Runboard.com
You're welcome.





runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

Page:  1  2  3  4 ... 27  28  29 

 
Bellelettres Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 9239
Karma: 15 (+32/-17)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


I'm beginning to sense the answer to my earlier question.
11/30/2017, 1:51 pm Link to this post PM Bellelettres
 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 13649
Karma: 15 (+50/-35)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


quote:

AZKC wrote:

It is NOT right-wad speak.

I have seen the term used by people on both the left and the right side of the aisle and I am pretty sure you have too.

Go !@#$ at someone else for their semantics.



quote:

Miz Robbie wrote:

Always a pleasure to have you around, KC.



I apologize for that bit of snark, KC.

If you will, let me try to decode what I had said originally.

Do you post on YAP? I'm there so infrequently I don't recall whether you do. Assuming you're familiar with the place, perhaps you'll recognize the names of some of the more virulent rightwads, such as James Savage, Kirtiray, eman, and others. They love to pat themselves and each other on the back over the prospect of seeing liberals' heads explode. So far I have yet to see a liberal head explode, but they're certain it's about to happen and they wait in breathless anticipation.

I understand why they say things like that. It's because they're brainless followers and can't make a point using non-inflammatory language.

When I say I don't understand why you say things like that, it's because I don't put you in their camp. It surprised and startled me to see it.

I'm sorry I didn't explain myself better in the first place.

---
Robbie
11/30/2017, 4:04 pm Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 
AZKC Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2017
Posts: 45
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Robbie,

It was just a phrase I see used i various places.

I occasionally go to YAP and look around but I rarely post.

As you know, I have been spending a lot of time over at LTTE and apmom, Barb and Fancy use the phrase for anything they think will upset folks on the right.

I didn't know it was a phrase you disliked and I will try to refrain from using it in the future. It really shouldn't be a big deal.

---
The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. – John Adams
11/30/2017, 6:45 pm Link to this post PM AZKC
 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 13649
Karma: 15 (+50/-35)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


quote:

AZKC wrote:

As you know, I have been spending a lot of time over at LTTE and apmom, Barb and Fancy use the phrase for anything they think will upset folks on the right.




I haven't been around LTTE in several years, so I didn't know you spend a lot of time there and I didn't know what folks there say.

---
Robbie
11/30/2017, 7:03 pm Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 
AZKC Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2017
Posts: 45
Karma: 0 (+0/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


I understand, that's why I said no big deal.

---
The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. – John Adams
11/30/2017, 7:28 pm Link to this post PM AZKC
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
WOOHOO!!!


(CNN) - Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg marks her 25th anniversary on the Supreme Court this year, and the cultural icon known as the "Notorious RBG" recently signaled that she intends to stay at least through 2020 by hiring law clerks for at least two more terms....

The Supreme Court public information office confirmed the hiring to CNN....

Some comments on Twitter pitted Ginsburg against President Donald Trump, who in 2016 tweeted that "Her mind is shot -- resign!" after she publicly criticized him and deemed him a "faker." Trump has also said that he expects Ginsburg to leave the court while he is president and able to replace her with a new justice.

Liberal Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe tweeted: "Great news: Justice Ginsburg has hired a full slate of law clerks through 2020. Take that, 'stable genius' Donald."

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
1/10/2018, 12:04 am Link to this post PM JustLis
 
Bellelettres Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 9239
Karma: 15 (+32/-17)
Reply | Quote
Supreme Court deals a blow to workers


Supreme Court Deals a Blow to Workers

By Terri Gerstein and Sharon Block
May 21, 2018

Federal labor law protects the right of workers to join together to improve their conditions, whether through a union or other means. But the Supreme Court has now carved out a big exception to that longstanding principle. In a 5-4 decision on Monday, the court said that companies can use arbitration clauses in employment contracts to bar workers from joining forces in legal actions over problems in the workplace. In other words, workers who are underpaid, harassed or discriminated against will have to press their cases alone in arbitration, rather than with their colleagues in a class-action case, or even with their own lawsuit.

This decision, Epic Systems Corporation v. Lewis, is especially harmful now. The rights of workers are under attack. Wage theft is rampant through violations of minimum-wage laws, refusal to pay overtime and forcing employees to work off the clock. And we now know better than ever how pervasive sexual harassment is.

