Omnibus Corrupt SCOTUS Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Here is a thought....let's get all of the money, trips and other crap out of our politics and out of our judicial system?

It is clear that this is a problem, let's fix it.

What's problematic right now is that the left and these left-wing groups are working really hard to defame the Constitutional Justices on the court while ignoring some of the same behavior from "left leaning" Justices.
The thread above was longer with even more information about how the left is cherry-picking information AND actually publishing totally false information. So, don't believe everything you read.
This is an attempt, no doubt, to encourage the Senate to kill the filibuster and pack the court.

Equating beyonce tickets from beyonce with millions of dollars in gifts from right wing donors with a political agenda is the problem.

Thanks for highlighting it so spectacularly.

Obviously scale is important but the Supreme Court hears a lot of intellectual property cases. So it’s not like Beyoncé courting favor with her is totally innocuous.

Wake me up when Beyonce is arguing a case up to SCOTUS the way that Clarence Thomas's benefactors most certainly have.

So it’s better to court judges with gifts early and prospectively? I’m sure that would end well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Here is a thought....let's get all of the money, trips and other crap out of our politics and out of our judicial system?

It is clear that this is a problem, let's fix it.

What's problematic right now is that the left and these left-wing groups are working really hard to defame the Constitutional Justices on the court while ignoring some of the same behavior from "left leaning" Justices.
The thread above was longer with even more information about how the left is cherry-picking information AND actually publishing totally false information. So, don't believe everything you read.
This is an attempt, no doubt, to encourage the Senate to kill the filibuster and pack the court.

Equating beyonce tickets from beyonce with millions of dollars in gifts from right wing donors with a political agenda is the problem.

Thanks for highlighting it so spectacularly.

Obviously scale is important but the Supreme Court hears a lot of intellectual property cases. So it’s not like Beyoncé courting favor with her is totally innocuous.

Wake me up when Beyonce is arguing a case up to SCOTUS the way that Clarence Thomas's benefactors most certainly have.

So it’s better to court judges with gifts early and prospectively? I’m sure that would end well.

Yes it seems for conservatives it has been better, since that is what they have done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hardly a surprise. But senate republicans blocked legislation that would have required SCOTUS to have ethics and transparency.

Oh, please. Have you heard of separation of powers? Congress has no business at all writing such legislation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Here is a thought....let's get all of the money, trips and other crap out of our politics and out of our judicial system?

It is clear that this is a problem, let's fix it.

What's problematic right now is that the left and these left-wing groups are working really hard to defame the Constitutional Justices on the court while ignoring some of the same behavior from "left leaning" Justices.
The thread above was longer with even more information about how the left is cherry-picking information AND actually publishing totally false information. So, don't believe everything you read.
This is an attempt, no doubt, to encourage the Senate to kill the filibuster and pack the court.

How about listening to Alito in the tweet posted at 13:25 two posts above, and then come back and tell us about how he is a Constitutional Justice.

This is pure clickbait.

Nothing in this audio of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito is remotely inappropriate.

What’s most notable is how both Roberts and Alito said — while being secretly recorded — that it’s not the job of the Court to make policy.

And even in a gotcha conversation with a bad faith actor, they reiterated the limitations of the judicial role.

Outside of that, the only other thing that stands out here is the timing of this release — right before the end of the term.

This is just a continuation of a desperate and coordinated campaign by the Left to delegitimize the Supreme Court because they don’t control it.

Expect the baseless smears to continue as long as a majority of the Court is faithful to the Constitution rather than to the Left’s political agenda.

Maybe you don’t think so. I happen to believe our constitution should remain the law of the land and there should be separation of church and state.

I don’t think it’s appropriate for Alito to impose his “godliness” from the bench.

Are you surprised that a conservative Justice has conservative ideas?
You realize these Justices are allowed to have their own views, right?
Tell us how he has "imposed Godliness" from the bench.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Here is a thought....let's get all of the money, trips and other crap out of our politics and out of our judicial system?

It is clear that this is a problem, let's fix it.

Agreed. Justices should be held to the same standards as other federal employees. I see no justification whatsoever for not doing so.

