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

Captainant

Captainant 27653

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Our legal / court system are complete fucking jokes.

It's been corrupted and debased by bad actors who don't give a shit about lying or damaging public trust, and enabled by an overly deferential and trusting community of useful idiot lawyers that trust what someone else files just because they're before a court. 

The supreme Court has multiple fact free findings and rulings. An insurrection broadcast on national TV didn't actually happen and is totally legal and cool. We have multiple Supremes cashing checks and getting RVs and houses from billionaires with matters before the court and on the docket. 

It's been a complete fucking joke for a while, people are just working up the courage to admit it to themselves 

Edited by Captainant
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21802

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, Captainant said:

It's been corrupted and debased by bad actors who don't give a shit about lying or damaging public trust, and enabled by an overly deferential and trusting community of useful idiot lawyers that trust what someone else files just because they're before a court. 

The supreme Court has multiple fact free findings and rulings. An insurrection broadcast on national TV didn't actually happen and is totally legal and cool. We have multiple Supremes cashing checks and getting RVs and houses from billionaires with matters before the court and on the docket. 

It's been a complete fucking joke for a while, people are just working up the courage to admit it to themselves 

Yup, any system of civil society requires good faith in its application (not perfection but at least mostly good faith). That’s been lost entirely. Absent good faith everything goes to shit. The only alternative that wouldn’t be terrible for ordinary people would be a truly benevolent dictator which we all know is not possible. So we’re fucked. Seriously, turbo fucked.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85310

Posted
Posted (edited)

Luckily we have 51 seats right now but god damn he is an asshole. Don’t even care that his seat will be filled by some MAGA POS - I want him gone 

Edited by Js1
  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29349

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Luckily we have 51 seats right now but god damn he is an asshole. Don’t even care that his seat will be filled by some MAGA POS - I want him gone 

Sinema is going to say the same thing, either publicly or to fellow senators. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SmokeyTheBear

SmokeyTheBear 5562

Posted
Posted
On 3/20/2024 at 8:10 AM, Fudge Nuggets said:

When he doesn't come back from the dead I'm asking all the magats, "Where's your orange Jesus now, mother fucker?"

No doubt an AI version will be created to keep his flock in line.  Trump ascended to immortality.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105095

Posted
Posted
On 3/20/2024 at 9:08 AM, 'stache said:

Yup, any system of civil society requires good faith in its application (not perfection but at least mostly good faith). That’s been lost entirely. Absent good faith everything goes to shit. The only alternative that wouldn’t be terrible for ordinary people would be a truly benevolent dictator which we all know is not possible. So we’re fucked. Seriously, turbo fucked.

Bolded for emphasis.  That concept is what many of us ledge-dwellers have been sounding the alarm about for years now.

"The Rule of Law" is just an agreement by a society that we opt in to a set of standards and norms, to be applied based on relatively objective rules of interpretation and evidence.  Yes, it is a human system, and human nature/fallibility/bias always injects some play into the wheel, but it's within a degree of tolerance.  Take away good faith.....and you have revoked your agreement to follow the standards and norms known as the Rule of Law.

A sizable plurality of our society has opted out of the Rule of Law.  The only alternative set of rules is "Rule of the Gun" (raw power dictates outcome, not any objective rule or standard).  All it takes to kill a Republic is revocation of consent.  The MAGAs have done that.  The death blow has been landed.  At this point, we're just watching the inevitable cascade of systems of the body politic failing, just as various systems of the human body will fail in cascade fashion after being poisoned or whatnot.  First the kidneys go, then the liver, then breathing becomes difficult, then the heart gets stressed, then the brain is starved of oxygen, and then....you die.  We're in organ failure now.  What's horrific is not what is happening.  What's horrific is what's coming.  Opting out of the Rule of Law always ends the same way.

Lots and lots and lots of blood.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85310

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, kevwun said:

They have never been able to count on his vote on close things, so it's not really a change.

