Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
16 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

So we fully expect alito and Thomas to retire in like 2027 right?

 

they're on that court until death drags them away 

  • Like 2
Posted
18 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

You missed my point.  The textualist/originalist foundation is that the Constitution is interpretable only as understood around the time it was drafted, rather than It being a statement of principles that can be adapted to modern concerns.  

Thus, if there is something that isn't addressed by the text or original intent or understanding of the Constitution circa 1789. then the Constitution doesn't provide for it.  If the Constitution is to provide for it, it must be amended or otherwise re-written to accomplish that end.

That is both a "classically conservative" position (incremental and measured change) and a "post-modern conservative" justification for revanchism.

The more liberal position is something like the second clause of my second sentence:  the Constitution is a statement of principles from which even modern problems can be addressed and solved.

All of this is kind of a load of shit, because no single interpretive philosophy can realistically get the job done.  But your concession that the Constitution can't get it done is a justification of textualism and originalism.

And, one of the problems of rewriting the Constitution is that all of the revision would basically have to be approved by popular vote supermajority.  And, aside from current hyperpartisanship, Americans are too fucking stupid to design a proper government.

 

I'm not trying to be combative, but I can't believe that you are sitting here in 2025 still giving originalists credit for an "interpretive philosophy" other than political preference. You understand that Scott Hall and Kevin Nash were in fact employees of WCW during the NWO era, right? 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

So we fully expect alito and Thomas to retire in like 2027 right?

Wouldn’t they want to do it before the midterms? If the Democrats retake the Senate in ‘26 I would certainly hope they’d block any Trump nominee from even getting a hearing. Give him the full McConnell. 

Posted
30 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Wouldn’t they want to do it before the midterms? If the Democrats retake the Senate in ‘26 I would certainly hope they’d block any Trump nominee from even getting a hearing. Give him the full McConnell. 

Don’t get your hopes up that Democrats will take the Senate in ‘26 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

I'm not trying to be combative, but I can't believe that you are sitting here in 2025 still giving originalists credit for an "interpretive philosophy" other than political preference. You understand that Scott Hall and Kevin Nash were in fact employees of WCW during the NWO era, right? 

I'm not, that's why the third paragraph of my post indicating that it's all a load of shit.

But orignalism, such as it is, is just a form of textualism, expanded.  And both of them preceded the postmodern Supreme Court by decades.

All constitutional interpretation is a load of shit, insofar as it purports to provide the "one true rule."   But they do have legitimate theoretical underpinnings.

And, I have always contended that Supreme Court jurisprudence is calvinball and always has been.  The justices pick and choose interpretive devices to justify decisions reached on other grounds, and always have.  It's just a bit more naked now, and certain of them, anyway, contend that orignalism is the one true rule.  And when you employ textualism and orignalism, you get stuck with a document as-written and as-understood in 1789.  That is, a retrograde and fairly unimportant document.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 hours ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Don’t get your hopes up that Democrats will take the Senate in ‘26 

No, but the more astute strategy would be to assume they would, and thus replenish the court prior to that date.

A couple of years of legacy is not "worth" a few decades of control, despite what RBG might have thought.  And here we are.

  • 4 weeks later...
Posted

SC is about to bend over for musk and trump ...

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to allow it to fire the head of the Office of Special Counsel, which oversees government whistleblower protections and enforces certain ethics laws. A lower court had ordered the reinstatement of Hampton Dellinger, a lawyer confirmed last year for a five-year term. This case is the first of Trump’s flurry of orders to reach the Supreme Court. The Court’s decisions could further fuel calls for term limits, as America is fed up.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
On 1/19/2025 at 4:53 PM, WhatTheBuck said:

Wouldn’t they want to do it before the midterms? If the Democrats retake the Senate in ‘26 I would certainly hope they’d block any Trump nominee from even getting a hearing. Give him the full McConnell. 

The full McConnell sounds like something I should be afraid to watch on pornhub.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

great job roberts, just a great job ....

https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/26/politics/supreme-court-foreign-aid-state-usaid/index.html?iid=cnn-mobile-app

 

Chief Justice John Roberts on Wednesday paused a court-imposed midnight deadline that would have required the Trump administration to release $2 billion in frozen foreign aid, a goal that the government has claimed it is unable to meet.

  • Rage+1 6
Posted
great job roberts, just a great job ....
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/26/politics/supreme-court-foreign-aid-state-usaid/index.html?iid=cnn-mobile-app
 
Chief Justice John Roberts on Wednesday paused a court-imposed midnight deadline that would have required the Trump administration to release $2 billion in frozen foreign aid, a goal that the government has claimed it is unable to meet.

He’s trying to buy himself some time to figure out how to write an opinion that doesn’t reveal SCOTUS as having rendered itself completely impotent.

Too late pal, that ship sailed with the immunity decision.
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 2
Posted

Is the Supreme Court going to take over the Dellinger case to keep the constitutional separation of powers or just let a random district judge decide who the president can or can't fire?

image.png.cdb0bc044d9810c2936ef02bc52c6c7a.png

 

Hampton Dellinger of the country club Dellingers lol

If he works for the executive but the executive can't fire him, who can?

