Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Exactly.  How many kids could go to public school on what he spent on tuition to that exclusive school?  

None. Because public schools are the tool of the devil, and should be abolished. Duh.
Posted
10 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

The more I read about all of this the more convinced I become that the Federalist society is a domestic terrorist organization.

They certainly have done more harm to America than Al Qaeda, Taliban, and Al-Shabaab combined.  

10 hours ago, Red Five said:

Flash forward a few weeks. "Ok, just so the Thomas' deposited 10 checks of a million dollars each, with notes on all saying "for repealing Roe".... I mean just leave him alone ok??".

And if this very scenario actually happened, there would not be a damn thing that would happen to him since the only remedy is impeachment and senate conviction which will never ever ever happen to a republican until America ceases to exist.

  • Like 1
Posted
8 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

This guy is just a horrible human being ….

 

This dude…. I mean, this guy is something else.

His life’s story is almost so ridiculous that if you put it in a novel you’d be widely panned. 

I don’t believe in the devil, but one has to question his existence when you consider that Thomas had reached the level of success that he has without any real repercussions.
Can you sell your soul to the devil? why hasn’t he come to me and at least ask if I’m interested?

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

https://www.msn.com/en-US/news/politics/senator-lays-out-possible-tax-violations-and-fraud-for-payments-to-clarence-thomas-wife/ar-AA1aOQW7?ocid=sapphireappshare

“The second thing is that all the mischief with Leo and these phony front groups – all of that is potentially in violation of the tax code,” the Rhode Island lawmaker continued. “Some of it is conceivably even fraud. There could be potentially criminal aspects to this, particularly if there was no work performed for that $25,000. And all of that can be properly investigated without getting into the internal operations of the court and Clarence Thomas.”

  • Rage+1 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

I’m very curious of the Thomas’s reported all these cash payments on their income tax filings 

Probably not, but the IRS is executive branch and because of separation of powers, SC justices only voluntarily comply with that the whole tax thing.

 

Yours Truly,

John Roberts

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

This guy is just a horrible human being ….

 

welfare queen is a narrative invented in a town in upstate new york when black families started moving there.  the town went so far as requiring welfare recipients to pick up their checks at the police station.  despite looking hard for them, the town never did find any lazy welfare leeches, but lack of evidence has never stopped conservatives from believing all their own bullshit narratives. 

conservatism consists of at least two propositions.  the first is the in group, out group one that you're familiar with.  the second is that conservatives lie about everything, all the time, even to themselves.  it's the only way to keep all the dissonance at bay. 

Edited by elfenix
  • Like 1
Posted

At this point, it's almost that the conservative justices can't rescue themselves from cases due to entanglements because they'd have to do it in almost every damn case, which would negate their whole majority... 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
It also completely ignores the plain text of the 9th amendment. 

I can’t like this post enough. The fact that the “Originalists” have functionally written the 9th amendment out of the constitution, and happily spring the trap that was ORIGINALLY (chose that word on purpose) warned about - reading the BOR as an exclusive grant of rights - is utterly insane. Well, it’s not insane. It’s actually entirely on purpose, because it suits their end: control and power.
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

Yes, the irony that (for instance) 2A is immutable, but let's just ignore 9A is rich.  All 10 original amendments were ratified at the same time.  

The convenient overlook of 14A is similarly infuriating.  Is it not "original"?  If it isn't, then none of the BOR are "original", either.

Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Yes, the irony that (for instance) 2A is immutable, but let's just ignore 9A is rich.  All 10 original amendments were ratified at the same time.  

The convenient overlook of 14A is similarly infuriating.  Is it not "original"?  If it isn't, then none of the BOR are "original", either.

The "originalism" argument, as far as the 14th Amendment goes, really comes down to how it was passed. They are of the view that the ratification process was illegitimate because it was pushed through Congress by a majority of radical Republicans and that it forced ex-confederate states to adopt it as requirement for readmission to the Union.

The Court immediately gutted part of it (privileges and immunities clause) in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), just in time for the Great Compromise of 1877, where the North abandoned Reconstruction and laid the groundwork for the legality of Jim Crow.

That it was intended explicitly to prevent state-sponsored discrimination is irrelevant in their eyes. The Founders didn't pass it and they'd prefer to roll back to just the first ten, namely because James Madison wrote those ten in George Washington's blood the night before Yorktown. Evidence of this comes courtesy of some Lost Cause fucker with a doctorate from Stonewall Jackson University, who will chime in that it's the only possible interpretation available.

Also, dumb people are dumb and easily manipulated into viewing the 10 Commandments as being somehow directly linked to the first 10 Amendments. This bit is somewhat new to the "mainstream" (if there is such a thing), but it's been kicking around the religious SovCit and libertarian circlejerks for a while now.

Edited by Stilicho
fuck words
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


I can’t like this post enough. The fact that the “Originalists” have functionally written the 9th amendment out of the constitution, and happily spring the trap that was ORIGINALLY (chose that word on purpose) warned about - reading the BOR as an exclusive grant of rights - is utterly insane. Well, it’s not insane. It’s actually entirely on purpose, because it suits their end: control and power.

Listen man. They discovered various penumbras around the 2nd amendment, but realized that other parts had few penumbras because James Madison appeared to them in dreams.

Posted
18 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Yes, the irony that (for instance) 2A is immutable, but let's just ignore 9A is rich.  All 10 original amendments were ratified at the same time.  

