2023 SCOTUS Rulings

[UNI88]

We're on the same page. The Constitution should be difficult to change so that it isn't shifting back and forth in kneejerk response to short term societal beliefs.

Well maybe hell is indeed freezing over..

[kalm]

True. It has evolved because of Amendments, not because of some malarkey about it being a living, breathing document.

We're on the same page. The Constitution should be difficult to change so that it isn't shifting back and forth in kneejerk response to short term societal beliefs.

It is difficult to change and for good reason. It was also intended to be a living document.

[houndawg]

Why do you assume that what you want is also what is right? Isn't that what folks are saying is wrong with politics today - "I'm right, you're wrong, and on top of that, you're evil for being wrong"?

As for your perspective on religion and government, I know you don't like precedent when it contradicts what you want, but you'd be going against 235 years of how we've run this government and respected religion. Not saying we can't do something different (we have fixed wrongs, like slavery for instance), just pointing that out.

I feel secure in my values. Are you saying that you DON’T assume what you want is right?

My views on religion have evolved significantly over the last few years in a more accepting way. We as a nation were also intended to evolve. This includes the constitution.

Mine would except they can't get past the money-grubbing preachers and their tax-free Roman lifestyles

[BDKJMU]

We're on the same page. The Constitution should be difficult to change so that it isn't shifting back and forth in kneejerk response to short term societal beliefs.

It is difficult to change and for good reason. It was also intended to be a living document.

No it wasn’t. Being able to amend it doesn’t make it living. As far as the 7 Articles, they meant the same in 1788 as they di now.

[kalm]

It is difficult to change and for good reason. It was also intended to be a living document.

No it wasn’t. Being able to amend it doesn’t make it living. As far as the 7 Articles, they meant the same in 1788 as they di now.

Yes. The founders clearly agreed 100% with each other and knew they nailed the final document as sure as they knew the world would be the same forever.

[UNI88]

No it wasn’t. Being able to amend it doesn’t make it living. As far as the 7 Articles, they meant the same in 1788 as they di now.

Yes. The founders clearly agreed 100% with each other and knew they nailed the final document as sure as they knew the world would be the same forever.

If being a living document means that the Constitution can be changed with the times than it is a living document. The founders included processes for it to be updated as the times and country changed. Anyone who wants to change it should follow one of those processes.

If they are unable to update it following one of those processes it is because they don't have the necessary support not because opposition is preventing it from being a "living" document.

The founders were more insightful and wise than 99% of the clowns we have in Washington DC today and I'd rather trust their wisdom than open up the Constitution to kneejerk reactions to shifting social trends.

[BDKJMU]

Jackson is lone dissenter in SCOTUS 8-1 abortion case.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/justic ... ion-ruling

[kalm]

That’s some bold decorating.

If you had the dough would you go with this style of design?

When Republican megadonor Harlan Crow isn’t lavishing Justice Clarence Thomas with free trips on his private plane and yacht (in possible violation of Supreme Court ethics rules), he lives a quiet life in Dallas among his historical collections. These collections include Hitler artifacts—two of his paintings of European cityscapes, a signed copy of Mein Kampf, and assorted Nazi memorabilia—plus a garden full of statues of the 20th century’s worst despots.

Crow, the billionaire heir to a real estate fortune, has said that he’s filled his property with these mementoes because he hates communism and fascism. Nonetheless, his collections caused an uproar back in 2015 when Marco Rubio attended a fundraiser at Crow’s house on the eve of Yom Kippur. Rubio’s critics thought the timing was inappropriate given, you know, the Hitler stuff.

https://www.washingtonian.com/2023/04/0 ... artifacts/

[kalm]

Man, real estate prices seemed low in Savannah.

https://www.propublica.org/article/clar ... ate-scotus

[Baldy]

Man, real estate prices seemed low in Savannah.

https://www.propublica.org/article/clar ... ate-scotus

They were, especially then. That part of town was straight up 'hood.

[BDKJMU]

Apparently this one is a BIG DEAL. Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Raimondo. SCOTUS will decide overrule the infamous Chevron Doctrine.

As the article states

The story won’t get weeks of headlines because it’s not sexy, but it’s incredibly important. A rollback of administrative agency power would positively impact American lives more than almost any policy Congress or a president could institute. It would send shockwaves throughout the federal government.

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2023/05/01 ... cy-n739579

[BDKJMU]

Man, real estate prices seemed low in Savannah.

https://www.propublica.org/article/clar ... ate-scotus

[UNI88]

Man, real estate prices seemed low in Savannah.

https://www.propublica.org/article/clar ... ate-scotus

Besides being a billionaire’s b!tch while married to a seditious cvnt?

