Omnibus Corrupt SCOTUS Thread

[Anonymous]

🥴

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know!! Let’s impeach all but the democrats and fill the entire SC with democrats because that’s the goal here. I don’t think y’all know how transparent and gullible you all are.

Actually that’s a really, really good idea!

I know you’re being sarcastic, but it reveals how stupid you are. Its a laudable goal. We should strive for it.

Go for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:🥴

Sure thing, dummy. No one’s buying.

[Anonymous]

They really want a future environmental dystopia.

I guess we will rely on "capitalism" to ensure we have a healthy ecosystem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They really want a future environmental dystopia.

I guess we will rely on "capitalism" to ensure we have a healthy ecosystem.

I wouldn’t put it past the slow witted dupes on the court to be the kind of religious extremists who want to bring about the end times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They really want a future environmental dystopia.

I guess we will rely on "capitalism" to ensure we have a healthy ecosystem.

No. They are preventing the EPA from expanding its powers and overreaching their authority.

[Anonymous]

The guy filled in water feature that leads to other water. his actions, now legal, impact the insects, birds and animals that have depended on those water features.

Eventually, we simply wont have a viable ecosystem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The guy filled in water feature that leads to other water. his actions, now legal, impact the insects, birds and animals that have depended on those water features.

Eventually, we simply wont have a viable ecosystem.

The justices unanimously agreed that the couple’s specific wetlands should not be subject to Clean Water Act regulation, and that the court’s prior test, stemming from the 2006 case Rapanos v. United States, should no longer determine the scope of the law. For this reason, Kavanaugh’s opinion and a separate opinion from the court’s liberals, are considered to be concurring opinions.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/25/supreme-court-dramatically-shrinks-clean-water-acts-reach-00098781

[Anonymous]

He is who he is, through and through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy filled in water feature that leads to other water. his actions, now legal, impact the insects, birds and animals that have depended on those water features.

Eventually, we simply wont have a viable ecosystem.

The justices unanimously agreed that the couple’s specific wetlands should not be subject to Clean Water Act regulation, and that the court’s prior test, stemming from the 2006 case Rapanos v. United States, should no longer determine the scope of the law. For this reason, Kavanaugh’s opinion and a separate opinion from the court’s liberals, are considered to be concurring opinions.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/25/supreme-court-dramatically-shrinks-clean-water-acts-reach-00098781

So? I am capable of independent thought. Water that ends up in our public waters needs to be protected and regulated. Why should an individual be allowed to pollute water that ends up harming others?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The guy filled in water feature that leads to other water. his actions, now legal, impact the insects, birds and animals that have depended on those water features.

Eventually, we simply wont have a viable ecosystem.

The justices unanimously agreed that the couple’s specific wetlands should not be subject to Clean Water Act regulation, and that the court’s prior test, stemming from the 2006 case Rapanos v. United States, should no longer determine the scope of the law. For this reason, Kavanaugh’s opinion and a separate opinion from the court’s liberals, are considered to be concurring opinions.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/25/supreme-court-dramatically-shrinks-clean-water-acts-reach-00098781

So? I am capable of independent thought. Water that ends up in our public waters needs to be protected and regulated. Why should an individual be allowed to pollute water that ends up harming others?

Because he bought the judge.

[Anonymous]

Justice Alito getting out in front of taking bribes from the same Oligarch who funded the Steele Dossier

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Justice Alito getting out in front of taking bribes from the same Oligarch who funded the Steele Dossier

He’s not wrong. What’s Alito trying to get ahead of?

[Anonymous]

That he had a fully funded fishing expedition with Billionaire Paul Singer who was a named litigant in a pending Supreme Court case.

He should have recused himself from the case as he had promised during his confirmation hearing.

[Anonymous]