Law school students traumatized by case law!

[beagle9]

Everbody should relax. These SCOTUS rulings, while for the most part horribly regressive, are the best gift this SCOTUS could have given to the BIDEN 2024 campaign.
Especially if Trump winds up being the GOP nominee.
Just like we saw last November the reek of the little golfboy on any candidate or policy is like the proverbial kiss of death.
The majority of the U.S. electorate does not support regressive, Republican, conservative policies.
We saw that in the midterm election last year when voter backlash to The Dobbs decision reduced the much anticipated "red tsunami" to an anemic trickle.
These SCOTUS rulings are going to be a heavy stone around the necks of any and all Republicans on ballots in 2024, and if Trump makes it through the primaries it'll be more than that.
More like a neon sign screaming to voters "I AM OUT OF TOUCH WITH YOUR VALUES AND PRIORITIES SO DON'T VOTE FOR ME!"

Values and priorities eh ? Pfft, you must be lost your mind or maybe you never had one. The values of the Democrat party are an afront to any common sense rational thinker.

 

[blackhawk]

They might consider another line of work if hearing a decision from a judge or judges they don’t agree with traumatizes them,

 

[Catsnmeters]

Boston University law students offered therapy in response to recent Supreme Court decisions

Boston University School of Law's student government sent an email informing students of mental health wellness options and therapy after bombshell Supreme Court rulings.

www.foxnews.com

I can’t stop laughing. This is too freakin’ funny. Law school students need counseling over some recent SCOTUS decisions.

Just what this nation needs. A bunch of legal cupcakes going out into the world to represent us in courts.

We're students offered therapy before these three decisions?

 

[MagicMike]

So why do you hate the Constitution?

I don't.
But I do hate judicial activism. I also detest the way Trump's SCOTUS pics lied through their teeth when they stated in their confirmation hearings that established precedent would be the guiding factor in all of their decisions but then once confirmed they proceed to overturn decades of legal precedent in order to legislate from the bench.
That is not their job.

 

[BackAgain]

We're students offered therapy before these three decisions?

For what? Heartaches? Manic depressive disorder? Or for court decisions that ruin their whole days?

 

[iku]

It's been a fun week

I agree

 

[Catsnmeters]

For what? Heartaches? Manic depressive disorder? Or for court decisions that ruin their whole days?

Probably the first two and many other reasons but the third was contrived by the article to villainize students and education because the right thinks they are the enemy.

 

[BackAgain]

Probably the first two and many other reasons but the third was contrived by the article to villainize students and education because the right thinks they are the enemy.

Zzz. The student government rushed into it because law students are largely still programmed to be libs and all delicate and fragile. Students are not villains, either. But today’s crop does tend to be a whole lot less rugged. Not many seem able to just suck it up.

Education is not the enemy. Never had been. The politicization of the system of education is more akin to being the enemy.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Zzz. The student government rushed into it because law students are largely still programmed to be libs and all delicate and fragile. Students are not villains, either. But today’s crop does tend to be a whole lot less rugged. Not many seem able to just suck it up.

Schools have had counselors for decades. Kids leaving home for first time, meeting new people, workload. That is why.

Education is not the enemy. Never had been. The politicization of the system of education is more akin to being the enemy.

That is what the right is doing, politicizing it. That was the whole purpose of the OP.

 

[BackAgain]

Schools have had counselors for decades. Kids leaving home for first time, meeting new people, workload. That is why.

Nothing wrong with having counselors. But to rush to get some counselors because some law students might be having meltdowns over a SCOTUS decision? Come on. Stay on topic.

That is what the right is doing, politicizing it. That was the whole purpose of the OP.

Nope. The leftwing law student government thought the SCOTUS decision was so traumatic that they’d need to arrange for counseling for perishable, delicate and fragile little law students.

As I said earlier; God help the clients of these future lawyers.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Nothing wrong with having counselors. But to rush to get some counselors because some law students might be having meltdowns over a SCOTUS decision? Come on. Stay on topic.

