The Supremes

[WhatTheBuck 28700]

3 minutes ago, WBT said:

Police don't have to be rogue to break down citizens' doors at midnight these days.

Exactly according to plan.

[SKJ 1305]

2 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

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.

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.

It has been said that the underlying reasoning that Scalia used was --and I'm not making this up-- a secret paper from the federalist papers that he had acquired...

That being said,  he was a megalomaniac, who was far more than a political hack,  he was a true believer... not just in the politics,  but in his own calling,  backed up by said secret text from the federalist society. 

And not only that... he was a supposed textualist, except for when he and he alone knew more about the text than anyone else and so it was okay for he and his secret text needed to govern from the bench because he knew best...

I mean,  his pathological knots of logic were enough to tie his own fat ass up for his sex fetishist practices,  but he alone knew when he was ordained by God and the founding fathers when to use the bench for his own activism...

Man,  our Supreme Court has been just one of the shittiest parts of our history...

[wildcat09 29187]

 

Roberts can't keep the new blood in line and he's afraid they're going to give the game away.

[elfenix 34167]

3 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

 

Roberts can't keep the new blood in line and he's afraid they're going to give the game away.

we already knew that when texas's irreparable injury in DACA remain in mexico was that it was out some money.

 

edit: guess that's a different procedural posture but it's the same bullshit reasoning.

Edited April 6, 2022 by elfenix

[tx 3 putt 76158]

The Supreme Court is a complete joke. Is Thomas steering this shipwreck ?

 

Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's liberal justices in dissent, arguing that the court's majority had "gone astray" by granting an unwarranted request on its emergency docket.

Edited April 6, 2022 by tx 3 putt

[SKJ 1305]

5 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

The Supreme Court is a complete joke. Is Thomas steering this shipwreck ?

 

Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's liberal justices in dissent, arguing that the court's majority had "gone astray" by granting an unwarranted request on its emergency docket.

Probably he is.  He is above the law,  of course.  Good ol uncle ruckus 

[TexasEd 8062]

1 hour ago, SKJ said:

It has been said that the underlying reasoning that Scalia used was --and I'm not making this up-- a secret paper from the federalist papers that he had acquired...

That being said,  he was a megalomaniac, who was far more than a political hack,  he was a true believer... not just in the politics,  but in his own calling,  backed up by said secret text from the federalist society. 

And not only that... he was a supposed textualist, except for when he and he alone knew more about the text than anyone else and so it was okay for he and his secret text needed to govern from the bench because he knew best...

I mean,  his pathological knots of logic were enough to tie his own fat ass up for his sex fetishist practices,  but he alone knew when he was ordained by God and the founding fathers when to use the bench for his own activism...

Man,  our Supreme Court has been just one of the shittiest parts of our history...

If your argument for legitimacy follows the same reasoning as Brigham Young's then you have a problem.

[tx 3 putt 76158]

100% they’re going to uphold the new Oklahoma abortion law 

[Biff Tannen 45477]

32 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

100% they’re going to uphold the new Oklahoma abortion law 

and then we'll really see the sparks fly

[WhatTheBuck 28700]

1 hour ago, SKJ said:

Probably he is.  He is above the law,  of course.  Good ol uncle ruckus 

The frequency with which I’m tempted to post Zappa songs seems to be increasing, and my resistance to doing so seems to be diminishing.

 

[fattyflattie 4636]

1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

100% they’re going to uphold the new Oklahoma abortion law 

Lol. Let me introduce you to Justice Roberts. 

[Foosters 17691]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

Lol. Let me introduce you to Justice Roberts. 

And let me introduce you to:

Gorsuch

Barrett

Kavanaugh

Alito

Thomas

That makes 5 by my count.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33824]

Just now, Foosters said:

And let me introduce you to:

Gorsuch

Barrett

Kavanaugh

Alito

Thomas

That makes 5 by my count.

i double checked your math and I think you're correct

[fattyflattie 4636]

Will bet you dollars to donuts absolutely nothing comes of it in Supreme Court.  

[Longhorn_Fan68 33824]

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Will bet you dollars to donuts absolutely nothing comes of it in Supreme Court.  

well, that's still a problem because precedent says this should be struck down

[SydneyCarton 47809]

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Will bet you dollars to donuts absolutely nothing comes of it in Supreme Court.  

If by "nothing comes" you mean they don't lift a finger to strike down the Oklahoma/Texas/etc laws and they're upheld, then yes. That would be the definition of "doing nothing."

