The Supremes

[jimmyjazz 46095]

14 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

What I mind is being surrounded by evil people who run the state government and the huge swatch of Texans who support them.

I promise, I know the word I was searching for was "swath".

Fucking Republicans.

[Thrawn 538]

Alito can eat a Bob Stoops special, mega size, bag of dicks.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

53 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

What's going to be FASCINATING is how this SCOTUS reads "full faith and credit" completely out of the Constitution:

Alito will write the opinion.  "Because, at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, there was no longstanding historical recognition of same-sex marriage, a state-granted same-sex marriage cannot possibly be a "public act" to which the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution was intended to apply, and therefore, states that do not wish to do so do NOT need to give full faith and credit to a same-sex marriage from another state."

Oh, and remember how a mere week ago, the Alito apologists were telling us that in no way does the Dodd  opinion mean the SCOTUS is coming for Obergefell, I mean, Alito even SAID he wasn't gonna do that?  It was a lie.  Like everything they say is a lie.

Sine then the SCOTUS has come after Obergefell?  I missed it, I guess.

[TexArcher 38029]

6 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Sine then the SCOTUS has come after Obergefell?  I missed it, I guess.

Not yet.  They're gonna spread out their destruction of civil liberties over several years just in case any of their herd is still capable of having a moment of clarity about the bigger picture.

[Brisketexan 105275]

9 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Sine then the SCOTUS has come after Obergefell?  I missed it, I guess.

Its GQP allies have already stated their intent to challenge it.  Which, if you apply Alito's reasoning, Obergefell is almost certain to be overturned.  This is the natural consequence.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Its GQP allies have already stated their intent to challenge it.  Which, if you apply Alito's reasoning, Obergefell is almost certain to be overturned.  This is the natural consequence.

How much you want to wager on that?

I say Obergefell is still the law of the land ten years from now.

[Neonmoon 38130]

2 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Texas is going to be in a world of hurt.  The best and brightest will leave the state and not look back.

Funny you mention it. The wife and I were having a drink in downtown last weekend. We don’t live in Texas anymore. And a woman and her eldest daughter were having drinks next to us. They were in town looking at houses and mentioned they wanted to get out before the abortion ban. 

[Brisketexan 105275]

5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

How much you want to wager on that?

I say Obergefell is still the law of the land ten years from now.

The usual wager, Mortimer:

 

GOLL and I have a running ledger of such wagers.

Oh, and I'll double the wager to make the same bet on Griswold, too.

[Captainant 27727]

5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

How much you want to wager on that?

I say Obergefell is still the law of the land ten years from now.

Roe v Wade is still the law of the land and yet, you're totally fine with Texas law enforcement breaking the law to jail a woman who just miscarried.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The usual wager, Mortimer:

 

GOLL and I have a running ledger of such wagers.

Oh, and I'll double the wager to make the same bet on Griswold, too.

I'll take that action plus Lawrence.  IMO, none of the 3 will be overturned by the SCOTUS.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Roe v Wade is still the law of the land and yet, you're totally fine with Texas law enforcement breaking the law to jail a woman who just miscarried.

Where did I say that?

[F250 28814]

 

 

[Captainant 27727]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Where did I say that?

well you seem to be more concerned with whatever some random BLM organizer is doing than a woman getting her rights violated by a hospital, police officers, and the state of TX justice system. It's more what you didn't say than what you did.

[F250 28814]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The usual wager, Mortimer:

 

GOLL and I have a running ledger of such wagers.

Oh, and I'll double the wager to make the same bet on Griswold, too.

Your ass will likely be repatriated to Mexico before you have a chance to collect.

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

well you seem to be more concerned with whatever some random BLM organizer is doing than a woman getting her rights violated by a hospital, police officers, and the state of TX justice system. It's more what you didn't say than what you did.

I don't even know what you're talking about.  But you do a splendid job of keeping track of my posts.  You have a spreadsheet or something?

[Brisketexan 105275]

23 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I'll take that action plus Lawrence.  IMO, none of the 3 will be overturned by the SCOTUS.

Deal.

They're coming for all three.  And with no real "longstanding" right to privacy with respect to same sex marriage, contraceptives, or gay sex, all three are most likely toast.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Deal.

They're coming for all three.  And with no real "longstanding" right to privacy with respect to same sex marriage, contraceptives, or gay sex, all three are most likely toast.

Disagree.  I think abortion is different.  There is a fetus that the state has some interest in protecting to balance against privacy.  Do not see that interest with same sex marriage, gay sex, or contraceptives.

