Jump to content

The Supremes

tx 3 putt

By tx 3 putt
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Disco Strangler

Disco Strangler 1866

Posted
Posted

2013 - Shelby County v. Holder: this is 2013, racism is over and no need for cumbersome voting right protections

. . . Decade of Republican rat fucking in Congress and at every level of R-controlled state house ensues

2023 - a 5-4 decision that shockingly does not put final nail in coffin of Voting Rights Act

  • Hook 'Em 2
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

gmr548

gmr548 16576

Posted
Posted
An attempted make up call by Roberts imo. 



I’m not upset, but it’s hard to conclude anything but these. Time will tell I guess.
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmr548

gmr548 16576

Posted
Posted
Actually, I'm not really sure Congress could fix Roe/Dobbs.
People talk about federal legislation in this area all the time, but I'm not sure it would be valid.  Part of the reason Roe was legally controversial in the first place is that this is an area traditionally reserved for the states, and without a constitutionally protected privacy interest, there's no real basis for federal legislation.  I guess iNtERstAte cOmMerCe!

I never saw this but by this logic a federal abortion ban would also be a non stater, which it obviously wouldn’t be for this court. That leaves two options: 1.) Even this extremely conservative court recognizes that an act of Congress would supersede various state laws as has been done with countless other issues; or 2.) The law is whatever they want it to be to obtain their desired policy outcome - in which case, no, Congress could not fix the wetlands case.
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31440

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 6/1/2023 at 10:25 AM, wildcat09 said:

I don't know why you seriously believe this. Congress very clearly meant to protect wetlands and the Republican justices didn't give a fuck because they don't want the government protecting wetlands. If Congress passes a bill tomorrow that says "no, seriously, we meant it!" there's nothing to stop them from responding with "we still don't give a fuck!"

The point, again, was that this is a less bad decision than if, say, they had ruled that Congress lacked authority to regulate inland or intrastate waters.  And that would absolutely positively preclude its being fixed by Congress, much like CItizens United.

My point being that it could, actually, be worse.  And also that I think Congress could get more specific than "Waters of the United States" and fix the problem, at least in theory.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27638

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm not saying the statutory interpretation was right or wrong, but I am virtually certain that it could be fixed by more precise drating, and insulated from review.

Lol as if Amy Corndog Beret or uncle Clarence or Kav give one singular fuck about stare decisis or jurisprudence. They literally just flip/flopped a shadow docket case that tipped the 2022 House to the Rs. 

You're a smart guy. Stop being so credulous. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31440

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Lol as if Amy Corndog Beret or uncle Clarence or Kav give one singular fuck about stare decisis or jurisprudence. They literally just flip/flopped a shadow docket case that tipped the 2022 House to the Rs. 

You're a smart guy. Stop being so credulous. 

Except that shadow docket decision occurred more than a year ago, in February 2022 and the merits decision just undid it.

So, they didn't "just" do anything, literally or otherwise, and what they "just" did was probably a good decision, for once.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 27638

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Except that shadow docket decision occurred more than a year ago, in February 2022 and the merits decision just undid it.

So, they didn't "just" do anything, literally or otherwise, and what they "just" did was probably a good decision, for once.

 

Don't forget the context: the fascist court members weaponized the shadow docket to give a temporary advantage that narrowly gave the republicans control of the house. You know, on the timescale of events that affect people and the process of legislating?

Because I sure as shit don't see them doing immediate elections to fix their little oopsie whoopsie poopsie that disenfranchised black people in Alabama like it's Jim Crow times. 

Edited by Captainant
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17527

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Lol as if Amy Corndog Beret or uncle Clarence or Kav give one singular fuck about stare decisis or jurisprudence. They literally just flip/flopped a shadow docket case that tipped the 2022 House to the Rs. 

You're a smart guy. Stop being so credulous. 

I actually think Kavanaugh has been a fairly decent jurist so far, at least in comparison to his fellow conservatives. For instance, he didn't sign on to the bad part of the decision in Sackett

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29347

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I actually think Kavanaugh has been a fairly decent jurist so far, at least in comparison to his fellow conservatives. For instance, he didn't sign on to the bad part of the decision in Sackett

Kav is easily bullied. It's probably his most redeeming quality.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28775

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

We're about to see dozens of op eds with headlines like "Roberts saves Voting Rights Act!" and I'm going to lose my mind.

Maybe John thinks that will soften the blow when they read, “Roberts ends affirmative action!”

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

WhatTheBuck 28775

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

You can’t tell me that the craziness of the GOP politicians especially in the House doesn’t impact justices’ votes.

The craziness of the GOP politicians especially in the House doesn’t impact justices’ votes.

