The Supremes

[Guest]

17 hours ago, Paul Wesley said:

I’m completely serious when I say this…  I honestly would have guessed that these guys would be able to offer up MUCH more reasoned and persuasive public arguments for themselves.   
 

In other words:  Samuel Alito is terrible at this job.  

Yeah, I read his piece in the WSJ. If I were his PR man, I would have said not to write it. The entire argument of "I didn't really receive a benefit because that seat would have been empty otherwise" is just dumbfounding.

Imagine a husband telling his wife that it's not cheating because he wasn't looking for any action, but the other lady offered a sexual favor for free.

[jimmyjazz 45952]

I read an article today explaining that, while members of the judicial branch are not allowed to accept most gifts, there is no Ethics panel with censure power, particularly at the Federal level.  This is not true for the executive and legislative branches.

Hence, impeachment remains the only way to remove a SCOTUS justice.  Isn't that nice?

[elfenix 34240]

16 minutes ago, Js1 said:

No ISL or student loan forgiveness until tomorrow 

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

33 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I don't really see how we come back from this.  They aren't going to be impeached.  Nothing is going to change.  The only solution I can see is to expand the court and that won't happen either.

We need to Pelican Brief a few of them

[Js1 85336]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

I read an article today explaining that, while members of the judicial branch are not allowed to accept most gifts, there is no Ethics panel with censure power, particularly at the Federal level.  This is not true for the executive and legislative branches.

Hence, impeachment remains the only way to remove a SCOTUS justice.  Isn't that nice?

Hence why we need a Dem trifecta to get an ethics reform package through. We have an entire human history to prove that letting an institution police itself leads to nada 

1 minute ago, elfenix said:

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I read an article today explaining that, while members of the judicial branch are not allowed to accept most gifts, there is no Ethics panel with censure power, particularly at the Federal level.  This is not true for the executive and legislative branches.

Hence, impeachment remains the only way to remove a SCOTUS justice.  Isn't that nice?

That technically not the only way 

[royiv 9317]

13 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Yeah, I read his piece in the WSJ. If I were his PR man, I would have said not to write it. The entire argument of "I didn't really receive a benefit because that seat would have been empty otherwise" is just dumbfounding.

Imagine a husband telling his wife that it's not cheating because he wasn't looking for any action, but the other lady offered a sexual favor for free.

That vagina would have been empty otherwise.

[jimmyjazz 45952]

6 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

That technically not the only way 

The only way that doesn't involve a felony?

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

The only way that doesn't involve a felony?

 

 

[Js1 85336]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The only way that doesn't involve a felony?

[Ghost of LL 15531]

11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The only way that doesn't involve a felony?

Well, ok.  But a couple years ago, I started using the term "the Tyranny of the Judiciary" for a reason.  The Supreme Court is acting exactly as a tyrant would.  It is accountable to nobody.  It has no electoral or popular legitimacy.  It operates primarily for its own benefit and enrichment.

The irony is that tyrants are usually smart enough to restrict the people's access to weapons.  But the judicial tyrant is being paid by people who really think guns are nifty.  So that's interesting.

And in this society that is heavily armed exactly because of the decisions of the judicial tyrant, one shouldn't be surprised if the judicial tyrant gets what thus always comes to tyrants.  

[tx 3 putt 76957]

Fuck me , these guys are running a huge scam …

 

[C-Man 27227]

WSJ's editorial board shilling for Alito: https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-samuel-alito-propublica-fishing-trip-alaska-paul-singer-supreme-court-5f4bd925

Quote

The political assault on the Supreme Court continues, and the latest Justice in the grinder is Samuel Alito. ProPublica reports that the Justice went on a fishing trip to Alaska with a billionaire in 2008 and didn’t report it on his annual Court disclosure form. As usual, this is a non-scandal built on partisan spin intended to harm the Justice and the current Court majority.

