The Supremes

[Sawbonz 28218]

7 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

 

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. 

 

7 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

What code or canon of judicial ethics are you guys suggesting would be violated here?

You’re the one that brought it up genius

[Johnny Sack 8397]

16 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

 

You’re the one that brought it up genius

In response to people claiming ACB and Gorsuch were lying in their confirmation hearings.  Not sure why you have that much trouble following.

[Sawbonz 28218]

10 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

In response to people claiming ACB and Gorsuch were lying in their confirmation hearings.  Not sure why you have that much trouble following.

Reread what you wrote. Slowly. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 34104]

Just now, Sawbonz said:

Reread what you wrote. Slowly. 

or maybe have someone read it aloud for you so you can fully concentrate. make sure you turn your music down first

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

10 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

In response to people claiming ACB and Gorsuch were lying in their confirmation hearings.  Not sure why you have that much trouble following.

Of course they were lying.  They used words that were chosen to lead the listener of the words to believe their intent was one thing when it was the other.  I just don’t think it is perjury.  

[Sawbonz 28218]

50 minutes ago, sidis said:

have you ever noticed that you post a lot of charts that are sourced from unserious blogs and shit?

Well that and the chart actually refuted his assertion 

[SizzleChest 8314]

Just now, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

or maybe have someone read it aloud for you so you can fully concentrate. make sure you have your Honduran slave girl turn your music down first because turning the volume down is beneath you.

FIFY

[Ojo Rojo 2053]

I don't have a problem with the leak, regardless who did it. I think it reflects poorly on the court, whose reputation is already tarnished, but there are far bigger reasons to disrespect the court than the leak. Namely, that Gorsuch's appointment is illegitimate because it was stolen from Obama and because the entire nominating process is entirely political and fucked.

I also don't have a problem with what is said during the confirmation hearings. They should just do away with the confirmation hearings altogether. It's all just political theater and grandstanding. Utterly pointless. Nothing said during the hearings changes one senator's vote.

The biggest problem with the Supreme Court is not that the justices are political hacks, because I really don't think they are. They each have their own judicial philosophies and they hold to those without an eye to politics. I really believe that to be true. The biggest problem is that the nominating process is 100% political. So what happens is that the nominating person and approving entity are acting with 100% political intent trying to install someone on the court who they think will do what they want most of the time. No one, and I mean no one, is asking things like, "Are they a good jurist? Are they intelligent? Are they fit for the position?" And most especially, "Will their nomination be good for the country?" The point in Washington is to win at the game of politics to get more money and power for yourself, not win at the game of governing effectively and for the good of the people. Until masses of voters stop paying attention to the wrong shit, believing shit that is not true and acting against their own self interest this will not change.

[wildcat09 29579]

4 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

Of course they were lying.  They used words that were chosen to lead the listener of the words to believe their intent was one thing when it was the other.  I just don’t think it is perjury.  

If they were lying at the time, it was perjury. But it's impossible to prove, because they can always just say they were honest about their then-present belief/intent and subsequently changed their minds.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

38 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

 

You’re the one that brought it up genius

The code of judicial ethics/canons prevents them committing to reach a particular result on a future case.  It does not prevent them from overturning prior precedent.

So again, they did not lie.

They said Roe is precedent.

When asked if they would overrule Roe that stated the canons of judicial ethics prevent them from answering the question.

[Pig Bellmont 8885]

9 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

The biggest problem with the Supreme Court is not that the justices are political hacks, because I really don't think they are. They each have their own judicial philosophies and they hold to those without an eye to politics. I really believe that to be true.

[wildcat09 29579]

12 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

I don't have a problem with the leak, regardless who did it. I think it reflects poorly on the court, whose reputation is already tarnished, but there are far bigger reasons to disrespect the court than the leak. Namely, that Gorsuch's appointment is illegitimate because it was stolen from Obama and because the entire nominating process is entirely political and fucked.

I also don't have a problem with what is said during the confirmation hearings. They should just do away with the confirmation hearings altogether. It's all just political theater and grandstanding. Utterly pointless. Nothing said during the hearings changes one senator's vote.

The biggest problem with the Supreme Court is not that the justices are political hacks, because I really don't think they are. They each have their own judicial philosophies and they hold to those without an eye to politics. I really believe that to be true. The biggest problem is that the nominating process is 100% political. So what happens is that the nominating person and approving entity are acting with 100% political intent trying to install someone on the court who they think will do what they want most of the time. No one, and I mean no one, is asking things like, "Are they a good jurist? Are they intelligent? Are they fit for the position?" And most especially, "Will their nomination be good for the country?" The point in Washington is to win at the game of politics to get more money and power for yourself, not win at the game of governing effectively and for the good of the people. Until masses of voters stop paying attention to the wrong shit, believing shit that is not true and acting against their own self interest this will not change.

I'm jealous that you apparently are unfamiliar with Sam Alito or Clarence Thomas.

