Jump to content

The Supremes

tx 3 putt

By tx 3 putt
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

horn4life

horn4life 3840

Posted
Posted

The real problem is that Republicans cheat because they know they are a minority party.  There is a reason they changed the rules, because it was the only way they could win.

The GOP today simply believes so firmly that minority views are held by a majority (falsely in case you are a confused Republican) that there is no principle or ethical code not worth breaking "for the greater good."  Which means the Republican Party is at best a party that cares not about the constitution nor democracy.  And that is the BEST scenario.  The worst scenario is read back about brownshirts and an elected official named Hitler worked out when he was democratically elected.

Sadly the court is what it is, as stacked with minority opinion membership placed because of a complete lack of ethics or sense of fair play.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 4
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 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

chainsaw

chainsaw 10313

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

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. 

Contrast this with the conservatives who probably blackmailed Kennedy with oppo research on his son.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SmokeyTheBear

SmokeyTheBear 5569

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

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.

The power should be reflective of the people via their representatives. However, the GOP had/has a clear strategy to work towards power consolidation rather than work on behalf of the people they represent. It hasn't been a good actor in furtherment of our country. 

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmr548

gmr548 16704

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, horn4life said:

The real problem is that Republicans cheat because they know they are a minority party.  There is a reason they changed the rules, because it was the only way they could win.

The GOP today simply believes so firmly that minority views are held by a majority (falsely in case you are a confused Republican) that there is no principle or ethical code not worth breaking "for the greater good."  Which means the Republican Party is at best a party that cares not about the constitution nor democracy.  And that is the BEST scenario.  The worst scenario is read back about brownshirts and an elected official named Hitler worked out when he was democratically elected.

Sadly the court is what it is, as stacked with minority opinion membership placed because of a complete lack of ethics or sense of fair play.  

No one in the GOP with any real power believes their positions enjoy majority support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Celery Man

Celery Man 21109

Posted
Posted
5 hours 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.

itysl-serious.gif

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

tchookem 3988

Posted
Posted
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.
Well if Johnny Sack says so. He's pretty highly regarded around here.

Your meth is showing.
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 107044

Posted
Posted

Man…while going down a rabbit hole, I read justice O’Connor’s concurrence in Lawrence v Texas (finding a stature banning “deviant sexual contact with a person of the same sex” unconstitutional. Jesus. She was a conservative. A Reagan appointee. And she was so far away from this current batch that it boggles the mind. She applied reason, common sense, and humanity in Lawrence.
Her tenure might as well have been 100 years ago, we are so far away from her kind of approach.
We’re in the shit, people. Deep, in a vessel that has no bottom.

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

Bateshorn 9991

Posted
Posted (edited)

Part of the issue, beyond the larger well made points about GOP minority rule and the essential anti democratic nature of the Supreme Court, is that at least four of the justices: Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito, and Barrett, live in the Right Wing “owning the libs is a game” world.  To them, practical consequences are for another day.  Getting that satisfaction of being Johnny Sack last Friday is all that matters.  And Kav is exactly the weak alcoholic he was revealed to be in his hearings.
 

It’s sorta like when Kansas eliminated almost all its taxes under Brownback a few years ago to universal Fox News cheers.  It was only 3 years later as the state’s finances completely collapsed that the party was pulled back to reality.  

Edited by Bateshorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15705

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
13 hours ago, David Dennison said:

 

Biden really has become a Jimmy Carter redux.  And not in the way most people mean.

Carter really thought that Watergate was an aberration, and to get back to "normal" we had to dismiss all grudges and kind of consign that chapter of our history in the apocrypha (you know--where the chapters about the North losing the Civil War, the political terrorism around the turn of the 20th Century, and the violent racial reaction of the post-WWI era all live).  That meant commuting the sentences of guys like G. Gordon Liddy and not making sure guys like Robert Bork were disbarred for their actions.

Carter was wrong.  By trying to get back to "normal," he normalized that kind of lawlessness. 

Carter's was a failed presidency.  Biden is going down the very same path. 

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 4
  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 28608

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Biden really has become a Jimmy Carter redux.  And not in the way most people mean.

Carter really thought that Watergate was an aberration, and to get back to "normal" we had to dismiss all grudges and kind of consign that chapter of our history in the apocrypha (you know--where the chapters about the North losing the Civil War, the political terrorism around the turn of the 20th Century, and the violent racial reaction of the post-WWI era all live).  That meant commuting the sentences of guys like G. Gordon Liddy and not making sure guys like Robert Bork were disbarred for their actions.

Carter was wrong.  By trying to get back to "normal," he normalized that kind of lawlessness. 

Carter's was a failed presidency.  Biden is going down the very same path. 

and like how Reagan was a smarter, slicker nixon - so too will desantis (or whomever the chosen authoritarian is) be a smarter and slicker trump.

History has a funny way of rhyming.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 87306

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, bonnieblue said:

Haven’t had time to dig into the article yet, but per NYT it sounds like he now backs lifting the filibuster to codify RvW.