The ProPublica story is a typically slanted piece alleging that Justice Alito broke ethics and recusal rules after the trip with businessmen Robin Arkley and Paul Singer. He flew on Mr. Singer’s private jet for part of the trip. The story also recounts a fishing trip that the late Justice Antonin Scalia took with Mr. Arkley in 2005. But Justice Alito is still on the Court so he is the big fish that ProPublica is attempting to catch and fillet.

***

Regarding ethics, the story flatly asserts that Justice Alito violated disclosure rules, but he did not. At the time of the trip, the Justices were authoritatively advised that such “personal hospitality” wasn’t reportable. Ray Randolph, a federal appellate judge who was on both trips, says he asked the judiciary’s disclosure office whether to report the trip on his 2005 form. Backed by his notes taken at the time, Judge Randolph said he was told he did not have to disclose.

OPINION: POTOMAC WATCH

Can Data Change the Debate on Charter Schools?

24:44

1x

SUBSCRIBE

Explore Audio Center

This spring the Judicial Conference changed its rules to note that judges should disclose trips taken on private jets. The regulations specified that “transportation that substitutes for commercial transportation”—i.e., private planes—is now an exception to the disclosure exemption for personal hospitality. But Justice Alito violated no rules in 2008.

NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP

Morning Editorial Report

All the day's Opinion headlines.

PreviewSubscribe

As it happens, the fishing trip isn’t even a ProPublica scoop. Justice Alito was so intent on concealing the trip that he told a large audience of lawyers and journalists about it at a Federalist Society dinner in 2009. Mr. Singer had introduced the Justice, and here’s how David Lat reported it on the Above the Law website on Nov. 18, 2009:

“Like a good dinner speaker, Justice Alito warmed up the crowd with a story. He talked about going on a fishing trip deep into the wilderness with Paul Singer (maybe to the wilds of Alaska, but the details escape us). One morning they woke up to find their camp surrounded by bears. Justice Alito said he asked himself: ‘Do you really want to go down in history as the first Supreme Court justice to be devoured by a bear?’”

The more serious allegation is that Justice Alito should have recused himself from cases involving Mr. Singer’s various companies. ProPublica cites seven certiorari petitions to hear a case that the Court rejected. The case the Court accepted, regarding a dispute over Argentine debt, was decided 7-1 six years after the fishing trip. The Justice’s recusal would have made no difference to the outcome.

Justice Alito says he didn’t know of Mr. Singer’s involvement in any of these cases at the time, and Mr. Singer says he never spoke to the Justice about them. ProPublica reports no evidence that Mr. Singer’s name even appeared in any of the Court documents prepared for either the certiorari petitions or the Argentine debt case.

ProPublica’s focus on recusal is the latest angle in the progressive campaign to cripple the Court’s new majority. By imposing even tenuous associations as grounds for recusal, litigants can exclude certain Justices from hearing a case. With a Court of only nine Justices, this could determine the outcome. Call it Court-thinning rather than Court-packing, but the effect would be similar.

Should Justice Elena Kagan have recused herself from the pending Harvard admissions case because she is a former Harvard law dean? Or Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson from cases about executive power because she must be grateful that President Biden appointed her? They shouldn’t recuse in our view, but those “appearances” of a conflict are more substantial than recusing over a plane ride from someone Justice Alito had no obvious reason to believe was associated with a case.

On the left’s logic regarding Justice Alito, there is no limiting principle for recusal. The grounds are whatever some group claims they are. The result would be that Justices and their clerks would have to hunt far and wide for even minor associations that may involve a distant stake in a case. This is the way to ruin the Court by further entangling it in politics.

***

We should add a word about our own role here. The press is in a lather because we ran Justice Alito’s response to ProPublica’s questions as an op-ed on Tuesday evening before the ProPublica article appeared. One classic headline from Wednesday in Politico: “Alito picks a fight with ProPublica.” The Justice defends himself against a phony ethics assault from the press, and he’s the one picking the fight?

Justice Alito clearly wanted his defense to receive public disclosure in full, not edited piecemeal. We saw ProPublica’s list of 18 questions and had a good idea of where the reporters were going. The story proved us right.

