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

Nivek

Nivek 17,423

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Js1 said:

I’m shocked the facts were wrong and SCOTUS issued a bad ruling based on lies

 

But roberts wrote a piece where the public doesn't know shit and should just shut the fuck up and let them handle it.  I mean they are legitimate and honest and doing good work because they claim they are, and any evidence to the contrary is just like our uneducated opinions.  

  • Rage+1 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChuckNorrisActionJeans

ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2,692

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

Roberts is a complete idiot

He is often characterized as trying to maintain the Court's legitimacy, yet he has made it his life's work, ever since clerking for Rehnquist, to dismantle voting rights.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/john-roberts-voting-rights-act-121222/

He is disingenuous and dangerous. Hell, he's already dismantled core tenets of our democracy vis a vis gutting the VRA and Citizens United. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tx 3 putt

tx 3 putt 78,736

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

He is often characterized as trying to maintain the Court's legitimacy, yet he has made it his life's work, ever since clerking for Rehnquist, to dismantle voting rights.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/john-roberts-voting-rights-act-121222/

He is disingenuous and dangerous. Hell, he's already dismantled core tenets of our democracy vis a vis gutting the VRA and Citizens United. 


his ultimate goal is to kill voting as we know it. This is well known and no one calls him out on it 

Edited by tx 3 putt
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 26,247

Posted
Posted

Between 2003 and 2007, Virginia Thomas, a longtime conservative activist, earned $686,589 from the Heritage Foundation, according to a Common Cause review of the foundation’s IRS records. Thomas failed to note the income in his Supreme Court financial disclosure forms for those years, instead checking a box labeled “none” where “spousal noninvestment income” would be disclosed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34,765

Posted
Posted (edited)

i don't think it's any stretch to say that 230 says what it says, that providers aren't liable for shit users post.  that doesn't at all say that providers aren't liable for putting a megaphone in front of what users post.  might damage personalized search results, though you can draw a line between pushed content and requested personalized search. 

 

anyway, who is ready for EPA vs. Supreme Court Part 2: Wetlands Boogaloo?

Edited by elfenix
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38,130

Posted
Posted

Thankfully the 230 cases are the only ones to worry about. There are 2 similar 230 cases, and then one about Iranian oil sanctions, a technical “which court needs to rule on this” about an asylum case, can employees sue labor unions for spoiled product, does Michigan have to pay for deaf school for some kid, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38,130

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, troph said:

The voting rights case and the election law case are the two most frightening ones. The naked power grab by republicans in states is about to be codified and ruled upon leaving no recourse for democracy loving people. 

Which cases are the voting rights case and election law case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tx 3 putt

tx 3 putt 78,736

Posted
  • Author
Posted
58 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

So, no link but CNN is reporting that dotard's legal team has asked the SC to directly intervene in the Mar-A-Lago docs case. 

So we've got that going for us...which is nice. 

 

 

SCOTUS is ready to rule !

633608a83e94c.image.jpg?resize=750,500

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

Brisketexan 107,004

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

 

SCOTUS is ready to rule !

633608a83e94c.image.jpg?resize=750,500

What's amazing to me is how this era of politics has presented dozens upon dozens of people who would be a SHOE-IN for "worst political character" ever in most any other era....but today, they get drowned out by the crowd of equally (yet differently) utterly shitty, reprehensible, and unsalvageable human beings that are the leaders of the MAGA era.

I mean, we can actually say "sure, MTG is a garbage human being, but she's no Ginny Thomas," and it's TRUE.  WTF?

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tx 3 putt

tx 3 putt 78,736

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

What's amazing to me is how this era of politics has presented dozens upon dozens of people who would be a SHOE-IN for "worst political character" ever in most any other era....but today, they get drowned out by the crowd of equally (yet differently) utterly shitty, reprehensible, and unsalvageable human beings that are the leaders of the MAGA era.

I mean, we can actually say "sure, MTG is a garbage human being, but she's no Ginny Thomas," and it's TRUE.  WTF?

They keep one upping each other ha 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
PenelopeWitherspoon

PenelopeWitherspoon 19,317

Posted
Posted

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-conservative-stalwart-challenging-the-far-right-legal-theory-that-could-subvert-american-democracy

Quote

A powerful new litigant has joined one of the most momentous cases slated to be heard by the Supreme Court this term. The respondents in the case of Moore v. Harper filed a brief today that included a surprising new signatory: J. Michael Luttig, who has been known for years as perhaps the most conservative Republican judge in the country. Now, though, he has joined a coalition of veteran lawyers and nonpartisan government-watchdog groups who are fighting against a far-right Republican election-law challenge—one so radical that critics say it has the potential to end American democracy as we know it.

The former judge is a surprising co-counsel to Neal Katyal, the well-known Supreme Court litigator. Katyal is a counsel of record in the case for several respondents, including Common Cause and the North Carolina League of Conservation Voters, that are opposing the far-right groups. The case is scheduled to be heard by the Court on December 7th. Luttig told me that he signed on as Katyal’s co-counsel because he regards Moore v. Harper as “without question the most significant case in the history of our nation for American democracy.” Putting it more colloquially, he said, “Legally, it’s the whole ballgame.”

