fair housing law.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/01/politics/ ... nt-rumors/
Looming Supreme Court Action
Moderator: Super Moderators
Looming Supreme Court Action
There you go man, keep as cool as you can. Face piles and piles of trials with smiles. It riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave. And keep on thinking free. (Moody Blues)
Re: Looming Supreme Court Action
A mind should not be so open that the brains fall out; however, it should not be so closed that whatever gray matter which does reside may not be reached. ART BELL
Everything Woke turns to
-Donald Trump 
Everything Woke turns to
Re: Looming Supreme Court Action
Will be interesting - the GOP House just passed a bill to start the process of repealing Obamacare, and Trump just signed an executive order loosening the restrictions of religious institutions, and this affects just about everything from politically-oriented speech to the provision of abortion-on-demand by employees working for religious companies, or those privately-owned companies who's owners have strong religious beliefs.
Should be interesting no mater what.......
Should be interesting no mater what.......
There you go man, keep as cool as you can. Face piles and piles of trials with smiles. It riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave. And keep on thinking free. (Moody Blues)
Atheist Group Sues Trump
A Wisconsin-based atheist group has filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to strike down President Donald Trump’s order easing enforcement of an IRS rule limiting religious organizations’ political activity.
A 1954 federal law prohibits tax-exempt charitable organizations such as churches from participating in political campaigns. Violators could lose their tax-exempt status, but the law — known as the Johnson Amendment — has rarely been enforced.
The IRS doesn’t make its investigations of such cases public, but only one church is known to have lost its tax-exempt status as a result of the law. Still, Trump has long promised conservative Christians who supported his White House bid that he would block the regulation.
On Thursday, the president issued an executive order directing the Treasury Department not to take “adverse action” against churches or religious organizations for political speech. He said he was giving churches their voices back.
The Freedom from Religion Foundation filed a lawsuit hours later. The Madison-based group argues in the filing that the order is unconstitutional because it grants preferential treatment to religious organizations while secular groups must still abide by the law.
The lawsuit seeks an injunction to prevent the IRS from implementing Trump’s order. The suit also asks a federal judge in Madison to force the federal tax agency to enforce the restrictions against churches and religious organizations the same as any other nonprofit organization.
Some faith leaders have condemned Trump’s order, saying it would politicize their congregations. Other religious conservatives have praised the order as a key step in reworking layers of regulations they see as unfair. FULL STORY
A 1954 federal law prohibits tax-exempt charitable organizations such as churches from participating in political campaigns. Violators could lose their tax-exempt status, but the law — known as the Johnson Amendment — has rarely been enforced.
The IRS doesn’t make its investigations of such cases public, but only one church is known to have lost its tax-exempt status as a result of the law. Still, Trump has long promised conservative Christians who supported his White House bid that he would block the regulation.
On Thursday, the president issued an executive order directing the Treasury Department not to take “adverse action” against churches or religious organizations for political speech. He said he was giving churches their voices back.
The Freedom from Religion Foundation filed a lawsuit hours later. The Madison-based group argues in the filing that the order is unconstitutional because it grants preferential treatment to religious organizations while secular groups must still abide by the law.
The lawsuit seeks an injunction to prevent the IRS from implementing Trump’s order. The suit also asks a federal judge in Madison to force the federal tax agency to enforce the restrictions against churches and religious organizations the same as any other nonprofit organization.
Some faith leaders have condemned Trump’s order, saying it would politicize their congregations. Other religious conservatives have praised the order as a key step in reworking layers of regulations they see as unfair. FULL STORY
A mind should not be so open that the brains fall out; however, it should not be so closed that whatever gray matter which does reside may not be reached. ART BELL
Everything Woke turns to -Donald Trump
Everything Woke turns to
Re: Looming Supreme Court Action
A reverse argument can be made that, in regards to non-public schools of various religious denominations - Catholic, Hebrew, etc. - parents who choose to send their kids to these schools, (because the public schools in the community where they live, are CRAP), are forced to support the public schools via taxes and other services such as use of public schools buses, crossing guards, etc., and then, in order to send their kids to schools that provide demonstrably better education, they must pay tuition. So, they're essentially paying twice, or more than twice since here are all the costs associated with public schools, plus certain items associated with non-public schools.
The paradigm may shift with new supreme court justices where religious involvement is concerned. Something that atheists need to stop and consider is that, should religious institutions be taxed, that will leave less available religiously-funded charitable works, and I sincerely doubt that groups such as The Freedom from Religion Foundation will be willing, or even consider, stepping in to the breech to fill the void.
In fact, if you look at the list from Forbes for the largest 2016 charitable organizations, many are explicitly religious (not necessarily "Catholic").
Largest U.S. Charities for 2016, with private donations received
https://www.forbes.com/sites/williampba ... c2807f4abb
Many are secular. Not ONE is identified as "atheist", which raises some intriguing questions in and of itself. I haven't added the numbers, but from various religious groups such as The Salvation Army to Food for the Poor, to Catholic Charities, Lutheran Services, American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee and Christian Broadcasting Network, contributions to aid the poor are in the BILLIONS of dollars which are distributed here at home as well as abroad.