In addition, the institutions that can stand up for workers who can’t stand up for themselves are falling short. The proportion of American workers in a union is at an 80-year low. State and local government agencies that enforce laws to protect workers are chronically underfunded. And the federal government is doing everything it can to lend a hand to predatory employers.


That’s why class actions, which enable people with the same or similar injuries to sue as a group, are important. Taking collective action diminishes the fear of employer retaliation and allows workers to pool resources so they can afford to bring their cases. Even an utterly routine case can cost a lot of money to litigate. Plaintiffs’ lawyers we spoke with estimated that to represent just one worker who is denied minimum wage or overtime would take more than 40 hours of attorney time, and a typical settlement for back wages for one underpaid low-wage worker might amount to $3,000 to $5,000, perhaps less. But if a lawyer can represent a group of workers harmed in the same way by the same employer, the economics of a case starts to make sense.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the majority opinion, said, “The policy may be debatable but the law is clear: Congress has instructed that arbitration agreements like those before us must be enforced as written. Congress is of course always free to amend this judgment.”

Congress should amend the National Labor Relations Act and the Federal Arbitration Act to make it clear that filing class-action lawsuits is explicitly protected under those statutes.

Until there is change on the federal level, states and localities should increase funding for their enforcement agencies so they can step in to vindicate workers’ rights, and states should pass laws allowing whistle-blowers to bring cases on behalf of the government in workplace-related cases.

It is up to Congress to make access to justice for everyone real again.

https://tinyurl.com/ycr5srr5
5/22/2018, 9:37 am Link to this post PM Bellelettres
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Thank you, Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans, for holding that Supreme Court seat open for Neil Gorsuch.

::snark::

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
5/22/2018, 11:25 am Link to this post PM JustLis
 
CooterBrown44 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 01-2017
Posts: 6991
Karma: 13 (+29/-16)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Consumers are also being forced to arbitration instead of being to sue. I think class action is still available in a consumer action where the wrongful conduct is broad and involves many people.
5/22/2018, 11:47 am Link to this post PM CooterBrown44
 
bigbarry2u Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info



Registered: 09-2017
Posts: 224
Karma: 2 (+3/-1)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


quote:

The Supreme Court struck down a 1992 federal law on Monday that effectively banned commercial sports betting in most states, opening the door to legalizing the estimated $150 billion in illegal wagers on professional and amateur sports that Americans make every year.

The decision seems certain to result in profound changes to the nation’s relationship with sports wagering. Bettors will no longer be forced into the black market to use offshore wagering operations or illicit bookies. Placing bets will be done on mobile devices, fueled and endorsed by the lawmakers and sports officials who opposed it for so long.



https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/14/us/politics/supreme-court-sports-betting-new-jersey.html

If Texas picks this up, and my old college buddy who is now the AG will surely fight it, then it is a sure-fire way for you all to make money. Just ask which sports team I favor and bet heavily against that team. You'll clean up for sure.

---
I thought growing old would take longer.
5/22/2018, 2:49 pm Link to this post PM bigbarry2u
 
bricklayer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 2928
Karma: 7 (+13/-6)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Supreme Court Deals a Blow to Workers

Management does not want to see labor achieve solidarity. Now it seems that the Supreme Court condones that position and further provides legal precedent to legitimize impinging the right of workers to collective bargaining.
5/22/2018, 3:52 pm Link to this post PM bricklayer
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Well, well. The courts got it right.

(CNN) - Court rules federal civil rights law protects transgender people

A federal court ruled against a Virginia school district on Tuesday, holding that federal law protects a transgender student who sought to use the boys' bathroom at his school.

The ruling is a victory for Gavin Grimm -- a transgender male -- who began his legal fight four years ago and has since graduated from the school. The court denied a motion filed by the school district to dismiss Grimm's lawsuit.

Grimm's lawyers at the American Civil Liberties Union argued that Title IX -- a federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded education programs -- includes discrimination based on gender identity.

"After full consideration of the facts presented and the compelling scope of relevant legal analyses, the Court concludes that Mr. Grimm has sufficiently pled a Title IX claim of sex discrimination under a gender stereotyping theory," wrote Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen, of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

A federal appeals court based in Chicago issued a similar ruling in a different challenge in May 2017.

