Supreme Court of the United States

[Ann]

Why would Clarence Thomas be required to report payments for his grandnephew's education? Did he raise the grandnephew? Adopt him? What am I missing? 

[Cinga]

8 minutes ago, Ann said:

Why would Clarence Thomas be required to report payments for his grandnephew's education? Did he raise the grandnephew? Adopt him? What am I missing? 

 

#ORANGEMANBAD!

[Billsandhorns]

38 minutes ago, Ann said:

Why would Clarence Thomas be required to report payments for his grandnephew's education? Did he raise the grandnephew? Adopt him? What am I missing? 

They are pissed off that they Court is not making policy decisions they like anymore

[B-Man]

Waging War Against the Supreme Court

 

It’s long been noted that conservatives don’t fight with the savagery of the socialist left. We may know guns, we may be pro-military, but when it comes to really getting down in the gutter, the left gets the upper hand — probably because they are willing to go so low. In this way conservatives can even be called naive. We are kids up against the German Stasi.

 

This applies to the new war being waged against the Supreme Court. As William Jacobson noted in a recent post on the website Legal Insurrection, there is “a years-long and accelerating attempt by Democrats to delegitimize the Supreme Court. You could trace the history back to the ‘Borking’ of Reagan nominee Robert Bork, but certainly to the savaging of Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings.” There is, Jacobson writes, “a broad activist and Democrat campaign against all the conservative Justices, including Justice Thomas and his wife, Chief Justice Roberts and his wife, and Justices Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett (to a lesser degree).”

Fueled by dark money, the left is sending professors to judges houses, planning bogus stories in the press, and revisiting Brett Kavanaugh’s 2018 nomination. They just had a hearing on ethics and the court, which was nothing but an attempt to delegitimize the institution.

 

{snip}

 

I intentionally used the metaphor of the German Stasi in The Devil’s Triangle because that wicked communist apparatus is reflected in the modern American left. The Stasi used spies to surveil the entire population, and worked with artists and entertainers to propagandize the German citizens. The courts were nothing more than a means to advance communism. Klaus Marxen, Professor for Criminal Law at the Humboldt University, has written that the Stasi “treated law as an instrument of politics.” In 1979 Stasi officer Erich Mielke put it this way: “Power is the most important position from which to fulfill the historical mission of the working class, to establish Communist society … Socialist law is an important instrument of exercising, enhancing and consolidating power.”

 

To the modern Democrats, it’s also all about power. They can’t ram through their socialist agenda with a conservative court. As they proved with their use of criminal Michael Avenatti (now in prison for extortion) during the Kavanaugh hit, criminality is baked into their plan. In the 2000 obituary for Erich Mielke, The New York Times explained that “Communist rule in East Germany [was] where assassination, kidnapping, execution, denunciation and intimidation were used to achieve and maintain power under the long, menacing shadow of the Soviet Union.”

 

 

The naiveté of conservatives reminds me of how I tried to warn my friends in the summer of 2018 that we were about to enter a war zone. I will never forget standing on my back porch and talking to a high school friend of mine just after the news had broken that Brett had been nominated. He was upbeat, reassuring me that the process might get bumpy but wouldn’t be too bad. I stood there and as calm as I could begged him to listen to me. The left is a modern Stasi, I said. They are going to start with our birth certificates and go up to last week, and every time we belched it is going to be brought up. My friend brushed me off. Then the hurricane hit.

 

The American Stasi aren’t letting up. Why are we?

 

https://stream.org/conservatives-are-not-ready-for-the-hot-war-against-the-supreme-court/

[B-Man]

 

Supreme Court is the left's new Trump

 

Having convinced themselves that Democrats will cream President Trump next year thanks to ballot harvesting, the left has moved to remove the last obstacle to their total control of our country, which was a constitutional republic until January 20, 2021’s installation of Biden in the White House.

 

The left now attacks the Supreme Court.

 

Democrats want to give Congress control of the court by creating an ethics commission of some sort. That’s like Jack the Ripper calling for knife control.

If such a commission does not work, assassination is not outside the left’s ken. Justice Samuel Alito flat out raised that possibility when asked about the leak of his draft of the decision that overturned Roe.

 

Readers must understand that we now have a government of the government by the government and for the government.

 

The deep state preferred Bidden because he allowed the deep state to run the government as he appointed tokens and flunkies to his Cabinet who know not how to run their departments. This means Civil Service-protected lifers — not Congress or the Cabinet secretaries — will decide whether you can have a gas stove.

The agency is not the Department of Energy but the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

 

{snip}

 

This was the result of the leak of the reversal of Roe. Someone leaked his draft opinion and this put six justices in danger. Police arrested a man who was in Brett Kavanaugh’s yard intent on his assassination — to be followed by two others.

