The Supremes

[Pods 7637]

Should have held hearings and impeached Thomas as soon as Ginni Thomas' role in this started to surface.  

[Mdhorn 6166]

4 hours 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.

Easy--justice delayed or sought for against Republicans is not justice.  In other words, Justice only applies to the other guy--minority, lib, female, gay/lesbian/trans.  

[Willfully Horn 8281]

If Tribe is correct, why hasn’t anyone filed  whatever suit might be brought to bear? Is 28 USC 455 lawyerese for “meaningless words and promotional drivel?”

Edited to speculate that SCOTUS is the origin of that burgeoning legal principle: Laws are for thee, but not for me.

Edited October 24, 2022 by Willfully Horn

[TwiceHorn 32101]

28 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

If Tribe is correct, why hasn’t anyone filed  whatever suit might be brought to bear? Is 28 USC 455 lawyerese for “meaningless words and promotional drivel?”

Edited to speculate that SCOTUS is the origin of that burgeoning legal principle: Laws are for thee, but not for me.

It would be up the opponent, the Fulton County DA, to raise that recusal issue.

And, it's not just a sort of "rooting interest," it would have to be something pretty specific to Ginni, as in Graham's testimony would incriminate her or expose her to civil liability.

[safe sex 12042]

She no doubt sent communications to Lindsey about the election and overthrowing it

[DDD Dad 14662]

48 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It would be up the opponent, the Fulton County DA, to raise that recusal issue.

And, it's not just a sort of "rooting interest," it would have to be something pretty specific to Ginni, as in Graham's testimony would incriminate her or expose her to civil liability.

Would that statute not present a separation of powers issue?  Just spitballing.

[Satchel 6983]

Lawyers, why isn’t Uncle Ruckus not in violation of 28 US Code 455, which says in part:

(a)

Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned…

…

He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

(5)He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:

(i)

Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;

(ii)

Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;

(iii)

Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

[Willfully Horn 8281]

4 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Lawyers, why isn’t Uncle Ruckus not in violation of 28 US Code 455, which says in part:

(a)

Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned…

…

He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

(5)He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:

(i)

Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;

(ii)

Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;

(iii)

Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

Read Twice’s thoughts just a couple of posts upthread.

[Satchel 6983]

8 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Read Twice’s thoughts just a couple of posts upthread.

Oh okay. Thanks

[Satchel 6983]

Seems to my legally untrained eye, Ginni has some exposure here and her best friend is interfering:

“…in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

conflict of interest requiring recusal should always be assumed to not exist.  everyone likes to talk about 'appearance of impropriety' and whatever, but you damn near have to get to smith v. jones?  why, that's me! before someone has to recuse.

 

in what you've quoted above, my thoughts are your interpretation of both the words "reasonably" and "interest" are probably not in line with what courts think those words mean.

[tx 3 putt 78736]

[tx 3 putt 78736]

 

[Willfully Horn 8281]

Affirmative action is now in the crosshairs. I invite anyone who thinks AA ought to go, or is bad law, to listen to Justice Jackson’s hypothetical, and explain why race should not be considered in UT’s, for example, admission’s process.

Jackson strikes me as an outstanding justice.

['stache 22146]

She's great. Her family will probably be attacked by a hammer soon, cause 'murica.

[Willfully Horn 8281]

Kagan drags her balls across Alito, et al, faces.

 

[SydneyCarton 49531]

This is my surprised face:
 

 

Edited October 31, 2022 by SydneyCarton

[Amos Moses 795]

51 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Affirmative action is now in the crosshairs. I invite anyone who thinks AA ought to go, or is bad law, to listen to Justice Jackson’s hypothetical, and explain why race should not be considered in UT’s, for example, admission’s process.

Jackson strikes me as an outstanding justice.

Institutions of higher learning should have broad discretion to consider whatever aspects of an applicant's background they choose in considering whether that prospective student is a candidate that should be offered admission to further their studies.  That said, Justice Jackson's thought exercise you shared is antithetical to that purpose, and was a shitty attempt at generating an emotional reaction.  Her example is the exact opposite of considering the broad and full experiences of an applicant, focusing on one limited aspect of "family story."  In my extension of her "thought" exercise, one of the applicants comes from a family that has broad support in its community, both parents active in the upbringing of the student, and enjoys relative health and well being from a social and physical viewpoint.  

To keep it short,  let's just say the other student struggles in all those areas but still managed to be positioned as a well qualified applicant to continue the higher learning endeavor at that institution.  Which student should be given more "credit?"  We don't know in her ridiculous exercise because this additional color wasn't considered as she only disclosed the one emotionally charged issue she wants you to value above all others.  It's short sighted and it is why schools should have any latitude they choose to look at the entire picture of an applicant as they see fit to further their mission of education and higher learning.