Grimm's case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which kicked it back into the lower courts. The previous court ruling was vacated after the Department of Education revoked President Barack Obama's guidance that Title IX covered transgender people last year.


---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
5/22/2018, 11:39 pm Link to this post PM JustLis
 
CooterBrown44 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 01-2017
Posts: 6991
Karma: 13 (+29/-16)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


The GOP has been trying to force individuals who have a claim against an employer or business to have to go to arbitrator instead of being able to sue.........and bring a class action........for years. Looks like they're going to get to !@#$ over the individual some more.
5/23/2018, 12:00 am Link to this post PM CooterBrown44
 
MsSusieQueue Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 2575
Karma: 2 (+8/-6)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


quote:

JustLis wrote:

Well, well. The courts got it right.

(CNN) - Court rules federal civil rights law protects transgender people

A federal court ruled against a Virginia school district on Tuesday, holding that federal law protects a transgender student who sought to use the boys' bathroom at his school.



Thanks for posting that, Lis. I wonder, though, if it will get bounced back up to the Supreme Court.
5/23/2018, 11:00 am Link to this post PM MsSusieQueue
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


I don't know, Susie. Given that the Supreme Court already kicked it back down once, are they likely to take it on again? We'll have to see.... Come to think of it, I wonder when it hit the Supreme Court initially. Was it during the period that Senate Republicans were holding that seat open, so there was that 4-4 decision pattern? Maybe kicking it back down was a compromise at the time. I don't know.....

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
5/23/2018, 11:20 am Link to this post PM JustLis
 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 13649
Karma: 15 (+50/-35)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case

By Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter
Updated 10:37 AM ET, Mon June 4, 2018


Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court ruled narrowly in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake to celebrate the marriage of a same sex couple because of a religious objection.

The ruling was 7-2.

The court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed hostility toward the baker based on his religious beliefs. The ruling is a win for baker Jack Phillips but leaves unsettled the broader constitutional questions the case presented.

The ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, is not the wide-ranging ruling on religious liberty that some expected. It is tailored to the case at hand with the justices holding that members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed animus toward Phillips specifically when they suggested his claims of religious freedom was made to justify discrimination.

The case was one of the most anticipated rulings of the term and was considered by some as a follow up from the Court's decision two years ago to clear the way for same sex marriage nationwide. That opinion expressed respect for those with religious objections to gay marriage.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/politics/masterpiece-colorado-gay-marriage-cake-supreme-court/index.html

---
Robbie
6/4/2018, 9:45 am Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 
shiftless2 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Banned user

Registered: 11-2016
Posts: 1624
Karma: 1 (+5/-4)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


I was more surprised at how one sided the decision was (7-2). I expected it to be a lot closer.
6/4/2018, 11:13 am Link to this post PM shiftless2
 
Bellelettres Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 9239
Karma: 15 (+32/-17)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented.
6/4/2018, 11:23 am Link to this post PM Bellelettres
 
JustLis Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 14539
Karma: 34 (+61/-27)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


So... If I'm a baker, and I disagree with Christian marriage, I am allowed to refuse to bake them a cake, right?

---
Lis

Just one voice.... Singing in the darkness....
6/4/2018, 11:32 am Link to this post PM JustLis
 
Miz Robbie Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Head Administrator

Registered: 08-2017
Posts: 13649
Karma: 15 (+50/-35)
Reply | Quote
Re: The United States Supreme Court


quote:

JustLis wrote:

So... If I'm a baker, and I disagree with Christian marriage, I am allowed to refuse to bake them a cake, right?



They didn't reach that question. This decision is really nothing. The Supremes ruled that the civil rights commission wasn't neutral with respect to the bakers when it found against them.

“The neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “The Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection.”

The Supreme Court’s decision, which turned on the commission’s asserted hostility to religion, strongly reaffirmed protections for gay rights and left open the possibility that other cases raising similar issues could be decided differently.


---
Robbie
6/4/2018, 11:52 am Link to this post PM Miz Robbie
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3  4 ... 27  28  29 





You are not logged in (login)
Back To Top