The Supremes

[Johnny Sack 8397]

7 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

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

Google.  What does it matter?

[aggie08 21554]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Google.  What does it matter?

You were just randomly googling, "current supreme court political biases 2022" huh? Do you ever not lie?

[Satchel 6949]

12 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Axios, a noted rightwing website.

Johnny, I need somebody to help me fight replacement theory in our schools. You in?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

13 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

You were just randomly googling, "current supreme court political biases 2022" huh? Do you ever not lie?

WTF?  Are you regarded?  People on this thread were talking how partisan the conservative members of the court are.  I had seen an article a couple years ago on the subject.  And looked it up.  Why is that so hard for your pea brain to understand?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

14 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Johnny, I need somebody to help me fight replacement theory in our schools. You in?

These guys can help.  I do not believe in replacement theory.  Because progressive white leftists are a lot farther left than Hispanics (and black males).  So they are pushing them out of the Democrat party.  See the Rio Grande Valley.

Harvard Institute of Politics: “Old, white, straight, male voters ain't what they used to be .. It is hard to imagine future scenarios were the Republican Party can win national elections”

Politico: “The immigration proposal pending in Congress would transform the nation’s political landscape for a generation or more — pumping as many as 11 million new Hispanic voters into the electorate a decade from now in ways that, if current trends hold, would produce an electoral bonanza for Democrats and cripple Republican prospects in many states they now win easily.”

Center for American Progress: “Supporting real immigration reform that contains a pathway to citizenship for our nation's 11 million undocumented immigrants is the only way to maintain electoral strength in the future.”

The New York Times: Right now America is tearing itself apart as an embittered white conservative minority clings to power, terrified at being swamped by a new multiracial polyglot majority.

Jennifer Rubin: “a more diverse, more inclusive society. this is fabulous news. now we need to prevent minority White rule”

Edited May 18, 2022 by Johnny Sack

[wildcat09 29420]

 

A 5th Circuit panel just declared the SEC unconstitutional.

[aggie08 21554]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

WTF?  Are you regarded?  People on this thread were talking how partisan the conservative members of the court are.  I had seen an article a couple years ago on the subject.  And looked it up.  Why is that so hard for your pea brain to understand?

So you found that article from Google and randomly remembered it a couple of years later? It's not from some right wing shit site who compiles all of the "We're right, here look" half-truths that you've been known to frequent? That's your final answer?

[Satchel 6949]

8 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

These guys can help.  I do not believe in replacement theory.  Because progressive white leftists are a lot farther left than Hispanics (and black males).  So they are pushing them out of the Democrat party.  See the Rio Grande Valley.

Harvard Institute of Politics: “Old, white, straight, male voters ain't what they used to be .. It is hard to imagine future scenarios were the Republican Party can win national elections”

Politico: “The immigration proposal pending in Congress would transform the nation’s political landscape for a generation or more — pumping as many as 11 million new Hispanic voters into the electorate a decade from now in ways that, if current trends hold, would produce an electoral bonanza for Democrats and cripple Republican prospects in many states they now win easily.”

Center for American Progress: “Supporting real immigration reform that contains a pathway to citizenship for our nation's 11 million undocumented immigrants is the only way to maintain electoral strength in the future.”

The New York Times: Right now America is tearing itself apart as an embittered white conservative minority clings to power, terrified at being swamped by a new multiracial polyglot majority.

Jennifer Rubin: “a more diverse, more inclusive society. this is fabulous news. now we need to prevent minority White rule”

But replacement theory is the new booger man being peddled by right wingers in order to win back white suburban moms. We’ve got to pretend it’s being taught in schools in order to get the non dominants are lathered up. You know, kinda like the wingers have done with CRT.

[Foosters 17889]

Blows my mind that you all continue to tag Sack with requests that he come address your question. Then he lies and you get upset?

