Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
29 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

 

 

 

The....RELATIVELY....sane wing of the court trying to walk back the utter fucking idiocy and lunacy that is Bruen, a decision authored by the worst justice in SCOTUS history, Clarence Thomas, brought to you by Harlan Crow.  You fucking dumbfucks.  You can try, but you can't shove Bruen back in a box or pretend it doesn't exist.  And Clarence's dissent today fucking says as much: "No, I meant every lunatic word of Bruen, and y'all should apply it like I meant it."

Alito and Thomas are hanging so many fucking albatrosses around this court's neck, it's hard to keep count.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
19 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I wish Ginny would suffocate him in his sleep

Black dudes don't let fat bitches be sittin' on they face.  /noracist

  • Haha 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, Js1 said:

 

No Way Wtf GIF by Harlem

idk man seems like a stretch to me at a glance, but I didn't dig too deep. Dude was MS-13 got denied, then they tried again after he "disavowed MS-13" (as if that's a real thing without being killed). Then she petitioned on his behalf trying to say because they were married he had some type of rights that extend from the citizenship of his spouse? 

I wonder what kind of case this would even benefit as this one is so absurd and ridiculous that the non-weird version of this is too hard for me to imagine. People get denied visas all the time to the US.

Posted
6 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

Supreme Court: We didn't mean that shit.

Thomas in dissent: I meant that shit.

Yep.  Imagine the dumbest, stupidest, least legally and intellectually position in the world.  The rest of the Supremes look at that and say "yeah, no reasonable person would think that."  Thomas: "Fuck yeah, that's exactly what I meant."

He's beyond terrible.  He's beyond corrupt.  He's a fucking idiot.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
28 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The....RELATIVELY....sane wing of the court trying to walk back the utter fucking idiocy and lunacy that is Bruen, a decision authored by the worst justice in SCOTUS history, Clarence Thomas, brought to you by Harlan Crow.  You fucking dumbfucks.  You can try, but you can't shove Bruen back in a box or pretend it doesn't exist.  And Clarence's dissent today fucking says as much: "No, I meant every lunatic word of Bruen, and y'all should apply it like I meant it."

Alito and Thomas are hanging so many fucking albatrosses around this court's neck, it's hard to keep count.

Yup. Thomas' dissent is exactly right based upon Bruen. You also now have to look at the multiple concurring opinions and the dissent and try and figure out where this actually leaves the law. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yup. Thomas' dissent is exactly right based upon Bruen. You also now have to look at the multiple concurring opinions and the dissent and try and figure out where this actually leaves the law. 

 

image.gif

Posted
2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

and figure out where this actually leaves the law. 

It remains where it was all along: Calvinball.  The "look back to see what, umm, the, uhh, 'regulatory feel' was at the time" test is bullshit SCOTUS-speak for "I'll decide each case how I want, then look back at a bit of history to proof-text my way into the result I already chose."  It's not a legal standard at all.  It's an excuse and pretext for every SCOTUS justice going forward to just say "this is how I want it to be."

Calvinball.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Wait . . . in the text above, does the reference to "bearable" imply the ability to physically carry a particular weapon?  

Sure, why not. If you can strap a nuclear warhead to your back, it's your fucking right, go for it.

image.png.fee4ee1a50789a55a848d5997e9177f4.png

Posted
27 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.  Imagine the dumbest, stupidest, least legally and intellectually position in the world.  The rest of the Supremes look at that and say "yeah, no reasonable person would think that."  Thomas: "Fuck yeah, that's exactly what I meant."

He's beyond terrible.  He's beyond corrupt.  He's a fucking idiot.

On the bright side, he's 75 and can't live forever.

On the down side, he'll probably retire in 2028 and Trump will replace him with, like, Kyle Rittenhouse.

  • Rage+1 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, Satchel said:

We should increase the on the chief of biscuits and his crazy wife. He needs to be forced off the J6 court case.

the pressure.

Posted
23 minutes ago, immamac said:

Hopefully it's something much much worse for him. 

Dead?

I'm OK with that.  RIP, Sam.  Your tireless efforts on the court will be honored cursed forever.

Posted

What if the upside down flag thing is like the Steiner Ranch lawn gnome deal, where it just means the Alitos are down to swing?  

Posted
5 hours ago, immamac said:

he "disavowed MS-13"

To be fair I've heard their power has dropped dramatically since the crackdowns of president Bukele. Before the crackdowns if you didn't play nice with the gangs the gangs wouldn't play nice with you, and "playing nice" usually meant doing something that could be seen as having an affiliation.

Now they're sort of indiscriminately arresting "military age men" even on mere suspicion of being affiliated. Good reason to publicly "disavow" the gangs, even if it has nothing to do with immigrating to the US.

 

Alito switched from capture the flag to hide and seek.

Posted
4 hours ago, HenryJames said:

Texas abortion law vibes.

 

1d55e347-7aa4-46a8-a67c-88a5dccc4544.png

What's "relevantly similar" is in the eye of the beholder. And by "the beholder," I mean the Christofascist puppet installed by a dark money group.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

It’s so cool and good that after all the recent scrutiny on the bribes SCOTUS justices have received we get this decision saying bribery is fine, actually.

  • Rage+1 9
Posted
4 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

These were the fucking facts of the case.

32e8fcf3-1eaa-42a7-bb83-4e55dfc3d0b8.png

There is a compelling federalist case that state and local officials should be allowed to be corrupt. I don’t see how the republic functions without those protections.

  • Haha 1


×
×
  • Create New...