Jump to content

The Supremes

tx 3 putt

By tx 3 putt
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

yoladu

yoladu 4094

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

Let me let you in on a little secret, bud. That is about talent acquisition at a highest level. Women are receiving college degrees at a 33% higher clip these days than men, and you can damn well be sure that a huge chunk of them are either going to go to work in states where they feel safe, or at the least work for companies that they believe will make them feel safe. You want to be able to attract the best talent out of college? You're going to cast the widest net. And right now, that net is young women. 

Or you could be Oklahoma but refuse to recruit Texas our outside your shitty footprint. Good luck with that. 

It would be the death of their football program, that is for sure. 

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

scottsins

scottsins 1968

Posted
Posted
But the posts tonight in this thread advocating assassinating a US Senator and "burn it all down" rioting are?
I'll add something to the discussion that seems to be overlooked in my brief scan of this thread:
Nearly 2/3rds of Americans think abortion should be illegal after the 1st trimester, 80% after the second trimester (though many of those want exceptions, as do I.)  
61% think abortion should be legal in the first trimester.  (As do I.)  So, basically 2/3rds of Americans want abortion laws similar to most of Europe.
https://health.wusf.usf.edu/health-news-florida/2021-06-25/ap-norc-poll-most-say-restrict-abortion-after-first-trimester
ap21175538018429.jpg
Seems like the highly unethical (unprecedented?) leak (but I realize that anything is ok if it benefits the hard left Dems) of the alleged USSC decision would put the court in agreement with most Americans.  Most (all?) of these state laws seem to start at 15 weeks.
Also, LOL at the predictable gaslighting that anyone other than a hardcore Dem leaked this.  It's meant to intimidate Roberts, and maybe another justice.  Hoping for the usual "I didn't get my way so lets violently riot" response from the emo left.

Public consensus has zero relevance to SCOTUS principles. JFC.
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
yoladu

yoladu 4094

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Y'all are having a pointless argument. We all know that the conservative appointees would overturn Roe if given they chance. We also know they can't say that during the confirmation hearings. It's all part of the bullshit fabric of our fucked up government. Nothing can just be fucking real.

Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bateshorn

Bateshorn 9928

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, Bookman said:

Congress should make all Supreme Court records subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Show the public how the sausage is made.

It is LONG past time the Supremes were subject to some sort of actual code of ethics/transparency/standards.  We literally have a branch of government that has all the transparency of a Ivy League secret society. 

We don't even know what their IT security protocols are.  That's just fucking insane in this day and age.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6938

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

If they were lying at the time, it was perjury. But it's impossible to prove, because they can always just say they were honest about their then-present belief/intent and subsequently changed their minds.

To his credit, Bork answered forthrightly on the question of abortion. There’s no rule, real or imagined against answering questions honestly.

Edited by Satchel
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bookman

Bookman 4639

Posted
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, Satchel said:

There’s no rule, real or imagined against answering questions honestly.

As a general rule, if you don’t know the right lies to tell you don’t get to be on the Supreme Court.

Edited by Bookman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fudge Nuggets

Fudge Nuggets 19208

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Satchel said:

To his credit, Bork answered forthrightly on the question of abortion. There’s no rule, real or imagined against answering questions honestly.

There is the unwritten rule of lying  your ass off to get a job you don’t qualify for. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28789

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

It is LONG past time the Supremes were subject to some sort of actual code of ethics/transparency/standards.  We literally have a branch of government that has all the transparency of a Ivy League secret society. 

We don't even know what their IT security protocols are.  That's just fucking insane in this day and age.

They probably all use private email servers. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ojo Rojo

Ojo Rojo 1966

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Bookman said:

As a general rule, if you don’t know the right lies to tell you don’t get to be on the Supreme Court.

If you think about it, getting an appointment to the Supreme Court is really just a contest to see who can most deftly avoid answering the only questions that matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

If you think about it, getting an appointment to the Supreme Court is really just a contest to see who can most deftly avoid answering the only questions that matter.

It isn't just SCOTUS, it's lower courts as well.  And it sure as hell is both sides.

  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
South Austin

South Austin 52521

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

It isn't just SCOTUS, it's lower courts as well.  And it sure as hell is both sides.

 

2 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Agree 100%.  And it's not just courts.  It's every politician in the country.

Agree 100%. And it’s not just the courts and every politician in the country.  It’s me when my girlfriend says we need to have a “talk.”

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28788

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

If you think about it, getting an appointment to the Supreme Court is really just a contest to see who can most deftly avoid answering the only questions that matter.

So it's like any other job interview?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27682

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

spacer.png

Ya know, you choosing to represent yourself with a barely literate bowl of gumbo that hid sexual assault and rape on his team is just a little too on the nose. Even for you lol.

You sure your brother deacons would approve?

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horn Dog

Horn Dog 9875

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, Bookman said:

Congress should make all Supreme Court records subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Show the public how the sausage is made.

Why do these fuckers get to work in absolute secrecy exactly?    I guess I can kinda understand having TEMPORARY nonpublication for draft deliberations and such, but after the decisions are made everything needs to be released to the public.   Especially the drafts and deliberations so we can see how this shit show of an institution operates. 

Letting the public see the process is not the horrible, world-ending event FXN or Newsmax wants everyone to believe.   I say that with 60% confidence that a right wing justice/staff leaked it.   Good for them.    And lets not forget that the original Roe-V-Wade decision leaked too....twice

 

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/1096097236/roe-wade-original-ruling-leak

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16946

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, scottsins said:


Public consensus has zero relevance to SCOTUS principles. JFC.