Having such a well-known conservative former jurist argue against the election-law challenge may carry some weight with the conservative super-majority on the Court, several of whom have ties to Luttig that stretch back decades. Justice Clarence Thomas, for instance, was personally shepherded through his contentious Supreme Court confirmation hearings by Luttig in 1991. At the time, Luttig served as the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel in George H. W. Bush’s Justice Department. After Thomas was confirmed, Luttig himself was sworn in to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit at the age of thirty-seven; he became, at that moment, the youngest federal appellate judge in the country.

Luttig’s ties to Chief Justice John Roberts also go back years. The two worked closely together in the Reagan Administration as young lawyers, both under the tutelage of then White House counsel Fred Fielding, and again together as lawyers in the George H. W. Bush Department of Justice. Later, in 2005, George W. Bush considered them simultaneously for a seat on the Supreme Court, which ultimately went to Roberts. The following month, Bush again considered Luttig for a Supreme Court seat but chose Samuel Alito. After establishing a reputation as a hard-right standard-bearer in the mold of the late Antonin Scalia on the appeals court, Luttig became the general counsel of Boeing; in 2020, he retired.

The evolution of Luttig’s political role since then has been remarkable. While some might assume that he has abandoned his conservative views, his position is more of a reflection of the radical changes that have overtaken the Republican Party. A judge who once represented the far-right pole in jurisprudence now looks like a throwback to an earlier age of G.O.P. probity and restraint. Ordinarily, Luttig told me, he wouldn’t get involved in a case like this. But Moore v. Harper, he explained, is the natural outgrowth of the extraordinary behind-the-scenes role he played in the final Götterdämmerung days of the Trump Presidency.

On the evening of January 4, 2021, Luttig was asked to weigh in as an emergency outside legal expert to Vice-President Mike Pence, whom Trump was pressuring not to certify Biden’s Electoral College victory. Luttig emphatically advised the Pence team that the Vice-President had no choice. The Constitution clearly stated that the Vice-President’s only role was ceremonial. Luttig stressed that Pence had to certify the 2020 Electoral College vote, in defiance of Trump’s attempted coup. But, in the early morning of January 5th, as the pressure from Trump continued to rise, Pence’s advisers contacted Luttig. They told him, while he was holed up in his vacation home in Colorado, that he needed to share with the American public his view that, under the Constitution, Pence had to certify Biden’s Electoral College win.

A retired sixty-six-year-old lawyer stuck in Colorado at the time, Luttig recalled telling Pence’s lawyer, “I don’t even have a job right now. I’m unemployed. . . . I don’t have a fax machine.” Eventually, Luttig decided he would tweet, but he told me he had no idea how to do so. He called his son, who works in tech, but he was too busy to explain, so he sent him Twitter’s online instructions. Luttig’s tweet, when it finally posted, was published on the Times Web site, and later quoted by Pence in his letter to Congress on January 6th, leading to the historic standoff between the President and Vice-President. Luttig’s role was crucial because of his unique standing. The lawyer who had improperly advised Trump that Pence had the legal power to delay, and perhaps overturn, the election, was one of Luttig’s own former law clerks: John Eastman. Eastman’s rogue legal theory was based, in part, on a fringe-right reading of the Constitution called the independent-state-legislature theory. Its proponents, including Eastman, claimed that state legislatures had the authority to reject the results of the 2020 election that were certified by other state officials and the courts. It wasn’t lost on those involved at the time that the majority of state legislatures were dominated by Trump’s Republican Party.

“The independent-state-legislature theory was the centerpiece of the former President’s effort to overturn the 2020 election,” Luttig told me. “In advising Vice-President Pence on January 6th, I concluded that there was no such doctrine of constitutional interpretation.” Luttig added, “From that day, I have believed I had an obligation to the country to explain the reasons for that conclusion. Namely, there is literally no support at all in the Constitution.” In fact, Luttig said, the theory is “antithetical to the Framers’ intent, the text, and the Constitution’s fundamental design and architecture.”

Since then, Luttig has, in a scholarly, judicious way, continued to sound the alarm. Last June, Luttig surprised many who had dismissed him as a Republican partisan by publicly testifying to the House select committee investigating the January 6th riot that Trump and his apologists posed a “clear and present danger” to American democracy.

Among those who were impressed by Luttig’s testimony was Katyal. As a counsel of record in Moore v. Harper, Katyal declined to comment. But, last winter, Katyal said on MSNBC, “There’s a good argument that Judge Luttig, by not being on the Supreme Court, did more for our democracy than most any sitting Supreme Court Justice or past one. It’s a remarkable, amazing thing.” The two lawyers had a mutual friend, and soon began to talk about collaborating if the right case presented itself. Moore v. Harper was that opportunity. “It was meant to be,” Luttig told me.