It is also hilarious to be denounced for betraying the media brotherhood for the offense of scooping the competition. This is the same crowd that would prefer if we didn’t exist. Their pearl-clutching reveals the degree of media conformity when it comes to approved progressive political targets like Justice Alito.

That’s the larger story to keep in mind as the campaign against the Court accelerates. This isn’t about ethics. This is about the left’s fury at having lost control of the Court, which they had counted on for decades as a second legislature to impose their priorities when they couldn’t persuade Congress. They can’t accept that loss, and they will destroy the Court if they must to get that control back.

We are defending the Court because someone has to. Someone has to stand up for judicial independence and an institution that is part of the bedrock of our constitutional order.

 

[DigglerontheHoof 21199]

Just one more reason to hate Notre Dame.  Just a big church school run by pedophiles. 

[tx 3 putt 76957]

Thomas Alito: Private jets to luxury fishing vacations with a Republican billionaire who then had REPEATED business before the Supreme Court: $100,000

Neil Gorsuch: Real estate deal with a lawyer who had business before the Supreme Court: $1.8 million

Clarence Thomas: Luxury vacations, tuition paid for grand nephew, mother’s home bought and renovated: hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts from GOP billionaire with business before the court.

Brett Kavanaugh: $260,000 of debt paid off by “mystery” donor

Owning 4 of the 9 Justices on the Supreme Court: priceless

[wildcat09 29354]

19 hours ago, Paul Wesley said:

I’m completely serious when I say this…  I honestly would have guessed that these guys would be able to offer up MUCH more reasoned and persuasive public arguments for themselves.   
 

In other words:  Samuel Alito is terrible at this job.  

They've been marinating in a far-right information bubble for decades. That shit turns even the smartest conservative brains to mush, and Alito was never that smart.

[Js1 85336]

SCOTUS traditionally enjoys much higher approval ratings than Congress and POTUS due to being the more "neutral" (I.e., not elected) branch of government

Currently at 30% approval and 59% disapproval

6/10 Americans are tired of this bullshit.  Good job, Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, ACB and the ring leader, John Roberts. 

 

Edited June 22, 2023 by Js1

[tx ind 7013]

1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

Thomas Alito: Private jets to luxury fishing vacations with a Republican billionaire who then had REPEATED business before the Supreme Court: $100,000

Neil Gorsuch: Real estate deal with a lawyer who had business before the Supreme Court: $1.8 million

Clarence Thomas: Luxury vacations, tuition paid for grand nephew, mother’s home bought and renovated: hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts from GOP billionaire with business before the court.

Brett Kavanaugh: $260,000 of debt paid off by “mystery” donor

Owning 4 of the 9 Justices on the Supreme Court: priceless

Also, wasn't Scalia on a hunting or golfing trip staying at some rich person's place when he died?

[tx 3 putt 76957]

Just now, tx ind said:

Also, wasn't Scalia on a hunting or golfing trip staying at some rich person's place when he died?

those golf courses would have gone unused !!!!

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

6 minutes ago, tx ind said:

Also, wasn't Scalia on a hunting or golfing trip staying at some rich person's place when he died?

Yep.

 

U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, 79, was found dead of apparent natural causes Saturday morning at the Cibolo Creek Ranch resort near Marfa, a Presidio County official confirmed.

 

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/02/13/us-supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-found-dead/

 

 

Quote

All of which raises the question: Who pays for a Supreme Court justice to make this kind of trip?

 

Not Scalia, it turns out. Poindexter told The Washington Post that Scalia was not charged for his stay, something he described as a policy for all guests at the ranch.

 

“I did not pay for the Justice’s trip to Cibolo Creek Ranch,” Poindexter wrote in a brief email Tuesday. “He was an invited guest, along with a friend, just like 35 others.”

 

Poindexter added: “The Justice was treated no differently by me, as no one was charged for activities, room and board, beverages, etc. That is a 22-year policy.’’

