Justice Alito senile?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Amazing all these complaints against certain justices lately.

They just pop up out of no where. If I didn't know better, I'd say the left is trying to tip the the court before they're ejected. Just one unsubstantiated complaint after another. But they would never try coordinating a campaign to do that, now would they.

It’s more likely that the dark money demons overstepped in stealing three Supreme Court seats. Someone had an attack of conscience and leaked a few details about who is paying for what - Ginny and Clarence getting paid off for various things (and she helped plan the GOP’s insurrection; not a good thing), Alito going on glorious trips, Roberts’ wife getting an exceptionally cushy paycheck - and gave ProPublica the nudge about where to look.

Frankly if you had any decency whatsoever, you’d read the reams of info and realize you’re on Team Banana Republic.

[Anonymous]

Liberals are mad that the Supreme Court is not issuing opinions favorable to them like they used to, and are now making up ethics complaints to try and set the stage for court packing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liberals are mad that the Supreme Court is not issuing opinions favorable to them like they used to, and are now making up ethics complaints to try and set the stage for court packing.

Okay...let's say this is true. I'll play. Maybe the conservatives shouldn't violate ethics rules and give democrats an opening? Please. Defend Alito's actions, without any whataboutism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can he really believe his airline ticket was valuless? Can he really both believe that the gift was hospitality and that he barely knew the person?

Is there something in the water in the US, turning all our minds to mush? Even our supreme court justices cannot tell when they sound idiotic?

I don't think he's senile, I think he's just dishonest, and stupidly arrogant enough to think he can get away with it.

It’s not like Roberts is even going to timidly suggest that his boss should resign. Or that any Republicans will have any sense of decency whatsoever; they spend their days crowing about “owning the libs.”

So unlike Democrats, amirite?

When did Democrats steal two SCOTUS seats and subject the citizens of the US to a tyranny of the minority?

"Steal"? "Tyranny"? You need to come on down to planet Earth where you'll find that not getting your way doesn't mean you've been somehow wronged. How do you get through your days? If someone cuts in front of you in traffic, do you lie awake at night thinking of revenge? JFC. One of these days, perhaps liberal justices will hold the majority on the SC. That day is not today, so get used to it.

Not voting on Garland, absolutely theft and tyranny.
Pushing through Barrett WHILE AN ELECTION WAS OCCURRING and with no real confirmation, is absolutely theft and tyranny.

And if hte shoe were on the other foot, you would agree.

If the shoe were on the other foot, Democrats would have done *exactly* the same thing. You think Democrats would have given up the chance to seat a liberal justice? Not on your life.

Also - of course Barrett had a real confirmation. You just didn't like her. What are you drinking?

You know who didn't have a real confirmation? Merrick Garland.

And thank GOD for that. He’s showing us now what a corrupt petty little man he truly is

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals are mad that the Supreme Court is not issuing opinions favorable to them like they used to, and are now making up ethics complaints to try and set the stage for court packing.

Okay...let's say this is true. I'll play. Maybe the conservatives shouldn't violate ethics rules and give democrats an opening? Please. Defend Alito's actions, without any whataboutism.

NP. The reason you want no “whataboutism” is because you know that Democrats do the same thing and worse, but don’t want it brought up. The term “whataboutism” was invented by leftists who don’t want a spotlight shown on any of their own nefarious activities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals are mad that the Supreme Court is not issuing opinions favorable to them like they used to, and are now making up ethics complaints to try and set the stage for court packing.

Okay...let's say this is true. I'll play. Maybe the conservatives shouldn't violate ethics rules and give democrats an opening? Please. Defend Alito's actions, without any whataboutism.

NP. The reason you want no “whataboutism” is because you know that Democrats do the same thing and worse, but don’t want it brought up. The term “whataboutism” was invented by leftists who don’t want a spotlight shown on any of their own nefarious activities.

I feel like you’ve missed the whole definition of “whataboutism.” People what about because they think pointing to someone else somehow erases the misdeeds of the person being discussed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals are mad that the Supreme Court is not issuing opinions favorable to them like they used to, and are now making up ethics complaints to try and set the stage for court packing.

