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

DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14376

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, BHMCruiser said:

I stand by my criticisms of the "wise Latina"

Quiet part out loud. 
 

Better to be silent and thought a racist than speak and remove all doubt. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14376

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

Sotomayor is a retard

This is not acceptable posting behavior. Choose your words more wisely in the future. 

Edited by DDD Dad
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31699

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Question:  let's say the lower court does just this.  Is there any possibility that this gets advanced back to SCOTUS?  Are we in an endless ping pong loop?

Yes. 

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

Dahobbs 17818

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Day one of Biden’s second term this fuckhead needs to be fired. 

What the fuck has Garland been doing? Does he just fart in his office all day?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46502

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Day one of Biden’s second term this fuckhead needs to be fired. 

I was about to say a SCOTUS justice can't be fired, and then I remember Bitch McConnell stonewalled him, so he's not on the court.  Fuck McConnell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17818

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I was about to say a SCOTUS justice can't be fired, and then I remember Bitch McConnell stonewalled him, so he's not on the court.  Fuck McConnell.

Would we have noticed if he were? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28959

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Day one of Biden’s second term this fuckhead needs to be fired. 

I'd like to see @Brisketexan as AG just so his Mexican ass could start kicking in white supremacist doors eating an Allsups burrito saying...

Surprise Threaten GIF

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31699

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

I’m waiting for twice and gator to show up and tell us there really isn’t anything Garland could do.

Without provoking a constitutional crisis, no.  And with a court that would establish very bad precedent on the separation of powers issue.

There is a longer game here.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29453

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Without provoking a constitutional crisis, no.  And with a court that would establish very bad precedent on the separation of powers issue.

There is a longer game here.

Look around man, we’re in the fucking middle of a constitutional crisis already.

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

Captainant 27990

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There is a longer game here.

That's like saying letting mussolini or hitler take power was fine because there was a longer game to resolve the conflict. Sometimes we WANT to avoid the longer game becauses of the costs required to play it. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31699

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Look around man, we’re in the fucking middle of a constitutional crisis already.

Want to let this Court decide what Clarence can and cannot be prosecuted for?  It can always get worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17818

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Want to let this Court decide what Clarence can and cannot be prosecuted for?  It can always get worse.

I fail to see the distinction between not prosecuting and immunity from prosecution in this instance. At least forcing the court to rule will be a bigger spotlight on corruption and may in fact drive votes to reform the court (add justices). 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31699

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I fail to see the distinction between not prosecuting and immunity from prosecution in this instance. At least forcing the court to rule will be a bigger spotlight on corruption and may in fact drive votes to reform the court (add justices). 

That's possible, yes.  Something much worse is also possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105628

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
That's possible, yes.  Something much worse is also possible.

Yes. Both are true. We are in a game of chicken, and the good guys keep flinching and let themselves get run off the road. We need to punch the gas, and create the confrontation NOW, while we still have some modicum of control. DARE the SCOTUS to say “Clarence is god.” Make them do the awful thing.
  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17818

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That's possible, yes.  Something much worse is also possible.

What is the worse outcome? Him not being prosecuted? If you're concerned about precedent, don't be. It means nothing to this Court and any precedent from this Court will need to be thrown away anyway. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31699

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

What is the worse outcome? Him not being prosecuted? If you're concerned about precedent, don't be. It means nothing to this Court and any precedent from this Court will need to be thrown away anyway. 

Well, good thing this Court has created the roadmap for tossing precedents.  😬😬

I can't say you or brisket are wrong.  But I think there are two views on it, upon which reasonable minds can differ.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
softlynow

softlynow 1851

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I struggle to imagine how he could have been as middle of the road as he would have wanted to be.

He might've broken records for the number of concurrences, in part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
wildcat09

wildcat09 29453

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

Biden set to announce support for major Supreme Court changes:

Quote

President Biden is finalizing plans to endorse major changes to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks, including proposals for legislation to establish term limits for the justices and an enforceable ethics code, according to two people briefed on the plans.

He is also weighing whether to call for a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad immunity for presidents and other constitutional officeholders, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.

The announcement would mark a major shift for Biden, a former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has long resisted calls to reform the high court. They potential changes come in response to growing outrage among his supporters about recent ethics scandals surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas and decisions by the new court majority that have changed legal precedent on issues including abortion and federal regulatory powers.

Biden previewed the shift in a Zoom call Saturday with the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

“I’m going to need your help on the Supreme Court, because I’m about to come out — I don’t want to prematurely announce it — but I’m about to come out with a major initiative on limiting the court … I’ve been working with constitutional scholars for the last three months, and I need some help,” Biden said, according to a transcript of the call obtained by The Washington Post.

Many if not all of the changes would likely need congressional approval. The details of Biden’s considered policies have not been disclosed. A White House spokesperson declined to comment.

Biden’s private remarks about his high court plans came more than two weeks after his wobbly, confused performance at a June 27 debate with Donald Trump, which prompted calls from some Democrats for him to step aside as the party’s presidential nominee. Among those who have rallied to his side are many liberals who strongly support calls to remake the court.

