Clarence Thomas Received $4 Million in “Gifts”

[Nationalist]

19 minutes ago, Aristides said:

 

 I don't watch MSNBC, CNN or FOX.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/394103/confidence-supreme-court-sinks-historic-low.aspx

 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/supreme-court/

Gee...that's just too Gawd Damn bad.

[User]

46 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Yes, NOW it has been co-opted by the Jan 6th insurrectionists. Not that difficult to understand now, is it?

So what?

Their use of any symbol doesn't somehow negate anyone else's use of it. They were also flying American flags too... so I guess we can all never fly American flags now?

47 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Harlan Crow's quid pro quo was for Thomas to NOT resign and be replaced by a Clinton appointee. Basically extortion.

This is an absolute lie not based on any evidence what-so-ever. 

 

[User]

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

It is little wonder public confidence in the SCOTUS has collapsed. They are now just politicians in robes.

I don't wonder at all. 

When the left wing pushes a narrative to destroy the SCOTUS reputation backed by their left-wing media campaign to do so... in conjunction with their overturning one of the worst decisions the SCOTUS ever made regarding one of the most politically contentious issues, it is no surprise that their polling is suffering. 

They are not politicians, and justice is not a contest of popularity.

[Aristides]

13 minutes ago, User said:

I don't wonder at all. 

When the left wing pushes a narrative to destroy the SCOTUS reputation backed by their left-wing media campaign to do so... in conjunction with their overturning one of the worst decisions the SCOTUS ever made regarding one of the most politically contentious issues, it is no surprise that their polling is suffering. 

They are not politicians, and justice is not a contest of popularity.

Unfortunately they have turned themselves political and that is why respect for them has collapsed. It was considered that they should at least appear unbiased but they don't even bother with that now. Six of the nine justices that ruled on R vs W  in 1973 were Republican appointees.

[BeaverFever]

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Excuse me but...what "sadistic fascist agenda" might that be?

The one you keep chirping about, where you wish Republicans sweep to power and heap misery and suffering on all the Hated Ones while you cheer with glee at their pain

 

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

What would you call a government that lies about that laptop, engaging in censorship, and breaks the law and laughs in the public's face?

It was called the Trump administration 

 

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Now check this out...

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/3028605/arizona-gop-files-lawsuit-over-more-than-500000-unaccounted-for-voters-on-the-rolls/

Undoubtedly another bogus lie-filled election lawsuit that will end up in the garbage alongside the other 60+ bogus lie-filled election lawsuits 

 

Speaking of Arizona you know that Arizona recently indicted Giuliani, Mark Meadows, a bunch of Trump administration officials and Arizona GOP members on multiple felony charges over their fake electors scam to steal the 2020 election, right?  News from the real world probably doesn’t make its why into your propaganda bubble very easily   

 

 

[User]

5 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Unfortunately they have turned themselves political and that is why respect for them has collapsed. It was considered that they should at least appear unbiased but they don't even bother with that now. Six of the nine justices that ruled on R vs W  in 1973 were Republican appointees.

No, they have not turned themselves political. 

You are the one playing political games. Instead of arguing the merits of the case, you play simpleton talking points about how many were appointed by Republicans. 

 

[Aristides]

36 minutes ago, User said:

No, they have not turned themselves political. 

You are the one playing political games. Instead of arguing the merits of the case, you play simpleton talking points about how many were appointed by Republicans. 

 

Both Trump and McConnell made it very clear that their intent was to pack the court with appointees that would overturn R v W. 

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-was-able-kill-roe-v-wade-rcna84897

https://www.businessinsider.com/mitch-mcconnell-national-abortion-ban-possible-roe-v-wade-overturned-2022-5?op=1

 

 

Edited June 9, 2024 by Aristides

[User]

4 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Both Trump and McConnell made it very clear that their intent was to pack the court with appointees that would overturn R v W. 

Appointing justices as part of the normal process is not packing the court. 

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

 

 I don't watch MSNBC, CNN or FOX.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/394103/confidence-supreme-court-sinks-historic-low.aspx

 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/supreme-court/

For sure. Every time the democrats don't get a ruling they want they scream to the heavens about how unfair the court is. Then they blow off anyone's concerns if someone says something about a ruling that made that the democrats approve of such as the trump trials.

I noticed it's reached a peak with this year's trump witch hunts. And people don't differentiate in their minds between the supreme court and the local courts, it's all the same to them. The courts can't be trusted.

