Jump to content
Required Reading for any Longhorn ×

The Supremes

tx 3 putt

By tx 3 putt
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

horn4life

horn4life 3783

Posted
Posted

Just want to make sure that NOBODY here believes that Thomas will recuse himself on anything.

Even considering a principled position, among anyone affiliated with the GOP means you have about a 1/2 percent chance the person in question has ANY principles at all.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 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

tx 3 putt

tx 3 putt 77450

Posted
  • Author
Posted
8 minutes ago, horn4life said:

Just want to make sure that NOBODY here believes that Thomas will recuse himself on anything.

Even considering a principled position, among anyone affiliated with the GOP means you have about a 1/2 percent chance the person in question has ANY principles at all.


Old confederate Mitch assured the American public that Thomas was 👍🏽

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

WhatTheBuck 28801

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, horn4life said:

Just want to make sure that NOBODY here believes that Thomas will recuse himself on anything.

Even considering a principled position, among anyone affiliated with the GOP means you have about a 1/2 percent chance the person in question has ANY principles at all.

He won’t recuse and Roberts will be just fine with that. Never mind that he was the lone dissenting vote on releasing documents from the archive that would turn out to be embarrassing to his “best friend.” Right, like he didn’t know exactly what she’d been up to. She’s a loon and he’s corrupt. I would bet that he shares her views. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tx 3 putt

tx 3 putt 77450

Posted
  • Author
Posted
7 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

He won’t recuse and Roberts will be just fine with that. Never mind that he was the lone dissenting vote on releasing documents from the archive that would turn out to be embarrassing to his “best friend.” Right, like he didn’t know exactly what she’d been up to. She’s a loon and he’s corrupt. I would bet that he shares her views. 


he’s every bit the loon, probably crazier than his wife 

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

Mdhorn 5987

Posted
Posted (edited)

Trying to think what position you should hold in the highest court of the land after being caught being corrupt and representing treason.  Seems like it would be fireable but everybody in government seems to be immune to prosecution as long as they're Republican.  Judges shouldn't be affiliated with a party but it's solidly open now.  The party of law and order is difficult to say without openly laughing.  It's a white supremacist group, with its own Judge Clayton Bigsby.  

image.png.88a32243a9a14f439082b79c36f11225.png

Edited by Mdhorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46171

Posted
Posted

I don't think it's reasonable to demand justices not have political leanings.  I think it is reasonable to demand that they don't let those leanings inform their rulings.

This has worked to some degree over the course of American history.  Nothing's perfect, but it's not a pipe dream, either.  (Well, it appears to be a pipe dream at this point.)

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

Mdhorn 5987

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Bullneck said:

After this Christian message!

Can someone with a background in psychology explain how pederasts are the focus of their political party?  Is it all projection or is there some sympathetic chord it strikes with gun owners?

They're sociopaths.  They want to chainsaw a judge with Christ's support. They're not coming back, there's no rationalizing with psychotic dips hits.  

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

Mdhorn 5987

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't think it's reasonable to demand justices not have political leanings.  I think it is reasonable to demand that they don't let those leanings inform their rulings.

This has worked to some degree over the course of American history.  Nothing's perfect, but it's not a pipe dream, either.  (Well, it appears to be a pipe dream at this point.)

Weren't their nominees meeting with Trump first?  Seems like a bad idea but what do I know about political grift?  That's Trump's card, in everything.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
horn4life

horn4life 3783

Posted
Posted

I will say this. I do honestly believe that Roberts wants the court to not lose (completely) the respect it has in the past.  I think Clarence Thomas' wife has b]put him in a terrible position, that I feel he has no concerns personally about.  But Roberts?  It will be very interesting to see this play out.  

Imagine the endless whining and moaning of Republicans had the situation been reversed?  Incessant...

Not sure what if anything Roberts can do.  But it does provide a VERY NICE comparison between the two parties on the upcoming confirmation vote.  A bunch of folks attacking a very good candidate, while complete ignoring potential wrongdoing on the court by one of their own.  The Dems are still in some trouble, but this is the sort of shit that can motivate voters to the polls.  HOPEFULLY.

We really do not need any more Pro-Putin Republicans from the Trump side getting into office.

