The Supremes

[Starfleet Command 441]

Here is a proposal for new federal legislation in view of the upcoming abrogation of Roe - all abortions after the first-trimester are illegal.  However, given how expensive it is to carry a child to term and to give birth in this country, it's only fair that we move to a publicly funded healthcare system similar to the NHS so that women who are forced to carry their pregnancies to term are not also forced to pay out of pocket for the associated expenses.  This new system will be funded by taxing all income over $500K at 90%.

 

 

[Bateshorn 9,928]

55 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

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. 

If it had been a liberal clerk, it would have been one of the  liberal court watchers who broke the story, like Dahlia Lithwick or Emily Bazelon.  Not a Nat. Sec. Reporter for Politico.

Ginni Thomas had method, motive, and means.

Edited May 4, 2022 by Bateshorn

[The Original Greaser Bob 2,841]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

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

Liberty should trump democracy.  When it comes to protecting liberty, I think the Founders knew well what absolutism, either in the guise of a king or a French rabble, could do to liberty.

[Pig Bellmont 8,719]

1 minute ago, Nivek said:

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

I’m betting some insurance companies are lining up to provide prenatal life insurance 

[SimonBolivar 10,958]

7 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

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

Generally not picking my side on various issues. Buncha assholes.

[Starfleet Command 441]

1 minute ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Liberty should trump democracy.  When it comes to protecting liberty, I think the Founders knew well what absolutism, either in the guise of a king or a French rabble, could do to liberty.

The founding fathers were primarily concerned with keeping theirs.  It was a rare battle between the compradors and the imperial core in which the compradors won.

[Horn Dog 9,877]

23 minutes ago, Starfleet Command said:

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.

If Thomas impregnated a 13 year old, made her carry to term, and preformed a 40wk abortion himself while the SC was in session during the announcement of the over-turning of RVW.... I seriously doubt you would have the 60 senate votes to impeach.

[The Original Greaser Bob 2,841]

8 minutes ago, Starfleet Command said:

The founding fathers were primarily concerned with keeping theirs.  It was a rare battle between the compradors and the imperial core in which the compradors won

I saw the Compradors perform at Hemisfair Arena back in '79. 

Never cared for Lionel Richie. 

[HenryJames 66,133]

 

[Pig Bellmont 8,719]

lol she’s not even on the Court yet

[Neonmoon 38,129]

[The Original Greaser Bob 2,841]

18 minutes ago, South Austin said:

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.

I had him for contracts 10 years before you had him.  I think he was mailing it in then, but he got the lesson across.  When you had William "Dub Dub" Gibson for property, any teaching standard was completely gone. 

Hamilton came to class every day dressed the same way - when it was warm, he wore the short sleeve version of this shirt.  I don't remember anything from his class, but his fashion sense did rub off on me.

[South Austin 52,521]

6 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Hamilton came to class every day dressed the same way - when it was warm, he wore the short sleeve version of this shirt.  I don't remember anything from his class, but his fashion sense did rub off on me.

He dressed pretty much the same way when I was there, except I think he stopped ironing his clothes.

[hpslugga 4,062]

8 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

lol she’s not even on the Court yet

Well when you have a tub full of nothing but dairy milk and it leaks, first thing you do is blame the coffee that was never put in there. Standards and practices.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,669]

Can you even have perjury regarding predictions of future conduct?  Usually it is for statements of past fact.  Or could you have perjury of statements of present intent?  Seems dicey. 

[Captainant 27,682]

I'm interested to learn who the leaker was, but not because I want them prosecuted but because I want to understand the motivations they had behind leaking it.

Was it Ginny Thomas, desperate to change the story off of her insurrectionist behavior and actions?

Was is Breyer, who was just old and dumb and left it out on a table to be seen?

Was it Alito himself, wanting to steal the sting from the real opinion this summer?

 

So many questions. All I know is, Roberts is a chief justice in name only.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,669]

15 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

 

Dude, there’s even another black person you could have even blamed it on!

