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

pyrohornIII

pyrohornIII 4846

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, elfenix said:

first you get covid and then you find out mark meadows is banging your wife

I thought that whole cuck thing was a Republican right of passage, like Ted, Stone and Manafort.  Seems there were at least  a dozen more out there I've been able to forget.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pacman

pacman 7508

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Bullneck said:

 

 

Barrett + Kavanaugh combined can't beat Jackson'a resume to be justice. I wish that were an exaggeration.

This is beyond absurd, otherwise known as just another regular day as a Republican legislator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32079

Posted
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, pacman said:

Barrett + Kavanaugh combined can't beat Jackson'a resume to be justice. I wish that were an exaggeration.

This is beyond absurd, otherwise known as just another regular day as a Republican legislator.

Pretty much everyone that gets nominated is objectively qualified to be a justice.  That is, their resume. After that, it's a partisan or subjective thing.

I personally love Jackson's qualifications, most especially her time as a public defender, and her time with the Sentencing Commission, especially as she didn't "represent" the government when she was actually a Commissioner, and that during her tenure, the Commission was active in correcting past mistakes.

I do wish she had a few more years as an appellate judge, but while it's not interchangeable, her years as a district court judge are a big plus.

But it's absurd to say that Barrett and Kavanaugh were objectively not qualified to be Supreme Court justices.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChuckNorrisActionJeans

ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2692

Posted
Posted

I don't see why the texts change anything. We already knew she was an extremist Trump supporter and has her hand in nearly every shadowy coalition of right-wingers, including all the Jan. 6 stuff. The massive conflict of interest hasn't been obvious before, these texts aren't the "smocking gun" unfortunately. Perhaps more will be revealed.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmr548

gmr548 16701

Posted
Posted
I don't see why the texts change anything. We already knew she was an extremist Trump supporter and has her hand in nearly every shadowy coalition of right-wingers, including all the Jan. 6 stuff. The massive conflict of interest hasn't been obvious before, these texts aren't the "smocking gun" unfortunately. Perhaps more will be revealed.

The terrifying, indefensible, and totally unsurprising. I agree the most likely outcome is nothing of significance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WBT

WBT 20980

Posted
Posted (edited)

Wow, she's deranged.  I  don't see how you can be impeached for what your spouse says though.

And I doubt he has the capacity for the shame that should lead him to resign,

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

Captainant 28540

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, WBT said:

Wow, she's deranged.  I  don't see how you can be impeached for what your spouse says though.

It was in some of the WaPo reporting, but there's texts between her and Mark Meadows (trump's chief of staff) during the insurrection as it was ongoing.

last page has some good specific tweets, I can repost them on this page too if you'd like. Suffice to say, she's implicated justice thomas. That and thomas was the lone justice that voted against enforcing the subpoena that produced this new evidence. Which totally is totally normal behavior for one of the highest judges in the land

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pacman

pacman 7508

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

But it's absurd to say that Barrett and Kavanaugh were objectively not qualified to be Supreme Court justices.

 

 

Great talk but I did not assert that either of the two previous nominees were not qualified to be Justices.

Edited by pacman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34752

Posted
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, WBT said:

Wow, she's deranged.  I  don't see how you can be impeached for what your spouse says though.

And I doubt he has the capacity for the shame that should lead him to resign,

you can be impeached for literally anything.  the constitution says "high crimes and misdemeanors" but congress gets to decide what that means.  if there's a wave election in the midterms congress should impeach the president and veep and install the speaker as the president.   i remember in AP history learning that one vote somehow saved democracy in the impeachment of andrew jackson as if that's not how parliamentary systems work. 

Edited by elfenix
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dutchrudder

Dutchrudder 11243

Posted
Posted

Thomas never recused himself from cases that involved his wife's organizations/employers. This text revelation showing his wife to be a batshit insane person isn't going to move the needle for him. Even if it did outrage a few Republicans in Congress, there's no way they get 60+ Senators to willfully give up a seat to Joe Biden and the Dems.  

Here's a compliant about Thomas from 2011:

Quote

The second complaint, filed with the Department of Justice Public Integrity Section, seeks criminal prosecution for Justice Thomas' conduct. It can be viewed at http://www.velvetrevolution.us/images/Clarence_Thomas_Public_Integrity_Complaint.pdf. In that second complaint, Mr. Zeese, wrote, "Justice Thomas committed at least 20 crimes by falsifying 20 financial disclosure forms in order to hide his wife's employers and to enrich himself and his family. The crimes he committed carry serious jail time if prosecuted, and those and similar false statement crimes have been prosecuted against many others in the past without allowance for immunity by amendment. ... We urge you to treat Justice Thomas with 'Equal Justice Under Law' as stated above the main portico of the Supreme Court building. That means he should not get special treatment by virtue of his position but instead should be charged and prosecuted for his 20 years of false statements which benefitted him and his wife while harming those who appeared before him, the institution of the Supreme Court, and the public's confidence in the rule of law."

The complaints assert that Justice Thomas knowingly and willfully withheld the information about his wife's employment in order to keep litigants from using that information to ask that he be disqualified from their cases for bias and conflict of interest. Virginia Thomas worked for the conservative Heritage Foundation earning at least $600,000, which Justice Thomas denied on his disclosure forms. The Heritage Foundation benefitted from Justice Thomas' decisions, including the controversial Citizens United decision, which allowed organizations such as the Heritage Foundation to raise unlimited funds to help conservative candidates. In the wake of that decision, Mrs. Thomas launched her own organization, Liberty Central, and raised over $550,000 in secret money. She then supposedly left that organization in November 2010 following a scandal involving an inappropriate telephone call to Anita Hill, only to start another organization called Liberty Consulting Inc. within the past month.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/wwwprotectourelectionsorg-files-formal-complaints-to-disbar-and-prosecute-clarence-thomas-for-20-years-of-false-statements-financial-conflicts-of-interest-and-using-his-decisions-on-the-supreme-court-to-enrich-his-wife-115632009.html

This is just funny/sad.