[Biff Tannen 46197]

6 minutes ago, Amos Moses said:

Institutions of higher learning should have broad discretion to consider whatever aspects of an applicant's background they choose in considering whether that prospective student is a candidate that should be offered admission to further their studies.  That said, Justice Jackson's thought exercise you shared is antithetical to that purpose, and was a shitty attempt at generating an emotional reaction.  Her example is the exact opposite of considering the broad and full experiences of an applicant, focusing on one limited aspect of "family story."  In my extension of her "thought" exercise, one of the applicants comes from a family that has broad support in its community, both parents active in the upbringing of the student, and enjoys relative health and well being from a social and physical viewpoint.  

To keep it short,  let's just say the other student struggles in all those areas but still managed to be positioned as a well qualified applicant to continue the higher learning endeavor at that institution.  Which student should be given more "credit?"  We don't know in her ridiculous exercise because this additional color wasn't considered as she only disclosed the one emotionally charged issue she wants you to value above all others.  It's short sighted and it is why schools should have any latitude they choose to look at the entire picture of an applicant as they see fit to further their mission of education and higher learning.

I mostly agree here.  I did not think it was a very good example.  In her thought exercise, I came away with the opinion that neither of the students should get "credit" for either of their situations, as I felt they were irrelevant to choosing the best candidate.

[Amos Moses 795]

I mostly agree here.  I did not think it was a very good example.  In her thought exercise, I came away with the opinion that neither of the students should get "credit" for either of their situations, as I felt they were irrelevant to choosing the best candidate.

Agree 100%

[DanRydell 799]

27 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Kagan drags her balls across Alito, et al, faces.

 

Affirmative action might the best example of the difference between textualism and originalism. I think reasonable minds can disagree on what exactly "equal protection" means from a textualism perspective but there is absolutely no honest originalist argument that the equal protection clause prohibits corrective race-based programs when the same Congress that enacted the 14th Amendment also created the Freedman's Bureau. 

[SimonBolivar 11067]

Cal better sign any kind of TV agreement they can find right now. Having a student population that is 96% Asian can't be good for football attendance.

[Captainant 28592]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

I mostly agree here.  I did not think it was a very good example.  In her thought exercise, I came away with the opinion that neither of the students should get "credit" for either of their situations, as I felt they were irrelevant to choosing the best candidate.

Academically, yes. Financially, no. Those legacies are much better candidates to putting more money into the university than a first generation college student. That's a real factor in admissions in an otherwise toss up decision and without some other mechanism to counter that dynamic, it's not hard to see our colleges become less diverse over time. Which is a bad thing for academics

[Neonmoon 38130]

2 hours ago, DanRydell said:

Affirmative action might the best example of the difference between textualism and originalism. I think reasonable minds can disagree on what exactly "equal protection" means from a textualism perspective but there is absolutely no honest originalist argument that the equal protection clause prohibits corrective race-based programs when the same Congress that enacted the 14th Amendment also created the Freedman's Bureau. 

The “originalists” don’t actually give a shit about being consistent in their logic or application of theory. It’s more about saying whatever is necessary to impose their will. 

[RomaVicta 30617]

3 hours ago, 'stache said:

She's great. Her family will probably be attacked by a hammer soon, cause 'murica.

The Berkeley nudist hippies will be rampant.

[elfenix 34765]

1 hour ago, SimonBolivar said:

Cal better sign any kind of TV agreement they can find right now. Having a student population that is 96% Asian can't be good for football attendance.

[Willfully Horn 8281]

5 hours ago, Amos Moses said:

Institutions of higher learning should have broad discretion to consider whatever aspects of an applicant's background they choose in considering whether that prospective student is a candidate that should be offered admission to further their studies.  That said, Justice Jackson's thought exercise you shared is antithetical to that purpose, and was a shitty attempt at generating an emotional reaction.  Her example is the exact opposite of considering the broad and full experiences of an applicant, focusing on one limited aspect of "family story."  In my extension of her "thought" exercise, one of the applicants comes from a family that has broad support in its community, both parents active in the upbringing of the student, and enjoys relative health and well being from a social and physical viewpoint.  

To keep it short,  let's just say the other student struggles in all those areas but still managed to be positioned as a well qualified applicant to continue the higher learning endeavor at that institution.  Which student should be given more "credit?"  We don't know in her ridiculous exercise because this additional color wasn't considered as she only disclosed the one emotionally charged issue she wants you to value above all others.  It's short sighted and it is why schools should have any latitude they choose to look at the entire picture of an applicant as they see fit to further their mission of education and higher learning.

