The Supremes

[RomaVicta 29948]

Petty shit while the world burns.

[OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys 2078]

19 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

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

Y'all jumped on something as true when the two parties involved were telling you it wasn't true, out of a (kinda cringe) hope that you bolster your dislike of a SCOTUS justice by also thinking he is personally petty. 

I am always impressed by the intelligence of this board, and that is why I read it.  This was a bad example in the other direction.  We need people to tell us when we are acting retarded because partisan blinders are very strong.

[Willfully Horn 8039]

1 minute ago, OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys said:

Y'all jumped on something as true when the two parties involved were telling you it wasn't true, out of a (kinda cringe) hope that you bolster your dislike of a SCOTUS justice by also thinking he is personally petty. 

I am always impressed by the intelligence of this board, and that is why I read it.  This was a bad example in the other direction.  We need people to tell us when we are acting retarded because partisan blinders are very strong.

Y’all? Responding to your use of the word “retard” is my only contribution on this subject.

But, taking you at your word, you come across like a clueless redneck asshole who has few vocabulary options at your disposal when you repeatedly use a word that many find hurtful.

Try: libtard. Or, shitlib.

Hope this helps.

[DDD Dad 14346]

10 minutes ago, OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys said:

Y'all jumped on something as true when the two parties involved were telling you it wasn't true, out of a (kinda cringe) hope that you bolster your dislike of a SCOTUS justice by also thinking he is personally petty. 

I am always impressed by the intelligence of this board, and that is why I read it.  This was a bad example in the other direction.  We need people to tell us when we are acting retarded because partisan blinders are very strong.

You really should stop using that word.

Also, you're out of your element here.  Best to let the adults talk.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33881]

goddamn you guys, focus. this is nothingburger bullshit

[DDD Dad 14346]

Here's a thoughtful take on the issue:

 

[RomaVicta 29948]

2 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Here's a thoughtful take on the issue:

 

She'll probably be nominating justices herself in six years. 

[DDD Dad 14346]

This seems to be a reasonable take from today's developments on "mask-gate".  Haven't run into this reporter previously.

 

['stache 21825]

3 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

She'll probably be nominating justices herself in six years. 

I'd I'll be living in Canada or Europe, cause i'm out if someone like her is elected.

Roberts knows that McConnell killed all remaining credibility the court had as "above the fray" politically. He's too much of a chicken shit to call it out though.

[OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys 2078]

4 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

You really should stop using that word.

Also, you're out of your element here.  Best to let the adults talk.

When the adults are this obviously wrong, the children have to step in.  

[wildcat09 29359]

30 minutes ago, OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys said:

Y'all jumped on something as true when the two parties involved were telling you it wasn't true, out of a (kinda cringe) hope that you bolster your dislike of a SCOTUS justice by also thinking he is personally petty. 

I am always impressed by the intelligence of this board, and that is why I read it.  This was a bad example in the other direction.  We need people to tell us when we are acting retarded because partisan blinders are very strong.

It had nothing to do with partisan blinders and everything to do with lawyers knowing how other lawyers communicate. 

[OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys 2078]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

It had nothing to do with partisan blinders and everything to do with lawyers knowing how other lawyers communicate. 

I am a lawyer.  Half this board are lawyers.  And what you knew was wrong. If it wasn’t partisan blinders I’d like to know what it was. 

[wildcat09 29359]

"What I knew" is that lawyers pick their words carefully. How is that wrong? 

I still think my guess I posted above is pretty likely and that Roberts is now covering his own ass because he's chickenshit. 

[DDD Dad 14346]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

"What I knew" is that lawyers pick their words carefully. How is that wrong? 

I still think my guess I posted above is pretty likely and that Roberts is now covering his own ass because he's chickenshit. 

Or he may have communicated his wishes indirectly or someone in his staff communicated as Roberts' wishes what the staffer thought Roberts would have wanted without checking first.  Or Nina got duped by an anonymous source wanting to stir up trouble.  Or (least likely) Nina made it up herself.

[Anastasis 23480]

Just now, DDD Dad said:

Or he may have communicated his wishes indirectly or someone in his staff communicated as Roberts' wishes what the staffer thought Roberts would have wanted without checking first.  Or Nina got duped by an anonymous source wanting to stir up trouble.  Or (least likely) Nina made it up herself.

in some form

plain text for the win. 

