Supreme Court of the United States

[B-Man]

 

 

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argues taking race into account to protect voting rights is perfectly constitutional

 

 

.

[Cinga]

31 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argues taking race into account to protect voting rights is perfectly constitutional

 

 

.

 

And apparently she thinks it's okay because we have been misinterpreting the 14th Amendment all this time. This is the new progressive originalism we now get to witness. 

[Joe Miner]

13 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argues taking race into account to protect voting rights is perfectly constitutional

 

 

.

 

If she can't define gender, I wonder how she will define race?

[Cinga]

Angry literary figures demand Amy Coney Barrett book deal be shut down in open letter to publisher

Letter writers cite Barrett's Roe v. Wade vote, claim they're 'not calling for censorship'

https://www.foxnews.com/media/literary-figures-sign-open-letter-amy-coney-barrett-book-deal-top-publisher

 

Quote

 

Over 500 literary figures have signed an open letter demanding Penguin Random House shut down a book deal with Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett valued at $2 million over her vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

In the letter, the progressive signers claimed that while they "care deeply about freedom of speech," they also believe it is important for publishers to uphold their own dedication to the First Amendment with a "duty of care."

"We recognize that harm is done to a democracy not only in the form of censorship, but also in the form of assault on inalienable human rights," the letter states. "As such, we are calling on Penguin Random House to recognize its own history and corporate responsibility commitments by reevaluating its decision to move forward with publishing Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s forthcoming book."

 

So you recognize harm is done but censorship, but you want to censor Justice Barrett simply because you disagree with her? And don't call abortion inalienable since your true inalienable rights come from God and We know for certain God does not condone abortion!

Edited October 28, 2022 by Cinga

[KD in CA]

Brown’s inane arguments are the perfect example of the dangers of AA.  Looking forward to it being struck down, but I do hope they aren’t planning to announce it prior to next Tuesday’s elections.

 
Even though the majority of voters oppose AA, there’s no read to offer the left anything to scream about.  A quiet final week benefits the side with the momentum.

[devnull]

4 hours ago, KD in CA said:

Brown’s inane arguments are the perfect example of the dangers of AA.  Looking forward to it being struck down, but I do hope they aren’t planning to announce it prior to next Tuesday’s elections.

 
Even though the majority of voters oppose AA, there’s no read to offer the left anything to scream about.  A quiet final week benefits the side with the momentum.

 

If SCOTUS strikes down Affirmative Action, on the bright side for Democrats they can dump Kamala

[Cinga]

6 hours ago, devnull said:

 

If SCOTUS strikes down Affirmative Action, on the bright side for Democrats they can dump Kamala

No they can't, she's half white.... 

[devnull]

37 minutes ago, Cinga said:

No they can't, she's half white.... 

Kamala is a half black half Asian half wit

[SackMan518]

1 hour ago, Cinga said:

No they can't, she's half white.... 

 

She's mostly Indian but that doesn't stop her from trying to be a Boss Babe Soul Sistah. Unfortunately she's too &#%$ing stupid to pull anything off.

[Joe Miner]

1 hour ago, SackMan518 said:

 

She's mostly Indian but that doesn't stop her from trying to be a Boss Babe Soul Sistah. Unfortunately she's too &#%$ing stupid to pull anything off.

 

May not be great at pulling, but jerking is a whole different story.

[Foxx]

The Brunson decision comes tomorrow but won't be posted until Monday.

[Foxx]

No real surprise.

 

[Cinga]

1 hour ago, Foxx said:

No real surprise.

 

 

 

         This is my surprised look 

[Ann]

Uh huh, sure

 

Supreme Court says cannot identify who leaked draft opinion that led to overturning of Roe v. Wade

 

The Supreme Court Marshal investigating the leak "has to date been unable to identify a person responsible by a preponderance of the evidence," the court said. 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

1 hour ago, Ann said:

Uh huh, sure

 

Supreme Court says cannot identify who leaked draft opinion that led to overturning of Roe v. Wade

 

The Supreme Court Marshal investigating the leak "has to date been unable to identify a person responsible by a preponderance of the evidence," the court said. 

 

So it was a liberal justice, or one of their clerks.

 

Because if it came from a conservative justice's office, a liberal justice's office would have leaked that info already.

[Fansince88]

2 hours ago, Ann said:

Uh huh, sure

 

Supreme Court says cannot identify who leaked draft opinion that led to overturning of Roe v. Wade

 

The Supreme Court Marshal investigating the leak "has to date been unable to identify a person responsible by a preponderance of the evidence," the court said. 

Unable as in can't or won't? The English language is such a tricky thing! I know this thanks to the teachings of the great @Crap Throwing Clavinof you several months back!

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

Just now, Fansince88 said:

Unable as in can't or won't? The English language is such a tricky thing! I know this thanks to the teachings of the great @Crap Throwing Clavinof you several months back!

 

Technically, "unable" means "lacking the skills."  

[Fansince88]

3 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

Technically, "unable" means "lacking the skills."  

Oh thats only part of it. 

Unable: lacking the skill, means, or opportunity to do something.

Edited January 20, 2023 by Fansince88

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

10 minutes ago, Fansince88 said:

Oh thats only part of it. 

Unable: lacking the skill, means, or opportunity to do something.

 

I prefer to simply think they're incompetent. 

[Cinga]

9 hours ago, Fansince88 said:

Unable as in can't or won't? The English language is such a tricky thing! I know this thanks to the teachings of the great @Crap Throwing Clavinof you several months back!

 

I suspect this to be the  case as in they won't as in they are protecting their own with a promise not to do it again........ Until next time they do it.

They claim to have interviewed over a hundred people during the investigation which brings up the first question the media should ask. Who? If they did each justice and their clerks, that is roughly 40-45 people. If anyone beyond those few knew of the decision, that is on the court for carelessness. If as some are3 speculating each of those also told their spouse, that is another problem in itself.

No, I totally agree they know who it was and I think in a second would throw a clerk under the bus, it must be a justice and by this they feel they are protecting their own. But just like the alleged J6 pipe bomber, we'll eventually learn who it was no matter how they try to hide it from us