Page 18 of 60
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2021 9:58 am
by Cascadia
Also, Breyer needs to retire so them Dems can replace him with a 45-50 year old. Can't have another RBG situation.
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2021 10:05 am
by ousdahl
I think it’s sad that so many blame RBG for not stepping down, as if she’s the one who turned scotus into what it is.
I suppose it’s too much to blame bad faith senators and their shameless power grabs, eh?
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:29 pm
by Deleted User 89
WASHINGTON — The Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts, warned Friday that the Supreme Court risks losing its own authority if it allows the existence of a law like Texas’ near-total abortion ban, which attempts to circumvent the courts.
In a strongly worded opinion joined by the high court’s three liberal justices, Roberts wrote that the "clear purpose and actual effect" of the Texas law was "to nullify this Court’s rulings." That, he said, undermines the Constitution and the fundamental role of the Supreme Court and the court system as a whole...
there’s hope yet, no matter how fleeting
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2021 4:32 pm
by zsn
Roberts has been worried only about how history is going to view him and nothing else. He’s as much a partisan hack as the rest of the scoundrels but he is at least worried about whatever legacy he would leave behind. Can’t say even that much about Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh.
Anything that appears like hope is but a mirage……of Roberts’ efforts at reputation-laundering. He’s working very hard at having it both ways
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2021 8:22 pm
by Overlander
Yeah, I took his comments as more of a “hey, it wasn’t me” when the inevitable occurs
** Illy, that means when what was going to happen anyway happens
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2022 2:04 pm
by ousdahl
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2022 3:48 pm
by ousdahl
So as far as I can tell, scotus sent back down the vax requirement for bidnesses with 100+ employees, but upheld the mandate for healthcare workers?
With the rationale being, healthcare workers should get it cuz it’s their job to keep people healthy.
Ooook….apparently they think the mandate for 100+ employers was imposed for some reason other than keeping healthy, then?
Or is it, that bidnesses should be exempt since their primary utility is less about keeping people healthy and more about economic productivity?
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2022 4:14 pm
by Cascadia
ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 3:48 pm
So as far as I can tell, scotus sent back down the vax requirement for bidnesses with 100+ employees, but upheld the mandate for healthcare workers?
With the rationale being, healthcare workers should get it cuz it’s their job to keep people healthy.
Ooook….apparently they think the mandate for 100+ employers was imposed for some reason other than keeping healthy, then?
Or is it, that bidnesses should be exempt since their primary utility is less about keeping people healthy and more about economic productivity?
I think what you’re seeing is proof that the QOP’s only agenda is “owning the libs”
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2022 4:18 pm
by ousdahl
Ha, maybe.
Kinda surprised the conservative majority didn’t shoot down the healthcare mandate as well, on the grounds that the primary utility of Merican healthcare is economic productivity too.
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2022 7:36 pm
by zsn
Your first mistake is assuming that anything that the current SCOTUS does has any rationale. They would have upheld the mandate had a Republican President proposed it. They are partisan hacks
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2022 5:05 pm
by ousdahl
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2022 11:35 am
by ousdahl
Sotomayor: I’m at higher risk with diabeetus, would everyone else please mask up?
Gorsuch: BUT MAH RIGHTS
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2022 2:42 pm
by Deleted User 863
That's definitely rude as fuck.
But with increased risk she's better off working remotely regardless. Especially if they're just wearing cloth masks and in close proximity to each other.
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:22 pm
by ousdahl
I also saw some headline like “scotus went from hearing one big religious case every few years, to several religious cases a session”
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:49 pm
by Qusdahl
Time for my boy Mitch to work his grim reaper black magic.
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:52 pm
by MICHHAWK
is it good or bad that this person is retiring?
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:37 pm
by Overlander
MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:52 pm
is it good or bad that this person is retiring?
Why would you care?
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:45 pm
by RainbowsandUnicorns
MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:52 pm
is it good or bad that this person is retiring?
I would like for you to tell me/us what you think.
If you are sincerely asking people who aren't relevant what their opinion is - then I may suggest
you wait for "don lemon, bruce springsteen, jesse waters, joe rogan, kid rock, whoopi goldburg, jon stockton" to chime in.
Might as well, right?
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:16 pm
by Overlander
RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:45 pm
MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:52 pm
is it good or bad that this person is retiring?
I would like for you to tell me/us what you think.
If you are sincerely asking people who aren't relevant what their opinion is - then I may suggest
you wait for "don lemon, bruce springsteen, jesse waters, joe rogan, kid rock, whoopi goldburg, jon stockton" to chime in.
Might as well, right?
Gutter swoops in with a LATE 4th quarter POTD!!!
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:21 am
by Deleted User 863