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/02/17/justice-scalias-death-and-questions-about-who-pays-for-supreme-court-justices-to-visit-remote-resorts/

 

Edited June 22, 2023 by Grade of D as in David

[Bama Chick 28596]

Where the fuck is our Maximilien Robespierre?

Fucking hell, he’s probably watching Joe Rogan on YouTube and paying Elon $8 for a blue check.

THIS COUNTRY IS ASS, MY DUDES

[Brisketexan 105139]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

SCOTUS traditionally enjoys much higher approval ratings than Congress and POTUS due to being the more "neutral" (I.e., not elected) branch of government

Currently at 30% approval and 59% disapproval

6/10 Americans are tired of this bullshit.  Good job, Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, ACB and the ring leader, John Roberts. 

 

Just a few months back, Alito whined and cried about people attacking and questioning the legitimacy of the SCOTUS.

Well, Sam, I've got some news for you.  Thanks to the absolutely naked corruption of you and your pals (Thomas and Kavanaugh in particular), the legitimacy of the SCOTUS is no longer being questioned.  

Rather, it's illegitimacy is now unquestionable.  This is the worst, most corrupt SCOTUS in American history.  And I say that not just as a citizen, but as someone who still has to represent and advise clients based on what the court does, or will do.  That is, attorneys advise their clients in large part based on their predictions of what the court will do.  For the bulk of my career, that required study of past SCOTUS decisions, their reasoning, and the like, and extrapolating that reasoning forward (sure, with some leans and pivots based on makeup, but fundamentally between the guardrails).  Today?  The prediction of what will happen next begins with the question of "what would a bought-and-paid-for court, much like you'd find in some shitty banana republic, do?"

This court has completely lost its legitimacy.  And I see no near-term path to getting it back.  It's only going to get worse and more unhinged, because now that Alito and crew realize that nobody likes or trusts them, they're going on a massive "well, fuck YOU!" tour on the way out.

[Horn Dog 9855]

25 minutes ago, tx ind said:

Also, wasn't Scalia on a hunting or golfing trip staying at some rich person's place when he died?

I mean if it resulted in more of their deaths then these trips would enjoy significantly more public support. 

[Js1 85336]

Another week for the big cases left 

[bolverk 29672]

 

[elfenix 34240]

Standing might still be a thing. Wonder if that will hold sway in the student loan cases as well?

[Js1 85336]

7 minutes ago, elfenix said:

Standing might still be a thing. Wonder if that will hold sway in the student loan cases as well?
 

I had mentioned that seemed to be ACB's bug during proceedings - that these states didn't have standing and the loan company didn't even appear.  I could see Roberts + Kav joining her in upholding the forgiveness based on that alone. 

[Bullneck 19090]

On 6/22/2023 at 12:41 AM, tx 3 putt said:

 

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Found Dead in West Texas

U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, 79, was found dead of apparent natural causes Saturday morning at the Cibolo Creek Ranch resort near Marfa, a Presidio County official confirmed.

BY TERRI LANGFORD AND JORDAN RUDNER FEB. 13, 20164 PM CENTRAL

[tx 3 putt 76957]

did the three conservative justices lay out a better game plan for this lawsuit in their separate dissent ?

[SimonBolivar 10958]

I don't think the country realizes what restarting student loans is going to do to the economy. The 20k discount would certainly help, but my generation is notoriously bad at living within our means and as a loan officer we've seen many many lenders completely ignoring student loans in debt to income calculations on personal and auto loans since 2020. It's gonna be a massive shitshow.

['stache 21815]

14 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

I don't think the country realizes what restarting student loans is going to do to the economy. The 20k discount would certainly help, but my generation is notoriously bad at living within our means and as a loan officer we've seen many many lenders completely ignoring student loans in debt to income calculations on personal and auto loans since 2020. It's gonna be a massive shitshow.

It's not easy when housing, healthcare, and tuition are 5 times what they were for the Boomers, and wages have been stagnated for decades. They built themselves a nice little nest egg where a high school graduate could afford a 3 bedroom home, annual vacations, and college for their kids on a single income. The world changed, not the people. That's why "Thanks Boomer" is a thing. They created advantages for themselves, then said fuck everyone else, they're just lazy. 