[Anastasis 23480]

15 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

"What I knew" is that lawyers pick their words carefully.

So do reporters. That was a red flag in the initial reporting. 

Edited January 19, 2022 by Anastasis

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

Fake news strikes again. 

[TwiceHorn 31512]

7 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

The frozen trucker opinion alone qualifies him.

Actually, there are probably dozens or even hundreds of judges that would so hold, or something similar.  

“It might be fair to ask whether TransAm’s decision was a wise or kind one. But it’s not our job to answer questions like that. Our only task is to decide whether the decision was an illegal one.”

Being that kind of doctrinaire may qualify as a certain kind of assholish, but it usually doesn't extend to personal assholishness.

[TwiceHorn 31512]

That's fucking weird.  Of the several justices that I might think have that level of assholishness, judged by other behavior, namely Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, maybe even Barrett, I wouldn't have thought Gorsuch would be "that guy."  But, that is just remote intuition, nothing more.

I tend to trust Totenberg, she's been at it a long time and doesn't often or ever fumble.  She could be at the mercy of sources with some kind of axe to grind, or just a bad interpretation of information.

Edited January 19, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Gil Bang 25984]

It's being discussed elsewhere, but in an 8-1 decision, the committee gets Trumps records from the Natl Archives.  Thomas the dissent. 

[TwiceHorn 31512]

37 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

It's being discussed elsewhere, but in an 8-1 decision, the committee gets Trumps records from the Natl Archives.  Thomas the dissent. 

Opinion aqui.

Most interesting because it does not rely on the Presidential Records Act, or on Biden's refusal to invoke privilege.

Instead, it holds that Trump failed to prove the application of executive privilege, without regard to either of the above.

Quote

Because the Court of Appeals concluded that President Trump’s claims would have failed even if he were the incumbent, his status as a former President necessarily made no difference to the court’s decision.

That's going to smart a little bit for the others attempting to invoke executive privilege as to testimony.

Edited January 20, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19127]

5 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

She'll probably be nominating justices herself in six years. 

[tx 3 putt 77230]

1 hour ago, Gil Bang said:

Thomas the dissent. 

 

[babysdaddy 2725]

So whoever told Nina made it up, I guess.

You’re a very thoughtful guy DDD, why does this not bother you (assuming it does not given your response I quoted)?

[TwiceHorn 31512]

17 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

 

 

You’re a very thoughtful guy DDD, why does this not bother you (assuming it does not given your response I quoted)?

 

That thread doesn't add any useful information.

[Anastasis 23480]

32 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That thread doesn't add any useful information.

Pretty good summary though of how this one played out though, wouldn't you agree?

[Anastasis 23480]

With some commentary.

 

 

[Neonmoon 38129]

What does this have to so with Russiagate? There was actually evidence of meetings with Russia by multiple members of Trumps campaign and one even passed on sensitive polling data. 

https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0126
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/mueller-report-no-evidence-trump-knew-about-trump-tower-meeting-n995816

Edited January 20, 2022 by Neonmoon

[Fudge Nuggets 19209]

2 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

It's being discussed elsewhere, but in an 8-1 decision, the committee gets Trumps records from the Natl Archives.  Thomas the dissent. 

He'll turn them over once he gets around to turning over his tax records.

[tx 3 putt 77230]

8 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

He'll turn them over once he gets around to turning over his tax records.

 

isnt everything with the national records ?

[Fudge Nuggets 19209]

7 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

isnt everything with the national records ?

I doubt the good shit is in the national archives.  Even dotard isn't dumb enough to box up his treason evidence, slap on a label titled 'Insurrection Plans', and have said box wheeled down to the archives.

[Anastasis 23480]

30 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

What does this have to so with Russiagate?

LOL.  

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20461]

Wait a minute, so Thomas' wife said “LOVE MAGA people! GOD BLESS EACH OF YOU STANDING UP or PRAYING”   and now Thomas is the only one to vote against allowing the committee to get hold of Trump's records from the National Archives?

 

[DDD Dad 14346]

16 hours ago, babysdaddy said:

 

 

You’re a very thoughtful guy DDD, why does this not bother you (assuming it does not given your response I quoted)?

