My thoughts... Rowe vs. Wade will likely be overturned, but I think they will rule in favor of the Democrats (NY, Maine, Biden Administration, respectively) for the other three. I would like to think that their adherence would be strict within Constitutional law (and not saying I know better than they do what that is), and maybe they'll surprise me, but I think the chance of bias is too great.
Hope the NY law gets defeated, doesn't really matter, NY government will just implement another restriction to limit firearm rights. Like our new law after Buffalo, the dreaded AOW moniker (all other weapons). As for Roe, I hope the court has been trolling and they let it stand
Hope the NY law gets defeated, doesn't really matter, NY government will just implement another restriction to limit firearm rights. Like our new law after Buffalo, the dreaded AOW moniker (all other weapons). As for Roe, I hope the court has been trolling and they let it stand
Hahah... has the court trolled before? I'm thinking the leaked ruling is pretty much a sure thing... I only say that because they set up barricades around the Supreme Court building... which they would be unlikely to do if the ruling was in favor of upholding it.
So, they voted against Maine and for religious liberty, so I'm wrong already, haha.
I suppose one could look at it like that but, that's not the way I read it. Maine decided to send money to public and private schools but denied that money to religious schools due to the tie in to religion. Thus denying those students the same money (opportunity) that all other schools got for student's education. It appears to me to be more of a win for the student's education versus a victory for religion but, that's just my take on it.
While I've always been an advocate for public schools, I don't think students should have less just because they attend a certain school over another. But, I also acknowledge that it's the choice of the parents (in most cases) to send their kids to specific schools. But, isn't that the same argument that allowed kids to cross school/government boundaries in order to cancel some racial issues of poorer schools and a right to a better education at a better school?
It's a deep subject and the water at the bottom is cold. Just ask the well digger.
------------------ Rams
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun.........
I suppose one could look at it like that but, that's not the way I read it. Maine decided to send money to public and private schools but denied that money to religious schools due to the tie in to religion. Thus denying those students the same money (opportunity) that all other schools got for student's education. It appears to me to be more of a win for the student's education versus a victory for religion but, that's just my take on it.
While I've always been an advocate for public schools, I don't think students should have less just because they attend a certain school over another. But, I also acknowledge that it's the choice of the parents (in most cases) to send their kids to specific schools. But, isn't that the same argument that allowed kids to cross school/government boundaries in order to cancel some racial issues of poorer schools and a right to a better education at a better school?
It's a deep subject and the water at the bottom is cold. Just ask the well digger.
Hah, yeah... I agree, I was saying that my "guesses" were wrong. But I support that ruling, and I'll have to be OK with it too... even if it ends up supporting a religion I'm not particularly fond of at some point in the future.
The Supreme Court strikes down Maine's ban on using public funds for religious schools which could ease religious organizations access to taxpayer money.
Fox 25 looked into what this ruling means for Oklahoma's parents and students.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts says states don't have to allow public money to be used in private education, but if they do, they cannot keep religious schools out of the program.
This opinion could lead to a renewed push for school choice programs in states that have not directed taxpayer money to private, religious education, like Oklahoma.
Earlier this year, Oklahoma's controversial voucher bill ended up stalling in the legislature.
It would have allowed nearly $120 million in tax money to fund private education.
Tuesday's Supreme Court ruling stirred up reaction again with other state leaders.
Governor Kevin Stitt tweeted, "Huge win for parents, school choice and religious freedom!"
Both Attorney General John O'Conner and Senator James Lankford agreed with Stitt.
Lankford says "Once again, the court has reaffirmed that in America we don't just have the freedom of worship. We have the freedom to live our faith at work, home, school and in public."
Oklahoma House Dems responded by saying this ruling doesn't impact Oklahoma but highlights a trend of weakening laws allowing public money to go to private and religious schools.
In response to the decision, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the dissent, arguing the court selectively applied clauses of the first amendment.
IMHO, the underlined/bolded comment by Justice Roberts says it all. States don't have to fund private schools but, if they do, they can not shut out religious schools. I think that's the fair and correct answer. That's not to suggest I think the taxpayer should be funding private schools but, what's good for the goose is also good for the gander. Chief Justice Roberts and the Conservative majority of SCOTUS got this one right.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 06-22-2022).]
wonder how many kids is the right to keep and bear arms worth
save the guns
shoot the schools fund religious schools
but no abortions
prey for the god of guns
I get it, I do... and school shootings really upset me.
It's not like I haven't worked through how this works in my head. At the end of the day, I fear a government that has no limits more than I do a few Zoom-generation kids that need psychological help. We can fix the kids... we can try to solve that problem by REALLY trying to determine why mental illness has gone up exponentially in the past 20-30 years. But once the general populace no longer has guns, there's nothing that will get that back. Look, I like the government, I think it serves a very important need. But our Constitution intentionally created a careful balance to ensure that the government is always subservient to the people. And when you eliminate the second amendment, all the other amendments will fall because the Government (e.g. the politicians) knows there is no longer a recourse.
The Supreme Court has struck down Roe v. Wade, eliminating the nearly 50-year-old constitutional right to abortion and handing states authority to drastically limit or ban the procedure.
