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

kevwun

kevwun 16438

Posted
Posted (edited)

I like how they make these no vote announcement with gravitas like it was a carefully weighed decision.  Motherfucker everyone knew you were voting no.  You'd vote against Jesus Christ or the Statue of Justice if Biden nominated them.

Edited by kevwun
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mdhorn

Mdhorn 6166

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

I like how they make these no vote announcement with gravitas like it was a carefully weighed decision.  Motherfucker everyone knew you were voting no.  You'd vote against Jesus Christ or the Statue of Justice if Biden nominated them.

Going public with their votes is to put money in their campaign chests.  

Edited by Mdhorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6982

Posted
Posted

It will be interesting to see how the Thomases respond to the growing pressure on both on them. Even though Mitch gave Clarence permission not to recuse himself for any reason, he may be forced to sit out any decision having to do with J/6 participants. He’s already gone too far:

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/03/ginni-thomas-clarence-thomas-mark-meadows-text-messages

Of course, the Archives situation wasn’t the first time Clarence should have declined to participate in a case due to Ginni’s work but refused not to. As Mayer reported in her piece, in 2017 and 2018, Ginni Thomas’s lobbying firm was paid more than $200,000 by the Center for Security Policy, a group led by far-right activist Frank Gaffney. In 2017, after the Supreme Court said it would hear legal challenges to Trump’s Muslim ban, Gaffney and several others filed an amicus brief with the court supporting the travel restrictions and arguing that “the challenge of Islam must be confronted.” Not only did Clarence not recuse himself, but he didn’t even mention his wife’s contract with Gaffney, despite being required to do in his annual financial disclosures. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SimonBolivar

SimonBolivar 11064

Posted
Posted
On 3/23/2022 at 10:52 AM, RomaVicta said:

Demagogues were the fear of Athens. They tried to stand on guard against them by reminding themselves of the threat.

We don't.

We now find ourselves having a serious discussion about not televising an important Senate function to dampen the rabble-rousing of the fascist party. It's serious enough that I'm leaning towards turning off the cameras so that the demagogues can't collect snippets for their campaign ads.

The Athenians of antiquity were very pragmatic. I admire that about them and the Romans. 

We're not.

 

Bring back mandatory exile!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28930

Posted
Posted
Just now, Satchel said:

Breaking. Senators Murkowski, Romney and Collins are confirmed yes votes. 

Just heard that on CBS News. I heard that Romney was a yes and that there were three Republicans voting to confirm but didn’t hear that Murkowski was the third.

Fucking disgraceful that there are so few. Party of racism. Party of obstruction. Party of no. Party of “Fuck you!”

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

Satchel 6982

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Just heard that on CBS News. I heard that Romney was a yes and that there were three Republicans voting to confirm but didn’t hear that Murkowski was the third.

Fucking disgraceful that there are so few. Party of racism. Party of obstruction. Party of no. Party of “Fuck you!”

Well, the Dems made Kavanaugh cry, so, there…

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32079

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Just heard that on CBS News. I heard that Romney was a yes and that there were three Republicans voting to confirm but didn’t hear that Murkowski was the third.

Fucking disgraceful that there are so few. Party of racism. Party of obstruction. Party of no. Party of “Fuck you!”

RINOs!!!!

😬😬

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 47214

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Nolacycling said:

Siap, I haven't been keeping up. 

Ginsberg's nom vote was 96-3. Would that happen today? Senators got their airtime to impress their constituents but then "supported the troops". The country moved forward.

I posted a week or so ago that Scalia sailed through 98-0.  Dems don't play dirty enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28930

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

so does that mean the confirmation will go through?

There was never any question, really. What I find most stunning is that more Republicans aren’t voting to confirm just as cover for future racist actions. I really thought Ben Sasse would vote to confirm. Boy, was I wrong about that.

Did you hear that, Republicans? I just confessed to being horribly wrong about something. There’s no shame in that. You should try it sometime. The next time Trump admits to being wrong will be the first. The only thing he’ll say about being wrong is blaming someone he hired for not being corrupt enough or enough of a sycophant to please him. Massive pieces of shit like Jeff Sessions and William Barr and Mike Pence wound up falling short of the corruption Trump demanded.

