Law Justice Alito allegedly had a ‘Stop the Steal’ symbol on display at his house

Aww, you don’t wanna play judge? But you love judging people, this is your jam.
Did that sound good in your head? WTF are you talking about?
I’ll ask again: In what instances would you as a judge, apply the bare minimum sentence for these charges?
You don't have to ask. I've already said he will likely not get any time. However, if roles were reversed and that was DJT up there, my opinion wouldn't change. Your opinion sure as fuck would.
 
Did that sound good in your head? WTF are you talking about?
I thought is sounded fine out loud as well.

You don't have to ask. I've already said he will likely not get any time. However, if roles were reversed and that was DJT up there, my opinion wouldn't change. Your opinion sure as fuck would.

I’m not expecting or advocating for jail time in Trump’s NY case though. So what exactly are you on about?
In fact, here’s me saying that exact thing to you a week ago:
Not true at all. I’m not calling for (or expecting) jail time for Trump in his NY case.

Don’t get me wrong, I’d certainly find it delicious. But I’m not trying to make a case that will, or even should, happen.

Now, if/when we get to some of these other trials of his, that’s a different ballgame.
 
I thought is sounded fine out loud as well.



I’m not expecting or advocating for jail time in Trump’s NY case though. So what exactly are you on about?
In fact, here’s me saying that exact thing to you a week ago:


Don’t get me wrong, I’d certainly find it delicious. But I’m not trying to make a case that will, or even should, happen.

Now, if/when we get to some of these other trials of his, that’s a different ballgame.
Notice you skipped over the whole "Sexual assault accusations/Bad temperament" thing about Biden. According to your air tight logic, he should've been disqualified.

Rules for thee...
 
Notice you skipped over the whole "Sexual assault accusations/Bad temperament" thing about Biden. According to your air tight logic, he should've been disqualified.

Rules for thee...
It’s (D)ifferent
 
Notice you skipped over the whole "Sexual assault accusations/Bad temperament" thing about Biden. According to your air tight logic, he should've been disqualified.

Rules for thee...
There go the goalposts again, weeeee!

If the Dems had a different candidate in 2020, I’d have been delighted. I didn’t vote for Biden in the primaries.

On the topic of sexual assault, having to choose between someone accused of it (Biden) and someone who was both accused of it and also admitted doing it on tape (Trump) is a fucked up situation to be in, indeed.
If it’s your position that neither Trump or Biden should ever have gotten near the White House, then we should raise a glass, as we finally found something to agree on.

Given the choice that was there though, the decision wasn’t hard.
 
“B-b-but meanwhile….”


{<jordan}[<dunn]


Boy, didn’t take you long to abandon the question you asked and just start panic wrestling.

“Out of power party”? Bud, you control the House. The Senate is 50-50, and that’s only because of 2 independents that caucus with Dems. Your wackjob House reps have been running some wannabe impeachment inquiry for like a year-and-a-half with nothing found yet no end in sight, have impeached Mayorkas for supposedly doing nothing about the border while they actively refuse to do anything about the border, are now holding Garland in contempt because he won’t release audio they have no right to but desperately want to try and use for campaign fodder….

What world do you even live in?

🤡

I'm talking about Equal Application / Protection Under the Law which is not the U.S.A. currently. Try to keep up.
 
There go the goalposts again, weeeee!

If the Dems had a different candidate in 2020, I’d have been delighted. I didn’t vote for Biden in the primaries.
And that has what to do with you thinking it's disqualifying? Oh', I get it. It's only disqualifying against politicians you don't like.

You couldn't be more transparent if you were glass.
 
Yeah I smoke weed

No that ain’t my gun it’s my wife’s!


See? Same argument…

Why one works but the other don’t?

That’s my only problem with this shit.

Why don’t my excuse fly but his does?
 
🤡

I'm talking about Equal Application / Protection Under the Law which is not the U.S.A. currently. Try to keep up.
Whip, you’ve been making excuses for corrupt far right judges on the SCOTUS—which, btw, you control by a large margin. You also control the House, and there’s literally 0 votes to spare in the Senate for us to pass stuff.

You’re not some oppressed minority with no voice <lol>Christ.
And that has what to do with you thinking it's disqualifying? Oh', I get it. It's only disqualifying against politicians you don't like.

You couldn't be more transparent if you were glass.
If they’d both been disqualified and we’d had different candidates, that’d have been wonderful and would’ve had my support.
They weren’t, so voters who felt like I do had to choose, because that’s life.

The Kavanaugh nomination was not that way at all. Trump could easily have seconded his nomination and put forth a different nominee. I expect the differences between a unilateral decision like that and one that involves millions of voters across 50 states to fully escape you though.
 
The Kavanaugh nomination was not that way at all. Trump could easily have seconded his nomination and put forth a different nominee.
As could the DNC, if they found their leading candidate off putting. There's no rule that demands he be the choice. They could kick him out and let him ride it out as an independent.

They could've easily done that. You don't care, because you're a hack and your "logic" doesn't add up. Flail some more, please.
 