[jimmyjazz 45,990]

When draft opinions are distributed prior to being issued, do they circulate beyond the other justices?  I'm struggling with the idea that Thomas' wife should have even seen it, much less leaked it.  Not that I wouldn't put it past those two, I'm just wondering about the limits and expectations of the eyes on the document.

[immamac 42,872]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

When draft opinions are distributed prior to being issued, do they circulate beyond the other justices?  I'm struggling with the idea that Thomas' wife should have even seen it, much less leaked it.  Not that I wouldn't put it past those two, I'm just wondering about the limits and expectations of the eyes on the document.

Is this serious? Can't tell if serious? 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11,669]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

When draft opinions are distributed prior to being issued, do they circulate beyond the other justices?  I'm struggling with the idea that Thomas' wife should have even seen it, much less leaked it.  Not that I wouldn't put it past those two, I'm just wondering about the limits and expectations of the eyes on the document.

It read to me as a very very first draft, because of how caustic it is.  I can’t see why more people than those actually working on it would see it, so 9 justices plus clerks. But it is so newsworthy anyone has motive to show “just one more person” because everyone likes to be the guy with the scoop. 

[jimmyjazz 45,990]

Just now, immamac said:

Is this serious? Can't tell if serious? 

It's serious.  Upthread someone (Bates?  can't remember) talked about circulating the draft.  I would assume justices only, but I would also imagine it would get to their clerks.  Wives are surely a no-go.

My angle here is whether this might expose Thomas to censure/impeachment.  (I'll be here all week, try the veal.)

[wildcat09 29,355]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

When draft opinions are distributed prior to being issued, do they circulate beyond the other justices?  I'm struggling with the idea that Thomas' wife should have even seen it, much less leaked it.  Not that I wouldn't put it past those two, I'm just wondering about the limits and expectations of the eyes on the document.

Clerks definitely see them, likely other court staff as well. Particularly since the justices are all old people who like to print a dozen copies of everything rather than read on a computer.

And yes, Thomas definitely shows that shit to Ginni.

[immamac 42,872]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

It's serious.  Upthread someone (Bates?  can't remember) talked about circulating the draft.  I would assume justices only, but I would also imagine it would get to their clerks.  Wives are surely a no-go.

My angle here is whether this might expose Thomas to censure/impeachment.  (I'll be here all week, try the veal.)

Thomas is a fucking loon and so is his wife. She probably gets all kinds of shit she isn't suppose to from that old bastard. 

I don't think it makes sense that the leaker is someone who voted to overturn though, it does no benefit to leak the opinion in it's current state. 

[Captainant 27,682]

Just now, immamac said:

I don't think it makes sense that the leaker is someone who voted to overturn though, it does no benefit to leak the opinion in it's current state. 

Yeah this is what I keep coming back to - this is not a politically advantageous time for a dissenter or a partisan D to leak the decision. It's way too early to use as a GOTV issue (because our society has the attention span of a goldfish) and breaking the norm in this severe a way without a clear next step just doesn't make sense if your ultimate desired outcome is to motivate a change to the opinion

[wildcat09 29,355]

12 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Yeah this is what I keep coming back to - this is not a politically advantageous time for a dissenter or a partisan D to leak the decision. It's way too early to use as a GOTV issue (because our society has the attention span of a goldfish) and breaking the norm in this severe a way without a clear next step just doesn't make sense if your ultimate desired outcome is to motivate a change to the opinion

I'm increasingly certain it was Alito. Whoever leaked it wanted to preserve the opinion in its current form. Who would want to do that more than him? Not just because he wrote it but for how useful it will be in overturning rest of the privacy cases in the future. Sure he included one sentence saying "we totally don't have any intent to overturn this laundry list of cases we hate" so that the Johnnys Sack of the world can troll us by pretending he's not lying, but it seems pretty clear that at least one justice in the majority is a little uncomfortable with something about the opinion and I bet that's it. Why even mention Lawrence and Obergefell, two cases decided after Casey, if you're not trying to assault their validity? 

[Goofyboy 3,293]

LOL.  Don't care.