The article implies this but we don't know that for certain.

Nope. The leftwing law student government thought the SCOTUS decision was so traumatic that they’d need to arrange for counseling for perishable, delicate and fragile little law students.

As I said earlier; God help the clients of these future lawyers.

Speculation.

 

[BackAgain]

The article implies this but we don't know that for certain.


Speculation.

Oh give it a rest. You suck at this.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Oh give it a rest. You suck at this.

White flag noted.

Have a great day.

 

[BackAgain]

White flag noted.

Have a great day.

I accept your surrender. You have a nice day, too.

 

[BS Filter]

I don't.
But I do hate judicial activism. I also detest the way Trump's SCOTUS pics lied through their teeth when they stated in their confirmation hearings that established precedent would be the guiding factor in all of their decisions but then once confirmed they proceed to overturn decades of legal precedent in order to legislate from the bench.
That is not their job.

You're so used to actual judicial activism you don't recognize Constitutional decisions. They never said precedent overruled their opinion regarding the Constitution.

 

[BackAgain]

Once again for the slower students. An established precedent is all well and good. But if it is erroneous in the first place, then giving it Al due consideration doesn’t change the fact that it can be overturned.

So, no. None of the prospective jurists who spoke about “established precedent” had “lied.”

MuddledMick is simply wrong, again.

 

[MagicMike]

You're so used to actual judicial activism you don't recognize Constitutional decisions. They never said precedent overruled their opinion regarding the Constitution.

Bullshit.
Take Roe v. Wade for instance. 49 years of legal precedent upholding the idea that a woman has a constitutional right to personal autonomy when choosing whether to carry a pregnancy to term.
"Settled law." "Strong legal precedent" for upholding that CONSTITUTIONAL LAW" in the words of these justices in their confirmation hearings.
Then once seated on the bench....POOF!
D-did I say THAT?
Might as well hang a "FRAUD" sign around each of their necks.
Not to mention the perjury aspect of it all.

And speaking of precedent and "settled law" you know Roe v. Wade had nearly 5 decades if precedent behind it giving it legitimacy.
The "right" to own weapons for personal use has only been codified for 15 years.
Barely a decade and a half.
It is worth noting that a SCOTUS that is so reckless as to throw nearly 50 years of settled constitutional law on the trash heap may have no problem someday scrapping Heller as well.
How would you feel about that?

 

[BS Filter]

Bullshit.
Take Roe v. Wade for instance. 49 years of legal precedent upholding the idea that a woman has a constitutional right to personal autonomy when choosing whether to carry a pregnancy to term.
"Settled law." "Strong legal precedent" for upholding that CONSTITUTIONAL LAW" in the words of these justices in their confirmation hearings.
Then once seated on the bench....POOF!
D-did I say THAT?
Might as well hang a "FRAUD" sign around each of their necks.
Not to mention tge perjury aspect of it all.

And speaking of precedent and "settled law" you know Roe v. Wade had nearly 5 decades if precedent behind ut giving ut legitimacy.
The "right" to iwn weapons for personal use has only been codified for 15 years.
Barely a decade and a half.
It is worth noting that a SCOTUS that is so reckless as to throw nearly 50 years of settled constitutional law on the trash heap may have no problem someday scrapping Heller as well.
How would you feel about that?

The Supreme Court didn't outlaw abortion. They returned it to the states where it belongs. See, this is the problem with the left. You're stupid.

 

[MagicMike]

The Supreme Court didn't outlaw abortion. They returned it to the states where it belongs. See, this is the problem with the left. You're stupid.

Constitutional rights shouldn't be arbitrated by state legislatures dumb-ass.

 

[BS Filter]

Constitutional rights shouldn't be arbitrated by state legislatures dumb-ass.

It isn't a Constitutional right, shit head. That's why it was sent to the states. My God, you're stupid.