Dante
I have always been here
...
BREAKING: Supreme Court will take up Gay Marriage Case
- Thread starter JFK_USA
- Start date
Dante
I have always been here
Links to what? The names or quotes? You probably wouldn't recognize a single name
Steinlight
VIP Member
- Jan 30, 2014
- 4,508
- 291
- 85
No they don't. And there have been plenty of studies, I linked them and they are also easily found by a simple google search.
There is no onus on me to disprove your asinine claims like that moderate alcohol use or "prescription drugs"(which is such a broad category, that your claim is meaningless) cause brain damage. Onus is on you to prove that the large body of evidence on the subject is wrong.
Derideo_Te
Je Suis Charlie
- Mar 2, 2013
- 20,461
- 7,961
- 360
Links to what? The names or quotes? You probably wouldn't recognize a single name
Irrelevant deflection.
Derideo_Te
Je Suis Charlie
- Mar 2, 2013
- 20,461
- 7,961
- 360
You claimed that marijuana causes brain damage.
Moderate alcohol use isn't associated with brain damage like marijuana is.
Prove it!
Dante
I have always been here
You were simply asked if you could name a legal scholar who supported an opinion you have of the court being politically partisan as if it were Republicans in the majority on the Court when it comes to rulings.
You appear more confused than ever about judicial philosophy, political philosophy, ideology, politics...it's okay. But your being so wrong headed and ignorant is simply embarrassing to watch
Dante
I have always been here
Derideo_Te
June 10, 2014
Book Discussion on Uncertain Justice
Laurence Tribe talked about his book, Uncertain Justice: The Roberts Court and the Constitution, in which he argues that the Supreme Court… read more
Uncertain Justice movie clip
June 10, 2014
Book Discussion on Uncertain Justice
Laurence Tribe talked about his book, Uncertain Justice: The Roberts Court and the Constitution, in which he argues that the Supreme Court… read more
Uncertain Justice movie clip
IlarMeilyr
Liability Reincarnate!
You can't get a closer vote. But if it's partisan to try to adhere to the commands of the Constitution, then I am ok with partisan.
Dante
I have always been here
*The transcript for this program was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.
FIVE TO FOUR SPLITS IN THE PARTISAN LINES MADE GOOD PRESS BUT IT TURNS OUT ONLY ABOUT ONE FIFTH OF THE CASES BECAME THE CHIEF JUSTICE IN 2005 HAVE BEEN DIVIDED BY-FOR. AND AT LEAST ONE THIRD OF THE 5-4 SPLITS INVOLVE UNLIKELY BEDFELLOWS.
LIKE ALIGNMENTS WHERE ONE OF THE LIBERALS LIKE BREYER OR SOTOMAYOR OR KEGAN JOIN WITH ALITO TO CREATE A 5-FOR A MINUTE IN WHICH THEY ARE THE OTHER THREE LIBERALS WHO IS INVARIABLY MORE PROTECTIVE OF PRIVACY RIGHTS AND MORE LIBERAL OF BREYER OR ANY OTHER JUSTICE.
YOU WOULDN'T KNOW THAT FROM THE REPUTATION THAT IS PROBABLY A HOUSE NURTURED AS A RADICAL UNCOMPROMISING CONSERVATIVE.
JUST YESTERDAY, FOR EXAMPLE, ELENA KEGAN LED A 5-4 DECISION THAT WAS AGAINST IMMIGRANT CHILDREN WHO HAD THE BAD LUCK TO TURN 21 BEFORE THEIR PARENTS DROPPED TO THE HEAD OF THE SLOW-MOVING LINE FOR THE IMMIGRANT VISA.
THEY WERE JOINED BY ANTHONY KENNEDY, THE REPUBLICAN, RUTH GINSBURG, DEMOCRAT, AND THE OPINION WRITTEN BY ROBERTS AND JOINED BY SCOTT LEAH.