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

TwiceHorn 31539

Posted
Posted

By and large, even FedSoc Supreme Court candidates are not going to be Trumpists, per se.

That doesn't mean that their personal politics, which will come to bear even if they earnestly try to avoid it (they probably won't), don't fully encompass the hatefulness that defines the current GOP, but falls short of the stupid populism of Trump and his acolytes.  That brand of politics is not particularly useful for a judge except in sucking up to the powers that be, and they can quit that as soon as they obtain their appointment.  They don't "need the base" the way Senators, Representatives, and Governors need the base.

Clarence Thomas is independently crazy and his craziness predates Trumpism by decades and also explains why he's married to that crazy ass white woman.

Although I hope confirmation hearings don't devolve into spousal and family attacks, I think even the FedSoc will kibosh those with too-loony and outspoken close family, out of expedience if nothing else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catdaddyhorn

Catdaddyhorn 3447

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

By and large, even FedSoc Supreme Court candidates are not going to be Trumpists, per se.

That doesn't mean that their personal politics, which will come to bear even if they earnestly try to avoid it (they probably won't), don't fully encompass the hatefulness that defines the current GOP, but falls short of the stupid populism of Trump and his acolytes.  That brand of politics is not particularly useful for a judge except in sucking up to the powers that be, and they can quit that as soon as they obtain their appointment.  They don't "need the base" the way Senators, Representatives, and Governors need the base.

Clarence Thomas is independently crazy and his craziness predates Trumpism by decades and also explains why he's married to that crazy ass white woman.

Although I hope confirmation hearings don't devolve into spousal and family attacks, I think even the FedSoc will kibosh those with too-loony and outspoken close family, out of expedience if nothing else.

This is true for probably the next 10 to 15 years. But what happens with future conservative leaning jurist who have just come out of adolescence during the the past 5 to 10 years? What norms have been totally throttled that we all took for granted up until 10 years ago? I'm not a big history buff so I have no context for past instances of an entire side of the political spectrum effectively saying to "hell with it" in pursuing representative democracy or evidenced based conclusions. What do the future jurist who came of age with this prevailing mindset look like?

Edited by Catdaddyhorn
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29409

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

By and large, even FedSoc Supreme Court candidates are not going to be Trumpists, per se.

That doesn't mean that their personal politics, which will come to bear even if they earnestly try to avoid it (they probably won't), don't fully encompass the hatefulness that defines the current GOP, but falls short of the stupid populism of Trump and his acolytes.  That brand of politics is not particularly useful for a judge except in sucking up to the powers that be, and they can quit that as soon as they obtain their appointment.  They don't "need the base" the way Senators, Representatives, and Governors need the base.

Clarence Thomas is independently crazy and his craziness predates Trumpism by decades and also explains why he's married to that crazy ass white woman.

Although I hope confirmation hearings don't devolve into spousal and family attacks, I think even the FedSoc will kibosh those with too-loony and outspoken close family, out of expedience if nothing else.

Counterpoint: conservatives law school graduates who want to be judges are just about the craziest, most degenerate freaks in all of America (maybe behind actuaries for insurance companies) and the Republican party is heavily incentivized to select the craziest fuckers they can to become judges. They're the most reliable politically speaking and it helps them normalize batshit crazy nonsense as "normal," thanks to the media's need to bothsides literally everything. The next GOP president could nominate an open white nationalist as a judge and the liberal backlash would inevitably result in a bunch of "Political Disfunction as Parties Squabble Over Nominee" headlines. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Counterpoint: conservatives law school graduates who want to be judges are just about the craziest, most degenerate freaks in all of America (maybe behind actuaries for insurance companies) and the Republican party is heavily incentivized to select the craziest fuckers they can to become judges. They're the most reliable politically speaking and it helps them normalize batshit crazy nonsense as "normal," thanks to the media's need to bothsides literally everything. The next GOP president could nominate an open white nationalist as a judge and the liberal backlash would inevitably result in a bunch of "Political Disfunction as Parties Squabble Over Nominee" headlines. 