Okay...let's say this is true. I'll play. Maybe the conservatives shouldn't violate ethics rules and give democrats an opening? Please. Defend Alito's actions, without any whataboutism.

NP. The reason you want no “whataboutism” is because you know that Democrats do the same thing and worse, but don’t want it brought up. The term “whataboutism” was invented by leftists who don’t want a spotlight shown on any of their own nefarious activities.

Whataboutism is always wrong, no matter who does it. It has absolutely no place in a society based on the rule of law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals are mad that the Supreme Court is not issuing opinions favorable to them like they used to, and are now making up ethics complaints to try and set the stage for court packing.

Okay...let's say this is true. I'll play. Maybe the conservatives shouldn't violate ethics rules and give democrats an opening? Please. Defend Alito's actions, without any whataboutism.

NP. The reason you want no “whataboutism” is because you know that Democrats do the same thing and worse, but don’t want it brought up. The term “whataboutism” was invented by leftists who don’t want a spotlight shown on any of their own nefarious activities.

All I am hearing here is that you can't defend Alito procedurally. Let's play the whaboutism game anyway...where are the stories of Kagan and Sotomayer taking lavish trips from huge donors whose cases they later oversaw.

And please, let's not act like every Project Veritas wannabe hasn't tried to dig up dirt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals are mad that the Supreme Court is not issuing opinions favorable to them like they used to, and are now making up ethics complaints to try and set the stage for court packing.

Okay...let's say this is true. I'll play. Maybe the conservatives shouldn't violate ethics rules and give democrats an opening? Please. Defend Alito's actions, without any whataboutism.

NP. The reason you want no “whataboutism” is because you know that Democrats do the same thing and worse, but don’t want it brought up. The term “whataboutism” was invented by leftists who don’t want a spotlight shown on any of their own nefarious activities.

Honey, there are no nefarious Democratic activities. Your problem is that you, like so many other right wingers, have adopted an “everything is fair game in politics” attitude and you assume that the Democrats are the same despite absolutely zero evidence.

The fact is that three Supreme Court seats were stolen by the GOP, and it has since come out that Clarence Thomas is a corrupt, dirty little man (and one married to an insurrectionist). Now it comes out that Alito is also a corrupt, dirty little man whose ability to reason is deeply compromised.

Republicans suck uniquely. Stop trying to act like everyone else does, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals are mad that the Supreme Court is not issuing opinions favorable to them like they used to, and are now making up ethics complaints to try and set the stage for court packing.

Okay...let's say this is true. I'll play. Maybe the conservatives shouldn't violate ethics rules and give democrats an opening? Please. Defend Alito's actions, without any whataboutism.

NP. The reason you want no “whataboutism” is because you know that Democrats do the same thing and worse, but don’t want it brought up. The term “whataboutism” was invented by leftists who don’t want a spotlight shown on any of their own nefarious activities.

All I am hearing here is that you can't defend Alito procedurally. Let's play the whaboutism game anyway...where are the stories of Kagan and Sotomayer taking lavish trips from huge donors whose cases they later oversaw.

And please, let's not act like every Project Veritas wannabe hasn't tried to dig up dirt.

+1

If there was dirt on the left wing judges, we’d have seen it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Amazing all these complaints against certain justices lately.

They just pop up out of no where. If I didn't know better, I'd say the left is trying to tip the the court before they're ejected. Just one unsubstantiated complaint after another. But they would never try coordinating a campaign to do that, now would they.

It's not so much that they're unsubstantiated. It's more like they're dismissed as not actually being a problem. Like Alito being on the private jet. He's not saying he didn't do it, he's saying it's not actually a problem because it was free. Not free in the sense that he took something of value without paying, but that it wasn't of value, so it can't be held against him. They're not denying that they took things from friends or that their friends have interests that are affected by SCOTUS. They're just waiting to find out that someone on the left got a free meal somewhere so they can say, "see, they got a $20 entree comped and at some point there was or will be a case we hear that affects the restaurant industry or one of the ingredients in that meal like corn or dairy, and this was to sway them. Everyone does it, and this completely cancels out all the free private plane trips, yacht excursions, and expensive vacations I was given, because really, that entree was worth more than my empty seat on the private plane if you think about it." And they'll repeat it so many times, people will accept it as true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liberals are mad that the Supreme Court is not issuing opinions favorable to them like they used to, and are now making up ethics complaints to try and set the stage for court packing.

