The Supremes

[David Dennison 17,809]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

What makes you think the conservative justices wouldn't just say "no you can't do that"?

They can say whatever they want. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives them the final say over laws passed by Congress.

[elfenix 34,142]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

We could pack the Court.

so many fucking normies out there that complain 'well you'd soon have 100 justices on the court'

my response: don't threaten me with a good time. 

[immamac 41,772]

this is honestly so fucking stupid we have on record people talking about destroying things and we can't just say "hey look this is what happens when that plan gets put into place, lets hit the undo button back to 2016, because that's not a horrible starting point to start over"

 

[lemonlime 5,485]

9 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

They can say whatever they want. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives them the final say over laws passed by Congress.

Sure.  But how's that rationally going to happen.  The Dems get 2 more Senators, abolish the filibuster, and pass a law saying Marbury v. Madison was wrongly decided, and SCOTUS no longer has the power of judicial review?  Good luck with that one.

[royiv 9,045]

29 minutes ago, immamac said:

yeah dude - it's not fucking hard. Congress fucked up and hasn't done shit forever. Because Congress is deadlocked people started finding ways around congress. First it was unitary executive theory. Then that got fucked, so then it became stack the court to legislate from the bench, which is what we are seeing now. It's not fucking hard to understand. The core issue is that Congress isn't doing shit. 

And why do you think that is? How did we get to this point? Gerrymandering, voter suppression, a legislative system that heavily favors rural constituents? As much as we all love bagging on lawmakers, we didn't get to this point because legislators stopped legislating, we got here because the system is broken and voters allowed it to happen.

[Macklemore 2,860]

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

He showed his hand.  He has nothing.  A vague reference to a "well known private school in Houston" is . . . well, as you implied, it's a private school, and not subject to the same level of curriculum control to which public schools must conform.

Let's be very clear:  the howling about CRT has ALL been about public schools, and "tax money", etc.  Iconomore just laid it bare for us, he is a troll, with no good intent, and he should be shamed and negged into oblivion.  

For fuck's sake.

You asked for an example and I gave one. We discussed it back in the fall. Johnny Sack can confirm. I’m not getting more specific than that. It didn’t make the news because the parents handled it quietly to make sure it never happens again. FIN.

[Upgrayedd 5,781]

13 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Sure.  But how's that rationally going to happen.  The Dems get 2 more Senators, abolish the filibuster, and pass a law saying Marbury v. Madison was wrongly decided, and SCOTUS no longer has the power of judicial review?  Good luck with that one.

Maybe we can appeal to the Super Supreme Court?

[royiv 9,045]

1 minute ago, Macklemore said:

You asked for an example and I gave one. We discussed it back in the fall. Johnny Sack can confirm. I’m not getting more specific than that. It didn’t make the news because the parents handled it quietly to make sure it never happens again. FIN.

So you keep bringing something up that happened ONE time and presenting it like it's happening EVERYWHERE? You are one disingenuous troll. Be better.

[Willfully Horn 7,892]

Wrong thread

Edited June 29, 2022 by Willfully Horn

[Dutchrudder 11,079]

That actually sounds like the small government the Republicans have been fantasizing about for a long time.  Not that I agree with it, but you have to admit there are a lot of executive Agencies they want to end, or at the very least, castrate. Perry even named a few during a debate, but I don't think most of the people running for President could tell you what exactly they all do. This seems like the kind of decision that should be implemented gradually over time in order to preserve some order in the meantime while the agencies and Congress determine the impact of it.  

Edited June 29, 2022 by Dutchrudder

[David Dennison 17,809]

24 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

Sure.  But how's that rationally going to happen.  The Dems get 2 more Senators, abolish the filibuster, and pass a law saying Marbury v. Madison was wrongly decided, and SCOTUS no longer has the power of judicial review?  Good luck with that one.

Well, at least start talking about it and inform the public and your voters that it's on the table because we have a Court packed full of radicals who are dismantling the American system of government by judicial fiat.

[Goofyboy 3,013]

That actually sounds like the small government the Republicans have been fantasizing about for a long time.  Not that I agree with it, but you have to admit there are a lot of executive Agencies they want to end, or at the very least, castrate. Perry even named a few during a debate, but I don't think most of the people running for President could tell you what exactly they all do. This seems like the kind of decision that should be implemented gradually over time in order to preserve some order in the meantime while the agencies and Congress determine the impact of it.  

