Being on team SCOTUS means not having to tell the truth under oath.

[Admin.]

 

[Reggie Dunlop]

Okay so where did "team SCOTUS" commit perjury?

Only in the fake news

 

[senior penor]

I'm completely confused.

So who is "team SCOTUS" and what lie was told under oath?

This article has nothing to do with Jan 6th or Trump so how is this connection being made?

This is always what happens. Admin will say some shit that makes NO sense whatsoever and when he is asked what he is talking about he never clarifies.

This story is about protesters harrassing diners at a restaurant because Kavanaugh was present. So where in thos story is there is a "team SCOTUS"? And where did anyone lie under oath here?

he's stoned off his ass on the copeium of what is about to happen to his warmongers come midterm.

 

[Reggie Dunlop]

Scotus does not legislate, but their decisions become law. When SCOTUS interprets the law, their decisions ultimately make law. And in case you didn't notice, it's highly fucking partisan, especially with the CON appointees. They do very little to protect the rights of the people. They're there to protect the interests of corporations, the wealthy, and the Party. Don't confuse the reality with the rhetoric. SMH.

They interpret ths constitutionality of law. laws that have been written by congress. The courts ebb and flow with who maintains the majority, it always has. Again who is it that appoints them? Political partites, so yes, they will most likely have a political flavor. Actually, this "con loaded" court as you call it has made a very significant number of decision that have been against the conservative point of view. Roe vs Wade was made by a very liberal court. Based on your logic, you could say it was a very biased politial decision as well.

 

[LotusBud]

They interpret ths constitutionality of law. laws that have been written by congress. The courts ebb and flow with who maintains the majority, it always has. Again who is it that appoints them? Political partites, so yes, they will most likely have a political flavor. Actually, this "con loaded" court as you call it has made a very significant number of decision that have been against the conservative point of view. Roe vs Wade was made by a very liberal court. Based on your logic, you could say it was a very biased politial decision as well.

You have told me nothing I don't already know, and you have not refuted my argument. Whatever. The truth is, ultimately this court is a conservative one, and their decisions have a very conservative spin.

 

[Frood]

You have told me nothing I don't already know, and you have not refuted my argument. Whatever. The truth is, ultimately this court is a conservative one, and their decisions have a very conservative spin.

What's wrong with being conservative before changing the fundamentals of personal sovereignty and liberty as guaranteed in the founding documents and benchmark cases of a nation?

You act like not rushing willy nilly for snap judgements is a bad thing.

As a Libertarian (or better put, Voluntaryist) I find great solace in the fact that Supreme Court judges from any persuasion are tasked to adhere to a bedrock and not the current winds...

I'm not attacking you currently because I'm genuinely intrigued where your head is at and I'd like the same civil considerations fielded back if possible.

 

[Admin.]

What's wrong with being conservative before changing the fundamentals of personal sovereignty and liberty as guaranteed in the founding documents and benchmark cases of a nation?

You act like not rushing willy nilly for snap judgements is a bad thing.

As a Libertarian (or better put, Voluntaryist) I find great solace in the fact that Supreme Court judges from any persuasion are tasked to adhere to a bedrock and not the current winds...

I'm not attacking you currently because I'm genuinely intrigued where your head is at and I'd like the same civil considerations fielded back if possible.

Roe V. Wade was not a "Benchmark" case?

 

[Frood]

Roe V. Wade was not a "Benchmark" case?

It was in the context of Federal vs State authority. It violated the compact.

 

[Admin.]

It was in the context of Federal vs State authority. It violated the compact.

What Compact are we talking about?

 

[Frood]

What Compact are we talking about?

The balance and rights of both Federal and State.

Abraham Lincoln broke it for made up reasons later recorded in Northern history books (books my school lessons were based on erroneously).

If you want to disagree with me, fine... so be it.

...but read the actual "Emancipation Proclamation" and then try to tell me I'm wrong. He freed the slaves of his perceived enemy during an economic war but not those in the border states above the Mason Dixon Line.

He imprisoned journalists, teachers, and dissidents for speaking out and reporting the truth on the ground.

And this was after numerous Southern delegations were sent to DC initially and abruptly refused the right to air their grievances in accordance to the founding documents.

