Jump to content

The Supremes


tx 3 putt

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The answer is "yes, it would have been stated in the Constitution, like similar concepts are mentioned."  That's a "strict textualist" approach, it's one of the canons of interpretation they are supposed to follow.

The Alito wing will totally disregard that, because they are not actually "strict textualists."  They are right-wing authoritarians, who are angry and want to get revenge on a society they feel has wronged them.

it's incredulous to me that a white man who sits on the US Supreme Court would feel that he has somehow been wronged in any possible way. He has the fucking brass ring.

Edited by yoladu
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, yoladu said:

it's incredulous to me that a white man who sits on the US Supreme Court would feel that he has somehow been wronged in any possible way. He has the fucking brass ring.

The problem is, there's only one amount of power and control that he wants: ALL OF IT.  Anything less means society is not giving him the due and respect that he deserves.

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What’s with all of the hypotheticals that have nothing to do with the case in front of them? Considering the urgency here, or what should be urgency I guess, why not say something like “We can address all of these hypotheticals at a later date, but for now, no, a President does not have immunity for failed coup attempts.”

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Red Five said:

What’s with all of the hypotheticals that have nothing to do with the case in front of them? Considering the urgency here, or what should be urgency I guess, why not say something like “We can address all of these hypotheticals at a later date, but for now, no, a President does not have immunity for failed coup attempts.”

Because they're going to kick it back to the lower courts to sort out which will push the trial past the election. Just honest brokers. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Red Five said:

What’s with all of the hypotheticals that have nothing to do with the case in front of them?

Well it's not like SCOTUS lately has dealt in facts. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Red Five said:

What’s with all of the hypotheticals that have nothing to do with the case in front of them? Considering the urgency here, or what should be urgency I guess, why not say something like “We can address all of these hypotheticals at a later date, but for now, no, a President does not have immunity for failed coup attempts.”

My guy, the supremes have issued entire rulings constructed whole-cloth out of hypotheticals that have nothing do with the case in front of them.

 

It's what fascists do when they don't have facts on their side: stoke grievances with hypotheticals. See: DT pro-Palestine protest thread

  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biden should perp walk several SCOTUS members to some very public gallows set up on the National Mall, and on the way, repeatedly loudly ask the justices at what point do they understand why a president shouldn't have absolute immunity.  It's like they rely on Democrats being decent, whereas they and who they represent are not.  If you're taking a billionaire's money, you're not representing the average citizen. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let’s just take our sweet ass time while the guy on trial for overturning an election runs for President again. No urgency needed there at all.

At what point to the liberal members of the court start speaking out publicly?

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, yoladu said:

it's incredulous to me that a white man who sits on the US Supreme Court would feel that he has somehow been wronged in any possible way. He has the fucking brass ring.

Justice Thomas is weird that way. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bullneck said:

 

 

I don't know this boy band, but they seem like they suck.  Although I bet the backup dancers perform well.  Or else, they die.  

Edited by YGIFS
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/27/2024 at 3:18 PM, pacman said:

Having some random person clear hundreds of thousands of your debt tends to change perspectives 

Screenshot_20240427_151700_X.jpg

 

Well, you see.  And this is an important distinction here.

It was 2009, and there was this certain person who was President.

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Hotly contested" - Biden smoked Trump by 74 electoral votes. Hundreds of losing and tossed out court cases don't make anything hotly contested. It just shows a very poor loser.

"Bitter" - why would the winning candidate be bitter?

Screenshot_20240429_081358_X.jpg

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, pacman said:

"Hotly contested" - Biden smoked Trump by 74 electoral votes. Hundreds of losing and tossed out court cases don't make anything hotly contested. It just shows a very poor loser.

"Bitter" - why would the winning candidate be bitter?

Screenshot_20240429_081358_X.jpg

It's projection, because he would feel vindictive in that position. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Red Five said:

And once again, none of this was a problem before we elected the carnival barking conman. 

That's what is so infuriating.  We have 240+ years of evidence that the current system is fine and these chucklefucks are acting like Trump is the first person in history to face a life after the presidency.  

(I fully realize they don't believe any of this and are purely trying to play Calvinball to benefit their team, the frustration is that we can do nothing about it.)

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/27/2024 at 3:18 PM, pacman said:

Having some random person clear hundreds of thousands of your debt tends to change perspectives 

Screenshot_20240427_151700_X.jpg

That’s fully consistent with one of their talking points, that a president can only be criminally prosecuted after being impeached and removed. The reality is that the process is now just partisan votes, the evidence was irrelevant.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pacman said:

"Hotly contested" - Biden smoked Trump by 74 electoral votes. Hundreds of losing and tossed out court cases don't make anything hotly contested. It just shows a very poor loser.

"Bitter" - why would the winning candidate be bitter?

Screenshot_20240429_081358_X.jpg

 

Monarchical president 'democracy' >>>>>>> rule of law democracy where a political party pays a price for a criminal President

 

Gotcha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, 'stache said:

That’s fully consistent with one of their talking points, that a president can only be criminally prosecuted after being impeached and removed. The reality is that the process is now just partisan votes, the evidence was irrelevant.

One of my favorites of all their hits.

Impeachment is a political process.  Prosecution is a legal process.  Claiming that one must precede the other is pure horseshit.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

One of my favorites of all their hits.

Impeachment is a political process.  Prosecution is a legal process.  Claiming that one must precede the other is pure horseshit.

Dotard's attorney arguing before the Supreme Court, "No no, the president must be impeached and convicted first, prior to being charged criminally."

Anyone say "Oh yeah? Where'd you get that from? I don't see that written down anywhere...."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it’s not how they operate but I really wish that the solicitor general would have used names instead of the position.

i think it would have been pretty awesome to hear the hypothetical of ‘Joe Biden ordering the killing of Justice Alito, Thomas, and Barrett’ to so to secure a democratically appointed majority on the Supreme Court. 

I would love to hear Alito’s musings and straw man Fox Newsisms then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

I know it’s not how they operate but I really wish that the solicitor general would have used names instead of the position.

i think it would have been pretty awesome to hear the hypothetical of ‘Joe Biden ordering the killing of Justice Alito, Thomas, and Barrett’ to so to secure a democratically appointed majority on the Supreme Court. 

I would love to hear Alito’s musings and straw man Fox Newsisms then.

Fox News: wow we have to increase funding and protection after Biden threatened SCOTUS justices via his SG. He’s completely gone full blown dictator 

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Red Five said:

And once again, none of this was a problem before we elected the carnival barking conman. 

Um, it was a problem when we started putting hacks and morons on the supreme court and pretending they were anything but.  Citizens United was a moronic decision.  

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If only there were 10 examples of incumbents who legitimately lost re-election bids and didn't fail miserably in dozens of court cases to overturn it.  Hmmmmmm.   

"You know, as a student of history..." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Nivek said:

Um, it was a problem when we started putting hacks and morons on the supreme court and pretending they were anything but.  Citizens United was a moronic decision.  

And blatant judicial activism. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

And blatant judicial activism. 

Leegin should have made that clear to everyone, but a bunch of lawyers here who have since had conversions on this road told me at that time I didn't understand how negotiations work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/30/2024 at 7:28 AM, Bozo_Casanova said:

Leegin should have made that clear to everyone, but a bunch of lawyers here who have since had conversions on this road told me at that time I didn't understand how negotiations work. 

You are also too stupid to understand the law, so just leave the thinking to the great minds of Thomas, Taney (of Dredd Scott decision fame), etc. so shut the fuck up and do what you are told.   /Roberts.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...