The Supremes

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2,678]

32 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

I said, in an admittedly garbled way, that anyone who would accept a place on SCOTUS given the circumstances AB faced is not worthy of the job. Because her appointment reeked of partisanship, which diminishes the court. Had she declined that opportunity, and were afforded another, your link would have been helpful.

I always wondered what it'd be like to for her be nominated for this absolute pinnacle position but know they guy putting you in is an embarrassment and also that you're being installed to overturn one specific legacy of the woman justice who was barely cold in the ground at that point. 

But I actually thought you were referring to the lunacy of finding a person fit as a Supreme Court Justice when that person explicitly and publicly eschewed impartiality in favor of announcing that the whole endeavor is means to an end for theocracy.

[Willfully Horn 8,038]

More than fair I was swinging at the lowest pomegranate 

[The Original Greaser Bob 2,841]

10 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

I said, in an admittedly garbled way, that anyone who would accept a place on SCOTUS given the circumstances AB faced is not worthy of the job. Because her appointment reeked of partisanship, which diminishes the court. Had she declined that opportunity, and were afforded another, your link would have been helpful.

Interesting.  Her appointment reeked of partisanship, as opposed to every other Supreme Court nominee?

The issue of attacking the partisanship of an issue (I'm not sure you mean pure partisanship so much as the gamesmanship related to her circumstances) is the duty of the Senate, and not the appointed person.  The Senate are the folks to be attacked (and ultimately the folks who put them there and continue to support them.)  Or the system.

(She declines and we actually get a justice who won't  even try to apply the law?)

[wildcat09 29,355]

I haven’t seen too much indication that ACB cares about trying to actually apply the law. She may be 10% less of a hack than Alito, but that bar is on the floor.

[Willfully Horn 8,038]

5 hours ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Interesting.  Her appointment reeked of partisanship, as opposed to every other Supreme Court nominee?

The issue of attacking the partisanship of an issue (I'm not sure you mean pure partisanship so much as the gamesmanship related to her circumstances) is the duty of the Senate, and not the appointed person.  The Senate are the folks to be attacked (and ultimately the folks who put them there and continue to support them.)  Or the system.

(She declines and we actually get a justice who won't  even try to apply the law?)

I meant partisanship, Greasy. Oily, feculent partisanship. The fucking election had begun. Contrasted with the Constitutional negligence in the Gore-suck shit, I see no game, no honor, and no leadership of a country, but furtherance of a Party. But I vote for a Party which puts the good of the Country over the good of the Party. The other side can’t even manage to put Party before one man, and country be damned.

Beto Gore had a beef. The Diminished Dictator has only Lies. Fuck out of here peddling AB as anything more noble than the sort of panty stain that suggests a murder has been committed.

Edited March 1, 2022 by Willfully Horn

[The Original Greaser Bob 2,841]

2 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

I meant partisanship, Greasy. Oily, feculent partisanship. The fucking election had begun. Contrasted with the Constitutional negligence in the Gore-suck shit, I see no game, no honor, and no leadership of a country, but furtherance of a Party. But I vote for a Party which puts the good of the Country over he good of the Party. The other side can’t even manage that, backing the good of one man over the good of the Country.

Beto Gore had a beef. The Diminished Dictator has only Lies. Fuck out of here peddling AB as anything more noble than the sort of panty stain that suggests a murder has been committed.

Well it's a really silly POV, since all appointments, in a two party system, are partisan.  Biden is no more concerned with his judges fealty to the Constitution than Trumps, although he certainly could argue the point better.  And you seem to be missing the whole point of my original post - which wasn't to compare ABs nobility to the circumstances of her appointment, but merely to look at her character outside of the context of legal interpretation.

 

[The Original Greaser Bob 2,841]

4 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

I haven’t seen too much indication that ACB cares about trying to actually apply the law. She may be 10% less of a hack than Alito, but that bar is on the floor.

I read a bunch of her cases prior to her confirmation.  The only flaw I saw was one of her discrimination cases, where she supported the granting of summary judgment where it was not appropriate.  Other than that, there wasn't much to bitch about.

Oh, unless you wanted to be partisan in your analysis.