Those who self-identify as "atheists" may want to consider spending their time and money on founding a specifically atheist foundation to counter the losses via taxes which will not go to help those in need, because chances are, once the government gets hold of the money, it'll be gone. Lot of "help" that will do.........
The paradigm may shift with new supreme court justices where religious involvement is concerned. Something that atheists need to stop and consider is that, should religious institutions be taxed, that will leave less available religiously-funded charitable works, and I sincerely doubt that groups such as The Freedom from Religion Foundation will be willing, or even consider, stepping in to the breech to fill the void.
In fact, if you look at the list from Forbes for the largest 2016 charitable organizations, many are explicitly religious (not necessarily "Catholic").
Largest U.S. Charities for 2016, with private donations received
https://www.forbes.com/sites/williampba ... c2807f4abb
Many are secular. Not ONE is identified as "atheist", which raises some intriguing questions in and of itself. I haven't added the numbers, but from various religious groups such as The Salvation Army to Food for the Poor, to Catholic Charities, Lutheran Services, American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee and Christian Broadcasting Network, contributions to aid the poor are in the BILLIONS of dollars which are distributed here at home as well as abroad.
Those who self-identify as "atheists" may want to consider spending their time and money on founding a specifically atheist foundation to counter the losses via taxes which will not go to help those in need, because chances are, once the government gets hold of the money, it'll be gone. Lot of "help" that will do.........
There you go man, keep as cool as you can. Face piles and piles of trials with smiles. It riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave. And keep on thinking free. (Moody Blues)
ACLU: Ban ‘Could Be Constitutional’ if Enacted by Hillary
ACLU Lawyer Omar Jadwat, arguing against President Trump’s travel ban before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday, admitted that the same exact travel ban “could be” constitutional if it were enacted by Hillary Clinton.
Jadwat argued that Trump’s campaign animus motivated the order, making it illegitimate. This claim was challenged by the Fourth Circuit’s Judge Paul Niemeyer.
“If a different candidate had won the election and then issued this order, I gather you wouldn’t have any problem with that?” Niemeyer asked.
Jadwat dodged on directly answering the question at first, but Niemeyer persisted, asking the question again.
Jadwat again tried to avoid the question, asking for clarification on the hypothetical, but Niemeyer once again demanded an answer.
“We have a candidate who won the presidency, some candidate other than President Trump won the presidency and then chose to issue this particular order, with whatever counsel he took,” Niemeyer said. “Do I understand that just in that circumstance, the executive order should be honored?”
“Yes, your honor, I think in that case, it could be constitutional,” Jadwat admitted.
Jadwat also denied that presidents’ actions should be nullified by campaign statements, despite the fact that his entire argument seemed to rest on that claim.
The ACLU lawyer also tried to claim that the order was illegitimate due to its being “unprecedented,” but this point also crumbled under a quick cross-examination.
http://ntknetwork.com/aclu-lawyer-says- ... y-clinton/
Jadwat argued that Trump’s campaign animus motivated the order, making it illegitimate. This claim was challenged by the Fourth Circuit’s Judge Paul Niemeyer.
“If a different candidate had won the election and then issued this order, I gather you wouldn’t have any problem with that?” Niemeyer asked.
Jadwat dodged on directly answering the question at first, but Niemeyer persisted, asking the question again.
Jadwat again tried to avoid the question, asking for clarification on the hypothetical, but Niemeyer once again demanded an answer.
“We have a candidate who won the presidency, some candidate other than President Trump won the presidency and then chose to issue this particular order, with whatever counsel he took,” Niemeyer said. “Do I understand that just in that circumstance, the executive order should be honored?”
“Yes, your honor, I think in that case, it could be constitutional,” Jadwat admitted.
Jadwat also denied that presidents’ actions should be nullified by campaign statements, despite the fact that his entire argument seemed to rest on that claim.
The ACLU lawyer also tried to claim that the order was illegitimate due to its being “unprecedented,” but this point also crumbled under a quick cross-examination.
http://ntknetwork.com/aclu-lawyer-says- ... y-clinton/
A mind should not be so open that the brains fall out; however, it should not be so closed that whatever gray matter which does reside may not be reached. ART BELL
Everything Woke turns to -Donald Trump
Everything Woke turns to
Re: Looming Supreme Court Action
Up front -apologies for the language contained here, but, I first heard about this issue lying awake, listening to Red Eye Radio. Appears that the radical Left fringe is imploding at certain points arguing both FOR and AGAINST feminist and transgender right simultaneously.
Yo cannot make up this kinda stuff........
Snippet:
"The main reason I decided not to go was because of the pussy hats," 28-year-old Jade Lejeck said in an interview Sunday night. "I get that they're a response to the 'grab them by the pussy' thing, but I think some people fixated on it the wrong way."
Lejeck, a trans woman from Modesto, California, said the hats signaled to her that there would be other trans-exclusionary messages at the women's marches.
She expected her local march to have its fair share of trans-exclusionary radical feminists, known as TERFs. As Lejeck described it, there are two categories of TERFS: One is the accidental TERF — "the ones who have signs that equate womanhood with having a vagina," she said. The other category, Lejeck explained, includes feminists who argue trans women are actually men in disguise trying to infiltrate their spaces.