Some time ago my husband and I met the spouse of an attorney who used to work in Brazos County and during the convo, the events described below (link) were indirectly touched upon and being the nosy sort that I am (despite a couple of discreet elbows being thrown), asked for the tea to be spilled. That crazy you mention certainly seemed in abundance by the time  the tale was finished.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-special-court-of-review/1242728.html

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13523

Posted
Posted
On 3/25/2022 at 11:41 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Lol this headline 

 

Crazy that even Kavanaugh had to remind the Supreme Court that the Constitution is very clear on this matter: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States"

If we allow SCOTUS to overrule the Commander in Chief in matters of military personnel, you might as well hand over the govt keys to SCOTUS since some of the justices feel they have ultimate oversight to every aspect of the govt. Hint: they don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21879

Posted
Posted
On 3/25/2022 at 4:31 PM, Voldemort86 said:

Clarence Thomas has been my least favorite Supreme Court justice since Scalia passed away. I’ve always hated Scalia and Thomas so so much.

Thomas has always been the worst, and it's not even close. Scalia was at least capable of decent writing and expression reasoning, even when I thought he was really, really wrong. He also apparently had a good personal relationship with many of the court liberals. I think Thomas went like a decade without asking a single question in oral argument and his written decisions and dissents are often just terrible,  a lot of opinion-based bitching. I know specifically because it's an area that comes up in my work that he has written a few times in Indian law cases that they lost, so fuck them. He used different words, but that's essentially the basis of most of his Indian law writings.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Voldemort86

Voldemort86 2259

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, 'stache said:

Thomas has always been the worst, and it's not even close. Scalia was at least capable of decent writing and expression reasoning, even when I thought he was really, really wrong. He also apparently had a good personal relationship with many of the court liberals. I think Thomas went like a decade without asking a single question in oral argument and his written decisions and dissents are often just terrible,  a lot of opinion-based bitching. I know specifically because it's an area that comes up in my work that he has written a few times in Indian law cases that they lost, so fuck them. He used different words, but that's essentially the basis of most of his Indian law writings.

Seems like I remember Scalia’s votes being the worst. He didn’t give the democrats anything, then again Thomas is proving to be just as big if not more so of a partisan hack than Scalia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jive Turkey

Jive Turkey 12644

Posted
Posted

Collins’s yes vote was pretty telegraphed when Sasse and Hawley came out with their no votes last week. It was all part of Mitch’s plan. They’re giving Joe this one  

But if Clarence Thomas croaked and another nominee was put up next month, she’d be a no, regardless of the judge. Could be a middle of the road white man. They’d all vote no. 

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

WhatTheBuck 28801

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Blotto said:

It appears that way....

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics/susan-collins-ketanji-brown-jackson-vote/index.html

but she's always been a wishy washy cunt, so you never know for certain.

I really figured there’d be a reasonable number of Republicans who, knowing she was going to be confirmed anyway, would vote to confirm as cover for future racist actions. “I can’t be racist, I voted to confirm KBJ.” And then they’d suppress the voting rights of minority communities. Ben Sasse is a big fat fucking fraud. He’s just another partisan hack trying to pretend that he’s not. I mean, Susan Collins is too but at least she’s doing the decent thing here. Good for her. Overall she still sucks. Trump learned his lesson? Give me a break.

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

Brisketexan 105378

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Heard on the news this morning that Susan Collins will vote to confirm KBJ. 

 

41 minutes ago, Blotto said:

It appears that way....

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics/susan-collins-ketanji-brown-jackson-vote/index.html

but she's always been a wishy washy cunt, so you never know for certain.

 

26 minutes ago, trauma babe said:

If she votes to confirm, it's cover for her to later vote against something else completely reasonable that Republicans hate for no reason. 

 

23 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

^These three posts in a row are why we don’t need a Collins thread. It’s all contained in this concise thread.

Yep.

I may hate her more than I hate Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46171

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Now, now, let's hear him out.  Maybe he'll back up his claim with reason and logic.

Yeah, I keep forgetting, we need to stop being triggered assholes around here.

(I claim "Triggered Assholes" for my proto-industrial boy band.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28801

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.

I may hate her more than I hate Trump.

More than Trump? Seriously? More than Mitch McConnell? Rand Paul? Ted Cruz? Ron Johnson? Marco Rubio? Rick Scott? Chuck Grassley? Lindsey Fucking Graham?!?!