[Longhorn_Fan68 33824]

jfc

 

[wildcat09 29187]

22 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Will bet you dollars to donuts absolutely nothing comes of it in Supreme Court.  

Well it's very likely that nothing comes of it because it never makes it to SCOTUS because SCOTUS overturns Roe in Dobbs v Jackson in a couple of months. So in one sense you'd be right, but not in the sense you intended.

[fattyflattie 4636]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Well it's very likely that nothing comes of it because it never makes it to SCOTUS because SCOTUS overturns Roe in Dobbs v Jackson in a couple of months. So in one sense you'd be right, but not in the sense you intended.

Well, that too. But the point was the original comment was dumb. RvW wouldn’t go anywhere with a court made up of nothing but conservatives.  But the bigger point was roberts in no way, shape, or form should be included in that group. 

[wildcat09 29187]

11 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Well, that too. But the point was the original comment was dumb. RvW wouldn’t go anywhere with a court made up of nothing but conservatives.  But the bigger point was roberts in no way, shape, or form should be included in that group. 

...what? I just predicted that Roe will probably be overturned in the next few months and at first you seemingly agree that it is a possibility, but then say it wouldn't even if the Court was 9-0 conservatives?

In reality, Roe has already "gone somewhere," as the Court has allowed Texas to flagrantly violate it since September 1, 2021.

[jimmyjazz 45512]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that pissing off a huge percentage of half the country (and a significant percentage of the other half) will not play out well for the current Republican party.  It will, however, cause a massive amount of pain in the interim.

[hookem2010 2594]

Who needs clean water, or breathable air, or bearable temperatures? Those are privileges nowhere specifically enumerated in the constitution!!!

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2655]

Federalist society dismantling the administrative state is proceeding apace.

[wildcat09 29187]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that pissing off a huge percentage of half the country (and a significant percentage of the other half) will not play out well for the current Republican party.  It will, however, cause a massive amount of pain in the interim.

That's why they're priming their base with all this "liberals = pedophiles" talk so that they'll support the murder of their political opponents.

[elfenix 34167]

2 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

100% they’re going to uphold the new Oklahoma abortion law 

they won't.

 

because they're going to get rid of roe in jackson women's health

[elfenix 34167]

31 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

Federalist society dismantling the administrative state is proceeding apace.

gorsuch is his mother's son.

[Horn Dog 9644]

1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

jfc

 

Well Judge Amy told us that all we have to do is read the opinion of these divisive decisions to see that there is absolutely no partisanship going on.....wait.

 

https://www.mynews13.com/fl/orlando/ap-top-news/2022/04/05/with-divisive-cases-coming-barrett-says-read-the-opinion

[CooterBrown 17874]

51 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that pissing off a huge percentage of half the country (and a significant percentage of the other half) will not play out well for the current Republican party.  It will, however, cause a massive amount of pain in the interim.

It won't matter once all the voter suppression is in place. 

[wildcat09 29187]

36 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

Well Judge Amy told us that all we have to do is read the opinion of these divisive decisions to see that there is absolutely no partisanship going on.....wait.

 

https://www.mynews13.com/fl/orlando/ap-top-news/2022/04/05/with-divisive-cases-coming-barrett-says-read-the-opinion

If there’s no opinion to read she can still accuse you of not having read the opinion.

[tx 3 putt 76158]

1 hour ago, elfenix said:

they won't.

 

because they're going to get rid of roe in jackson women's health

they won’t or they won’t have to ?

[Satchel 6908]

2 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

jfc

 

Not exactly sure why the actions of the Sarandon Court would surprise anybody.

[Cacti 191]

6 hours ago, SKJ said:

It has been said that the underlying reasoning that Scalia used was --and I'm not making this up-- a secret paper from the federalist papers that he had acquired...

You may not be “making this up”, but “it has been said” is a flimsy foundation from which to form an opinion. Do you have sources (other than hearsay) referencing this secret paper?

[hobbes2702 12771]

4 hours ago, TexasEd said:

If your argument for legitimacy follows the same reasoning as Brigham Young's then you have a problem.

Why limit it to just Mormons?

[hobbes2702 12771]

 

2 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Well, that too. But the point was the original comment was dumb. RvW wouldn’t go anywhere with a court made up of nothing but conservatives.  But the bigger point was roberts in no way, shape, or form should be included in that group. 

I love when conservatives pretend that Roberts isn’t a conservative.

[elfenix 34167]

1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

they won’t or they won’t have to ?