What would it take to get you to admit you were wrong about Trump? Probably nothing. Because you’re in a cult. It’s blind faith. The question, “If I’m wrong, how would I know?” doesn’t exist in your pea brains. It should. But it doesn’t. And it’s just sad.

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

WhatTheBuck 28930

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Patrick Bateman said:

In other news..... Jeff Flake with furrowed brow is considering his vote intently.

 

He’s not considering running for reelection but he still won’t vote to confirm. I wonder what lobbying firm he’s planning to work for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lurch

Lurch 5950

Posted
Posted

Periodic reminder that congressional vote counts don’t matter once the outcome is assured. Comparing one vote count to another is mostly meaninglessness. Many are not voting about the merits of the question at hand so much as how that vote will play in primary commercials.

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14652

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, Patrick Bateman said:

In other news..... Jeff Flake with furrowed brow is considering his vote intently.

 

 

12 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

He’s not considering running for reelection but he still won’t vote to confirm. I wonder what lobbying firm he’s planning to work for.

 

jags-fan-wth.gif

 

1 hour ago, WBT said:

Are some of you under the impression Jeff Flake is still in the Senate?  Because otherwise I don't get the bit.

Me either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Patrick Bateman

Patrick Bateman 3980

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, WBT said:

Are some of you under the impression Jeff Flake is still in the Senate?  Because otherwise I don't get the bit.

It's a joke.  Flake was part of the "centrist" group with Murkowski and Collins who would always talk about being bothered by the politicization of any process, bellyache about how it wasn't what the country needed, said he was considering all his options....... and then would vote party lines.  Mitt's sort of fills that role now and at least he will break party lines sometimes.... generally when the outcome was known, as it is here.

 

 

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

Brisketexan 106901

Posted
Posted
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

God.  Damn.

I've managed to avoid any fights beyond varsity wrestling my whole life, but I would gladly punch that little fuck in his ugly face if given the chance.

Correct.

And, umm, the fucking ENTIRE POINT of having "war crime trials" instead of "war crime summary executions" was to......follow me here....have an actual process of justice, including allowing the accused a defense.  For which they would need representation.

And Tom Cotton would side with actual modern murderous fascists today -- after all, his God just called the architect of modern gruesome war crimes on European soil "a genius."

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

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted

Told y’all long ago Thomas was a complete hack. Never did jack shit expect sign off on opinions Scalia wrote.
 

Never opened his mouth during oral argument because he apparently long ago learned the old adage that it’s better to sit silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
 

The senate will never convict but the Dems should impeach him anyway just to put that mark of history on the biggest shitstain of a judge the Supreme Court has seen in a good long while, probably ever.

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

DDD Dad 14652

Posted
Posted
Just now, WhatTheBuck said:

Yeah, mea culpa. I got suckered. I know he’s not running again. I forgot that Trump already bragged about ending his career. 

He's been gone for over 2 years.  Currently U.S. Ambassador to Turkey.

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

DDD Dad 14652

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Correct.

And, umm, the fucking ENTIRE POINT of having "war crime trials" instead of "war crime summary executions" was to......follow me here....have an actual process of justice, including allowing the accused a defense.  For which they would need representation.

And Tom Cotton would side with actual modern murderous fascists today -- after all, his God just called the architect of modern gruesome war crimes on European soil "a genius."

Work with me here, but what would be wrong with her defending one of them?  I mean, if the process is to ensure that they receive a fair trial, one would hope that an officer of the court would uphold that duty.

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

NameAlreadyInUse 5169

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Senator Cotton should take a look at who acted as defense counsel for the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre.

Beat me to it.  It's actually one of the foundational things we learn about in US History, that everyone deserves representation in a fair trial.  What world does he even live in?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Gil Bang

Gil Bang 26241

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

So, my Brother in Law was murdered around 1991 or 1992.

The cops knew who did it right away.  I took a few days to find the motherfucker, but they found him.

 

Anyway, my (now ex) wife and I attended every hearing, and every minute of the trial.  His counsel was from  the Public Defender's office.  A cat named "Klein".  

There were only a few of us that attended the hearings and trial.  My wife and I on our "side", and the killer had a couple of sisters and an aunt IIRC. 

