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

Captainant

Captainant 28530

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Was talking about abortion.  I guess it’s a very slippery slope though.  

No motherfucker. The core supreme court decisions that enshrine gay rights are specifically and explicitly targeted in the plain text of the draft opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DalTxHornFan

DalTxHornFan 3130

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Bullneck said:

Kind of like that shoe bomber, everyone gotta scan their feet and shoes at the airport v. lots of school shooting is "Nothing can be done" thingy.

That's a really dumb take.  Pro tip -- David Hogg is not somebody that smart people follow.

  • Fuck You 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bullneck

Bullneck 19517

Posted
Posted (edited)

Alright, you tiresome, boring motherfuckers.  It's time to choose your fighter.  Or leaker.  Whatever:

  • John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice  - He's the leaker because he's hoping the public outrage will frighten everone into backing down so he doesn't proceed into history as Douchebag #1 that everyone hates,
  • Clarence Thomas - He's the leaker because of Theory 1 - that leaking the story will galvanize the conservative majority and ensure public opinion will stop a wavering justice from backing down.
  • Stephen G. Breyer -- He's the leaker because he's retiring soon.  So who gives a fuck, what are they going to do to him?  But i saw him at the SOTU address.  He's a big nerdy pussy,
  • Samuel Alito - He's the leaker because he's batshit fucking Dominican level let's kill some Aztecs crazy. 
  • Sonia Sotomayor - She's the leaker because she's tired of this bullshit
  • Elena Kagan - She's the leaker because she hasn't been heard from since "On the Waterfront."
  • Neil Gorsuch - He's the leaker because of Theory 1
  • Brett Kavanaugh - He's the leaker because he don't do any heavy lifting and he likes beer and that whole rape-and-incest thing cramps his style, because of, you know, child support,
  • Amy Comey Barrett  - Crazy eyed bitch who could be a leaker. I'm out of answers.  Someone call a doctor.

 

Edited by Bullneck
  • Like 1
  • Haha 6
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6982

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

That's a really dumb take.  Pro tip -- David Hogg is not somebody that smart people follow.

Did you hear the one about the dumbest member of Congress following David Hogg?

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bullneck

Bullneck 19517

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, DalTxHornFan said:

That's a really dumb take.  Pro tip -- David Hogg is not somebody that smart people follow.

On the contrary, it's completely accurate.  Also, David Hogg and the rest of the outspoke shooting survivors restored my faith in public school education.  I think he's pretty fucking smart.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jhawkmvp

Jhawkmvp 1514

Posted
Posted

Axios had an article with a shitty map about which states had codified protections for abortions and which ones would ban abortion based on "trigger" laws. I made a better map based on the information in the article so it is easier to visualize and find each state. Some states including FL, NE, IN, MT, and KS are likely to ban or severely restrict abortions, as well, if Roe/Casey are overturned by the Supreme Court, though I did not color them on the map, since they have not attempted anything recently. Purple states are states that have had courts block attempts at restricting abortion recently based on Roe/Casey. WV and 3 other states have state constitutional amendments prohibiting the protection of abortion rights.

 

image.thumb.png.4a3576e2b53d3de1e3ee9868c5e2b58c.png

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

David Dennison 19530

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Jhawkmvp said:

Axios had an article with a shitty map about which states had codified protections for abortions and which ones would ban abortion based on "trigger" laws. I made a better map based on the information in the article so it is easier to visualize and find each state. Some states including FL, NE, IN, MT, and KS are likely to ban or severely restrict abortions, as well, if Roe/Casey are overturned by the Supreme Court, though I did not color them on the map, since they have not attempted anything recently. Purple states are states that have had courts block attempts at restricting abortion recently based on Roe/Casey. WV and 3 other states have state constitutional amendments prohibiting the protection of abortion rights.

 

image.thumb.png.4a3576e2b53d3de1e3ee9868c5e2b58c.png

Texas is so embarrassing.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
horn4life

horn4life 3838

Posted
Posted

I think the best thing the Dems could do at this point is pass laws making perjury in Confirmation hearing a federal crime.  As when it comes to abortion you can see clear perjury by nearly all the (R) jurists regarding their opinions on precedent and abortion.

