Jump to content

The Leopards Eating Faces and Unlubed Dildo of Consequences Thread


Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, Gourmand said:

The immunity case was a dead giveaway and anyone who thinks the Supreme Court will get in the way of him running for a third term is a naive fool.

We'll see.

Posted
17 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

So does this mean we're bringing Obama off the bench?

Do you think Obama wants to deal with it?

After the election he made the comment somewhere along the lines of "Americans no longer want democracy". 

I could see him saying fuck off and enjoying his millions somewhere else. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, GenXer said:

Leopards

IMG_2928.thumb.jpeg.54955d6458c521032957f8b3956a7f45.jpeg

Bootstraps for soulblade

Elect a clown the antichrist, expect a circus the apocalypse.

One of ya'll can offset your financial losses by getting that bumper sticker made.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 3
Posted (edited)

I am so fucking sick of people who are allegedly not nazis gargling John Roberts' balls, I swear to christ. Ojo Rojo might be a more annoying poster these days than Icono.

Edited by wildcat09
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
13 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Except for that whole ruled that he might be disqualified but he was special and must still be on ballots and then later made him an unaccountable king thing. 

I must have missed that opinion.

Posted
3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I am so fucking sick of people who are allegedly not nazis gargling John Roberts' balls, I swear to christ. Ojo Rojo might be a more annoying poster these days than Icono.

Lighten up, Francis.  I'm sorry I don't subscribe to your "all or nothing" philosophy. You can discount everything that comes from the "other side" and hate blindly if you want. I still choose to analyze things rationally and as objectively as possible.  You should try it.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Lighten up, Francis.  I'm sorry I don't subscribe to your "all or nothing" philosophy. You can discount everything that comes from the "other side" and hate blindly if you want. I still choose to analyze things rationally and as objectively as possible.  You should try it.

ah, so you're that "1/3rd" that I always hear about.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Lighten up, Francis.  I'm sorry I don't subscribe to your "all or nothing" philosophy. You can discount everything that comes from the "other side" and hate blindly if you want. I still choose to analyze things rationally and as objectively as possible.  You should try it.

You are not nearly as rational or objective as you think you are if you can't see John Roberts for who he has always been.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Lighten up, Francis.  I'm sorry I don't subscribe to your "all or nothing" philosophy. You can discount everything that comes from the "other side" and hate blindly if you want. I still choose to analyze things rationally and as objectively as possible.  You should try it.

In order to analyze something objectively, you need to have all available information. Based on the below, you're analyzing based on partial information, which is the equivalent to analyzing based upon misinformation. If you can't see that, you're being neither objective nor rational. 

17 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

I must have missed that opinion.

 

Edited by Dahobbs
Posted
5 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

You are not nearly as rational or objective as you think you are if you can't see John Roberts for who he has always been.

Okay, so who do you think John Roberts is?

Posted
Just now, Dahobbs said:

In order to analyze something objectively, you need to have all available information. Based on the below, you're analyzing based on partial information, which is the equivalent to analyzing it based upon misinformation. If you can't see that, you're being neither objective nor rational. 

 

It was sarcasm. I read the opinion referenced and it didn't say what Wildcat says it did.

Posted
18 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Lighten up, Francis.  I'm sorry I don't subscribe to your "all or nothing" philosophy. You can discount everything that comes from the "other side" and hate blindly if you want. I still choose to analyze things rationally and as objectively as possible.  You should try it.

Great, another one doing his “own research”. 

Posted
Just now, CTC2 said:

Great, another one doing his “own research”. 

Roberts has ruled against Trump and the GOP in the past.  That's it.  That's the whole point some people here don't want to recognize for some reason. It doesn't take much "research" to know that about Roberts. It should be common knowledge.

Posted
5 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Okay, so who do you think John Roberts is?

He's a full-on right-wing nut just like Alito and Thomas and he does not care at all about the Americans who are hurt by this Court's rulings and he's not the institutionalist many believe him to be. I think he wants a slower roll than Alito and Thomas in enacting their extremist vision of the America they desire, but his vision is the same. He also doesn't give a flying fuck about democracy and he's happy with the Court's power and knows that as long as he doesn't do anything that will shake the trees of the other two branches of government, as long as he doesn't challenge Trump's supreme authority, his station is secure and his extremist vision of the remaking of America is guaranteed. It's just a question of how fast it happens.

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
4 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Roberts has ruled against Trump and the GOP in the past.  That's it.  That's the whole point some people here don't want to recognize for some reason. It doesn't take much "research" to know that about Roberts. It should be common knowledge.

Does not matter. He voted for the immunity ruling which will ultimately be a major cause of our undoing. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted

How are things in Gardiner, the town built to service yellowstone tourism, making out?

 

IMG_2934.thumb.jpeg.f10eb3e89c5176a265735e9df2faafbb.jpeg


IMG_2935.thumb.jpeg.95b6a206b60ff95bba0257a891c7f05b.jpeg

IMG_2936.thumb.jpeg.80d6994908d97c9839815a3637341642.jpeg

 

And for which candidate did the people of park county montana vote?

