The Supremes

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

9 minutes ago, South Austin said:

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.

I hope you're wrong about Obergefell.  I do not at all agree with overturning it.  

[Captainant 27,975]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I hope you're wrong about Obergefell.  I do not at all agree with overturning it.  

Well it's what you voted for so, too bad? I'm not sure how you could read the draft opinion and not see that Obergefell and Lawrence v Texas aren't next. 

Like I said earlier, if you vote for chrisofascism, you don't just get the parts you want. You get it ALLLLLLLL. So own it, you bastard.

[tx 3 putt 77,935]

Fetus’s are the PERFECT victim …..

 

[YChang 3,472]

Just now, tx 3 putt said:

Fetus’s are the PERFECT victim …..

 

That is fucking perfect. 

[CooterBrown 18,092]

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.

Just you wait. Establishing Christianity as the official religion of the US is coming from this court.

[South Austin 52,699]

2 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Fetus’s are the PERFECT victim …..

 

Is that Clarence's blog?

[Gil Bang 26,100]

33 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

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. 

Many years ago, when gay marriage was gaining traction, I read an op-ed from a local minister.

She wrote about how performing weddings was the coolest part of her job, but she didn't understand why she was deputized by the state to handle official business.  She advocated for a "holy" marriage in the church, and a legal marriage, at  the courthouse, or some other government building, one having nothing to do with the other.  

Seemed fine to me. 

 

['stache 21,908]

1 minute ago, Gil Bang said:

Many years ago, when gay marriage was gaining traction, I read an op-ed from a local minister.

She wrote about how performing weddings was the coolest part of her job, but she didn't understand why she was deputized by the state to handle official business.  She advocated for a "holy" marriage in the church, and a legal marriage, at  the courthouse, or some other government building, one having nothing to do with the other.  

Seemed fine to me. 

 

This topic is always brought up in bad faith. There has not been a single serious proposal to require churches to perform marriages they don't want to perform. It has always been about marriage licenses under the law which provide the relevant legal rights. The ceremony can be performed by pretty much anyone. "Deputized by the state" is a weird way of state it, but all that is really required is a sign off on the certificate which is the relevant legal document. It's always been just more imaginary victimhood from the whiniest bunch of snowflake cunts around.

[wildcat09 29,453]

56 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

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.

Gorsuch thinks states can establish state religions.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

12 minutes ago, 'stache said:

This topic is always brought up in bad faith. There has not been a single serious proposal to require churches to perform marriages they don't want to perform. It has always been about marriage licenses under the law which provide the relevant legal rights. The ceremony can be performed by pretty much anyone. "Deputized by the state" is a weird way of state it, but all that is really required is a sign off on the certificate which is the relevant legal document. It's always been just more imaginary victimhood from the whiniest bunch of snowflake cunts around.

I don't think that is at all what that minister was stating, that there was some proposal to require churches to marry anyone.  

[wildcat09 29,453]

39 minutes ago, South Austin said:

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.

Some states are already planning to fuck with some contraceptives simply by classifying them as abortifacients.

[Gil Bang 26,100]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

I don't think that is at all what that minister was stating, that there was some proposal to require churches to marry anyone.  

You are correct.  She actually performs same-sex ceremonies.  She was just stating the fact that her deal was between her and God, not the Governor.

[DigglerontheHoof 21,284]

All I know is my vasectomy will not be reversed, so they can all go fuck themselves. 

[royiv 9,461]

19 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

I find it astounding that people pay you money to make arguments in front of courts

Based on the amount of time he spends spewing BS on this board, I don't think many people do.

[Francisco 2.0 32,433]

Coming soon.

 

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/2022/05/04/gov-greg-abbott-supreme-court-case-requiring-education-undocumented-children/9652463002/

 

Quote

Gov. Greg Abbott said Wednesday that Texas would consider challenging a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision requiring states to offer free public education to all children, including those of undocumented immigrants.