That’s laughable. As soon as the GOP is in charge again, they will run roughshod over the US, using federal powers and the Court will side with them in anything and everything. We are fucked. It’s just a matter of time.

[Ghost of LL 15,260]

1 hour ago, Willfully Horn said:

No lawyer, but SCOTUS dismantling Congress’ power to enact laws, like the one delegating authority to the EPA, is on the track to establishing monarchical rule.

The power of the purse is next.

Well, yes.  We live under judicial tyranny.

They have no electoral or democratic legitimacy.  Five of the nine justices were appointed by presidents who didn't win the popular vote.

And now it's clear that they lack intellectual or philosophical legitimacy.  They're just radicals who are going to shove down our throats an agenda opposed by a significant majority of Americans.

But despite that.  They have lifetime appointments.  There is no realistic way under our Constitution to get rid of them.

Well, Sic semper tyrannis, assholes.  

[Biff Tannen 45,237]

2 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:

That’s laughable. As soon as the GOP is in charge again, they will run roughshod over the US, using federal powers and the Court will side with them in anything and everything. We are fucked. It’s just a matter of time.

This.  It's all building towards mass demonstrations/riots.

[wildcat09 28,563]

1 minute ago, Ghost of LL said:

Well, yes.  We live under judicial tyranny.

They have no electoral or democratic legitimacy.  Five of the nine justices were appointed by presidents who didn't win the popular vote.

And now it's clear that they lack intellectual or philosophical legitimacy.  They're just radicals who are going to shove down our throats an agenda opposed by a significant majority of Americans.

But despite that.  They have lifetime appointments.  There is no realistic way under our Constitution to get rid of them.

Well, Sic semper tyrannis, assholes.  

What's absolutely wild to think about is the only Republican justice with any real claim to legitimacy is Clarence Thomas, who is probably complicit in the fucking coup attempt.

[Doc Sam Beckett 5,729]

1 hour ago, immamac said:

Congress can just add a constitutional amendment saying "this executive branch thing can do what it needs to do" - it's possible with legislature. 

[chainsaw 9,668]

9 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

What's absolutely wild to think about is the only Republican justice with any real claim to legitimacy is Clarence Thomas, who is probably complicit in the fucking coup attempt.

Wasn't he a big "fuck you" to Thurgood Marshall?

[David Dennison 17,809]

Just now, chainsaw said:

Wasn't he a big "fuck you" to Thurgood Marshall?

Confirmed by a Democratic Senate after it was passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee chaired by *checks notes* Joe Biden.

 

 

[MissingInAction 24,438]

 

 

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

21 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Well, yes.  We live under judicial tyranny.

They have no electoral or democratic legitimacy.  Five of the nine justices were appointed by presidents who didn't win the popular vote.

And now it's clear that they lack intellectual or philosophical legitimacy.  They're just radicals who are going to shove down our throats an agenda opposed by a significant majority of Americans.

But despite that.  They have lifetime appointments.  There is no realistic way under our Constitution to get rid of them.

Well, Sic semper tyrannis, assholes.  

Alito and Roberts were each nominated and confirmed after Bush won the popular vote in 2004.

[Chad Fuck 17,312]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Confirmed by a Democratic Senate after it was passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee chaired by *checks notes* Joe Biden.

 

 

Cruisin in the Stuts Bearcat Jim

Those were different times!

[David Dennison 17,809]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Alito and Roberts were each nominated and confirmed after Bush won the popular vote in 2004.

That doesn't change the fact that he became president without winning the popular vote in 2000.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That doesn't change the fact that he became president without winning the popular vote in 2000.

So it is a false statement to say they were nominated by a president who did not win the popular vote.  So it's untrue (and not relevant due to electoral college).

 

[David Dennison 17,809]

nm

Edited June 29, 2022 by David Dennison

[tchookem 3,895]

So what I'm hearing is that not only do we get to experience the worst President in US History, we're may also get to experience the worst SCOTUS?

[David Dennison 17,809]

6 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

So it is a false statement to say they were nominated by a president who did not win the popular vote.  So it's untrue (and not relevant due to electoral college).

 

But is a true statement to say they were nominated by a president who was elected to office without winning the popular vote.

[wildcat09 28,563]

11 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That doesn't change the fact that he became president without winning the popular vote in 2000.