 

IMG_2937.thumb.jpeg.8cca3526139e4750cd1416112c3d6be8.jpeg


Eat shit, gardiner.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 4
Posted
1 minute ago, Gourmand said:

He's a full-on right-wing nut just like Alito and Thomas and he does not care at all about the Americans who are hurt by this Court's rulings and he's not the institutionalist many believe him to be. I think he wants a slower roll than Alito and Thomas in enacting their extremist vision of the America they desire, but his vision is the same. He also doesn't give a flying fuck about democracy and he's happy with the Court's power and knows that as long as he doesn't do anything that will shake the trees of the other two branches of government, as long as he doesn't challenge Trump's supreme authority, his station is secure and his extremist vision of the remaking of America is guaranteed. It's just a question of how fast it happens.

 

Okay, I disagree based on his rulings, his history and his statements.  But that's okay.

Posted
1 minute ago, CTC2 said:

Does not matter. He voted for the immunity ruling which will ultimately be a major cause of our undoing. 

He ruled according to the law. What was he supposed to do? Rule in such a way for a desired outcome?  Long-term, that would be far worse.  He also signaled how to stop it when he didn't need to.

Posted
1 minute ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Okay, I disagree based on his rulings, his history and his statements.  But that's okay.

cool, you're in the minority on this one and this is the leopards thread. feel free to start your own Roberts fanboi thread

Posted
38 minutes ago, MonkeyDoughnut said:

A lot of people about to get sizeable tax reductions from all this... it's just not how they envisioned getting it.

Fox News could actually sell this to 40% of this moronic country.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Okay, I disagree based on his rulings, his history and his statements.  But that's okay.

You're wrong, based on his rulings alone. See: Trump vs Anderson and Trump vs United States

Posted
6 minutes ago, C-Man said:

In case anybody actually patronizes Steak 'n Shake, there's this:

 

Screenshot 2025-04-03 at 10.15.43 AM.png


Were they hacked? That’s fucking moronic.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

cool, you're in the minority on this one and this is the leopards thread. feel free to start your own Roberts fanboi thread

LOL, fanboi. Okay. As this is the Leopards thread I'll leave it alone, but when he's the swing vote or there is a 9-0 majority punking Trump's EOs I will bring it back up elsewhere.

Posted

ojo, i would just encourage you to consider that roberts is almost wholly responsible for the fact that elon musk can show up in wisconsin and just pay voters a million dollars to vote.

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Okay, I disagree based on his rulings, his history and his statements.  But that's okay.

 

Quote

Impeachment is also not really a serious threat to any federal judge. Even if there are enough votes to pass articles of impeachment against one in the House of Representatives, there are only 53 Republicans in the Senate. An additional 14 Democrats’ votes would be needed to remove a targeted judge from office, and it is doubtful that many would be up for grabs. Trumpworld figures like Elon Musk can fulminate about the dangers of a “judicial coup” and the supposed “will of the people” all they want: The math just isn’t there.

It would go too far to say that Roberts is actively signaling to Trump that the high court will overturn or curb some of the lower court orders that are vexing him. The chief justice is not so blunt when he acts in this capacity. But it would also be a mistake to read Roberts’s statement as either a rebuke of Trump’s actions or a defense of the lower courts’ rulings. He is merely suggesting that a more “appropriate response” would be to run things by Roberts and his co-workers first. I doubt Trump would be disappointed with the result.

 

https://newrepublic.com/article/192949/john-roberts-rebuke-trump-judges

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

You're wrong, based on his rulings alone. See: Trump vs Anderson and Trump vs United States

Anderson: Sec. 3 of the 14th left to Congress to enforce.  Right on the law.

Trump v. U.S.: Immune for official acts. Did not determine that acts of insurrection were official acts. Left it to lower courts. Right on the law.

Posted
5 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

He ruled according to the law. What was he supposed to do? Rule in such a way for a desired outcome?  Long-term, that would be far worse.  He also signaled how to stop it when he didn't need to.

Nobody who is even passingly familiar with John Roberts would think he does this.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
1 minute ago, Ojo Rojo said:

Anderson: Sec. 3 of the 14th left to Congress to enforce.  Right on the law.

Trump v. U.S.: Immune for official acts. Did not determine that acts of insurrection were official acts. Left it to lower courts. Right on the law.

It should be easy for you to cite the language from Section 3 of the 14th Amendment that left it to Congress to enforce, then. 

  • Haha 2
Posted
10 minutes ago, GenXer said:

How are things in Gardiner, the town built to service yellowstone tourism, making out?

 

IMG_2934.thumb.jpeg.f10eb3e89c5176a265735e9df2faafbb.jpeg


IMG_2935.thumb.jpeg.95b6a206b60ff95bba0257a891c7f05b.jpeg

IMG_2936.thumb.jpeg.80d6994908d97c9839815a3637341642.jpeg

 

And for which candidate did the people of park county montana vote?