The South got stitched up because they had temperate winters, great yields, ample workers (not just slaves, because most landowners couldn't justify the expense and upkeep)....

The moment the South started looking for foreign markets to process their stuff instead of the industrialised North, the South became a threat to the North's economics.

The War of 1812 was long over and Britain had no stomach for a redo. Yet the North tried to blockade all economic trade between the South and Britain.

Yeah, nah.... Abraham Lincoln was an evil lying prick who got domestically abused by his pint sized bipolar wife Lily... I mean Mary Todd....

 

[Reggie Dunlop]

You have told me nothing I don't already know, and you have not refuted my argument. Whatever. The truth is, ultimately this court is a conservative one, and their decisions have a very conservative spin.

But you would be totally happy with a court that was partisan to the left, which makes you a hypocrite. Which the court had prior to Trump leaving his mark. He was only able to achieve what he did because Ginsberg decided to hang on for too long. Had she put what she claims to be her passion ahead of her ego, Obama could have easily positioned a replacement.

 

[LotusBud]

But you would be totally happy with a court that was partisan to the left, which makes you a hypocrite. Which the court had prior to Trump leaving his mark. He was only able to achieve what he did because Ginsberg decided to hang on for too long. Had she put what she claims to be her passion ahead of her ego, Obama could have easily positioned a replacement.

Ginsberg was a giant piece o' shit. So were all the folks who refused to vote on Garland.

 

[Reggie Dunlop]

Ginsberg was a giant piece o' shit. So were all the folks who refused to vote on Garland.

I notice one of Trump's con appointees just turned down an appeal attacking Biden's studen loan forgiveness program. Not a very partisan move on her part. Not at all acting in the way you claim they do. But I do agree with your opinion of Ginsberg. She did act like a truly partisan judge. The one sided view of the world is what is wrong with our government as well as the courts

 

[LotusBud]

I notice one of Trump's con appointees just turned down an appeal attacking Biden's studen loan forgiveness program. Not a very partisan move on her part. Not at all acting in the way you claim they do. But I do agree with your opinion of Ginsberg. She did act like a truly partisan judge. The one sided view of the world is what is wrong with our government as well as the courts

I hate her because she was a corporate tool like all the others, and so power mad she stayed in the Court till well past her prime, in spite of the danger to the USA posed by a stacked con court. I never claimed all members of the court are partisan all the time. But many more of the left appointees vote for corporate interests than righties vote for the people's interests, so the court basically swings corporate.

 

[Frood]

So because she wanted to use her full time on the SC and didn't enable future stacking/packing with her position, Lotusbud hates her.... lulz.

What a scumbag....

 

[Lily]

She actually thought Hillary Clinton was going to win and hung on to give the first female president a chance to appoint a new justice.

It was a huge mistake. I don't think she was that power hungry, she was often in the minority on "controversial" cases. She advanced the case of civil rights for women and she's esteemed for that.

 

[senior penor]

But you would be totally happy with a court that was partisan to the left, which makes you a hypocrite. Which the court had prior to Trump leaving his mark. He was only able to achieve what he did because Ginsberg decided to hang on for too long. Had she put what she claims to be her passion ahead of her ego, Obama could have easily positioned a replacement.

and because The previous administration dicked around by pushing a political hack like merrick garland. Guess who is leading the investigations and still butthurt that neil gorsich took the spot Obama wanted to have?

but nope. they wanted to play politics from the bench, and it bit them all in the ass.

 

[Lily]

and because The previous administration dicked around by pushing a political hack like merrick garland. Guess who is leading the investigations and still butthurt that neil gorsich took the spot Obama wanted to have?

but nope. they wanted to play politics from the bench, and it bit them all in the ass.

Yeah, conservatives never play politics. Merrick Garland was qualified to be considered for the SCOTUS. McConnell the rat bastard stole it from Obama.

 

[senior penor]

Yeah, conservatives never play politics. Merrick Garland was qualified to be considered for the SCOTUS. McConnell the rat bastard stole it from Obama.

Mitch is an old fucking fossil that probably thought Obama should've been in a field picking cotton. He will be replaced soon along with the rest of the neocon fossil holdovers. that is the difference between the Republican and the democrats right now, and that is the fact they are booting out those fossils.