Four days after that debate, the Supreme Court ruled Trump was immune from prosecution for official acts during his first term in office. Less than an hour later, Biden called Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law professor at Harvard Law School, to discuss the ruling and the arguments for and against reforming the court.

“This decision today has continued the court’s attack in recent years on a wide range of long-established legal principles in our nation, from gutting voting rights and civil rights to taking away a woman’s right to choose to today’s decision that undermines the rule of law of this nation,” Biden said in public remarks later that day.

The next week, Biden called Tribe again and the two discussed a Guardian opinion piece he wrote endorsing reforms to the Supreme Court. Among the options they discussed: term limits, an enforceable ethics code and the constitutional amendment to address presidential immunity.

Tribe confirmed he spoke with Biden but declined to comment on their discussion.

During the 2020 presidential race, Biden rebuffed calls from liberals who advocated expanding the court but promised he would create a commission to study potential changes. He followed through on that promise after being elected, and the commission issued a 294-report to the president. Biden has not acted on the commission’s report since they approved it in December 2021.

Approval ratings of the Supreme Court have dropped precipitously in recent years and Biden finds himself trying to resuscitate a flagging presidential campaign after the politically disastrous debate.

Since he was elected, the Supreme Court has veered sharply to the right — overturning Roe v. Wade, ended affirmative action in college admissions, weakened federal agencies’ power by overturning a 40-year decision and struck down Biden’s student loan forgiveness program. Biden condemned the court’s recent ruling on presidential immunity, arguing on July 1 that it should motivate Americans to vote for his reelection.

“Each of us is equal before the law. No one — no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States,” Biden said in a White House address. “With today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed.”

Eight Democratic senators have co-sponsored a bill that would establish 18-year terms for Supreme Court justices, with a new justice appointed every two years. The nine most recently appointed justices would sit for appellate jurisdiction cases, while others would be able to hear original jurisdiction cases or to step in as a substitute if one of the most recent nine is conflicted or cannot hear a case for another reason.

The legislation was introduced by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), but it has been co-sponsored by Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.).

Democrats have offered other legislation to deal with ethics concerns about the high court, including a bill by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash) that caps the gifts judges can receive, requires the Supreme Court to follow the judicial code of conduct and requires justices to write written recusal decisions upon request from litigants, among other changes.

Hell yeah. Fuck em up, Joe.

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 3
  • Drool 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105628

Posted
Posted
Just now, tx 3 putt said:

What’s the R’s Argument for not wanting an ethics code ?

 

Ummmm....the argument is "we don't have ethics, so fuck you?"  I don't think they're worried about being subtle these days.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85824

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, tx 3 putt said:

What’s the R’s Argument for not wanting an ethics code ?

 

They’re above the law and binding them to a code of ethics means they can’t do whatever they want without punishment 

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

hookemATL 11994

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

What’s the R’s Argument for not wanting an ethics code ?

 

business ethics GIF
some version of what Eric’s response in this situation 

 

Edited by hookemATL
He pulls out a gun and Steve buscemi shoots him in the ass
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21919

Posted
Posted (edited)

Wouldn't term limits require a constitutional amendment? I'd prefer he support adding seats to the court, which Congress can do, and if he announces it now and wins the election, he can claim it as a mandate from the voters.

Edited by 'stache
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hornbri

hornbri 1467

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

Wouldn't term limits require a constitutional amendment? I'd prefer he support adding seats to the court, which Congress can do, and if he announces it now and wins the election, he can claim it as a mandate from the voters.

I am pretty sure it would, at least when all the talk about packing the court came up before there were articles that said term limits would require an amendment. 

Edited by hornbri
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SubliminalHorn

SubliminalHorn 6842

Posted
Posted

What about calling on reforms to change the types of cases that they can see? I’ve read about that somewhere and don’t know enough about it speak further on it. Basically reduces their ability to hear monumental cases. Is an option like that available?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31699

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

What about calling on reforms to change the types of cases that they can see? I’ve read about that somewhere and don’t know enough about it speak further on it. Basically reduces their ability to hear monumental cases. Is an option like that available?

Yeah, that's a possibility, as well as moving them to the basement of the EEOC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tx 3 putt

tx 3 putt 77962

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 hours ago, 'stache said:

Wouldn't term limits require a constitutional amendment? I'd prefer he support adding seats to the court, which Congress can do, and if he announces it now and wins the election, he can claim it as a mandate from the voters.


if Trump wins, he’s adding seats by executive order. The constitution is worthless 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BHMCruiser

BHMCruiser 1818

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, that's a possibility, as well as moving them to the basement of the EEOC.

Yes. As you probably know the Supreme Court just met in the U.S. Capitol building until 1935 when the courthouse was built. 

And Congress has broad authority to regulate the jurisdiction of the Court, but probably cannot divest it of jurisdiction over constitutional issues.

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...