 

As it was, noisy protesters broke the law and marched at three justices’s homes. Police never enforced the laws banning such protests.

 

Now Democrats are counterfeiting ethics complaints against Neil Gorsuch, John Roberts and of course, Clarence Thomas, whose skin color has especially discombobulated Democrats who fear he will become a role model for black children. One in four Democrat votes now come from black people. Without them and ballot harvesting, the party is as dead as the Mugwumps.

 

I’m no lawyer. Glenn Harlan Reynolds of Instapundit fame is.

 

He wrote, “The Supreme Court has ruled against the left on guns and abortion and is expected to strike down affirmative action any day now.

“Thus it must be delegitimized in any way possible.

 

“Just as the breathless coverage of the (entirely fake) stories of Donald Trump cavorting with Russian hookers in Moscow convinced some people that with so much smoke there must be fire.”

 

In DC, where there is smoke, there is dry ice from the CIA and the FBI.

 

My favorite senator, John Kennedy, said, “Americans may be poor under the Biden administration, but they are not stupid. They know what's going on here.”

What is going on is Democrats trying to extort the court.

 

More at the link:

 

https://donsurber.substack.com/p/supreme-court-is-the-lefts-new-trump?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1115457&post_id=118535941&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email

[IDBillzFan]

3 hours ago, Ann said:

Why would Clarence Thomas be required to report payments for his grandnephew's education? Did he raise the grandnephew? Adopt him? What am I missing? 

 

He raised him for 12 years after getting him out of a bad situation.

[B-Man]

6 hours ago, Ann said:

Why would Clarence Thomas be required to report payments for his grandnephew's education? Did he raise the grandnephew? Adopt him? What am I missing? 

 

 

This story is another attempt to manufacture a scandal about Justice Thomas. But let’s be clear about what is supposedly scandalous now:

 

 

Justice Thomas and his wife devoted twelve years of their lives to taking in and caring for a beloved child—who was not their own—just as Justice Thomas’s grandparents had done for him. They made many personal and financial sacrifices to do this. And along the way, their friends joined them in doing everything possible to give this child a future.

 

 

Harlan Crow’s tuition payments made directly to these schools on behalf of Justice Thomas’s great nephew did not constitute a reportable gift. Justice Thomas was not required to disclose the tuition payments made directly to Randolph Macon and the Georgia school on behalf of his great nephew because the definition of a “dependent child” under the Ethics in Government Act (5 U.S.C. 13101 (2)) does not include a “great nephew.” It is limited to a “son, daughter, stepson or stepdaughter.”

 

Justice Thomas never asked Harlan Crow to pay for his great nephew’s tuition. And neither Harlan Crow, nor his company, had any business before the Supreme Court.

 

 

This malicious story shows nothing except for the fact that the Thomases and the Crows are kind, generous, and loving people who tried to help this young man.

 

 

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/05/in-defense-of-justice-thomas.php

[IDBillzFan]

3 hours ago, B-Man said:

This story is another attempt to manufacture a scandal about Justice Thomas. But let’s be clear about what is supposedly scandalous now:

 

 

Gee, it seems like only a handful of years ago when we were told "It Takes A Village."

 

Apparently now we don't want the village helping because while RBG was  smart enough to be a Supreme Court Justice, she wasn't smart enough to retire when Barry was in his second term.

[Cinga]

8 hours ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

Gee, it seems like only a handful of years ago when we were told "It Takes A Village."

 

Apparently now we don't want the village helping because while RBG was  smart enough to be a Supreme Court Justice, she wasn't smart enough to retire when Barry was in his second term.

 

Modern day progressives don't think that far ahead. It's like all the calls now for a mandatory retirement age for justices. Of course that would kick them in the ass next go around, but they only live the moment. 

[Ann]

Looks like the government no longer owns the puddles in my yard...
 

</snip>

 

 

“The reach of the Clean Water Act is notoriously unclear,” he wrote. “Any piece of land that is wet at least part of the year is in danger of being classified by E.P.A. employees as wetlands covered by the act, and according to the federal government, if property owners begin to construct a home on a lot that the agency thinks possesses the requisite wetness, the property owners are at the agency’s mercy.”

 

Justice Kavanaugh joined three liberal justices in issuing a concurring opinion, which said the decision would harm the EPA’s ability to combat pollution.

</snip>

I bet Chevron will be toast in light of this unanimous decision.
 

</snip>

 

The court ruled unanimously in favor of the Idaho couple, Michael and Chantell Sackett, that brought the case, but split 5-4 in its reasoning. Joining Alito's majority opinion were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred in the judgment.
 

</snip>

[Ann]

Unanimous decision
 

 

[IDBillzFan]

32 minutes ago, Ann said:

The court ruled unanimously in favor of the Idaho couple, Michael and Chantell Sackett, that brought the case, but split 5-4 in its reasoning.

