Jump to content

The Supremes

tx 3 putt

By tx 3 putt
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Satchel

Satchel 6982

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Cheer up, man....it's going to get much, much, much worse.

People need to learn the lesson of the loaves. Hillary doesn’t look that bad today.

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

BamaATL

BamaATL 16593

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Satchel said:

People need to learn the lesson of the loaves. Hillary doesn’t look that bad today.

If we lose this one, there is a strong possibility we lose Sotomayor as well, she's 70; so if you think 6-3 is bad just wait for 7-2.  

I was actually thinking about this and found myself sort of stunned.  In my estimation Clarence Thomas is the most brazenly corrupt justice at least in our lifetime, and I'd venture a guess in history.  Despite that, the possibility exists that he isn't the worst on this court, and to make matters worse many of them appear healthy and relatively speaking young.  Alito is giving Thomas a run for his money, and just wait til the others start having shit come out.  

I'm normally pretty positive, but right now, you'll need to excuse me while I go huff some paint.  

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

HenryJames 67337

Posted
Posted

Look, I really just liked the cut of Gary Johnson's jib.

15 minutes ago, Satchel said:

People need to learn the lesson of the loaves. Hillary doesn’t look that bad today.

Trump may have been the guy to destroy our democratic institutions and usher in fascism, but Hillary was a woman.

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

Satchel 6982

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, BamaATL said:

If we lose this one, there is a strong possibility we lose Sotomayor as well, she's 70; so if you think 6-3 is bad just wait for 7-2.  

I was actually thinking about this and found myself sort of stunned.  In my estimation Clarence Thomas is the most brazenly corrupt justice at least in our lifetime, and I'd venture a guess in history.  Despite that, the possibility exists that he isn't the worst on this court, and to make matters worse many of them appear healthy and relatively speaking young.  Alito is giving Thomas a run for his money, and just wait til the others start having shit come out.  

I'm normally pretty positive, but right now, you'll need to excuse me while I go huff some paint.  

I’m right there with you, although I still think Democrats will prevail in November. 
I will say if there was any doubt that the SC majority is being cynically, brazenly and intentionally political, consider how they’ve decided to release their decision on the immunity case.

Thirteen justices for thirteen circuits. Make it happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32077

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, softlynow said:

I’m sorry. Were y’all really expecting the Court to not hand Trump an assist by delaying the immunity decision as long as necessary?

On the 1/6 cases, how many of the defendants are solely charged with the obstruction statute SCOTUS dealt with? In this case, I believe it was only 1 of 7 charges. The others they did not discuss. Hardly a resounding win for that defendant. 

Very few I think.  Most were charged with either all misdemeanors or a combination of misdemeanors and felonies that included the obstruction charge.  I saw several reportages of decisions that said the sentence is the same with or without the obstruction felony.

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

BamaATL 16593

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Satchel said:

I’m right there with you, although I still think Democrats will prevail in November. 
I will say if there was any doubt that the SC majority is being cynically, brazenly and intentionally political, consider how they’ve decided to release their decision on the immunity case.

Thirteen justices for thirteen circuits. Make it happen.

I hope you are in fact correct about November, despite last night I still like our chances, but I could have done without that.  

I do, however, disagree with packing the courts, because where does it stop?  I'd find it far more preferable to term limits on Justices, because a few years of this sort of stuff is survivable, 30 to 40 years of it is a disaster.  10 years seems reasonable, combined with blind trust requirements and significant salary increases (of course that is an absolute pipe dream).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 87179

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

I hope you are in fact correct about November, despite last night I still like our chances, but I could have done without that.  

I do, however, disagree with packing the courts, because where does it stop?  I'd find it far more preferable to term limits on Justices, because a few years of this sort of stuff is survivable, 30 to 40 years of it is a disaster.  10 years seems reasonable, combined with blind trust requirements and significant salary increases (of course that is an absolute pipe dream).  

The historical precedent of expanding to 13 to match the circuit courts is probably the easiest to swallow. 

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

Satchel 6982

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

I hope you are in fact correct about November, despite last night I still like our chances, but I could have done without that.  

I do, however, disagree with packing the courts, because where does it stop?  I'd find it far more preferable to term limits on Justices, because a few years of this sort of stuff is survivable, 30 to 40 years of it is a disaster.  10 years seems reasonable, combined with blind trust requirements and significant salary increases (of course that is an absolute pipe dream).  

What we are experiencing now won’t stop until we make significant structural changes to the  imbalance of power in our country. We can’t win playing by a set of rules and norms that nobody cares about but us.

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

BamaATL 16593

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Satchel said:

What we are experiencing now won’t stop until we make significant structural changes to the  imbalance of power in our country. We can’t win playing by a set of rules and norms that nobody cares about but us.

Believe me, I am 100% on board with that, and its one of my biggest criticisms of the Democratic party.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6982

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Believe me, I am 100% on board with that, and it’s one of my biggest criticisms of the Democratic party.  

The founding fathers went to great lengths to ensure representation for the minority that included reasons that were both honorable and dishonorable. Today, it is reasonable to question if those protections don’t work to the express disadvantage of the majority. There’s a reason Republicans in Texas want to make it harder for popular ideas among its citizenry to flourish. They, along with the SC’s majority don’t give a rats ass about how their power grabs look to those who oppose them. It’s important to note that this POV seems to be working for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 30323

Posted
Posted

If anyone wants a real nightmare scenario, consider Trump winning in November and expanding the court to 13 justices so he could pick an additional four, including any replacements for those who might retire.

