The Supremes

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

[Gil Bang 26,099]

47 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

They should do whatever they want.

and, that implies that you're cool with other states doing what they want, like banning anal. 

[Gil Bang 26,099]

quick, google something about anal sex and post it here like it's your own thought.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

Was talking about abortion.  I guess it’s a very slippery slope though.  

[Captainant 27,972]

6 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Was talking about abortion.  I guess it’s a very slippery slope though.  

No motherfucker. The core supreme court decisions that enshrine gay rights are specifically and explicitly targeted in the plain text of the draft opinion. 

[Bullneck 19,316]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

They should do whatever they want.

People should do whatever they want?

[Bullneck 19,316]

1 hour ago, Pancho said:

 

Kind of like that shoe bomber, everyone gotta scan their feet and shoes at the airport v. lots of school shooting is "Nothing can be done" thingy.

[DalTxHornFan 3,122]

1 minute ago, Bullneck said:

Kind of like that shoe bomber, everyone gotta scan their feet and shoes at the airport v. lots of school shooting is "Nothing can be done" thingy.

That's a really dumb take.  Pro tip -- David Hogg is not somebody that smart people follow.

[Bullneck 19,316]

Alright, you tiresome, boring motherfuckers.  It's time to choose your fighter.  Or leaker.  Whatever:

• John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice  - He's the leaker because he's hoping the public outrage will frighten everone into backing down so he doesn't proceed into history as Douchebag #1 that everyone hates,
• Clarence Thomas - He's the leaker because of Theory 1 - that leaking the story will galvanize the conservative majority and ensure public opinion will stop a wavering justice from backing down.
• Stephen G. Breyer -- He's the leaker because he's retiring soon.  So who gives a fuck, what are they going to do to him?  But i saw him at the SOTU address.  He's a big nerdy pussy,
• Samuel Alito - He's the leaker because he's batshit fucking Dominican level let's kill some Aztecs crazy. 
• Sonia Sotomayor - She's the leaker because she's tired of this bullshit
• Elena Kagan - She's the leaker because she hasn't been heard from since "On the Waterfront."
• Neil Gorsuch - He's the leaker because of Theory 1
• Brett Kavanaugh - He's the leaker because he don't do any heavy lifting and he likes beer and that whole rape-and-incest thing cramps his style, because of, you know, child support,
• Amy Comey Barrett  - Crazy eyed bitch who could be a leaker. I'm out of answers.  Someone call a doctor.

 

Edited May 4, 2022 by Bullneck

[Satchel 6,949]

7 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

That's a really dumb take.  Pro tip -- David Hogg is not somebody that smart people follow.

Did you hear the one about the dumbest member of Congress following David Hogg?

[Bullneck 19,316]

7 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

That's a really dumb take.  Pro tip -- David Hogg is not somebody that smart people follow.

On the contrary, it's completely accurate.  Also, David Hogg and the rest of the outspoke shooting survivors restored my faith in public school education.  I think he's pretty fucking smart.

[Jhawkmvp 1,508]

Axios had an article with a shitty map about which states had codified protections for abortions and which ones would ban abortion based on "trigger" laws. I made a better map based on the information in the article so it is easier to visualize and find each state. Some states including FL, NE, IN, MT, and KS are likely to ban or severely restrict abortions, as well, if Roe/Casey are overturned by the Supreme Court, though I did not color them on the map, since they have not attempted anything recently. Purple states are states that have had courts block attempts at restricting abortion recently based on Roe/Casey. WV and 3 other states have state constitutional amendments prohibiting the protection of abortion rights.

 

[David Dennison 19,119]

11 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

That's a really dumb take.  Pro tip -- David Hogg is not somebody that smart people follow.

Neither is, well, anyone on the right.

