Jump to content

The Supremes

tx 3 putt

By tx 3 putt
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 12.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Brisketexan
Brisketexan

Some people and posts above see this for the incredibly dangerous thing it is.  See the whole forest, not just the tree.  Roe is built on the bedrock of the 14th amendment and the inherent right to pr

Ghost of LL
Ghost of LL

The whole episode is pretty bad for the Court.  The leak is embarrassing.  But the decision is catastrophic. You've got a 5-4 decision to get rid of a something that has been settled as a constit

sidis
sidis

in one of the many instances in which i debunked your oversimplified, unsupported bullshit and you simply never responded, i addressed your absolutist contention that religious are more charitable tha

Posted Images

locodos

locodos 5390

Posted
Posted

Was working at an off campus bookstore (sold text books and other books just across from campus)  I was unpacking some books and ran across a Mapplethorpe coffee table book.  Flipped though it and was like "ok we're selling this now" and stocked it out.

Difference between porn and art is marketing.

 

Always wonder about having a morning cup of Joe and just thinking "you know what?, I'd like to look at some dongs" /nothujone

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tchookem

tchookem 3905

Posted
Posted




Waiting for the leftwing extreme pushback. I think the party that embraces extremism pushes the other party to their direction, not in the opposite direction.

Health care, middle class, tax reform, voting reform/protections (not exclusionary tactics), infrastructure, environmental stewardship, responsibility, freedom of bodily domain and pursuit of happiness, are now left wing extremist ideas.

And the left is too afraid to push against this because the republican boogyman marketing rhetoric has crippled them.


I don't know how true this is. Personally, I've gotten closer to embracing those things than I ever would have if Mitt Romney had gotten the Republican nomination in 2016.

I also have a son that is going to vote in the next presidential election. He's never known me as the middle-of-road conservative voter. His political awareness has only been me and his mom (who never said boo about politics) taking against the GQP... talk about indoctrination.
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lurch

Lurch 5931

Posted
Posted
There's a reason why race is a question on credit applications. It's so the government can penalize Wells Fargo when the data shows they are disproportionally denying non-whites. (plus, you don't have to answer the question if you don't want to)

Same on job and rental apps
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pacman

pacman 7369

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, locodos said:

Was working at an off campus bookstore (sold text books and other books just across from campus)  I was unpacking some books and ran across a Mapplethorpe coffee table book.  Flipped though it and was like "ok we're selling this now" and stocked it out.

Difference between porn and art is marketing.

 

Always wonder about having a morning cup of Joe and just thinking "you know what?, I'd like to look at some dongs" /nothujone

spacer.png

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Pods

Pods 7586

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
1 hour ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

A pubic hair on a Coke can, is what rips the fabric of this nation apart.  
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/20/us/politics/anita-hill-testimony-clarence-thomas.html

 

I believed Anita Hill at the time and I still believe Anita Hill. 

Clarence Thomas is unfit to sit in judgement over anyone else. 

  • Hook 'Em 9
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26522

Posted
Posted
On 7/2/2023 at 10:28 PM, Grade of D as in David said:

Wait what? Is this real? 

Did aggy steal the hiss too?


 

Quote
13-0 Branding Iron
 
AG
 
 
 
 
You should see the pathetic Y-Sips jaws drop when I remind them that they didn't even start hissing until the 30's - more than 20 years after Horse Laugh was created by Jack Pershing himself for the exclusive use of FATHER A&M.

POOOOR Y-Sips!

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9939

Posted
Posted
On 7/5/2023 at 5:08 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Right that's what's rubbed me wrong about the whole thing from jump. 

 

There's plenty to bitch about in 303 without making up conspiracy theories about collateral matters. 

“Perpetrating a fraud on the court” remains an ethical violation for attorneys and grounds for dismissal with prejudice of a case in Colorado. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pescado_Rojo

Pescado_Rojo 19427

Posted
Posted

You know, I'm a firm believer in not forcing my beliefs on others, so when Thomas and/or Alito start having serious medical issues I think we should treat them with state of the art medical care...from 1791. Cancer? A few doses of mercury and leeches should perk you right up. 