[The Original Greaser Bob 2,841]

14 hours ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

I always wondered what it'd be like to for her be nominated for this absolute pinnacle position but know they guy putting you in is an embarrassment and also that you're being installed to overturn one specific legacy of the woman justice who was barely cold in the ground at that point. 

Sort of like getting an appointment to the US Military Academy by Ted Cruz or Mike Pence?

Think of all the good young men who ended up at A&M because they were not willing to accept such an appointment.

[Willfully Horn 8,038]

7 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Well it's a really silly POV, since all appointments, in a two party system, are partisan.  Biden is no more concerned with his judges fealty to the Constitution than Trumps, although he certainly could argue the point better.  And you seem to be missing the whole point of my original post - which wasn't to compare ABs nobility to the circumstances of her appointment, but merely to look at her character outside of the context of legal interpretation.

 

Expecting Justices to avoid the appearance of partisanship is silly? What other perceptions that run counter to the integrity of the Court are you willing to rationalize? Don’t answer that. You’re among those racing to the there-is-no-bottom. You likely have rationalized trading the Law for Calvinball.

Edited March 1, 2022 by Willfully Horn

[The Original Greaser Bob 2,841]

1 minute ago, Willfully Horn said:

Expecting Justices to avoid the appearance of partisanship is silly? What other perceptions that run counter to the integrity of the Court are you willing to rationalize? Don’t answer that. You’re among those racing to the there-is-no-bottom.

Just for future reference, please link to the "appearance of partisanship" that AB has engaged in that broke the mold for you. 

[The Original Greaser Bob 2,841]

3 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Don’t answer that. You’re among those racing to the there-is-no-bottom.

Suggesting that is is worthwhile to look at the possible good character of a justice who is likely to make bad decisions has gotten you pretty hysterical.  

Obviously, not as fruitful an exercise as jumping to bizarre conclusions. 

[Willfully Horn 8,038]

2 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Just for future reference, please link to the "appearance of partisanship" that AB has engaged in that broke the mold for you. 

I already referenced the circumstances of her appointment with Gorsuch.

 

11 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Oh, unless you wanted to be partisan in your analysis.

I am no SCOTUS member.,

[The Original Greaser Bob 2,841]

2 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

I already referenced the circumstances of her appointment with Gorsuch.

I meant an argument that somehow AB herself has broken the mold on partisanship.  Both Gorsuch and AB got on the court due to a breach of norms by the Senate Republicans.  Neither of them were appointed in any more or less partisan ways than prior Justices.

[Willfully Horn 8,038]

4 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Suggesting that is is worthwhile to look at the possible good character of a justice who is likely to make bad decisions has gotten you pretty hysterical.  

Obviously, not as fruitful an exercise as jumping to bizarre conclusions. 

Yes. I’m hysterical. I have kids starting their adult lives without many of the benefits I was afforded by my country. The stability of peaceful power transitions is right at the front of the list, as well as the unity that once was demonstrated with the silence of the outgoing POTUS. My kids will make their lives as the Country roils and that agitates me profoundly. 
 

 

[Willfully Horn 8,038]

1 minute ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

I meant an argument that somehow AB herself has broken the mold on partisanship.  Both Gorsuch and AB got on the court due to a breach of norms by the Senate Republicans.  Neither of them were appointed in any more or less partisan ways than prior Justices.

You were championing AB. I accept your premise that she is as bad as Gorsuch: being second into the cesspool doesn’t strike me as praiseworthy:

[The Original Greaser Bob 2,841]

1 minute ago, Willfully Horn said:

You were championing AB. I accept your premise that she is as bad as Gorsuch: being second into the cesspool doesn’t strike me as praiseworthy:

I was championing her character and worth ethic.  Sorry if my post didn't clarify the distinction between that and her "legal interpretations".

Given the importance of the cultural aspects of the appointment of Ketanji Brown Jackson, I also thought the article touched on the importance of understanding  the cultural, aspects of this hardcore Catholic as well.  Especially given the way that Dems have purged pro-lifers from their ranks in recent years. 

[The Original Greaser Bob 2,841]

Work ethic.

And no, not a complete purge.  But does seem like there is less room in the Dem Party for hard core Catholics now, as opposed to thirty years ago. 

[Willfully Horn 8,038]

I was taught Catholicism required a person to adopt the teachings of the Church. Neither party is in lockstep with the Catholic Church.. So, I don’t agree with your premise.

