The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

[Uncle Ted]

Let the riots and burnings begin!

Embedded Tweet

Embedded Tweet

Dems Pause January 6 Hearings To Call For Insurrection

Democrats have temporarily pushed pause on the January 6th hearings in order to lead an insurrection against the federal government.

"On January 6th, a branch of our federal government was almost overthrown because politicians used dangerous rhetoric that caused—wait, hold on everyone, I just got the update. Roe's been overturned!" said Representative Adam Schiff. "Okay, well if all the Republicans could please sit tight, there will be a brief recess while our Democratic caucus takes to the streets demanding we overthrow a branch of the federal government."

After closing down their presentation entitled "How Trump Undermined Institutional Authority", Democrats raced to join the crowd surrounding the Supreme Court building. "Rigged! Rigged decision!" shouted Senator Elizabeth Warren. "Judges must no longer be allowed to hold power! We will never abide by an illegitimate decision by an illegitimate court. Fight, fight!" she screamed as beleaguered police arrived in riot gear.
[...]

https://babylonbee.com/news/dems-pau...r-insurrection

[UVACoug]

The thing I don't get about originalism is why the deification of the framers? Why do so many people treat the Constitution as political scripture? The Framers lived in a time when the population of the colonies was less than 3 million people, there were no cars, airplanes, computers or internet. The framers of the Constitution were not prophets and the Constitution is not sacred writ. We live in a complex world with complex problems, so why do we constantly want to look backwards two and a half centuries for the wisdom of men who rode horses and wore wigs? I don't get it.

It's about the meaning of the text (or at least it is supposed to be). There's nothing sacred about the framers. But it is the framers that wrote the constitution, and if we are to have anything resembling a rule of law, we have to know what the words they used meant. That is true of amendments too. If a new amendment was adopted today, the question wouldn't be what the framers thought the words of the new amendment meant ... it would be what the words meant today. Originalism looks to the lake 19th century to interpret the meaning of the post civil war amendments (not to the framer's era).

Without a constitution, there is no rule of law and we just end up with judges making it up as they go along based on their own personal, political and social opinions. The whole motivation behind originalism was supposed to be to develop an objective way to determine what the law is so it is consistent over time. Many so-called originalists (including some on the Supreme Court) haven't done a good job of adhering to that philosophy, but that is the theory behind it.

I usually think Thomas is pretty principled, but I think his decision on the recent New York gun law case was an example of originalism gone rogue. I think the outcome was right, but his selective recitation of the history was distortive and not based on the text.

[Non Sequitur]

It's about the meaning of the text (or at least it is supposed to be). There's nothing sacred about the framers. But it is the framers that wrote the constitution, and if we are to have anything resembling a rule of law, we have to know what the words they used meant. That is true of amendments too. If a new amendment was adopted today, the question wouldn't be what the framers thought the words of the new amendment meant ... it would be what the words meant today. Originalism looks to the lake 19th century to interpret the meaning of the post civil war amendments (not to the framer's era).

Without a constitution, there is no rule of law and we just end up with judges making it up as they go along based on their own personal, political and social opinions. The whole motivation behind originalism was supposed to be to develop an objective way to determine what the law is so it is consistent over time. Many so-called originalists (including some on the Supreme Court) haven't done a good job of adhering to that philosophy, but that is the theory behind it.

I usually think Thomas is pretty principled, but I think his decision on the recent New York gun law case was an example of originalism gone rogue. I think the outcome was right, but his selective recitation of the history was distortive and not based on the text.

He is not principled. He's a piece of shit, and he's cut from the same ugly cloth as his piece of shit wife. The world will be a better place when he's no longer a part of it.

[Uncle Ted]

He is not principled. He's a piece of shit, and he's cut from the same ugly cloth as his piece of shit wife. The world will be a better place when he's no longer a part of it.

No, he is principled... He said years ago he was going to make you liberals pay:

Embedded Tweet

Y'all should have been nicer to him.