It's also sort of extra-delegitimizing that SCOTUS handed him his first term.

[David Dennison 17,809]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's also sort of extra-delegitimizing that SCOTUS handed him his first term.

By a 5-4 party line vote.

The Republican Party, with assistance from the Supreme Court, has been conspicuously and systematically establishing minority rule in this country for over two decades.

It's an open question as to how long the majority will put up with it.

[wildcat09 28,563]

 

I am going to fucking snap.

[CooterBrown 17,762]

 
I am going to fucking snap.

Seriously. Turtle has shown he’s untrustworthy. Why the fuck would you agree on anything with that fuckstick.

[David Dennison 17,809]

Just now, CooterBrown said:

Seriously. Turtle has shown he’s untrustworthy. Why the fuck would you agree on anything with that fuckstick.

It is absolutely infuriating.

[Gap03 3,195]

9 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

 

I am going to fucking snap.

Yeah, but in light of Dobbs, what does his fucking stance on abortion even matter?  Granted, I'm sure his views across the board are abominable, but the horse is out of the barn on abortion, man.

[Smax 3,799]

35 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

So it is a false statement to say they were nominated by a president who did not win the popular vote.  So it's untrue (and not relevant due to electoral college).

 

 

No its not stop being obtuse

[wildcat09 28,563]

3 minutes ago, Gap03 said:

Yeah, but in light of Dobbs, what does his fucking stance on abortion even matter?  Granted, I'm sure his views across the board are abominable, but the horse is out of the barn on abortion, man.

“Why does it even matter that he’s nominating a Republican?”

Just burn this fucking party to the ground already.

[Ojo Rojo 1,796]

2 hours ago, DixonHur said:

The fact of the matter is that the Supreme Court is packed because the Democrats badly misplayed their hand.  

RBG should have retired during Obama's 1st term, and they should have put up a fight for Merrick Garland instead of assuming Hillary would win.

I don't blame the current state of SCOTUS on the Democrats.  How were they supposed to anticipate when Ginsburg and Scalia were going to die? What are they supposed to do when the Republican senate just refuses to take up your nomination? If they had any tools available they would have used them. Clearly the country is better when we have 4 conservatives, 4 liberals and one swing vote on the court.  It's just dumb luck we had that for so many years. I don't know what we had before that; perhaps there was a time when the government wasn't completely fucked and there was actual, you know, judicial integrity and the justices weren't just political tools.

Edited June 29, 2022 by Ojo Rojo

[Anastasis 23,216]

The legislative process has been broken for a while now. Amash was hammering on this for years under both R and D executives. 

[MC Fresh Breath 4,074]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

“Why does it even matter that he’s nominating a Republican?”

Just burn this fucking party to the ground already.

To this we are told to just vote harder.

 

[Brisketexan 103,664]

GOLL is right....just wait till tomorrow's decision in W. Va. v. EPA.  If you want to see the explosive dismantling of a crucial element in making America an economic powerhouse (American products etc. are trusted worldwide in large part because people know that they are made pursuant to real-deal safety standards, for example).....you'll see it tomorrow.

Do you like eating peanut butter without shards of glass in it?

How about flying on a plane subject to FAA safety regs (the 737 Max notwithstanding)?

Safe cars?

Oil-free beaches?

Clean drinking water?

Cribs that don't kill your kid?

SEC regs protecting investors from getting fucked (albeit not very effectively these days)?

Etc. etc. etc.?

Say adios.  Most of those regulations will be challenged 1 by 1, and down they will go.

June, 2020 is going to go down as one of the most defining, horrific months in our nation's history.  I am an Eeyore.....and even I didn't think it would be THIS bad, THIS fast.  And it's going to get much, much, much worse.

[jimmyjazz 45,214]

23 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

I don't blame the current state of SCOTUS on the Democrats.  How were they supposed to anticipate when Ginsburg and Scalia were going to die? 

Ginsburg was predictable.  I understood her desire to stay on, and her cancer had been at bay for years, but come on, there is a point where it is the tactically responsible thing to do and just retire.

[Ojo Rojo 1,796]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Ginsburg was predictable.  I understood her desire to stay on, and her cancer had been at bay for years, but come on, there is a point where it is the tactically responsible thing to do and just retire.

I don't disagree, but that is a Ginsburg miscalculation, not the Dems.  That's part of the problem is that you have these justices who don't think they are political tools, when that is all they are.  They can't resign timely for political reasons because that would be admitting what they are.