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17649

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

You know, I'm a firm believer in not forcing my beliefs on others, so when Thomas and/or Alito start having serious medical issues I think we should treat them with state of the art medical care...from 1791. Cancer? A few doses of mercury and leeches should perk you right up. 

Why wait? Preventive medicine is important. An apple a day and all that. 

Edited by Dahobbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26522

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

You know, I'm a firm believer in not forcing my beliefs on others, so when Thomas and/or Alito start having serious medical issues I think we should treat them with state of the art medical care...from 1791. Cancer? A few doses of mercury and leeches should perk you right up. 

a poultice of manure for abscess

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26522

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, washparkhorn said:

“Perpetrating a fraud on the court” remains an ethical violation for attorneys and grounds for dismissal with prejudice of a case in Colorado. 

Like that ever happens. That would be like a Doctor performing an unnecessary procedure for the money.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Francisco 2.0

Francisco 2.0 32413

Posted
Posted

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/09/opinion/supreme-court-conservative-agenda.html

 

Quote

The end of a Supreme Court term always sparks a lively conversation about how to characterize what just happened, and this year was no exception. In refusing to weaken the Voting Rights Act any further, did the court show itself to be a bit less dogmatically conservative than the year before? Did the 6-to-3 rejection of a dangerous theory that would have stripped state courts of the authority to review election laws show that the justices could still build bridges across their ideological divide?

 

 

Quote

Yes, democracy survived, and that’s a good thing. But to settle on that theme is to miss the point of a term that was in many respects the capstone of the 18-year tenure of Chief Justice John Roberts. To understand today’s Supreme Court, to see it whole, demands a longer timeline. To show why, I offer a thought experiment. Suppose a modern Rip Van Winkle went to sleep in September 2005 and didn’t wake up until last week. Such a person would awaken in a profoundly different constitutional world, a world transformed, term by term and case by case, at the Supreme Court’s hand.

 

Quote

To appreciate that transformation’s full dimension, consider the robust conservative wish list that greeted the new chief justice 18 years ago: Overturn Roe v. Wade. Reinterpret the Second Amendment to make private gun ownership a constitutional right. Eliminate race-based affirmative action in university admissions. Elevate the place of religion across the legal landscape. Curb the regulatory power of federal agencies.

 

Spoiler

These goals were hardly new, but to conservatives’ bewilderment and frustration, the court under the previous chief justice, the undeniably conservative William Rehnquist, failed to accomplish a single one of them. In fact, to any conservative longing for change, the situation in 2005 must have appeared grim indeed. Not only had the Rehnquist court reaffirmed the right to abortion in the 1992 Casey decision; in 2000 it overturned a state ban on so-called partial-birth abortion, a law aimed at enlisting the court in a graphic anti-abortion narrative.

On gun rights, the court was maintaining a decades-long silence despite Justice Clarence Thomas’s public call in 1997 to revisit the Second Amendment and the George W. Bush administration’s startling advice to the court five years later that the federal government was ready, for the first time, to support the individual-right position on the ownership of firearms when an appropriate case arrived.

The Grutter decision in 2003, upholding affirmative action in admission to the University of Michigan’s law school, appeared to put racially conscious admissions decisions on a solid footing, at least for 25 more years.

On religion, a 1990 decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia held that the First Amendment’s free exercise clause ordinarily did not provide a religious opt out from compliance with laws that applied to everyone. And one of Chief Justice Rehnquist’s last major opinions, Locke v. Davey, called for maintaining a cautious “play in the joints” between free exercise and the First Amendment’s other religion clause, the establishment clause. (“In other words,” as the court put it, “there are some state actions permitted by the establishment clause but not required by the free exercise clause.”) The decision rejected the claim that a state offering scholarships for postsecondary education had to cover study for the ministry as well. There is little doubt that the same case would come out differently today.