"Texas already long ago sued the federal government about having to incur the costs of the education program, in a case called Plyler versus Doe," Abbott said, speaking during an appearance on the Joe Pags show, a conservative radio talk show. "And the Supreme Court ruled against us on the issue. ... I think we will resurrect that case and challenge this issue again, because the expenses are extraordinary and the times are different than when Plyler versus Doe was issued many decades ago."

The remarks came days after a leaked draft of a forthcoming U.S. Supreme Court opinion revealed that a majority of justices are poised to revoke Roe v. Wade, the landmark case establishing the right to abortion. 

 

[royiv 9,461]

1 minute ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Coming soon.

 

https://www.statesman.com/story/news/2022/05/04/gov-greg-abbott-supreme-court-case-requiring-education-undocumented-children/9652463002/

 

 

He really, really gets off on cruelty to fellow human beings.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,276]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

No attorney or judge wants drafts leaked.

Tough shit. 

[Brisketexan 105,580]

10 minutes ago, royiv said:

He really, really gets off on cruelty to fellow human beings.

It is the entire fucking point.  It's the entire fucking brand.

[South Austin 52,699]

12 minutes ago, royiv said:

He really, really gets off on cruelty to fellow human beings.

Actually, nothing gets him off.

[royiv 9,461]

Just now, South Austin said:

Actually, nothing gets him off.

He has to get his jollies somewhere so cruelty it is.

[Brisketexan 105,580]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

I hope you're wrong about Obergefell.  I do not at all agree with overturning it.  

The right to privacy is dead now.  You don't get to torch the entire forest and say "oh, but I don't want THAT tree to burn."  Every legal scholar worth a shit reads Alito's opinion the same way -- his "but abortion is different" statement is meaningless.  The reasoning of the court functionally voids the right to privacy that is the basis of Obergefell, Lawrence, and Griswold.  States can and will act contrary to those holdings in multiple respects, and they will prevail before this SCOTUS.  

Likewise, if/when the GOP takes control of Congress and the WH, they will pass federal laws doing similar things, and those laws will likewise prevail before this SCOTUS.  You don't get to order your destruction of individual rights a la carte.  You have to choke down the whole buffet, and it's full of shit sickening enough to make Shoney's blush.  You get a world that looks a whole lot like the pre-14th Amendment landscape -- Dred Scott, Fugitive Slave Acts, all that shit.  States can and will prosecute citizens for traveling to another state to get an abortion, get birth control, etc.  Your California same-sex marriage?  It will no longer be recognized in Texas.  Texas will not only refuse to recognize same-sex relationships, it will ban companies from providing benefits to same-sex couples.  We don't have to guess about any of these things.  States have already done all of these things before, and/or stated their desire to do them again.

Edited May 5, 2022 by Brisketexan

[gmr548 16,641]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The right to privacy is dead now.  You don't get to torch the entire forest and say "oh, but I don't want THAT tree to burn."  Every legal scholar worth a shit reads Alito's opinion the same way -- his "but abortion is different" statement is meaningless.  The reasoning of the court functionally voids the right to privacy that is the basis of Obergefell, Lawrence, and Griswold.  States can and will act contrary to those holdings in multiple respects, and they will prevail before this SCOTUS.  

Likewise, if/when the GOP takes control of Congress and the WH, they will pass federal laws doing similar things, and those laws will likewise prevail before this SCOTUS.  You don't get to order your destruction of individual rights a la carte.  You have to choke down the whole buffet, and it's full of shit sickening enough to make Shoney's blush.

Yep. And this needs to be the Democratic message, now through 2024. And yes, I laughed at myself while typing that.

[HenryJames 66,284]

 

[wildcat09 29,453]

 

 

[Brisketexan 105,580]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

 

 

100% this.

The rest of us aren't as stupid or gullible as Johnny Sack's crew.

[Goofyboy 3,313]

They won’t remove contraception, they will just redefine the fuck out of it or require spousal approval for it. Plan B - that’s likely gone. Hysterectomy - back to needing hubby’s approval. Etc.

[DigglerontheHoof 21,284]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

100% this.

