Supreme Court of the United States

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

25 minutes ago, Nouseforaname said:

I don’t remember who it was who made the joke atop but I laughed my ass off when I read it.

 

I have been known, even in regular conversation, to preface statements with "Eh, little-known fact there, Normy..."

[KD in CA]

On 7/9/2022 at 10:44 AM, Crap Throwing Monkey said:

 

Some girls hit puberty at that age.  In fact, the mean age of onset of puberty has dropped by about 4 years since 1920, and the average age now is about 11, for boys and girls.

 

Yup. My oldest started at 11. Our twins are now that age and a little way off, but almost all their friends are there already.   Kinda scary.

 

[Fansince88]

7 hours ago, KD in CA said:

 

Yup. My oldest started at 11. Our twins are now that age and a little way off, but almost all their friends are there already.   Kinda scary.

 

Its the freaking food we feed them. Been saying this for years. 

[Spartacus]

2 hours ago, Fansince88 said:

Its the freaking food we feed them. Been saying this for years. 

the 72 vaccine shots they are forced to get before kindergarten have nothing to do with it

but not to worry, after getting jabbed, they won't be able to re-produce properly, anyway 

Edited July 11, 2022 by Spartacus

[Fansince88]

7 hours ago, Spartacus said:

the 72 vaccine shots they are forced to get before kindergarten have nothing to do with it

but not to worry, after getting jabbed, they won't be able to re-produce properly, anyway 

I dont believe this is the vaccines but the hormones in the foods we eat. 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

2 minutes ago, Fansince88 said:

I dont believe this is the vaccines but the hormones in the foods we eat. 

 

It's HAARP interacting with fluoridated nanobots from GMOs WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!!!!!!

[Fansince88]

4 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Monkey said:

 

It's HAARP interacting with fluoridated nanobots from GMOs WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!!!!!!

I personally know a family that eats strictly what they produce. Their  13 kids are way healthier than any of us. Their own chickens. Their own beef. Thie own pork. Their own gardens. Their kids eat weeds that I never knew could be consumed. Last 9 were born at home and have never seen a dr for an ailment. Its what we eat!

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

14 minutes ago, Fansince88 said:

I personally know a family that eats strictly what they produce. Their  13 kids are way healthier than any of us. Their own chickens. Their own beef. Thie own pork. Their own gardens. Their kids eat weeds that I never knew could be consumed. Last 9 were born at home and have never seen a dr for an ailment. Its what we eat!

 

They're probably healthier for the work it takes to grow it than for simply eating it.

[Fansince88]

4 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Monkey said:

 

They're probably healthier for the work it takes to grow it than for simply eating it.

Its like fire wood. Warms you when you cut it and warms you when you burn it.

[IDBillzFan]

D'ya ever notice how ALL leftists do is complain? You have to wonder how stupid a group of people needs to be to elect someone this stupid.

 

One day AOC may actually do something productive.

 

Maybe. One day.

 

But not this day. Today she is somehow stupid enough to believe these SCOTUS judges lied about Roe.

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

[IDBillzFan]

Well, it looks like yet another Dem hoax trips up Joey Oatmeal. 

 

Not only is there no evidence of any 10-year-old raped in Ohio, it turns out they have a heartbeat law, not a six weeks law. 

 

Oh, and in Ohio, providing an abortion to someone because of rape, regardless of age, is legal.

 

But did that keep everyone from pushing the narrative?

 

Of course not. Because when you work for two years and find out that 9 in 10 Americans believes you're a flipping failure, you gotta make shit up.

 

 

[Fansince88]

2 hours ago, IDBillzFan said:

Well, it looks like yet another Dem hoax trips up Joey Oatmeal. 

 

Not only is there no evidence of any 10-year-old raped in Ohio, it turns out they have a heartbeat law, not a six weeks law. 

 

Oh, and in Ohio, providing an abortion to someone because of rape, regardless of age, is legal.

 

But did that keep everyone from pushing the narrative?

 

Of course not. Because when you work for two years and find out that 9 in 10 Americans believes you're a flipping failure, you gotta make shit up.

 

 

Its not his fault. He heard it from a friend who....heard it from a friend you...were messing around.  

[Spartacus]

What she says is true.

 

 so why does she consistently rule by "feelings' to push a political agenda,

instead of upholding the constitution pursuant to her oath of office? 

 

 

 

Justice Kagan gives pointed warning about the 'legitimacy' of the court, seemingly calling out justices with 'political social preferences' (msn.com)

 

US Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan ruminated on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court at a conference full of lawyers and judges, warning that a disconnected court and political appointments could be "a dangerous thing for the democratic system."

 

Kagan said that SCOTUS justices had their work cut out for them in terms of earning and maintaining "legitimacy" in the eyes of Americans, according to a report from The Washington Post.

 

"By design, the court does things sometimes that the majority of the country doesn't like," Kagan said. "Overall, the way the court retains its legitimacy and fosters public confidence is by acting like a court, is by doing the kind of things that do not seem to people political or partisan, by not behaving as though we are just people with individual political or policy or social preferences."

Edited July 22, 2022 by Spartacus

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

4 hours ago, Spartacus said:

"Overall, the way the court retains its legitimacy and fosters public confidence is by acting like a court, is by doing the kind of things that do not seem to people political or partisan, by not behaving as though we are just people with individual political or policy or social preferences."