[wildcat09 29,355]

1 hour ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

I read a bunch of her cases prior to her confirmation.  The only flaw I saw was one of her discrimination cases, where she supported the granting of summary judgment where it was not appropriate.  Other than that, there wasn't much to bitch about.

Oh, unless you wanted to be partisan in your analysis.

How many cases did she author an opinion on before she was nominated to SCOTUS?

[wildcat09 29,355]

1 hour ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Just for future reference, please link to the "appearance of partisanship" that AB has engaged in that broke the mold for you. 

Joining the majority in their SB8 decisions looked pretty fucking partisan.

[The Original Greaser Bob 2,841]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

How many cases did she author an opinion on before she was nominated to SCOTUS?

This says 79

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10539

[The Original Greaser Bob 2,841]

11 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

I was taught Catholicism required a person to adopt the teachings of the Church. Neither party is in lockstep with the Catholic Church. So, I don’t agree with your premise.

That's fine, although it's clear that the Republicans are in lockstep with Catholic anti-abortion teaching.     

Five of the conservatives on the court are Catholic (Gorsuch looks Cath/Anglican).  Only one of the liberals are Catholic.  That's an over-represented group. 

The Dems over the last couple of decades have been having a long debate about whether they should figure out a way to open the tent more to conservative Catholic blue collar types.  I think it's been a mistake that they haven't been more successful.

[The Original Greaser Bob 2,841]

20 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Joining the majority in their SB8 decisions looked pretty fucking partisan.

I didn't realize there were a bunch of SB8 decision on the books.

Do we just want to say that every position is partisan if it agrees with a position that one party favors?

[Willfully Horn 8,038]

6 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

That's fine, although it's clear that the Republicans are in lockstep with Catholic anti-abortion teaching.     

Five of the conservatives on the court are Catholic (Gorsuch looks Cath/Anglican).  Only one of the liberals are Catholic.  That's an over-represented group. 

The Dems over the last couple of decades have been having a long debate about whether they should figure out a way to open the tent more to conservative Catholic blue collar types.  I think it's been a mistake that they haven't been more successful.

I was taught by Jesuits. The Bible informs my take on abortion, underscoring the fact the issue is about subjugating women. Crystal clear. I regret that blue collar Catholics have a cafeteria diner approach to Biblical teachings.

[horn4life 3,768]

The GOP made the Court DRAMATICALLY more political than it has been in our lifetimes.  Dems did allow lower court confirmations because the GOP was blocking virtually all nominations.  THE GOP used their endless blockage, and the DEM reactions to simply change the rules of the game.  Power is more important than honesty and consistency.

SHITTY candidate like the dick flasher would never had made the cut in years past.  But extremes are what the GOP wants, AND NEEDS, to help promote ideals and principles that are only held by a minority of the US populous.

SO yes all three recent GOP nominations were far beyond the more moderate norms.  Hell Obama was picking a guy the GOP fucking WANTED a few years before.  It's sad really.  And now of course the GOP will pretend that Biden's choice is super extreme. Not A white person is especially scary stuff, now that the GOP is more openly embracing the racism that has always been tacitly embraced. (If you disagree you must have never been to a fucking country club in your life.)

The  fact that the Texas abortion law, and the racist maps of Alabama were allowed to stand... shows EXACTLY HOW POLITICAL THE COURT IS NOW. 

I will say that the one thing I like about Amy Comey Garrett, she is the only GOP politician that actually has adopted one of the unwanted Children the GOP pretends to love so much.

 

[Satchel 6,938]

1 hour ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Work ethic.

And no, not a complete purge.  But does seem like there is less room in the Dem Party for hard core Catholics now, as opposed to thirty years ago. 

Just so we’re clear, what does hardcore look like?

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,876]

1 minute ago, Satchel said:

Just so we’re clear, what does hardcore look like?

missionary, with the light off

[jimmyjazz 45,989]

Just think of England.

[The Original Greaser Bob 2,841]

3 hours ago, horn4life said:

I will say that the one thing I like about Amy Comey Garrett, she is the only GOP politician that actually has adopted one of the unwanted Children the GOP pretends to love so much.