THE DISSENTING JUSTICES THAT RULED IN FAVOR AND 21 AFTER HIS MOM WOULD EMIGRATE FROM EL SALVADOR IN 1998 HAD WAITED IN LINE FOR EIGHT YEARS. BUT IT WAS HIS MISFORTUNE. HE TURNED 21 AND HAD TO GO TO THE END OF THE LINE.
THEY WERE ALSO UNLIKELY BEDFELLOWS. CLEARANCE THOMAS, SAMUEL ALITO AND SONYA SOTOMAYOR. WITH LOTS OF THE DEVICE CASES YOU GET THESE UNUSUAL ALIGNMENT.
THERE IS A DECISION THAT THE BOOK DEALS WITH IN SOME DETAIL WHERE KENNEDY LED A 5-3 MAJORITY AND WAS REFUSED FOR STRIKING DOWN MOST OF ARIZONA. SCALIA WROTE A DISSENT THAT CALLED THE COURT'S DECISION MIND-BOGGLING. HE WENT OUT OF HIS WAY AND OUTSIDE OF THE RECORD OF THE CASE TO ATTACK OBAMA FOR SOMETHING UNRELATED TO THE CASE. HIS USE OF EXECUTIVE POWER TO FAVOR THE IMMIGRANT CHILDREN KNOWN AS DREAMERS.
THE "WASHINGTON POST" THAT USUALLY SELECTS THE PRESIDENT OR SENATOR OR CABINET MEMBER FOR THE OWNER BESTOWED THE WORST WEEK IN WASHINGTON PRIZE PARTLY BECAUSE HE WAS OUT VOTED IN THE OBAMACARE DECISION THAT CAME DOWN.
THOSE ARE JUST SOME EXAMPLES IN THE BOOK AND IT DEALS WITH THEM AND EXPLAINS THEM.
IT'S NOT JUST OF THE CASES AS A BARE MAJORITY THAT EXPOSED THE FALLACY OF THE INCREASINGLY COMMON DESCRIPTION OF THE ROBERTS COURT IN THE RIGHT-WING POLITICAL HACKS.
Book Discussion Uncertain Justice Video C-SPAN.org
THERE ARE PLENTY OF RULINGS WHICH ACCOUNTED FOR NEARLY HALF OF THE
DECISIONS IN 2012 TO 2013 IN WHICH THE NINE JUSTICES ARE DIVIDED ON THEMSELVES. IT JUST LOOKS UNANIMOUS THAT THEY ARE POINTING IN LOTS OF DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS. AND IF YOU STUDY THE DIRECTIONS YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE THE LEGAL MAVEN TO UNDERSTAND THEN YOU JUST HAVE TO SPEAK PLAIN ENGLISH ENGLISH. THEY DIVIDE AMONG THEMSELVES IN WAYS TO TELL US A LOT MORE ABOUT WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON AND WHERE THE COURT IS LIKELY TO GO NEXT. IN THE FIVE JUSTICES APPOINTED A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT. PEOPLE CALLED HIM SCALITO. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. ABOUT FREE SPEECH AND PRIVACY AND ABOUT THE NEED TO STICK TO THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE VARIOUS PARTS OF THE CONSTITUTION. FIRST IT IS IN THE WORLD ARGUMENT ABOUT THE SILENT INTERACTIVE VIDEO GAMES TO
FIVE TO FOUR SPLITS IN THE PARTISAN LINES MADE GOOD PRESS BUT IT TURNS OUT ONLY ABOUT ONE FIFTH OF THE CASES BECAME THE CHIEF JUSTICE IN 2005 HAVE BEEN DIVIDED BY-FOR. AND AT LEAST ONE THIRD OF THE 5-4 SPLITS INVOLVE UNLIKELY BEDFELLOWS.