 

Someone needs to give Chuck Schumer a couple of lessons on how SCOTUS works because he apparently thinks all the leftist judges are extreme MAGA Republicans. 

 

 

Edited May 25, 2023 by IDBillzFan

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

1 hour ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

Someone needs to give Chuck Schumer a couple of lessons on how SCOTUS works because he apparently thinks all the leftist judges are extreme MAGA Republicans. 

 

 

 

Who wants to tell the Washington Post???

 

I'm honestly stunned at this level of dishonesty.  Incomplete reporting, slanted reporting, omission of facts...that I'm used to.  Open, intentional lying?  They even put the link to the decision in the article to show they're openly lying.  

 

I read the decision and confirmed it is, in fact, unanimous.  An odd mix of opinions, though - four completely different but concurring opinions.  One of which is written by Kavanaugh...with Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson concurring?  Seriously...the three liberal, female, minority justices concurring with Kavanaugh?    That's a liberal's worst nightmare.

 

 

Edited May 25, 2023 by Crap Throwing Clavin

[IDBillzFan]

1 minute ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

Who wants to tell the Washington Post???

 

I'm honestly stunned at this level of dishonesty.  Incomplete reporting, slanted reporting, omission of facts...that I'm used to.  Open, intentional lying?  They even put the link to the decision in the article to show they're openly lying.  

 

I read the decision and confirmed it is, in fact, unanimous.  An odd mix of opinions, though - four completely different but concurring opinions.  One of which is written by Kavanaugh...with Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson concurring?  Seriously...the three liberal, female, minority justices concurring with Kavanaugh?    That's a liberal's worst nightmare.

 

 

 

 

They're really not lying. They didn't call it a 5-4 decision. They called it a 5-4 opinion.

 

That's just good ol' fashioned line walking between imply and infer.

 

Buried at the bottom:

 

Quote

All of the justices thought the lower court got it wrong regarding the couple who brought the case.

 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

1 minute ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

They're really not lying. They didn't call it a 5-4 decision. They called it a 5-4 opinion.

 

That's just good ol' fashioned line walking between imply and infer.

 

Buried at the bottom:

 

 

 

Still the most dishonesty I've ever seen from a paper of their supposed significance.

[IDBillzFan]

1 minute ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

Still the most dishonesty I've ever seen from a paper of their supposed significance.

 

Absolutely. Read the responses under the tweet. They're getting what they want: leftists and bots too stupid to understand the actual ruling, yelling that it's time to pack the illegitimate court and the country will soon have a Love Canal flowing through it. 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

1 minute ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

Absolutely. Read the responses under the tweet. They're getting what they want: leftists and bots too stupid to understand the actual ruling, yelling that it's time to pack the illegitimate court and the country will soon have a Love Canal flowing through it. 

 

They got Shroomer to parrot it, too...who, even as big a schmuck as he is, should have known better.

 

But that was intentional.  They're going way the &#%$ out of their way with this story to politicize the court and blame conservative justices for the politicization.

[IDBillzFan]

4 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

They got Shroomer to parrot it, too...who, even as big a schmuck as he is, should have known better.

 

But that was intentional.  They're going way the &#%$ out of their way with this story to politicize the court and blame conservative justices for the politicization.

 

You have to imagine the liberal justices are incredibly embarrassed by this.

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

1 minute ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

You have to imagine the liberal justices are incredibly embarrassed by this.

 

If not downright pissed.  

[snafu]

4 hours ago, Ann said:

Looks like the government no longer owns the puddles in my yard...
 

</snip>

 

 

“The reach of the Clean Water Act is notoriously unclear,” he wrote. “Any piece of land that is wet at least part of the year is in danger of being classified by E.P.A. employees as wetlands covered by the act, and according to the federal government, if property owners begin to construct a home on a lot that the agency thinks possesses the requisite wetness, the property owners are at the agency’s mercy.”

 

Justice Kavanaugh joined three liberal justices in issuing a concurring opinion, which said the decision would harm the EPA’s ability to combat pollution.

</snip>

I bet Chevron will be toast in light of this unanimous decision.
 

</snip>

 

The court ruled unanimously in favor of the Idaho couple, Michael and Chantell Sackett, that brought the case, but split 5-4 in its reasoning. Joining Alito's majority opinion were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred in the judgment.
 

</snip>

 

 

They all agreed that the EPA was over-reaching, but it will be reported as a 5-4 vote, I'm sure.   EDIT: I looked above before posting this and, yep.  That was easy to see coming.

 

And what also won't be reported is the fact that the State EPA (I haven't looked, but I'd guess that all 50 states have their own EPA) can regulate water within their own territory.

 

And some idiot Congressperson will come out and say that this is yet another reason to pack the Court.