The only thing they've been able to count on his vote is for Schumer as Majority Leader.  He has not wavered on that, at least. Even when it was 50/50, he could have completely derailed Biden's first 2 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horn Dog

Horn Dog 9818

Posted
Posted

Alito is such a ingenious POS.  So some doctors have standing to ban a FDA approved drug, not because they are forced to prescribe it, but because they don’t want to deal with potential complications as ER docs??  Ok, well I am a doctor, and once upon a time when I was a resident, a patient came to the ER during my shift with priaprism (prolonged erection) after taking Viagra.  I was harmed cause I had to exam his nasty unkept junk. Do I also have standing to have Viagra like drugs removed nationwide since I don’t really ever want to deal with that ever again??

Spoiler

The doctors challenging the changes do not prescribe the drug and haven't identified a single case where a member has been forced to complete an abortion for a woman who shows up at an emergency room with an ongoing pregnancy, Prelogar said.

"They stand at a far distance from the upstream regulatory action they're challenging," she said of the anti-abortion rights physicians, and argued the theories they raise are "too attenuated as a matter of law. The court should say so and put an end to this case." 

Many of the questions the justices asked Prelogar focused on whether the doctors had legal standing to challenge the FDA's actions surrounding mifepristone in federal court.

"Shouldn't somebody be able to challenge that in court? Who? Who would have standing to bring that suit?" Justice Samuel Alito asked.  

He claimed that the argument advanced by the Biden administration indicates that even if the FDA violated the law, nobody has the proper basis to sue.

"There's no remedy, the American people have no remedy for that," said Alito, who authored the Supreme Court's majority opinion overturning Roe.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh sought to confirm that under federal law, doctors cannot be forced to violate their conscience to perform or assist in an abortion, and Prelogar said federal conscience protections provide broad coverage for doctors in that circumstance.

But lawyers for the medical groups, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, argue that their members object not only to abortion, but also to "complicity in the process."

"FDA has spent decades directing women harmed by abortion drugs to emergency rooms. Many of them have sought treatment from respondent doctors," the lawyers wrote. "Now that FDA is called to account for the harm caused, the agency cannot insist that the very treatment option it directed is somehow speculative."

 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SydneyCarton

SydneyCarton 48075

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Horn Dog said:

Justice Brett Kavanaugh sought to confirm that under federal law, doctors cannot be forced to violate their conscience to perform or assist in an abortion, and Prelogar said federal conscience protections provide broad coverage for doctors in that circumstance.

What is the above happy horse shit? Is tehre a world where some doctor who is morally against abortion is forced to perform abortion after fucking abortion with a gun to their head? Would they even be practicing in that fucking field? What a fucking load of horseshit to even suggest it. Last I checked, gynecology was a profession one chooses. Unlike the sex trafficked children probably forced to fuck old white men at republican conventions. 

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

Dahobbs 17533

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

What is the above happy horse shit? Is tehre a world where some doctor who is morally against abortion is forced to perform abortion after fucking abortion with a gun to their head? Would they even be practicing in that fucking field? What a fucking load of horseshit to even suggest it. Last I checked, gynecology was a profession one chooses. Unlike the sex trafficked children probably forced to fuck old white men at republican conventions. 

It sounds like Kavanaugh was essentially making that point: doctors aren't forced to provide abortions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chainsaw

chainsaw 9865

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

It sounds like Kavanaugh was essentially making that point: doctors aren't forced to provide abortions. 

Yeah but just knowing that people out there might be having abortions is such a grievous injury that surely we can make an exception for these beleaguered doctors???

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17533

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

It's just weird that it had to "be confirmed."

This sort of thing happens with judges all the time. They ask a question they think they know the answer to in order to provide a record to support their opinion. I didn't look at the actual questioning, but given the information here, nothing about that question is concerning to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted
On 3/21/2024 at 11:44 AM, Brisketexan said:

Bolded for emphasis.  That concept is what many of us ledge-dwellers have been sounding the alarm about for years now.

"The Rule of Law" is just an agreement by a society that we opt in to a set of standards and norms, to be applied based on relatively objective rules of interpretation and evidence.  Yes, it is a human system, and human nature/fallibility/bias always injects some play into the wheel, but it's within a degree of tolerance.  Take away good faith.....and you have revoked your agreement to follow the standards and norms known as the Rule of Law.