LIKE ALIGNMENTS WHERE ONE OF THE LIBERALS LIKE BREYER OR SOTOMAYOR OR KEGAN JOIN WITH ALITO TO CREATE A 5-FOR A MINUTE IN WHICH THEY ARE THE OTHER THREE LIBERALS WHO IS INVARIABLY MORE PROTECTIVE OF PRIVACY RIGHTS AND MORE LIBERAL OF BREYER OR ANY OTHER JUSTICE.
YOU WOULDN'T KNOW THAT FROM THE REPUTATION THAT IS PROBABLY A HOUSE NURTURED AS A RADICAL UNCOMPROMISING CONSERVATIVE.
JUST YESTERDAY, FOR EXAMPLE, ELENA KEGAN LED A 5-4 DECISION THAT WAS AGAINST IMMIGRANT CHILDREN WHO HAD THE BAD LUCK TO TURN 21 BEFORE THEIR PARENTS DROPPED TO THE HEAD OF THE SLOW-MOVING LINE FOR THE IMMIGRANT VISA.
THEY WERE JOINED BY ANTHONY KENNEDY, THE REPUBLICAN, RUTH GINSBURG, DEMOCRAT, AND THE OPINION WRITTEN BY ROBERTS AND JOINED BY SCOTT LEAH.
THE DISSENTING JUSTICES THAT RULED IN FAVOR AND 21 AFTER HIS MOM WOULD EMIGRATE FROM EL SALVADOR IN 1998 HAD WAITED IN LINE FOR EIGHT YEARS. BUT IT WAS HIS MISFORTUNE. HE TURNED 21 AND HAD TO GO TO THE END OF THE LINE.
THEY WERE ALSO UNLIKELY BEDFELLOWS. CLEARANCE THOMAS, SAMUEL ALITO AND SONYA SOTOMAYOR. WITH LOTS OF THE DEVICE CASES YOU GET THESE UNUSUAL ALIGNMENT.
THERE IS A DECISION THAT THE BOOK DEALS WITH IN SOME DETAIL WHERE KENNEDY LED A 5-3 MAJORITY AND WAS REFUSED FOR STRIKING DOWN MOST OF ARIZONA. SCALIA WROTE A DISSENT THAT CALLED THE COURT'S DECISION MIND-BOGGLING. HE WENT OUT OF HIS WAY AND OUTSIDE OF THE RECORD OF THE CASE TO ATTACK OBAMA FOR SOMETHING UNRELATED TO THE CASE. HIS USE OF EXECUTIVE POWER TO FAVOR THE IMMIGRANT CHILDREN KNOWN AS DREAMERS.
THE "WASHINGTON POST" THAT USUALLY SELECTS THE PRESIDENT OR SENATOR OR CABINET MEMBER FOR THE OWNER BESTOWED THE WORST WEEK IN WASHINGTON PRIZE PARTLY BECAUSE HE WAS OUT VOTED IN THE OBAMACARE DECISION THAT CAME DOWN.
THOSE ARE JUST SOME EXAMPLES IN THE BOOK AND IT DEALS WITH THEM AND EXPLAINS THEM.
IT'S NOT JUST OF THE CASES AS A BARE MAJORITY THAT EXPOSED THE FALLACY OF THE INCREASINGLY COMMON DESCRIPTION OF THE ROBERTS COURT IN THE RIGHT-WING POLITICAL HACKS.
