Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
19 minutes ago, yoladu said:

image.png.546f5347f53addbf218b3ec3be808f34.png

 

wait. how did this even happen?

oh, a pet of Ginni Thomas. Ginni and Thomas - the field of psychiatry hasn't terms for this relationship.

From Wiki:

Following her departure from Turning Point USA, Clanton had worked for Ginni Thomas,[4] the Justice's wife, and had lived at the Thomas's house for a year. Ginni Thomas was a member of the Turning Point USA advisory council at the time of Clanton's departure.[5]

image.thumb.png.9aff0c373dbf6c4312f30e638cb8e13a.png

That looks like a Domaine Romanee Conti Echezeaux.  Those go for about $3K a bottle these days (on release).  You know, the kind of wine that people of regular stock enjoy.

"YOU KNOW, I DON’T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH GOING TO EUROPE, BUT I PREFER THE UNITED STATES, AND I PREFER SEEING THE REGULAR PARTS OF THE UNITED STATES. I PREFER GOING ACROSS THE RURAL AREAS. I PREFER THE RV PARKS, AND I PREFER THE WALMART PARKING LOTS TO THE BEACHES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THERE’S SOMETHING NORMAL TO ME ABOUT IT. I COME FROM REGULAR STOCK, AND I PREFER THAT. I PREFER BEING AROUND THAT."

image.png.d01bd1a99c1ca1c960f34a106cf3c035.png

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 3
Posted
1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Texas and Florida will lose soundly, 6-3 or even 7-2 (Gorsuch is the unknown).  The laws are horribly written and clearly unconstitutional. I guess I'm worried about what landmines Roberts leaves in a decision to exploit later, but I'm not sure he even will do that with this one. He'll probably just take some bullshit "Roberts shows the court can still be moderate!" stories and be happy. 

firsttime-james.gif

Posted
13 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Texas and Florida will lose soundly, 6-3 or even 7-2 (Gorsuch is the unknown).  The laws are horribly written and clearly unconstitutional. I guess I'm worried about what landmines Roberts leaves in a decision to exploit later, but I'm not sure he even will do that with this one. He'll probably just take some bullshit "Roberts shows the court can still be moderate!" stories and be happy. 

Never underestimate the ability of this Court to come up with the worst possible outcome. 

Posted
13 hours ago, yoladu said:

image.png.546f5347f53addbf218b3ec3be808f34.png

 

wait. how did this even happen?

oh, a pet of Ginni Thomas. Ginni and Thomas - the field of psychiatry hasn't terms for this relationship.

From Wiki:

Following her departure from Turning Point USA, Clanton had worked for Ginni Thomas,[4] the Justice's wife, and had lived at the Thomas's house for a year. Ginni Thomas was a member of the Turning Point USA advisory council at the time of Clanton's departure.[5]

image.thumb.png.9aff0c373dbf6c4312f30e638cb8e13a.png

Let's see how long the "both sides" media covers this

Posted

What the fuck?  This is even weirder than Matt Gaetz adopting an adult cabana boy.  The fuck with this simulation?  
 

I can’t wait until her expense reports come out.  Ginny, “sweetheart, we need some bread, milk, $3k wine, and all the Vaseline they have at the store.  I’ll reimburse you from Turning Point PAC.  Run along now…”

Posted
16 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

What the fuck?  This is even weirder than Matt Gaetz adopting an adult cabana boy.  The fuck with this simulation?  
 

I can’t wait until her expense reports come out.  Ginny, “sweetheart, we need some bread, milk, $3k wine, and all the Vaseline they have at the store.  I’ll reimburse you from Turning Point PAC.  Run along now…”

Why would they be made public? Thats not the type of disclosures required by law, and the ones that are get broken regularly with no more consequences than a pro publica article and a “I thought this was allowed” statement. Then we all continue on this charade

Posted
3 hours ago, HenryJames said:

Just the dumbest shit.