Over in the Hobbies>Books>Whatcha' Reading thread I mentioned I'm almost finished with Stephen Vladeck's The Shadow Docket: How The Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings To Amass Power And Undermine The Republic (2023). It's a good read by the UT Law prof and I've enjoyed his background into the origins of the shadow docket and how the Court elects to take on cases vs not taken on cases vs issuing unsigned and unwritten opinions vs arguing cases upon merit. More and more it has become difficult for the public to even learn the why or the who (w/o a public disclosure, which the shadow docket does not recquire) of rulings and/or votes by the Court due to the shadow docket rulings being handed down and the Court is increasingly using those methods in lieu of trying cases on merit. Quite the eye-opener it's been although admittedly I had little knowledge of the inner workings of SCOTUS (and am set to begin Jeffery Toobin's The Nine also about SCOTUS and one I'd heard of but never read).

Anyway, Vladeck was commenting upon the Court post justice Kennedy's retirement and how the Court "might even be said to see the public less as its audience than as its enemy--a nuisance to be kept away from the justices as much while they're working as while they're not." (A nice little bubble if you can afford it, right justice Alito and justice Thomas? I mention Alito as he was the justice who seemed most upset at the criticisms lobbied at the Court recently after being accused of partisanship) But back to Vladeck--here is a quote within a quote from his book that is very relatable to your above comments Brisket:

"...it's easy to see the wisdom in something my friend and former dean Ward Farnsworth wrote two decades ago, that 'those who accuse the majority of having partisan motives underestimate the good faith of the justices; but those who acquit the Court of partisan behavior may overestimate the utility of good faith as a constraint on wishful thinking.'

Trust is earned.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

he's there now.  just leaving at the end of the year for georgetown.

Thanks for the update. I think when I read his bio that he's from that area back East plus closer to the topic that he studies so makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted

From the Associated Press today:

Quote

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed likely to preserve access to a medication that was used in nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the U.S. last year, in the court’s first abortion case since conservative justices overturned Roe v. Wade two years ago.

In nearly 90 minutes of arguments, a consensus appeared to emerge that the abortion opponents who challenged the FDA's approval of the medication, mifepristone, and subsequent actions to ease access to it, lack the legal right or standing to sue.

Such a decision would leave in place the current rules that allow patients to receive the drug through the mail, without any need for an in-person visit with a doctor, and to take the medication to induce an abortion through 10 weeks of pregnancy. Should the court take the no-standing route, it would avoid the more politically sensitive aspects of the case.

The high court’s return to the abortion thicket is taking place in a political and regulatory landscape that was reshaped by its abortion decision in 2022 that led many Republican-led states to ban or severely restrict abortion.

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, the Biden administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer, said the court should dismiss the case and make clear that anti-abortion doctors and organizations don’t “come within 100 miles” of having standing.

Even three justices who were in the majority to overturn Roe posed skeptical questions about standing to the lawyer for the abortion opponents. Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh are former President Donald Trump’s three Supreme Court appointees.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 89647

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Horn Dog said:

Ok, well I am a doctor, and once upon a time when I was a resident, a patient came to the ER during my shift with priaprism (prolonged erection) after taking Viagra.  I was harmed cause I had to exam his nasty unkept junk.

Really?  You’re going to openly post that on a public board?  Ever hear of HIPPO or HIPPY or whatever regulations about patient confidentiality?

Greys Anatomy Halloween GIF by ABC Network


edit: it wasn’t unkempt, normally it’s very kempt. It’s just that things got out of hand.

Edited by atomheartbevo
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6938

Posted
Posted

Listened to Washington Journal on C-SPAN this morning. The topic dealt with the SC ultimately deciding on the availability of mifepristone to women across the country. As I listened, I was struck by the number of men callers who had very strong opinions about a woman’s right to this drug. Then it occurred to me just how odd and unlikely it would be if women had this much to say about the regulation of men’s health. Men would never stand for it.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted

I don't believe many men even realize how difficult it can be for a woman sitting in an exam room regardless of whether the physician is male or female due to personal biases about women's health in general. I don't know if it relates to the common perception that 'women are EmOtiOnaL' and therefore are not to be believed or are stupid when they have concerns, questions, or are in pain but when I see the stats that specifically address women of color and health outcomes as compared to others I'm not surprised. I'm in a privileged class and run into this, I cannot imagine the obstacles that those women must face in finding treatment.

