SCOTUS and whatnot

[RatkoVarda]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

I was never under any illusions that Roberts was a conservative, but I did think that he did have some concern for the legitimacy and integrity of the court as an institution, but as this all emerges it sadly evident that he has been MIA as an honest adminstrator of this court and at this point has retreated to full scale CYA. I suppose that constitutionally he may not have any explicit power over other justices, but if had been at all interested he could have done a lot to institutionalize a higher ethics standard  - esp in the early years when the court was more balanced. Disappointing.

Roberts wanted that fact that court's decisions aligned with GOP policies to appear to be happenstance; just a quirky coincidence.

To keep up the farce, Roberts wanted to slow the rate of change, which is why he occasionally gave Dems some wins, like the upholding the ACA.

Alito basically said f*** that noise, I'm too old, and there are 6 of us, so I don't care what you think, we are going to put as many policies in as we can, before someone stops us.

Roberts is basically humiliated by all this, because the worst possible outcome for him - and the court - to be seen as a political body, which is now undeniable.

[romad1]

The headline:  Clarence Thomas has a child in Private School; Harlan Crow paid tuition. 

That's amazing.  1.  Clarence Thomas had a child.  I thought that was something only a woman could do after the appropriate gestation period for a human mammal.

2. He did it while he was in private school.  Well done my man.  Unless you were home schooled.

3. Harlan Crow appears to be covering every aspect of Thomas' life.   How do I get one of those?  Do I need to be a Supreme Court justice or Donald Trump's son-in-law?

[pfife]

1 hour ago, RatkoVarda said:

Roberts wanted that fact that court's decisions aligned with GOP policies to appear to be happenstance; just a quirky coincidence.

Everyone knows that the founding fathers thought exactly like modern day Republicans per the unassailable findings by originalists.  There's no need to wait any longer in bringing about the founding fathers wishes, we've been waiting almost 250 years.

[mtutiger]

The corruption is breathtaking

[mtutiger]

 

[digitalpigsmuggler]

20 hours ago, mtutiger said:

 

Translation: "Swampy behavior is good when my guy does it, bad when the other guys do it. 

Whaddabout Sotomayor?"

The same could be said to you. Just change the names.

[mtutiger]

1 hour ago, digitalpigsmuggler said:

The same could be said to you. Just change the names.

Not really... if Sotomayor did something bad or illegal, I don't have any issue with her facing scrutiny for it.

[romad1]

36 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Not really... if Sotomayor did something bad or illegal, I don't have any issue with her facing scrutiny for it.

seriously, they will now stomp you with whataboutism.  The goal is to destroy faith in all institutions so they can have power.  That is what the pro-Putin Magas want. 

[chasfh]

10 minutes ago, romad1 said:

seriously, they will now stomp you with whataboutism.  The goal is to destroy faith in all institutions so they can have power.  That is what the pro-Putin Magas want. 

And let's not forget that the mass media is one of those institutions, and sadly, the fascists have made a lot of progress eroding faith in that one.

Not to suggest mass media news-gathering operations are flawless, because (a) nobody is flawless and (b) that's too high a bar to gauge them on. But MMNGO have journalistic standards and ethics, and they hew far, far closer to what's really happening than parties with clearly apparent interest do.

Edited May 5, 2023 by chasfh

[romad1]

1 minute ago, chasfh said:

And don't forget that the mas media is one of those institutions, and sadly, they've made a lot of progress on that one.

Not to suggest mass media news-gathering operations are flawless, because (a) nobody is flawless and (b) that's too high a bar. But MMNGO have journalistic standards and ethics, and they hew far, far closer to what's really happening than parties with clearly apparent interest do.

They have to be perfect while the ****-wall throwers are held to no standard whatsoever.  Because they recognize that its all propaganda.   

[chasfh]

Just now, romad1 said:

They have to be perfect while the ****-wall throwers are held to no standard whatsoever.  Because they recognize that its all propaganda.   

Right, and the best way to sell propaganda is to deny it's propaganda.

[RatkoVarda]

 

[gehringer_2]

2 minutes ago, RatkoVarda said:

 

Well. That take is nothing if not ....imaginative.

