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

BehoId, The Underminer!

BehoId, The Underminer! 11669

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, yoladu said:

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3279285

disclaimer on Texags Confirmation Hearing for Jackson thread

 

[We are going to closely monitor this thread and we are going to have a quick ban hammer for disrespectful posters and trolls. There is the warning. -Staff]

 

Hmmm, i wonder why they felt the need to add that!

i legitimately wonder which side the texags mods are warning. what would a texag mod consider disrespectful and trollish w/r/t a black female scotus nominee?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31451

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, WBT said:

Hmm, there just might have been an agenda in creating that graphic.  How many of you ever thought that we sure need more sentencing commission members on the court?  With that said, she seems well qualified.

Well, the Sentencing Commission, among other things, sets the Sentencing Guidelines, and thus heavily influences sentences handed down by federal judges in criminal cases.  

It is ostensibly an "evidence-based" body that gets empirical and decides what sentences and sentencing factors are appropriate without reference to moral outrage or moral panic.  Most federal judges and Supreme Court nominees come from a civil background, or if any criminal background, prosecution or government lawyer.  Accordingly, they have nearly zero exposure to the things that the Commission is supposed to, and does, do to at least some extent.

Given that the Court addresses criminal sentencing with some frequency, justices with a better understanding of it are, in my opinion, highly warranted.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BehoId, The Underminer!

BehoId, The Underminer! 11669

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

Of the 114 Supreme Court justices in US history, all but 6 have been White men

ai2html-graphic-desktop.47bcfde3.jpg

ACB made it 7.  KBJ will make it 8 out of 116 who are not white dudes.

was reading about #1 the other day.  Texas's own Tom Clark fell victim to the great LBJ's chess moves to get that one on the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
High Plains Drifter

High Plains Drifter 11035

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Graham stalking out in a huff after the record of recidivist Gitmo detainees was clarified (he threw down a 31% number, though, since Obama, the number is 5%,) was funny to me.

 

heard something on the radio yesterday that graham was all butthurt because his choice from his home state wasn't the nominee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
horn4life

horn4life 3760

Posted
Posted

What I like is the story line of "court packing..."  When the GOP has already packed the court.

When the GOP twice changed the rules to seal space on the court.  It's like playing monopoly for years and then all of a sudden one player decides that the old rules and precedents no longer apply.  Then they change the rules again the exact opposite of what was their "principled" reasoning, in the first set of changes.

So when I hear about how poorly some of the prior nominees were treated... Please...  

It's also good to remember that there was NO SEARCH FOR TRUTH regarding the allegations against Kavanaugh. The "investigation" was sort of like the one the Aggies did for the Bonfire Tragedy.  A predetermined outcome without a search for truth.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32389

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

From what little I have heard, she is remarkably gracious in her responses to dickwad questions.

 

Sure.  And in the end, it won't matter.  It will be a 50/50 vote, because (paraphrasing the GOP rationale here) "we just can't trust the Supreme Court to a radical".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 13032

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, horn4life said:

What I like is the story line of "court packing..."  When the GOP has already packed the court.

When the GOP twice changed the rules to seal space on the court.  It's like playing monopoly for years and then all of a sudden one player decides that the old rules and precedents no longer apply.  Then they change the rules again the exact opposite of what was their "principled" reasoning, in the first set of changes.

So when I hear about how poorly some of the prior nominees were treated... Please...  

It's also good to remember that there was NO SEARCH FOR TRUTH regarding the allegations against Kavanaugh. The "investigation" was sort of like the one the Aggies did for the Bonfire Tragedy.  A predetermined outcome without a search for truth.

We should expand the Supreme Court. 

 

5 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

 

The court created a fundamental right that didn’t exist? Is that really his argument about gay marriage. Jesus our state sucks

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34231

Posted
Posted

How do you hold on your head the proposition that judges don't make law but that they should follow precedent, which is a fancy word that means "judge made law"?

I'd love for a nominee to one day explain that we have a common law system that we inherited from England that goes back 1000 years and is judge made law. And that if the senators don't like that they can switch to civil law if they want.

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

TwiceHorn 31451

Posted
Posted
Just now, hobbes2702 said:

We should expand the Supreme Court. 

 

The court created a fundamental right that didn’t exist? Is that really his argument about gay marriage. Jesus our state sucks

And Cornyn is only about 1/10 the asshole dickwad that is Ted Cruz.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31451

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, elfenix said:

How do you hold on your head the proposition that judges don't make law but that they should follow precedent, which is a fancy word that means "judge made law"?

I'd love for a nominee to one day explain that we have a common law system that we inherited from England that goes back 1000 years and is judge made law. And that if the senators don't like that they can switch to civil law if they want.

That whole line of attack is so disingenuous, but you made a great point.

Try this on someone who springs that bullshit:  Judges are supposed to follow precedent, right?  Who made the precedent?

And, of course, the "alt right" justices are creating a whole new bunch of precedent for the proposition that  . . . wait for it  . . . precedent can be ignored!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WBT

WBT 20561

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Jive Turkey said:

Of the 114 Supreme Court justices in US history, all but 6 have been White men

ai2html-graphic-desktop.47bcfde3.jpg

ACB made it 7.  KBJ will make it 8 out of 116 who are not white dudes.

4 of last 6 and 6 of last 11

Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21802

Posted
Posted

Listened in on NPR on my drive to a lunch meeting and they were talking about child porn. Two hours later on the drive back still talking about it. These gross fucks are obsessed. Questions about sentencing guidelines are legitimate and in bounds, but good lord, move on already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14334

Posted
Posted
On 3/20/2022 at 6:30 PM, jimmyjazz said:

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

She grew up not far from me.  That was my public high school (I went to a private school down the street).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChuckNorrisActionJeans

ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2663

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

so going on day 5 with Thomas in the hospital. Is it normal for someone his age to be in the hospital this long for "flu-like symptoms"?

In the world we deserve:

Thomas kicks it, Biden gets to nominate someone for the "blek" seat, nominates J. Michelle Childs, Lindsey has to stew in silence, right wing stratosphere's head collectively explodes.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MonkeyDoughnut

MonkeyDoughnut 10232

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

Sure.  And in the end, it won't matter.  It will be a 50/50 vote, because (paraphrasing the GOP rationale here) "we just can't trust the Supreme Court to a radical".

 

 

I know it's political and all, but I think when the actual vote comes down she sails through with little trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31451

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, 'stache said:

Listened in on NPR on my drive to a lunch meeting and they were talking about child porn. Two hours later on the drive back still talking about it. These gross fucks are obsessed. Questions about sentencing guidelines are legitimate and in bounds, but good lord, move on already.

Demagoguery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31451

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

I knew they'd come out strong against Griswold and Obergefell, but I gotta be honest, I didn't see this coming:

 

 

MISCEGENATION!

Edited by TwiceHorn
I'd like to hear RD Canecutter work this into a sentence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tx 3 putt

tx 3 putt 76906

Posted
  • Author
Posted
22 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

In the world we deserve:

Thomas kicks it, Biden gets to nominate someone for the "blek" seat, nominates J. Michelle Childs, Lindsey has to stew in silence, right wing stratosphere's head collectively explodes.

 

back to back black justices will start the next civil war 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45899

Posted
Posted

Wow.  The legality of interracial marriage should be left up to the states?  They don't even try to keep some of this shit quiet at this point.

In other news, Braun used to be a Democrat.  I'm sure he was very popular in that caucus.

 

 

Why is a focus on the bottom line literally a race to the bottom? – TOWARDS LIFE-KNOWLEDGE

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...