That's why people have been saying the democrats need to understand the harm that they're doing weaponizing the courts against trump, while simultaneously screaming to the High Heavens but every decision made by a republican appointed judge or a judge in a republican area is corrupt . There's consequences to that talk and to those actions

[Aristides]

6 minutes ago, User said:

Appointing justices as part of the normal process is not packing the court. 

 

They were quite clear the intent was to pack the court. Trump even brags about it.

[User]

3 minutes ago, Aristides said:

They were quite clear the intent was to pack the court. Trump even brags about it.

That is not what "pack the court" means. 

 

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, Aristides said:

They were quite clear the intent was to pack the court. Trump even brags about it.

Utter crap. But sure, go ahead and post a link to trump bragging that he packed the court.

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, User said:

That is not what "pack the court" means. 

 

OF course it isn't, and @Aristides is well aware of that. But inflammatory language sounds SO much better  

"However, filling vacancies of lifetime appointments through the advice and consent process who have either retired or died is not “court-packing.” In this hyper-partisan era, this is simply called you have a president and senate majority of the same party in power. “Elections have consequences,” as former president Barack Obama once reminded us."

Court packing is a sign of a banana republic - Civitas Institute (nccivitas.org)

 

Republicans tend to appoint republican judges, and dems appoint dem judges,  but it's not court packing.  Court packing is when you add 5 judges to be able to put the ones you want in and stack the court in your favour. 

Edited June 9, 2024 by CdnFox

[Aristides]

13 minutes ago, User said:

That is not what "pack the court" means. 

 

Putting people on the court who will advance your political objectives, is exactly that. It seems the checks and balances that Americans love to brag about are largely an illusion, they do not live up to their claims. 

Edited June 9, 2024 by Aristides

[User]

19 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Putting people on the court who will advance your political objectives, is exactly that. It seems the checks and balances that Americans love to brag about are largely an illusion, they do not live up to their claims. 

Then, the term is meaningless. 

[CdnFox]

27 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Putting people on the court who will advance your political objectives, is exactly that.

It really isn't. If you want to go that route then the democrats have been packing the courts for years.

There is still a process, the number of Judges Cycles fairly regular, there is a balance. And appointing a judge that happens to think in a similar fashion to you legally doesn't mean that they're going to break the laws for you or render a judgment that they don't believe in just to advance your political agenda.

But as noted, once again you have to be dishonest about it because the truth doesn't advance your echo chamber thinking.

[Aristides]

38 minutes ago, User said:

Then, the term is meaningless. 

It's totally accurate and a big reason why the US system has lost much of the respect it used to have in the rest of the free world. 

Edited June 9, 2024 by Aristides

[Aristides]

35 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It really isn't. If you want to go that route then the democrats have been packing the courts for years.

There is still a process, the number of Judges Cycles fairly regular, there is a balance. And appointing a judge that happens to think in a similar fashion to you legally doesn't mean that they're going to break the laws for you or render a judgment that they don't believe in just to advance your political agenda.

But as noted, once again you have to be dishonest about it because the truth doesn't advance your echo chamber thinking.

Since Nixon was president, 17 of the 22 appointments to the SCOTUS have been under Republican presidents. You really should do some fundamental research before you mouth off and call others dishonest. Something of a habit with you.

Edited June 9, 2024 by Aristides

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Since Nixon was president, 17 of the 22 appointments to the SCOTUS have been under Republican presidents.

And?

Quote

You really should do some fundamental research before you mouth off and call others dishonest. Something of a habit with you.

You should stop being dishonest.   The court was for example predominantly democrat appointed just before cavanauh.  And hillary did campaign on appointing a judge who'd overturn the right to bear arms.  Soooooo.. 

 

And there are checks and balances in place. A process often abused by the dems as we saw with Kavanaugh where what turned out to be completely false allegations were made in an effort to try and discredit a judge whose history does not point to a radical right-wing agenda of any type.  But justice prevailed and he was appointed. 

And Like I said, the Dems have done it for years and that's a demonstrable fact. Appointments matter less than how long people were on. If five republican judges retire and five are appointed I'm sure you would say oh look they are stacking the court but nothing actually changed.

Sorry kiddo. I get you don't understand how this works and it can be a little confusing for you but really you do need to think a little bit more carefully. If you are wrong less often people won't think you're deliberately lying. 

Edited June 9, 2024 by CdnFox

[Aristides]

McConnell blocked an Obama appointee supposedly because 9 months was too close to a presidential election then rammed Coney Barrett through two weeks before an election. Talk about cynical politics.

[Aristides]

21 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And?

You should stop being dishonest.   The court was for example predominantly democrat appointed just before cavanauh.  And hillary did campaign on appointing a judge who'd overturn the right to bear arms.  Soooooo.. 

