Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Mon May 02, 2022 11:46 pm
- C49D32DF-16D4-4619-87ED-B9CE1F36FF2C.jpeg (190.52 KiB) Viewed 1172 times
Page 14 of 65
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Tue May 03, 2022 12:14 am
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Tue May 03, 2022 12:16 am
Interesting thread on Supreme Court leaks. tl;dr rare and notable, but not unprecedented.
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Tue May 03, 2022 1:04 am
Now, now, I'm sure Senator Collins feels that Kavanaugh has learned his lesson.
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Tue May 03, 2022 1:06 am
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Tue May 03, 2022 11:41 am
Roberts puts out a press release saying that the document is authentic but that's not the opinion of the court so far
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Tue May 03, 2022 12:25 pm
Pretty sure the leak successfully "undermined the integrity of our operations," not that it had far to go.
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Tue May 03, 2022 3:59 pm
me (clutching pearls): i hope this leak doesn’t damage the integrity of the court!
ginni thomas (via text): i’m hearing that the Q werewolf and JFK Jr found secret watermarks on 2020 ballots????
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Tue May 03, 2022 5:57 pm
- SCOTUS Tyrants.jpg (101.7 KiB) Viewed 962 times
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Tue May 03, 2022 7:21 pm
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Tue May 03, 2022 10:29 pm
Read the full thread.
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Tue May 03, 2022 11:09 pm
That thread was awesome.
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Tue May 03, 2022 11:46 pm
Agreed.Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Wed May 04, 2022 1:03 am
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Alito's reasonings to the contrary relying on originalist 'thought' and how cases fell in the 19th century turning on thoughts at the time of the fetus remain partisan fuckery and no pearl-clutching, hand-wringing, or sophistry can make it otherwise. Any argument made by any legal 'scholar' regarding how none of the unenumerated rights spawned by Roe, Casey, Obergefell, etc., 'actually' exist need to be met with just a loud chanting of Amendment IX, over and over again, until they go away.
Alito's reasonings to the contrary relying on originalist 'thought' and how cases fell in the 19th century turning on thoughts at the time of the fetus remain partisan fuckery and no pearl-clutching, hand-wringing, or sophistry can make it otherwise. Any argument made by any legal 'scholar' regarding how none of the unenumerated rights spawned by Roe, Casey, Obergefell, etc., 'actually' exist need to be met with just a loud chanting of Amendment IX, over and over again, until they go away.
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Wed May 04, 2022 6:26 am
Off Topic
When he wants to be originalistic then on the 2nd Amenment he ought to ban modern day firearms for militias, restrict them to front loading devices, filled from powder bags, flint stone ignited
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Wed May 04, 2022 10:07 am
Kinda on topic... this is the thing about constitutionalist and originalist though. They treat the Constitution like they treat the Bible. I was reading a piece today with quotes from various conservative legal minds on the draft and a recurring theme was their joy of justices with a 'proper interoperation' of the Constitution.. .it is a religious document, and like other religious documents it says whatever they want it to say and if you call them on it, it is not their fault the holy founders demand certain things from them, and how can one ask such heretical questions? They have the one true interoperation, and everyone else is mislead by Satan^H^H^H^H^H freedom hating feminist race baiting communists!
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Wed May 04, 2022 3:11 pm
Maybe the Supremes should declare that the amendments to the Constitution that they do not like or do not quite understand are therefore unconstitutional.
Would save a lot of hand-wringing and angst among the unwashed masses that they despise.
Would save a lot of hand-wringing and angst among the unwashed masses that they despise.
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Wed May 04, 2022 6:52 pm
https://www.ibtimes.com/anonymous-hacke ... us-3493390
Hacking collective Anonymous has warned the U.S. Supreme Court against striking down the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, adding that it may “get burned” if it does so.
In a Twitter post published Tuesday, Anonymous said the Supreme Court and Republicans should “expect” some type of retaliation should they repeal Roe v. Wade decision. The landmark decision was made in 1973 when the Supreme Court ruled that governments lacked the power to prohibit abortions and that it was a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy in the first three months of pregnancy.
“Repealing Roe v Wade isn't going to go the way SCOTUS or the GOP thinks it's going to go. Play with fire, get burned. Don't say we didn't warn you,” the hacking collective wrote. “Expect us.”
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Wed May 04, 2022 7:35 pm
Way past time to add 6 more justices to SCOTUS.
Then impeach those that lied at their confirmation hearings...
Then impeach those that lied at their confirmation hearings...
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Wed May 04, 2022 8:14 pm
Afraid to travel? Or is even the 5th Circuit not rightwing enough for him now?
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Wed May 04, 2022 8:22 pm
IIRC, the slide toward the rogue court began when Scalia refused to recuse himself from - a case? More than one case? - in which Dick Cheney was involved after socializing with Cheney. Not simply at the same event, but… hunting? I dont recall .
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Wed May 04, 2022 8:33 pm
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Wed May 04, 2022 8:47 pm
Too busy "investigating" the leak?
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Wed May 04, 2022 10:53 pm
I skimmed (and I mean super skimmed) the WAPO annotated version. IANAL or even one on TV but it seems pure projection, accusing Roe v. Wade of being everything it is.
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Thu May 05, 2022 2:07 am