36014577-7ba9-4256-b837-571751d2d853.png

Holy shit a supreme Court Justice posts on surly! I've heard that argument alllllll over the place in defense of letting the fascists have the run of the joint

Posted

Let’s get this ball rolling:

https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/democrats-introduce-bill-to-expand-u-s-supreme-court/#:~:text=WASHINGTON%2C D.C. — On Tuesday%2C,from nine to 13 justices.

US Senate and House Democrats introduced a bill that would add four seats to the U.S. Supreme Court, bringing the bench from nine to 13 justices. The bill was introduced by Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), Cori Bush (D-Mo.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). The Judiciary Act was first introduced in 2021; a press release cites the growing support for court expansion in the intervening two years.

Today, the argument for an expanded Court has reemerged. “Republicans have hijacked the confirmation process and stolen the Supreme Court majority—all to appeal to far-right judicial activists who for years have wanted to wield the gavel to roll back fundamental rights,” Markey said in a press release. “Each scandal uncovered, each norm broken, each precedent-shattering ruling delivered is a reminder that we must restore justice and balance to the rogue, radical Supreme Court. It is time we expand the Court.”

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Drool 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Satchel said:

Let’s get this ball rolling:

https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/democrats-introduce-bill-to-expand-u-s-supreme-court/#:~:text=WASHINGTON%2C D.C. — On Tuesday%2C,from nine to 13 justices.

US Senate and House Democrats introduced a bill that would add four seats to the U.S. Supreme Court, bringing the bench from nine to 13 justices. The bill was introduced by Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), Cori Bush (D-Mo.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). The Judiciary Act was first introduced in 2021; a press release cites the growing support for court expansion in the intervening two years.

Today, the argument for an expanded Court has reemerged. “Republicans have hijacked the confirmation process and stolen the Supreme Court majority—all to appeal to far-right judicial activists who for years have wanted to wield the gavel to roll back fundamental rights,” Markey said in a press release. “Each scandal uncovered, each norm broken, each precedent-shattering ruling delivered is a reminder that we must restore justice and balance to the rogue, radical Supreme Court. It is time we expand the Court.”

Need to revise this to add fucking thirty.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Now the SC has decided to hear the Trump’s immunity case. I guess the three judge panel’s rendering left something to be desired.

That thing being "making Trump an untouchable king."

We were founded as a rebellion against absolute monarchy.  It's only fitting that our final act of self-immolation will be the installation of an absolute monarchy.

  • Rage+1 4
Posted
17 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Now the SC has decided to hear the Trump’s immunity case. I guess the three judge panel’s rendering left something to be desired.

this-is-fine.gif

Posted
2 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

The Supreme Court is going to copy the Appeals Court's work, tweak it just enough to make it look like their work, but in doing this will give Trump at least a month of delay.

This is the take I've seen the most. Doesn't really make me feel better though.

Posted
2 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

The Supreme Court is going to copy the Appeals Court's work, tweak it just enough to make it look like their work, but in doing this will give Trump at least a month of delay.

At least. He will get away with all of it and the SC will have blood on their hands. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

The Supreme Court is going to copy the Appeals Court's work, tweak it just enough to make it look like their work, but in doing this will give Trump at least a month of delay.

Yep they certainly weren’t going to let the Appeals Court have THE final say on this. Enshrine it into the books

Posted

So after this fails, are the Trump people going to challenge the existence of laws? And will we need weeks/months for multiple courts to verify that yes, laws do in fact exist. 

This system is corrupt as fuck. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

if they say yes, he has complete immunity as all presidents do. then i suggest big joe biden flexes and just cancels the election, imprisons trump for whatever he wants, dismisses the court, and generally goes on a rampage as a newly crowned king of america. this shit is just stupid.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted (edited)

If Roberts wants the court to have any shred of legitimacy, he forces Clarence to recuse himself and forces the others to vote 8-0 that no, there is no such thing as Presidential immunity.

