Jump to content

The Supremes

tx 3 putt

By tx 3 putt
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26522

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, 'stache said:

If Roberts really wants his court to be considered legitimate, he needs to address this trend of fake cases. But we know he won't and has probably given up on his court having any positive legacy. 

I agree with you in principle but many of these cases are highly staged. For example, Homer Plessy boarded he whites only train car and violated the separate car act he did so in a sort of cooperation with the railroad company, who opposed the law and understood that the Committee of Citizens intended to use his case to challenge it. In fact, the detective who arrested Plessy was hired by the Committee to ensure that he would be arrested and charged for violating the act. 

I don't like the practice and to me the court shouldn't be taking up non-problems (as opposed to the very large problem at that time of legal segregation), but it's not new.

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 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

'stache

'stache 21838

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I agree with you in principle but many of these cases are highly staged. For example, Homer Plessy boarded he whites only train car and violated the separate car act he did so in a sort of cooperation with the railroad company, who opposed the law and understood that the Committee of Citizens intended to use his case to challenge it. In fact, the detective who arrested Plessy was hired by the Committee to ensure that he would be arrested and charged for violating the act. 

I don't like the practice, but it's not new.

That's a legitimate way to create a "test case" because it creates an actual case or controversy. This year we had two cases with fake facts, way different and problematic. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27727

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I don't like the practice and to me the court shouldn't be taking up non-problems (as opposed to the very large problem at that time of legal segregation), but it's not new.

creating fallacious cases from whole-cloth that are uncritically adjudicated upon by a christofascist majority to roll back civil rights is absolutely a new phenomenon

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
safe sex

safe sex 11746

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I agree with you in principle but many of these cases are highly staged. For example, Homer Plessy boarded he whites only train car and violated the separate car act he did so in a sort of cooperation with the railroad company, who opposed the law and understood that the Committee of Citizens intended to use his case to challenge it. In fact, the detective who arrested Plessy was hired by the Committee to ensure that he would be arrested and charged for violating the act. 

I don't like the practice and to me the court shouldn't be taking up non-problems (as opposed to the very large problem at that time of legal segregation), but it's not new.

These weren't even staged tho

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14347

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Foosters said:

Whatever happened to that dumb girl who had to go to LSU bc she was too stupid to get into any halfway decent school?

I assume she's a grifter with a podcast?

I know you're not talking about this girl.  She seems smart as a whip (and apparently was an All-SEC scholar at least once)

LSU's Olivia Dunne becomes 'Sports Illustrated' swimsuit model

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tx 3 putt

tx 3 putt 77336

Posted
  • Author
Posted
9 hours ago, Foosters said:

Whatever happened to that dumb girl who had to go to LSU bc she was too stupid to get into any halfway decent school?

I assume she's a grifter with a podcast?


 

wasn’t her case about 8 minorities got in over her, but ignore the 100+ whites that got in over her ?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27727

Posted
Posted

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/11/ginni-thomas-leonard-leo-harlan-crow-citizens-united-dark-money

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/10/ginni-thomas-leonard-leo-citizens-united-00108082

Wow what a shock. A justices wife was working to grease the skids in advance of Citizens United being ruled on. 

Quote
  • Timeline of Leonard Leo's Judicial Advocacy and Ginni Thomas's Career
  •  

  • SEPT. 9, 2009

    Oral arguments conclude in Citizens United.

    NOV. 6, 2009

    Cleta Mitchell files IRS application for Thomas’s Liberty Central Inc.

    DEC. 31, 2009

    Thomas signs paperwork to incorporate in VA listing Leonard Leo as a director. Harlan Crow donates $500,000 in seed money in the following weeks.

    JAN. 14, 2010

    Thomas request to incorporate in Virginia is approved.

    JAN. 21, 2010

    Supreme Court hands down Citizens United decision, with Justice Clarence Thomas objecting to disclosure rules.

    FEB. 18, 2010

    Thomas says she’s been “called to the frontlines” during a CPAC conference. (Crow holds event in Dallas in following weeks.)

    OCT. 1, 2010

    Liberty Central launches ad campaign targeting Obama agenda.

    OCT. 9, 2010

    Thomas leaves voicemail for Anita Hill demanding apology and comes under criticism for her advocacy group.

    NOV. 15, 2010

    It is reported that Thomas will step away from her Liberty Central leadership role but Leo says she’s made no decisions on the matter.

    NOV. 16, 2010

    An "expedited service request" to incorporate her consulting business in Virginia is approved.

    2011

    Judicial Education Project, at Leo’s direction, reportedly pays Thomas up to $100,000 between June 2011 and June 2012.

    JEP is reinstated (retroactively) to May of 2010

    JEP reports it received no more than $50,000 in 2011; yet Wellspring reports paying it $136,000.

    2012

    JEP begins filing amicus briefs in numerous cases before the court including Obamacare, voting rights and affirmative action.