Absolutely. Why is this even a question?

Because Republicans want the Christian nationalist hellscape they want and without a corrupt court it’s less likely. Alito and Thomas and the other right ring operatives are there to clear the runway for whatever the GOP wants with the veneer of a Supreme Court decision slapped on it.

[Anonymous]

how much is enough?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:how much is enough?

For the GOP to act? A duck ton more than just regular grift.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe you don’t think so. I happen to believe our constitution should remain the law of the land and there should be separation of church and state.

I don’t think it’s appropriate for Alito to impose his “godliness” from the bench.

Speaking of Church and godliness, are you prepared to stop shoving climate change down everyone's throat, which is a religion in and of itself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe you don’t think so. I happen to believe our constitution should remain the law of the land and there should be separation of church and state.

I don’t think it’s appropriate for Alito to impose his “godliness” from the bench.

Speaking of Church and godliness, are you prepared to stop shoving climate change down everyone's throat, which is a religion in and of itself?

DP. Such a strange aside to liken a branch of science to a religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe you don’t think so. I happen to believe our constitution should remain the law of the land and there should be separation of church and state.

I don’t think it’s appropriate for Alito to impose his “godliness” from the bench.

Speaking of Church and godliness, are you prepared to stop shoving climate change down everyone's throat, which is a religion in and of itself?

I guess you missed the flooding in Florida yesterday, the heat dome over the middle of the country and the record heat over 107 in Nevada, but ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Here is a thought....let's get all of the money, trips and other crap out of our politics and out of our judicial system?

It is clear that this is a problem, let's fix it.

What's problematic right now is that the left and these left-wing groups are working really hard to defame the Constitutional Justices on the court while ignoring some of the same behavior from "left leaning" Justices.
The thread above was longer with even more information about how the left is cherry-picking information AND actually publishing totally false information. So, don't believe everything you read.
This is an attempt, no doubt, to encourage the Senate to kill the filibuster and pack the court.

How about listening to Alito in the tweet posted at 13:25 two posts above, and then come back and tell us about how he is a Constitutional Justice.

This is pure clickbait.

Nothing in this audio of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito is remotely inappropriate.

What’s most notable is how both Roberts and Alito said — while being secretly recorded — that it’s not the job of the Court to make policy.

And even in a gotcha conversation with a bad faith actor, they reiterated the limitations of the judicial role.

Outside of that, the only other thing that stands out here is the timing of this release — right before the end of the term.

This is just a continuation of a desperate and coordinated campaign by the Left to delegitimize the Supreme Court because they don’t control it.

Expect the baseless smears to continue as long as a majority of the Court is faithful to the Constitution rather than to the Left’s political agenda.

Maybe you don’t think so. I happen to believe our constitution should remain the law of the land and there should be separation of church and state.

I don’t think it’s appropriate for Alito to impose his “godliness” from the bench.

Are you surprised that a conservative Justice has conservative ideas?
You realize these Justices are allowed to have their own views, right?
Tell us how he has "imposed Godliness" from the bench.

It’s just a matter of time before a Democratic Governor or Democratic President say no. SCOTUS come and enforce your Fox News law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was saddened to read about Robert’s wife.

Just sad.

Why,? Their two children are illegally adopted. Both Roberts are as corrupt as Thomas and Alito.

164 years ago, Abraham Lincoln predicted

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." –

Corrupt GOP politicians Gingrich, McConnell, Trump, and the entire GOP are proving what Lincoln predicted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Here is a thought....let's get all of the money, trips and other crap out of our politics and out of our judicial system?

It is clear that this is a problem, let's fix it.

What's problematic right now is that the left and these left-wing groups are working really hard to defame the Constitutional Justices on the court while ignoring some of the same behavior from "left leaning" Justices.
The thread above was longer with even more information about how the left is cherry-picking information AND actually publishing totally false information. So, don't believe everything you read.
This is an attempt, no doubt, to encourage the Senate to kill the filibuster and pack the court.

How about listening to Alito in the tweet posted at 13:25 two posts above, and then come back and tell us about how he is a Constitutional Justice.

This is pure clickbait.