It’s a low bar but she’s relatively low on my hate list. Doesn’t mean she doesn’t suck, just that there’s no shortage of Republicans who suck worse. And that’s not even bringing Republicans in the House into the discussion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34333

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I really figured there’d be a reasonable number of Republicans who, knowing she was going to be confirmed anyway, would vote to confirm as cover for future racist actions. “I can’t be racist, I voted to confirm KBJ.” And then they’d suppress the voting rights of minority communities. Ben Sasse is a big fat fucking fraud. He’s just another partisan hack trying to pretend that he’s not. I mean, Susan Collins is too but at least she’s doing the decent thing here. Good for her. Overall she still sucks. Trump learned his lesson? Give me a break.

"i did this one thing that shows i'm not a partisan hack which excuses all the partisan hackery i do" is a classic.  see scalia in the flag burning case and gorsuch in the sex discrimination case

Edited by elfenix
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NameAlreadyInUse

NameAlreadyInUse 5128

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

More than Trump? Seriously? More than Mitch McConnell? Rand Paul? Ted Cruz? Ron Johnson? Marco Rubio? Rick Scott? Chuck Grassley? Lindsey Fucking Graham?!?!

It’s a low bar but she’s relatively low on my hate list. Doesn’t mean she doesn’t suck, just that there’s no shortage of Republicans who suck worse. And that’s not even bringing Republicans in the House into the discussion. 

A lot of people reserve more hate for the Lucy's of the world that continuously pull the football away at the last second instead of just learning not to ever count on Lucy. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105378

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

A lot of people reserve more hate for the Lucy's of the world that continuously pull the football away at the last second instead of just learning not to ever count on Lucy. 

This.

Just be the evil piece of shit that you are.  I can at least respect McConnell for that.

She relentlessly pretends not to be.....yet consistently supports evil shit.  I hate those people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45743

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This.

Just be the evil piece of shit that you are.  I can at least respect McConnell for that.

She relentlessly pretends not to be.....yet consistently supports evil shit.  I hate those people.

This is why white collar crime bothers me more than blue collar crime.

Murder in the heat of passion?  I can at least kinda get that.

Bilking people out of millions over a long period of time?  You know exactly what you're doing the whole time and you continue to do so.  You are pure evil.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmr548

gmr548 16617

Posted
Posted
More than Trump? Seriously? More than Mitch McConnell? Rand Paul? Ted Cruz? Ron Johnson? Marco Rubio? Rick Scott? Chuck Grassley? Lindsey Fucking Graham?!?!
It’s a low bar but she’s relatively low on my hate list. Doesn’t mean she doesn’t suck, just that there’s no shortage of Republicans who suck worse. And that’s not even bringing Republicans in the House into the discussion. 

I kind of feel the same way. Maybe not more than all of those, but in general there are two kinds of Republicans: shit for brains who believe all or most of their own nonsense, and grifters taking advantage of them. Donald Trump, Dan Patrick, MTG, @PilotsError …

They are really that stupid. And to me, that absolves them a little bit relative to, say, Abbott, Cruz, or McConnell, because the latter know exactly what they’re doing. They don’t believe the FOX News lines any more than you or I do. To me, that’s worse.
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6949

Posted
Posted

In a new Marquette Law School Poll national survey, 66% of adults say that, if senators, they would support the nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court, while 34% would oppose her nomination. She is seen as “very qualified” by 46% of the public and as “somewhat qualified” by 42%, while 12% see her as “not qualified.”

 

The survey was conducted March 14-24, 2022, interviewing 1,004 adults nationwide, with a margin of error of +/-4 percentage points. Jackson’s confirmation hearings were conducted near the end of the survey period, with 837 interviews conducted before the hearings began and 167 interviews conducted after hearings began…

…Those interviewed after the Senate confirmations hearings began were somewhat more likely to say they supported her confirmation: Jackson was supported by 64% of those interviewed before the hearings and by 72% after hearings had begun. Prior to the hearings, 44% said Jackson was very qualified, while after hearings began 52% said she was very qualified

https://www.marquette.edu/news-center/2022/new-marquette-law-poll-national-survey-finds-two-thirds-of-public-support-confirming-ketanji-brown-jackson.php

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...