The court is of course ALREADY packed, so that now the MINORITY viewpoints of the GOP now rule the court.  

It will be interesting to see if women truly are motivated to vote now.  I know most women honestly do not follow the Supremes, but they do know when a bunch of racist leaning white men want to take the decision making over their bodies away. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, horn4life said:

I think the best thing the Dems could do at this point is pass laws making perjury in Confirmation hearing a federal crime.  As when it comes to abortion you can see clear perjury by nearly all the (R) jurists regarding their opinions on precedent and abortion.

The court is of course ALREADY packed, so that now the MINORITY viewpoints of the GOP now rule the court.  

It will be interesting to see if women truly are motivated to vote now.  I know most women honestly do not follow the Supremes, but they do know when a bunch of racist leaning white men want to take the decision making over their bodies away. 

They didn’t lie.  They said it was precedent.  It is.  Until it isn’t.  You ask if they overturn it then they won’t answer.  Just like Kentangi with Heller and Citizens United.  
 

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

Bookman 4759

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

They didn’t lie.  They said it was precedent.  It is.  Until it isn’t.  You ask if they overturn it then they won’t answer.  Just like Kentangi with Heller and Citizens United.  
 

Yes. Don't forget that lawyers are extremely good at lying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Original Greaser Bob

The Original Greaser Bob 2888

Posted
Posted

I had Lino Graglia as well.  He never got my last name right.  Essentially called me Mr. Ortega the whole class when my name is really another common spanish O-name.

Lino to me:  "I'm not sure why you did so poorly on the test.  You said some pretty bright things in class."

Had my law school reunion this last weekend and walked around campus.  I was the most average of law students, but fuck, I really did love that law school and my time there.  

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

royiv 9782

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Ruling will be a win for democracy.  Some people are anti-democracy though.  

A true democracy protects the rights of its people. It doesn't marginalize entire groups of people as our democracy historically has. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
horn4life

horn4life 3838

Posted
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

They didn’t lie.  They said it was precedent.  It is.  Until it isn’t.  You ask if they overturn it then they won’t answer.  Just like Kentangi with Heller and Citizens United.  
 

Ahh... Johnny... always nice to play the "what about" game.  I mean letting corporation pretend they are people is EXACTLY the same as letting old white racist leaning men make medical decisions for individual citizens.  Directly interfering with their "life. liberty and Pursuit of happiness."

Citizens United was a shit ruling.  Anyone with half a brain knows that it's bad law.  Corporations are not people, simply as they cannot be physically held accountable for their actions as actual people. 

But since I did preface with "half a brain" please retort again Johnny Sack!  

I would be happy to have the perjury and ethics of the rest of the Federal Bench adopted for the Supreme court.  As simply I know that the amount of lies told daily by Republicans makes honesty under oath a lot more dangerous for liars than truth tellers.

Edited by horn4life
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pig Bellmont

Pig Bellmont 8885

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Bullneck said:

Alright, you tiresome, boring motherfuckers.  It's time to choose your fighter.  Or leaker.  Whatever:

  • John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice  - He's the leaker because he's hoping the public outrage will frighten everone into backing down so he doesn't proceed into history as Douchebag #1 that everyone hates,
  • Clarence Thomas - He's the leaker because of Theory 1 - that leaking the story will galvanize the conservative majority and ensure public opinion will stop a wavering justice from backing down.
  • Stephen G. Breyer -- He's the leaker because he's retiring soon.  So who gives a fuck, what are they going to do to him?  But i saw him at the SOTU address.  He's a big nerdy pussy,
  • Samuel Alito - He's the leaker because he's batshit fucking Dominican level let's kill some Aztecs crazy. 
  • Sonia Sotomayor - She's the leaker because she's tired of this bullshit
  • Elena Kagan - She's the leaker because she hasn't been heard from since "On the Waterfront."
  • Neil Gorsuch - He's the leaker because of Theory 1
  • Brett Kavanaugh - He's the leaker because he don't do any heavy lifting and he likes beer and that whole rape-and-incest thing cramps his style, because of, you know, child support,
  • Amy Comey Barrett  - Crazy eyed bitch who could be a leaker. I'm out of answers.  Someone call a doctor.