The rest of us aren't as stupid or gullible as Johnny Sack's crew.

He's not gullible, he just lies like the rest of them. 

[Pig Bellmont 8,757]

 

[Brisketexan 105,580]

Just now, Goofyboy said:

They won’t remove contraception, they will just redefine the fuck out of it or require spousal approval for it. Plan B - that’s likely gone. Hysterectomy - back to needing hubby’s approval. Etc.

Correct.  It won't be an outright ban....just an effective ban on a woman's autonomous right to obtain her preferred mechanism(s) of contraception.

[Brisketexan 105,580]

Just now, Pig Bellmont said:

 

Also correct.  My wife had to get a D&C after a miscarriage, and it was a rather urgent matter.  Had she not done so, her health was at material risk.

The merry gang of the GOP would prefer to sentence her to death.  I, on the other hand, would happily hold any of them at gunpoint as a hostage to force a Dr. to perform that lifesaving procedure on my wife.  And that is the sort of choice that they are putting in front of the American people today.  Want your wife to live?  You best be prepared to break the law.

It's not as bad as you guys think.

It's worse.

[BrickHorn 18,321]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

Well it's what you voted for so, too bad? I'm not sure how you could read the draft opinion and not see that Obergefell and Lawrence v Texas aren't next. 

Like I said earlier, if you vote for chrisofascism, you don't just get the parts you want. You get it ALLLLLLLL. So own it, you bastard.

Here’s the thing about Republicans: they no longer understand principled reasoning. Everything is outcome-driven with them. So of course some dipshit like Sack can’t fathom how the logic of this ruling paves the way for the denial of other analogous rights. He’s not accustomed to logical consistency or principled analysis; the only thing he understands is disingenuous pretext to justify a desired result.

Dude is understandably legitimately baffled by the studied criticism of this ruling. His brain isn’t wired to understand objective, consistent rationale. Either that or he’s gaslighting along with Alito, which is equally probable.

[BrickHorn 18,321]

7 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

 

Dibs on “Septic Uterus” for my death metal band name. 

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

From prior confirmation hearings:

GINSBURG

 

JUDGE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: “You are well aware that I came to this proceeding to be judged as a judge, not as an advocate. Because I am and hope to continue to be a judge, it would be wrong for me to say or preview in this legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide. Were I to rehearse here what I would say and how I would reason on such questions, I would act injudiciously. Judges in our system are bound to decide concrete cases, not abstract issues; each case is based on particular facts and its decision should turn on those facts and the governing law, stated and explained in light of the particular arguments the parties or their representatives choose to present. A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/20/1993)

 

KAGAN

 

SOLICITOR GENERAL ELENA KAGAN: “[T]he Senate has a very significant role to play in picking Supreme Court Justices...and part of that is getting some sense, some feel of how a nominee approaches legal issues...But I would say that there are limits on that. [S]ome of the limits I talked about in [a law review] article...I mean, that article makes very clear that it would be inappropriate for a nominee to talk about how she will rule on pending cases or on cases beyond that that might come before the Court in the future.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 6/29/2010)

 

Q: “Was Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), an example of the Supreme Court properly reinterpreting the Constitution in light of its timeless principles?” …

 

ELENA KAGAN RESPONSE: “I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to comment on the merits of Roe v. Wade other than to say that it is settled law entitled to precedential weight.  The application of Roe to future cases, and even its continued validity, are issues likely to come before the Court in the future.” (Senate Judiciary Committee, Kagan: Response To Questions For The Record, P.2, 2010)

 

KAGAN: “…inappropriate for a nominee to ever give any indication of how she would rule in a case that would come before the Court.  And I think, too, it would be inappropriate to do so in a somewhat veiled manner by essentially grading past cases.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, Pg.80, 6/28-30 &7/1/2010)

 

SOTOMAYOR

 

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): “Well, then maybe it would be fair for me to ask you what is your understanding of the constitutional limitations then on government entity -- any government entity taking land for public purpose?”

