Fogbow

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 7:56 pm

Clarence Thomas says he worries respect for institutions is eroding

Justice Clarence Thomas said Friday that the judiciary is threatened if people are unwilling to “live with outcomes we don’t agree with” and that recent events at the Supreme Court might be “one symptom of that.”

“It bodes ill for a free society,” he said. It can’t be that institutions “give you only the outcome you want, or can be bullied” to do the same, he said.

So, he's outright admitting that his wife's participation in an attempt to overturn the 2020 election is a threat to the judiciary?

AndyinPA wrote: ↑Sat May 07, 2022 11:38 pm https://www.un.org/en/genocidepreventio ... nity.shtml

Article 7
Crimes Against Humanity

For the purpose of this Statute, ‘crime against humanity’ means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
Murder;
Extermination;
Enslavement;
Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
Torture;
Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
Enforced disappearance of persons;
The crime of apartheid;
Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

The formatting didn't copy over.

Shannon Coulter @shannoncoulter wrote: Christine Blasey Ford has had to move four times since the Kavanaugh hearing and I'm supposed to feel bad he has some protestors outside his house?

joshua @jdgtranen wrote: if kavanaugh doesn’t like the pro abortion protests outside his house, he can simply drive or relocate to a different state. right?

Rachel Vindman 🌻 @natsechobbyist wrote: I care just as much as Justice Alito cared for my family when we were in danger.

Kristan Hawkins @KristanHawkins wrote: Justice Alito and his family have been moved to an undisclosed location. Let us pray for he and his family’s safety.

Law Boy, Esq. @The_Law_Boy wrote: when discussing the propriety of protesting outside of supreme court justices' homes, it's important to remember that in the 90s the court held that protesting outside of the homes of **abortion clinic employees** is protected by the first amendment

there's been chatter about 18 U.S. Code § 1507, which seems to make protesting outside of a judge's home illegal. i'd think that if protesting outside of some random clinic employees' house is protected, so is protesting outside of the homes of powerful public figures

p0rtia wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 1:05 pm

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 1:12 pm I'm as angry as the next person but have there been any whispers of violence or destruction vis a vis the Supreme Courthouse? I mean, we're Antifa, not Oath Keepers.

I've watched the word being used by progressives in a wholly positive way to mean simply anti-fascist, but my understanding has been that the original Antifa groups believed in meeting violence with violence.

Yes/No?

FTR, not interested in the insane imaginary ways that the RWNJ's use the term.

Auction of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's items raises over $800,000


All told, an online auction of 150 items owned by the late justice raised $803,650 for Washington National Opera, one of Ginsburg's passions. The auction ended in late April, and buyers are now picking up items or arranging to have them shipped to their homes in 38 states, the District of Columbia, Canada and Germany. Winning bids ranged from $850 to $55,000.

Elizabeth Haynie Wainstein, the owner of The Potomack Company auction house in Virginia, said they were "just really blown away by the interest." A pre-sale estimate suggested the auction could raise $50,000 to $80,000.

Ginsburg died of cancer at age 87 in September 2020. In her later years, the court's second female justice and liberal icon also become a pop culture figure known as the "Notorious RBG." In January, an online auction of her books brought in $2.3 million, almost 30 times the pre-sale estimate, according to Bonhams, the company that conducted the auction.

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 1:17 pm Can't wait to hear how he plans to serve "Antifa."

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 2:18 pm

Law Boy, Esq. @The_Law_Boy wrote: when discussing the propriety of protesting outside of supreme court justices' homes, it's important to remember that in the 90s the court held that protesting outside of the homes of **abortion clinic employees** is protected by the first amendment

there's been chatter about 18 U.S. Code § 1507, which seems to make protesting outside of a judge's home illegal. i'd think that if protesting outside of some random clinic employees' house is protected, so is protesting outside of the homes of powerful public figures

neeneko wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 3:20 pm

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Mon May 09, 2022 2:18 pm

Law Boy, Esq. @The_Law_Boy wrote: when discussing the propriety of protesting outside of supreme court justices' homes, it's important to remember that in the 90s the court held that protesting outside of the homes of **abortion clinic employees** is protected by the first amendment

there's been chatter about 18 U.S. Code § 1507, which seems to make protesting outside of a judge's home illegal. i'd think that if protesting outside of some random clinic employees' house is protected, so is protesting outside of the homes of powerful public figures

I do not suppose anyone knows what case SCOTUS ruled on that involved the right to protest outside abortion clinic worker's homes? I found McCULLEN v. COAKLEY from 2014 that deals with buffers around clinics, but that is it so far.

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 3:38 pm https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme- ... 2/753.html
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-1856.ZS.html
https://www.truthorfiction.com/in-the-9 ... amendment/

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 1:17 pm Can't wait to hear how he plans to serve "Antifa."

The latest Yahoo/YouGov poll on Americans’ confidence in the Supreme Court shows a stunning deterioration in faith in the high court since it was last conducted 20 months ago – just days before Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s expedited confirmation.

The poll last gauged Americans’ confidence in the court in September 2020, during the few days between liberal icon Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death and then-President Donald Trump nominating Coney Barrett.

At that time, the poll found that 70 percent of registered voters had either “some” or “a lot” of confidence in the Supreme Court – 50 and 20 percent respectively.

Only 23 percent said that had “a little” confidence in the court, while 7 percent said that had “none.”

Skip ahead to today and voters’ attitudes have swung “by a colossal 40-point margin,” notes Yahoo’s Andrew Romano.

“At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience however soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous: that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution, and working it’s change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming it’s substance.”


– Thomas Jefferson, letter to Monsieur A. Coray, October 31, 1823

Supreme Court sides with Ted Cruz, striking down cap on use of campaign funds to repay personal campaign loans

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas in a case involving the use of campaign funds to repay personal campaign loans, dealing the latest blow to campaign finance regulations.

The court said that a federal cap on candidates using political contributions after the election to recoup personal loans made to their campaign was unconstitutional.

In her dissenting opinion, Kagan criticized the majority for ruling against a law that she said was meant to combat "a special danger of corruption" aimed at "political contributions that will line a candidate's own pockets."

"In striking down the law today," she wrote, "the Court greenlights all the sordid bargains Congress thought right to stop. . . . In allowing those payments to go forward unrestrained, today's decision can only bring this country's political system into further disrepute."

Indeed, she explained, "Repaying a candidate's loan after he has won election cannot serve the usual purposes of a contribution: The money comes too late to aid in any of his campaign activities. All the money does is enrich the candidate personally at a time when he can return the favor -- by a vote, a contract, an appointment. It takes no political genius to see the heightened risk of corruption -- the danger of 'I'll make you richer and you'll make me richer' arrangements between donors and officeholders."

Supreme Court sides with Ted Cruz, striking down cap on use of campaign funds to repay personal campaign loans

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Mon May 16, 2022 1:51 pm

Supreme Court sides with Ted Cruz, striking down cap on use of campaign funds to repay personal campaign loans

Supreme Court decision supports campaign, candidate corruption

I rewrite headlines for fun.