If I am wrong, I will be very disappointed and angry at whoever is responsible for it.

Now I do have one caveat with contraceptives.  We are just talking about Griswold and a state banning them?  Because I am not saying SCOTUS won't make Hobby Lobby or Little Sisters of the Poor type rulings regarding forcing employers to pay or insure contraceptives.

[David Dennison 18945]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

Disagree.  I think abortion is different.  There is a fetus that the state has some interest in protecting to balance against privacy.  Do not see that interest with same sex marriage, gay sex, or contraceptives.

If I am wrong, I will be very disappointed and angry at whoever is responsible for it.

Now I do have one caveat with contraceptives.  We are just talking about Griswold and a state banning them?  Because I am not saying SCOTUS won't make Hobby Lobby or Little Sisters of the Poor type rulings regarding forcing employers to pay or insure contraceptives.

So you oppose IVF?

[Captainant 27727]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Disagree.  I think abortion is different.  There is a fetus that the state has some interest in protecting to balance against privacy.  Do not see that interest with same sex marriage, gay sex, or contraceptives.

If I am wrong, I will be very disappointed and angry at whoever is responsible for it.

Now I do have one caveat with contraceptives.  We are just talking about Griswold and a state banning them?  Because I am not saying SCOTUS won't make Hobby Lobby or Little Sisters of the Poor type rulings regarding forcing employers to pay or insure contraceptives.

Bruh. As many as 20% of known pregnancies end with a miscarriage. The state sure as shit doesn't give a fuck about pre or post natal health care so don't give me a fucking line that the "state has an interest in protecting" a fetus. Y'all certainly don't give a fuck about the fetus after it's born.

Stop lying to yourself.

On that note - the exact same logic alito applies to strike down Roe is explicitly applied to Obergefell, Lawrence, and Griswold in the opinion. It's just followed by a winkyface "I pwooooomise to not apply this to those cases"

I don't think you'll be angry about being wrong, you'll be giddy about how owned the libz are and how much you see your religion expressed in the state

[Brisketexan 105275]

10 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

If I am wrong, I will be very disappointed and angry at whoever is responsible for it.

That's because you think (incorrectly....or hell, maybe you're just lying to yourself) that Alito's opinion in Dodd is about abortion.  It's not.  It's a treatise on sharply curtailing rights in favor of government control -- it's not just an opinion, it's a roadmap.  Expect that roadmap to be followed.  It's why they're drafted.

10 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

We are just talking about Griswold and a state banning them?  Because I am not saying SCOTUS won't make Hobby Lobby or Little Sisters of the Poor type rulings regarding forcing employers to pay or insure contraceptives.

Yeah, I think we just bet on Griswold being overruled to allow states to ban contraceptives.  Shit, I think the second scenario is guaranteed (and perfect evidence of the utter hypocrisy behind all of the "freedom of religion" arguments in support of such shit: allowing women to regulate their reproductive decisions?  No way, my religion forbids it!  Paying for boner pills for men to go bank anyone they want, from their wife to girlfriend to a whore in Vegas?  My religion is oddly silent on that.)

Edited May 17, 2022 by Brisketexan

[David Dennison 18945]

One of these days progressives will rediscover civil disobedience.

[wildcat09 29376]

7 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Bruh. As many as 20% of known pregnancies end with a miscarriage. The state sure as shit doesn't give a fuck about pre or post natal health care so don't give me a fucking line that the "state has an interest in protecting" a fetus. Y'all certainly don't give a fuck about the fetus after it's born.

Stop lying to yourself.

On that note - the exact same logic alito applies to strike down Roe is explicitly applied to Obergefell, Lawrence, and Griswold in the opinion. It's just followed by a winkyface "I pwooooomise to not apply this to those cases"

I don't think you'll be angry about being wrong, you'll be giddy about how owned the libz are and how much you see your religion expressed in the state

He's not lying to himself, he's lying to us. For the same reason the WSJ editorial board lies to its audience. 

[jimmyjazz 46095]

53 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

If I am wrong, I will be very disappointed and angry at whoever is responsible for it.

VERY disappointed and angry.

[TheRealRonWeaver? 1258]

58 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

If I am wrong...