 

And there are checks and balances in place. A process often abused by the dems as we saw with Kavanaugh where what turned out to be completely false allegations were made in an effort to try and discredit a judge whose history does not point to a radical right-wing agenda of any type.  But justice prevailed and he was appointed. 

And Like I said, the Dems have done it for years and that's a demonstrable fact. Appointments matter less than how long people were on. If five republican judges retire and five are appointed I'm sure you would say oh look they are stacking the court but nothing actually changed.

Sorry kiddo. I get you don't understand how this works and it can be a little confusing for you but really you do need to think a little bit more carefully. If you are wrong less often people won't think you're deliberately lying. 

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Are you too stupid to look anything up before you just post bullshit?

Appointees by President

Nixon 4

Ford 1

Reagan 4

HW Bush 2

Clinton 2

GW Bush 2

Obama 2

Trump 3

Biden 1

 

You post ignorant nonsense and then call others dishonest when they post facts that contradict you.

 

Edited June 9, 2024 by Aristides

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

 blocked an Obama appointee supposedly because 9 months was too close to a presidential election then rammed Coney Barrett through two weeks before an election. Talk about cynical politics.

Nobody said politics isn't cynical. Not really the conversation we were having was it. And as far as McConnell goes he claims that he learned his trade from the democrats watching them shut down Nixon's appointees when he was a young lad starting out in politics.

Point is  when it comes to trying to pick who's going to be on the courts both parties do that all the time.  I'll grant you that mconnell was very talented at it and worked hard to try to make sure that in the last 2 years of obama's term the vacancies stayed open, allowing the next republican (trump in this case) to inherit a larger than average number of vacancies.  But that's just everyday politics. The majority of the benefit of that is actually fundraising, not 'winning' cases. 

That's not "Stacking" anything. Nor does it even mean that the judges are particularly bias one way or another. Most focus on law, not politics. I doubt trump for example would be able to name even a quarter of the judges he 'appointed'. 

But the truth is the dems do exactly the same thing and always have. Like i said,  hillary stated outright in plain english during the debates that she would appoint a judge that would rule the way she wanted on the second amendment and strike down the right to bear arms. 

I've said a number of times here that i'm against elected judges and i thought harper's method of appointing them (which justin  scrapped 5 seconds after becoming pm) was a great solution.  But that's the process they use and everyone uses it the same. 

 

 

[Nationalist]

4 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

The one you keep chirping about, where you wish Republicans sweep to power and heap misery and suffering on all the Hated Ones while you cheer with glee at their pain

 

It was called the Trump administration 

 

Undoubtedly another bogus lie-filled election lawsuit that will end up in the garbage alongside the other 60+ bogus lie-filled election lawsuits 

 

Speaking of Arizona you know that Arizona recently indicted Giuliani, Mark Meadows, a bunch of Trump administration officials and Arizona GOP members on multiple felony charges over their fake electors scam to steal the 2020 election, right?  News from the real world probably doesn’t make its why into your propaganda bubble very easily   

 

 

Lol...you Libbies are truly crooked as a $3 bill.

Meh...what comes around...goes around.

[robosmith]

9 hours ago, User said:

So what?

Their use of any symbol doesn't somehow negate anyone else's use of it. They were also flying American flags too... so I guess we can all never fly American flags now?

If you fly it upside down on Jan 7, 2021, you'd be expressing sympathy with the insurrectionist.

9 hours ago, User said:

This is an absolute lie not based on any evidence what-so-ever. 

You mean any evidence you would understand....

Do you know swastikas were used as symbols for centuries before WWII?

After WWII they became THE SYMBOL of the Nazis and almost everyone who flew them were expressing Nazi sympathies whether you understand that or not.

9 hours ago, User said:

I don't wonder at all. 

When the left wing pushes a narrative to destroy the SCOTUS reputation backed by their left-wing media campaign to do so... in conjunction with their overturning one of the worst decisions the SCOTUS ever made regarding one of the most politically contentious issues, it is no surprise that their polling is suffering. 

They are not politicians, and justice is not a contest of popularity.

Says you... and you have NO INFLUENCE

[robosmith]

9 hours ago, User said:

No, they have not turned themselves political. 

You're just IGNORANT about what they've been doing cause FOS LIES doesn't report the bad stuff.

9 hours ago, User said:

You are the one playing political games. Instead of arguing the merits of the case, you play simpleton talking points about how many were appointed by Republicans. 

See, you don't even understand the litmus test that Trump was VERY public about using.

That used to be taboo before Trump adopted it. Just one of the MANY ethical boundaries that Trump violated.