 

JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR: “...As I've indicated to you, opining on a hypothetical is very, very difficult for a judge to do. And as a potential justice on the Supreme Court but, more importantly, as a Second Circuit judge still sitting, I can't engage in a question that involves hypotheses.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/14/2009)

 

JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: “What my experience on the trial court and the appellate court have reinforced for me is that the process of judging is a process of keeping an open mind. It's the process of not coming to a decision with a prejudgment ever of an outcome, and that reaching a conclusion has to start with understanding what the parties are arguing, but examining in all situations carefully the facts as they prove them or not prove them, the record as they create it, and then making a decision that is limited to what the law says on the facts before the judge.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/14/2009)

 

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): “My question to the chief justice and now to you is: do you agree with the direction the Supreme Court has moved in more narrowly, interpreting congressional authority to enact laws under the Commerce Clause? Generally, not relating to any one case.”

 

JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: “No, I know. But the question assumes a prejudgment by me of what's an appropriate approach or not in a new case that may come before me as a Second Circuit judge or, again, if I'm fortunate enough to be a justice on the Supreme Court. So it's not a case I can answer in a broad statement.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/14/2009)

 

BREYER

 

JUDGE STEPHEN BREYER: “Let us imagine, if I am lucky and if you find me qualified and vote to confirm me, I will be a member of the Supreme Court, and, as a member of that Court, I will consider with an open mind the cases that arise in that Court. And there is nothing more important to a judge than to have an open mind and to listen carefully to the arguments...I will try very hard to give you an impression, an understanding of how I think about legal problems of all different kinds. At the same time, I do not want to predict or commit myself on an open issue that I feel is going to come up in the Court.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/12/1994)

 

FORMER SEN. STROM THURMOND (R-SC): “Judge Breyer, it is likely that Justice Blackmun is most widely known to the public as the author of Roe v. Wade. What was your impression of his majority opinion in that landmark decision? In particular, give us your thoughts on where he draws the line at different points during pregnancy as it relates to the State's interest in the regulation of abortion-related services? For instance, do you agree that the first trimester of pregnancy is distinctive and that the State should not be able to prohibit abortion during that period?”

JUDGE BREYER: “You are asking questions, Senator, that I know are matters of enormous controversy...The questions that you are putting to me are matters of how that basic right applies, where it applies, under what circumstances. And I do not think I should go into those for the reason that those are likely to be the subject of litigation in front of the Court.” (U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing, 7/12/1994)

[Pig Bellmont 8,757]

 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,597]

45 minutes ago, royiv said:

He really, really gets off on cruelty to fellow human beings.

If women abort children, who shall we deny an education? Or separate from their families seeking asylum? Or accuse of being a crisis actor?...

[Captainant 27,975]

8 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

Here’s the thing about Republicans: they no longer understand principled reasoning. Everything is outcome-driven with them. So of course some dipshit like Sack can’t fathom how the logic of this ruling paves the way for the denial of other analogous rights. He’s not accustomed to logical consistency or principled analysis; the only thing he understands is disingenuous pretext to justify a desired result.

Dude is understandably legitimately baffled by the studied criticism of this ruling. His brain isn’t wired to understand objective, consistent rationale. Either that or he’s gaslighting along with Alito, which is equally probable.

Sack is a rich lawyer with generational wealth and a leader in his local church. My money is on gaslighting.

[C-Man 27,353]

53 minutes ago, royiv said:

He really, really gets off on cruelty to fellow human beings.

Maybe Gerg and Madison can get together and be "crass" with each other

[lemonlime 5,503]

NSIAP

 

[Seasick Sailor 3,747]

 

[South Austin 52,699]

6 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

From prior confirmation hearings

Cool.  Where did those U.S. Supreme Court candidates refer to ______ v. _____ as "well settled law" or "strong precedent," only to later take a shit all over stare decisis and overturn that case?