Says the guy that cried when his church was posted… you seemed to care then.

[hpslugga 4,062]

42 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

Dude, there’s even another black person you could have even blamed it on!

Dude even the republicans know that Clarence Thomas is only black on his parents’ side. 

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

15 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:

Says the guy that cried when his church was posted… you seemed to care then.

Yes, I don't appreciate being doxxed.  You got me there.  The dickhead that did it always tries to dance up close to doxxing me when he gets asshurt.  Last week was the most recent time.

[Nivek 16,946]

1 hour ago, Starfleet Command said:

Here is a proposal for new federal legislation in view of the upcoming abrogation of Roe - all abortions after the first-trimester are illegal.  However, given how expensive it is to carry a child to term and to give birth in this country, it's only fair that we move to a publicly funded healthcare system similar to the NHS so that women who are forced to carry their pregnancies to term are not also forced to pay out of pocket for the associated expenses.  This new system will be funded by taxing all income over $500K at 90%.

 

 

wealth not income.   

[Hornius Emeritus 12,473]

12 hours ago, David Dennison said:

And a governor. This should be the only issue Beto runs on from here on out.

I was talking about his chances with a friend.  We both thought that campaigning on legalizing weed would be a big winner for him, too. Also, if the electrical grid goes down anytime between now and November that would also benefit him. 

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2,678]

3 hours 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."

 

Lino also had a charming habit of referring to "the blacks." 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,120]

13 minutes ago, Nivek said:

wealth not income.   

500k in wealth?  Lot of homeowners would owe money out their ass.

[WhatTheBuck 28,791]

Biden’s killing it. 

[wildcat09 29,355]

Shit is going to get very ugly, very quickly.

[elfenix 34,328]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

this is not a politically advantageous time for a dissenter or a partisan D to leak the decision.

so definitely a democrat.

[elfenix 34,328]

19 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Yes, I don't appreciate being doxxed.  You got me there.  The dickhead that did it always tries to dance up close to doxxing me when he gets asshurt.  Last week was the most recent time.

says the guy who has posted about his life in excruciating detail.  you fucking dox yourself.

[Bateshorn 9,928]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Shit is going to get very ugly, very quickly.

The States are going to be at each other hammer and tongs on this.  Once the supremes overturn Obergefell and Lawerence, it’s going to be 1858 all over again.  
 

I could see all sorts of crimes of travel between Florida and California coming into existence. 

Edited May 4, 2022 by Bateshorn

[Nivek 16,946]

1 hour ago, HenryJames said:

 

[wildcat09 29,355]

1 minute ago, Bateshorn said:

The States are going to be at each other hammer and tongs on this.  IOnce the supremes overturn Obergefell and Lawerence, it’s going to be 1858 all over again.  

The GOP is going to be buying this shit up and just giving it away to their voters so they can all find targets for $10k lawsuits.

For anyone who might ever need to drive or fly with a woman to an abortion clinic out of the state, do not take your phone with you and don’t let her take one either. Starting fucking today, since SB8 is currently in effect.

[Brisketexan 105,161]

2 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

The States are going to be at each other hammer and tongs on this.  Once the supremes overturn Obergefell and Lawerence, it’s going to be 1858 all over again.  

This is the end-game.  It is intentional.  It is what they want.  They know the consequences, and it's STILL what they want.  It always has been.  Fugitive Slave Acts much?

[Gap03 3,308]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Shit is going to get very ugly, very quickly.

The wealthy among the GQP (i.e., the "rules for thee ..." crowd) absolutely don't want this.  Of course, the rich will always find a way around the rules.  It may be time to start investing in some "Trace Buster Buster" types of technology ...

 

[Foosters 17,858]

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The GOP is going to be buying this shit up and just giving it away to their voters so they can all find targets for $10k lawsuits.

For anyone who might ever need to drive or fly with a woman to an abortion clinic out of the state, do not take your phone with you and don’t let her take one either. Starting fucking today, since SB8 is currently in effect.