🙂

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Court upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act 7-2. I’ll give you three guesses who the 2 were and you only need 2 guesses 

Does one rhyme with frito and another receive millions in expensive vacations and gifts from a billionaire?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
SydneyCarton

SydneyCarton 48063

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

Considering how even the most obvious votes have gone, it seems clear to me that Thomas is literally voting "Fuck You" with every fucking vote in the last 6 months or so...just straight up pissed at the attention his grifting ass has gotten and just going to be a contrarian on general principle as a Fuck You to America. And Alito has been that way all along, but in today's political environment he's just feeling his oats. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 4
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21799

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, swraith said:

Its hard for me to understand why Chad and Jennifer Brackeen even challenged the Indian Child Welfare act.

Because Indian's aren't "white." That's pretty much it.

 

Edited by 'stache
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21799

Posted
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Considering how even the most obvious votes have gone, it seems clear to me that Thomas is literally voting "Fuck You" with every fucking vote in the last 6 months or so...just straight up pissed at the attention his grifting ass has gotten and just going to be a contrarian on general principle as a Fuck You to America. And Alito has been that way all along, but in today's political environment he's just feeling his oats. 

In another Indian case today holding that the Bankruptcy Code waives tribal sovereign immunity, Thomas again inserts his opinion that Indian tribes are worthless and shouldn't have immunity at all. He did, however, avoid his usual addition to the conversation, where he gleefully points out that the U.S. defeated the Indians by war, and therefore, fuck 'em. I guess he felt that writing it for the 15th time was too boring this time around.

Edited by 'stache
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45665

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, 'stache said:

In another Indian case today holding that the Bankruptcy Code waives tribal sovereign immunity, Thomas again inserts his opinion that Indian tribes are worthless and shouldn't have immunity at all. He did, however, avoid his usual addition to the conversation, where he gleefully points out that the U.S. defeated the Indians by war, and therefore, fuck 'em. I guess he felt that writing it for the 15th time was too boring this time around.

wow

Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21799

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, swraith said:

Its hard for me to understand why Chad and Jennifer Brackeen even challenged the Indian Child Welfare act.

 

2 hours ago, 'stache said:

Because Indian's aren't "white." That's pretty much it.

 

I wanted to add, since this is a niche area of law on which I have some experience, that their claim was that the preference for placing Indian children with Indian families was a racial preference. They were obviously speaking directly to Thomas and Alito, and the dumbfuck Reed O'Connor who originally ruled in their favor. Gov. Shitt in Oklahoma has used the same rhetoric about the reservations in Oklahoma, saying that it treats Indians and non-Indians different on the basis of race. It's not true, Indian people are treated under the law as a political status, based on government-to-government relationships with Indian tribes and nations. The bigger fear was that if ICWA was struck down based on a race analysis, it would nullify an entire body of federal law specific to Indian tribes and people, which are premised on their political status, not their race. Only the two most worthless members of the court could find a way around that glaringly clear conclusion, for anybody who gives a shit and is paying attention. They need to die already. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85295

Posted
Posted

Another week to wait on Moore v Harper and student loan debt forgiveness decisions. 

ACB sounds skeptical the states who brought the student loan forgiveness should have standing. She questioned why they filed on behalf of MOHELA and why MOHELA itself didn’t even appear. She made a similar argument in the ICWA case about the state not having standing 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tx 3 putt

tx 3 putt 76874

Posted
  • Author
Posted
20 hours ago, 'stache said:

 

I wanted to add, since this is a niche area of law on which I have some experience, that their claim was that the preference for placing Indian children with Indian families was a racial preference. They were obviously speaking directly to Thomas and Alito, and the dumbfuck Reed O'Connor who originally ruled in their favor. Gov. Shitt in Oklahoma has used the same rhetoric about the reservations in Oklahoma, saying that it treats Indians and non-Indians different on the basis of race. It's not true, Indian people are treated under the law as a political status, based on government-to-government relationships with Indian tribes and nations. The bigger fear was that if ICWA was struck down based on a race analysis, it would nullify an entire body of federal law specific to Indian tribes and people, which are premised on their political status, not their race. Only the two most worthless members of the court could find a way around that glaringly clear conclusion, for anybody who gives a shit and is paying attention. They need to die already. 


they’ll regroup and come at it from a better angle. Oklahoma poor whites Haaaaaaaaaate the tribes and all the members. Attacking them appeals to the Ok R base 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21799

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:


they’ll regroup and come at it from a better angle. Oklahoma poor whites Haaaaaaaaaate the tribes and all the members. Attacking them appeals to the Ok R base 

What's funny is that it isn't all that clear in many rural communities. A lot of poor whites work for tribes in gaming and other businesses, or companies that service gaming and other tribal businesses, and if you go to any rural casino, it'll be full of poor whites. A lot of them also proudly claim to have an Indian ancestor (usually a chief or "princess"), and some even qualify for an Indian card (Gov. Shitt for example is a card carrying member of the Cherokee Nation, which is it's own historical story, and makes his anti-Indian crusade even worse). Indian people, on the whole, face less racism from poor rural whites than Black people and Hispanics for some of these reasons. But in general, yeah, they still get treated poorly by most, and even those who are sympathetic to the Indian cause still vote Shitt because everyone else is "liberal" i.e., the devil.   

