Reply With Quote
Time to Pelican Brief Crusty Roberts and Amnesty Amy. ASAP. Obstructionist resistlib neocon globalists.
It's sad our two best justices are boomers (and not boomercons).
...HE did help us. In that Pennsylvania berry patch last Summer.
Time to Pelican Brief Crusty Roberts and Amnesty Amy. ASAP. Obstructionist resistlib neocon globalists.
It's sad our two best justices are boomers (and not boomercons).
Well, Trump had the prime chance of sticking Judge Pirro in there and instead went for Amy. us. Roberts had been waiting patiently for a cohort and got it with her.
And she's gonna get worse moving to the Left upwards of 80% of the time if not completely Left within the next 2 years. And Roberts will follow religiously her movement.
We're ed.
He had to be better than this and failed.
ADDENDUM: And CNN knew it in that circa. I remember they were happy and said she was gonna be problem for the Right. I said at the time:::"Bull , you're just sour grapes." But, yet felt a bit sick at the stomach.
But, they knew.
My heart bleeds for you that even by stealing seats ya’ll could only get a 4 to 5 court on the most nefarious or uncons utional of the agenda.
She's very culturally woke, adopted black kids etc.
Apart from being pro-life she's a mainstream Catholic Democrat tbh.
Jeanine Pirro is great but she's too old and has had too many health issues. Got to pick someone younger. Someone who probably wouldn't have gotten confirmed at the time, like a Matt Gaetz or Pam Bondi.
We're gonna suffer greatly for that pick.
Enough to wreck a mood, by God.
And like I said: once she crosses over a few times she'll cross for good and then it's gonna be tragic. I thought we had learned our lesson of picking wrong.
THEY never make a mistake. Ever. It's their religion.
God, how y'all hate a woman who thinks for herself instead of doing as she's told
You ain't had 1 Justice turn. Not 1.
well, two of em crossed over the other day to defeat Trumplandia
but they held it so long they mooted the TRO, SCOTUS temporizing for Trump has been a theme for years
"inside baseball"
according to the dog realism of Newsweek
they're not talking about nothing though
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opini...ve/ar-AA1BN9j0Conservatives are keen to see a revival of the nondelegation doctrine, which prohibits Congress from handing over its core legislative powers to federal agencies or other nonelected officials.
On March 27, Coney Barrett, a Trump nominee, expressed major concerns about reviving the doctrine, which hasn't been used since the 1930s and could severely weaken the power of government agencies.
That Coney broad was a one trick pony (abortion) and the old man figured that was enough to put her in there.
I'd rather have abortion and a batting average of 1.000 every day since.
the supreme court essentially nullified or read the reconstruction amendments entirely backwards for almost a century. the current supreme court believes they mandate rather than forbid racial discrimination
sort of with keeping with the current SCOTUS's take on the 14th Amendment as color-blind
so far up its own ass
it cannot see the original history nor what followed it
Last edited by Winehole23; 03-31-2025 at 07:07 PM. Reason: not...nor
Leonard Leo spent $1 billion plus for the current SCOTUS (R) majority
The last day on which a majority of the Supreme Court’s justices had been appointed by Democratic presidents was May 14, 1969.
The persistent problem till Trump made President was Republican Presidents getting in there and appointing Left leaning Justices one after another. Even that barrel a Bush2 tried to appoint that one woman (name escapes me) who was extremely Left and they told him "No, you goofy bas , you. No!"Leonard Leo spent $1 billion plus for the current SCOTUS (R) majority
Trumplandia is apparently on the warpath against trans, I wonder who's the next victim of national salvation
https://www.lawdork.com/p/scotus-fre...-schools-lgbtq“I guess your colloquy with Justice Barrett makes me wonder whether this case is really the right vehicle to evaluate any of these issues,“ Jackson asked Eric Baxter, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty lawyer representing the parents. “[W]e don't even know how these books are actually being used in the classroom.“
Jackson also raised a discussion about whether it can burden a parent’s free exercise right where parents have the ability to choose sending their students to a private school or to home school them, in addition to sending them to the public schools.
ACB: Are your clients objecting to exposure or to indoctrination?
Becket: Exposure
ACB: well, let's pretend you didn't say that
Trumplandia is already in a post-cons utional headspace, it would seem
using the shadow docket to let Donald Trump overturn Supreme Court precedent by fiat while his (allegedly) lawless actions are under appeal
moar Calvinball
the bespoke loophole for Fed independence underlines it
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...4a966_1b8e.pdf
no publicly funded religious charter schools...for now
https://rewirenewsgroup.com/2025/05/...harter-school/In an unsigned one-page opinion, the Supreme Court on May 22 split 4-4 on whether Oklahoma could create the country’s first publicly-funded Catholic charter school. Because of the tie, a prior court ruling that the religious school cannot receive public funding stands—for now.
The ruling involved two cases—Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond and St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond—which were consolidated into a single Supreme Court case. The issue in the case was straightforward: Can states fund religious schools directly via their charter school programs?
Both cases involved a planned public charter school in Oklahoma that would be run by two Catholic dioceses. The planned public school, St. Isidore, was to be designed in the spirit of the church and serve its “evangelizing mission.
In June 2024, the Oklahoma Supreme Court put the brakes on this plan. It ruled that using taxpayer money to fund religious charter schools would violate the state cons ution, which forbids the use of public money “for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion.”
Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself from the Supreme Court’s case. Without her vote, the justices split evenly—and when SCOTUS ties, the lower court wins. This means no national precedent has been set, and a similar case is likely to reach the Court in the future.
SCOTUS shields DOGE from transparency
The pattern since 2021 is SCOTUS temporizing in favor of Trump whenever it can
.Chief Justice John Roberts issues a temporary, administrative stay blocking orders that DOGE comply with FOIA and start turning over do ents to CREW
the usual Calvinball -- SCOTUS shadow docket decision tips in favor of DOGE before the record has been fully developed in lower courts or the merits of the question reached
from the Justice Jackson dissent
this decision allows DOGE access to SSA personal information while the challenge to the legal propriety of that access is being challenged in the courts
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...a1063_6j37.pdf
Last edited by Winehole23; 06-07-2025 at 10:12 AM.
once again, SCOTUS abets the roguish actions of a catch-me-if-you-can executive branch
Justice Jackson on textualism
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...3-997_6579.pdf
this ruling temporarily removes an injunction while the case winds through the courts, but is shocking in its effect: it allows Trump to deport people due process free to unrelated third countries for the time being
as Sotomayor points out, SCOTUS is giving relief to an administration that has twice defied judicial orders in this case, without any explanation whatsoever
there is a rather caustic dissent, much deserved imho -- the Roberts Court is going to go down in infamy alongside the Taney court
"Rather than allowing our lower court colleagues to manage this high-stakes litigation … this Court now intervenes to grant the Government emergency relief from an order it has repeatedly defied. I cannot join so gross an abuse of the Court’s equitable discretion."
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...a1153_l5gm.pdf
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