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 06-24-2022).]
wonder how many kids is the right to keep and bear arms worth
save the guns
shoot the schools fund religious schools
but no abortions
prey for the god of guns
OK, following the above train of thought, ray b wants to save the kids in school but abort/kill the kids in the womb............ Hmm, some how, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I'm probably the only one confused by ray b.
''awakened an implacable enemy filled with a terrible resolve ''
you don't know what is it do you MR JONES
I think you guys are going the way of the wigs fade in to history
The Whigs turned INTO the Republican party. If the Republican party turns into something even more awesome, I'm ok with that.
Frankly, if the Democrats tomorrow said that they were all for the Constitution, started cutting military waste, curbing welfare for only people who really needed it, and healthy grown-ass men need not apply, then I'd start voting Democrat again.
The Whigs turned INTO the Republican party. If the Republican party turns into something even more awesome, I'm ok with that.
Frankly, if the Democrats tomorrow said that they were all for the Constitution, started cutting military waste, curbing welfare for only people who really needed it, and healthy grown-ass men need not apply, then I'd start voting Democrat again.
Frankly, if the Democrats tomorrow said that they were all for the Constitution, started cutting military waste, curbing welfare for only people who really needed it, and healthy grown-ass men need not apply, then I'd just figure they came up with a new scam.
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court is set on Thursday to issue its final two rulings of its current term, one on federal agency power to tackle climate change and the other on President Joe Biden's ability to end a hardline immigration policy begun under his predecessor Donald Trump."
My thoughts:
1 - CLIMATE CHANGE: The Supreme Court will likely limit the ability for the EPA to impost certain restrictions. I believe there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that inherently allows Federal agencies to wield the powers that they do. I don't know, but nothing stands out to me. I do know that Federal agencies are generally not allowed to MAKE LAW, but they are allowed to enforce law which has already passed the legislature. A good example of this is the final ruling in the case of LabMD and the FTC. The courts ultimately ruled that the FTC had not defined certain requirements clearly, and were therefore not in legal standing to impose fines. So I think the Supreme Court will rule against the EPA.
2 - IMMIGRATION POLICY: Again, I don't know the specifics, but it seems to me it's looking to address whether or not a previous executive order by President Trump, can be upheld while Biden is president. For one, there is nothing in the Constitution that defines what an "executive order" is, or even that it's something that exists. The very first executive order was from Abraham Lincoln, and for the most part, it respected the authority of the President's duty to "execute laws." The goal was always that executive orders had to deal with the U.S. Government, and engagement with the U.S. Government. So it's become a "standard" if you will, that has never formally been challenged. Unless I'm mistaken, there's no ruling that ensures executive orders from prior presidents have any authority should the next president decide to rescind that. The executive orders will always remain until replaced, but again... that's what Biden has attempted to do. I think the Supreme Court will rule in favor of President Biden.
I am pleased with the decision regarding the EPA. I have long held that the federal regulatory bodies have been allowed far to much power. To me, this is one of the biggest problems in the US government. They do not answer to anyone (except well heeled lobbyists). They need to be reined in.
Regarding "remain in Mexico", although I am disappointed with what will be the result of the decision, I actually agree with the basis of the decision. Border security is another major issue to me, and one of the reasons I was impressed by Trump. This decision gives Biden the power to continue to screw things up.
So, both of these decisions addressed issues that are important to me and both were correct.
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 06-30-2022).]
My thoughts (which really dont matter, since I dont live south of the border anymore)
Ya are all a bunch of idiot pussies...Deferring and asking permission for the rights enshrined in the very idea, and with no understanding of what the original idea of telling the crown to **** off was...Ya replaced the queens jackboot thugs with your own jackboot thugs.
Please, government, can I have a cigarette ? I give you 10 dollah.....Please government, can I have a job ? I give you 30%....Please, government, can i...can I can I can I...
Please government, can I speak ?
Free men dont ask permission.....and they sure as hell dont apologize or defer.
I'm not seeing any freedom at all.
Please massah, can I have a gun ? What kind am I allowed ?
I'm seeing exactly what got thrown out in the 1st place, except worse.
I think I'll go puke now.
Slavery never ended, you idiots....they just distracted you while building a 50-foot dildo to **** you up the ass.
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 06-30-2022).]
Religious affiliation of Canadian residents in 2011
A bar graph for Canada. The most recent data available online. From left to right, Christians, then "no religious afflilation", and the third bar from the left: Muslims.
Religious affiliation of Canadian residents in 2011
A bar graph for Canada. The most recent data available online. From left to right, Christians, then "no religious afflilation", and the third bar from the left: Muslims.
I am pleased with the decision regarding the EPA. I have long held that the federal regulatory bodies have been allowed far to much power. To me, this is one of the biggest problems in the US government. They do not answer to anyone (except well heeled lobbyists). They need to be reined in.
Regarding "remain in Mexico", although I am disappointed with what will be the result of the decision, I actually agree with the basis of the decision. Border security is another major issue to me, and one of the reasons I was impressed by Trump. This decision gives Biden the power to continue to screw things up.
So, both of these decisions addressed issues that are important to me and both were correct.
I agree on both fronts, and as you said about the EPA ruling, I think this really puts into perspective the actual authority (and lack there of) of the federal agencies. In my opinion, this could very well be the most significant ruling from the entire SCOTUS session. This will have FAR-reaching implications on what these agencies can and cannot do.