 

It was Ginni Thomas. Clarence has already questioned the right to marry in his opinions and my crystal ball says he wants to lock in a wavering justice (probably Gorsuch) to this opinion bc he wants to use it to roll back other rights he doesn’t believe are protected by the constitution. I just don’t believe a liberal clerk or justice leaks to Politico. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
South Austin

South Austin 53222

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

I had Lino Graglia as well.  He never got my last name right.  Essentially called me Mr. Ortega the whole class when my name is really another common spanish O-name.

Lino to me:  "I'm not sure why you did so poorly on the test.  You said some pretty bright things in class."

Had my law school reunion this last weekend and walked around campus.  I was the most average of law students, but fuck, I really did love that law school and my time there.  

Not to veer off too much, but I feel the same way about UT Law.  Some of the best three years of my life.  And while I don't subscribe to his theory of originalism, Lino sure as hell was entertaining.  Our section's end-of-year skit pretty blatantly portrayed him as jerking off as a kid to National Geographic (a reference to a joke he made earlier in the semester).  He was laughing at that to the point of tears.  And several years after graduation I got to sit at his table for an alumni event, and he couldn't have been more welcoming and unpretentious. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 17408

Posted
Posted

 

8 hours ago, F250 said:

After reading this thread today I am ready to replace lawyers and judges with AI. Lawyers can better serve society by keeping the parks clean.

Bow before your algorithmic overlords.

 

Nah, they would spend the entire time trying to discuss what exactly precedent historical and otherwise for the proper orientation of toilet paper.    I would prefer to use them as boat anchors.   

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

Pig Bellmont 8885

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, horn4life said:

Citizens United was a shit ruling.  Anyone with half a brain knows that it's bad law. 

Worse is Buckley v Valeo. Political contributions were held as constitutionally protected free speech. I’m unsure how someone could have billions more speech than me, or how the first amendment is used to permit outsized influence over the electoral system. But as long as we’re overturning SCOTUS decisions from 50 years ago - my vote is that one next. Yes, Citizens United permits dark money organizations to spend limitless amounts, but that wouldn’t be possible without Buckley v Valeo. Arguably one of the most damaging decisions ever made to our electoral process 

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

South Austin 53222

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

They didn’t lie.  They said it was precedent.  It is.  Until it isn’t.  You ask if they overturn it then they won’t answer.  Just like Kentangi with Heller and Citizens United. 

Yeah, I didn't see anything in those clips that was damning.  They're smart lawyers and they knew how to walk a fine line.  In their minds, they could have been sitting in their confirmation hearings chomping at the bit to overturn Roe.  But they wouldn't say that and they didn't.  Instead they acknowledged the unremarkable fact that a prior case was precedent.  And when some of them said it was "important" precedent, that didn't commit them to not overturning it.  It simply recognized that Roe one of the most significant cases in U.S. Supreme Court history.

And Alito does his best to address the stare decisis argument in his opinion by basically saying, "Look, the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned its own precedent numerous times.  Remember Plessy v. Ferguson?  This is just like that!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, horn4life said:

Ahh... Johnny... always nice to play the "what about" game.  I mean letting corporation pretend they are people is EXACTLY the same as letting old white racist leaning men make medical decisions for individual citizens.  Directly interfering with their "life. liberty and Pursuit of happiness."

Citizens United was a shit ruling.  Anyone with half a brain knows that it's bad law.  Corporations are not people, simply as they cannot be physically held accountable for their actions as actual people. 

But since I did preface with "half a brain" please retort again Johnny Sack!  

I would be happy to have the perjury and ethics of the rest of the Federal Bench adopted for the Supreme court.  As simply I know that the amount of lies told daily by Republicans makes honesty under oath a lot more dangerous for liars than truth tellers.

A bunch of emotional nonsense and rhetoric.

Nominees are asked all the time if a controversial case is precedent.  They say it is.  Because it is.  Then they are asked if they would overturn it.  They respond the code of judicial ethics prevents them from doing so.  None are lying.  You are just too stupid or too committed to your cause to know basic truth.

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

Sawbonz 28218

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

A bunch of emotional nonsense and rhetoric.

Nominees are asked all the time if a controversial case is precedent.  They say it is.  Because it is.  Then they are asked if they would overturn it.  They respond the code of judicial ethics prevents them from doing so.  None are lying.  You are just too stupid or too committed to your cause to know basic truth.

