acesfull86
Well-known member
Savage lol
Legal/scotus thread
- Thread starter cajunrevenge
- Start date
Tapate50
Well-known member
I believe you called this in real time and got called a bigoted sexist for it.
My my my the turntables
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
I feel a compromise is in order. Remove her and Clarence Thomas. He has no business on the Supreme Court.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
His wife activism did a running pole vault over the line of what is acceptable and Thomas's voting record suggests he is a partisan actor far more than whats normal.
sturg33
I
Can you provide specifics on what make his voting record partisan?
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
BREAKING: Meme maker Douglass Mackey’s conviction unanimously THROWN OUT by appellate court
“Breaking: The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has thrown out my conviction for lack of evidence.”
thepostmillennial.com
Appellate court vacates conviction of man who created a meme to tell Hillary voters to call a number to vote. The conviction hinged on a group chat where people discussed making the meme specifically to suppress voting. The appellate court ruled the government failed to prove he viewed or participated in the conspiracy chat.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Yes, lone dissent vote in the Trump J6 document case. His wifes shady actions were revealed from those documents. . Its not so much that he was the lone dissent its that he was the lone dissent where there was no real basis for it so why wouldnt he just concede the point and vote with the rest of the justices. Is it controversial for a Supreme Court justices to vote based off if his wife will be mad at him?
sturg33
I
I dont care about his wife. I care if he votes based on the law.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Unless you meant constitution you fundamentally misunderstand his job.
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/07/justice-jackson-opinion-journalist/
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson likes being a member of the Supreme Court. In an interview at the Global Black Economic Forum on Tuesday, Jackson enthusiastically submitted that her role accords her an opportunity “to explain my views about the way our government does and should work” and “to tell people, in my opinions, how I feel about the issues.”
I wonder: Has Justice Jackson considered starting a Substack instead?
There are a number of words in Jackson’s answers that do not belong. “Feel” is one. The other is “should.” “Should,” in particular, does not tally with Jackson’s role. “Should” is the preserve of the voters, of Congress, and, within its limited realm, of the presidency. It is not the job of a judge who, properly construed, must be confined to “is.” Our Constitution tells us how our government works, and the statutes passed by Congress and the states fill in the rest. If one disagrees with the fruits of either, one may lobby for an amendment under Article V, or, at the legislative level, one may push for a change to the law. One cannot, under any circumstances, demand that a friendly judge substitute what is for what she believes ought to be.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson likes being a member of the Supreme Court. In an interview at the Global Black Economic Forum on Tuesday, Jackson enthusiastically submitted that her role accords her an opportunity “to explain my views about the way our government does and should work” and “to tell people, in my opinions, how I feel about the issues.”
I wonder: Has Justice Jackson considered starting a Substack instead?
There are a number of words in Jackson’s answers that do not belong. “Feel” is one. The other is “should.” “Should,” in particular, does not tally with Jackson’s role. “Should” is the preserve of the voters, of Congress, and, within its limited realm, of the presidency. It is not the job of a judge who, properly construed, must be confined to “is.” Our Constitution tells us how our government works, and the statutes passed by Congress and the states fill in the rest. If one disagrees with the fruits of either, one may lobby for an amendment under Article V, or, at the legislative level, one may push for a change to the law. One cannot, under any circumstances, demand that a friendly judge substitute what is for what she believes ought to be.