There is no made up ethics complaints. None of the judges have denied Andy of the charges. Remember these judges are bought. These are not conservative judges. They are going to do things you will not like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amazing all these complaints against certain justices lately.

They just pop up out of no where. If I didn't know better, I'd say the left is trying to tip the the court before they're ejected. Just one unsubstantiated complaint after another. But they would never try coordinating a campaign to do that, now would they.

It's not so much that they're unsubstantiated. It's more like they're dismissed as not actually being a problem. Like Alito being on the private jet. He's not saying he didn't do it, he's saying it's not actually a problem because it was free. Not free in the sense that he took something of value without paying, but that it wasn't of value, so it can't be held against him. They're not denying that they took things from friends or that their friends have interests that are affected by SCOTUS. They're just waiting to find out that someone on the left got a free meal somewhere so they can say, "see, they got a $20 entree comped and at some point there was or will be a case we hear that affects the restaurant industry or one of the ingredients in that meal like corn or dairy, and this was to sway them. Everyone does it, and this completely cancels out all the free private plane trips, yacht excursions, and expensive vacations I was given, because really, that entree was worth more than my empty seat on the private plane if you think about it." And they'll repeat it so many times, people will accept it as true.

but they weren't even their friends! They were billionaires that befriended them AFTER they joined the court. I actually believe the trips probably aren't influencing Alito's rulings and that's why he's so whiny about it. He probably honestly believes what's the big deal since it's not influencing me anyway. But it IS a big deal to be taking these incredibly expensive vacations. It creates a terrible public perception of "pay to play" and shouldn't be legal. Think about it - if you're in procurement at a company and a big vendor decides to pay for a trip to Hawaii for you, you can say that it won't influence your decision to use the business but you will definitely be fired if your company finds out. And it's obvious these billionaires are paying for access. Why else would they fund vacations for people they don't even know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can he really believe his airline ticket was valuless? Can he really both believe that the gift was hospitality and that he barely knew the person?

Is there something in the water in the US, turning all our minds to mush? Even our supreme court justices cannot tell when they sound idiotic?

I don't think he's senile, I think he's just dishonest, and stupidly arrogant enough to think he can get away with it.

It’s not like Roberts is even going to timidly suggest that his boss should resign. Or that any Republicans will have any sense of decency whatsoever; they spend their days crowing about “owning the libs.”

So unlike Democrats, amirite?

When did Democrats steal two SCOTUS seats and subject the citizens of the US to a tyranny of the minority?

"Steal"? "Tyranny"? You need to come on down to planet Earth where you'll find that not getting your way doesn't mean you've been somehow wronged. How do you get through your days? If someone cuts in front of you in traffic, do you lie awake at night thinking of revenge? JFC. One of these days, perhaps liberal justices will hold the majority on the SC. That day is not today, so get used to it.

Not voting on Garland, absolutely theft and tyranny.
Pushing through Barrett WHILE AN ELECTION WAS OCCURRING and with no real confirmation, is absolutely theft and tyranny.

And if hte shoe were on the other foot, you would agree.

If the shoe were on the other foot, Democrats would have done *exactly* the same thing. You think Democrats would have given up the chance to seat a liberal justice? Not on your life.

Also - of course Barrett had a real confirmation. You just didn't like her. What are you drinking?

You know who didn't have a real confirmation? Merrick Garland.

And thank GOD for that. He’s showing us now what a corrupt petty little man he truly is

FoX nEwS sAiD iT aNd I bElIeVe

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberals are mad that the Supreme Court is not issuing opinions favorable to them like they used to, and are now making up ethics complaints to try and set the stage for court packing.

Okay...let's say this is true. I'll play. Maybe the conservatives shouldn't violate ethics rules and give democrats an opening? Please. Defend Alito's actions, without any whataboutism.

NP. The reason you want no “whataboutism” is because you know that Democrats do the same thing and worse, but don’t want it brought up. The term “whataboutism” was invented by leftists who don’t want a spotlight shown on any of their own nefarious activities.

Give examples of Democratic justices who’ve done the same. I’ll wait.