[Ojo Rojo 2053]

Y'all are having a pointless argument. We all know that the conservative appointees would overturn Roe if given they chance. We also know they can't say that during the confirmation hearings. It's all part of the bullshit fabric of our fucked up government. Nothing can just be fucking real.

[Sawbonz 28218]

5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

The code of judicial ethics/canons prevents them committing to reach a particular result on a future case.  It does not prevent them from overturning prior precedent.

So again, they did not lie.

They said Roe is precedent.

When asked if they would overrule Roe that stated the canons of judicial ethics prevent them from answering the question.

I find it astounding that people pay you money to make arguments in front of courts

[Ojo Rojo 2053]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I'm jealous that you apparently are unfamiliar with Sam Alito or Clarence Thomas.

I'm jealous that you can read people's minds so you know their intent. Their appointments were political; their judicial opinions are not. They are simply the worst examples of tools of the conservative presidents who appointed them and the conservative senators who approved their nominations.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Y'all are having a pointless argument. We all know that the conservative appointees would overturn Roe if given they chance. We also know they can't say that during the confirmation hearings. It's all part of the bullshit fabric of our fucked up government. Nothing can just be fucking real.

Just like Jackson with respect to Heller and Citizens United.  No appointee will ever saw how they would rule on a future case that comes across.  Or commit to never overruling such a case.  It does not happen.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

5 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I find it astounding that people pay you money to make arguments in front of courts

What is your point?  What do you disagree with?  You just like saying stupid and vague shit while nitpicking?

[Ojo Rojo 2053]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

Just like Jackson with respect to Heller and Citizens United.  No appointee will ever saw how they would rule on a future case that comes across.  Or commit to never overruling such a case.  It does not happen.

Correct.  And that's bullshit.  It's the ONE thing we really need to know.

[Sawbonz 28218]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

What is your point?  What do you disagree with?  You just like saying stupid and vague shit while nitpicking?

I was pretty clear with my points. I don’t think you know what an antecedent is. I can’t imagine your making a cogent argument extemporaneously, and I can’t imagine judges giving you time to go back and explain yourself 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I was pretty clear with my points. I don’t think you know what an antecedent is. I can’t imagine your making a cogent argument extemporaneously, and I can’t imagine judges giving you time to go back and explain yourself 

You are intentionally misreading what I wrote.  

[Sawbonz 28218]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

You are intentionally misreading what I wrote.  

I quoted what you wrote. There’s only one way to read that. Your rewrite makes much more sense. But your thinking what you originally wrote says the same thing leads me to believe that you probably work mostly by boilerplate and paralegal 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I quoted what you wrote. There’s only one way to read that. Your rewrite makes much more sense. But your thinking what you originally wrote says the same thing leads me to believe that you probably work mostly by boilerplate and paralegal 

Or maybe I write differently and more carefully to a court or when I was drafting legal opinions than I do on a message board.

If you also had read my other 20 posts on this thread about what was said in the confirmation hearings, it would be very clear.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

17 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

If they were lying at the time, it was perjury. But it's impossible to prove, because they can always just say they were honest about their then-present belief/intent and subsequently changed their minds.

No. Literally true but nonresponsive isn’t  perjury.  Implications aren’t perjury. 

 

e.g., kavanaugh.  “it is settled precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. The Supreme Court has recognized the right abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade case. It has reaffirmed it many times.”

 

that’s designed to get someone to think they wouldn’t overturn it by putting it in nice terms (lying, to you and me) but not perjury. RvW is settled.  It was subject to stare decisis analysis I. That opinion that just leaked. It had been recognized many times.  There is no perjury in there.  

 

same with the others.  There is no “I do not intend to overturn RvW” statement. They hope you infer that from their nonresponsive statements. 

[C-Man 27779]

34 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

I find it astounding that people pay you money to make arguments in front of courts

Sack is an attorney? Guess I missed that. I wonder if his clients realize how much time he spends posting in the Cloak Room during work days. I also wonder if he's billing them while doing so.

[South Austin 53222]

5 minutes ago, C-Man said:

I also wonder if he's billing them while doing so.

You don't have to answer that, Johnny!

[C-Man 27779]

I don't think it's ever been more apparent that SCOTUS seats should no longer be lifetime appointments. Pretty sure I saw a model recently suggested that had them serve 18-year terms, which would allow every president to appoint two justices during their term. Seems better than the current system.

[C-Man 27779]

Just now, South Austin said:

You don't have to answer that, Johnny!

[elfenix 34749]

my automatic time keeping program bills all time spent on both surlyhorns.com and pornhub.com to 'executive time'

Edited May 4, 2022 by elfenix

[DDD Dad 14647]

8 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

My angle here is whether this might expose Thomas to censure/impeachment.  (I'll be here all week, try the veal.)

That's cute that you think that.

[StassneyHorn 6767]

Just to reiterate what’s already been posted, major tech companies are already adjusting their fertility benefits  and assistance plans that are typically used for adoption and surrogacy to now include “Travel reimbursement.” 
 