    JEP reports receiving $1.5 million in anonymous money.

    Cleta Mitchell leads “the charge to stoke” claims the IRS is targeting conservative nonprofits.

    2012-2021

    JEP becomes a major force in Leo’s empire of nonprofits funded by anonymous donors and, in 2014, former Justice Thomas law clerk Carrie Severino becomes its highest-paid director.

    Rebranded as the 85 Fund in 2020, it goes on to allege irregularities around the 2020 election.

    In 2021, The 85 Fund collects $117.3 million in anonymous funds.

    *From 2010 to present, JEP spent at least $25 million on grants and expenses to unidentified contractors. Leo and Thomas did not respond to questions about when the arrangement to pay Thomas began, if it ended and how much she was paid or what type of work she did.

It's just plain fucking corruption and graft. In the open. It's everything they accuse the dems of doing, only fascist as fuck

  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Smax

Smax 3800

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Captainant said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/sep/11/ginni-thomas-leonard-leo-harlan-crow-citizens-united-dark-money

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/10/ginni-thomas-leonard-leo-citizens-united-00108082

Wow what a shock. A justices wife was working to grease the skids in advance of Citizens United being ruled on. 

It's just plain fucking corruption and graft. In the open. It's everything they accuse the dems of doing, only fascist as fuck

 

 

so corrupt and makes me wonder how every ruling Thomas is involved with doesn't fall under suspicion 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gap03

Gap03 3310

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Smax said:

 

so corrupt and makes me wonder how every ruling Thomas is involved with doesn't fall under suspicion 

I mean, if we ever pull out of this death spiral and get some non-partisans back on the Supreme Court, I think there's a pretty sound basis for just saying "fuck your stare decisis for all decisions made where Thomas and Alito were part of a < 7-vote majority, given they are bought and paid for."    

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stilicho

Stilicho 1403

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Gap03 said:

I mean, if we ever pull out of this death spiral and get some non-partisans back on the Supreme Court, I think there's a pretty sound basis for just saying "fuck your stare decisis for all decisions made where Thomas and Alito were part of a < 7-vote majority, given they are bought and paid for."    

Dobbs killed any notion that a conservative dominated Court gives a shit about stare decisis when it comes to liberty under the 14th Amendment due process clause. Thomas's concurrence was pretty plain in that. They'll pay lip service to equal protection under the 14th, but they'll come for that too when the opportunity presents itself.

If we ever get out of this place, conservatives can take stare decisis and shove it up their ass. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105275

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Stilicho said:

Dobbs killed any notion that a conservative dominated Court gives a shit about stare decisis when it comes to liberty under the 14th Amendment due process clause. Thomas's concurrence was pretty plain in that. They'll pay lip service to equal protection under the 14th, but they'll come for that too when the opportunity presents itself.

If we ever get out of this place, conservatives can take stare decisis and shove it up their ass. 

This.  They killed stare decisis.  So be it.  Them's the new rules.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stilicho

Stilicho 1403

Posted
Posted

This law / concept has been around for x number of years without being directly overruled or contradicted. That weighs in favor of not overturning said law unless major shifts in public opinion or unforeseen negative consequences have arisen that are attributable to said law. 

In the perfect world of legal theory, it helps build consistency (and thus legitimacy) regarding how laws are made, enforced, and interpreted. No “gotcha” judgments. 

It’s efficacy can be argued, for or against, by folks here who are much smarter than me, but it has been used as a shield against changing controversial laws. Conservatives clung to it pretty hard throughout the “rights revolution” of the last 80 years, but really had a hard on for it during the civil rights movement.  
 

Now that the major decisions which created the rights revolution have existed long enough to warrant such consideration under stare decisis, conservatives have easily dispensed with it. Because hypocrisy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21838

Posted
Posted
On 9/8/2023 at 6:22 PM, DDD Dad said:

I know you're not talking about this girl.  She seems smart as a whip (and apparently was an All-SEC scholar at least once)

LSU's Olivia Dunne becomes 'Sports Illustrated' swimsuit model

"What is your dream job?"

My current answer is I'd love to be a pretty blond girl with athletic ability. I'd clean up in NIL and beyond. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chainsaw

chainsaw 9873

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

This.  They killed stare decisis.  So be it.  Them's the new rules.

I think there should be a rule that, for any decision having the effect of restricting individual liberty or expanding police power, the only way to overturn a 7-2 decision is an 8-1 court (or more).

Edited by chainsaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bullneck

Bullneck 19201

Posted
Posted

I guess this goes here:

Quote

Man At Center Of Major Gun Rights Case Allegedly Shot At Woman In A Parking Lot

The case could allow domestic abusers to keep their guns ― and the revelation, reported by HuffPost, is just what advocates fear.

Roque Planas

Sep 13, 2023, 05:45 AM EDT

The man at the center of a landmark gun rights case before the Supreme Court shot a pistol at a woman a handful of times in a public parking lot, according to police records obtained by HuffPost.

