Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › SCOTUS
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) SCOTUS (Read 2926 times)
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 12544
Location: California Coast
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Big Win For Christianity - Big Loss For Islam & Judaism
Reply #20 - Jun 25th, 2019 at 2:31pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Jun 25th, 2019 at 2:00pm:
If seeing a cross on public land offends a person, will not seeing a cross on a church offend them just as much?

Why would a Muslim taxpayer want his/her tax dollars used to erect a Christian cross on Public land?   Or a Jew?  If I were Muslim or a Jew, I would find that offensive.

No tax dollars were ever used to erect a Cross on the church's property.
  

Governments will always devise ways to deprive an honest man of his money or property, and claim that it's legal.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 51233
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Big Win For Christianity - Big Loss For Islam & Judaism
Reply #21 - Jun 25th, 2019 at 2:44pm
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on Jun 25th, 2019 at 2:31pm:
Why would a Muslim taxpayer want his/her tax dollars used to erect a Christian cross on Public land?   Or a Jew?  If I were Muslim or a Jew, I would find that offensive.

No tax dollars were ever used to erect a Cross on the church's property.
They don't do that anymore that I know of. They're talking about using tax dollars to tear down the ones that already exist...

Is there going to be another demand for reparations?

Will only tax dollars collected from Christians be used to tear down crosses?
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 51233
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS
Reply #22 - Jun 27th, 2019 at 7:12am
Print Post  
This was interesting too!

https://reason.com/2019/06/26/gorsuch-and-alito-fight-over-criminal-sentencing-a...

On a philosophical level, I agree with Gorsuch, and really like his defense of the Constitution...

However, I have to agree with Alito that a man out of prison on a supervised release can be sent back if evidence he has violated the conditions of his release is presented to a Judge...

But on second thought, I don't.

His sentence was complete. If he was caught allegedly breaking the law again, he gets a new trial.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 51233
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS
Reply #23 - Jun 27th, 2019 at 7:15am
Print Post  
It's too bad SCOTUS has already approved of asset forfeiture...

https://reason.com/2019/06/26/hawaii-governor-plans-to-veto-asset-forfeiture-ref...

I think they need to revisit the issue, soon.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ahhell
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2820
Joined: Sep 21st, 2016
Re: SCOTUS
Reply #24 - Jun 27th, 2019 at 11:01am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Jun 27th, 2019 at 7:12am:
This was interesting too!

https://reason.com/2019/06/26/gorsuch-and-alito-fight-over-criminal-sentencing-a...

On a philosophical level, I agree with Gorsuch, and really like his defense of the Constitution...

However, I have to agree with Alito that a man out of prison on a supervised release can be sent back if evidence he has violated the conditions of his release is presented to a Judge...

But on second thought, I don't.

His sentence was complete. If he was caught allegedly breaking the law again, he gets a new trial.

Depends on the nature of release I suppose.  If you've been released on parole but are still technically serving a sentence outside of incarceration, I think its not unreasonable to have some limits on your action. 

If you have served your original sentence and have been fully released, not so much. 

In this case, I agree with Gorsuch.  The additional sentence was exactly that, an additional sentence with out trial by jury.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 51233
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS
Reply #25 - Jun 28th, 2019 at 6:45am
Print Post  
SCOTUS has been busy!

This case didn't really do anything but waste the court's time I think:

https://reason.com/2019/06/27/scotus-ruling-on-adding-a-citizenship-question-to-...

BTW, I don't answer any questions on the census forms other than my name and address and the fact that my race is human. Smiley
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 51233
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS
Reply #26 - Jun 28th, 2019 at 6:51am
Print Post  
This time, they dodged the question... Shame on them!

https://reason.com/2019/06/27/supreme-court-allows-warrantless-blood-draws-of-un...

From the article:

"Today's decision in Mitchell v. Wisconsin comes just three years after the Court ruled that police generally do need to get a warrant to perform blood tests if a driver does not voluntarily consent. And the Court's judgment actually dodged the major question presented by the case: Whether a state can force a citizen to consent in advance to unwarranted blood tests as a condition of driving."

That's too bad. The important question I see is that of a person's right to travel freely about the country... If it's a privilege rather than a right, then states can put any conditions on it they choose to. Cry
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 51233
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS
Reply #27 - Jun 29th, 2019 at 6:39pm
Print Post  
I wonder if there's any way to get SCOTUS to rule on the NAP?
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 51233
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS
Reply #28 - Jul 18th, 2019 at 7:40am
Print Post  
This is interesting:

https://reason.com/2019/07/17/washington-supreme-court-says-obesity-is-a-disabil...

I'd like to see SCOTUS revisit the idea of "protecting" anyone who claims to be disabled in any way for any reason.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 51233
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: SCOTUS
Reply #29 - Jul 24th, 2019 at 5:39am
Print Post  
https://reason.com/2019/07/23/gorsuch-and-kagan-clash-over-judicial-deference-to...

In case you're wondering, I don't think most of the executive branch departments writing regulations should even exist, and the few that are authorized shouldn't write any regulations unless the law is clear.

There is no need to defer to regulators interpretations of regulations they wrote if the law passed by Congress is clear... The only question then is, are the regulations necessary and proper, and do they follow the law.

Laws passed by Congress that essentially say things like "We want the EPA to write regulations to improve air quality" should be struck down.
« Last Edit: Jul 24th, 2019 at 8:38am by Jeff »  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › SCOTUS
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy