Jump to content

Trump's world....


DBP66

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, concha said:

 

Appreciate the reply.

I guess in the end we are left with the 9-0 and then disagreement about part of it.  I imagine the "5" might disagree with minorities take?

Cheers.

 

Fair enough, with one addition. 

The message we can also take home from this case is when Samual Alito says “I do think the Constitution means something and that that meaning does not change,” what he means is that the Constitution changes to mean what he would like it to mean.  When, as noted in the dissent, John Roberts writes “If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more” he means unless he finds it necessary to decide more.  And when Neil Gorsuch writes “Suppose originalism does lead to a result you happen to dislike in this or that case. So what?” what he means is unless it leads to a result he doesn't like. 

This case exposes originalism as practiced the justices for the fraud it actually is: a framework for justifying the results that the jurists handpicked by the conservative legal movement wish to reach.

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

Fair enough, with one addition. 

The message we can also take home from this case is when Samual Alito says “I do think the Constitution means something and that that meaning does not change,” what he means is that the Constitution changes to mean what he would like it to mean.  When, as noted in the dissent, John Roberts writes “If it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more” he means unless he finds it necessary to decide more.  And when Neil Gorsuch writes “Suppose originalism does lead to a result you happen to dislike in this or that case. So what?” what he means is unless it leads to a result he doesn't like. 

This case exposes originalism as practiced the justices for the fraud it actually is: a framework for justifying the results that the jurists handpicked by the conservative legal movement wish to reach.

Cheers.

 

Your (generally liberal, judging from your posting on here) opinion is noted.

I would point out that the "living document" bullshit approach to the constitution is not a conservative one. It is a liberal/progressive one. 

Have a great weekend.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, concha said:

...

I would point out that the "living document" bullshit approach to the constitution is not a conservative one. It is a liberal/progressive one. 

Have a great weekend.

 

This clearly isn't true as all 9 justices in this case applied the 'living document bullshit' approach to resolve it.  The 5 conservative majority put the 'living document bullshit' approach on steroids to basically erase a piece of the constitution they don't like.

You can be an originalist, or you can like the ruling in this case, but you can't do both.

Good weekend.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

This clearly isn't true as all 9 justices in this case applied the 'living document bullshit' approach to resolve it.  The 5 conservative majority put the 'living document bullshit' approach on steroids to basically erase a piece of the constitution they don't like.

You can be an originalist, or you can like the ruling in this case, but you can't do both.

Good weekend.

 

Opinion noted.

Shitty weather here.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/6/2024 at 11:03 AM, DBP66 said:

....when the "immunity" decision comes down and Trump's world comes apart....😉

I wish I shared your confidence @DBP66.  By pushing the date out as far as it did, SCOTUS has already put its thumb on the scale and effectively granted immunity (should Trump win) as there is a slim to none chance now that we will have a trial before the election.

'Justice delayed is justice denied' as the saying goes.  This is a huge denial of justice to ALL Americans.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

I wish I shared your confidence @DBP66.  By pushing the date out as far as it did, SCOTUS has already put its thumb on the scale and effectively granted immunity (should Trump win) as there is a slim to none chance now that we will have a trial before the election.

'Justice delayed is justice denied' as the saying goes.  This is a huge denial of justice to ALL Americans.

He’s been too confident for too long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

I wish I shared your confidence @DBP66.  By pushing the date out as far as it did, SCOTUS has already put its thumb on the scale and effectively granted immunity (should Trump win) as there is a slim to none chance now that we will have a trial before the election.

'Justice delayed is justice denied' as the saying goes.  This is a huge denial of justice to ALL Americans.

I agree 100% regarding the SCOTUS but feel there is time to have a trial.....a large majority of Americans want to have the trial before the election which makes prefect sense...you need know of your voting for a Criminal.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, concha said:

I would point out that the "living document" bullshit approach to the constitution is not a conservative one. It is a liberal/progressive one. 

I'd suggest that his current example, and others like Gore v. Bush, prove this wrong.

This reminds me of when they whine about virtue signaling from the left when there are no greater virtue signalers than conservatives.

Or when they decry cancel culture when there are no greater purveyors of cancel culture than conservatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 15yds4gibberish said:

I wish I shared your confidence @DBP66.  By pushing the date out as far as it did, SCOTUS has already put its thumb on the scale and effectively granted immunity (should Trump win) as there is a slim to none chance now that we will have a trial before the election.

'Justice delayed is justice denied' as the saying goes.  This is a huge denial of justice to ALL Americans.

Other than Trump and his loser fans, nobody else has done more to undermine the American experiment than the Supreme Court.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

Other than Trump and his loser fans, nobody else has done more to undermine the American experiment than the Supreme Court.

Fox news and the last 30 years of the right-wing media hate machine might have something to say about that.  Tough call.  Poison media has taken their minds, and the SC has taken much of our previously unappreciated freedoms.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Atticus Finch said:

 

Or when they decry cancel culture when there are no greater purveyors of cancel culture than conservatives.

 

 

The amazing thing is that anyone could begin to believe this in the slightest.

The more amazing thing?  Andy actually believes to the core of his intellectual dishonest soul.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, concha said:

The amazing thing is that anyone could begin to believe this in the slightest.

See, another difference between me and you is that I actually pay attention and am honest about what I see.

From the Dixie Chicks to Colin Kaepernick to Bud Light.

You can even go back as far as McCarthyism if you'd like.

One of the few things the modern Republican Party is actually good at is the appropriation of language.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/9/2024 at 9:51 AM, Atticus Finch said:

Other than Trump and his loser fans, nobody else has done more to undermine the American experiment than the Supreme Court.

This is something I've wanted to post about for awhile, but haven't because it would mostly be a waste here. Among other things the SC justice selection process was hacked, and now we have a court legitimacy problem.  I'm guessing that sooner or later something will have to give.  

I don't expect to have much time for posting this week, but a short while ago I read a NYT opinion piece about how it has gotten to the point where constitutional law professors no longer know how to teach the subject.  I found it an instructive guide to the problem.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/26/opinion/constitutional-law-crisis-supreme-court.html

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/6/2024 at 9:10 PM, Warrior said:

Put that Bitcoin bag in play kid. 
 

Why do libs always want to talk IQ when they sound so stupid? Questions that will never be answered. 

Will do, once you accept the IQ test challenge.  

“sound so stupid” on a message board forum…. I’ll add $500.  
 

It’s now $1500 💰 

@GoBigBlack will he do it?  
 

 

IMG_8900.jpeg

IMG_8902.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/9/2024 at 6:29 PM, Nolebull813 said:

A some point you can’t blame the marxists if you stick around. Best to move away to freedom 

 

IMG_3603.png

Yeah, on your personal time you can exercise all the rights you want. When my taxes pay your salary and you’re on the clock you do like IAMRONMAN during a spelling contest and keep your fucking mouth shut. Draino is the biggest grifting dork on the planet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...