 

IMG_2937.thumb.jpeg.8cca3526139e4750cd1416112c3d6be8.jpeg


Eat shit, gardiner.

Spent three summers of my 20s as a fishing guide out of a Yellowstone-area fly shop.  All those towns stand to be hit hard.  Their economy is built on the disposable income of outdoorsmen.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 4
Posted
3 minutes ago, sidis said:

ojo, i would just encourage you to consider that roberts is almost wholly responsible for the fact that elon musk can show up in wisconsin and just pay voters a million dollars to vote.

I understand this. Citizens United is probably the worst thing to happen to American politics, maybe ever. But there is a difference between ruling according to your reading and understanding of the law and ruling based on an outcome-driven political motivation. Even if Roberts has a conservative view, it doesn't mean he isn't being faithful to the Constitution and the laws of the United States. I don't agree with him on much; I don't like the outcomes of his rulings a lot of times, but I also don't think he is a political actor.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

I understand this. Citizens United is probably the worst thing to happen to American politics, maybe ever. But there is a difference between ruling according to your reading and understanding of the law and ruling based on an outcome-driven political motivation. Even if Roberts has a conservative view, it doesn't mean he isn't being faithful to the Constitution and the laws of the United States. I don't agree with him on much; I don't like the outcomes of his rulings a lot of times, but I also don't think he is a political actor.

You should read this: https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/21/politics/john-roberts-obamacare-the-chief/index.html

Posted
6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It should be easy for you to cite the language from Section 3 of the 14th Amendment that left it to Congress to enforce, then. 

You know that interpreting the Constitution requires reading more than just the words on the page, right?

"The Constitution does not delegate to the states any power to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices. The Fourteenth Amendment itself only speaks to enforcement by Congress under Section 5, and it would be incongruous to read the Amendment as silently granting enforcement power to the states.

The Elections and Electors Clauses also do not implicitly authorize states to enforce Section 3 against federal candidates. Historically, it has been Congress, not the states, that has enforced Section 3 against federal officeholders. Allowing states to do so could lead to conflicting and disruptive outcomes in federal elections, especially presidential elections. Responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests solely with Congress."

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

You know that interpreting the Constitution requires reading more than just the words on the page, right?

"The Constitution does not delegate to the states any power to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices. The Fourteenth Amendment itself only speaks to enforcement by Congress under Section 5, and it would be incongruous to read the Amendment as silently granting enforcement power to the states.

The Elections and Electors Clauses also do not implicitly authorize states to enforce Section 3 against federal candidates. Historically, it has been Congress, not the states, that has enforced Section 3 against federal officeholders. Allowing states to do so could lead to conflicting and disruptive outcomes in federal elections, especially presidential elections. Responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests solely with Congress."

Literally quoting John Roberts to defend John Roberts is fucking hilarious. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Posted
1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Literally quoting John Roberts to defend John Roberts is fucking hilarious. 

I just answered your question.

Posted
1 minute ago, Ojo Rojo said:

I've read it. It doesn't say anything that disproves my point.

So John Roberts flipping his vote on the constitutionality of the mandate AND on the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion (the latter of those being a literally absurd decision) because of obviously political concerns was in your view just him honestly ruling on what he thought the law commanded and not outcome-driven?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
10 minutes ago, Ojo Rojo said:

You know that interpreting the Constitution requires reading more than just the words on the page, right?

"The Constitution does not delegate to the states any power to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices. The Fourteenth Amendment itself only speaks to enforcement by Congress under Section 5, and it would be incongruous to read the Amendment as silently granting enforcement power to the states.

The Elections and Electors Clauses also do not implicitly authorize states to enforce Section 3 against federal candidates. Historically, it has been Congress, not the states, that has enforced Section 3 against federal officeholders. Allowing states to do so could lead to conflicting and disruptive outcomes in federal elections, especially presidential elections. Responsibility for enforcing Section 3 against federal officeholders and candidates rests solely with Congress."

Go suck off Roberts in another thread and stop shitting up this one.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

So John Roberts flipping his vote on the constitutionality of the mandate AND on the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion (the latter of those being a literally absurd decision) because of obviously political concerns was in your view just him honestly ruling on what he thought the law commanded and not outcome-driven?

Yes, I do. It's fairly well-known that Supreme Court justices can and do change their minds during the course of deliberations. The very article that you linked says as much.  It also says that nobody really knows why he did what he did, whether it was political, in service of the integrity and image of the court or otherwise.

5 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Go suck off Roberts in another thread and stop shitting up this one.

If this is your idea of sucking off, you must have experienced some really bad blowjobs in your life. Here's a tip:  use less teeth.

Edited by Ojo Rojo
Posted
8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Literally quoting John Roberts to defend John Roberts is fucking hilarious. 

Almost as hilarious as claiming John Roberts isn't a political actor  when the reality is that he's overseen the most activist Supreme Court since the Lochner era. 

  • Hook 'Em 3


×
×
  • Create New...