[RatkoVarda]

 

[chasfh]

Ahh, dirty water, schmirty schmwater. Smells like money to me.

 

[Motown Bombers]

Still can't get over the press secretary for Bernie Sanders saying the supreme court doesn't matter. 

[Tigeraholic1]

31 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Still can't get over the press secretary for Bernie Sanders saying the supreme court doesn't matter. 

I can't get over why anyone would care what Bernie's press secretary says.

[Motown Bombers]

Just now, Tigeraholic1 said:

I can't get over why anyone would care what Bernie's press secretary says.

Because those progressives on the left stayed home because the Supreme Court doesn't matter. Those rat****ers that did vote, voted for Jill Stein. Bernie Sanders was suppose to be a serious candidate and his press secretary said the Supreme Court didn't matter. 

[Tiger337]

2 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Because those progressives on the left stayed home because the Supreme Court doesn't matter. Those rat****ers that did vote, voted for Jill Stein. Bernie Sanders was suppose to be a serious candidate and his press secretary said the Supreme Court didn't matter. 

You can't tell people who to vote for.  Maybe they didn't like your candidate, so they voted someone else.  Maybe they thought Clinton was a terrible candidate and didn't want to support her. 

[Motown Bombers]

8 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

You can't tell people who to vote for.  Maybe they didn't like your candidate, so they voted someone else.  Maybe they thought Clinton was a terrible candidate and didn't want to support her. 

Well, hopefully they're happy they chose to back the Russian agent instead if Hillary. Maybe, though, Bernie Sanders shouldn't make someone who believes the Supreme Court doesn't matter as press secretary. So many progressives simp for Russia and white nationalists but hey they're all the same. 

[Tiger337]

19 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Well, hopefully they're happy they chose to back the Russian agent instead if Hillary. Maybe, though, Bernie Sanders shouldn't make someone who believes the Supreme Court doesn't matter as press secretary. So many progressives simp for Russia and white nationalists but hey they're all the same. 

Maybe they regret it.  Maybe they don't.  They probably want different things than you want and maybe they thought Clinton would get them there.  Not everything is D versus R.    

[Motown Bombers]

Just now, Tiger337 said:

Maybe they regret it.  Maybe they don't.  They probably want different things than you want and maybe they thought Clinton would get them there.  Not everything is D versus R.    

They claim to be progressives who care about the environment and pro choice. They're option was D or R and Bernie Sanders was a D while it was beneficial to him. They were the same ones whining about building pop up abortion clinics in national forests. Had they just voted for Hillary, Roe would still be protected. 

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

Ahh, dirty water, schmirty schmwater. Smells like money to me.

 

yeah - though the truth is that this would be a non-story if we had even a marginally functional Congress. All Scotus really says here is that the Congress wrote a very poorly drafted, ambiguous piece of legislation (which it did) and that it wasn't up the court to allow EPA to advance the most expansive possible reading of that ambiguity, it was up to Congress the clarify what they meant to regulate. In a normal world this is exactly the decision reasonable people should agree upon. There is/should be a working tension between how much we want SCOTUS to 'just fix' what Congress does badly vs having Congress repair it properly. The former is convenient, at least for the people looking for a particular result, but it's also long term corrosive to keep bailing Congress out of its incompetence and in the end cedes too much power to the judiciary.  I think that to a certain degree at least - 'believeing the courts will fix it' has been a historical factor in liberal voter apathy.

Edited May 25, 2023 by gehringer_2

[Tigeraholic1]

11 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

They claim to be progressives who care about the environment and pro choice. They're option was D or R and Bernie Sanders was a D while it was beneficial to him. They were the same ones whining about building pop up abortion clinics in national forests. Had they just voted for Hillary, Roe would still be protected. 

A number of folks thought this was a bad idea.

[Tiger337]

Abortion clinics in national forests?  I never heard of that and it sounds like a terrible idea.  When I go to a national forest, I want to be in a forest.  I don't want it to be some kind of political experience.  I go to the forest to get away from that ****.