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

dcbc 14644

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Where the hell is the immunity decision?  Is this the end of the term?

I thought they announced they were extending the releases into July.

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

Satchel 6982

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, bolverk said:

If anyone wants a real nightmare scenario, consider Trump winning in November and expanding the court to 13 justices so he could pick an additional four, including any replacements for those who might retire.

That’s what Leonard Leo wants you to focus on and be frozen by fear of what your opponents may do in response to your being active. Leo will only need to replace Sotomayor, Alieto and Thomas and the cons will be set for the next 25 years. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6982

Posted
Posted

If we don’t do something, it will only get worse:

 

At the Texas GOP,party convention, the state party changed its platform to call for a new requirement that candidates for statewide office must also win a majority of votes in a majority of Texas’ 254 counties to win office, a model similar to that of the U.S. Electoral College.

Under the proposal, the 4.7 million residents of Harris County would have the same voting power as the 64 residents of Loving County.

 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 18134

Posted
Posted
If we don’t do something, it will only get worse:
 

At the Texas GOP,party convention, the state party changed its platform to call for a new requirement that candidates for statewide office must also win a majority of votes in a majority of Texas’ 254 counties to win office, a model similar to that of the U.S. Electoral College.

Under the proposal, the 4.7 million residents of Harris County would have the same voting power as the 64 residents of Loving County.

 
 

Sweet merciful Jeebus save us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sawbonz

Sawbonz 28219

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Oh I fully expect it to go trumps way because that’s just how it’s going to be. We’re fucked

If it does and Biden doesn’t immediately jail Trump and 4 justices anything that follows is his fucking fault

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

TwiceHorn 32077

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Congress could fix the chevron mess right? Pass a law about deferring to federal agencies yadda yadda yadda? 

Probably not.  However, it can fix it by passing operative legislation for agencies that is less ambiguous and gives them less discretion.  Fat chance.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32077

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

The crazy judge in Amarillo is about to be busy ….

 

Chevron applies or applied mostly to agencies' statutory interpretations, and rulemaking pursuant to those interpretations, not to all agency actions.

The FDA enabling statute is this:

No person shall introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce any new drug, unless an approval of an application filed pursuant to subsection (b) or (j) is effective with respect to such drug.

The mifepristone litigation sought to reexamine the factual findings of the FDA, not its statutory authority to regulate, which is pretty broad, as shown above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 106889

Posted
Posted
Chevron applies or applied mostly to agencies' statutory interpretations, and rulemaking pursuant to those interpretations, not to all agency actions.
The FDA enabling statute is this:

No person shall introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce any new drug, unless an approval of an application filed pursuant to subsection (b) or (j) is effective with respect to such drug.

The mifepristone litigation sought to reexamine the factual findings of the FDA, not its statutory authority to regulate, which is pretty broad, as shown above.

You’re 100% correct.

Do you think Amarillo boy will apply your thinking? Of course not.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MrX

MrX 803

Posted
Posted

Always thought Chevron was wrongly decided. The “expert” issue is a red herring - special interest groups with as much expertise as you or me can poison the well at the regulatory level as much as at the judiciary level. There’s no real workable solution unless Congress gets its shit together which of course it won’t. 
 

Clarence Thomas is certainly in the running for worst judge of all time and he may have taken the lead by now. What a fucking evil man he is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Satchel

Satchel 6982

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
38 minutes ago, MrX said:

Always thought Chevron was wrongly decided. The “expert” issue is a red herring - special interest groups with as much expertise as you or me can poison the well at the regulatory level as much as at the judiciary level. There’s no real workable solution unless Congress gets its shit together which of course it won’t. 
 

Clarence Thomas is certainly in the running for worst judge of all time and he may have taken the lead by now. What a fucking evil man he is. 

And for the record, Anita Hill was telling the truth.

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38130

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:


Correct. None. Not even a little bit.

1) figure out how you can play the chaos to profit as much as you can.

2) buy plenty of ammo.

I’m getting the special popcorn when Trump wins and appoints 2 more Supremes even crazier than Uncle Thomas

its going to get a lot worse 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tx 3 putt

tx 3 putt 78676

Posted
  • Author
Posted
5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Chevron applies or applied mostly to agencies' statutory interpretations, and rulemaking pursuant to those interpretations, not to all agency actions.

The FDA enabling statute is this:

No person shall introduce or deliver for introduction into interstate commerce any new drug, unless an approval of an application filed pursuant to subsection (b) or (j) is effective with respect to such drug.

The mifepristone litigation sought to reexamine the factual findings of the FDA, not its statutory authority to regulate, which is pretty broad, as shown above.

 

IMG_0882.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bozo_Casanova

Bozo_Casanova 26848

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, MrX said:

Always thought Chevron was wrongly decided. The “expert” issue is a red herring - special interest groups with as much expertise as you or me can poison the well at the regulatory level as much as at the judiciary level. There’s no real workable solution unless Congress gets its shit together which of course it won’t. 

That’s so ridiculous I don’t know where to began. Asserting that congress can “get its shit together” to produce workable prescriptive legislation in areas of specialized expertise is as silly and fantastical as the idea that judges are in a better position to interpret legislation than actual experts appointed to regulatory posts.
OF COURSE expertise than be applied in all kinds of ways. That’s what the checks and balances around appointment and agency oversight are for. Good grief.

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
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...