[SimonBolivar 10958]

2 minutes ago, 'stache said:

It's not easy when housing, healthcare, and tuition are 5 times what they were for the Boomers, and wages have been stagnated for decades. They built themselves a nice little nest egg where a high school graduate could afford a 3 bedroom home, annual vacations, and college for their kids on a single income. The world changed, not the people. That's why "Thanks Boomer" is a thing. They created advantages for themselves, then said fuck everyone else, they're just lazy. 

Correct, it's stacked against us and we aren't good at delaying gratification (purchases) either which is a really bad combo to try to add $200-$400/month expense (guessing the avg) to our bills. I've had 1 repo in the last two years. I think that's going to change really quickly come early 2024.

[Js1 85336]

The 2 cases with standing issues and ACB's arguments in the SLF case makes me think there's no way it's 5-4 shooting down the forgiveness.  The 3 liberals + ACB will give cover to Roberts and Kav to make it 6-3 and uphold it, maybe 7-2 if Gorsuch jumps on too.  I just don't think you bother to assume Alito and Thomas won't be huge assholes. 

Meanwhile:

 

[WhatTheBuck 28781]

On 6/22/2023 at 10:27 AM, FirstTimeCaller said:

Yeah, I read his piece in the WSJ. If I were his PR man, I would have said not to write it. The entire argument of "I didn't really receive a benefit because that seat would have been empty otherwise" is just dumbfounding.

Hunter Biden can now use the same excuse for getting a ride to China on Air Force 2.

[elfenix 34240]

3 hours ago, Js1 said:

The 2 cases with standing issues and ACB's arguments in the SLF case makes me think there's no way it's 5-4 shooting down the forgiveness.  The 3 liberals + ACB will give cover to Roberts and Kav to make it 6-3 and uphold it, maybe 7-2 if Gorsuch jumps on too.  I just don't think you bother to assume Alito and Thomas won't be huge assholes. 

Meanwhile:

 

the indian adoption case also featured standing. 

counterpoint:

[tx 3 putt 76957]

5 hours ago, Js1 said:

The 2 cases with standing issues and ACB's arguments in the SLF case makes me think there's no way it's 5-4 shooting down the forgiveness.  The 3 liberals + ACB will give cover to Roberts and Kav to make it 6-3 and uphold it, maybe 7-2 if Gorsuch jumps on too.  I just don't think you bother to assume Alito and Thomas won't be huge assholes. 

Meanwhile:

 

what does this mean about Moore ?

[Js1 85336]

54 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

what does this mean about Moore ?

It’s going to get shot down by a non-controversial margin. Idk if I agree with Elias that it will be 8-1 with only Alito dissenting. Maybe 7-2

[Voldemort86 2259]

4 hours ago, Js1 said:

It’s going to get shot down by a non-controversial margin. Idk if I agree with Elias that it will be 8-1 with only Alito dissenting. Maybe 7-2

Can you remind us about the implications of Moore vs. Harper? Some people were thinking it could be shot down by the court  because North Carolina GOP is going to resolve their map dispute after they won control of the NC Supreme Court during the 2022 elections. 
 

I was told Moore vs. Harper could somehow stop democrats from fixing Wisconsin’s egregiously gerrymandered maps, which would suck after dems fought so hard to win the Supreme Court in that state.

[TwiceHorn 31470]

2 hours ago, Voldemort86 said:

Can you remind us about the implications of Moore vs. Harper? Some people were thinking it could be shot down by the court  because North Carolina GOP is going to resolve their map dispute after they won control of the NC Supreme Court during the 2022 elections. 
 

I was told Moore vs. Harper could somehow stop democrats from fixing Wisconsin’s egregiously gerrymandered maps, which would suck after dems fought so hard to win the Supreme Court in that state.

Moore v. Harper asks the Court to adopt the independent state legislature theory.