She adopted two Haitians.  I'm sure ACB thought - any schmuck could adopt one kid.

[TheStoicPaisano 9,922]

Hey all you cool cats and kittens!

 

[wildcat09 29,355]

SCOTUS won't stay new maps drawn by North Carolina and Pennsylvania's state supreme courts. Some relevant commentary:

 

Too early to be confident that Barrett won't help the others Old Yeller American democracy when she finds a case that makes a better vehicle for doing so, but this is a welcome surprise for now.

[Captainant 27,682]

HuffPo: Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court justice, says she attended Jan. 6 ‘Stop-the-Steal’ rally before Capitol attack

Virginia Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, for the first time has publicly acknowledged that she participated in the Jan. 6, 2021 “Stop-the-Steal” rally on the Ellipse that preceded the storming of the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob, raising questions about the impartiality of her husband’s work.

In an interview with the conservative outlet the Washington Free Beacon that was published Monday, Thomas, who goes by Ginni, said she was part of the crowd that gathered at the Ellipse that morning to support President Donald Trump. Trump was claiming falsely that widespread voter fraud delivered the presidency to Democrat Joe Biden — a falsehood he continues to repeat.

Thomas said she was at the rally for a short period of time, got cold and went home before Trump took the stage at noon that day.

“I was disappointed and frustrated that there was violence that happened following a peaceful gathering of Trump supporters on the Ellipse on Jan. 6,” the conservative activist told the publication. “There are important and legitimate substantive questions about achieving goals like electoral integrity, racial equality, and political accountability that a democratic system like ours needs to be able to discuss and debate rationally in the political square. I fear we are losing that ability.”

A spokeswoman for the Supreme Court did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

[Francisco 2.0 32,395]

 

 

[Tuco 5,076]

 

On 3/1/2022 at 12:01 PM, The Original Greaser Bob said:

And no, not a complete purge.  But does seem like there is less room in the Dem Party for hard core Catholics now, as opposed to thirty years ago. 

 

On 3/1/2022 at 12:50 PM, The Original Greaser Bob said:

That's fine, although it's clear that the Republicans are in lockstep with Catholic anti-abortion teaching.     

Five of the conservatives on the court are Catholic (Gorsuch looks Cath/Anglican).  Only one of the liberals are Catholic.  That's an over-represented group. 

The Dems over the last couple of decades have been having a long debate about whether they should figure out a way to open the tent more to conservative Catholic blue collar types.  I think it's been a mistake that they haven't been more successful.

 

I know it's off-topic from the SC, but I am going to follow it anyway.  

First of all, a recent Pew Study indicated that 56% of US Catholics believe there should be legal in all or most cases.  (Pew, 2020).  So, if you are defining a liberal Catholic as someone who believes abortion should be legal, then "liberal" Catholics are massively underrepresented on the SC.  I know that's not the perception because pro-life Catholics use their religion to bolster their position, while pro-choice Catholic politicians do not, but the fact is most actual, real life Catholics support abortion rights.  And there are plenty who vote Democrat, with Gallup estimating that 52% voted Dem in 2020. (Gallup).

Secondly, regarding the purge, you're not entirely wrong (if you replace "Catholic" with "pro-lifer"), but it misses the main story.  Local politics have become national.  Because of that, it is harder for local candidates to follow regional preferences if they conflict with national party preferences.  Case in point, I volunteered for a mayoral candidate (Mello) in Omaha who had some pretty moderate views on abortion.  He got some press.  National pro-choice organizations raised a stink and Tom Perez backed off him.  Whether that cost him the election, I don't know.  His campaign wasn't great and he was going against an incumbent.  So, sure, there is that dynamic.  But you could say the same about the influence Grover Norquist or the NRA has on local Republican candidates.  

And a thirdly, you shouldn't just attribute changes in the last 30 years to the Democrats. The Church changed. I graduated from a Benedictine high school in 1990.  I certainly knew liberal priests. I remember activist nuns who visited to talk about protesting nukes.  Certainly there were conservative priests, including ones that protested abortion clinics.  I remember paging through a liberal Catholic trade magazine (for the lack of a better term) that a priest had left out.  My impression was that it was a cross section of politics. I don't get the impression it's that way now.  My impression is that Conference of Catholic Bishops has been effective in pushing their bullshit down to the high school level.  Hopefully I am wrong.  