Finally, actions of the federal agencies that make up the administrative state were largely insulated from judicial review based on the court’s 1984 Chevron decision, requiring courts to defer to an agency’s plausible interpretation of its own authority if Congress had failed to speak precisely to the question at hand.

That was how the world looked on Sept. 29, 2005, when Chief Justice Roberts took the oath of office, less than a month after the death of his mentor, Chief Justice Rehnquist. And this year? By the time the sun set on June 30, the term’s final day, every goal on the conservative wish list had been achieved. All of it. To miss that remarkable fact is to miss the story of the Roberts court.

It’s worth reviewing how the court accomplished each of the goals. It deployed a variety of tools and strategies. Precedents that stood in the way were either repudiated outright, as the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision did last year to Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, or were simply rendered irrelevant — abandoned, in the odd euphemism the court has taken to using. In its affirmative action decision declaring race-conscious university admissions to be unconstitutional, Chief Justice Roberts’s majority opinion did not overturn the 2003 Grutter decision explicitly. But Justice Thomas was certainly correct in his concurring opinion when he wrote that it was “clear that Grutter is, for all intents and purposes, overruled.”

Likewise, the court has not formally overruled its Chevron decision. Its administrative-law decisions have just stopped citing that 1984 precedent as authority. The justices have simply replaced Chevron’s rule of judicial deference with its polar opposite, a new rule that goes by the name of the major questions doctrine. Under this doctrine, the court will uphold an agency’s regulatory action on a major question only if Congress’s grant of authority to the agency on the particular issue was explicit. Deference, in other words, is now the exception, no longer the rule.

But how to tell a major question from an ordinary one? No surprise there: The court itself will decide. While the ratio of major questions to ordinary questions of administrative law remains to be seen, it’s hard to envision an issue important and contentious enough to make it to the Supreme Court not being regarded as major by justices who flaunt their skepticism of the administrative state.

Justice Neil Gorsuch was candid about this in a concurring opinion last year when the court limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate emissions from power plants. The major questions doctrine, he explained, “applies when an agency claims the power to resolve a matter of great ‘political significance.’” What is a better indicator of political significance than sustained conservative backlash? Last year’s environmental case set the stage for the court’s June 30 decision overturning the Biden administration’s student-loan forgiveness program.

The Heller decision in 2008 opened the Second Amendment door a crack, granting individuals the right to keep a handgun at home for self-defense. Chafing at Heller’s limited scope, Justice Thomas complained repeatedly over the next 14 years that the court was treating the Second Amendment as a “second-class right.” He finally won the day with the Bruen decision in 2022, a breathtakingly broad opinion rejecting any limitation on gun ownership that can’t be tied to an analogous limitation in the 18th century. On June 30, the court agreed to hear United States v. Rahimi, which will put this approach to the test. The question in the case is whether the Second Amendment allows the government to bar gun ownership by an individual under a restraining order for domestic violence. That the answer actually might be “no” — domestic violence wasn’t even a concept in the 18th century, when the Second Amendment was adopted — is too astonishing to contemplate.

And then there is religion and the case of the web designer who sought the right to refuse to design websites for same-sex couples celebrating a marriage. I was baffled when the court agreed to hear the designer’s appeal in February of last year, and not only because the designer, Lorie Smith, had not yet designed a wedding website for a paying customer and hadn’t turned anyone away — indications that the case wasn’t ripe for review.

Her lawyers at Alliance Defending Freedom, a hard-right Christian litigating group, asked the court to decide whether Colorado’s law prohibiting businesses from discriminating against L.G.B.T.Q. people violated either Ms. Smith’s right to freedom of religion or to free speech. The court agreed to hear only the speech question. I didn’t see how the two questions could be disentangled, given that Ms. Smith sought the right to post a statement on her web page explaining that it was for religious reasons that she was unable to create a website for a same-sex wedding. In other words, it was religion that inextricably fueled her free-speech claim.

Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion, in fact, took pains to nest the religious essence of the case so deeply in the discussion of free speech that even a well-informed reader might not realize what the decision accomplished: The court has created a religious opt-out from compliance with laws that govern the commercial marketplace. He found a First Amendment violation in the fact that if Ms. Smith went into the wedding website design business, Colorado’s anti-discrimination law would require her to take all customers. His opinion cites many First Amendment precedents, including the right not to salute the flag, the right of private parade organizers not to include a gay organization among the marchers and the right of the Boy Scouts not to retain a gay scoutmaster.

But none of those precedents are relevant, because none involved discrimination by a commercial entity. It is only on the first page of Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, that a reader will comprehend clearly what just happened: “Today, the court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.”

A full understanding of this case, 303 Creative L.L.C. v. Elenis, requires context. It is now eight years since the court, in Obergefell v. Hodges, recognized a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Of the six members in the majority in 303 Creative, three were on the court for Obergefell, and all three — Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Samuel Alito — were dissenters. Justice Alito’s dissenting opinion, which Justice Thomas joined, was bitter. The decision would be “used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy,” he warned. Since then, those two justices have been searching for an Obergefell victim whose plight would vindicate their expressed concern. It wasn’t easy, but finally, despite the appeal’s obvious procedural flaws, in 303 Creative they found one.

My focus here on what these past 18 years have achieved has been on the court itself. But of course, the Supreme Court doesn’t stand alone. Powerful social and political movements swirl around it, carefully cultivating cases and serving them up to justices who themselves were propelled to their positions of great power by those movements. The Supreme Court now is this country’s ultimate political prize. That may not be apparent on a day-to-day or even a term-by-term basis. But from the perspective of 18 years, that conclusion is as unavoidable as it is frightening.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DigglerontheHoof

DigglerontheHoof 21212

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

She's fucked around and now she's gonna find out like that salon owner in Dallas.

Yep, for shits & giggles, I called their phone; vmail is full.  They're closed in the middle of the day and their FB profile is locked.  She's gonna go through some things. 

  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45709

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Yep, for shits & giggles, I called their phone; vmail is full.  They're closed in the middle of the day and their FB profile is locked.  She's gonna go through some things. 

gritty-flyers-mascot.gif

 

The idea that you can just be a complete asshole to people and not suffer any repercussions is going to be a short lived thing in the end.

Edited by Biff Tannen
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deej

Deej 76894

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Yep, for shits & giggles, I called their phone; vmail is full.  They're closed in the middle of the day and their FB profile is locked.  She's gonna go through some things. 

A lot of people have been given the right to run themselves straight (no pun intended) out of business. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21836

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Yep, for shits & giggles, I called their phone; vmail is full.  They're closed in the middle of the day and their FB profile is locked.  She's gonna go through some things. 

What year do you think this is, and in what country? She'll be booked solid for the foreseeable future and people will likely pay her twice the going rate to signal their support for her brave stand. The House will give her a fucking lifetime achievement award. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17649

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

What year do you think this is, and in what country? She'll be booked solid for the foreseeable future and people will likely pay her twice the going rate to signal their support for her brave stand. The House will give her a fucking lifetime achievement award. 

Pretty sure you're wrong on this one. See, fake wedding page businesses that don't want to service fake customers have no financial repercussions for their fake stands. Real businesses aren't going to be so lucky. She may however manage to work out a scam through GoFundMe, which I expect to be up in about an hour or less. 

Also, it'll be real interesting to see this test the limits of Gorsuch's expressive goods and services. 

Edited by Dahobbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhorn_Fan68

Longhorn_Fan68 33886

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

He’s like a fucking Make-A-Wish adult.

all this proves it that Thomas has been corrupted for a very, very, very, very long time. like nearly 30 years ago long time. like literally the Cowboys haven't won a Super Bowl in nearly 30 years. That's how long Clarence Thomas has been corrupt. Maybe even before that. What's that, Anita Hill? Oh yeah, right, about that. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...