smr-nj Posted December 7, 2022 Share Posted December 7, 2022 I just want to say… Neal Katyal is a national treasure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted January 11, 2023 Author Share Posted January 11, 2023 not in the constitution whatsoever. The court just gave this power to itself. Ironically originalists do it lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted January 12, 2023 Share Posted January 12, 2023 22 hours ago, pfife said: not in the constitution whatsoever. The court just gave this power to itself. Ironically originalists do it lol You gotta admit we were somewhat lucky it’s taken nearly a quarter of a millennium for the judiciary to put themselves in a position to take over the governing of the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted January 19, 2023 Author Share Posted January 19, 2023 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 35 minutes ago, pfife said: LOL - TPM concludes that the report never states whether they investigated the justices themselves but implies they didn't. If that's the case, there just might have been a small flaw in the strategy.....🤔 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMRivdogs Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 They know who it is. They also know how much destruction it could cause if they told us 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 Yep. I knew all along if it were a "conservative" it wouldn't get out. If it were a liberal Ted Cruz would be on Fox immediately. They got quiet really really fast at some point when this first got out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 1 hour ago, oblong said: Yep. I knew all along if it were a "conservative" it wouldn't get out. If it were a liberal Ted Cruz would be on Fox immediately. They got quiet really really fast at some point when this first got out. There have only ever been two scenarios that made sense: A) a left winger released it to help drum up fund-raising. The fly in the ointment here is that it only had any impact in the period up to the decision's actual release, which was still well before the election. So early release really wasn't strategically needful. And of course as noted, Roberts would have no qualms about finding and outing any lib responsible B) Alito leaked it to freeze the internal court debate on the decision because Roberts was lobbying for a more incremental approach. This has always been the most logically sound scenario and the fact that Roberts is not willing to expose any such finding if he had found it is also completely predictable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smr-nj Posted January 20, 2023 Share Posted January 20, 2023 Is this, or was this actually a question for folks? ”A” scenario makes zero sense. It is, of course, “B”. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMRivdogs Posted January 20, 2023 Share Posted January 20, 2023 The investigation was rigged from the start Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted January 20, 2023 Author Share Posted January 20, 2023 The left leaked it to dustract from Hunters laptop and the Biden crime family Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted January 21, 2023 Share Posted January 21, 2023 On 1/20/2023 at 1:52 AM, CMRivdogs said: The investigation was rigged from the start Translation: they were looking only for lefty leakers and couldn’t find any, so … 🤷♂️ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted January 21, 2023 Share Posted January 21, 2023 This 'investigation' was probably pointless from the get go. I'd be surprised if the Supreme Court had a computer system secure enough to track things to a grain fine enough to detect the duplication of a document. It's not an institution that is supposed to keep state secrets! Plus I woudn't think that in most systems it its very hard for anyone who has access to an electronic document to create a practical duplicate of the text in clever enough ways to evade detection by a system logger anyway - (e.g., without simply copying the file). Not to mention that from the reporting it apparently would not have been particularly difficult to walk out with a hard copy either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted February 27, 2023 Author Share Posted February 27, 2023 what are the chances they kill something that protects consumers? Im saying well over 97% chance. 2 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted February 27, 2023 Share Posted February 27, 2023 Their ultimate goal is to share ruling power with a single-party fascist Christian Congress at the behest of an iron-handed autocrat. Not Trump, but someone equally Trumpy but with brains. if they get far enough, at some point they will want to drive out the Court's remaining liberals, preferably in shame and ignominy by their definition, and get 9-0 unanimity. I don't know if they'll get it, but that's what at least five of them would like to see. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted February 28, 2023 Author Share Posted February 28, 2023 SCOTUS oral arguments on the student loan forgiveness policy from Biden. Thomas actually asked the first question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted March 1, 2023 Share Posted March 1, 2023 22 hours ago, pfife said: SCOTUS oral arguments on the student loan forgiveness policy from Biden. Thomas actually asked the first question. He must reeeeeeally wanna kill it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted March 1, 2023 Share Posted March 1, 2023 22 hours ago, pfife said: SCOTUS oral arguments on the student loan forgiveness policy from Biden. Thomas actually asked the first question. this one cracks me up. They all know how they are going to rule. The arguments are pointless. This is the kind of case where i think if it were being done by an R admin the justices would just swap sides in their rulings. Although I did get put off by hearing some of Gorsuch's remarks about "fairness". Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think that's their job to sort out. Their job is to determine whether the executive branch has the authority to do this. Not whether it's right or wrong or good or bad or fair or unfair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMRivdogs Posted March 1, 2023 Share Posted March 1, 2023 I still would like to know who paid of Kavanaugh's mortgages and such... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted March 1, 2023 Author Share Posted March 1, 2023 20 minutes ago, oblong said: this one cracks me up. They all know how they are going to rule. The arguments are pointless. This is the kind of case where i think if it were being done by an R admin the justices would just swap sides in their rulings. Although I did get put off by hearing some of Gorsuch's remarks about "fairness". Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think that's their job to sort out. Their job is to determine whether the executive branch has the authority to do this. Not whether it's right or wrong or good or bad or fair or unfair. Yep, no need to be hypothetical about it. Trump actually did forgive interest on student loans and the gop was crickets. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewsieg Posted March 30, 2023 Share Posted March 30, 2023 https://reason.com/volokh/2023/03/28/do-court-appointed-prosecutors-violate-the-separation-of-powers/ Horrible decision IMO. If you look you'll see Gorsuch and Kavanaugh dissented, which I would suspect those that know about the original case that lead to this would be surprised that it wasn't the liberal judges dissenting. I mean, I guess the executive keeps on taking powers from the legislative, so I guess you could argue it's good for the judicial to pull some powers from the executive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted March 30, 2023 Share Posted March 30, 2023 On 2/27/2023 at 1:10 PM, chasfh said: Their ultimate goal is to share ruling power with a single-party fascist Christian Congress at the behest of an iron-handed autocrat. Not Trump, but someone equally Trumpy but with brains. if they get far enough, at some point they will want to drive out the Court's remaining liberals, preferably in shame and ignominy by their definition, and get 9-0 unanimity. I don't know if they'll get it, but that's what at least five of them would like to see. I don't think the people that own this country care about Christianity. They just use Christians and faux Christians to get their ultimate goal of protecting big business interests. They don't really care about banning abortion and stopping "queers". That's what they do to keep the evangelicals in line. Eliminiating consumer protections is more in line with what they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted March 30, 2023 Share Posted March 30, 2023 6 minutes ago, Tiger337 said: I don't think the people that own this country care about Christianity. They just use Christians and faux Christians to get their ultimate goal of protecting big business interests. They don't really care about banning abortion and stopping "queers". That's what they do to keep the evangelicals in line. Eliminiating consumer protections is more in line with what they want. To your point, one can have the goal of working toward a fascist Christian autocracy and still not give a crap about Christianity, or even know anything about Christ. Christianity has evolved away from being a religious calling and more toward being a divisive political cudgel. To that end, I am increasingly seeing people refer to themselves in on-the-street interviews, social media, etc., as being a “Christian”, or a “follower of Christ”, or quoting non-sequitur Bible passages in their profiles, things of that nature. That is generally the first thing they want you to know about them. My reaction to that is, if they have to sell me on what a good person they are by telling me right off the bat that they’re a Christian, before I learn anything else about them, then I immediately have my doubts about how Christ-like they are. They usually preface something Christ would never say with this selling point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted March 30, 2023 Share Posted March 30, 2023 By throwing out the Christ or Christian card it absolves them of any responsibility for their opinions and actions. They just fall back on "well it's in the Bible so...." If there's a bible verse in their twitter profile then chances are very good they are a nutjob. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Cowan Posted March 30, 2023 Share Posted March 30, 2023 1 hour ago, oblong said: By throwing out the Christ or Christian card it absolves them of any responsibility for their opinions and actions. They just fall back on "well it's in the Bible so...." If there's a bible verse in their twitter profile then chances are very good they are a nutjob. Right, like the scripture quote in the sig line in the old old forum. Typically only the most mean-spirited, judgemental people had those. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.