• RME Gear & Apparel

Political So now what

Political discussions within
jeeper

jeeper

I live my life 1 dumpster at a time
Location
So Jo, Ut
Amazon driver falsely reports negative comment during a delivery, and amazon shut off all the smart devices in the home, rendering it inoperable because it was so connected.

Video

If that doesn't say Orwell, I don't know what does.

We have no alexa or similar devices in our house and never will.
 
glockman

glockman

I hate Jeep trucks
Location
Pleasant Grove
Herzog said:
I have regular conversations with my FBI guys. They never respond but it warms my heart to know they are there.

Protip: give them nicknames, it makes them like you more.
Click to expand...
There was one FBI dude I used to shoot with in the early 2k's. His name was Lance. I never beat Lance. I hope Lance isn't My FBI guy. I think I have a decent chance against the rest of them. :rofl:
 
jeeper

jeeper

I live my life 1 dumpster at a time
Location
So Jo, Ut
Someone told me during the last election that the best thing Trump did for America is place Judges. I am blown away at the actual meaningful things that the judges have done. Everything from gun rights, personal freedoms, government overreach, etc has been largely improved because of them, IMO.

However, the courts very often are still split 6/3 basically along 'party lines'. This bothers me. I have always been impressed with the judges when I hear them speak, or watch them get grilled by the politicians. Each has seemed to be intelligent, thoughtful, and calm.

Laws are quite often passed through by politicians, knowing they will just end up at the courts for a legal battle. Which drives me crazy.

Are the judges as corrupt as politicians? Am I duped into thinking they were still a last line of integrity?
 
anderson750

anderson750

I'm working on it Rose
Location
Price, Utah
When looking at the Supreme Court I think for the most part the judges are constitutionalā€¦..although Roberts has surprised me on some of his decisions. The Democrat appointed justices always seem to fall along a political line.

Constitutional to me means that the judges are not making the federal government more powerful since the founders did not want central power. Most of the push over the last 80 years has been to give DC more power over our lives. The Dobbs decision sent the power back to the state level. Anybody who says it banned abortion is Iā€™ll-informed. If you live in a state that has restricted abortion you can still get oneā€¦..you just have to go somewhere else.
 
UNSTUCK

UNSTUCK

But stuck more often.
Iā€™m an idiot. Having said that, how can the Supreme Court get a case, interpret the constitution, and make a ruling on the case based on that interpretation with a vote that always seems to come down to party lines, and then people say the Supreme Court is not political?

Again, Iā€™m an idiot, but I donā€™t feel like the constitution is very vague. It says I have the right to say or not say what I want. So if my business doesnā€™t want to be involved with a gay wedding how does that make it all the way to the Supreme Court and how do 3 of the 9 see it any other way?
 
Houndoc

Houndoc

Registered User
Location
Grantsville
jeeper said:
Someone told me during the last election that the best thing Trump did for America is place Judges. I am blown away at the actual meaningful things that the judges have done. Everything from gun rights, personal freedoms, government overreach, etc has been largely improved because of them, IMO.

However, the courts very often are still split 6/3 basically along 'party lines'. This bothers me. I have always been impressed with the judges when I hear them speak, or watch them get grilled by the politicians. Each has seemed to be intelligent, thoughtful, and calm.

Laws are quite often passed through by politicians, knowing they will just end up at the courts for a legal battle. Which drives me crazy.

Are the judges as corrupt as politicians? Am I duped into thinking they were still a last line of integrity?
Click to expand...

It bothers me that selecting judges became a political issue. You had some groups and a certain party using SCOTUS appointments as a way to achieve a very specific political goal. Whether you agree with the end point or not, I think it does weaken SCOTUS and their standing, which in the long term is not good for protecting the Constitution.
As far as corrupt judges, recent revelations about judges traveling at the expense of political donors/business owners with cases before the courts, spouses actively involved in issues that came before the court etc meets the definition of corruption.
 
anderson750

anderson750

I'm working on it Rose
Location
Price, Utah
Houndoc said:
It bothers me that selecting judges became a political issue. You had some groups and a certain party using SCOTUS appointments as a way to achieve a very specific political goal. Whether you agree with the end point or not, I think it does weaken SCOTUS and their standing, which in the long term is not good for protecting the Constitution.
As far as corrupt judges, recent revelations about judges traveling at the expense of political donors/business owners with cases before the courts, spouses actively involved in issues that came before the court etc meets the definition of corruption.
Click to expand...
Corruption can reach all levels. To the credit of Congress, they passed a law about this. The whole thing involving Justice Alito and his fishing trip that is in the news now from the perspective of the law, while questionable from an ethical standpoint, it was not illegal since that trip was before the law was passed. The media is painting a narrative that he has broken a law. I can't remember who the justice was, but I recall a D appointed judge being in the news about similar things.

Until K Street is closed down, politics will be corrupt and politicians can be bought.
 
Cody

Cody

Random Quote Generator
Supporting Member
Location
Gastown
It did look like the supreme court just ruled against the states (utah being one of them) that were trying to say that the legislature could unilaterally decide upon their own boundaries and that there was no constitutional protection against gerrymandering.

I was going to bring up the article about Utah reps saying specifically that the reason they abandoned the recommended district boundaries was because they are allowed to set their own boundaries and have no obligation not to gerrymander.

But politicians are going to politic. Judges are just really educated politicians, and there really shouldn't be much surprise when they vote across party lines.
 
anderson750

anderson750

I'm working on it Rose
Location
Price, Utah
Cody said:
It did look like the supreme court just ruled against the states (utah being one of them) that were trying to say that the legislature could unilaterally decide upon their own boundaries and that there was no constitutional protection against gerrymandering.

I was going to bring up the article about Utah reps saying specifically that the reason they abandoned the recommended district boundaries was because they are allowed to set their own boundaries and have no obligation not to gerrymander.

But politicians are going to politic. Judges are just really educated politicians, and there really shouldn't be much surprise when they vote across party lines.
Click to expand...
Certain topics have a constitutional basis and others donā€™t. The gerrymandering obviously doesnā€™t. Federal elections would have some bearing on why they would get involved. Itā€™s easy for someone to cry discriminationā€¦..unless you are white. It seems like there is more uproar about gerrymandering when it favors a republican over a democrat.

At the end of the day there is only one political party behind closed doors and when the cameras on the theater starts.
 
Herzog

Herzog

somewhat damaged
Admin
Location
Wydaho
F0ZGfQgagAAOSnL


I'm having a raunchy day. **** everyone who supported this bullshit. Hypocrites.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top