[David Dennison 19,119]

3 minutes ago, Jhawkmvp said:

Axios had an article with a shitty map about which states had codified protections for abortions and which ones would ban abortion based on "trigger" laws. I made a better map based on the information in the article so it is easier to visualize and find each state. Some states including FL, NE, IN, MT, and KS are likely to ban or severely restrict abortions, as well, if Roe/Casey are overturned by the Supreme Court, though I did not color them on the map, since they have not attempted anything recently. Purple states are states that have had courts block attempts at restricting abortion recently based on Roe/Casey. WV and 3 other states have state constitutional amendments prohibiting the protection of abortion rights.

 

Texas is so embarrassing.

[tx 3 putt 77,925]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Texas is so embarrassing.

Vote blue

[Bookman 4,725]

9 hours ago, South Austin said:

I had Lino Graglia. He’s probably been pumping his fist all day.

Not-so-humblebrag: I got an A+ in his class.

Lino Graglia passed away in January. https://law.utexas.edu/news/2022/01/31/in-memoriam-remembering-professor-lino-graglia-texas-law-faculty-member-for-50-years/

I did enjoy his Con Law class.

[South Austin 52,688]

10 minutes ago, Bookman said:

Lino Graglia passed away in January. https://law.utexas.edu/news/2022/01/31/in-memoriam-remembering-professor-lino-graglia-texas-law-faculty-member-for-50-years/

I did enjoy his Con Law class.

[HenryJames 66,278]

9 hours ago, South Austin said:

I had Lino Graglia. He’s probably been pumping his fist all day.

Not-so-humblebrag: I got an A+ in his class.

[horn4life 3,816]

I think the best thing the Dems could do at this point is pass laws making perjury in Confirmation hearing a federal crime.  As when it comes to abortion you can see clear perjury by nearly all the (R) jurists regarding their opinions on precedent and abortion.

The court is of course ALREADY packed, so that now the MINORITY viewpoints of the GOP now rule the court.  

It will be interesting to see if women truly are motivated to vote now.  I know most women honestly do not follow the Supremes, but they do know when a bunch of racist leaning white men want to take the decision making over their bodies away. 

[The Original Greaser Bob 2,853]

I sure hope the Dems add COVID funding to any bill they try to pass regarding abortion rights. 

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

6 minutes ago, horn4life said:

I think the best thing the Dems could do at this point is pass laws making perjury in Confirmation hearing a federal crime.  As when it comes to abortion you can see clear perjury by nearly all the (R) jurists regarding their opinions on precedent and abortion.

The court is of course ALREADY packed, so that now the MINORITY viewpoints of the GOP now rule the court.  

It will be interesting to see if women truly are motivated to vote now.  I know most women honestly do not follow the Supremes, but they do know when a bunch of racist leaning white men want to take the decision making over their bodies away. 

They didn’t lie.  They said it was precedent.  It is.  Until it isn’t.  You ask if they overturn it then they won’t answer.  Just like Kentangi with Heller and Citizens United.  
 

[Bookman 4,725]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

They didn’t lie.  They said it was precedent.  It is.  Until it isn’t.  You ask if they overturn it then they won’t answer.  Just like Kentangi with Heller and Citizens United.  
 

Yes. Don't forget that lawyers are extremely good at lying.

[The Original Greaser Bob 2,853]

I had Lino Graglia as well.  He never got my last name right.  Essentially called me Mr. Ortega the whole class when my name is really another common spanish O-name.

Lino to me:  "I'm not sure why you did so poorly on the test.  You said some pretty bright things in class."

Had my law school reunion this last weekend and walked around campus.  I was the most average of law students, but fuck, I really did love that law school and my time there.  

[Bateshorn 9,951]

It’s pretty obvious to me now that Ginny Thomas was the leak.  The fact that Laura Ingraham was teed up to go on this is the give away. 

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

Ruling will be a win for democracy.  Some people are anti-democracy though.  

[South Austin 52,688]

8 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

I guess it’s a very slippery slope though.  

And the Republicans have the lube ready.

[royiv 9,447]

12 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Ruling will be a win for democracy.  Some people are anti-democracy though.  

A true democracy protects the rights of its people. It doesn't marginalize entire groups of people as our democracy historically has. 

