Jump to content

The Supremes

tx 3 putt

By tx 3 putt
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 12.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Brisketexan
Brisketexan

Some people and posts above see this for the incredibly dangerous thing it is.  See the whole forest, not just the tree.  Roe is built on the bedrock of the 14th amendment and the inherent right to pr

Ghost of LL
Ghost of LL

The whole episode is pretty bad for the Court.  The leak is embarrassing.  But the decision is catastrophic. You've got a 5-4 decision to get rid of a something that has been settled as a constit

sidis
sidis

in one of the many instances in which i debunked your oversimplified, unsupported bullshit and you simply never responded, i addressed your absolutist contention that religious are more charitable tha

Posted Images

elfenix

elfenix 34232

Posted
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

I mean, this is the fucking guy that thought a truck driver should be fired for not turning into a fucking popsicle.  Who could have imagined that he'd turn out to be an asshole?

remember when he whinged about worrying for the least among us 10 times during his confirmation?

Edited by elfenix
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105097

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys said:

https://twitter.com/jeffreytoobin/status/1483197268828295170?s=21
 

 

 

Doesn't matter.  Manchin and Sinema won't vote to confirm anyone who even appears remotely left of Attila the Hun.  The spot will either remain open, or it will be filled with someone even the Federalist Society thinks is "whoa, coming on a bit strong on that conservative authoritarian vibe, doncha think buddy?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105097

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, just signed a letter that says that the January 6 insurrectionists “did nothing wrong.” Last year, she was posting her support of the insurrection as it happened and then deleted her Facebook account.

Cool.  Open agreement between the spouse of a sitting SCOTUS justice and people who tried to violently overthrow the government that their actions were A-OK.

This is fine.  The ledge is clearly an overreaction on my part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105097

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, you spent several years predicting something that didn't happen, so, you know.

Which thing?  The 2016 election of Trump?  That his supporters would inevitably turn to violence to change the course of the government?  Or are you back on my statements about how calling 2020 a Biden lock was folly, and Trump could goddamn well win the thing?  Which he came a lot closer to doing than any of us should be comfortable with?  I didn't call Trump a surefire winner in 2020 like I did in 2016.  But I damned well said that we would be fools to plan on an easy-to-call win on election night.

I was wrong about Roy Moore, though.  Only by a few votes, but I admit, I thought the people of Alabama were even worse than they actually are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45903

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Which thing?  The 2016 election of Trump?  That his supporters would inevitably turn to violence to change the course of the government?  Or are you back on my statements about how calling 2020 a Biden lock was folly, and Trump could goddamn well win the thing?  Which he came a lot closer to doing than any of us should be comfortable with?  I didn't call Trump a surefire winner in 2020 like I did in 2016.  But I damned well said that we would be fools to plan on an easy-to-call win on election night.

I was wrong about Roy Moore, though.  Only by a few votes, but I admit, I thought the people of Alabama were even worse than they actually are.

I'm not really up for a fight, but you were a lot more strident about a Trump lock in 2020 than you want to make it sound.  That's cool, it's a spectrum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
miguelito

miguelito 11262

Posted
Posted

I don't know if I'm in trouble, or about to become fabulously rich, but I just got this email from Neil Gorsuch (neil@usa.com), Department of the Supreme Court. 

 

Quote
This email is coming to you from the office 0f Mr.Neil Gorsuch from the department of the Supreme Court of the United States, Please my dear I am here to make it clear to you that there was a case that was been handled here in the Supreme Court of the United States since January 7th,2022 concerning your funds because I got some reports that you did not received your funds since after every story's you heard from banks,couriers agents regarding your funds and all type of payments you have been asked to paid to receive your funds but none was received by you.
 
And i am hereby to know the truth because Mrs Christine Lagarde the person that is in charge of the transaction said in this court here that you have received your funds and confirmed to her that you received your funds as an ATM Card.
 
Please i am here to hear the truth from you, because according to the president of this country President Joe Biden the 46th U.S. President, he told us that you did not receive your funds since over the Donald Trump administration , he stated that his office did not have your name in file of those who received their funds from the appointed office .
 
