Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
13 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

 

Oh cool, we're all going to die in third world torture prisons.

I'm not voting for any Democratic nominee for president who doesn't vow to do the same to corrupt SCOTUS justices.

This.

Any Dem running for office should run on a platform of "and all those fuckers who hurt us these past years?  I am going to immediately round them up and send them to foreign prisons where they will never be heard from again.  Which is perfectly legal now, thanks to those exact same fuckers."

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, immamac said:

what the fuck kind of ruling is this, that's fucking insane. 

It’s what we’ve been saying- this Court majority only believes in Calvin ball. They’d rather piss on the constitution than allow for the smallest of checks by the judiciary on this administration. Over and over again- especially in these last five months. This is what it’s like to live in an autocracy. The government can now deport *anyone* to a foreign forever prison without due process or ability to challenge. ICE has already been grabbing US citizens, it’s only a matter of time before its union leaders and protesters 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Posted

Many years from now, history will look back on how the Supreme absolutely failed to do it's most basic job. Incredible that we live in an America that allows this. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted

when the pendulum swings back the other way, if it ever gets to, there needs to be significant action and reforms made with no holding back. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This is like Dred Scott level bad

And on the shadow docket with no explanation. Really fucking pure uncut John Roberts shit right here.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 minute ago, immamac said:

when the pendulum swings back the other way, if it ever gets to, there needs to be significant action and reforms made with no holding back. 

We had our chance in 2020 and completely blew it.

I’m sorry kids, but it’s medical experiments for the lot of you. 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Posted
1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

And on the shadow docket with no explanation. Really fucking pure uncut John Roberts shit right here.

They're ice agents in robes

Posted

Cmoooooon twicehorn, gimme some of that sweet “actually, this is part of the process” action. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 5
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

We had our chance in 2020 and completely blew it.

I’m sorry kids, but it’s medical experiments for the lot of you. 

This right here.  

titanic-band.gif

Posted
10 minutes ago, bluto said:

Cmoooooon twicehorn, gimme some of that sweet “actually, this is part of the process” action. 

goodfellas GIF

surly lawyers come tell me how this is all normal PLEASE

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
Alito supported a violent coup of our government-they don’t care about the rule of law

Kind of. They support the rule of law in which they hold the power to decide. So inconsistencies can just be lawyered away.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 6/23/2025 at 3:46 PM, bluto said:

Cmoooooon twicehorn, gimme some of that sweet “actually, this is part of the process” action. 

 

oscar-actually.gif

  • Haha 3
Posted (edited)

When SCOTUS turned its back on habeus corpus, they signaled their intent to drag humanity back over eight hundred years. They have said “fuck you” to the Magna Carta. They are all in on a monarchy that is above the Law.

Edited by Willfully Horn
  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
42 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

When SCOTUS turned its back on habeus corpus, they signaled their intent to drag humanity back over eight hundred years. They have said “fuck you” to the Magna Carta. They are all in on a monarchy that is above the Law.

I'd love to say you're wrong, but all signs point to you being correct.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted

Should we ever get another opportunity and Dems make moves to expand the SC, magas and corporate Democrats will squeal like cut pigs

Posted
19 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Should we ever get another opportunity and Dems make moves to expand the SC, magas and corporate Democrats will squeal like cut pigs

No need to expand it.  Just nullify members by giving them the Milton treatment.  It is not illegal if it is official.  They ruled that.  Then revoke every ruling by this corrupt court and everything the trump regime signed up for, including their pardons.  Send in US Marshalls to imprison the J6ers and the ICE.  Basically a return to sanity and a purge of the autocrats via their own devices.  All assets seized as well and given to the state.  

  • Drool 2
Posted
1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Why hasn't Trump tried to expand the court?

Why would he? It’s made and is performing in his image.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Why hasn't Trump tried to expand the court?

He absolutely would if the ideology was opposite and it was ruling against him on 94% of cases 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
On 6/23/2025 at 4:41 PM, immamac said:

when the pendulum swings back the other way, if it ever gets to, there needs to be significant action and reforms made with no holding back. 

What party is going to have the ball sack to do that? The Dems? They're going to save us?

Bryan Cranston Reaction GIF

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted

A divided Supreme Court ruled that individual judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear the fate of President Donald Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship.

What to know:

What does this mean for birthright citizenship? That’s unclear. Trump’s order aims to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally. The court’s conservative majority left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship changes could remain blocked nationwide.

What does the ruling mean for Trump? The outcome was a victory for the president, who has complained about individual judges throwing up obstacles to his agenda.

What cases are left to be decided? The court is set to issue six rulings today, including those related to an online age-verification law in Texas, the Education Department’s firing of nearly 1,400 workers and DOGE-related government job cuts.

https://apnews.com/live/supreme-court-decisions-updates#00000197-b1a7-d4a5-afdf-b9a7f6250000

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

When there’s a Dem president, they will go back on this ruling and say “well, our ruling doesn’t apply at this time”

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted

So they didn’t rule on the issue but instead created another disparity which elevates themselves above all others for political bias.

Kind of makes them seem like activist judges.

  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted

@TwiceHorn Do you know if the plaintiff(s) in this case can easily amend to assert class action allegations?  If so I wonder whether and how quickly the district court could then certify the class or issue a TRO/TI based on class action claims.  Seems like the only way to address this nationwide.  

The ramifications of this decision on cases in which class action certification would not be available are huge and will likely lead to bizarre outcomes.  

Congress and now the courts have ceded their authority to the executive branch.  Welcome to the new fascist monarchy.

Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, gernblansten said:

A divided Supreme Court ruled that individual judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions

“Except when they do or it’s Kacsmaryk”

- John Roberts, probably 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

So what does this mean? Will they start denaturalizing people in places like Texas and but not in states or districts it has been blocked?

It means Calvinball is the law of the land. 

  • Like 1
Posted

“Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship,” Sotomayor wrote. “The majority holds that, absent cumbersome class-action litigation, courts cannot completely enjoin even such plainly unlawful policies unless doing so is necessary to afford the formal parties complete relief.”

The dissent gives me something to look forward to when Beto finally wins the presidency (I know).  "Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47."

Posted

lol the radical anti-Americans were mad at ACB for some of her rulings over the last year

they complain and Fat Boy starts talking shit about her 

 

Now she’s hard right on things

  • Rage+1 4
Posted

My wife was born in the US to a Korean non-citizen who was in the US for school, then immediately adopted. We live in Texas. Can anyone tell me how concerned we should be?

Posted
Just now, hookem2010 said:

My wife was born in the US to a Korean non-citizen who was in the US for school, then immediately adopted. We live in Texas. Can anyone tell me how concerned we should be?

Adopted by who?

  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...