[horn4life 3,816]

36 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

They didn’t lie.  They said it was precedent.  It is.  Until it isn’t.  You ask if they overturn it then they won’t answer.  Just like Kentangi with Heller and Citizens United.  
 

Ahh... Johnny... always nice to play the "what about" game.  I mean letting corporation pretend they are people is EXACTLY the same as letting old white racist leaning men make medical decisions for individual citizens.  Directly interfering with their "life. liberty and Pursuit of happiness."

Citizens United was a shit ruling.  Anyone with half a brain knows that it's bad law.  Corporations are not people, simply as they cannot be physically held accountable for their actions as actual people. 

But since I did preface with "half a brain" please retort again Johnny Sack!  

I would be happy to have the perjury and ethics of the rest of the Federal Bench adopted for the Supreme court.  As simply I know that the amount of lies told daily by Republicans makes honesty under oath a lot more dangerous for liars than truth tellers.

Edited May 4, 2022 by horn4life

[Pig Bellmont 8,750]

7 hours ago, Bullneck said:

Alright, you tiresome, boring motherfuckers.  It's time to choose your fighter.  Or leaker.  Whatever:

• John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice  - He's the leaker because he's hoping the public outrage will frighten everone into backing down so he doesn't proceed into history as Douchebag #1 that everyone hates,
• Clarence Thomas - He's the leaker because of Theory 1 - that leaking the story will galvanize the conservative majority and ensure public opinion will stop a wavering justice from backing down.
• Stephen G. Breyer -- He's the leaker because he's retiring soon.  So who gives a fuck, what are they going to do to him?  But i saw him at the SOTU address.  He's a big nerdy pussy,
• Samuel Alito - He's the leaker because he's batshit fucking Dominican level let's kill some Aztecs crazy. 
• Sonia Sotomayor - She's the leaker because she's tired of this bullshit
• Elena Kagan - She's the leaker because she hasn't been heard from since "On the Waterfront."
• Neil Gorsuch - He's the leaker because of Theory 1
• Brett Kavanaugh - He's the leaker because he don't do any heavy lifting and he likes beer and that whole rape-and-incest thing cramps his style, because of, you know, child support,
• Amy Comey Barrett  - Crazy eyed bitch who could be a leaker. I'm out of answers.  Someone call a doctor.

 

It was Ginni Thomas. Clarence has already questioned the right to marry in his opinions and my crystal ball says he wants to lock in a wavering justice (probably Gorsuch) to this opinion bc he wants to use it to roll back other rights he doesn’t believe are protected by the constitution. I just don’t believe a liberal clerk or justice leaks to Politico. 

[South Austin 52,688]

28 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

I had Lino Graglia as well.  He never got my last name right.  Essentially called me Mr. Ortega the whole class when my name is really another common spanish O-name.

Lino to me:  "I'm not sure why you did so poorly on the test.  You said some pretty bright things in class."

Had my law school reunion this last weekend and walked around campus.  I was the most average of law students, but fuck, I really did love that law school and my time there.  

Not to veer off too much, but I feel the same way about UT Law.  Some of the best three years of my life.  And while I don't subscribe to his theory of originalism, Lino sure as hell was entertaining.  Our section's end-of-year skit pretty blatantly portrayed him as jerking off as a kid to National Geographic (a reference to a joke he made earlier in the semester).  He was laughing at that to the point of tears.  And several years after graduation I got to sit at his table for an alumni event, and he couldn't have been more welcoming and unpretentious. 

[Nivek 17,036]

 

8 hours ago, F250 said:

After reading this thread today I am ready to replace lawyers and judges with AI. Lawyers can better serve society by keeping the parks clean.

Bow before your algorithmic overlords.

 

Nah, they would spend the entire time trying to discuss what exactly precedent historical and otherwise for the proper orientation of toilet paper.    I would prefer to use them as boat anchors.   

[Pig Bellmont 8,750]

5 minutes ago, horn4life said:

Citizens United was a shit ruling.  Anyone with half a brain knows that it's bad law. 