We should know the basic truth that Republican nominees are going to violate the code of judicial ethics once seated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hpslugga

hpslugga 4097

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, horn4life said:

Ahh... Johnny... always nice to play the "what about" game.  I mean letting corporation pretend they are people is EXACTLY the same as letting old white racist leaning men make medical decisions for individual citizens.  Directly interfering with their "life. liberty and Pursuit of happiness."

Citizens United was a shit ruling.  Anyone with half a brain knows that it's bad law.  Corporations are not people, simply as they cannot be physically held accountable for their actions as actual people. 

But since I did preface with "half a brain" please retort again Johnny Sack!  

I would be happy to have the perjury and ethics of the rest of the Federal Bench adopted for the Supreme court.  As simply I know that the amount of lies told daily by Republicans makes honesty under oath a lot more dangerous for liars than truth tellers.

It’s actually worse than you think. The argument was best articulated by Mormon Mitt when he said “everything that gets put into a corporation goes back to people.”

As a comedian (probably Maher or Colbert) famously retorted; by that logic, a fucking vending machine is a person too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starfleet Command

Starfleet Command 441

Posted
Posted

Who cares if they lied or didn't lie during their confirmation hearings?  Even if they said flat out under oath - I would never in a million years vote to overturn Roe - would anything happen to these people.  You have to literally fuck children like Hastert to get in any kind of trouble when you are at that level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 17408

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Bullneck said:

On the contrary, it's completely accurate.  Also, David Hogg and the rest of the outspoke shooting survivors restored my faith in public school education.  I think he's pretty fucking smart.

The stupids don't recognize smart.   They have no experience with it.  

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

TwiceHorn 32076

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Bookman said:

Lino Graglia passed away in January. https://law.utexas.edu/news/2022/01/31/in-memoriam-remembering-professor-lino-graglia-texas-law-faculty-member-for-50-years/

I did enjoy his Con Law class.

Graglia was a smart dude, no question.  Mostly notable for being one of a very few conservative voices on a quite liberal faculty.  I had him for Antitrust and he was pretty good at illustrating the doctrinal baselessness of a lot of it.

In retrospect, part of his "schtick" was poking fun at liberals in a "reductio ad absurdum" way that seemed to me to be similar to the early Rush Limbaugh schtick.  I wonder if he later turned into an "own the libs" type.  I didn't find him to be mean-spirited at the time.  A big part of that was the "socratic" milieu where everything was questioned, sometimes in a humorous or sarcastic way, to provoke thought and discussion (apolitical example:  Bob Hamilton used to love to drive students to respond that something was "fair" or "unfair," at which point he would ask "are you God"?)

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 17408

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

Graglia was a smart dude, no question.  Mostly notable for being one of a very few conservative voices on a quite liberal faculty.  I had him for Antitrust and he was pretty good at illustrating the doctrinal baselessness of a lot of it.

In retrospect, part of his "schtick" was poking fun at liberals in a "reductio ad absurdum" way that seemed to me to be similar to the early Rush Limbaugh schtick.  I wonder if he later turned into an "own the libs" type.  I didn't find him to be mean-spirited at the time.  A big part of that was the "socratic" milieu where everything was questioned, sometimes in a humorous or sarcastic way, to provoke thought and discussion (apolitical example:  Bob Hamilton used to love to drive students to respond that something was "fair" or "unfair," at which point he would ask "GIF by Ghostbusters"?)

Response: "Yes." 

Response2: " I have had 20X years and already I can tell the eternal one is a cock-teasing moron."  

Edited by Nivek
Link to comment
Share on other sites
South Austin

South Austin 53222

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

(apolitical example:  Bob Hamilton used to love to drive students to respond that something was "fair" or "unfair," at which point he would ask "are you God"?)

Bob Hamilton is one of the worst teachers I've ever had on any level going back to kindergarten.  Granted, he was getting old at the time I took his Business Associations class (Spring 1997) and he seemed like he was mailing it in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 17408

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

If women abort their precious gifts from God, who will we send death threats to for being a crisis actor?

Can you sue the church for an abortion now?  I mean... Jesus killed her baby.

  • 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...