What's new
By:
Filters

Supreme Court Justice Kennedy to Retire

Status
Not open for further replies.
Eminence said:
Yep, I believe you did. And then proceeded to put a whole bunch of words into my mouth, making further discussion impossible.

I'm fine with allowing unions/workers to dissociate vs the formerly required 2-way interactions (dues/representation). This recent ruling leaves us at an ugly halfway point imo(representation required/nothing in return).
Click to expand...
I put zero words in your mouth.
 
Bulletproof said:
I completely understand what you're saying, I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying.

People who work in job covered by a collective bargaining agreement (aka, a union) are bound to that union even if they would prefer there be no union in their workplace. Even if they wish they could negotiate directly with management and deal with other issues on an individual basis.

I think you're assuming it is better for all employees to be represented by a union. Working in a union workplace and being represented by an incompetent union, I can tell you that I would have better pay, better shift flexibility and a better work/life balance if my garbage *** union wasn't there.

My union represents primarily unskilled labor. I am in a skilled labor field that has a pretty significant shortage of skilled people qualified to work with the automated systems that are becoming more and more common every day. The people in my field make up a very small portion of the overall hourly workforce at my workplace. The union is all but hostile to us. When they find out the managers are working with our schedules for the benefit of everyone and the harm of no one they shut that **** down. When market forces should drive our wages up they actually refused to allow the company to increase just our wages on the last contract, demanding that entry level inexperienced forklift drivers needed to have a pay increase if the mechanics were going to get a pay increase. When the company refused to give the forklift drivers a pay increase, the union said then they wouldn't agree to mechanics getting a pay increase. There were no strings attached, the company just wanted to adjust our wages to be competitive so that they could attract employees. I've worked at the place I'm at for about five years and they have never had full staff in my department.

I've also worked in non-union places and the work environment was better. The pay was just as good. Raises were better. Benefits were better. There was more flexibility.

I don't want my stupid *** union to represent me. I want them to go away.
Click to expand...
@Eminence

The closest I come to "putting words in your mouth" is where I say "I think you're assuming it is better for all employees to be represented by a union." That word I use there, "think" means that I have the impression that you're assuming it is better for all employees to be represented by a union. It doesn't mean I know you think that. It means that my following comments are a response based on that assumption. It allows you to clarify any confusion I have about what you're saying because I've made explicitly clear what impressions I've gotten from your comments. It is the opposite of me putting words in your mouth.
 
Eminence said:
Shoulda thought harder I guess.
Click to expand...
I used to word "think" to indicate lack of complete assuredness. Indicating that I was making an assumption based on the information in front of me. Now it's up to you to correct me if my assumption was wrong. I didn't do anything to shut down this conversation. You have by crying about me putting words in your mouth when no such thing happened.

Have a nice day...
 
This is going to be a huge battle for this confirmation. A lot is on the line for both sides.

Personally I find this nomination awful. I wish both sides could put differences aside and try and find supreme court justices that dont have clear biases. We dont need politics in our supreme court, but unfortunately both sides have been doing this for a long time.

Who knew we would be back to worrying about Women's reproductive rights and LGBT rights.

This will get interesting. I am guessing that Democrats will do everything they can to return the favor of blocking Obama's nomination. The senate is split 50/50 right now. I am guessing a few democrats from conservative states will vote for his confirmation but the opposite might end up being true. That is if a vote ever happens on this.
 
I do not believe the Supreme Court will reverse Roe v. Wade, even if they had a good case in front of them. I don't think Republican leaders actually want it reversed. It keeps people on the Republican rolls. But more states might now be emboldened to make harsher regulations.

I can't imagine they can put marriage equality back in the bag, either. The percentage of support is too high. Traditional marriage has yet to be compromised in ways that the fearmongers predicted.

But you never know. There is much about the feelings and prejudices of the citizens of the U.S. that I did not anticipate.
 
JazzGal said:
I do not believe the Supreme Court will reverse Roe v. Wade, even if they had a good case in front of them. I don't think Republican leaders actually want it reversed. It keeps people on the Republican rolls. But more states might now be emboldened to make harsher regulations.

I can't imagine they can put marriage equality back in the bag, either. The percentage of support is too high. Traditional marriage has yet to be compromised in ways that the fearmongers predicted.

But you never know. There is much about the feelings and prejudices of the citizens of the U.S. that I did not anticipate.
Click to expand...
I'm doubtful either will actually happen. But I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility.

But the entire purpose of the list of nominations created was so that conservative judges would be in place to reverse that ruling. The conservative groups overseeing this feel there hasn't been a real conservative majority since the 30s.

Say what you want about Republicans but their think tanks and groups are very smart and well planned. They set out with objectives that take years or even a lifetime to accomplish but they tend to get there.

Changing the meaning in court of the second amendment of gun rights to mean for individuals took a long time but they accomplished it and now even the public thinks that way.

Reversing roe v Wade was #1 on their list since it happened. Reagan nominating 2 conservative judges that ended up not being as conservative as they hoped for really caused a change of action and a large effort that is going to come to fruition with this nomination.

Now let's see if it happens and if a case reaches them how they all actually vote.
 
Roe v Wade should go to being a state issue. Hope it does.

If nominating a person who believes in the authority of the constitution is awful, then sign me up for awful my man.
 
Ron Mexico said:
This is going to be a huge battle for this confirmation. A lot is on the line for both sides.

Personally I find this nomination awful. I wish both sides could put differences aside and try and find supreme court justices that dont have clear biases. We dont need politics in our supreme court, but unfortunately both sides have been doing this for a long time.

Who knew we would be back to worrying about Women's reproductive rights and LGBT rights.

This will get interesting. I am guessing that Democrats will do everything they can to return the favor of blocking Obama's nomination. The senate is split 50/50 right now. I am guessing a few democrats from conservative states will vote for his confirmation but the opposite might end up being true. That is if a vote ever happens on this.
Click to expand...

If K’s nomination fails, then why doesn’t trump nominate a moderate?

Why not this Merrick Garland guy? He’s a moderate and has He seems to have bipartisan support. The eldest senator thinks he’s a very fine man.

“[Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man. He probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants.” -Orrin Hatch
 
Last edited:
In all honesty if trump were a better politican, he’d nominate a moderate. He’d probably take out a lot of momentum from the blue wave this midterm and go a long way to restoring bi-partisan action in the senate. Instead, he’s just going to pile on and continue to polarize Americans.

Instead, K will barely be confirmed as both parties with few exceptions vote the party line. Democrats are a few senators short and Doug jones from Alabama and the one from Missouri are particularly vulnerable (id he surprised if they didn’t flip for republicans). If the nomination is secure I could see someone like Collins voting against it so she can claim to her state of Maine that she’s not lock step in line with the party.
 
I'm not a big fan of this nomination. He argued that ISPs have a first amendment right to block websites, and he has been too NSA-friendly.
 
JustTheTip said:
If nominating a person who believes in the authority of the constitution is awful, then sign me up for awful my man.
Click to expand...

So, you're defecting to the liberal side? Because liberals believe in the authority of the Constitution, conservatives do not.

Unless, it's really that both sides believe in it, and your rhetoric was pointless and inflammatory. No wonder you wanted Thriller's attention.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Top