[Ojo Rojo 1967]

To me, the Supreme Court is the canary in the coal mine of democracy. It's very fragile. It's the last line of defense against tyranny. As I've said before, I do not believe the justices themselves are political actors. But the people who are responsible for putting them there certainly are. That is why Mitch McConnell dying a very painful, very public death would not bother me in the least. When Republicans started treating politics like a bloodsport, with a win at all costs attitude and the belief that it's okay to impose your will on others no matter what (hey, that's what winners do!), that is when our democracy was in serious jeopardy. We haven't reached the end or the bottom, I don't believe, but we're close. The outright theft of a seat on the Supreme Court put us close to the end. The pendulum is either going to swing back the other way or the U.S. will become a fascist state. True freedom, the way the Constitution actually means it, will no longer exist if the far right wins. There will be no justice, no due process. There will be persecution. There will be lots and lots of suffering and death.

[Brisketexan 105275]

6 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

To me, the Supreme Court is the canary in the coal mine of democracy. It's very fragile. It's the last line of defense against tyranny. As I've said before, I do not believe the justices themselves are political actors. But the people who are responsible for putting them there certainly are. That is why Mitch McConnell dying a very painful, very public death would not bother me in the least. When Republicans started treating politics like a bloodsport, with a win at all costs attitude and the belief that it's okay to impose your will on others no matter what (hey, that's what winners do!), that is when our democracy was in serious jeopardy. We haven't reached the end or the bottom, I don't believe, but we're close. The outright theft of a seat on the Supreme Court put us close to the end. The pendulum is either going to swing back the other way or the U.S. will become a fascist state. True freedom, the way the Constitution actually means it, will no longer exist if the far right wins. There will be no justice, no due process. There will be persecution. There will be lots and lots of suffering and death.

Ojo gets it.  This is the end-game, and the harsh truth is THIS IS HOW THEY WANT IT TO GO.  All of the things you warn against?  They read that and think "AWESOME!"

[Captainant 27727]

36 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Ojo gets it.  This is the end-game, and the harsh truth is THIS IS HOW THEY WANT IT TO GO.  All of the things you warn against?  They read that and think "AWESOME!"

Feature - not a bug.

[mchookem 16367]

[bolverk 29708]

3 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Disagree.  I think abortion is different.  There is a fetus that the state has some interest in protecting to balance against privacy.  Do not see that interest with same sex marriage, gay sex, or contraceptives.

If I am wrong, I will be very disappointed and angry at whoever is responsible for it.

Now I do have one caveat with contraceptives.  We are just talking about Griswold and a state banning them?  Because I am not saying SCOTUS won't make Hobby Lobby or Little Sisters of the Poor type rulings regarding forcing employers to pay or insure contraceptives.

I have you on ignore but since everyone is quoting you, I'm going to have to point out that in the fetal stage of human development doesn't begin until the TENTH WEEK of pregnancy. Prior to that, it's just an embryo.

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2682]

when does embryo become zygote?  Zygotes are my favorite.

[Bama Chick 28596]

To me, the Supreme Court is the canary in the coal mine of democracy. It's very fragile. It's the last line of defense against tyranny. As I've said before, I do not believe the justices themselves are political actors. But the people who are responsible for putting them there certainly are. That is why Mitch McConnell dying a very painful, very public death would not bother me in the least. When Republicans started treating politics like a bloodsport, with a win at all costs attitude and the belief that it's okay to impose your will on others no matter what (hey, that's what winners do!), that is when our democracy was in serious jeopardy. We haven't reached the end or the bottom, I don't believe, but we're close. The outright theft of a seat on the Supreme Court put us close to the end. The pendulum is either going to swing back the other way or the U.S. will become a fascist state. True freedom, the way the Constitution actually means it, will no longer exist if the far right wins. There will be no justice, no due process. There will be persecution. There will be lots and lots of suffering and death.

Alito and Thomas are absolutely political actors.

Kavanaugh is a grudge holding frat boy incel with the right pedigree so he’s not by definition a “political actor” - he’s just using bitter spite as a motivator.

Gorsuch is a true believer and a follower - again, politics may not be his primary motivation but he’s going to fall in line with his capos, Alito and Thomas.

[wildcat09 29376]

Kavanaugh has literally never been anything but a political actor. He got his start in the world as a Republican ratfucker and he's been the same guy even as a judge and justice. His thirst for revenge just enhances what was always there.

[F250 28814]

24 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Kavanaugh has literally never been anything but a political actor. He got his start in the world as a Republican ratfucker and he's been the same guy even as a judge and justice. His thirst for revenge just enhances what was always there.

Definitely a rat fucker.

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

The Dem appointed judges are more partisan than the GOP appointed judges.  

https://www.axios.com/2019/06/01/supreme-court-justices-ideology

[David Dennison 18945]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

The Dem appointed judges are more partisan than the GOP appointed judges.  

https://www.axios.com/2019/06/01/supreme-court-justices-ideology

But conservatism is much more odious, so . . .