Please here bellow is what I want you to answer to enable us to handle this case normal as the reporter said that it has been done to you.
 
(1)Do you receive any money from the Country USA ,AFRICA OR EUROPE  .........?.
(2)If you received money , how much.............
(3)Through which way, bank or courier delivery do you received the
money from them.........
(4) is It true that you received money through ATM........
(5)In which date or year.......................
(6)Which authority approves the file..................
 
Please i advise you to go direct to this question above and answer me immediately because I want to get the truth from you.
 
Sincerely Yours,
Mr. Neil Gorsuch
dept of the Supreme Court of the
United States of America.

 

  • Haha 2
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105097

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

Supreme Court is going to decide if the City of Boston must fly the Christian flag outside of City Hall.

Isn't Boston the Gilead capital in The Handmaid's Tale?

https://news.yahoo.com/u-supreme-court-leans-toward-191923549.html

 

And on that one, the right outcome also happens to align with what the Christian right wants.  In short, Boston allows any number of local groups to fly a flag on a separate flagpole outside city hall for a day.  Just like when a gov't entity lets any group use a public facility (e.g., a performance hall or meeting room), that public entity cannot discriminate as to who can use it (but for basic content-neutral type rules, such as "no booze inside," stuff like that).  So, if the Church of the Fainting Pentecostals pays the rental fee for public meeting room 202, it can use the space.  And if the city makes a flagpole available to anyone who  wants to fly a flag, that same group can fly its flag.

Odds are good this won't be a very controversial opinion.....but is there a chance that the hyper-conservative wing will use it to take a flyer and write some nutbar opinion placing Christian speech on a special, higher level of protection/favor?  Yep, there's a chance.  But still, this one is enough of a fastball down the middle that I think they'll just take a regular swing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SubliminalHorn

SubliminalHorn 6786

Posted
Posted
50 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

Supreme Court is going to decide if the City of Boston must fly the Christian flag outside of City Hall.

Isn't Boston the Gilead capital in The Handmaid's Tale?

https://news.yahoo.com/u-supreme-court-leans-toward-191923549.html

 

If SCOTUS rules against the city, I hope they immediately put up an Islam flag

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhorn_Fan68

Longhorn_Fan68 33869

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, CooterBrown said:

Supreme Court is going to decide if the City of Boston must fly the Christian flag outside of City Hall.

Isn't Boston the Gilead capital in The Handmaid's Tale?

https://news.yahoo.com/u-supreme-court-leans-toward-191923549.html

 

Hope The Satanic Temple requests a pole

2 hours ago, SubliminalHorn said:

If SCOTUS rules against the city, I hope they immediately put up an Islam flag

that could work too

Link to comment
Share on other sites
yoladu

yoladu 4093

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

Well, we have a party that has turned assholery into some form of civic virtue.  So I would imagine that among most Republican partisans, Gorsuch's actions are seen as quite the opposite of a "dick move."

ahem...

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3266843

If the court may allow, may I present Exhibit A?

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105097

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, yoladu said:

ahem...

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3266843

If the court may allow, may I present Exhibit A?

Perfect quote capturing the ethos of the right these days:

Quote
Quote:
Totenberg, a longtime Supreme Court reporter, also described an institution that's overflowing with animosity.

Excellent!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 25944

Posted
Posted

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch penned a blistering dissent in a case revolving around church taxation, warning against allowing government officials the ability to define genuine religious beliefs.

"The First Amendment does not permit bureaucrats or judges to ‘subject’ religious beliefs 'to verification,'" Gorsuch wrote in his dissent released Tuesday. "About this, the Court has spoken plainly and consistently for many years."

At issue was the court's decision in Trustees of the New Life in Christ Church v. City of Fredericksburg, Virginia, which centered on the city's decision to deny a Presbyterian church in Fredericksburg a tax exemption for housing that was being used by the church's campus ministers.

The city argued that the church misunderstood its own religious doctrine, citing the Book of Church Order of the Presbyterian Church in America to point out that the youth ministers were not ordained.