Zackey Rahimi is challenging a longstanding federal law barring domestic abusers from possessing guns. But this previously undisclosed incident underlines advocates’ fears that allowing abusers to retain firearms will lead to more violence against women and undermine public safety.

“This order should have prohibited him from having a gun,” said David Pucino, deputy chief counsel at Giffords Law Center, a gun reform nonprofit. “The fact that he had a gun allowed him to go ahead and use it, and fire it at yet another woman.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dutchrudder

Dutchrudder 11150

Posted
Posted

I remember when I first started working after college, one of our big vendors offered our whole team to join them for box seats for the Titans vs Texans game on Monday night. Free food, drinks, etc, just have to hang out with the vendor people who were going to be there too. My boss told everyone that we couldn't accept it because it was worth more than $100 per person, and that was against company policy. It's crazy to think that these guys, who are supposedly representing the "will of the people," can get away with extravagant gifts that would get them fired at most private sector jobs. 

The Supreme Court, and all Federal officials, need to have some strict guidelines for what is permissible, and the DOJ should be able to go after those who attempt or succeed in bribing them as well. Put some of those IRS auditors to work on these folks too, make it a requirement that Federally elected and appointed officials get audited at least once every 3 years too. Reports made available privately to Congressional Ethics committees to keep people in check and determine if it warrants any further investigations.  

  • Hook 'Em 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16979

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:

I remember when I first started working after college, one of our big vendors offered our whole team to join them for box seats for the Titans vs Texans game on Monday night. Free food, drinks, etc, just have to hang out with the vendor people who were going to be there too. My boss told everyone that we couldn't accept it because it was worth more than $100 per person, and that was against company policy. It's crazy to think that these guys, who are supposedly representing the "will of the people," can get away with extravagant gifts that would get them fired at most private sector jobs. 

The Supreme Court, and all Federal officials, need to have some strict guidelines for what is permissible, and the DOJ should be able to go after those who attempt or succeed in bribing them as well. Put some of those IRS auditors to work on these folks too, make it a requirement that Federally elected and appointed officials get audited at least once every 3 years too. Reports made available privately to Congressional Ethics committees to keep people in check and determine if it warrants any further investigations.  

They (GQP) look at the government as a source of self-enrichment and nothing else.   If Kavanaugh tried to interview to work at the fry station at McDonald's, he would not have gotten the job based on his publicized interview.   Acting like an asshole, sniveling and crying, and with assault allegations against him.    

But to the GQP, that is recommended.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46095

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Nivek said:

They (GQP) look at the government as a source of self-enrichment and nothing else.   If Kavanaugh tried to interview to work at the fry station at McDonald's, he would not have gotten the job based on his publicized interview.   Acting like an asshole, sniveling and crying, and with assault allegations against him.    

Well, his admitted shenanigans with Donkey Dong Doug and Squi wouldn't help, either.

Just to bookmark it (again):

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChuckNorrisActionJeans

ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2682

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Nivek said:

They (GQP) look at the government as a source of self-enrichment and nothing else.   If Kavanaugh tried to interview to work at the fry station at McDonald's, he would not have gotten the job based on his publicized interview.   Acting like an asshole, sniveling and crying, and with assault allegations against him.    

But to the GQP, that is recommended.  

yep, and don't forget literally vowing revenge against his perceived political enemies, in a position which requires impartiality. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Smax

Smax 3800

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Dutchrudder said:

I remember when I first started working after college, one of our big vendors offered our whole team to join them for box seats for the Titans vs Texans game on Monday night. Free food, drinks, etc, just have to hang out with the vendor people who were going to be there too. My boss told everyone that we couldn't accept it because it was worth more than $100 per person, and that was against company policy. It's crazy to think that these guys, who are supposedly representing the "will of the people," can get away with extravagant gifts that would get them fired at most private sector jobs. 

The Supreme Court, and all Federal officials, need to have some strict guidelines for what is permissible, and the DOJ should be able to go after those who attempt or succeed in bribing them as well. Put some of those IRS auditors to work on these folks too, make it a requirement that Federally elected and appointed officials get audited at least once every 3 years too. Reports made available privately to Congressional Ethics committees to keep people in check and determine if it warrants any further investigations.  

 

 

We have similar company policies and since we do business with foreign governments, we have take a class about anti-bribery and corruption policies due to the foreign corrupt practices act.

So its against the law for me to "bribe" a foreign government to win a contract but totally legal for me to bride a USCJ about an upcoming case we have in their court. 

Makes sense

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16979

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

yep, and don't forget literally vowing revenge against his perceived political enemies, in a position which requires impartiality. 

Impartiality.....haha haha haha.... ohh yeah...  that is a real good one.  Impartiality is for idealistic law students and those employing cognitive dissonance, in other words, morons. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
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...