That is a position that urges that the Elections Clause, Article I, Section 4, "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof" means that state legislatures act completely independently of state constitutions, courts, and governors in enacting regulations of federal elections.

That would mean that the governor cannot veto state legislation governing federal elections, nor can that state's supreme court invalidate or overrrule, and any state constitutional provisions governing federal elections are invalid.

And that would subject the conduct of federal elections within a state to unchecked political power.

Standing is always a fertile ground for dismissing a case as the courts are increasingly used to address political issues.  Normally, legislators and legislatures lack standing to bring a lawsuit over their own legislation.  

Mootness would also seem to be an issue, as the legislation at issue, a gerrymander struck down by the NC Supreme Court, has since been upheld by a now R-majority NC Supreme Court.  Grotesquely, however, the plaintiffs have asked the NC Supreme Court to reverse itself, fearing its decision would moot this case.  Shameless shit, right there.

An observation:  it is somewhat curious that the drafters inserted "by the Legislature" instead of leaving it at "State."  However, my best guess is that they meant that the legislature of each state would take the first pass at any such laws, as opposed to governors, or commissions, or other officers, and each state's legislature would operate in accordance with that state's constitution, that is, with the legislature's work subject to judicial review, governor veto, etc.

There's not a lot of "original" history explaining either way.

HOWEVER, the states immediately began legislating, vetoing, and judicial reviewing federal election legislation without protest from anyone, and continued to do so for 200 years.  If the framers had intended a "legislature only" format, you'd think someone would have raised that before now, because this whole democracy thing was new and fairly controversial back then.

There's one bit of scary, though.  State constitutional provisions governing federal elections are not literally the product of the state's legislature, in most cases.  That might seem to be a bit of a problem.

And, John Eastman is a proponent, which should tell you all you need to know.

 

 

Edited June 24, 2023 by TwiceHorn
Shameless shit

[gmr548 16580]

Moore v. Harper asks the Court to adopt the independent state legislature theory.
That is a position that urges that the Elections Clause, Article I, Section 4, "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof" means that state legislatures act completely independently of state constitutions, courts, and governors in enacting regulations of federal elections.
That would mean that the governor cannot veto state legislation governing federal elections, nor can that state's supreme court invalidate or overrrule, and any state constitutional provisions governing federal elections are invalid.
And that would subject the conduct of federal elections within a state to unchecked political power.
Standing is always a fertile ground for dismissing a case as the courts are increasingly used to address political issues.  Normally, legislators and legislatures lack standing to bring a lawsuit over their own legislation.  
Mootness would also seem to be an issue, as the legislation at issue, a gerrymander struck down by the NC Supreme Court, has since been upheld by a now R-majority NC Supreme Court.  Grotesquely, however, the plaintiffs have asked the NC Supreme Court to reverse itself, fearing its decision would moot this case.  Shameless shit, right there.
An observation:  it is somewhat curious that the drafters inserted "by the Legislature" instead of leaving it at "State."  However, my best guess is that they meant that the legislature of each state would take the first pass at any such laws, as opposed to governors, or commissions, or other officers, and each state's legislature would operate in accordance with that state's constitution, that is, with the legislature's work subject to judicial review, governor veto, etc.
There's not a lot of "original" history explaining either way.
HOWEVER, the states immediately began legislating, vetoing, and judicial reviewing federal election legislation without protest from anyone, and continued to do so for 200 years.  If the framers had intended a "legislature only" format, you'd think someone would have raised that before now, because this whole democracy thing was new and fairly controversial back then.
There's one bit of scary, though.  State constitutional provisions governing federal elections are not literally the product of the state's legislature, in most cases.  That might seem to be a bit of a problem.
And, John Eastman is a proponent, which should tell you all you need to know.
 
 

The independent state legislature theory is so stupid I don’t really like to even discuss it. Even if you accept the fundamental premise you still have to pretend state legislatures haven’t validated provisions in state constitutions, election laws, etc. with their approval/passing or by, you know, operating under that framework for over a century.