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

16 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

So you found that article from Google and randomly remembered it a couple of years later? It's not from some right wing shit site who compiles all of the "We're right, here look" half-truths that you've been known to frequent? That's your final answer?

yes you dumb bastard.  I know how to Google things.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

10 minutes ago, Satchel said:

But replacement theory is the new booger man being peddled by right wingers in order to win back white suburban moms. We’ve got to pretend it’s being taught in schools in order to get the non dominants are lathered up. You know, kinda like the wingers have done with CRT.

I think Democrats have gleefully paraded replacement theory around for decades now.

They are wrong of course.  But they sure were claiming it.

[Foosters 17889]

10 minutes ago, Satchel said:

But replacement theory is the new booger man being peddled by right wingers in order to win back white suburban moms. We’ve got to pretend it’s being taught in schools in order to get the non dominants are lathered up. You know, kinda like the wingers have done with CRT.

Nvmnd

Edited May 18, 2022 by Foosters

[wildcat09 29420]

2 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Blows my mind that you all continue to tag Sack with requests that he come address your question. Then he lies and you get upset?

 

Seriously, y'all knock that shit off.

Meanwhile,

 

Judge Elrod is just out here quoting...Judge Elrod... on why all of admin law is unconstitutional.

[aggie08 21554]

2 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Blows my mind that you all continue to tag Sack with requests that he come address your question. Then he lies and you get upset?

 

Hey man, don't judge me for watching a train wreck in real time. This shit is hilarious.

[Satchel 6949]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I think Democrats have gleefully paraded replacement theory around for decades now.

They are wrong of course.  But they sure were claiming it.

Got a link you can share?

[Longhorn_Fan68 33900]

25 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Got a link you can share?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

30 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Got a link you can share?

Several in post 4555

[workswithseed 2119]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

I think Democrats have gleefully paraded replacement theory around for decades now.

They are wrong of course.  But they sure were claiming it.

 

Just look in our own forums. 

[Foosters 17889]

Voting out the opposing political party is not analogous with replacement theory. hth

[workswithseed 2119]

2 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Voting out the opposing political party is not analogous with replacement theory. hth

Demographics is destiny is. It's pretty sickening, and wrong.

[Foosters 17889]

Just now, workswithseed said:

Demographics is destiny is. It's pretty sickening, and wrong.

in English?

[aggie08 21554]

Chicken little white cowards and brain dead morons...there it is, folks, the bread and butter of the modern Republican party.

[wildcat09 29420]

14 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

 

Just look in our own forums. 

I’m convinced you have a reading disability.

[Biff Tannen 45750]

1 hour ago, workswithseed said:

Demographics is destiny is. It's pretty sickening, and wrong.

 

1 hour ago, Foosters said:

in English?

[workswithseed 2119]

1 hour ago, Foosters said:

in English?

White people vote one way, and people of color vote the other. It's racist as though there is a race group think. As Johnny said, that the 2020 voting polls show a different dynamic to that. It's a racist phrase that gets thrown out, and never gets called out.

[safe sex 11792]

Oh my God you are too stupid for words, and I mean that in a couple of different ways

[Foosters 17889]

5 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

White people vote one way, and people of color vote the other. It's racist as though there is a race group think. As Johnny said, that the 2020 voting polls show a different dynamic to that. It's a racist phrase that gets thrown out, and never gets called out.

44% of white voters pulled the lever for Biden in 2020

[jimmyjazz 46225]

1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

White people vote one way, and people of color vote the other.

Really?  These data show you're wrong, as usual.  The majority of Democratic voters are white.  Try again.

[David Dennison 18951]

Here's what has all the replacement theory wypipo hot and bothered.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

14 hours ago, Foosters said:

44% of white voters pulled the lever for Biden in 2020

I think you guys are agreeing.  He is saying replacement theory is not accurate and the 2020 election is proof.

But Democrats have for at least a couple decades have gleefully predicted a future domination of the electorate due to demographics.  Luckily for the GOP hardly anyone can stand the progressive white libs who are largely batshit crazy -- especially Hispanics/LatinX and a growing number of black males.