But the church countered that the couple were subordinate ministers who had the task of outreach to a certain group, which they argued should still qualify for the tax exemption.

The New Life in Christ Church argued their case all the way up to the nation's highest court, with the justices declining to hear the case that sought to overturn the ruling of a Virginia state court.

But Gorsuch vehemently disagreed with the decision, arguing the Constitution protects religious institutions from being manipulated by government officials.

"In this country, we would not subscribe to the ‘arrogant pretension’ that secular officials may serve as ‘competent Judge[s] of Religious truth,'" Gorsuch wrote.

The justice concluded by expressing his hope that similar cases do not spread across the country, arguing that the court should have taken the opportunity to rule on the issue now.

"This case may be a small one, and one can hope that the error here is so obvious it is unlikely to be repeated anytime soon," Gorsuch wrote. "But I would correct it. Bureaucratic efforts to 'subject' religious beliefs to "verification" have no place in a free country."

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14335

Posted
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This is very funny because it absolutely does not contradict what Nina Totenberg reported.

Correct.  She reported that Chief Justice Roberts requested that everyone mask up, not Justice Sotomayor.

From the article:

Quote

Now, though, the situation had changed with the omicron surge, and according to court sources, Sotomayor did not feel safe in close proximity to people who were unmasked. Chief Justice John Roberts, understanding that, in some form asked the other justices to mask up.

They all did. Except Gorsuch, who, as it happens, sits next to Sotomayor on the bench. His continued refusal since then has also meant that Sotomayor has not attended the justices' weekly conference in person, joining instead by telephone.

 

Edited by DDD Dad
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15531

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys said:

lol at you retards that want fights to exist.   Sotomayor is saying its not true.  You're trying to parse words in hopes that it is. 

It's not "parsing."  It's a pretty clear omission in the SCOTUS statement.  It's so clear, in fact, that it's hard not to take it as confirmation of Totenberg's reporting.

Totenberg's article said that the Chief Justice asked all of the justices to wear a mask on the bench.  The SCOTUS statement says that Justice Sotomayor did not ask Justice Gorsuch to wear a mask.  

Yeah, no shit.  We got that.  Nobody ever said that Justice Sotomayor asked Justice Gorsuch to wear a mask.

But since you're issuing statements denying things, does SCOTUS want to deny that the Chief Justice asked all justices to wear a mask on the bench?  No?  Hmmmm--one wonders why there is no such denial.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

It's not "parsing."  It's a pretty clear omission in the SCOTUS statement.  It's so clear, in fact, that it's hard not to take it as confirmation of Totenberg's reporting.

Totenberg's article said that the Chief Justice asked all of the justices to wear a mask on the bench.  The SCOTUS statement says that Justice Sotomayor did not ask Justice Gorsuch to wear a mask.  

Yeah, no shit.  We got that.  Nobody ever said that Justice Sotomayor asked Justice Gorsuch to wear a mask.

But since you're issuing statements denying things, does SCOTUS want to deny that the Chief Justice asked all justices to wear a mask on the bench?  No?  Hmmmm--one wonders why there is no such denial.

This. The statement is just PR and is a classic lawyer dodge. Of course she didn’t personally ask him to wear a mask. Doesn’t refute the reporting of what happened and therefore essentially confirms it. 
 

I was much more worried about gorsuch than donkey dong Doug or Amy the handmaid and it looks like I was right. At least he’s not as bad as Thomas and Alito though, yet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14335

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys said:

lol at you retards that want fights to exist.   Sotomayor is saying its not true.  You're trying to parse words in hopes that it is. 

Your word choice reveals a lot.

We aren't hoping for fights to exist.  Some of us would like a Supreme Court that works like a collegial body.  That there appears to be a rift growing isn't something that anyone should hope for.

6 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

It's not "parsing."  It's a pretty clear omission in the SCOTUS statement.  It's so clear, in fact, that it's hard not to take it as confirmation of Totenberg's reporting.