 

Same woman who routinely votes against the Second and Tenth Amendments.

 

Hypocrisy, thy name is "Democrat." 

[Spartacus]

Justices should not read the Constitution as written.

The "enlightened Thinkers" on the SC should apply their "feelings' as to how to change humanity for the better.

 

 

Opinions | What conservative Supreme Court justices get wrong about the Founders (msn.com)

 

Several of the Supreme Court’s blockbuster end-of-term decisions, which cheered conservatives and horrified liberals, were largely based on “originalist” or “textualist” readings of the U.S. Constitution. In other words, the justices based their majority opinions on what they thought the Constitution meant at the time the Founders wrote it.

 

 

 

Enlightenment thinkers knew that people (including themselves) were flawed, and therefore that it was absurd to think they could establish a perfect government. Yet they were also confident that rational processes could improve humanity. The logical, reasoned use of evidence in arguments and decision-making was critical. They sought to understand the absolute laws that governed both the natural world and ethical behavior within human society. Scientific, technological and social advances gave them cause for optimism.

 

A combination of concerted effort, study, critical examination of evidence and logical reasoning could improve humanity over time. As humanity improved itself, it would gradually and inevitably reach closer toward perfection. As Becker observed, Enlightenment thinkers “denied that miracles ever happened, but believed in the perfectibility of the human race.” Increased knowledge would necessitate human societies continually remaking their governmental structures and institutions to reach closer to perfection.

 

 

[Spartacus]

losing faith in the Supreme Court to rule by their feelings to implement left wing policy, that Congress didn't want to touch   

 

As Supreme Court turns right, expansion supporters see opportunity in midterms (msn.com)

 

Although calls from the left to increase the number of justices on the court's nine-seat bench or impose term limits have been dismissed by Democratic leaders – and pummeled by Republicans – liberal groups and a handful of congressional candidates are raising the issue to harness resentment over the Supreme Court's most recent term.

 

Though the strategy would be risky in competitive districts – where the issue will take a back seat to spiraling inflation and President Joe Biden's tanking approval ratings – some of the groups are eager to try it in races where a Democrat is likely to win in November. Polls show many Democratic voters are losing faith in the Supreme Court. 

 

"The end-of-term decisions, I do think, raise the possibility of some shift in the larger dynamic," said Brian Fallon, president of Demand Justice PAC, a group that supports court expansion and that on Friday endorsed seven congressional candidates for the first time. "The first step in having the pendulum swing...the other way is in building that muscle among Democratic voters, to be consistently attentive to this issue."

 

[Spartacus]

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/offer-large-sums-public-money-law-professor-calls-congress-buyout-conservative-justices

 

Critics of the Supreme Court have tried every means to change the balance or decisions of the Court from threats of impeachment to harassing justices at homes or restaurants. 

 

Some of these reckless measures have been encouraged by law professors, including a Georgetown law professor who encouraged more “aggressive” measures targeting the justices.  Now, Seton Hall Law Assistant Dean Brian Sheppard has called for Congress to “buyout” justices by offering them “large sums of money.” If needed, he suggests that President Joe Biden could scrape up the dough to prompt justices to cash in and get out.

 

Dean Sheppard insists that offering large sums “could be effective without harming the integrity of the institution.” Many of us would beg to differ.

 

It turns out that the majority of justices who would be offered the windfall payments would be republican appointees. (Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan). That would allow President Biden to appoint an instant five justice majority as well as the Chief Justice.

 

While Sheppard acknowledges that some will object that “To the many people who are angry at the Court, buyouts might seem like rewards for bad behavior.” However, he says it is easier than packing the Court or changing it through a constitutional amendment.

 

The idea is to “make them an offer they can’t refuse.”

[Spartacus]

pushing hard every day

just not grounded in any reality

 

A Court Without Precedent (msn.com)

 

For more than a decade, the Court has issued narrow rulings, decided by slim majorities, that align with Republican political goals. Five Justices unleashed dark money in politics. They gutted the Voting Rights Act. They pulled the rug out from under public-sector unions. In that sense, Dobbs—the decision overturning Roe—is part of a larger trend.

 

But the American public is right to see Dobbs as different. Not just because of the decision’s impact, or the outrage it’s caused. More than a radical opinion, Dobbs represents a radical new approach to interpreting the Constitution. If left unchecked, the justices’ decision could mark not just the end of Roe, but the upending of America’s system of checks and balances.

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

3 hours ago, Spartacus said:

pushing hard every day

just not grounded in any reality

 

A Court Without Precedent (msn.com)

 

For more than a decade, the Court has issued narrow rulings, decided by slim majorities, that align with Republican political goals. Five Justices unleashed dark money in politics. They gutted the Voting Rights Act. They pulled the rug out from under public-sector unions. In that sense, Dobbs—the decision overturning Roe—is part of a larger trend.

 

But the American public is right to see Dobbs as different. Not just because of the decision’s impact, or the outrage it’s caused. More than a radical opinion, Dobbs represents a radical new approach to interpreting the Constitution. If left unchecked, the justices’ decision could mark not just the end of Roe, but the upending of America’s system of checks and balances.

 

It's not unprecedented.  There's ample precedent for the court ruling for states' rights on a literalist interpretation. 

 

It's called Dred Scott v Sanford.