As Luttig explained it, the case potentially threatens the way that American elections are decided. Moore v. Harper involves another iteration of the fringe independent-state-legislature theory, which holds that both the Elections and Electors clauses of the Constitution give state legislatures near unilateral power to manage elections. As I wrote last year in this magazine, the theory is grounded in a little-noticed concurring opinion written by three conservative Justices, including Thomas, in the Supreme Court’s Bush v. Gore decision in 2000. It was ignored for the most part until Trump’s allies tried to use it in their frantic efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Proponents of the far-right theory claim that state legislatures, which are among the country’s most disproportionately partisan bodies, have nearly unchecked power to gerrymander districts, and to choose their state’s electors in Presidential elections.

Advocates of the theory argue that neither the state courts nor the state constitutions have the power to rein in the state legislatures. If a state legislature deems a Presidential election flawed, they have the right to unilaterally overturn the popular vote in the state and award its Electoral College votes to the candidate of their choice. If the Supreme Court were to fully embrace the most radical form of the independent-state-legislature theory, it would shift power over federal elections to partisan majorities in the state legislatures. Ultimately, only the Supreme Court would be in the position to judge whether such legislative power grabs were legal.

In the waning days of the Trump Administration, Trump allies tried to bring several legal challenges based on the independent-state-legislature theory to the Supreme Court. The Court rejected their arguments, but three conservative justices—Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Clarence Thomas—expressed interest in hearing more about the theory in the future. Justice Kavanaugh, too, has expressed some interest. Their stance added credibility to what was largely regarded by election-law experts as a dangerously radical idea. As Nathaniel Persily, an election-law expert at Stanford, told me in 2021, “It’s giving intellectual respectability to an otherwise insane, anti-democratic argument.”

Last winter, North Carolina’s state supreme court struck down grossly gerrymandered districts drawn by Republicans in the state legislature. Republican legislators then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the state court did not have the power to intervene, under the independent-state legislature theory. To the horror of many election-law experts, at least four members of the Supreme Court, whose names were not disclosed, agreed to hear the case, setting the stage for this term’s historic argument. Since then, myriad Republican and conservative groups—including the Republican National Committee; the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence; the Trump-linked America First Legal Foundation; Citizens United; the American Legislative Exchange Council; the Public Interest Legal Foundation; and the Honest Elections Project, which has been linked to Leonard Leo, of the Federalist Society—have filed amicus briefs siding with the North Carolina Republican legislators.

Luttig, undeterred, praised his new legal bedfellows. “I’m honored to be co-counsel representing Common Cause in Moore v. Harper,” he told me. He described Katyal as a “dear friend,” and “one of the very finest Supreme Court advocates and originalist constitutional scholars in the country today.” As for the case, Luttig said, “Common Cause and the other respondents are not only on the side of the Constitution of the United States—they are also on the side of the angels.” ♦

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
C-Man

C-Man 27,814

Posted
Posted

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/24/politics/supreme-court-lindsey-graham-clarence-thomas/index.html

Quote

Justice Clarence Thomas on Monday agreed to temporarily freeze a lower court order requiring the testimony of Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham in front of an Atlanta-area special grand jury that is investigating efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election in the state.

Thomas acted alone because he has jurisdiction of the lower court that issued the original order.

Thomas’ move is an administrative stay that was most likely issued Monday to give the Supreme Court justices more time to consider the dispute.

The court has asked for a response from the Georgia investigators by Thursday.

Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is spearheading a special grand jury investigation into Trump-aligned efforts to manipulate the results of the 2020 election in Georgia. She has indicated that she would like to question Graham on calls he made to election officials in Georgia after the election.

The South Carolina Republican senator is arguing that such testimony is foreclosed by the Constitution’s Speech or Debate clause, which shields legislators from certain law enforcement action for conduct connected to their legislative duties.

Lower courts had said that, to the extent Graham was making the calls to the Georgia election officials as part of fact-finding for the congressional certification of President Joe Biden’s win, that could be out of bounds under the Constitution. But the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals had said that “communications and coordination with the Trump campaign regarding its post-election efforts in Georgia, public statements regarding the 2020 election, and efforts to ‘cajole’ or ‘exhort’ Georgia election officials” are not legislative activities protected by the Speech and Debate Clause.”

Willis’ probe recently secured the grand jury testimony of former Georgia Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler and former White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, CNN reported last week.

Fuckery? Or no? I'm going to assume fuckery based on Thomas and this timeline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gap03

Gap03 3,395

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

What a disgrace !

How is this motherfucker allowed to rule on anything relating to the 2020 election, let alone be empowered to do it fucking alone???  I understand it's just a stay, but as the Rs keeping fucking with the levers of democracy, I think we all can see that justice delayed is justice denied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tx 3 putt

tx 3 putt 78,736

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 minutes ago, Gap03 said:

How is this motherfucker allowed to rule on anything relating to the 2020 election, let alone be empowered to do it fucking alone???  I understand it's just a stay, but as the Rs keeping fucking with the levers of democracy, I think we all can see that justice delayed is justice denied.


Ginni Thomas taking care of her people 

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...