Lejeck decided she would avoid both kinds of TERFs by abstaining from Modesto's women's march altogether; she had grocery shopping to do anyway.
"I believe there's a lot of inequality that has to do with genitals — that's not something you can separate from the feminist movement," Lejeck said. "But I feel like I've tried to get involved in feminism and there's always been a blockade there for trans women."
https://mic.com/articles/166273/how-the ... .m6FJhR5lm
Still trying to figure out where the inclusiveness of the Left comes into play .......
Yo cannot make up this kinda stuff........
Snippet:
"The main reason I decided not to go was because of the pussy hats," 28-year-old Jade Lejeck said in an interview Sunday night. "I get that they're a response to the 'grab them by the pussy' thing, but I think some people fixated on it the wrong way."
Lejeck, a trans woman from Modesto, California, said the hats signaled to her that there would be other trans-exclusionary messages at the women's marches.
She expected her local march to have its fair share of trans-exclusionary radical feminists, known as TERFs. As Lejeck described it, there are two categories of TERFS: One is the accidental TERF — "the ones who have signs that equate womanhood with having a vagina," she said. The other category, Lejeck explained, includes feminists who argue trans women are actually men in disguise trying to infiltrate their spaces.
Lejeck decided she would avoid both kinds of TERFs by abstaining from Modesto's women's march altogether; she had grocery shopping to do anyway.
"I believe there's a lot of inequality that has to do with genitals — that's not something you can separate from the feminist movement," Lejeck said. "But I feel like I've tried to get involved in feminism and there's always been a blockade there for trans women."
https://mic.com/articles/166273/how-the ... .m6FJhR5lm
Still trying to figure out where the inclusiveness of the Left comes into play .......
There you go man, keep as cool as you can. Face piles and piles of trials with smiles. It riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave. And keep on thinking free. (Moody Blues)
U.S. Supreme Court Effectively Kills N.C.’s Voter ID Law
Liberal activists are celebrating the end of North Carolina's 2013 election law, which required photo ID at the polls; eliminated same-day voter registration; and reduced the state’s early-voting period by one week.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a federal appeals court decision that found North Carolina’s election law discriminated against African-Americans.
The Supreme Court refusal means North Carolina has exhausted all its appeals, and the 2016 ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals stands.
“This law, enacted with what the appeals court called discriminatory intent and ‘almost surgical precision’ targeting African-American voters, is meeting its much-deserved demise,” said Dale Ho, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project. “An ugly chapter in voter suppression is finally closing.”
The Democrat National Committee cheered the end of what it called a “racist” law.
Senate Leader Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) and House Speaker Tim Moore (R-Cleveland) said the voter ID law would have ensured that any North Carolina citizen who wants to vote would have that opportunity.
“More than 30 other states have voter ID requirements, and a similar law was upheld by the United States Supreme Court in 2008,” Berger and Moore noted last July.
They also said opponents of the law “failed to produce a single witness who would be unable to vote under the law in court.”
President Trump carried North Carolina in the November election, getting around 50 percent of the vote to Hillary Clinton’s 46 percent.
FULL STORY
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a federal appeals court decision that found North Carolina’s election law discriminated against African-Americans.
The Supreme Court refusal means North Carolina has exhausted all its appeals, and the 2016 ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals stands.
“This law, enacted with what the appeals court called discriminatory intent and ‘almost surgical precision’ targeting African-American voters, is meeting its much-deserved demise,” said Dale Ho, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project. “An ugly chapter in voter suppression is finally closing.”
The Democrat National Committee cheered the end of what it called a “racist” law.
Senate Leader Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) and House Speaker Tim Moore (R-Cleveland) said the voter ID law would have ensured that any North Carolina citizen who wants to vote would have that opportunity.
“More than 30 other states have voter ID requirements, and a similar law was upheld by the United States Supreme Court in 2008,” Berger and Moore noted last July.
They also said opponents of the law “failed to produce a single witness who would be unable to vote under the law in court.”
President Trump carried North Carolina in the November election, getting around 50 percent of the vote to Hillary Clinton’s 46 percent.
FULL STORY
A mind should not be so open that the brains fall out; however, it should not be so closed that whatever gray matter which does reside may not be reached. ART BELL
Everything Woke turns to -Donald Trump
Everything Woke turns to
Re: Looming Supreme Court Action
I don't understand why it is so difficult to get some form of ID..........
In Massachusetts at least, there are a number of forms that can constitute a legal form of ID. Voters can (if hey choose) register at the dept of motor vehicles to vote and/ or change their party affiliation. For the purposes of healthcare, ALL one needs is a utility bill........ why is this so difficult???????
In Massachusetts at least, there are a number of forms that can constitute a legal form of ID. Voters can (if hey choose) register at the dept of motor vehicles to vote and/ or change their party affiliation. For the purposes of healthcare, ALL one needs is a utility bill........ why is this so difficult???????
There you go man, keep as cool as you can. Face piles and piles of trials with smiles. It riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave. And keep on thinking free. (Moody Blues)