[Ojo Rojo 1967]

9 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

The Dem appointed judges are more partisan than the GOP appointed judges.  

https://www.axios.com/2019/06/01/supreme-court-justices-ideology

There is a difference between being partisan, political and ideological. Besides, scoring judges on a political ideology is a bit like looking at the 3 pointer stats of Bryce Harper. They are not supposed to be politically motivated.

Edited May 18, 2022 by Ojo Rojo

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20472]

[Keef 778]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

The Dem appointed judges are more partisan than the GOP appointed judges.  

https://www.axios.com/2019/06/01/supreme-court-justices-ideology

What strikes me from that chart is how utterly absurd it is that a party that has won the popular vote 2x in the last 30 years has 2x the justices.  Really is remarkable (some might say corrupt) the extent to which a minority party has managed to entrench itself in power with jerrymandering, the nonsense of the electoral college, Wyoming getting the same number of senators as California and Texas, and lots of SCOTUS chicanery.  

Oh, and the notion that literally anyone on this planet is less partisan to Clarence Thomas is ridiculous.

[WhatTheBuck 28797]

2 hours ago, F250 said:

Definitely a rat fucker.

 

And a lying, crying, whiny little bitch. 

[wildcat09 29376]

Sack is just pretending that something that is in no way objectively measurable is actually measurable. Martin-Quinn scores are in no way a useful measure of partisanship:

Quote

The Martin-Quinn method keeps track of only one thing: whether a Justice voted to affirm or reverse in a case.5   The method does not pay attention to what the case was about; the method itself has nothing to do with politics or ideology (or, for that matter, law). All it knows are things like this: in the first case decided last year, Justices A, B, C, and D voted to affirm and Justices E, F, G, H, and I voted to reverse. In the second case last year, Justice A voted to affirm and all the others voted to reverse. And so forth for every case fed into the model, nothing more. The authors’ findings are all derived from analysis of that data.6   The model studies all the cases it is fed—all the patterns of voting, all the coalitions in the cases as just described—and then assigns a number to each Justice. You can plug those numbers into a formula and ask the formula to generate the votes you would expect the numbers to produce. Essentially you say to the formula: “Assume that every case the Court hears presents a choice between the same two poles (putting aside the question of what those poles are); and assume that these numbers reflect each Justice’s tendency to vote either way—their preferences between the poles. Now imagine that they all vote on lots of cases, and show me what sorts of voting patterns and coalitions you would expect to emerge from the collisions of those numbers.” The formula then generates a bunch of patterns. If the numbers for each Justice are well-chosen, those patterns produced by the formula will look like the voting patterns we see in real life. The formula will predict, based on the numbers it was given for each Justice, that there will be a certain number of cases where these five Justices will vote one way and those four Justices will vote another; a certain number where this one Justice votes alone and the other eight vote the other way; and so on. We can, of course, compare the patterns produced by the formula to the actual patterns of voting in any given time period; and if we do, we find (or at any rate the authors report) that their numbers are about 75% accurate. In other words, over a large run of cases, the scores they give to each Justice can be used to generate voting patterns that match the real patterns about
75% to 80% of the time.7   Notice that none of this so far need have anything to do with the Justices’ policy preferences. Nor can it be tested by (or
used to make) predictions about the outcomes of individual cases. 

So we have a set of numbers for the Justices: numbers that do the best possible job, when put into a formula, of generating the patterns of coalition
that the Justices produce when they decide cases. If you arrange the numbers in a line, you find that Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia (who vote
together a lot) are toward one end of the line, and that Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (who also vote together a lot, but don’t vote often
with Scalia and Thomas) are toward the other end of the line.8   Martin and Quinn (and then, in this most recent paper, their co-authors) then go another step: they assume that every case before the Court presents a choice between a liberal vote and a conservative vote and that every Justice votes according to his preference for liberal or conservative outcomes. They then assume that the numbers produced by their system match those political preferences. So whatever number Justice Scalia gets in their system not only is the best number for helping to produce accurate simulations of the Court’s voting patterns, but also is a statement of his preference for conservative outcomes. That number is called his ideal point: a number that
shows where, on a political scale, a Justice would like policy to be made.9

