Jump to content

The Supremes


tx 3 putt

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I’m not a Supreme Court historian but it seems like, from my view, that he introduced hardcore partisanship to the court. I remember hearing complaints that Sandra Day O’Connor wasn’t the partisan they’d hoped she’d be when Reagan appointed her. Boy, they got that with Scalia. And then Reagan had the nerve to nominate Bork, the guy who took part in Nixon’s “Saturday night massacre” and fired the special prosecutor investigating the thoroughly corrupt executive. That was an affront to decency, and democracy. It was right to oppose that appointment. Wtf were you thinking? Oh, right, you weren’t thinking. You’re Ronald Reagan. A B-list actor, star of Bedtime For Bonzo.

reagans-chimpanzee-co-star-unintentional

A corporate shill. A useful idiot. Scalia was a massive piece of shit. But Bork? That turned it up to 11. And the right has been using the perfectly reasonable objection to his appointment as a justification for their ultra-partisanship ever since. Bork would’ve sucked worse than Scalia. Ted Kennedy was right. Unfortunately the Republicans are still making progress on realizing that vision.

5C4AD7BC-67B2-4FC0-BA26-B04678B57B67.thumb.png.8a6cda6d1743d90b8a663efc079e00b7.png

It has been said that the underlying reasoning that Scalia used was --and I'm not making this up-- a secret paper from the federalist papers that he had acquired...

That being said,  he was a megalomaniac, who was far more than a political hack,  he was a true believer... not just in the politics,  but in his own calling,  backed up by said secret text from the federalist society. 

And not only that... he was a supposed textualist, except for when he and he alone knew more about the text than anyone else and so it was okay for he and his secret text needed to govern from the bench because he knew best...

I mean,  his pathological knots of logic were enough to tie his own fat ass up for his sex fetishist practices,  but he alone knew when he was ordained by God and the founding fathers when to use the bench for his own activism...

Man,  our Supreme Court has been just one of the shittiest parts of our history...

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

3 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

 

Roberts can't keep the new blood in line and he's afraid they're going to give the game away.

we already knew that when texas's irreparable injury in DACA remain in mexico was that it was out some money.

 

edit: guess that's a different procedural posture but it's the same bullshit reasoning.

Edited by elfenix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court is a complete joke. Is Thomas steering this shipwreck ?

 

Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's liberal justices in dissent, arguing that the court's majority had "gone astray" by granting an unwarranted request on its emergency docket.

Edited by tx 3 putt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

The Supreme Court is a complete joke. Is Thomas steering this shipwreck ?

 

Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's liberal justices in dissent, arguing that the court's majority had "gone astray" by granting an unwarranted request on its emergency docket.

Probably he is.  He is above the law,  of course.  Good ol uncle ruckus 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SKJ said:

It has been said that the underlying reasoning that Scalia used was --and I'm not making this up-- a secret paper from the federalist papers that he had acquired...

That being said,  he was a megalomaniac, who was far more than a political hack,  he was a true believer... not just in the politics,  but in his own calling,  backed up by said secret text from the federalist society. 

And not only that... he was a supposed textualist, except for when he and he alone knew more about the text than anyone else and so it was okay for he and his secret text needed to govern from the bench because he knew best...

I mean,  his pathological knots of logic were enough to tie his own fat ass up for his sex fetishist practices,  but he alone knew when he was ordained by God and the founding fathers when to use the bench for his own activism...

Man,  our Supreme Court has been just one of the shittiest parts of our history...

If your argument for legitimacy follows the same reasoning as Brigham Young's then you have a problem.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Will bet you dollars to donuts absolutely nothing comes of it in Supreme Court.  

If by "nothing comes" you mean they don't lift a finger to strike down the Oklahoma/Texas/etc laws and they're upheld, then yes. That would be the definition of "doing nothing."

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

22 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Will bet you dollars to donuts absolutely nothing comes of it in Supreme Court.  

Well it's very likely that nothing comes of it because it never makes it to SCOTUS because SCOTUS overturns Roe in Dobbs v Jackson in a couple of months. So in one sense you'd be right, but not in the sense you intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Well it's very likely that nothing comes of it because it never makes it to SCOTUS because SCOTUS overturns Roe in Dobbs v Jackson in a couple of months. So in one sense you'd be right, but not in the sense you intended.

Well, that too. But the point was the original comment was dumb. RvW wouldn’t go anywhere with a court made up of nothing but conservatives.  But the bigger point was roberts in no way, shape, or form should be included in that group. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Well, that too. But the point was the original comment was dumb. RvW wouldn’t go anywhere with a court made up of nothing but conservatives.  But the bigger point was roberts in no way, shape, or form should be included in that group. 

...what? I just predicted that Roe will probably be overturned in the next few months and at first you seemingly agree that it is a possibility, but then say it wouldn't even if the Court was 9-0 conservatives?

In reality, Roe has already "gone somewhere," as the Court has allowed Texas to flagrantly violate it since September 1, 2021.

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

I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that pissing off a huge percentage of half the country (and a significant percentage of the other half) will not play out well for the current Republican party.  It will, however, cause a massive amount of pain in the interim.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that pissing off a huge percentage of half the country (and a significant percentage of the other half) will not play out well for the current Republican party.  It will, however, cause a massive amount of pain in the interim.