 

 

I posted further about this upthread.  Has Nina retracted her story?  There are lots of reasons why things could have panned out the way they did without her having fabricated the story.  I agree that the feeding frenzy that followed the initial story was bad.  What's that old Jonathan Swift Quote? A lie travels around the globe while the truth is putting on its shoes?

Not saying that Nina lied.  Unless she elects either to reveal a source or retract her story we'll likely never know.

Roberts could be lying.  He could be shading the facts (e.g., he could have said something to a staffer who then relayed information to the justices, which would not render Roberts' specific statement false).  A staffer could have taken it upon himself or herself to make suggestions to the other justices' staffers with the implication it came from Roberts.  There could be a staffer with an axe to grind that anonymously leaked a false story.

To answer your specific question, I didn't study the posted Twitter thread carefully but did skim it.  It doesn't really bother me because it doesn't really address my earlier points (as to whether in fact the story is based in fact).  Holden starts from the perspective that the story was misinformation.  Perhaps he's right.  Perhaps not.  But his entire thread is based on that premise.

Also, Cedric texted me and said he hadn't heard back from you yet.

 

Edited January 20, 2022 by DDD Dad

[wildcat09 29359]

Nina and NPR are standing by her reporting:

Quote

Three Supreme Court justices issued statements Wednesday addressing an NPR story about relations among the justices. On Tuesday, NPR reported that Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a longtime diabetic, had indicated to Chief Justice John Roberts that because of the omicron surge, she did not feel safe being in a room with people who are unmasked, and that the chief justice "in some form asked the other justices to mask up."

On Wednesday, Sotomayor and Gorsuch issued a statement saying that she did not ask him to wear a mask. NPR's report did not say that she did. Then, the chief justice issued a statement saying he "did not request Justice Gorsuch or any other justice to wear a mask on the bench." The NPR report said the chief justice's ask to the justices had come "in some form."

NPR stands by its reporting.

This all feels like Roberts trying to manipulate some media coverage and it backfiring on him. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Nina and NPR are standing by her reporting:

This all feels like Roberts trying to manipulate some media coverage and it backfiring on him. 

Yeah he’s really not good at it and is definitely not used to it. 
 

Oh well. He’s ultimately responsible for all of this as the Chief Justice who oversaw citizens United and gutted the voting rights act. It’s impossible to feel sorry for someone who reaps what they sow. 
 

He’s getting what he always wanted though. He may not have realized everything that came with it though. 

[Neonmoon 38129]

16 hours ago, Anastasis said:

LOL.  

Substantive response as usual. I actually expected pee pee tapes. 

[Anastasis 23480]

Just now, Neonmoon said:

Substantive response as usual. I actually expected pee pee tapes. 

Holden had a bunch of good threads on the topic of the media coverage a while back, the media coverage being explicitly what he was making reference to in that tweet.  You should search them out if you are interested in why he drew that into the comparison. I don't expect you to put in the effort though. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33881]

17 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

I doubt the good shit is in the national archives.  Even dotard isn't dumb enough to box up his treason evidence, slap on a label titled 'Insurrection Plans', and have said box wheeled down to the archives.

16 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Wait a minute, so Thomas' wife said “LOVE MAGA people! GOD BLESS EACH OF YOU STANDING UP or PRAYING”   and now Thomas is the only one to vote against allowing the committee to get hold of Trump's records from the National Archives?

 

yerp. and we still have yet to learn who bought Kavanagh's seat. Wonder if it's the same person

[TexasEd 8067]

On 1/18/2022 at 6:49 PM, jimmyjazz said:

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.

But according to 30% in America Trump did win.

['stache 21825]

Yeah, I'm not seeing someone like Nina Totenberg ruining her career over something that is relatively small in the grand scheme of shit going down. Comments form the justices are "official" comments, no different than a corporation issuing denials when the media reports on malfeasance. Of course they deny. Doesn't mean that the information the reporter had was credible.

[Neonmoon 38129]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Holden had a bunch of good threads on the topic of the media coverage a while back, the media coverage being explicitly what he was making reference to in that tweet.  You should search them out if you are interested in why he drew that into the comparison. I don't expect you to put in the effort though. 