 

[TwiceHorn 31,509]

32 minutes ago, Tuco said:

 

 

 

I know it's off-topic from the SC, but I am going to follow it anyway.  

First of all, a recent Pew Study indicated that 56% of US Catholics believe there should be legal in all or most cases.  (Pew, 2020).  So, if you are defining a liberal Catholic as someone who believes abortion should be legal, then "liberal" Catholics are massively underrepresented on the SC.  I know that's not the perception because pro-life Catholics use their religion to bolster their position, while pro-choice Catholic politicians do not, but the fact is most actual, real life Catholics support abortion rights.  And there are plenty who vote Democrat, with Gallup estimating that 52% voted Dem in 2020. (Gallup).

Secondly, regarding the purge, you're not entirely wrong (if you replace "Catholic" with "pro-lifer"), but it misses the main story.  Local politics have become national.  Because of that, it is harder for local candidates to follow regional preferences if they conflict with national party preferences.  Case in point, I volunteered for a mayoral candidate (Mello) in Omaha who had some pretty moderate views on abortion.  He got some press.  National pro-choice organizations raised a stink and Tom Perez backed off him.  Whether that cost him the election, I don't know.  His campaign wasn't great and he was going against an incumbent.  So, sure, there is that dynamic.  But you could say the same about the influence Grover Norquist or the NRA has on local Republican candidates.  

And a thirdly, you shouldn't just attribute changes in the last 30 years to the Democrats. The Church changed. I graduated from a Benedictine high school in 1990.  I certainly knew liberal priests. I remember activist nuns who visited to talk about protesting nukes.  Certainly there were conservative priests, including ones that protested abortion clinics.  I remember paging through a liberal Catholic trade magazine (for the lack of a better term) that a priest had left out.  My impression was that it was a cross section of politics. I don't get the impression it's that way now.  My impression is that Conference of Catholic Bishops has been effective in pushing their bullshit down to the high school level.  Hopefully I am wrong.  

 

Well, I think Catholics have had a surge of fundamentalism like other "denominations" (except most fundagelicals have no denomination, which makes it easier).  The Opus Dei type Catholics, the integralists, and the dominion theologists.

Like those types in Christianity more broadly, they're noisier, more political, and more obnoxious than the rest of the church.

I'm not sure there has been a fundamental shift among Catholics more broadly.  The Pope is about as liberal as they come.

That Opus Dei type is overrepresented on the Court, likely thanks to Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society, who is the "vetter in chief," and one himself.

[Bullneck 19,181]

 

 

[Mo Horn 8,852]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/20/politics/clarence-thomas-hospitalized/index.html

[Lurch 5,931]

[jimmyjazz 45,989]

HS voted her "Most Likely To Succeed" . . . she'll likely end up on SCOTUS . . . good call, kids.

[4th&Five 41,565]

[Aqua Buddha 14,598]

Clarence Thomas' wife 'bout to have to get a job.

[wildcat09 29,355]

It would be one of the funnier things to happen in American history if Ginni gave him Covid and it kills him.

[hornmpa96 2,619]

16 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It would be one of the funnier things to happen in American history if Ginni gave him Covid and it kills him.

It would be even more amusing if he gave it to Alito.

[Gap03 3,308]

1 hour ago, Lurch said:

 

 

[SubliminalHorn 6,808]

Oh no I hope it isn’t a fatal infection that takes him out quickly and allows Biden to seat another Justice before the midterms. Please not that 

[jimmyjazz 45,989]

"Antibiotics".  If true, it isn't covid.

[Aqua Buddha 14,598]

Also, a SC Justice has been in the hospital for two days and we're just now hearing about it.  If it were simple, he'd be discharged and we'd never know it happened.

[tx 3 putt 77,127]

he needs to stop being a selfish bastard and listen to dan patrick !

 

[Biff Tannen 45,692]

2 hours ago, Gap03 said:

 

beat me to it

[Biff Tannen 45,692]

1 hour ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Also, a SC Justice has been in the hospital for two days and we're just now hearing about it.  If it were simple, he'd be discharged and we'd never know it happened.

Dude, this is the Simulation.  It's fucking with you.  Calm down.  Thomas will outlive them all.