It was a great pleasure to have a Friday deadline dropped on me Wednesday at the end of the day

Edited May 4, 2022 by StassneyHorn

[jimmyjazz 47152]

2 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

That's cute that you think that.

Did you read the parenthetical?

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19305]

5 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

 

It's Rasmussen.  LOL.

[Sawbonz 28218]

14 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Sack is an attorney? Guess I missed that. I wonder if his clients realize how much time he spends posting in the Cloak Room during work days. I also wonder if he's billing them while doing so.

Half the board just broke out in a cold sweat 

[Pancho 46299]

 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19305]

What a piece of shit.

 

 

 

Edited May 4, 2022 by PenelopeWitherspoon

[C-Man 27779]

2 minutes ago, Pancho said:

 

Wonder if that only would be applicable to acts committed within the Louisiana state line or would a woman who goes to, say, Colorado or New York to have the procedure done be charged with a crime upon return? Thought I saw that could be the case for somebody from Texas doing that. Of course, I've read a lot of shit the last 48 hours.

[Ag with kids 581]

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

 

You’re the one that brought it up genius

Well, from what I understand, SCOTUS Justices are not bound by the code of judicial ethics.  That's for all the lower courts.

HOWEVER...when they are going through confirmation hearings, they aren't SCOTUS justices, they're lower court judges.  So, when they are asked that question, they ARE bound by the code of judicial ethics. 😉

[Captainant 28530]

8 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Wonder if that only would be applicable to acts committed within the Louisiana state line or would a woman who goes to, say, Colorado or New York to have the procedure done be charged with a crime upon return? Thought I saw that could be the case for somebody from Texas doing that. Of course, I've read a lot of shit the last 48 hours.

I would imagine the feds would have something to say about a state prosecuting someone for something that happened in another state. If """states rights""" is what the christo-fascists want to rally around, that means OTHER states have rights too.

Fucks sake, it's the same fallacious reasoning as every other republichud MUH RIGHTS grievance

[F250 29199]

36 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Sack is an attorney? Guess I missed that. I wonder if his clients realize how much time he spends posting in the Cloak Room during work days. I also wonder if he's billing them while doing so.

lol a good portion of the CR are attorneys. The rest are just posting while on the clock.

 

[Brisketexan 106889]

22 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Wonder if that only would be applicable to acts committed within the Louisiana state line or would a woman who goes to, say, Colorado or New York to have the procedure done be charged with a crime upon return? Thought I saw that could be the case for somebody from Texas doing that. Of course, I've read a lot of shit the last 48 hours.

 

11 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I would imagine the feds would have something to say about a state prosecuting someone for something that happened in another state. If """states rights""" is what the christo-fascists want to rally around, that means OTHER states have rights too.

Fucks sake, it's the same fallacious reasoning as every other republichud MUH RIGHTS grievance

The bolded is a lie.  The first post is exactly the play.  Leave La. to get an abortion in NM?  Murder charge upon return.  Fugitive Slave Acts, anyone?  This is the play.  It was always the play.  Every single word -- EVERY SINGLE WORD -- they have ever said about "states rights" and "democracy" always was and ever shall be a flat-out lie.  Christofascists lie.  About everything.  It's what they do.  It's their most blessed sacrament.

[Serak The Preparer 3484]

30 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

Just to reiterate what’s already been posted, major tech companies are already adjusting their fertility benefits  and assistance plans that are typically used for adoption and surrogacy to now include “Travel reimbursement.” 
 

It was a great pleasure to have a Friday deadline dropped on me Wednesday at the end of the day

That's what you get for working in HR you sick fuck.

[hpslugga 4097]

5 minutes ago, Satchel said:

I get it, but being above it all is why reasonable people are struggling to defend democracy.

There's a difference between struggling to defend democracy and wasting your time trying to convince people who are full of shit how and why they're full of shit.

On the abortion issue, nearly two thirds of the population thinks it should be legal. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/06/about-six-in-ten-americans-say-abortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases/, In the arena of parliamentary democracy, it's about rallying behind candidates/parties who are sincerely committed towards putting those attitudes into public policy. The "all abortion should be illegal" crowd constitutes 39% of the country, yet the pendulum is swinging in their direction. That cannot happen in our system without an impotent opposition.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Y’all wanna have some fun?

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19305]

34 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Y’all wanna have some fun?
 

Damn.  

[Fudge Nuggets 19453]

3 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

And would be cheered on by the GOP and their voters in those states.

 

 

It would give the dipshits more things to boycott, and boy howdy do they love them some boycottin’ aka cancelin’. 

[workswithseed 2204]

39 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Y’all wanna have some fun?
 

[Kringelbert Fishtybuns 947]

[Francisco 2.0 32587]

29 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

It would give the dipshits more things to boycott, and boy howdy do they love them some boycottin’ aka cancelin’. 

 

Don't forget destroying their possessions they already paid for.  Nothing like seeing someone beating the shit out of a [checks notes] Keurig machine.

Edited May 5, 2022 by Francisco 2.0

[gmr548 16695]

Y’all wanna have some fun?

A three week delivery window?

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19305]