Worse is Buckley v Valeo. Political contributions were held as constitutionally protected free speech. I’m unsure how someone could have billions more speech than me, or how the first amendment is used to permit outsized influence over the electoral system. But as long as we’re overturning SCOTUS decisions from 50 years ago - my vote is that one next. Yes, Citizens United permits dark money organizations to spend limitless amounts, but that wouldn’t be possible without Buckley v Valeo. Arguably one of the most damaging decisions ever made to our electoral process 

[South Austin 52,688]

48 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

They didn’t lie.  They said it was precedent.  It is.  Until it isn’t.  You ask if they overturn it then they won’t answer.  Just like Kentangi with Heller and Citizens United. 

Yeah, I didn't see anything in those clips that was damning.  They're smart lawyers and they knew how to walk a fine line.  In their minds, they could have been sitting in their confirmation hearings chomping at the bit to overturn Roe.  But they wouldn't say that and they didn't.  Instead they acknowledged the unremarkable fact that a prior case was precedent.  And when some of them said it was "important" precedent, that didn't commit them to not overturning it.  It simply recognized that Roe one of the most significant cases in U.S. Supreme Court history.

And Alito does his best to address the stare decisis argument in his opinion by basically saying, "Look, the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned its own precedent numerous times.  Remember Plessy v. Ferguson?  This is just like that!"

[hpslugga 4,068]

8 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

That's a really dumb take.  Pro tip -- David Hogg is not somebody that smart people follow.

Objection: beyond the scope

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

32 minutes ago, horn4life said:

Ahh... Johnny... always nice to play the "what about" game.  I mean letting corporation pretend they are people is EXACTLY the same as letting old white racist leaning men make medical decisions for individual citizens.  Directly interfering with their "life. liberty and Pursuit of happiness."

Citizens United was a shit ruling.  Anyone with half a brain knows that it's bad law.  Corporations are not people, simply as they cannot be physically held accountable for their actions as actual people. 

But since I did preface with "half a brain" please retort again Johnny Sack!  

I would be happy to have the perjury and ethics of the rest of the Federal Bench adopted for the Supreme court.  As simply I know that the amount of lies told daily by Republicans makes honesty under oath a lot more dangerous for liars than truth tellers.

A bunch of emotional nonsense and rhetoric.

Nominees are asked all the time if a controversial case is precedent.  They say it is.  Because it is.  Then they are asked if they would overturn it.  They respond the code of judicial ethics prevents them from doing so.  None are lying.  You are just too stupid or too committed to your cause to know basic truth.

[TwiceHorn 31,684]

Quote

ongoing campaign to bully and intimidate federal judges and substitute mob rule for the rule of law.

What? The? Fuck?

[Sawbonz 27,778]

8 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

That's a really dumb take.  Pro tip -- David Hogg is not somebody that smart people follow.

How would you have any idea what smart people do?

[Sawbonz 27,778]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

A bunch of emotional nonsense and rhetoric.

Nominees are asked all the time if a controversial case is precedent.  They say it is.  Because it is.  Then they are asked if they would overturn it.  They respond the code of judicial ethics prevents them from doing so.  None are lying.  You are just too stupid or too committed to your cause to know basic truth.

We should know the basic truth that Republican nominees are going to violate the code of judicial ethics once seated?

[hpslugga 4,068]

37 minutes ago, horn4life said:

Ahh... Johnny... always nice to play the "what about" game.  I mean letting corporation pretend they are people is EXACTLY the same as letting old white racist leaning men make medical decisions for individual citizens.  Directly interfering with their "life. liberty and Pursuit of happiness."

Citizens United was a shit ruling.  Anyone with half a brain knows that it's bad law.  Corporations are not people, simply as they cannot be physically held accountable for their actions as actual people. 

But since I did preface with "half a brain" please retort again Johnny Sack!  

I would be happy to have the perjury and ethics of the rest of the Federal Bench adopted for the Supreme court.  As simply I know that the amount of lies told daily by Republicans makes honesty under oath a lot more dangerous for liars than truth tellers.