I don't have a problem with a judicial nominee refusing to say how he or she would rule in a particular case, real or hypothetical.  The confirmation hearings are a bunch of crap as they are.  But unless you have your head up your ass, you can read Alito's opinion and know that he just didn't suddenly have a problem with Roe v. Wade.  He's thought it was wrongly decided long before his confirmation hearing.  Same with Gorsuch, Kavenaugh, and Barrett.  So when they proclaimed that Roe was "well settled" and was "strong precedent," it was disingenuous horseshit at best, and outright deceit at worst. 

[Satchel 6,949]

1 hour ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

All I know is my vasectomy will not be reversed, so they can all go fuck themselves. 

What’s your doctor’s name? Who drove you to the hospital? Small government people need to know.

[wildcat09 29,453]

Regarding all the "Roe is special and they're not coming for anything else" bullshit:

 

 

 

[Vegas64 678]

Politically speaking, and more specifically looking at mid-terms, how is this in any way helpful to the Republicans? Game it out:

1) This leaks and people are outraged. You continue to rule as you were planning and come mid-terms people turn out to vote against you. Bad outcome for Republicans.

2) This leaks and people are outraged. You change your mind on the ruling because you will lose your suburban women and middle/swing voters for mid-terms. Also you might be seen as weak and waffling so you lose some of the right of center and far right support. Bad outcome?

Seems like the leaker had to be someone who didn't want the Republicans to have good outcomes for the mid-terms, or am I missing something?

[lemonlime 5,503]

4 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

Politically speaking, and more specifically looking at mid-terms, how is this in any way helpful to the Republicans? Game it out:

1) This leaks and people are outraged. You continue to rule as you were planning and come mid-terms people turn out to vote against you. Bad outcome for Republicans.

2) This leaks and people are outraged. You change your mind on the ruling because you will lose your suburban women and middle/swing voters for mid-terms. Also you might be seen as weak and waffling so you lose some of the right of center and far right support. Bad outcome?

Seems like the leaker had to be someone who didn't want the Republicans to have good outcomes for the mid-terms, or am I missing something?

You're missing that the opinion will be out before the midterms, leak or not.  People will be outraged by the opinion. Leaking it cements the opinion--Kav or whoever doesn't want to be seen as caving to public pressure.

Also, they aren't concerned about the midterms.  That's why they had to gut the Voting Rights Act before Roe.

[gmr548 16,641]

Politically speaking, and more specifically looking at mid-terms, how is this in any way helpful to the Republicans? Game it out:
1) This leaks and people are outraged. You continue to rule as you were planning and come mid-terms people turn out to vote against you. Bad outcome for Republicans.
2) This leaks and people are outraged. You change your mind on the ruling because you will lose your suburban women and middle/swing voters for mid-terms. Also you might be seen as weak and waffling so you lose some of the right of center and far right support. Bad outcome?
Seems like the leaker had to be someone who didn't want the Republicans to have good outcomes for the mid-terms, or am I missing something?

These are sunk costs because it was always coming out this summer. Leaking it earlier gives the American public more time to move on to the next squirrel. And, as previously stated, could serve to pressure certain justices considering less radical opinions.

[lemonlime 5,503]

Also, conservative media attention can deflect from the opinion with coverage on, gasp, the leak.  GQP candidates can deflect from going on the record defending Alito's opinion.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,597]

Since this is The Supremes thread-

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/04/politics/satanic-temple-boston-supreme-court-flag/index.html

 

[bolverk 29,822]

I haven't seen it mentioned elsewhere so I'll go ahead and put this here: Vegas64 is the latest reincarnation of DonkeyMonkeyTurkeyChewCigaretteCigar.

[Captainant 27,975]

Just now, bolverk said:

I haven't seen it mentioned elsewhere so I'll go ahead and put this here: Vegas64 is the latest reincarnation of DonkeyMonkeyTurkeyChewCigaretteCigar.

Goddamn it really? That's fucking exhausting to constantly come back to play the fuck fuck game of pretending to be reasonable while advancing horrible positions

[F250 28,945]

1 hour ago, gmr548 said:

Yep. And this needs to be the Democratic message, now through 2024. And yes, I laughed at myself while typing that.

Schumer and Pelosi are ready to throw down.