Quote

On February 7, 2011, staff from ProtectOurElections.org tried to interview Mrs. Thomas at the office suite address listed on her Liberty Consulting website but it turned out to be a UPS Store with "Suite 302" being a mailbox. That mailbox is the same address listed on her Liberty Central IRS 990 form. ProtectOurElections.org posted a video on YouTube about the encounter showing UPS Store staff asking them to leave when they began inquiring about Mrs. Thomas' office. The video can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsx6ot4I1iQ.

 

And another article about Thomas' conflict of interest:
https://www.npr.org/2011/11/15/142339329/the-nation-clarence-thomas-vs-legal-ethics

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

956 Worldwide 35594

Posted
Posted

The texts and the questioning of Jackson are proof positive of the long running toxic effects of Q on the United States.  The go-to move from GOP operatives and elected officials is now to casually accuse people of being pedos or pedo enablers.  A sitting justice’s wife engaged in Q inspired skullduggery with the WH Chief of Staff. It doesn’t matter if they believed in Q or not. Q provides their public narrative. 

  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
956 Worldwide

956 Worldwide 35594

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

look at this hypocritical piece of shit

 

McConnell isn’t hypocritical.  Since Merrick Garland, he’s been extremely consistent and open about his principles.  Democrat presidents should not be allowed to nominate justices but Republican presidents should. I can’t believe anyone could posit a universe where McConnell DID vote for a democrat president’s nominee. 

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

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

FOqKV-tXoAgLiBF?format=jpg&name=small
 

Caption contest material 

JUSTICE ROBERTS (thinking to himself): "But you can't hold an entire fraternity SCOTUS responsible for the actions of a few sick, perverted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity judicial system? And if the whole fraternity judicial system is to blame, then is this not an indictment of our education system in general? I put it to you, Greg! Isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do what you want to us, but I will not stand by and listen to you bad mouth the United States of America! Gentlemen!"

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH (thinking to himself): "The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our female party guests - we did."

JUSTICE ALITO: (thinking to himself): "Teaching SCOTUS  is just a way to pay the bills until I finish my novel."

JUSTICE CONEY BARRETT: (thinking to herself): "Greg, honey, is it supposed to be this soft?"

JUSTICE KAGAN: (thinking to herself): "Christ. Seven years of college and over thirty years in the judicial system down the drain. Might as well join the fucking Peace Corps."

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TurkeyChew

TurkeyChew 383

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

McConnell isn’t hypocritical.  Since Merrick Garland, he’s been extremely consistent and open about his principles.  Democrat presidents should not be allowed to nominate justices but Republican presidents should. I can’t believe anyone could posit a universe where McConnell DID vote for a democrat president’s nominee. 

100% this. Supreme Court is 100% political.

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
formermav43

formermav43 4630

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, elfenix said:

you can be impeached for literally anything.  the constitution says "high crimes and misdemeanors" but congress gets to decide what that means.  if there's a wave election in the midterms congress should impeach the president and veep and install the speaker as the president.   i remember in AP history learning that one vote somehow saved democracy in the impeachment of andrew jackson as if that's not how parliamentary systems work. 

Andrew Johnson

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WBT

WBT 20980

Posted
Posted (edited)

Probably stating the obvious but I think it's to the point where seats will sit open, possibly for years, when the president and senate are from opposite parties.

Edited by WBT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hpslugga

hpslugga 4097

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

KBJ will be confirmed. 

Right. Again, this is all just showboat theatre by the minority party to get the base all juiced up for the November mid-terms. It has jack shit to do with actually disqualifying her (well maybe it would be when it came to the vote of Ron Johnson, but that’s it).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catdaddyhorn

Catdaddyhorn 3467

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hot damn!! I didn't know the Iraqi Dinar was still a thing?!?!? That's some good ole, pre-Twitter, email forward, unadulterated conspiracy stuff right there. I mean you had to scroll down to the very bottom of the wall of Fw: to get that pure, bottom of the barrell, transfer your entire 401K for this money making goodness. I hadn't heard reference to the Iraqi Dinar in ages. 

Edited by Catdaddyhorn
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The texts and the questioning of Jackson are proof positive of the long running toxic effects of Q on the United States.  The go-to move from GOP operatives and elected officials is now to casually accuse people of being pedos or pedo enablers.  A sitting justice’s wife engaged in Q inspired skullduggery with the WH Chief of Staff. It doesn’t matter if they believed in Q or not. Q provides their public narrative. 

Called this a long time ago when Trump refused to denounce Qanon. He legitimized these psychos and we will suffer the consequences for years to come. Just remember, Q is a product of Trump embracing them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 47214

Posted
Posted

Scalia sailed through Senate approval with a 98-0 vote.  Some Democrats didn't want to oppose him because he was Italian-American.

You could call that "political", I suppose, but there's a difference between not opposing a nominee because of their race and opposing them because of their race.

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

WhatTheBuck 28930

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, WBT said:

Obviously.  I was just musing about the state of things today and where it's headed.

As long as McConnell is running things then he’ll definitely do everything in his power to prevent a Democratic President from ever appointing a justice to the Supreme Court. He doesn’t give a shit about the Constitution. We know that. But he only managed to steal one seat. Not that that’s not a huge violation of his oath. I just don’t know if we’re in a state where seats are going to sit open for long periods of time just due to political partisanship. Mitch dying soon would be a big help. Trump too. 

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...