[Uncle Ted]

It's funny...because what Garland is advocating for is the current law in California. And it is lame.

Good news for all my California friends...

Embedded Tweet

The stupid gun law dominos are falling.

[New Mexican Disaster]

It's about the meaning of the text (or at least it is supposed to be).

This is for when you are in the minority. When you are in the majority you just select your prefered policy outcome apparently.

[Shaka]

He is not principled. He's a piece of shit, and he's cut from the same ugly cloth as his piece of shit wife. The world will be a better place when he's no longer a part of it.

Haven't met his wife so I can't speak to that but I have met Thomas on more than one occasion. He's a good guy. I know a few who have worked for him and they think he's a great guy.

I think the world would be a better place if you didn't have the reaction of a fifteen year old girl to those whose politics do not align with yours.

[Non Sequitur]

Haven't met his wife so I can't speak to that but I have met Thomas on more than one occasion. He's a good guy. I know a few who have worked for him and they think he's a great guy.

I think the world would be a better place if you didn't have the reaction of a fifteen year old girl to those whose politics do not align with yours.

We differ in that I do not consider "great guy" to be a meaningful qualification for a Supreme Court justice. I have long since expected the Executive and Legislative branches to be less than corrupt, but I've always held out hope that the Supreme Court would honor its duty to rise above partisan politics and steer the ship on course. That's no longer the case. The Supreme Court was the last domino and now it is flat, but congrats on having met Clarence Thomas and I'm happy that you found him to be a great guy.

[jadesroom]

He is not principled. He's a piece of shit, and he's cut from the same ugly cloth as his piece of shit wife. The world will be a better place when he's no longer a part of it.

Such hatred and anger....wow!

But that's okay because I have said nearly the same things about Souter, Sotamayer, Gingsburg, and Thurgood Marshall among others. That's the wonderful thing about the United States Constitution. People do have a choice even if it takes quite a few years for that choice to be heard and for change to occur.

Which reminds me of an old saying about the Constitution which I think could be aptly applied to the recent Supreme Court decision: There are three types of people...those who are for it, those who are against it, and those who have studied and read it.

I am surprised by all the venom and hatred and violent talk emanating from the left. Okay, I'm not really surprised; people are who they are and act accordingly. But, it's not as if a woman's right to an abortion has suddenly come to an end. States are now able to set their own laws regulating the practice.

Which leads me to this: Democrats/liberals are in charge of the House, Senate, and Presidency and have been for the past 18 months. I'm surprised the Democrats haven't tried to codify Roe vs Wade or to at least start the Amendment process. Okay, I'm not really surprised; it's much easier to spread venom, hatred, and violence than to actually govern.

[Moliere]

Such hatred and anger....wow!

But that's okay because I have said nearly the same things about Souter, Sotamayer, Gingsburg, and Thurgood Marshall among others. That's the wonderful thing about the United States Constitution. People do have a choice even if it takes quite a few years for that choice to be heard and for change to occur.

Which reminds me of an old saying about the Constitution which I think could be aptly applied to the recent Supreme Court decision: There are three types of people...those who are for it, those who are against it, and those who have studied and read it.

I am surprised by all the venom and hatred and violent talk emanating from the left. Okay, I'm not really surprised; people are who they are and act accordingly. But, it's not as if a woman's right to an abortion has suddenly come to an end. States are now able to set their own laws regulating the practice.

Which leads me to this: Democrats/liberals are in charge of the House, Senate, and Presidency and have been for the past 18 months. I'm surprised the Democrats haven't tried to codify Roe vs Wade or to at least start the Amendment process. Okay, I'm not really surprised; it's much easier to spread venom, hatred, and violence than to actually govern.

I’m not surprised they haven’t started the process to codify Roe. The could pass a bill today to do that if they dropped the filibuster. They control all of congress. But guess what, I bet they couldn’t even get 50 votes for an abortion rights bill. They don’t have the votes because they won’t settle for less than a very liberal abortion bill and less than half of Americans would support what they want to pass.