 

 

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, Zeus said:

Is the Supreme Court going to take over the Dellinger case to keep the constitutional separation of powers or just let a random district judge decide who the president can or can't fire?

image.png.cdb0bc044d9810c2936ef02bc52c6c7a.png

 

Hampton Dellinger of the country club Dellingers lol

If he works for the executive but the executive can't fire him, who can?

 

 

So, you are fine with one person being above the law? Because there are laws that protect federal employees.

Posted
17 minutes ago, Zeus said:

Is the Supreme Court going to take over the Dellinger case to keep the constitutional separation of powers or just let a random district judge decide who the president can or can't fire?

image.png.cdb0bc044d9810c2936ef02bc52c6c7a.png

 

Hampton Dellinger of the country club Dellingers lol

If he works for the executive but the executive can't fire him, who can?

 

 

lol, you're concerned about separation of powers?

that's cute

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
27 minutes ago, Zeus said:

Is the Supreme Court going to take over the Dellinger case to keep the constitutional separation of powers or just let a random district judge decide who the president can or can't fire?

image.png.cdb0bc044d9810c2936ef02bc52c6c7a.png

 

Hampton Dellinger of the country club Dellingers lol

If he works for the executive but the executive can't fire him, who can?

 

 

George Washington would drown you in the Delaware for even pretending to believe any of this shit.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted

just wonderful ....

A 5-4 Supreme Court ruled the Environmental Protection Agency CANNOT employ generic, water body-focused pollution discharge limits to Clean Water Act permit holders, and must use source-specific ones.
(San Francisco v. EPA, 23-753) 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-753_f2bh.pdf

 

BREAKING: The Supreme Court just weakened the Clean Water Act's limitations on raw sewage discharge into our water in a 5-4 ruling.

  • Rage+1 6
Posted
On 3/3/2025 at 2:35 PM, Zeus said:

Is the Supreme Court going to take over the Dellinger case to keep the constitutional separation of powers or just let a random district judge decide who the president can or can't fire?

image.png.cdb0bc044d9810c2936ef02bc52c6c7a.png

 

Hampton Dellinger of the country club Dellingers lol

If he works for the executive but the executive can't fire him, who can?

 

 

Tell me genius, what does "executive power" mean?

And contrast with this:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Tell me genius, what does "executive power" mean?

And contrast with this:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

You're getting into an internet debate with a guy who thinks somebody hijacked that boat in Baltimore and drove it into the bridge.

  • Haha 5
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

 

Looks like she was trying to hold her breath, as one does when Dotard rolls through with a full diaper ...

Also putting out strong Arrested Development vibes at the end:

giphy.gif

Edited by Gap03
Posted (edited)

Somewhat surprisingly, ACB does not seem on board with enhancing executive power.

Alito's dissent is one of the most disingenuous supreme court writings I have ever read.  Especially contrasted with some of his writings on shadow docket decisions against the Biden administration.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
26 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Alito's dissent is one of the most disingenuous supreme court writings I have ever read.  Especially contrasted with some of his writings on shadow docket decisions against the Biden administration.

 

I just assumed years ago that Alito sat around every night getting his daily dose of Fox and becoming more and more radicalized.  I suspect before the end of this term he might show up to court in a red hat.

 

  • Like 1
Posted
Somewhat surprisingly, ACB does not seem on board with enhancing executive power.
Alito's dissent is one of the most disingenuous supreme court writings I have ever read.  Especially contrasted with some of his writings on shadow docket decisions against the Biden administration.

Yes. Like I said, Calvin Ball. Alito quite simply believes that executive power must be constrained when the executive is a democrat, but is truly limit less when the executive is Donald Trump. He has no guiding principles other than that. It is amazing how thoroughly he has beclowned himself.
  • Like 1
Posted

Tangentially related to the Supreme Court but likely directly related to Texas fascism and brain drain, Texas Law lost Steve Vladeck to Georgetown.  Apparently a year ago, but geezus.

Posted
40 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


Yes. Like I said, Calvin Ball. Alito quite simply believes that executive power must be constrained when the executive is a democrat, but is truly limit less when the executive is Donald Trump. He has no guiding principles other than that. It is amazing how thoroughly he has beclowned himself.

Well, you know me, I'm of the opinion that it's always been all-Calvinball all the time, forever.  But the willingness to change the rules of decision and rhetoric 180 degrees in a short span of time these days is remarkable.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, you know me, I'm of the opinion that it's always been all-Calvinball all the time, forever.  But the willingness to change the rules of decision and rhetoric 180 degrees in a short span of time these days is remarkable.

Come on now - what used to happen was more like Lester Hayes with stickum, Astros signal stealing, Deflategate shit.  We're dealing with full-on Calvinball - or more accurately, something like this:

 

 

  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...