Nothing in this audio of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito is remotely inappropriate.

What’s most notable is how both Roberts and Alito said — while being secretly recorded — that it’s not the job of the Court to make policy.

And even in a gotcha conversation with a bad faith actor, they reiterated the limitations of the judicial role.

Outside of that, the only other thing that stands out here is the timing of this release — right before the end of the term.

This is just a continuation of a desperate and coordinated campaign by the Left to delegitimize the Supreme Court because they don’t control it.

Expect the baseless smears to continue as long as a majority of the Court is faithful to the Constitution rather than to the Left’s political agenda.

Maybe you don’t think so. I happen to believe our constitution should remain the law of the land and there should be separation of church and state.

I don’t think it’s appropriate for Alito to impose his “godliness” from the bench.

Are you surprised that a conservative Justice has conservative ideas?
You realize these Justices are allowed to have their own views, right?
Tell us how he has "imposed Godliness" from the bench.

Geeze, are you dum? Roe v wade? Remember that? It got overturned because of judges, Alito heading the charge, wanted to impose "godliness" on the entire female population of America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Here is a thought....let's get all of the money, trips and other crap out of our politics and out of our judicial system?

It is clear that this is a problem, let's fix it.

Agreed. Justices should be held to the same standards as other federal employees. I see no justification whatsoever for not doing so.

Absolutely. Why is this even a question?

Because Republicans want the Christian nationalist hellscape they want and without a corrupt court it’s less likely. Alito and Thomas and the other right ring operatives are there to clear the runway for whatever the GOP wants with the veneer of a Supreme Court decision slapped on it.

What are you talking about? Today the Supreme Court ruled....

1) The Supreme Court Friday upheld a federal law that bans guns for those subject to domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs) in the first major test of the Second Amendment at the high court this term.

2) The Supreme Court rejected a challenge from conservative activists to a one-time tax on certain foreign investments, but left unresolved questions about whether some leading Democratic revenue-raising ideas are constitutional.


it seems if you don't get your way on every issue, you lose your mind. Why is that?

[Anonymous]

Thomas is so extreme and crazy that he seems demented.

His Originalist interpretation should be tested. Someone should take a case that he is not eligible to sit on the SCOTUS. They can argue that when the Constitution was written and the SCOTUS was established, black men were slaves and were not eligible to sit on the bar, let alone be a judge. So, by Originalist theory, Thomas is not eligible to sit on the SCOTUS. Let him try to argue that. But he's never been particularly consistent. He votes for whatever his conservative financial owners want him to. If not, it should be established that Originalism is not a valid way to rule on cases.

https://www.businessinsider.com/clarence-thomas-dissent-domestic-violence-gun-ruling-originalism-2024-6

Clarence Thomas this week offered the lone dissent in a Supreme Court decision that ultimately ruled that people with a history of domestic violence can be prevented from legally owning guns.

His lengthy disagreement with the ruling in United States v. Rahimi hinged on an originalist interpretation of the law that Thomas, a staunch conservative, is known for.

Originalism is a legal framework based on interpreting constitutional law as it would've been understood at the time it was written nearly 250 years ago — before the invention of electric lighting, indoor plumbing, and steam-powered trains.

[...]

Legal experts who spoke with Business Insider said Thomas' latest decision highlighted how inconsistent and even ridiculous this method of interpretation could be.

"This is a case where, if you invalidate this statute on the basis of originalism, you go back in time and say, essentially, at the time of the original ratification of the Constitution, domestic violence was tolerated — and therefore, based on originalism, we need to invalidate the statute," John P. Gross, a professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School who's also the director of the Public Defender Project, told BI. "And that is, of course, an absurd, horrible result."

Gross noted that originalism raises questions such as whether women should be allowed to sit on the Supreme Court, because the nation's founders wouldn't have allowed it then.

[...]

"A strict originalist view could be that we shouldn't have appointed women to the judiciary unless we get a formal amendment saying women can be judges," Gross said. "So that's the kind of logical extension of originalism that leads to these truly absurd results. In that context, it's very difficult to defend originalism as a useful, meaningful way of interpreting the Constitution."