[Ghost of LL 15,260]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Ginsburg was predictable.  I understood her desire to stay on, and her cancer had been at bay for years, but come on, there is a point where it is the tactically responsible thing to do and just retire.

Yeah--I have a lot of pent-up anger at her that I don't dare let out for fear of offending any number of women in my life for whom she is some sort of feminist saint (even though Sotomayor's dissents are better).

[Bateshorn 9,630]

8 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

I don't disagree, but that is a Ginsburg miscalculation, not the Dems.  That's part of the problem is that you have these justices who don't think they are political tools, when that is all they are.  They can't resign timely for political reasons because that would be admitting what they are.

You mean like O’Connor and Kennedy?

We are in this, to a significant degree, because of Ginsburg selfishness.  The rumor I have heard several times, from people I trust, is Obama invited her for a private dinner at the White House, very low key, and basically begged her to resign in 2012-2013. She refused. 

 

Edited June 29, 2022 by Bateshorn

[jimmyjazz 45,214]

10 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

I don't disagree, but that is a Ginsburg miscalculation, not the Dems.  That's part of the problem is that you have these justices who don't think they are political tools, when that is all they are.  They can't resign timely for political reasons because that would be admitting what they are.

I'm not the first person to say this:  the Dems need more old-school POTUS like LBJ or at least Clinton.  People who can see the landscape and lean on those who need to act so that shit doesn't go off the rails.  As much as I admired Obama, he was pretty naive.

[chainsaw 9,668]

1 hour ago, tchookem said:

So what I'm hearing is that not only do we get to experience the worst President in US History, we're may also get to experience the worst SCOTUS?

Historically I feel like there have been objectively worse SCOTUSes but only because we were an objectively worse society as a whole.

[Ojo Rojo 1,796]

4 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

You mean like O’Connor and Kennedy?

We are in this, to a significant degree, because of Ginsburg selfishness.  The rumor I have heard several times, from people I trust, is Obama invited her for a private dinner at the White House, very low key, and basically begged her to resign in 2012-2013. She refused. 

 

Well, that, and McConnell stealing the appointment from Obama for Scalia's successor.

[jimmyjazz 45,214]

5 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

The rumor I have heard several times, from people I trust, is Obama invited her for a private dinner at the White House, very low key, and basically begged her to resign in 2012-2013. She refused. 

First I've heard of that.  If true, my prior post is somewhat invalid.

[chainsaw 9,668]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

I'm not the first person to say this:  the Dems need more old-school POTUS like LBJ or at least Clinton.  People who can see the landscape and lean on those who need to act so that shit doesn't go off the rails.  As much as I admired Obama, he was pretty naive.

Obama was a welcome palate cleanser after 8 years of George W Bush, but in retrospect he was terrible at understanding how to get, keep, and use power.

[chainsaw 9,668]

23 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

GOLL is right....just wait till tomorrow's decision in W. Va. v. EPA.  If you want to see the explosive dismantling of a crucial element in making America an economic powerhouse (American products etc. are trusted worldwide in large part because people know that they are made pursuant to real-deal safety standards, for example).....you'll see it tomorrow.

Do you like eating peanut butter without shards of glass in it?

How about flying on a plane subject to FAA safety regs (the 737 Max notwithstanding)?

Safe cars?

Oil-free beaches?

Clean drinking water?

Cribs that don't kill your kid?

SEC regs protecting investors from getting fucked (albeit not very effectively these days)?

Etc. etc. etc.?

Say adios.  Most of those regulations will be challenged 1 by 1, and down they will go.

June, 2020 is going to go down as one of the most defining, horrific months in our nation's history.  I am an Eeyore.....and even I didn't think it would be THIS bad, THIS fast.  And it's going to get much, much, much worse.

This is the explanation I was looking for.

[Ojo Rojo 1,796]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm not the first person to say this:  the Dems need more old-school POTUS like LBJ or at least Clinton.  People who can see the landscape and lean on those who need to act so that shit doesn't go off the rails.  As much as I admired Obama, he was pretty naive.

I don't know about naive. It could be that he just thought, like many of us did, that Hilary was going to run away with it. It was the only rational conclusion at the time.

 

*I remember when rational conclusions actually came true. They were fun. Those were the days.

[tx 3 putt 75,624]

Her legacy is now losing that seat to ACB