[Moliere]

We differ in that I do not consider "great guy" to be a meaningful qualification for a Supreme Court justice. I have long since expected the Executive and Legislative branches to be less than corrupt, but I've always held out hope that the Supreme Court would honor its duty to rise above partisan politics and steer the ship on course. That's no longer the case. The Supreme Court was the last domino and now it is flat, but congrats on having met Clarence Thomas and I'm happy that you found him to be a great guy.

So because the Supreme Court did rule the way you wanted they are now partisan? Can I get an irony ruling on that one?

[Shaka]

We differ in that I do not consider "great guy" to be a meaningful qualification for a Supreme Court justice. I have long since expected the Executive and Legislative branches to be less than corrupt, but I've always held out hope that the Supreme Court would honor its duty to rise above partisan politics and steer the ship on course. That's no longer the case. The Supreme Court was the last domino and now it is flat, but congrats on having met Clarence Thomas and I'm happy that you found him to be a great guy.

I don't call someone a piece of shit because their politics differ from mine. Nor do I feel the need to call Sotomayer, Kagen, and Gorsuch names, question their C.V., or call them corrupt every time they vote or write an opnion that doesn't align with my personal political beliefs.

My personal feeling is that abortion is a state issue until there is enough support for an ammendment. However, I have friends that disagree. Somehow we are able to discuss with decorum and respect. You should try it sometime.

It's emotional, nonsensical, responses like yours that screw up the political discourse in this country. Unfortunately, there are those on the right that act the exact same way.

[Uncle Ted]

I don't call someone a piece of shit because their politics differ from mine. Nor do I feel the need to call Sotomayer, Kagen, and Gorsuch names, question their C.V., or call them corrupt every time they vote or write an opnion that doesn't align with my personal political beliefs.

My personal feeling is that abortion is a state issue until there is enough support for an ammendment. However, I have friends that disagree. Somehow we are able to discuss with decorum and respect. You should try it sometime.

It's emotional, nonsensical, responses like yours that screw up the political discourse in this country. Unfortunately, there are those on the right that act the exact same way.

Don't let NS get you all riled up... He is just pissed off that Drumpf was right again:

[Uncle Ted]

I’m not surprised they haven’t started the process to codify Roe. The could pass a bill today to do that if they dropped the filibuster. They control all of congress. But guess what, I bet they couldn’t even get 50 votes for an abortion rights bill. They don’t have the votes because they won’t settle for less than a very liberal abortion bill and less than half of Americans would support what they want to pass.

They are too busy watching J6 videos to do anything productive. (Not to mention they had like 50 years to codify Roe v Wade.)

The Dems missed their chance to get a lot of this crap done in Obama's first term. They had enough votes in the senate and house to pass about anything they wanted but pissed it away.

[Non Sequitur]

I don't call someone a piece of shit because their politics differ from mine. Nor do I feel the need to call Sotomayer, Kagen, and Gorsuch names, question their C.V., or call them corrupt every time they vote or write an opnion that doesn't align with my personal political beliefs.

My personal feeling is that abortion is a state issue until there is enough support for an ammendment. However, I have friends that disagree. Somehow we are able to discuss with decorum and respect. You should try it sometime.

It's emotional, nonsensical, responses like yours that screw up the political discourse in this country. Unfortunately, there are those on the right that act the exact same way.

I don't call him a piece of shit because his politics differ from mine. I call him a piece of shit because he's corrupt. His wife was in league with Jan 6 coup conspirators and he alone on the court tried to suppress documents from reaching the Jan 6 committee that could compromise his wife. I disagree politically with the other conservatives members of the court, but I don't think they're corrupt.

I also think he's a piece of shit because of his calculated invitation in his opinion for others to now challenge the right for same-sex marriage. He didn't have to put that in his opinion, but he did because he wanted to give a nod to those wishing to undo the recent progress made to LGBQT rights that the SC was now open and ready for business and that nothing is off the table. Yeah, I stand by my piece of shit comment.