• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court overturns Gorsuch ruling against student with disabilities

TurtleDude said:
Its pretty amusing. Its not an enumerated power but its constitutional for the government to engage in activity that it has no delegated authority to do so. Sort of sounds like something out of the FDR administration
Click to expand...

did you know the preamble bestows powers.......not!
 
TurtleDude said:
Its pretty amusing. Its not an enumerated power but its constitutional for the government to engage in activity that it has no delegated authority to do so. Sort of sounds like something out of the FDR administration
Click to expand...

if it is so unConstitutional, why hasn't some smart lawyer taken this to the court to prohibit such federal funding of education
 
justabubba said:
if it is so unConstitutional, why hasn't some smart lawyer taken this to the court to prohibit such federal funding of education
Click to expand...

well you ask that question, why did the USSC of 1942 grant the federal government the power to regulate the people, when the USSC of 1873 said they could not, as well has alexander hamliton in the federalist 84?
 
Master PO said:
well you ask that question, why did the USSC of 1942 grant the federal government the power to regulate the people, when the USSC of 1873 said they could not, as well has alexander hamliton in the federalist 84?
Click to expand...

yes, i asked that question and notice that you failed to answer it
 
TurtleDude said:
Its pretty amusing. Its not an enumerated power but its constitutional for the government to engage in activity that it has no delegated authority to do so. Sort of sounds like something out of the FDR administration
Click to expand...

Since PO can't do it....why don't you explain how congress could grant federal land trusts to be used almost exclusively to pay for public education?
 
Moot said:
Since PO can't do it....why don't you explain how congress could grant federal land trusts to be used almost exclusively to pay for public education?
Click to expand...

I haven't researched that issue so I am not going to proffer an explanation at this point.
 
Moot said:
Since PO can't do it....why don't you explain how congress could grant federal land trusts to be used almost exclusively to pay for public education?
Click to expand...
:lamo

your aim to post links which prove you wrong, and then tell others to explain your own links

they are your links, you explain them
 
EDUCATION BOARD PASSES RESOLUTION ON TRUST LANDS, NATIONAL MONUMENTS

Posted by Deena Loyola on Dec 4, 2015

The 15-member Utah State Board of Education unanimously passed a resolution at its Friday meeting, establishing an official position on federal and school trust land policy, and clarifying the need to adequately compensate Utah’s public schools in the event of a national monument designation.

Senator Todd Weiler (R) spoke to the resolution adding that he intends to introduce a similar bipartisan joint resolution during the upcoming legislative session. He noted the resolution does not advocate for or against monument designations, only that public schools be reimbursed for trust lands and resources captured within any designations.

“If conservation designations are made, they must be done in a way that holds schools harmless financially,” said Utah State Board of Education member Linda Hansen. “That may mean identifying lands of comparable value up front and providing for costs of exchanging those lands.”


:lamo
 
calamity said:
G-such has a lot of Far Right strange opinions. He ruled that a trucking company was justified in firing a guy, even though his so-called egregious actions saved his life. The judge is a wee bit nutzo---just like the rest of them.

Judge Gorsuch and the frozen truck driver (Opinion) - CNN.com
Click to expand...
Anyone who has heard of the name Gorsuch must now be familiar with the saga of the "frozen trucker." Why is that? Because that is all the Dems have. Perhaps you missed this exchange between Feinstein and Gorsuch:

Gorsuch to Feinstein: Here are a lot of ?little guy? rulings you seem to have overlooked « Hot Air

"GORSUCH: Senator, I know a case or two has been mentioned yesterday. Respectfully, I’d suggest that does not represent the body of my work. I’ve written two thousand — I’ve participate in 2,700 opinions over ten and a half years. And if you want cases where I’ve ruled for “the little guy,” as well as “the big guy,” there are plenty of those, Senator. The Ute Indian tribe —

FEINSTEIN: Would you be willing to submit some of them? It’s hard to read 2,700 cases — [crosstalk]

GORSUCH: Oh, I’ll name a bunch them right now. [crosstalk] I’m sorry, Senator, of course. Ute 5 and 6. Fletcher. The Rocky Flats case, which vindicated the rights of people who had been subject to pollution from large companies in Colorado — uranium pollution. I’d point you to the Magnesium case, similar pollution case in the Salt Lake City area. Colorado’s effort with renewable energy; upheld that. Orr v City of Albuquerque, involving pregnancy discrimination in a police department in Albuquerque. WD Sports, a discrimination claim. Casey, Energy West, Crane, Simpson v CU, involving young women who had been harassed by the football team. AM, Browder, Sutton — I can give you a long, long list."

And CNN and the MSM have reported the "frozen trucker" case ad nauseam because...that's all they have. Gorsuch is brilliant and will be confirmed, with or without the nuclear option. And we Conservatives will never get tired of winning!
 
Common Sense 1 said:
During his tenure on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Judge Gorsuch has authored 212 published opinions.

It would be helpful to read judge Grosuch's opinion and then read the opinion of the Supreme court to
see what reasoning was used to reach their decisions. This opinion is being used to say Grosuch is a mean
guy who ruled against a special-needs student. Watching him during the senate hearings he seems to
look carefully at the law. Even the brightest Judge can make a mistake and that is why there is the right
to appeal.

Just a reminder the American Bar Association declared Judge Neil Gorsuch “well-qualified” to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.
That is the highest rating they give.
Click to expand...
Seems sad that people are going through such an effort to bork another potential justice. Grosuch wrote the opinion, which the Clinton appointee Briscoe and Bush appointee Parker endorsed. The ruling followed precedent. Grosuch referenced precedence from the 10th circuit and the 1st circuit courts. The ruling of the Supreme Court concerned another case. It was not the case that Grosuch ruled on. Who knows what technical differences there were between the two cases.