The convenient overlook of 14A is similarly infuriating.  Is it not "original"?  If it isn't, then none of the BOR are "original", either.

Easy there, Grand Wizard.

  • Haha 1
Posted

New episode of Frontline last night on Clarence Thomas. It also includes background on Ginni and her John Birch Society upbringing. It’s well done and quite maddening. It includes interviews with several people who corroborate Anita Hill’s allegations and share similar stories of their own. It sure would’ve been nice if they had been called to testify during Uncle Thomas’ confirmation.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/clarence-thomas-long-battle-against-affirmative-action/

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
9 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

New episode of Frontline last night on Clarence Thomas. It also includes background on Ginni and her John Birch Society upbringing. It’s well done and quite maddening. It includes interviews with several people who corroborate Anita Hill’s allegations and share similar stories of their own. It sure would’ve been nice if they had been called to testify during Uncle Thomas’ confirmation.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/clarence-thomas-long-battle-against-affirmative-action/

It would have been nice if all Democrats voted no.

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

One of these things is not like the others.  Cornyn be like

IMG_1243.gif.0cd906bd50731e65aa42e2579ce6c6f3.gif

 

 

Edited by Horn Dog
Posted
Yes, the irony that (for instance) 2A is immutable, but let's just ignore 9A is rich.  All 10 original amendments were ratified at the same time.  
The convenient overlook of 14A is similarly infuriating.  Is it not "original"?  If it isn't, then none of the BOR are "original", either.

The "originalism" argument, as far as the 14th Amendment goes, really comes down to how it was passed. They are of the view that the ratification process was illegitimate because it was pushed through Congress by a majority of radical Republicans and that it forced ex-confederate states to adopt it as requirement for readmission to the Union.
The Court immediately gutted part of it (privileges and immunities clause) in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), just in time for the Great Compromise of 1877, where the North abandoned Reconstruction and laid the groundwork for the legality of Jim Crow.
That it was intended explicitly to prevent state-sponsored discrimination is irrelevant in their eyes. The Founders didn't pass it and they'd prefer to roll back to just the first ten, namely because James Madison wrote those ten in George Washington's blood the night before Yorktown. Evidence of this comes courtesy of some Lost Cause fucker with a doctorate from Stonewall Jackson University, who will chime in that it's the only possible interpretation available.
Also, dumb people are dumb and easily manipulated into viewing the 10 Commandments as being somehow directly linked to the first 10 Amendments. This bit is somewhat new to the "mainstream" (if there is such a thing), but it's been kicking around the religious SovCit and libertarian circlejerks for a while now.

America was originally established as an oligarchy of white, Protestant Christian, landowning men. That, or at least as close as you can get to it in the modern world, is what originalism is aiming to restore at its core. The whole text of the constitution nonsense is a load of shit meant to get the dumbass GOP base in line.
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted

America was originally established as an oligarchy of white, Protestant Christian, landowning men. That, or at least as close as you can get to it in the modern world, is what originalism is aiming to restore at its core. The whole text of the constitution nonsense is a load of shit meant to get the dumbass GOP base in line.

100% real.
Posted

When were people forced to remain in their homes?  News to me.  Beyond that, schools weren't "shuttered", they went virtual.  Some businesses were, to be sure.

How out of touch can he be?  Don't answer that.

Posted

That would be Kav. Gorsuch would have gotten on when Kennedy retired rather than Kav. Gorsuch was tops on fuckwad whose parents hated him Leo Leo's list. I think Barrett would probably have been nominated to replace RBG over Kav because replacing a woman with a frat bro would be even worse optics.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)

Sotomayor and Kagan getting a bit spicy with each other in the Warhol opinion and dissent.  Pretty entertaining.

Also, I see all the court of appeals citations take this form (CA2 2020) instead of (2d Cir. 2020).  Is that the new, new thing?

Also, on the Twitter case, they just sidestepped 230 altogether and held that 230 or not, the activities of an internet service provider can't constitute aiding and abetting under 18 USC 2333.  No effect on 230 at all.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
On 5/11/2023 at 8:38 AM, WhatTheBuck said:

Here’s the full Frontline doc on Clarence and Ginni.

 

Of course Ginni Thomas joined a cult.

Christ. 

These people are sad. I mean, their whole life is one of a warped existence. Anger, self loathing, detachment, and determined. Scary.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
2 hours ago, elfenix said:

That would be Kav. Gorsuch would have gotten on when Kennedy retired rather than Kav. Gorsuch was tops on fuckwad whose parents hated him Leo Leo's list. I think Barrett would probably have been nominated to replace RBG over Kav because replacing a woman with a frat bro would be even worse optics.
 

just speaking to the actual timeline of the stolen Obama pick

Posted

Huh, I guess a tidal wave of amici that all basically say “what the fuck are you thinking you goddamned lunatics?!” can sway the republicans, at least when they don’t really know what they even want to do and just decided to take a case because Fox News told them to.

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Ballsy. Harlan Crow's letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee argues that Congress has no right to investigate the supreme court.  
 

 

I don't care how much a client is paying me, there's no way I'm putting my name on something that stupid.

ETA: Durbin's response really should be something along the lines of this classic:

CNH7w20.jpg

Edited by wildcat09
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 4


×
×
  • Create New...