Having not thought about either jurisdictional issues or torts since law school, I wonder if there's any way for non-GOP states to allow IIED claims against those who target women and their allies who assist in getting an abortion?

[Lucid 3]

19 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Your honesty is appreciated.  It's definitely appreciated by every aspiring authoritarian ruler.  But again, I appreciate your candor.

Lmao I wonder if every aspiring authoritarian ruler appreciates the premise that it is ok to kill undesirables.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,208]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Yeah this is what I keep coming back to - this is not a politically advantageous time for a dissenter or a partisan D to leak the decision. It's way too early to use as a GOTV issue (because our society has the attention span of a goldfish) and breaking the norm in this severe a way without a clear next step just doesn't make sense if your ultimate desired outcome is to motivate a change to the opinion

The way Dems reacted with outrage and attacking from multiple angles makes it seem their reactions were off the cuff / spur of the moment.  The way the right went straight to blaming the leaker in lockstep fashion makes it seem they had a bit of forewarning.

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2,678]

1 hour ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

I had him for contracts 10 years before you had him.  I think he was mailing it in then, but he got the lesson across.  When you had William "Dub Dub" Gibson for property, any teaching standard was completely gone. 

Hamilton came to class every day dressed the same way - when it was warm, he wore the short sleeve version of this shirt.  I don't remember anything from his class, but his fashion sense did rub off on me.

Hmm, I actually thought his contracts class was tough, and good. Anyone remember "blinkum"?

How about another grade humblebrag...I took the contracts mid-term fully, stinking drunk... got a B.  Swore off doing that kind of thing after that though. 

UT law talk not going away...

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,585]

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This is the end-game.  It is intentional.  It is what they want.  They know the consequences, and it's STILL what they want.  It always has been.  Fugitive Slave Acts much?

Yeah, allowing the laws of one state to travel across state lines is but one of the reasons the assertion that this is a win for democracy is so blatantly disingenuous.

[The Original Greaser Bob 2,841]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

My angle here is whether this might expose Thomas to censure/impeachment a higher-tech lynching than the first high-tech lynching. 

I'm in.

[Brisketexan 105,161]

Just now, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Yeah, allowing the laws of one state to travel across state lines is but one of the reasons the assertion that this is a win for democracy is so blatantly disingenuous.

It's not disingenuous, it's a lie.  They say "states rights" on the one hand while openly supporting actions that deny states the right to have control over acts that happen within their own borders.  It's a lie to support authoritarianism and denial of rights to the lesser/weaker/vulnerable.  Always has been.  There are no new lies, just the same old one.

[Nivek 16,946]

8 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

500k in wealth?  Lot of homeowners would owe money out their ass.

It was short post designed to have the author reconsider the idea of taxing income due to the tax sheltering opportunities that are offered and exploited by the elites not an essay on the matter.   Naturally this discussion would then warrant a more thoughtful write up that would exceed the attention span of most and shift the conversation away from the horror that is the SC.   

 

Remember when these assholes stopped the manual recount of an election in Florida which was ordered by the Florida's Supreme Court?    I have not forgotten how corrupt they are.   <20 years later they are doing nothing to stop the recounts that are well above the margin of error because their side was losing.   

Only a naive lawyer looks at them with some reverence.  I see them as corrupt politicians.   They punted on gerrymandering because they couldn't even spin that bullshit.  They are trying to shift the message to the leak, not to their corruption, shroedingering the impact of their decision or the bullshit excuse for doing so.   

When the people wanted net neutrality the right wingers ignored it.  When the people wanted felons to get voting rights restored they ignored it.  When sanctions were enacted against Russia they ignored it.   When they lost an election in wisconsin they tried to limit all of the powers of that office.   they are all corrupt at the gqp.  

/rant off.

 

 

[wildcat09 29,355]

15 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Having not thought about either jurisdictional issues or torts since law school, I wonder if there's any way for non-GOP states to allow IIED claims against those who target women and their allies who assist in getting an abortion?

To the extent that there might be under current law, this SCOTUS would overrule it anyway.