Totenberg's article said that the Chief Justice asked all of the justices to wear a mask on the bench.  The SCOTUS statement says that Justice Sotomayor did not ask Justice Gorsuch to wear a mask.  

Yeah, no shit.  We got that.  Nobody ever said that Justice Sotomayor asked Justice Gorsuch to wear a mask.

But since you're issuing statements denying things, does SCOTUS want to deny that the Chief Justice asked all justices to wear a mask on the bench?  No?  Hmmmm--one wonders why there is no such denial.

This.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys

OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys 2073

Posted
Posted

seems very much like sotomayor to call a reporter's "reporting" "false" when in fact it is true, and indeed use the word "false" to describe the report, under the guise of misrepresenting what the report stated instead of a belief that the reporting did not reflect the underlying facts.  i think its because she hates the liberal media.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14335

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys said:

seems very much like sotomayor to call a reporter's "reporting" "false" when in fact it is true, and indeed use the word "false" to describe the report, under the guise of misrepresenting what the report stated instead of a belief that the reporting did not reflect the underlying facts.  i think its because she hates the liberal media.  

Jesus.  Stop gaslighting.

Let's check the tape.

Quote

"Reporting that Justice Sotomayor asked Justice Gorsuch to wear a mask surprised us.  It is false.  While we may sometimes disagree about the law, we are warm colleagues and friends."

Gorsuch and Sotomayor jointly said that it is false to report that Justice Sotomayor asked Justice Gorsuch to wear a mask.  Nina Totenberg didn't report that.  Perhaps someone else did, and that is what surprised them.

Your last comment is just stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Chief Justice John Roberts, understanding that, in some form asked the other justices to mask up.

 

What does this mean in reporter talk?  He either asked or he didn't.  What is the purpose of these words?

He appeared to them as a vision during a seance and asked them to wear a mask. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14335

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Chief Justice John Roberts, understanding that, in some form asked the other justices to mask up.

 

What does this mean in reporter talk?  He either asked or he didn't.  What is the purpose of these words?

Negged for not using plain text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23469

Posted
Posted
Just now, DDD Dad said:

Negged for not using plain text.

That's fair and a pet peeve of mine as well.   Didn't see the option and it didn't jump out in my browser.  Probably cause I quoted it from someone using the only suitable color scheme for the board. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys

OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys 2073

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Jesus.  Stop gaslighting.

Let's check the tape.

Gorsuch and Sotomayor jointly said that it is false to report that Justice Sotomayor asked Justice Gorsuch to wear a mask.  Nina Totenberg didn't report that.  Perhaps someone else did, and that is what surprised them.

Your last comment is just stupid.

ah. it's not the nina totenberg reporting she is talking about.  someone posted it on some forum somewhere and two scotus justices felt they needed to address it.  didn't realize that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29349

Posted
Posted

Lawyers denying facts that aren't actually what was reported is a fairly common thing when they don't want to expressly confirm the reporting is accurate.

My guess is Roberts did ask for everyone to be masked out of a concern for appearances, but Sotomayor was going to be remote anyway. And I'm sure Gorsuch told him to pound sand because he doesn't care about appearances like Roberts does (see his former clerk's tweet about theater). Someone close to Roberts probably tattled on Gorsuch to Totenberg, and Sotomayor probably didn't like how it was presented as if Roberts gave a shit about her health and Gorsuch was endangering her, so joined Gorsuch in releasing a statement that covered for him but didn't deny the actual reporting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14335

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys said:

ah. it's not the nina totenberg reporting she is talking about.  someone posted it on some forum somewhere and two scotus justices felt they needed to address it.  didn't realize that.

Petulance noted.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Willfully Horn

Willfully Horn 8009

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys said:

seems very much like sotomayor to call a reporter's "reporting" "false" when in fact it is true, and indeed use the word "false" to describe the report, under the guise of misrepresenting what the report stated instead of a belief that the reporting did not reflect the underlying facts.  i think its because she hates the liberal media.  

You seem t have trouble understanding  THEIR statement. And yet you are willing to use hateful words describing the intelligence of others. Fuck of.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...