Justices should go by the law and precedents. Grosuch and the two other justices appeared to have done that, even while writing that it is an unfortunate case. The 10th circuit court's opinion with:
We sympathize with Luke’s family and do not question the enormous
burdens they face. Our job, however, is to apply the law as Congress has written it and the Supreme Court has interpreted it. Though IDEA is certainly evidence
that Congress intends that States, acting through local school districts, provide
assistance to disabled students and their families, the assistance that IDEA
mandates is limited in scope.
Click to expand...
 
Master PO said:
its seems you cannot understand something, try reading your own link
Click to expand...

:liar

You're the one that can't read...even after it's 'bolded' for you. Perhaps thats why you can't prove that Adam's changed his mind ....or explain what the Federal Trust Lands are, eh?

Since that seems to be the case then we really have nothing more to discuss...yay.
 
Moot said:
:liar

You're the one that can't read...even after it's 'bolded' for you. Perhaps thats why you can't prove that Adam's changed his mind ....or explain what the Federal Trust Lands are, eh?

Since that seems to be the case then we really have nothing more to discuss...yay.
Click to expand...

again explain your own links, i want to see you interpretation.

but i know you are not going to.

another round of failed postings by you.
 
TurtleDude said:
I haven't researched that issue so I am not going to proffer an explanation at this point.
Click to expand...

Well, you didn't seem to have a problem making up a strawman and putting words in my mouth before.
 
Master PO said:
again explain your own links, i want to see you interpretation.

but i know you are not going to.

another round of failed postings by you.
Click to expand...

You had your chance and failed miserably. This discussion is over.
 
Moot said:
Well, you didn't seem to have a problem making up a strawman and putting words in my mouth before.
Click to expand...

your posts on this board have a long history of demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of legal and constitutional theories.
 
TurtleDude said:
your posts on this board have a long history of demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of legal and constitutional theories.
Click to expand...

You have quite a reputation of deceit, bullying and partisan hackery on this board yourself, TD.
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
You have quite a reputation of deceit and bullying on this board yourself, TD.
Click to expand...


Moot said:
FAIL.

The only thing clear here is you're intellectually dishonest.

Show me your evidence that Adam's changed his opinion on public education after the ratification, PO.


Put up or STFU.
Click to expand...
Moot said:
You're the one making the claim that Adam's changed his opinion after ratification of the Constitution. So show your evidence or STFU....PO.


How do you explain the Federal Land Trusts, PO?
Click to expand...

Moot said:
Stop lying and making excuses, PO. You said that because Adam's quote occurred before the ratification that he couldn't hold the same opinion after. So where's your evidence that his opinion changed, PO?
Click to expand...
:2razz:


 
Moot said:
You have quite a reputation of deceit, bullying and partisan hackery on this board yourself, TD.
Click to expand...

only from those whose nonsense I tune up. Nothing I have ever posted comes close to the level of dishonesty your posts displayed concerning "standing" in the miller case. and no one who understands the constitution on this board has ever been able to establish I lack knowledge about constitutional theory.
 
Moot said:
Get a clue...at this point all you're doing is trolling, PO.
Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:
only from those whose nonsense I tune up. Nothing I have ever posted comes close to the level of dishonesty your posts displayed concerning "standing" in the miller case. and no one who understands the constitution on this board has ever been able to establish I lack knowledge about constitutional theory.
Click to expand...

Master PO said:
bullying?

you seem to know about it, and use it.
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Oy! Y'all need to knock it off. You all are not the topic of the thread. Please get back to it and leave each other out of it.
 
TurtleDude said:
only from those whose nonsense I tune up. Nothing I have ever posted comes close to the level of dishonesty your posts displayed concerning "standing" in the miller case. and no one who understands the constitution on this board has ever been able to establish I lack knowledge about constitutional theory.
Click to expand...

Your lies about Bork surpassed anything I could've said or done. At least mine was an honest mistake...yours was just a bald faced lie.



So how come you don't know anything about Public [State] Trust Land?


"....The General Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance established and systematized the policies that governed the disposal of the public domain to settlers and the creation of new states. Under the framework of these ordinances, a centrally located parcel in each surveyed township – section sixteen – would be reserved for the support of schools, and once the territory became a state, the state would receive title to these reserved parcels (as well as land grants to support other public institutions). This policy was later expanded to include additional reserved sections to support schools, as well as land grants to support other public institutions, such as universities, hospitals, schools for the deaf and blind, and correctional facilities, among others. K-12 public schools were by far the largest beneficiaries of the land grant programs.[2]..."​


Where's the enumerated power for that? In 1806, Jefferson alluded that public schools were part of the "infrastructure."
 
Last edited:
Thomas Jefferson December 2, 1806

TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES IN CONGRESS ASSEMBLED:

Their patriotism would certainly prefer it’s continuance, and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, & such other objects of public improvement, as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers. By these operations, new channels of communication will be opened between the States; the lines of separation will disappear; their interests will be identified, and their union cemented by new & indissoluble ties. Education is here placed among the articles of public care; not that it would be proposed to take it’s ordinary branches out of the hands of private enterprize, which manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal; but a public institution can alone supply those sciences, which, tho’ rarely called for, are yet necessary to compleat the circle, all the parts of which contribute to the improvement of the country, & some of them to it’s preservation.

The subject is now proposed for the consideration of Congress, because, if approved by the time the State legislatures shall have deliberated on this extension of the federal trusts, and the laws shall be passed, and other arrangements made for their execution, the necessary funds will be on hand and without employment. I suppose an amendment to the constitution, by consent of the States, necessary, because the objects now recommended are not among those enumerated in the constitution, and to which it permits the public moneys to be applied.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/99-01-02-4616
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom