Legal/scotus thread

mqt said:
What exactly are they distracting from?
Click to expand...

Their Pedo friendly SC candidate that is embarassing the left every day.

Mind you - She is going to serve on the SC. But the Senators like Machin/Sinema/Kelly (among others) that vote for Jackson are going to severely cripple their election hopes.

What you do you think Hispanic families think about letting people that look at child porn off early? You're about to find out in November.
 
thethe said:
Their Pedo friendly SC candidate that is embarassing the left every day.

Mind you - She is going to serve on the SC. But the Senators like Machin/Sinema/Kelly (among others) that vote for Jackson are going to severely cripple their election hopes.

What you do you think Hispanic families think about letting people that look at child porn off early? You're about to find out in November.
Click to expand...

I don’t think the Right’s framing of Judge Jackson is going to be nearly as impactful or long lasting as you think it will be.

Also, for someone who supposedly abhors identity politics, you sure do have a thing for it right now, huh?
 
mqt said:
I don’t think the Right’s framing of Judge Jackson is going to be nearly as impactful or long lasting as you think it will be.

Also, for someone who supposedly abhors identity politics, you sure do have a thing for it right now, huh?
Click to expand...

Whats the identify politics being played out here?
 
mqt said:
You and your obsession with minority voters.
Click to expand...

Obsession or correctly identifying massive changes in the minority electorates positions and preferred direction moving forward?

Keep defending gender fluidity and letting child porn watchers off early and see where that gets you with a traditionally conservative group of people.
 
As an attorney, I was less than impressed with Jackson's performance but probably for different reasons than others.

First, I think she talked too much about the substance of cases. A better performance would be to say things like "I can't really speak on the issue without the unique facts of a case in front of me" or "I'll respect stare decisis."

The much talked about "biologist" comment should have been handled entirely differently. She should have pivoted and said "Woman can have different definitions. Biological, cultural, and legal definitions aren't always the same. If a case comes before me that requires me to deal with the definition of 'woman' then I'll have to look at circumstances of that case. Is there a statute at issue? Are there common law factors at play? I can't state one definition here because the facts of an individual case might require a different finding."

The Roe v. Wade answer was another bad one. Roe v. Wade is not "well settled" law. The federal government's ability to pass criminal statutes under the commerce clause? That's well settled law. There's not much disagreement on that anymore. There are abortion cases dealing with the application and even existence of Roe v. Wade (and Casey) every single term. If you want to call Roe v. Wade "well settled" then you'd have to have called Dred Scott well settled when the Civil War kicked off.

She's clearly a qualified candidate but her performance was uninspired. I think the Democrats will get exactly what they want in her. I expect she'll be lock step with Sotomayor.
 
thethe said:
Oh this should be fun.

Can we also then have access to the communication for Justices Breyer and Sotomayor?
Click to expand...

Were their spouses sending texts to White House chief of staffs to stop a constitutional transfer of power and then voted to block the releases of their spouses communication too?


But very good offensive to change the subject right out of the gate
 
goldfly said:
Were their spouses sending texts to White House chief of staffs to stop a constitutional transfer of power and then voted to block the releases of their spouses communication too?


But very good offensive to change the subject right out of the gate
Click to expand...

Was the same transfer of power done under the false pretense of a fair election which has been thoroughly debunked despite your gaze aversion?
 
thethe said:
Oh this should be fun.

Can we also then have access to the communication for Justices Breyer and Sotomayor?
Click to expand...


The conflict of interest is Clarence Thomas not recusing himself from a case that involved his wife's communications. He was the lone dissenter, which also begs the question of why he would bother when it has no effect on the outcome. Probably just didn't want to post off his Qanon wife. If Clarence is a Qanon nut like his wife he needs to go ASAP.
 
It strikes at the legitimacy of the court by his actions/voting to protect his wife now that we know what she was doing


I know, none of that matters to you or something else that has nothing to do with this etc
 
Texts show Ginni Thomas accepted $200,000 loan from someone with a brief before SCOTUS.

the laptop is 2022's but her emails.
Or Clinton Foundation or ... or ...
Maybe just another shiney thing to distract the marks
 
57Brave said:
Texts show Ginni Thomas accepted $200,000 loan from someone with a brief before SCOTUS.

the laptop is 2022's but her emails.
Or Clinton Foundation or ... or ...
Maybe just another shiney thing to distract the marks
Click to expand...

Where are you seeing this? Would potentially be a big deal, but I’m skeptical of this.
 
And as long as we are talking dark money surrounding SCOTUS, there is still hanging the issue of Kavanaugh debts that vanished.
Poof, " the greatest trick the devil ever played ..."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top