Anyway, we all figured out who was who.  I used to see Mr. Klein in the hallway before court, at lunch, in the pisser, etc.  I always greeted him by name, told him "good morning", "good afternoon", etc.  BECAUSE HE WAS JUST A GUY WITH A JOB TO DO AND WAS DOING IT TO THE BEST OF HIS ABILITY. 

It wasn't his fault that his client was a murderer.  

 

Meanwhile, I believe we have a poster here that works for the Los Angeles Public Defender's office.   I sincerely hope that he's good at what I imagine to be a very difficult  job, and works hard at it. 

  • Hook 'Em 15
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 32079

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

So, my Brother in Law was murdered around 1991 or 1992.

The cops knew who did it right away.  I took a few days to find the motherfucker, but they found him.

 

Anyway, my (now ex) wife and I attended every hearing, and every minute of the trial.  His counsel was from  the Public Defender's office.  A cat named "Klein".  

There were only a few of us that attended the hearings and trial.  My wife and I on our "side", and the killer had a couple of sisters and an aunt IIRC. 

Anyway, we all figured out who was who.  I used to see Mr. Klein in the hallway before court, at lunch, in the pisser, etc.  I always greeted him by name, told him "good morning", "good afternoon", etc.  BECAUSE HE WAS JUST A GUY WITH A JOB TO DO AND WAS DOING IT TO THE BEST OF HIS ABILITY. 

It wasn't his fault that his client was a murderer.  

 

Meanwhile, I believe we have a poster here that works for the Los Angeles Public Defender's office.   I sincerely hope that he's good at what I imagine to be a very difficult  job, and works hard at it. 

Public Defender is one of those thankless jobs that no one takes unless they're actually pretty good at it.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gap03

Gap03 3386

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

Correct.

And, umm, the fucking ENTIRE POINT of having "war crime trials" instead of "war crime summary executions" was to......follow me here....have an actual process of justice, including allowing the accused a defense.  For which they would need representation.

And Tom Cotton would side with actual modern murderous fascists today -- after all, his God just called the architect of modern gruesome war crimes on European soil "a genius."

It's really not that hard.  Tom represents those fine people of Arkansas who still think we'd be better off with "trial by lynching", especially so long as they personally never get accused of anything.  He's not going to stop playing to those neanderthals, especially when it gets him air time on Fox News.  What makes it atrocious is that he absolutely knows better - he graduated from Harvard Law, for fuck's sake - but as we've seen, there's no  shortage of unscrupulous bags of shit getting getting pumped out by Harvard (see Cruz, DeSantis, Stefanik, etc.) who would sell their own mothers down the river for money or power.  

Edited by Gap03
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28930

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, fattyflattie said:


It happens.

efba69d986e9311fc4d1e2d30652e001.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

“Person, woman, man, camera, tv.”

”I’m a very stable genius.”

"I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning? As you see, it gets in the lungs, it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that.”

Fix your Tapatalk sig, dumbass. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28930

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, SKJ said:

Scalia... what a fucking complete piece of shit

I’m not a Supreme Court historian but it seems like, from my view, that he introduced hardcore partisanship to the court. I remember hearing complaints that Sandra Day O’Connor wasn’t the partisan they’d hoped she’d be when Reagan appointed her. Boy, they got that with Scalia. And then Reagan had the nerve to nominate Bork, the guy who took part in Nixon’s “Saturday night massacre” and fired the special prosecutor investigating the thoroughly corrupt executive. That was an affront to decency, and democracy. It was right to oppose that appointment. Wtf were you thinking? Oh, right, you weren’t thinking. You’re Ronald Reagan. A B-list actor, star of Bedtime For Bonzo.

reagans-chimpanzee-co-star-unintentional

A corporate shill. A useful idiot. Scalia was a massive piece of shit. But Bork? That turned it up to 11. And the right has been using the perfectly reasonable objection to his appointment as a justification for their ultra-partisanship ever since. Bork would’ve sucked worse than Scalia. Ted Kennedy was right. Unfortunately the Republicans are still making progress on realizing that vision.

5C4AD7BC-67B2-4FC0-BA26-B04678B57B67.thumb.png.8a6cda6d1743d90b8a663efc079e00b7.png

  • Rage+1 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...