[Dutchrudder 11103]

This Shadow Docket bullshit has to be the most cowardly garbage ever to come out of the Supreme Court in its history.  How the fuck do you call yourselves "Conservatives", who supposedly like to rule by the "spirit" or "intent" of the law, and not have the fucking balls to hear arguments and then say "we vote yes/no on this issue and here's why..."  What a bunch of bitchass pussies. 

[Captainant 27309]

6 hours ago, Dutchrudder said:

This Shadow Docket bullshit has to be the most cowardly garbage ever to come out of the Supreme Court in its history.  How the fuck do you call yourselves "Conservatives", who supposedly like to rule by the "spirit" or "intent" of the law, and not have the fucking balls to hear arguments and then say "we vote yes/no on this issue and here's why..."  What a bunch of bitchass pussies. 

Shadow docket AND not even bothering to release an opinion. It's absolutely cynical and incredibly damaging to faith and trust in the law

[lemonlime 5503]

33 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Shadow docket AND not even bothering to release an opinion. It's absolutely cynical and incredibly damaging to faith and trust in the law

That's the goal.  The modern GOP and its Court appointees want to destroy rule of law, and install a corrupt oligarchy.

[SKJ 1305]

17 hours ago, Cacti said:

You may not be “making this up”, but “it has been said” is a flimsy foundation from which to form an opinion. Do you have sources (other than hearsay) referencing this secret paper?

His shitty work and opinions are from what I formed my opinion. He was a complete shitshow. That he claimed to be against judicial activism was a thinly veiled accusation, which we all know now as a confession.  He was one of the worst. 

 

[SKJ 1305]

7 hours ago, Dutchrudder said:

This Shadow Docket bullshit has to be the most cowardly garbage ever to come out of the Supreme Court in its history.  How the fuck do you call yourselves "Conservatives", who supposedly like to rule by the "spirit" or "intent" of the law, and not have the fucking balls to hear arguments and then say "we vote yes/no on this issue and here's why..."  What a bunch of bitchass pussies. 

They don't rule by the spirit,  or intent of the law at all.  If they did,  they would cite legislative history,  which is how congress signals the intent of the law. 

Instead,  the use textualism.

[Biff Tannen 45477]

The only reason I think SCOTUS won't overturn Roe is because then the Rs won't be able to use abortion as a scare tactic to keep their idiot voters voting for them. 

[Horn Dog 9644]

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

The only reason I think SCOTUS won't overturn Roe is because then the Rs won't be able to use abortion as a scare tactic to keep their idiot voters voting for them. 

Oh they will overturn it.  And when there is a public backlash they with claim that  "The Libs are the ones that want to make make abortion illegal!" 

[lemonlime 5503]

12 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

The only reason I think SCOTUS won't overturn Roe is because then the Rs won't be able to use abortion as a scare tactic to keep their idiot voters voting for them. 

They'll overturn it, and rile up the base with claims that if dems come back into power they'll kill babies and molest infants.

[DigglerontheHoof 21022]

3 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

They'll overturn it, and rile up the base with claims that if dems come back into power they'll kill babies and molest infants.

['stache 21743]

5 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

They'll overturn it, and rile up the base with claims that if dems come back into power they'll kill babies and molest infants.

Then press to make it a federal crime. That's next.

[tx 3 putt 76158]

30 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

The only reason I think SCOTUS won't overturn Roe is because then the Rs won't be able to use abortion as a scare tactic to keep their idiot voters voting for them. 

This court has gone 100% rogue. They’ll do what they want, when they want 

[WhatTheBuck 28700]

24 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

They'll overturn it, and rile up the base with claims that if dems come back into power they'll kill babies and molest infants.

And in the mean time a lot of women will die from resorting to back alley abortions. Eventually we’ll be reminded why abortion was made legal in the first place and it will be made legal again. Wash, rinse, repeat.

[softlynow 1774]

18 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Then press to make it a federal crime. That's next.

Yep. "God wants us to end abortion tourism" is the next line, as if crossing state lines for medical care of an emotional nature and which is possibly necessary to save a woman's life was a fun vacation. 

[lemonlime 5503]

3 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

And in the mean time a lot of women will die from resorting to back alley abortions. Eventually we’ll be reminded why abortion was made legal in the first place and it will be made legal again. Wash, rinse, repeat.

A lot of poor women will die from back alley abortions.  To the current GQP, that's a win.  The women Kav or Donald Trump Jr. or whoever impregnate will still have access to safe abortions.  

[WhatTheBuck 28700]

8 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

A lot of poor women will die from back alley abortions.  To the current GQP, that's a win.  The women Kav or Donald Trump Jr. or whoever impregnate will still have access to safe abortions.  

Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was.