 

I read the thread you posted. I was disagreeing with Holden. There is literally evidence, which I've already posted, disproving the comparison. He is suggesting that the media is not only complicit, but in fact, generators of the misinformation they claim to be opposed. Yet, in his first example, he is incorrect. I agree the media is generators of misinformation based upon their political leanings, but he just proved his own point by drawing a false comparison insinuating accusations against Trump regarding Russia were false, when they clearly were legitimate. 

 

 

[wildcat09 29359]

5 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

 

I read the thread you posted. I was disagreeing with Holden. There is literally evidence, which I've already posted, disproving the comparison. He is suggesting that the media is not only complicit, but in fact, generators of the misinformation they claim to be opposed. Yet, in his first example, he is incorrect. I agree the media is generators of misinformation based upon their political leanings, but he just proved his own point by drawing a false comparison insinuating accusations against Trump regarding Russia were false, when they clearly were legitimate. 

 

 

Motherfucker don't you get Ana started on his bullshit.

[Anastasis 23480]

20 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Motherfucker don't you get Ana started on his bullshit.

Really no need.  Anyone that thinks that the media coverage of the topic from 2016 and on has been in any way anything but undermining of their credibility is living on another planet.  

Edited January 20, 2022 by Anastasis

[Nivek 16948]

32 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

 

I read the thread you posted. I was disagreeing with Holden. There is literally evidence, which I've already posted, disproving the comparison. He is suggesting that the media is not only complicit, but in fact, generators of the misinformation they claim to be opposed. Yet, in his first example, he is incorrect. I agree the media is generators of misinformation based upon their political leanings, but he just proved his own point by drawing a false comparison insinuating accusations against Trump regarding Russia were false, when they clearly were legitimate. 

 

 

[formermav43 4606]

NPR Reporting Merits Clarification

Quote

Here's the key assertion in the story from Tuesday's Morning Edition: "The situation had changed, 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 or other, asked the other justices to mask up." 

Later Tuesday on All Things Considered, she changed the word "asked" to "suggested," saying, "So Chief Justice John Roberts, understanding that, in some form or other, suggested that the other justices mask up." 

Exactly how did Roberts, in some form, ask or suggest that his colleagues cover up? Totenberg told me she hedged on this: "If I knew exactly how he communicated this I would say it. Instead I said 'in some form.' "

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

14 hours ago, 'stache said:

Yeah, I'm not seeing someone like Nina Totenberg ruining her career over something that is relatively small in the grand scheme of shit going down. Comments form the justices are "official" comments, no different than a corporation issuing denials when the media reports on malfeasance. Of course they deny. Doesn't mean that the information the reporter had was credible.

Yeah but this type of thinking does not support the “fake news” media narrative of the right wing which seemingly applies to everyone in the media who reports on their bullshit and crimes, except them of course.

[wildcat09 29359]

I get it. It's probably easier to believe that reporters are just making shit up than to believe that someone like John Roberts would be a petty bitch and have his clerks lie to reporters to manipulate coverage of another conservative justice on the bench. 

Most reporters try their best. The basic fact is that their sources are often trying to manipulate their coverage and, while the reporters do their best to vet this shit, most of the time anyone who is willing to talk will only tell shades of the truth. Stories based on that shit aren't media-created misinformation. Even Fox News reporters don't just make shit up. That's reserved for Fox News pundits and for Project Veritas ratfuckers.

[TexasEd 8067]

4 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

I get it. It's probably easier to believe that reporters are just making shit up than to believe that someone like John Roberts would be a petty bitch and have his clerks lie to reporters to manipulate coverage of another conservative justice on the bench. 

Most reporters try their best. The basic fact is that their sources are often trying to manipulate their coverage and, while the reporters do their best to vet this shit, most of the time anyone who is willing to talk will only tell shades of the truth. Stories based on that shit aren't media-created misinformation. Even Fox News reporters don't just make shit up. That's reserved for Fox News pundits and for Project Veritas ratfuckers.

I think you are on the right trail but there is also the factor of did Roberts talk directly or have a staffer spread the news.  If it went CJR -> staffer -> staffer #2 -> Associate Justice and the source is Staffer #2 or a colleague of theirs then you are dealing with 3rd or 4th hand information in the game of telephone.  If CJR had written a memo or e-mail on the topic it would be more clear what the message was.

[Bullneck 19185]