Seriously let’s do the right thing and question the ethics of both rather than using one to distract from the other.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

Besides being a billionaire’s b!tch while married to a seditious cvnt?

Seriously let’s do the right thing and question the ethics of both rather than using one to distract from the other.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, the last month Kalm has only been harping on Thomas.

[kalm]

Besides being a billionaire’s b!tch while married to a seditious cvnt?

Seriously let’s do the right thing and question the ethics of both rather than using one to distract from the other.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, the last month Kalm has only been harping on Thomas.

Hey, BDK…wanna jump off a bridge with me?

Both sides are corrupt. Sotomayor’s allegations just broke. Investigate them all including Hillary and Hunter.

This isn’t hard.

[kalm]

But wait…there’s more than just vacationing with friends and buying a mother’s house…

[Baldy]

Well, the last month Kalm has only been harping on Thomas.

Hey, BDK…wanna jump off a bridge with me?

Both sides are corrupt. Sotomayor’s allegations just broke. Investigate them all including Hillary and Hunter.

This isn’t hard.

"just broke"

The ties were obvious. It's just that the 'objective' media chose not to amplify her connections.

[kalm]

Hey, BDK…wanna jump off a bridge with me?

Both sides are corrupt. Sotomayor’s allegations just broke. Investigate them all including Hillary and Hunter.

This isn’t hard.

"just broke"

The ties were obvious. It's just that the 'objective' media chose not to amplify her connections.

Sure…go ahead and chase down and show that hot lead.

[houndawg]

Man, real estate prices seemed low in Savannah.

https://www.propublica.org/article/clar ... ate-scotus

[houndawg]

Hey, BDK…wanna jump off a bridge with me?

Both sides are corrupt. Sotomayor’s allegations just broke. Investigate them all including Hillary and Hunter.

This isn’t hard.

"just broke"

The ties were obvious. It's just that the 'objective' media chose not to amplify her connections.

If the ties were so obvious why didn't you start a thread?

[UNI88]

Besides being a billionaire’s b!tch while married to a seditious cvnt?

Seriously let’s do the right thing and question the ethics of both rather than using one to distract from the other.

Well, the last month Kalm has only been harping on Thomas.

kalm harps on conservatives and deflects for liberals, that's his schtick. You harp on liberals and deflect for conservatives, that's your schtick.

[GannonFan]

Until I see any evidence that these judges can be bought or influenced, then it's all just political noise for me. Thomas has probably been the most consistent judge on this court for as long as he's been there. Maybe not a great thing, since he's always been a bit of a whacko, but you can't say that he's wavered while he's been on the bench. Sotomayor has been really consistent as well, so hard to see evidence of any influence on her.

Should they do better in terms of 1) disclosing more and 2) not having things to actually disclose in the first place? Sure to both. But I hardly see a compromised court or one that lacks integrity. And for Congress, of all people, to be harping about this is probably the most clear case of cognitive dissonance we've seen since SG's been on a rant about misinformation with regards to Ukraine.

[Baldy]

"just broke"

The ties were obvious. It's just that the 'objective' media chose not to amplify her connections.

Sure…go ahead and chase down and show that hot lead.

No, Mr. "Post Partisan", that's your job.

[houndawg]

Until I see any evidence that these judges can be bought or influenced, then it's all just political noise for me. Thomas has probably been the most consistent judge on this court for as long as he's been there. Maybe not a great thing, since he's always been a bit of a whacko, but you can't say that he's wavered while he's been on the bench. Sotomayor has been really consistent as well, so hard to see evidence of any influence on her.

Should they do better in terms of 1) disclosing more and 2) not having things to actually disclose in the first place? Sure to both. But I hardly see a compromised court or one that lacks integrity. And for Congress, of all people, to be harping about this is probably the most clear case of cognitive dissonance we've seen since SG's been on a rant about misinformation with regards to Ukraine.

The Supreme Court is losing cred by the day and a lot of that is Clarence Thomas' fault.

[kalm]

Until I see any evidence that these judges can be bought or influenced, then it's all just political noise for me. Thomas has probably been the most consistent judge on this court for as long as he's been there. Maybe not a great thing, since he's always been a bit of a whacko, but you can't say that he's wavered while he's been on the bench. Sotomayor has been really consistent as well, so hard to see evidence of any influence on her.

Should they do better in terms of 1) disclosing more and 2) not having things to actually disclose in the first place? Sure to both. But I hardly see a compromised court or one that lacks integrity. And for Congress, of all people, to be harping about this is probably the most clear case of cognitive dissonance we've seen since SG's been on a rant about misinformation with regards to Ukraine.

The Supreme Court is losing cred by the day and a lot of that is Clarence Thomas' fault.

We’re so accustomed to the corruption and grift that it’s considered just noise or something now.