Book Discussion Uncertain Justice Video C-SPAN.org
THERE ARE PLENTY OF RULINGS WHICH ACCOUNTED FOR NEARLY HALF OF THE
DECISIONS IN 2012 TO 2013 IN WHICH THE NINE JUSTICES ARE DIVIDED ON THEMSELVES. IT JUST LOOKS UNANIMOUS THAT THEY ARE POINTING IN LOTS OF DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS. AND IF YOU STUDY THE DIRECTIONS YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE THE LEGAL MAVEN TO UNDERSTAND THEN YOU JUST HAVE TO SPEAK PLAIN ENGLISH ENGLISH. THEY DIVIDE AMONG THEMSELVES IN WAYS TO TELL US A LOT MORE ABOUT WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON AND WHERE THE COURT IS LIKELY TO GO NEXT. IN THE FIVE JUSTICES APPOINTED A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT. PEOPLE CALLED HIM SCALITO. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. ABOUT FREE SPEECH AND PRIVACY AND ABOUT THE NEED TO STICK TO THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE VARIOUS PARTS OF THE CONSTITUTION. FIRST IT IS IN THE WORLD ARGUMENT ABOUT THE SILENT INTERACTIVE VIDEO GAMES TO
Derideo_Te
Je Suis Charlie
- Mar 2, 2013
- 20,461
- 7,961
- 360
You were provided with articles referencing legal scholars citing the SCOTUS as being partisan. You were given an analysis that the court is the most conservative since the 1930's. I have substantiated my opinion. You haven't provided anything other than your own "opinion".
If you can't then just admit as much.
If you want to actually prove that the court is not partisan then provide your evidence that backs up your opinion. That is how things work around here. Either you can or you can't support your position. I have and you haven't. That you are not embarrassed by your own failure is your problem, not mine.
Dante
I have always been here
you did not read the reply post. Dante pointed out that you were using mostly journalists and bloggers who were NOT legal scholars.
You actually posted a legal argument that backs up Dante's position -- that makes you look more foolish than you really are. You're just stubbornly ignorant
Dante
I have always been here
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 308,385
- 263,424
- 3,615
Hiding behind the "our side defends the constitution" is pretty lame
Dante
I have always been here
Derideo_Te if you are a serious person who would rather educate yourself than remain ignorant of what legal scholars believe, view the video, read the transcript
Book Discussion Uncertain Justice Video C-SPAN.org
Book Discussion Uncertain Justice Video C-SPAN.org
Never. I don't smoke anything. Ever. I do however keep current with the medical literature and it is you who are the uninformed one. And, anyone who has ever bothered to read the newspaper and collate the data from drunk driving related accidents can tell you quite easily that alcohol does far more damage than marijuana does.
But, I do need to make a correction. Alcohol doesn't actually "kill" brain cells, what it does is damage and sometimes destroy the dendrites between cells. The cells are fine, but the ability to communicate between them is lost, thus in effect "killing" them.
There are a whole host of neurologic diseases that are caused by alcohol, just look them up.
Last edited:
Steinlight
VIP Member
- Jan 30, 2014
- 4,508
- 291
- 85
No you don't. And you are wrong or lying.
I never lie and I have never smoked anything, to include tobacco. I can't stand the stuff. Here is one of many links to the deleterious effects of alcohol on the brain.
"Alcohol consumption and mental health problems
Alcohol consumption has been associated with mental health problems, such as anxiety or depression.
Moreover, more serious mental health problems, such as psychosis, can be caused by “extreme levels of drinking” which is defined as more than 30 units per day for several weeks.
Furthermore, stopping drinking alcohol can also be a problem for heavy drinkers as they may experience withdrawal symptoms associated with severe anxiety such as nervousness, tremors and palpitations. (10)
Chlordiazepoxide hydrochloride may be given to treat alcohol withdrawal. It is a medicine that helps people feel calmer, less agitated and less tense. (11)
Alcohol and brain damage
Related Stories
- Study reveals way to alleviate memory deficits for Alzheimer's disease patients
- People with mild traumatic brain injury may have brain damage and memory problems
- 3D brain-like tissue: an interview with Professor David Kaplan, Tufts University
Alcohol-related brain damage is also used to encompass several medical conditions related to alcohol consumption. These include alcohol-related dementia and Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome. (12)"
Does alcohol kill brain cells
Derideo_Te
Je Suis Charlie
- Mar 2, 2013
- 20,461
- 7,961
- 360
Having watched the entire video I can make the following observations;
1. Professor Tribe is an astute observer of the court and well versed in it's history.
2. He did highlight what are clearly exceptions to bias but he also substantiated that the court is conservatively biased. e.g.