Edited by PenelopeWitherspoon
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

If Robert’s wants the court to have any shred of legitimacy, he forces Clarence to recuse himself and forces the others to vote 8-0 that no, there is no such thing as Presidential immunity.

The Greatest Showman Lol GIF by Sky

  • Haha 4
Posted

Should I be concerned with the Court’s order which mentions reviewing Presidential Immunity for alleged official acts?

Can they just assume his actions were official and therefore grant immunity?

Given the falsehoods utilized to support other decisions of this Court, I have no confidence they get to the right decision here.

Posted
59 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

The Supreme Court is going to copy the Appeals Court's work, tweak it just enough to make it look like their work, but in doing this will give Trump at least a month of delay.

I think this is the high likelihood.

31 minutes ago, GopherRock said:

Also, April 22 is considered expedited? 

In all honesty, yeah.

  • Like 1
Posted
35 minutes ago, Longhorn94 said:

if they say yes, he has complete immunity as all presidents do. then i suggest big joe biden flexes and just cancels the election, imprisons trump for whatever he wants, dismisses the court, and generally goes on a rampage as a newly crowned king of america. this shit is just stupid.

It is always odd to me these far right dumbasses never see the other side of the coin with their bullshit. I guess they assume Democrats are too pussy to pull something like this off.

Posted
1 minute ago, hornmpa96 said:

Should I be concerned with the Court’s order which mentions reviewing Presidential Immunity for alleged official acts?

Can they just assume his actions were official and therefore grant immunity?

Given the falsehoods utilized to support other decisions of this Court, I have no confidence they get to the right decision here.

I find it weird too.  What could they possibly do? Say “yes there is immunity for official acts, and we remand to determine whether this is one?”  That’s weak. 
 

NYT points out part of the state’s brief that’s interesting. 
 

Quote

Mr. Smith echoed the point, citing the officials’ brief. “A sufficient basis for resolving this case would be that, whatever the rule in other contexts not presented here,” he wrote, “no immunity attaches to a president’s commission of federal crimes to subvert the electoral process.”

That seems like an easy way to resolve it that relies on the same themes Trump is using. The Constitution provides a check on the presidency through impeachment. It also provides it through elections.  No immunity for things that affect those. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

The Supreme Court is going to copy the Appeals Court's work, tweak it just enough to make it look like their work, but in doing this will give Trump at least a month of delay.


 

IMG_9169.jpeg

Posted
1 hour ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

If Roberts wants the court to have any shred of legitimacy, he forces Clarence to recuse himself and forces the others to vote 8-0 that no, there is no such thing as Presidential immunity.

Harlan is not going to allow Clarence to recuse. He’s too useful.

  • Rage+1 2
Posted
1 hour ago, pacman said:

It is always odd to me these far right dumbasses never see the other side of the coin with their bullshit. I guess they assume Democrats are too pussy to pull something like this off.

Narrator: They are.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, yoladu said:

wait, didn't Jack Smith already petition the Supreme Court months ago to make a ruling on this whole Presidential immunity thing and they passed, saying : "Naww, go ahead and have the lower appellate court take this one."

Then, the appellate court takes the case and rules two weeks ago unanimously 3 - 0 that the President would NOT have immunity.

The Supreme Court then sits on it's hands for two weeks and then says : "you know, maybe we do want to rule on this case. Let's see how, how about we listen to oral arguments in 7 weeks, sound good?"

 

Makes a guy wonder.

To be fair, that is pretty typical. Taking things out of order is the atypical way to approach it. 

Posted
13 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

To be fair, that is pretty typical. Taking things out of order is the atypical way to approach it. 

Oh good, because we are certainly not in atypical times. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Rage+1 3
Posted
21 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

To be fair, that is pretty typical. Taking things out of order is the atypical way to approach it. 

They are just putting their finger in the scale to help him delay.  

  • Hook 'Em 3


×
×
  • Create New...