[TwiceHorn 31470]

1 hour ago, gmr548 said:

The independent state legislature theory is so stupid I don’t really like to even discuss it. Even if you accept the fundamental premise you still have to pretend state legislatures haven’t validated provisions in state constitutions, election laws, etc. with their approval/passing or by, you know, operating under that framework for over a century.

Two centuries, actually.

It is conceivable that everyone had it wrong all that time.  

Edited June 24, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31470]

Pretty insightful article. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/06/25/mag-tsai-ziegler-movementjudges-00102758

 

[Captainant 27667]

58 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Pretty insightful article. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/06/25/mag-tsai-ziegler-movementjudges-00102758

I agree it's insightful, but it's nothing we didn't already know: conservatives have been packing the court with ideologues that don't give a shit about stare decisis and seek outcomes over good law. I guess it's more data to support the whole "our entire court system is fundamentally compromised" angle though, which is always fun. 

If judges weren't lifetime appointments, or we had actually useful mechanisms to enforce some accountability, it may not be so dire. But assuming the same trajectory that we've been on, I don't think it's gonna get any better over the next decade or two

[Nivek 16930]

On 6/22/2023 at 10:43 AM, tx 3 putt said:

Thomas Alito: Private jets to luxury fishing vacations with a Republican billionaire who then had REPEATED business before the Supreme Court: $100,000

Neil Gorsuch: Real estate deal with a lawyer who had business before the Supreme Court: $1.8 million

Clarence Thomas: Luxury vacations, tuition paid for grand nephew, mother’s home bought and renovated: hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts from GOP billionaire with business before the court.

Brett Kavanaugh: $260,000 of debt paid off by “mystery” donor

Owning 4 of the 9 Justices on the Supreme Court: priceless

You have to understand pleb, that protesting them is trying to influence a Judge who is also way smarter than you and beyond petty influence.  Free trips, cash, homes, and lucrative business deals, well that doesn't influence them, that are just a reward for their civil service or a gift between friends and committees.     You don't understand because you hate America.   Oh, we were drinking vodka?  Well, that was because we grew accustomed to it when Maria and her whore friends were....uh... nothing.  Maria who?  Hunter Biden's Laptop is in Benghazi! 

[bolverk 29672]

 

[jimmyjazz 45952]

SCOTUS must be pulling the biggest false flag move in history.

[Biff Tannen 45685]

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

 

So they are saying that this will be allowed to be appealed in advance of the 2024 election, if I'm reading that right, which I'm not sure I am.

What is forcing them to redraw the district prior to 2024?

[chainsaw 9868]

https://www.propublica.org/article/behind-scenes-alito-wall-street-journal-prebuttal-editorial

Quote

Around midday on Friday, June 16, ProPublica reporters Justin Elliott and Josh Kaplan sent an email to Patricia McCabe, the Supreme Court’s spokesperson, with questions for Justice Samuel Alito about a forthcoming story on his fishing trip to Alaska with a hedge fund billionaire.

We set a deadline of the following Tuesday at noon for a response.

Fifteen minutes later, McCabe called the reporters. It was an unusual moment in our dealings with the high court’s press office, the first time any of its public information officers had spoken directly with the ProPublica journalists in the many months we have spent looking into the justices’ ethics and conduct.

 

Quote

On Tuesday, McCabe called the reporters to tell them Alito would not respond to our requests for comment but said we should not write that he declined to comment. (In the story, we wrote that she told us he “would not be commenting.”)

She asked when the story was likely to be published. Certainly not today, the reporters replied. Perhaps as soon as Wednesday.

Six hours later, The Wall Street Journal editorial page posted an essay by Alito in which he used our questions to guess at the points in our unpublished story and rebut them in advance. 

 

[Biff Tannen 45685]

What a conniving piece of shit.

[tx 3 putt 76957]

Hmm someone replaced roberts with a cyborg

the 5th will figure out a way to deny all blacks the right to vote 

Edited June 26, 2023 by tx 3 putt