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

Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105074

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

How do these people have standing to sue? They've never been sanctioned by Colorado for refusing a same sex wedding website 

Preemptive challenges to purported constitutional violations are a thing.  There are a lot of specifics and details, but preemptive challenges are not unheard of.

There IS a rational and sane way to consider these cases.  I think it is a correct outcome to argue that "genuinely creative, speech activities" cannot be compelled for ANY reason.  A painter who takes commissions -- does portraits and stuff -- can't be compelled to produce the portrait I request, Adolf Hitler and Elon Mush shooting Obama.  Or Obama shooting Trump.  Or two chicks kissing.  Or, frankly, ANYTHING.  Maybe I want him to paint a still-life with pears, but he hates pears and won't paint them.  True speech/expression should not be compelled, for any reason.  That's outside any "public accommodation" doctrine, and should have a reasonable test with some parameters.

Instead, this will all turn into the sanctity of religious beliefs, and how you don't even have to offer true public accommodation if it offends ANY deeply held religious belief.  The plaintiff argues that it can't be used to go after interracial marriages, for example, because "race is different."  But I call bullshit.  Religious belief is religious belief, and if you think racial discrimination isn't squarely in the SCOTUS's sights, you haven't read Thomas's dissents.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gap03

Gap03 3303

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, safe sex said:

What the fucking fuck is he talking about?

Best I could tell was he was trying to argue that allowing a black Santa to refuse to provide services to KKK hood-wearing patrons would somehow constitute discrimination tantamount to the LGBTQ discrimination at issue here, given only white people would be impacted (this being the point of his sarcastic comment about black children dressing up in KKK outfits) - somehow overlooking the fact that the discrimination would really be a function of those white people being members of the fucking Klan (i.e., violent bigots that hate said Santa), not their whiteness. 

One of the great legal minds of our time, y'all ...

  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16923

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Gap03 said:

Best I could tell was he was trying to argue that allowing a black Santa to refuse to provide services to KKK hood-wearing patrons would somehow constitute discrimination tantamount to the LGBTQ discrimination at issue here, given only white people would be impacted (this being the point of his sarcastic comment about black children dressing up in KKK outfits) - somehow overlooking the fact that the discrimination would really be a function of those white people being members of the fucking Klan (i.e., violent bigots that hate said Santa), not their whiteness. 

One of the great legal minds of our time, y'all ...

What is the problem?  Justice Roberts already told you that you are too stupid to understand them and they are above criticism.  

Edited by Nivek
Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21797

Posted
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Anyone listening to arguments in Moore this morning? Any lawyers wanna explain what’s going on? 

"Fuck yo vote, libtard." That my legal analysis that just about sums it up.

Edited by 'stache
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85286

Posted
Posted (edited)
40 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:


non - lawyer, we are fucked 

All 50 state AGs be like "no this is stupid, overrule this shit"

Thomas, Gorsuch and Alito: hold my beer

Kavanaugh: I LIKE BEER! 

 

Part of me sees this one as Roberts sides with the liberals and Kavanaugh goes along with him, but JR will pick 1 or 2 decisions to justify his legacy against the god awful other decisions he's made.  Handmaids Tale will do whatever, but it'll be either 6-3 or 5-4 shooting it down. 

Edited by Js1
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85286

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Argument summaries I read said Barrett, Kavanaugh and Roberts were skeptical. Gorsuch seemed really for the independent state legislature doctrine. I don’t see 5 votes though 

Yeah, feels a lot like 6-3 against it.  The triumvirate of stupid will rule for it though (Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Nivek

Nivek 16923

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
13 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

This is fucking ridiculous.  As a CPA, I am held to a higher standard of disclosure and independence than a SCOTUS justice.  Fucking insane.

Your point?  Kavanaugh's behavior in the job interview would have excluded him from a job at Mcdonald's but for some reason, that is acceptable for a lifetime appointment to the supreme court.  Restated, burger flippers are held to a higher code of conduct than a lawyer and a justice.     

Also, you cannot protest them.  You cannot criticize them.  Their corruption is a state secret.  They get to pick and choose what they hear and when they hear it and lie to the public about their corruption.   

Hunter Biden's laptop is worth investigating, but not conflicts of interest that have financial influence over a supreme court justice.  We are a banana republic.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PenelopeWitherspoon

PenelopeWitherspoon 19100

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Your point?  Kavanaugh's behavior in the job interview would have excluded him from a job at Mcdonald's but for some reason, that is acceptable for a lifetime appointment to the supreme court.  Restated, burger flippers are held to a higher code of conduct than a lawyer and a justice.     

Also, you cannot protest them.  You cannot criticize them.  Their corruption is a state secret.  They get to pick and choose what they hear and when they hear it and lie to the public about their corruption.   

Hunter Biden's laptop is worth investigating, but not conflicts of interest that have financial influence over a supreme court justice.  We are a banana republic.  

My point is it is fucking stupid, so I completely agree with you.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16923

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

My point is it is fucking stupid, so I completely agree with you.  

Fair, I am feeling cynical.   The Supreme Court has been corrupted by right-wingers who hate the will of the people and do everything in their power to move us toward an oligarchy-supported authoritarian regime. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
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...