Impressive unpacking. But, you are correct that I had an emotional reaction when considering the white applicant’s history included, among every other salient aspect of background, while the black candidates’s were not. Judging by the laws I’ve seen recently, mentioning you are a descendant of slaves, on a college application, might be illegal in our future. INAL, but I understand the fundamentals of Calvinball.

 

 

Edited November 1, 2022 by Willfully Horn
Claro

[David Dennison 19568]

You know, I think it's really cool that America has finally achieved racial harmony.

Well done, y'all.

[tx 3 putt 78736]

7 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

Jackson strikes me as an outstanding justice.

 

 

she's an outstanding justice 

[Satchel 6983]

6 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

I mostly agree here.  I did not think it was a very good example.  In her thought exercise, I came away with the opinion that neither of the students should get "credit" for either of their situations, as I felt they were irrelevant to choosing the best candidate.

Doesn’t her example reflect some of what is considered in making sure Harvard’s student body is not just of test capable rich kids with inspiring curricula vitae?

[Biff Tannen 46197]

31 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Doesn’t her example reflect some of what is considered in making sure Harvard’s student body is not just of test capable rich kids with inspiring curricula vitae?

Perhaps. I’m not versed on what their diversity goals are, if that’s what you mean. It’s a complicated issue and I’ll be honest, it doesn’t really affect me, so my opinion doesn’t matter. 

[Satchel 6983]

I understand Justice Brown Jackson has recused herself from sitting for the Harvard AA case, ostensibly because of her relationship with the school as a former board member. Why aren’t all of the Justices formerly associated with Harvard recusing themselves?

[TwiceHorn 32101]

14 minutes ago, Satchel said:

I understand Justice Brown Jackson has recused herself from sitting for the Harvard AA case, ostensibly because of her relationship with the school as a former board member. Why aren’t all of the Justices formerly associated with Harvard recusing themselves?

Her involvement with HLS and its governance and administration has been far more recent and active than other HLS grads on the court (Roberts, Kagan, and Gorsuch).

She also got buffaloed into agreeing to recuse during her confirmation by Cruz.

[4th&Five 42023]

[bluto 4999]

This is exactly how the system should work, it’s the beautiful legal process at work  - prob twicehorn

(no hate for you TH, but the system is a total joke) 

[Fudge Nuggets 19472]

Fuck this shit.  Pack the goddamn court today, because in a week you'll never have another chance.

[C-Man 27814]

10 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Her involvement with HLS and its governance and administration has been far more recent and active than other HLS grads on the court (Roberts, Kagan, and Gorsuch).

She also got buffaloed into agreeing to recuse during her confirmation by Cruz.

"Yeah, but you don't *really* have to live up to the "promises" you make during confirmation hearings."

-- Justice Coney, Justice Kavanaugh, etc

[Captainant 28592]

Just now, C-Man said:

"Yeah, but you don't *really* have to live up to the "promises" you make during confirmation hearings."

-- Justice Coney, Justice Kavanaugh, etc

Ah, I see you've struck upon the fundamental disadvantage of honesty that has been gleefully exploited by the right

[WBT 20997]

8 minutes ago, C-Man said:

"Yeah, but you don't *really* have to live up to the "promises" you make during confirmation hearings."

-- Justice Coney, Justice Kavanaugh, etc

Don't they more so refuse to make promises, or fully answer questions for that matter?

[tx 3 putt 78736]

The Supreme Court counties to be a complete joke 

[safe sex 12042]

HoW daRe YOu QuEStiOn mY CoURt'S LeGItimACY - Roberts being a fucking tool

[Fudge Nuggets 19472]

How's the investigation into the Roe v Wade reversal leak coming along?  I haven't heard anything from the rubes about that in a few months.

[Nivek 17423]

The only response to an illegitimate court should be

Quote

 

 

[MC Fresh Breath 4075]

further and further into third world country status.

[TexEx15 17958]

 

[Biff Tannen 46197]

14 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

 

hey that's good news, no?

[DigglerontheHoof 21562]

so how many more times does he get to appeal it back to the SCOTUS?

[Satchel 6983]

14 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Her involvement with HLS and its governance and administration has been far more recent and active than other HLS grads on the court (Roberts, Kagan, and Gorsuch).

She also got buffaloed into agreeing to recuse during her confirmation by Cruz.

Recency should have no bearing in my mind. One’s allegiance to UT does not necessarily dim over time. If they all have/had some association with Harvard, it would make sense for them to recuse.

[RPM 26672]

33 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

 

Capitol Police report EMS was called to Sen Graham's office. He is reportedly suffering a severe case of the vapors.

[tx 3 putt 78736]