It isn't all physicians/PAs/etc and the other issues with healthcare in general (shortages, corporate interference, insurance, etc) but to your point, Satchel, there is a very long history of men simultaneously ignoring women's health and yet regulating it when it was convenient for them to do so.

 

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

Brisketexan 105095

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I don't believe many men even realize how difficult it can be for a woman sitting in an exam room regardless of whether the physician is male or female due to personal biases about women's health in general. I don't know if it relates to the common perception that 'women are EmOtiOnaL' and therefore are not to be believed or are stupid when they have concerns, questions, or are in pain but when I see the stats that specifically address women of color and health outcomes as compared to others I'm not surprised. I'm in a privileged class and run into this, I cannot imagine the obstacles that those women must face in finding treatment.

It isn't all physicians/PAs/etc and the other issues with healthcare in general (shortages, corporate interference, insurance, etc) but to your point, Satchel, there is a very long history of men simultaneously ignoring women's health and yet regulating it when it was convenient for them to do so.

 

Gosh, little lady.  Sounds to me like you need one of these treatments for hysteria....

 

1*B_WDFLM8q5P4EmebMMFTFg.png

 

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dnaguy

Dnaguy 11943

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I don't believe many men even realize how difficult it can be for a woman sitting in an exam room regardless of whether the physician is male or female due to personal biases about women's health in general. I don't know if it relates to the common perception that 'women are EmOtiOnaL' and therefore are not to be believed or are stupid when they have concerns, questions, or are in pain but when I see the stats that specifically address women of color and health outcomes as compared to others I'm not surprised. I'm in a privileged class and run into this, I cannot imagine the obstacles that those women must face in finding treatment.

It isn't all physicians/PAs/etc and the other issues with healthcare in general (shortages, corporate interference, insurance, etc) but to your point, Satchel, there is a very long history of men simultaneously ignoring women's health and yet regulating it when it was convenient for them to do so.

 

We’re here for you.

You sound pretty upset.

I’ll tell you what, we’ll keep the topic going while you go to the store.

Go buy yourself nice.

That way you’ll be recharged by dinner time.

I bet your cooking tastes so much better when you’re rested and happy.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HenryJames

HenryJames 66041

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

We’re here for you.

You sound pretty upset.

I’ll tell you what, we’ll keep the topic going while you go to the store.

Go buy yourself nice.

That way you’ll be recharged by dinner time.

I bet your cooking tastes so much better when you’re rested and happy.

image.gif.7a8657aa07f7a01e07172fe16e10e8b6.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16923

Posted
Posted
On 3/28/2024 at 1:21 PM, Mrs Whiggins said:

I don't believe many men even realize how difficult it can be for a woman sitting in an exam room regardless of whether the physician is male or female due to personal biases about women's health in general. I don't know if it relates to the common perception that 'women are EmOtiOnaL' and therefore are not to be believed or are stupid when they have concerns, questions, or are in pain but when I see the stats that specifically address women of color and health outcomes as compared to others I'm not surprised. I'm in a privileged class and run into this, I cannot imagine the obstacles that those women must face in finding treatment.

It isn't all physicians/PAs/etc and the other issues with healthcare in general (shortages, corporate interference, insurance, etc) but to your point, Satchel, there is a very long history of men simultaneously ignoring women's health and yet regulating it when it was convenient for them to do so.

 

I do wonder if it has more to do with the women and how the approach the doctor visit.   I go and want to talk about 1-2 things.  When I talk with her later, she wants me to ask about 3-5 more things.   When I take the kids to a doc, I'll do the same, inquire for them 1-3 things.   She wants me to talk about 4 more things.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chuckie Finster

Chuckie Finster 22694

Posted
Posted
On 3/30/2024 at 8:19 AM, HenryJames said:

Cool how you can just go to some lying asshole in Amarillo if you want a nationwide injunction.

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/texas-federal-judge-blocks-updated-fair-lending-rules-2024-03-30/

 

On 3/18/2024 at 6:57 PM, Chuckie Finster said:

Our judicial system is a farce and I feel bad for all of you on here who have wasted a career defending it.

rinse, repeat

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...