[wildcat09 29420]

 

Barrett and Kav just greenlit the execution of a man who is likely innocent.

[Brisketexan 105433]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

 

Barrett and Kav just greenlit the execution of a man who is likely innocent.

But....but.....PRO-LIFE!

As someone who depends on the courts behaving rationally for a living, I can tell you that I am far from alone in my discouragement.  If a case of mine touches even SLIGHTLY on a political issue, I have to advise my clients that the outcome of our case is very unpredictable; while the established law may be X, and may have been X for decades, or because the established law is X, a reasonable extension of that reasoning will result in X 2.0, I now have to tell them "but, if the 5th Circuit or SCOTUS decide to go MAGA on this issue, who the fuck knows what will happen."

Funny enough, I was raised by some conservative profs and mentors who railed about judicial activisim, but it never impacted my practice.  Until the past few years.  Irony is dead.

[Texas St. Armadillos 1381]

On 5/18/2022 at 6:50 PM, David Dennison said:

Here's what has all the replacement theory wypipo hot and bothered.

Can you show this all the way back to 1600 and include Native Americans?

[elfenix 34338]

46 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

 

Barrett and Kav just greenlit the execution of a man who is likely innocent.

i'm sure the local bishop will be publicly releasing letters banning kavs, barrett, alito, thomas, and roberts from communion any moment now

[Bama Chick 28596]

Yup

This court is ass, my dudes.

[jimmyjazz 46225]

You would think that the pro-life crowd would be hyper-sensitive to the concept of executing an innocent person.

LMAO, I kill myself.  Try the veal.

[Neonmoon 38130]

[Mdhorn 5990]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/05/ginni-and-clarence-thomas-steal-2024-election-coup.html?via=rss_socialflow_facebook&fbclid=IwAR0eC88j4axgjABk9YDw1q5m4pDeTT9SxQY1c9cUUEwNZu8w--susTfppjw

The New York Times reported this weekend on the proliferation of Bolick’s fellow travelers: election-deniers seeking or holding office in states that will decide the winner of the 2024 presidential race. According to their tally, at least 357 sitting Republican legislators in swing states “have used the power of their office to discredit or try to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.” That number amounts to “44 percent of the Republican legislators in the nine states where the presidential race was most narrowly decided.” Moreover, election deniers around the country are running for secretary of state and attorney general—vying to be swing states’ top election officer and top cop, respectively. If successful, they can use this power to aggressively investigate bogus claims of voter fraud, attempt to nullify Democratic ballots, refuse to certify the true results, and even try to approve an “alternative” slate of electors for the loser. This is what Ginni Thomas was pushing two years ago, and what her husband has already deemed constitutionally permissible.

Will any of this work? The Thomases clearly think it will. At the same time Ginni was lobbying state legislators to overturn the results, Clarence was developing and promoting a constitutional theory that would lend legitimacy to just such a brazen coup. The justice has become an avid fan of the “independent state legislature doctrine,” a verifiably false, pseudo-originalist theory that allows state legislatures to ignore the real results and rig elections for Republicans. Thomas repeatedly deployedthis theory during the 2020 race in an effort to void mail ballots in battleground states (which disproportionately favored Democrats). He later peddled a somewhat sanitized version of the Big Lie, falsely asserting that mail ballots—specifically, those used to elect Joe Biden in 2020—are highly susceptible to voter fraud. Ever since, he hascontinued to champion the theory whenever lower courts’ election law rulings happen to help Democrats. As our colleague Richard Hasen has pointed out, it looks increasingly likely that the Supreme Court will decide this issue by 2024.