Ideal points have been devised by various researchers using different methods.10   Most of the methods involve looking directly at evidence
thought to reveal a Justice’s preferences, as by examining votes in various kinds of cases. A novelty of Martin and Quinn’s approach is that it tries to
generate ideological ideal points—a measure of where a Justice falls on the ideological spectrum—without ever looking at ideology at all. This is a
strength of their method because it avoids certain kinds of circularity that can arise from other methods;11 it also may be a liability for reasons discussed later.12 For now just observe that the authors’ interpretation of the formula’s results—their reading of it as an array of policy preferences—is
not a product of the formula. It is an assumption by the people who made the formula. By itself the formula does not prove the assumption is true, or
suggest that it is true, or comment on its truth. The formula just produces numbers—numbers that produce somewhat accurate pictures of how the
Justices arrange themselves when they vote. True, the formula’s accuracy shows that each Justice predictably votes with certain colleagues and not
others; but everyone already knows that, and there are various ways to explain it besides the “attitudinal” way—the assumption that it’s all politics.
For all the model shows, the Justices could have similar politics but different views about interpretation or other such differences. It also is true that
the array of Justices produced by the model resembles—not always precisely, but noticeably—the array you would get if you tried to arrange the
Justices according to conventional impressions of their politics or other measures of their ideal points.13   But that doesn’t necessarily mean that the
model is measuring the politics of the Justices or that it isn’t measuring other things. The positions of the Justices on the spectrum the authors present—and the poles at either end of that spectrum—could reflect combinations of policy preferences, interpretive approaches, judicial philosophies,
and perhaps other qualities. My own view, expressed elsewhere and likewise based partly on statistical analysis,14 is that ideology does play a major
role in the decisions of cases; but for now I just want to clarify what the formulas used by the authors can and can’t establish. The attitudinal view is something the authors assume when they use their model, not something they prove with it.

The paper goes on to discuss the shortcomings with this method of analysis in more detail (largely in the context of analyzing whether justices "shift" while on the Court). The general point is that there is no quantitative method of analysis that accounts for the non-quantitative aspects of the Court (what cases it chooses to hear, what cases it chooses not to hear, how political an issue before the court is, how neatly public positioning around a political issue before the court is divided along partisan lines, whether justices may generally agree on what an outcome should be but disagree as to why, etc.). Sack knows this. When he pretends otherwise, he's lying.

[royiv 9339]

2 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

The Dem appointed judges are more partisan than the GOP appointed judges.  

https://www.axios.com/2019/06/01/supreme-court-justices-ideology

Do you think 67% of the country leans conservative? The popular vote in the presidential elections over the last 30+ years would indicate otherwise. 

[tx 3 putt 77336]

Thomas despises 99% of this country and wants to burn it down 

[jimmyjazz 46095]

Only Sack could see a graphic with a 6-3 majority and argue that it's really the Dem appointed justices who are the issue.  Never mind that the placements are all kinds of wrong.  (In reality, the vertical axis is way too far to the right, making the 4 Horse's Asses of the Apocalypse seem nearly "centrist".)

[WhatTheBuck 28797]

I’m surprised anyone still pays attention to what Johnny Sack says. He chose his name based on an idiot mobster from a fictional tv show and emulates him pretty well. Who has the time? You know what he’s going to say. He’s totally predictable. And you’ll never get through to him. He’ll never change. He’s a robot. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33887]

22 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I’m surprised anyone still pays attention to what Johnny Sack says. He chose his name based on an idiot mobster from a fictional tv show and emulates him pretty well. Who has the time? You know what he’s going to say. He’s totally predictable. And you’ll never get through to him. He’ll never change. He’s a robot. 

I thought robots were useful

[WhatTheBuck 28797]

32 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I thought robots were useful

Not if they steal your job. And only when governed by Asimov’s three laws of robotics. (It’s actually four but the 0th law doesn’t get brought up until later and that’s a whole other dimension.)

But Sack isn’t governed by any of them. Maybe “zombie” would be a better term than “robot.” Whichever it is, picture him with his arms stretched out in front of him saying, “Yes master, I hear and I obey.” He’s a conduit, not a thinker. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I’m surprised anyone still pays attention to what Johnny Sack says. He chose his name based on an idiot mobster from a fictional tv show and emulates him pretty well. Who has the time? You know what he’s going to say. He’s totally predictable. And you’ll never get through to him. He’ll never change. He’s a robot. 

As opposed to all the well-reasoned and rational opinions Cloak Room posters are famous for.

[aggie08 21525]

Where does one go for all of these utterly useless graphics?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

3 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

Where does one go for all of these utterly useless graphics?

Axios, a noted rightwing website.

[aggie08 21525]

6 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Axios, a noted rightwing website.

Right, I get that. But that's not where you found it. You were directed there. By whom, I wonder.

Edited May 18, 2022 by aggie08