Jump to content

The Supremes


tx 3 putt

Recommended Posts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



×
×
  • Create New...