He does. 

It took all of 47 seconds for BUT BIDEN BAD takes because of Reuters.   Our typical right wing media working overtime.  Just like CNN having Trump on early in the last decade spouting birtherism and not calling him out once.  Clicks, outrage, $$$$$$$$$$$$. 

Edited by Js1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bateshorn

Bateshorn 9991

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I'm reading it now.....based on the syllabus, it may not be as bad an opinion as I was expecting....but I have a lot left to read....

My wife, who is a enviro attorney’s hot take is it’s bad for climate change, but they didn’t chuck Chevron. It prolly means they’ll pick and choose which regs they want to toss in the future through the shadow docket (enviro regs? Unconstitutional!  Safety regs for Airplanes? That’s okay.)

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

Laxtonto 13328

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

Chevron deference is still alive? Haven’t read it yet  

 

Chevron is completely ignored until you get to the dissent.

In many ways this reads as a broadside to Chevron without mentioning it. Its almost like they have decided Chevron is dead (from how they have ruled on some the cases this session) but want to pick a better case to outline what that means.

Biggest thing to me is that this reads as a split baby by Roberts because there isn't a great delineation of what a "major" policy decision is. That leaves a lot of vague wiggle room in the interpretation.

 

It does seem to read as an admonishment to Congress to pass laws to direct regulation instead of just relying on the agencies to read the tea leaves.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JBJ

JBJ 3830

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

Chevron deference is still alive? Haven’t read it yet  

 

Major questions.  They ignored Chevron, but Chevron doesn't really apply to Major Questions doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9974

Posted
Posted

There is no doubt Congress is a gang of slackers and unwilling to rock the boat while they gorge on payoffs from wealthy patrons intent on purchasing Congress Critters, but . .  . these decisions by the Court only enhance the power of the Opulent Minority.
 

Vote or perish. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hookem2010

hookem2010 2701

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Biden should just declare a war on climate change and start up a new agency. Can have soldiers shooting at clouds which probably would be fine with SCOTUS 

Climate Force needs to look into nuking Greenland and Antarctica. If we vaporize all the frozen fresh water, it will prevent sea level rise!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 107044

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

Chevron is completely ignored until you get to the dissent.

In many ways this reads as a broadside to Chevron without mentioning it. Its almost like they have decided Chevron is dead (from how they have ruled on some the cases this session) but want to pick a better case to outline what that means.

Biggest thing to me is that this reads as a split baby by Roberts because there isn't a great delineation of what a "major" policy decision is. That leaves a lot of vague wiggle room in the interpretation.

 

It does seem to read as an admonishment to Congress to pass laws to direct regulation instead of just relying on the agencies to read the tea leaves.

 

16 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Major questions.  They ignored Chevron, but Chevron doesn't really apply to Major Questions doctrine.

Yes to these.  I was expecting a nuclear apocalypse, but only got a Dresden firebombing.  So....yay.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mo Horn

Mo Horn 8943

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Biden should just declare a war on climate change and start up a new agency. Can have soldiers shooting at clouds which probably would be fine with SCOTUS 

Nuclear weapons on a hurricane

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sidis

sidis 10020

Posted
Posted

well i don't know about you guys...but i am super psyched to be living next to louisiana in an era in which there is no federal oversight or enforceable regulation in to what they can do to the air and water. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gengs1

Gengs1 2583

Posted
Posted

They are going to gut every agency with a scalpel that protects the people so they can make more profits. This is by design and action they have taken.

If you thought you had protections from predatory shit, that was the case but not anymore 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34792

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, hookem2010 said:

How anyone thinks we (the US) do not owe places like Bangladesh for literally taking their land away is beyond me. I'm sure we will welcome the hundreds of millions of future climate refugees with open arms when the time comes, right?

well, you see, if we start giving payments out for climate remediation, it might fall into the hands of corrupt officials, and we certainly couldn't be involved in a system where money flows into corrupt foreign leaders. 

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

Dahobbs 18426

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

Yes to these.  I was expecting a nuclear apocalypse, but only got a Dresden firebombing.  So....yay.

Honestly, it doesn't appear to be that terrible of a decision. There is at least something akin to legal analysis and it doesn't blow up previously decided law. I actually don't have a problem with reining in the administrative state a tad, particularly where Congress hasn't clearly delegated a task to an agency. I really can't say that this is a clearly wrong outcome. A blow to environmental concerns, sure. But, legally, I'm not sure the Court is wrong. What will concern me is when the actions of an action on immigration by ICE/DHS is challenged under Trump II and inevitably this same court blows past this decision in reaching a contrary result. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chainsaw

chainsaw 10313

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Biden should just declare a war on climate change and start up a new agency. Can have soldiers shooting at clouds which probably would be fine with SCOTUS 

They'll say he stole Trump's idea to nuke Hurricane Harvey (or was it Maria?)

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...