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

tx 3 putt 76874

Posted
  • Author
Posted
9 minutes ago, 'stache said:

What's funny is that it isn't all that clear in many rural communities. A lot of poor whites work for tribes in gaming and other businesses, or companies that service gaming and other tribal businesses, and if you go to any rural casino, it'll be full of poor whites. A lot of them also proudly claim to have an Indian ancestor (usually a chief or "princess"), and some even qualify for an Indian card (Gov. Shitt for example is a card carrying member of the Cherokee Nation, which is it's own historical story, and makes his anti-Indian crusade even worse). Indian people, on the whole, face less racism from poor rural whites than Black people and Hispanics for some of these reasons. But in general, yeah, they still get treated poorly by most, and even those who are sympathetic to the Indian cause still vote Shitt because everyone else is "liberal" i.e., the devil.   


in their minds, Indians get everything in the world and big govt checks 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105079

Posted
Posted

in their minds, Indians get everything in the world and big govt checks 

Chapter 10,355 in the book of “white people, who objectively and empirically do better than most minority groups and have dominated all power structures since before we were a country, complain that minorities actually have it better.”
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tx 3 putt

tx 3 putt 76874

Posted
  • Author
Posted
15 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


Chapter 10,355 in the book of “white people, who objectively and empirically do better than most minority groups and have dominated all power structures since before we were a country, complain that minorities actually have it better.”


their politicians and leaders spew the same hate and beliefs. Also, Indians can break all the laws and the pd can’t stop them

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 45893

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


Chapter 10,355 in the book of “white people, who objectively and empirically do better than most minority groups and have dominated all power structures since before we were a country, complain that minorities actually have it better.”

Little known fact:  a not-insignificant percentage of slaves led pretty good lives, and were happy.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SKJ

SKJ 1311

Posted
Posted
On 6/15/2023 at 9:47 AM, swraith said:

Its hard for me to understand why Chad and Jennifer Brackeen even challenged the Indian Child Welfare act.

There's a podcast called "this land" by crooked media that goes into detail about this. 

It's pretty fucking gross

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

SKJ 1311

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, tchookem said:
30 minutes ago, SKJ said:
There's a podcast called "this land" by crooked media that goes into detail about this. 
It's pretty fucking gross

Willing to cliffs notes this? I'm not sure my soul can take listening to a full podcast about these people.

Quick synopsis from the pod site:

ALM – as referred to in court documents – is a Navajo and Cherokee toddler. When he was a baby, a white couple from the suburbs of Dallas wanted to adopt him, but a federal law said they couldn’t. So they sued. Today, the lawsuit doesn’t just impact the future of one child, or even the future of one law. It threatens the entire legal structure defending Native American rights. 

 

In season 2 of This Land, host Rebecca Nagle investigates how the far right is using Native children to quietly dismantle American Indian tribes. 

 

It's really fascinating, actually... They go through the whole thing beginning with the group that they kind of belonged to that started adopting native kids to basically save their souls, which is just a rerun of atrocities in the past, and showing how they got free legal work from a special interest group that keeps testing cases to try and undo Indian law...

It's not just about those freaks. It's fascinating in its hideousness, but makes some great ties to the overarching movement.

It's not a hard listen

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

Sawbonz 27542

Posted
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, SKJ said:

Quick synopsis from the pod site:

ALM – as referred to in court documents – is a Navajo and Cherokee toddler. When he was a baby, a white couple from the suburbs of Dallas wanted to adopt him, but a federal law said they couldn’t. So they sued. Today, the lawsuit doesn’t just impact the future of one child, or even the future of one law. It threatens the entire legal structure defending Native American rights. 

 

In season 2 of This Land, host Rebecca Nagle investigates how the far right is using Native children to quietly dismantle American Indian tribes. 

 

It's really fascinating, actually... They go through the whole thing beginning with the group that they kind of belonged to that started adopting native kids to basically save their souls, which is just a rerun of atrocities in the past, and showing how they got free legal work from a special interest group that keeps testing cases to try and undo Indian law...

It's not just about those freaks. It's fascinating in its hideousness, but makes some great ties to the overarching movement.

It's not a hard listen

My grandmother was half Choctaw. She and her brother were orphaned and spent some of their childhood w Choctaw relatives on a reservation.  My grandmother hated indians her whole adult life because of the abuse she took from the neighbor adults and children and even her own relatives for being half white.  She married my grandfather, a white son of a sharecropper who finished 4th grade before his dad made him quit to work on the farm and rent out to pick cotton for others full time, when she was 18 and they got the fuck out. 
 

During residency I took care of a lot of Indians from the various reservations and one of my intern mates was a Cherokee who grew up on a reservation. He knew one other guy his age who wasn’t a full blown alcoholic, meth addict, or wetbrained from huffing paint. And several were dead or in nursing homes by mid 20’s 

 

I’m glad my ancestors made it out of that situation and if there’s a chance to save a kid from growing up in it I’m on the side of getting them the fuck out 
 

 

Edited by Sawbonz
  • Hook 'Em 2
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...