Majority of people lean left.  So now he supports the idea that we should be represent the government through the proper redrawing of districts to reflect the populus and their overall political leanings?  And mitigate senate seats when the population within that state falls below a certain threshold.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45989

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

Why do these fuckers get to work in absolute secrecy exactly?    I guess I can kinda understand having TEMPORARY nonpublication for draft deliberations and such, but after the decisions are made everything needs to be released to the public.   Especially the drafts and deliberations so we can see how this shit show of an institution operates. 

Letting the public see the process is not the horrible, world-ending event FXN or Newsmax wants everyone to believe. 

. . . especially given their appointment-for-life status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gap03

Gap03 3308

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

This makes me think the leak was from Thomas. Someone was planning on switching their vote, and he needs to have Alito’s opinion as controlling majority, not just a concurrence. Gay marriage is next 

Jesus tap-dancing Christ - these fuckers are always the victims.  "Our religion requires us to treat everyone who doesn't espouse our exact views as second- or third-class citizens, and making us treat them as equals is infringing our religious freeeeedums ..." is not the rhetorical slam-dunk that these zealots seem to think it is.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

Why do these fuckers get to work in absolute secrecy exactly?    I guess I can kinda understand having TEMPORARY nonpublication for draft deliberations and such, but after the decisions are made everything needs to be released to the public.   Especially the drafts and deliberations so we can see how this shit show of an institution operates. 

Letting the public see the process is not the horrible, world-ending event FXN or Newsmax wants everyone to believe.   I say that with 60% confidence that a right wing justice/staff leaked it.   Good for them.    And lets not forget that the original Roe-V-Wade decision leaked too....twice

 

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/1096097236/roe-wade-original-ruling-leak

They would just stop exchanging drafts like attorneys do with experts and edit via Zoom.  No attorney or judge wants drafts leaked.

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

'stache 21823

Posted
Posted (edited)

I've attended a Unitarian church and my religious beliefs are therefore that denying marriage to a gay couple is immoral. If I worked as a court clerk couldn't I make the same fucking argument? That's why it is a bullshit argument. It's about the rights of the gays to be treated under the law like everyone else, not if some particular person who doesn't like it works in an area that requires treating people equally. If it doesn't work for your religion, find another fucking job. If I'm a Seventh Day Aventist, I can't take a job as a doctor's assistant, then say I can't give you medicine because I don't believe in it. God I hate these fucking people. Twitter is full of idiots who are prone to this type of bullshit reasoning, but this is a fucking justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Anyone who has softened on W should always remember he was every bit as shitty as trump, he just had a more palatable demeanor.

Edited by 'stache
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45989

Posted
Posted

The Christian faith is not the same as the Jewish faith, or the Hindu faith, or the Muslim faith, or a lack of faith.  Christians are not protected from those other religions or their viewpoints and practices that run counter to Christianity.  Same-sex marriage isn't any different -- it may not be accepted by (many) Christian denominations, but I can't imagine a learned SC justice failing to understand the history of this country and its bedrock principles, one of which is that the government cannot establish a state religion, and in practice, that it can't limit certain rights because expression of those rights are offensive to some religious Americans.

I know, I'm hopelessly naive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I've attended a Unitarian church and my religious beliefs are therefore that denying marriage to a gay couple is immoral. If I worked as a court clerk couldn't I make the same fucking argument? That's why it is a bullshit argument. It's about the rights of the gays to be treated under the law like everyone else, not if some particular person who doesn't like it works in an area that requires treating people equally. If it doesn't work for your religion, find another fucking job. If I'm a Seventh Day Aventist, I can't take a job as a doctor's assistant, then say I can't give you medicine because I don't believe in it. God I hate these fucking people. Twitter is full of idiots who are prone to this type of bullshit reasoning, but this is a fucking justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Anyone who has softened on W should always remember he was every bit as shitty as trump, he just had a more palatable demeanor.

The government should not deny any consenting adults the right to marry.  I also believe so long as they are consenting adults that polygamy should be legal.  And if you are a county clerk or some other government position that, due to your religious beliefs feels you cannot issue marriage licenses to gays, you should either quit or be terminated.

Now as for my church, I do not want it sanctioning gay or plural marriages.  But that's entirely different.

I do not think gay/interrracial marriage or right to purchase contraception will change.  If I am wrong, I will be protesting too. 

Edited by Johnny Sack
Link to comment
Share on other sites
South Austin

South Austin 52521

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I do not think gay/interrracial marriage or right to purchase contraception will change.  If I am wrong, I will be protesting too. 

I think you're probably right on contraception.  The opinions of the conservative members of the Court clearly reflect that they think Griswold is bullshit, but they might perform some mental gymnastics to get around overturning that.  But even more so, I don't think this will come before the Court, because I don't think even the nuttiest red state is going to fuck with contraceptives.  Yeah, a lot of conservatives want to teach abstinence instead of contraception in sex ed, but I've never heard the clamor about buying rubbers or getting a prescription for the pill like we've heard about Roe v. Wade for the past four decades. I don't think that's being naive, but there's a chance I'm wrong.

But gay marriage?  You bet your ass this Court will overturn Obergefell.  Three of of the four dissenters in that case are still on this Court and they've have lamented about it since.  Now they have two more conservatives joining their ranks, and despite talking about "settled law" and "strong precedent" in prior confirmation hearings, those justices have shown no problem discarding precedent. Alito's opinion is the blueprint and a red carpet for the opportunity to overturn Obergefell.  There's a substantial risk of this happening.

Edited by South Austin
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
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...