That's why they're priming their base with all this "liberals = pedophiles" talk so that they'll support the murder of their political opponents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that pissing off a huge percentage of half the country (and a significant percentage of the other half) will not play out well for the current Republican party.  It will, however, cause a massive amount of pain in the interim.

It won't matter once all the voter suppression is in place. 

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

36 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

Well Judge Amy told us that all we have to do is read the opinion of these divisive decisions to see that there is absolutely no partisanship going on.....wait.

 

https://www.mynews13.com/fl/orlando/ap-top-news/2022/04/05/with-divisive-cases-coming-barrett-says-read-the-opinion

If there’s no opinion to read she can still accuse you of not having read the opinion.

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

6 hours ago, SKJ said:

It has been said that the underlying reasoning that Scalia used was --and I'm not making this up-- a secret paper from the federalist papers that he had acquired...

You may not be “making this up”, but “it has been said” is a flimsy foundation from which to form an opinion. Do you have sources (other than hearsay) referencing this secret paper?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

Well, that too. But the point was the original comment was dumb. RvW wouldn’t go anywhere with a court made up of nothing but conservatives.  But the bigger point was roberts in no way, shape, or form should be included in that group. 

I love when conservatives pretend that Roberts isn’t a conservative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This Shadow Docket bullshit has to be the most cowardly garbage ever to come out of the Supreme Court in its history.  How the fuck do you call yourselves "Conservatives", who supposedly like to rule by the "spirit" or "intent" of the law, and not have the fucking balls to hear arguments and then say "we vote yes/no on this issue and here's why..."  What a bunch of bitchass pussies. 

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

6 hours ago, Dutchrudder said:

This Shadow Docket bullshit has to be the most cowardly garbage ever to come out of the Supreme Court in its history.  How the fuck do you call yourselves "Conservatives", who supposedly like to rule by the "spirit" or "intent" of the law, and not have the fucking balls to hear arguments and then say "we vote yes/no on this issue and here's why..."  What a bunch of bitchass pussies. 

Shadow docket AND not even bothering to release an opinion. It's absolutely cynical and incredibly damaging to faith and trust in the law

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

33 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Shadow docket AND not even bothering to release an opinion. It's absolutely cynical and incredibly damaging to faith and trust in the law

That's the goal.  The modern GOP and its Court appointees want to destroy rule of law, and install a corrupt oligarchy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Cacti said:

You may not be “making this up”, but “it has been said” is a flimsy foundation from which to form an opinion. Do you have sources (other than hearsay) referencing this secret paper?

His shitty work and opinions are from what I formed my opinion. He was a complete shitshow. That he claimed to be against judicial activism was a thinly veiled accusation, which we all know now as a confession.  He was one of the worst. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Dutchrudder said:

This Shadow Docket bullshit has to be the most cowardly garbage ever to come out of the Supreme Court in its history.  How the fuck do you call yourselves "Conservatives", who supposedly like to rule by the "spirit" or "intent" of the law, and not have the fucking balls to hear arguments and then say "we vote yes/no on this issue and here's why..."  What a bunch of bitchass pussies. 

They don't rule by the spirit,  or intent of the law at all.  If they did,  they would cite legislative history,  which is how congress signals the intent of the law. 

Instead,  the use textualism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

The only reason I think SCOTUS won't overturn Roe is because then the Rs won't be able to use abortion as a scare tactic to keep their idiot voters voting for them. 

Oh they will overturn it.  And when there is a public backlash they with claim that  "The Libs are the ones that want to make make abortion illegal!" 

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

12 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

The only reason I think SCOTUS won't overturn Roe is because then the Rs won't be able to use abortion as a scare tactic to keep their idiot voters voting for them. 

They'll overturn it, and rile up the base with claims that if dems come back into power they'll kill babies and molest infants.

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

30 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

The only reason I think SCOTUS won't overturn Roe is because then the Rs won't be able to use abortion as a scare tactic to keep their idiot voters voting for them. 


This court has gone 100% rogue. They’ll do what they want, when they want 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

They'll overturn it, and rile up the base with claims that if dems come back into power they'll kill babies and molest infants.

And in the mean time a lot of women will die from resorting to back alley abortions. Eventually we’ll be reminded why abortion was made legal in the first place and it will be made legal again. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Then press to make it a federal crime. That's next.

Yep. "God wants us to end abortion tourism" is the next line, as if crossing state lines for medical care of an emotional nature and which is possibly necessary to save a woman's life was a fun vacation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

And in the mean time a lot of women will die from resorting to back alley abortions. Eventually we’ll be reminded why abortion was made legal in the first place and it will be made legal again. Wash, rinse, repeat.

A lot of poor women will die from back alley abortions.  To the current GQP, that's a win.  The women Kav or Donald Trump Jr. or whoever impregnate will still have access to safe abortions.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

A lot of poor women will die from back alley abortions.  To the current GQP, that's a win.  The women Kav or Donald Trump Jr. or whoever impregnate will still have access to safe abortions.  

Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was. 

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



×
×
  • Create New...