THE CURRENT COURT IS MOVING AGAIN RATHER FRIGHTENINGLY TO SOME PEOPLE IN THE DIRECTION OF REVIEWING LAWS THAT AFFECT THE ECONOMY IN A SERIOUS WAY. FOR EXAMPLE, THE LAWS THAT WERE PASSED IN VERMONT TO MAKE IT HARDER FOR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES TO JACK UP THE DRUGS BY GETTING INFORMATION ABOUT DRUGS TO CERTAIN DOCTORS THAT THEY WOULD PRESCRIBE MORE COSTLY DRUGS. THE COURT STRUCK DOWN ON THE BASIS OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. SOTOMAYOR JOINED THE CONSERVATIVES ON THAT AND JUSTICE BREYER WENT ALMOST POINTED. HE SAID THIS IS THE RETURN OF WHAT WAS CALLED THE LOCHNER ERA THE PERIOD FROM THE 1890s AND 1937 WHEN THE COURT WAS STRIKING DOWN ECONOMICS REGULATIONS RATHER LOOSELY. BECAUSE IF YOU STRIKE DOWN IN AND ECONOMIC REGULATION SIMPLY BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH SPEECH IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER AND IT DEALS WITH INFORMATION IN OUR SOCIETY IS AT THE HEART OF ALMOST EVERYTHING. AND USING THE FIRST AMENDMENT IN THAT WAY COULD GIVE THE COURT THE KIND OF COVER THAT IS PRESUPPOSED IN YOUR QUESTION. SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT IS EXACTLY RIGHT. THE FEAR IN OUR ECONOMIC LIVES IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE PREMISE OF LIBERTY AND OTHER PEOPLE THINK THAT MEANINGFUL LIBERTY REQUIRES THE GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE. THEY MIGHT RATHER DANGEROUSLY IN THE DIRECTION THAT IN 1937 WE ABANDONED
3. This link does not substantiate your claim that my opinion is "uninformed and confused". While the Professor has a far more indepth knowledge base of the history of the SCOTUS than myself (hardly surprising given what he has done for a living versus what I have done) but he didn't say anything that was outside my understanding of how the justices make their decisions. In that respect what he did say confirmed a lot of what I already knew.
4. Many of the examples he gave substantiated my opinion of the court's conservative bias. There were very few exceptions and most of those centered around voting anomalies in the positions taken by the justices on certain decisions that were counter to their perceived liberal/conservative positions.
So thank you for providing one single example of a legal scholar and one that actually substantiated that I am neither "uninformed" or "confused" in this matter.
Dante
I have always been here
your use of the term partisan is far too broad. partisan in what way, ideologically, judicial philosophically ..
btw, Tribe also is one of the few people who predicted that Roberts would rule for Congress' power to use the penalty in the PPACA. The taxing power. Why? Because Tribe says (and I agree) Robert's is more a libertarian than anything people like you would paint him as
quote:
you can AGREE OR DISAGREE ABOUT CITIZENS UNITED, BUT THE FUNDAMENTAL PHILOSOPHY OF THE MAJORITY in those CASES IS NOT CONTRARY TO WHAT LOTS OF PEOPLE SEEM TO THINK -- THAT CORPORATIONS ARE JUST HUMAN BEINGS IN DRAG, OR NOT MONEY IS SPEECH. THEY ARE NOT SAYING THAT. THEY ARE SAYING THAT -- WE DON'T TRUST THE GOVERNMENT TO DECIDE WHAT SPEAKERS SHOULD BE HEARD AND HOW MUCH MONEY VARIOUS INTEREST SHOULD SPEND ON SPEECH.
notice, Tribe mentions philosophy
Last edited:
IlarMeilyr
Liability Reincarnate!
It's lame to suggest that they are doing any such thing. They are instead defending that which they believe the Constitution demands.
Similar threads
