Red Mosquito

B wrote:

JuanHamm wrote:

B wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:And you're even about to vote for one!

Biden was investigated much more thoroughly than Kavanaugh.

We can support Biden against Trump without pretending he's a saint,or even a good candidate.

How we ended up with a weird hair sniffing geriatric as the ultimate warrior is beyond me.

B wrote:Butt chugging?

96583UP wrote:Clarence Thomas paved the way for Brett Kavanaugh

perving has been a long established practice on the SCOTUS

many pervs even before Clarence Thomas even, I'm sure

always perving

Semper Perv,us

Barrett is the antichrist

simple schoolboy wrote:

96583UP wrote:Clarence Thomas paved the way for Brett Kavanaugh

perving has been a long established practice on the SCOTUS

many pervs even before Clarence Thomas even, I'm sure

always perving

Semper Perv,us

Barrett is the antichrist

I thought Bork was the antichrist?

Green Habit wrote:Thomas and Alito rant about how they believe Kim Davis was a victim of Obergefell v. Hodges.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/cou ... r_3204.pdf

B wrote:

Green Habit wrote:Thomas and Alito rant about how they believe Kim Davis was a victim of Obergefell v. Hodges.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/cou ... r_3204.pdf

C'mon, Nick. You gotta give us 2-3 sentence summaries!

Clarence Thomas wrote:Davis may have been one of the first victims of this Court’s cavalier treatment of religion in its Obergefell decision, but she will not be the last. Due to Obergefell, those with sincerely held religious beliefs concerning marriage will find it increasingly difficult to participate in society without running afoul of Obergefell and its effect on other antidiscrimination laws. It would be one thing if recognition for same-sex marriage had been debated and adopted through the democratic process, with the people deciding not to provide statutory protections for religious liberty under state law. But it is quite another when the Court forces that choice upon society through its creation of atextual constitutional rights and its ungenerous interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause, leaving those with religious objections in the lurch.

Public records examined by the Guardian show that Barrett, a conservative 48-year-old appeals court judge who has been put up to fill the vacant seat left by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, lived in a nine-bedroom South Bend, Indiana, residence owned at the time by Kevin Ranaghan, a religious scholar and a co-founder of Barrett’s faith group, during law school.

[...]

Public records – and a record of a speeding ticket – show that Barrett’s husband, Jesse, apparently also lived in the home in the years before their 1999 marriage. The public records examined by the Guardian show where individuals receive their mail, including bills. It is difficult, based on the records alone, to determine when precisely individuals lived in the residence. The database shows no other residence for Amy Barrett at that time.

Amy Barrett, who as Amy Coney graduated from Notre Dame Law in 1997 at the top of her class, has said she met Jesse while she was in law school but has not offered other details. Records show that other individuals who appear to be members of the People of Praise have also gotten married following periods of living in the Ranaghan household.

Insider accounts by former members who are now critical of the organization suggest that the group has “well-developed courtship and marriage traditions” which are closely followed. One critic, former member Adrian Reimers, has said in writings about his experience that people who are in the community do not usually date until the matter has been prayed upon by an individual’s “head” – or spiritual leader – who helps make decisions about whether a couple ought to get married.

simple schoolboy wrote: Why the fuck was this guy a Bush pick for SCOTUS?

elliseamos wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote: Why the fuck was this guy a Bush pick for SCOTUS?

I think he was pro-torture.

simple schoolboy wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote: Why the fuck was this guy a Bush pick for SCOTUS?

I think he was pro-torture.

John Yoo didnt end up with a judicial appointment, so I'm not sure thats it.

simple schoolboy wrote:https://www.americanprogress.org/issues ... -movement/

This is an old article, but I believe there was a recent WSJ article bringing up jurisdiction stripping and Roberts.

Why the fuck was this guy a Bush pick for SCOTUS? He clearly favors the legislative branch over the judiciary by a significant margin. Does he think Marbury vs Madison was wrongly decided?

4/5 wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:https://www.americanprogress.org/issues ... -movement/

This is an old article, but I believe there was a recent WSJ article bringing up jurisdiction stripping and Roberts.

Why the fuck was this guy a Bush pick for SCOTUS? He clearly favors the legislative branch over the judiciary by a significant margin. Does he think Marbury vs Madison was wrongly decided?

I'm not sure why you seem surprised by this? The right opposed judicial activism for a long time and sought over and over to reign in the power of the Court to prevent it from legislating from the bench. (Newt Gringich has said that he does believe Marbury was wrongly decided and that courts shouldn't have the power of judicial review!) Roberts comes from that judicial restraint school of thought. I think where the right has shifted is in following Thomas' embrace of conservative judicial activism where now they see control of the Court as a way to enshrine conservative policies into law, by striking down legislation and establishing new precedents.

4/5 wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:https://www.americanprogress.org/issues ... -movement/

This is an old article, but I believe there was a recent WSJ article bringing up jurisdiction stripping and Roberts.

Why the fuck was this guy a Bush pick for SCOTUS? He clearly favors the legislative branch over the judiciary by a significant margin. Does he think Marbury vs Madison was wrongly decided?

I'm not sure why you seem surprised by this? The right opposed judicial activism for a long time and sought over and over to reign in the power of the Court to prevent it from legislating from the bench. (Newt Gringich has said that he does believe Marbury was wrongly decided and that courts shouldn't have the power of judicial review!) Roberts comes from that judicial restraint school of thought. I think where the right has shifted is in following Thomas' embrace of conservative judicial activism where now they see control of the Court as a way to enshrine conservative policies into law, by striking down legislation and establishing new precedents.

Hatfield wrote:

4/5 wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:https://www.americanprogress.org/issues ... -movement/

This is an old article, but I believe there was a recent WSJ article bringing up jurisdiction stripping and Roberts.

Why the fuck was this guy a Bush pick for SCOTUS? He clearly favors the legislative branch over the judiciary by a significant margin. Does he think Marbury vs Madison was wrongly decided?

I'm not sure why you seem surprised by this? The right opposed judicial activism for a long time and sought over and over to reign in the power of the Court to prevent it from legislating from the bench. (Newt Gringich has said that he does believe Marbury was wrongly decided and that courts shouldn't have the power of judicial review!) Roberts comes from that judicial restraint school of thought. I think where the right has shifted is in following Thomas' embrace of conservative judicial activism where now they see control of the Court as a way to enshrine conservative policies into law, by striking down legislation and establishing new precedents.

Great explanation. Thank you. I knew something had shifted, but didn't clearly understand the specifics.

Clarence Thomas wrote:In my view, the Court’s typical formulation of the stare decisis standard does not comport with our judicial duty under Article III because it elevates demonstrably erroneous decisions—meaning decisions outside the realm of permissible interpretation—over the text of the Constitution and other duly enacted federal law. It is always “tempting for judges to confuse our own preferences with the requirements of the law,” … and the Court’s stare decisis doctrine exacerbates that temptation by giving the veneer of respectability to our continued application of demonstrably incorrect precedents.

John Roberts wrote:I joined the dissent in Whole Woman’s Health and continue to believe that the case was wrongly decided. The question today however is not whether Whole Woman’s Health was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case … The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike. The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons.

John Roberts wrote:Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgements. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices....

Our deference in matters of policy cannot, however, become abdication in matters of law. ‘The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.’ (Marbury v. Madison) Our respect for Congress’s policy judgements thus can never extend so far as to disavow restraints on federal power that the Constitution carefully constructed….And there can be no question that it is the responsibility of this Court to enforce the limits on federal power by striking down acts of Congress that transgress those limits.