It’s actually worse than you think. The argument was best articulated by Mormon Mitt when he said “everything that gets put into a corporation goes back to people.”

As a comedian (probably Maher or Colbert) famously retorted; by that logic, a fucking vending machine is a person too.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

3 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

We should know the basic truth that Republican nominees are going to violate the code of judicial ethics once seated?

How do you think they are doing so?

[Starfleet Command 441]

Who cares if they lied or didn't lie during their confirmation hearings?  Even if they said flat out under oath - I would never in a million years vote to overturn Roe - would anything happen to these people.  You have to literally fuck children like Hastert to get in any kind of trouble when you are at that level.

[Nivek 17,036]

8 hours ago, Bullneck said:

On the contrary, it's completely accurate.  Also, David Hogg and the rest of the outspoke shooting survivors restored my faith in public school education.  I think he's pretty fucking smart.

The stupids don't recognize smart.   They have no experience with it.  

[TwiceHorn 31,684]

2 hours ago, Bookman said:

Lino Graglia passed away in January. https://law.utexas.edu/news/2022/01/31/in-memoriam-remembering-professor-lino-graglia-texas-law-faculty-member-for-50-years/

I did enjoy his Con Law class.

Graglia was a smart dude, no question.  Mostly notable for being one of a very few conservative voices on a quite liberal faculty.  I had him for Antitrust and he was pretty good at illustrating the doctrinal baselessness of a lot of it.

In retrospect, part of his "schtick" was poking fun at liberals in a "reductio ad absurdum" way that seemed to me to be similar to the early Rush Limbaugh schtick.  I wonder if he later turned into an "own the libs" type.  I didn't find him to be mean-spirited at the time.  A big part of that was the "socratic" milieu where everything was questioned, sometimes in a humorous or sarcastic way, to provoke thought and discussion (apolitical example:  Bob Hamilton used to love to drive students to respond that something was "fair" or "unfair," at which point he would ask "are you God"?)

Edited May 4, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Nivek 17,036]

11 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

We should know the basic truth that Republican nominees are going to violate the code of judicial ethics once seated?

[Nivek 17,036]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Graglia was a smart dude, no question.  Mostly notable for being one of a very few conservative voices on a quite liberal faculty.  I had him for Antitrust and he was pretty good at illustrating the doctrinal baselessness of a lot of it.

In retrospect, part of his "schtick" was poking fun at liberals in a "reductio ad absurdum" way that seemed to me to be similar to the early Rush Limbaugh schtick.  I wonder if he later turned into an "own the libs" type.  I didn't find him to be mean-spirited at the time.  A big part of that was the "socratic" milieu where everything was questioned, sometimes in a humorous or sarcastic way, to provoke thought and discussion (apolitical example:  Bob Hamilton used to love to drive students to respond that something was "fair" or "unfair," at which point he would ask ""?)

Response: "Yes." 

Response2: " I have had 20X years and already I can tell the eternal one is a cock-teasing moron."  

Edited May 4, 2022 by Nivek

[Pig Bellmont 8,750]

14 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

We should know the basic truth that Republican nominees are going to violate the code of judicial ethics once seated?

Point of order: the Supreme Court has not adopted and is not subject to a code of ethics 

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

What code or canon of judicial ethics are you guys suggesting would be violated here?

[South Austin 52,688]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

(apolitical example:  Bob Hamilton used to love to drive students to respond that something was "fair" or "unfair," at which point he would ask "are you God"?)

Bob Hamilton is one of the worst teachers I've ever had on any level going back to kindergarten.  Granted, he was getting old at the time I took his Business Associations class (Spring 1997) and he seemed like he was mailing it in.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,596]

8 hours ago, DalTxHornFan said:

That's a really dumb take.  Pro tip -- David Hogg is not somebody that smart people follow.

If women abort their precious gifts from God, who will we send death threats to for being a crisis actor?

[Nivek 17,036]

1 minute ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

If women abort their precious gifts from God, who will we send death threats to for being a crisis actor?

Can you sue the church for an abortion now?  I mean... Jesus killed her baby.