The symmetry between Ginni and Clarence Thomas’ work has never been more obvious. While Clarence fought to give state legislatures the constitutional authority to reject election results, Ginni lobbied state legislators to do exactly that. A casual observer might assume they were working in tandem, with Clarence handling the law and Ginni working on the political side. They aren’t particularly subtle about it. You need only read Ginni’s emails and Clarence’s opinions to see exactly how the 2024 coup attempt will go down because it’s identical to the 2020 coup attempt: If a Democrat prevails, red state officials will question the legitimacy of the results, giving state legislatures an opportunity to throw them out and declare the Republican to be the real winner. This has nothing to do with liberals squelching Ginni Thomas’ feminist drive to have a separate and distinct political life apart from that of her spouse. More power to her. This has everything to do with two public actors working together to ensure that red state legislatures decide future elections in lieu of the voters.

 

There's more, but this was enough to make me sick.  I mean, just in case gerrymandering and the electoral college fail, the SCOTUS can sweep in and decide over voters.  Just fuckity fuck fuck, this isn't Democracy folks.  And probably somewhere far less than 74 million Americans along with their foreign donors, will cheer their candidate over Democracy.   And many will cheer in the hopes they profited off the demise of the Republic.        

[HenryJames 66188]

When the constitution was written, there was no such thing as bad lawyers.

 Am I doing this right?

[Da Fino 2785]

I think you guys are agreeing.  He is saying replacement theory is not accurate and the 2020 election is proof.
But Democrats have for at least a couple decades have gleefully predicted a future domination of the electorate due to demographics.  Luckily for the GOP hardly anyone can stand the progressive white libs who are largely batshit crazy -- especially Hispanics/LatinX and a growing number of black males.

Whoa.

[jimmyjazz 46225]

20 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

When the constitution was written, there was no such thing as bad lawyers.

 Am I doing this right?

1591:

Quote

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"

Henry VI, part 2

-- Bill S

[BrickHorn 18289]

51 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

When the constitution was written, there was no such thing as bad lawyers.

 Am I doing this right?

Not quite. “When the Constitution was written, the Sixth Amendment did not apply to the state courts. Except that it says that it does, and that there was no federal criminal law at the time the Constitution was ratified. But textual originalism or federalism or whatever we call that thing we invoke to justify whatever result we want requires that we read the Constitution in the vilest way possible. Because we’re heartless, unprincipled assholes.”

[Chad Fuck 17809]

But....but.....PRO-LIFE!
As someone who depends on the courts behaving rationally for a living, I can tell you that I am far from alone in my discouragement.  If a case of mine touches even SLIGHTLY on a political issue, I have to advise my clients that the outcome of our case is very unpredictable; while the established law may be X, and may have been X for decades, or because the established law is X, a reasonable extension of that reasoning will result in X 2.0, I now have to tell them "but, if the 5th Circuit or SCOTUS decide to go MAGA on this issue, who the fuck knows what will happen."
Funny enough, I was raised by some conservative profs and mentors who railed about judicial activisim, but it never impacted my practice.  Until the past few years.  Irony is dead.

Turns out all those guys wanted was a little judicial activism of their own.

[Pancho 45061]

Torbush.

 

[South Austin 52629]

Shit, they overturned Roe v. Wade and drew a roadmap for doing away with Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.  Why not get rid of ineffective assistance of counsel?

[kevwun 15928]

What we really need is a Star Chamber.

[WBT 20672]

They didn't get rid of ineffective assistance of counsel.  They said it's up to the states to decide on it.

[South Austin 52629]

2 minutes ago, WBT said:

They didn't get rid of ineffective assistance of counsel abortion.  They said it's up to the states to decide on it.

Right.

[Chad Fuck 17809]

26 minutes ago, WBT said:

They didn't get rid of ineffective assistance of counsel.  They said it's up to the states to decide on it. ok for the States to kill their own people with no evidence if that's what they decide to do, since we can always trust them to police themselves. 

Fuck right the fuck off man.  

 

[Neonmoon 38130]

29 minutes ago, South Austin said:

Right.

The next stop on the “state’s rights” roadmap is maybe we shouldn’t even be United