As could the DNC, if they found their leading candidate off putting. There's no rule that demands he be the choice. They could kick him out and let him ride it out as an independent.

They could've easily done that. You don't care, because you're a hack and your "logic" doesn't add up. Flail some more, please.
Except they really couldn’t. Nominees are selected based on number of delegates, and those are selected based on how people vote in primaries.
Again, I was not a Biden primary voter.

Kavanaugh’s nomination? That’s just one person’s decision. Easy peasy.
 
I tend to dislike rulings where the constitutionality on them are dubious, at-best. Alito subscribes to that "constortuonal originalism" nonsense, which is so absurd there have only been 2 or 3 other Justices who subscribed to it as well, and they were also unapologetic corporatists with sugar Daddies (Scalia, who died on a luxury quail hunting trip).

You specifically asked about Alito, who in the majority opinion on overturning Roe specifically relegated stare decisis isnt really a thing, based purely on his ideological position on a single issue. But its nice to see that you think that, rendering decisions that spit in the face of our constitutional right to organize, redress grievances, and blatant favoritism of the wealthy who he takes lavish gifts from is "all kosher" because he renders rulings you agree with.

They're really only originalists/textualists when it fits their desired outcome. Take Loving v. Virginia which invalidated interracial marriage bans via unanimous decision in 1967 based upon several provisions of the 14th amendment, which was ratified in 1868.

Any honest "originalist" would easily admit that neither the drafters of the 14th Amendment believed it protected a Constitutional right to interracial marriage. Nor could say an ordinary person alive at that time would have believed it to do so. Most states at the time of the 14th's passage had such bans in place. Indeed, 99 years later, Loving invalidated 16(!) states' laws which still criminally penalized interracial marriage. It's axiomatic that the 14th amendment wasn't "originally" intended to protect interracial marriage.

1397158118.jpg



Aside from it also leading to the single (imo) worst opinion in SCOTUS history; Dred Scott. For those who doubt it was "originalist", do yourself a favor and peruse Taney's laborious effort in his majority opinion to support his rationale in originalist terms that the Constitution did not intend for persons of African descent to ever be considered citizens of the United States. And if you're an honest originalist, he makes a damn compelling case.

We think ... that they [black people] are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time [of America's founding] considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.


But, yes, the Federalist society is fine with putting any stooge up for consideration so long as they will vote in the desired fashion.
 
They're really only originalists/textualists when it fits their desired outcome. Take Loving v. Virginia which invalidated interracial marriage bans via unanimous decision in 1967 based upon several provisions of the 14th amendment, which was ratified in 1868.

Any honest "originalist" would easily admit that neither the drafters of the 14th Amendment believed it protected a Constitutional right to interracial marriage. Nor could say an ordinary person alive at that time would have believed it to do so. Most states at the time of the 14th's passage had such bans in place. Indeed, 99 years later, Loving invalidated 16(!) states' laws which still criminally penalized interracial marriage. It's axiomatic that the 14th amendment wasn't "originally" intended to protect interracial marriage.

1397158118.jpg



Aside from it also leading to the single (imo) worst opinion in SCOTUS history; Dred Scott. For those who doubt it was "originalist", do yourself a favor and peruse Taney's laborious effort in his majority opinion to support his rationale in originalist terms that the Constitution did not intend for persons of African descent to ever be considered citizens of the United States. And if you're an honest originalist, he makes a damn compelling case.

We think ... that they [black people] are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time [of America's founding] considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.


But, yes, the Federalist society is fine with putting any stooge up for consideration so long as they will vote in the desired fashion.
Goddamn, this a good fuckin post, man.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
<RomeroSalute>
 
They're really only originalists/textualists when it fits their desired outcome. Take Loving v. Virginia which invalidated interracial marriage bans via unanimous decision in 1967 based upon several provisions of the 14th amendment, which was ratified in 1868.

Any honest "originalist" would easily admit that neither the drafters of the 14th Amendment believed it protected a Constitutional right to interracial marriage. Nor could say an ordinary person alive at that time would have believed it to do so. Most states at the time of the 14th's passage had such bans in place. Indeed, 99 years later, Loving invalidated 16(!) states' laws which still criminally penalized interracial marriage. It's axiomatic that the 14th amendment wasn't "originally" intended to protect interracial marriage.

1397158118.jpg



Aside from it also leading to the single (imo) worst opinion in SCOTUS history; Dred Scott. For those who doubt it was "originalist", do yourself a favor and peruse Taney's laborious effort in his majority opinion to support his rationale in originalist terms that the Constitution did not intend for persons of African descent to ever be considered citizens of the United States. And if you're an honest originalist, he makes a damn compelling case.

We think ... that they [black people] are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time [of America's founding] considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.


But, yes, the Federalist society is fine with putting any stooge up for consideration so long as they will vote in the desired fashion.

Bro if they were actual originalists they'd immediately revoke judicial review altogether. Nowhere in the constitution is it even implied that the judiciary has un-checked power over the other branches.
 
Back
Top