Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The SCOTUS conservative supermajority unfortunately chose to lick the boots of corporations again yesterday, to the detriment of people that can easily suffer harm from their actions.
The article you cited is a hot mess and barely readable. It's basically a tiresome rant about rights and does a really poor job explaining the case. I Googled "TransUnion SCOTUS" and found multiple sources that explained the case with much more clarity. This is a perfect example of why you shouldn't get your news from a website known for its outrageous political bias. The same goes for Breitbart, Huffpo, The Drudge Report, and a plethora of other "news" sites. I'm not sure where I stand on this particular case, but The Slate article is an excellent example of biased (borderline hysterical) reporting.
The article you cited is a hot mess and barely readable. It's basically a tiresome rant about rights and does a really poor job explaining the case. I Googled "TransUnion SCOTUS" and found multiple sources that explained the case with much more clarity. This is a perfect example of why you shouldn't get your news from a website known for its outrageous political bias. The same goes for Breitbart, Huffpo, The Drudge Report, and a plethora of other "news" sites. I'm not sure where I stand on this particular case, but The Slate article is an excellent example of biased (borderline hysterical) reporting.
I read multiple articles on the case and still saw it the same way, being inclined to agree with Thomas’ dissent. SCOTUSBlog has a more fact based and less political take if you prefer that.
The bottom line is that the SCOTUS once again ruled for corporations (TransUnion), and against victims of TransUnion’s gross negligence. You don’t even have to go into the related separation of powers stuff the slate article mentions to understand why it’s a bad decision just from that.
I tried to tell conservatives that a right wing SCOTUS isn’t what they think it is. Historically, conservative dominated Supreme Courts have been frighteningly pro corporate and anti individual rights where corporations are concerned. This decision is just a taste of what’s to come.
Sorry Republicans, but the principal reason that you want a conservative dominated SCOTUS isn’t gonna come to fruition: the overturning of Roe. And you’d BETTER hope that I’m right because they say they do overturn it will be the doom of Republican Party fundraising.
I tried to tell conservatives that a right wing SCOTUS isn’t what they think it is. Historically, conservative dominated Supreme Courts have been frighteningly pro corporate and anti individual rights where corporations are concerned. This decision is just a taste of what’s to come.
Sorry Republicans, but the principal reason that you want a conservative dominated SCOTUS isn’t gonna come to fruition: the overturning of Roe. And you’d BETTER hope that I’m right because they say they do overturn it will be the doom of Republican Party fundraising.
You’re right. All those one-issue voters won’t donate to GOP if Roe v. Wade is overturned.
You’re right. All those one-issue voters won’t donate to GOP if Roe v. Wade is overturned.
Republicans have wanted a conservative dominated court for Roe alone. They don’t even understand the other implications of a conservative dominated court.
Thing is, the court won’t be overturning Roe anyway, and Republicans will rue the day that if court DOES make that mistake.
When Clarence Thomas got scared off of voting with his fellow conservatives, you KNOW the ruling was too extreme. And Thomas is one of two justices that was willing to end Miranda Rights along with Scalia. That should tell you all you need to know.
The SCOTUS conservative supermajority unfortunately chose to lick the boots of corporations again yesterday, to the detriment of people that can easily suffer harm from their actions.
" I’m forced"
And who "forced" you?
And you can smell the outright BIAS reeking from SLATE in the article.
" five conservative justices"
When was the last time they referred to ANY dem judge as "liberal"?
I tried to tell conservatives that a right wing SCOTUS isn’t what they think it is. Historically, conservative dominated Supreme Courts have been frighteningly pro corporate and anti individual rights where corporations are concerned. This decision is just a taste of what’s to come.
Sorry Republicans, but the principal reason that you want a conservative dominated SCOTUS isn’t gonna come to fruition: the overturning of Roe. And you’d BETTER hope that I’m right because they say they do overturn it will be the doom of Republican Party fundraising.
You have a misunderstanding of what Republicans and "conservatives" want from the SCOTUS. You can read any survey/poll/whatnot you want and you'll find that Roe v Wade is not an important issue to the majority of Republicans or conservatives.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
