SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)

1…4647495152…81

Comments

  • Out of My Mind and Time
    Out of My Mind and Time Posts: 1,333
    gimmesometruth27 said:
    the court gets once decision right, then tanks the next 4 or 5. that tracks with this fucking court.
    So you don't like the Constitution.  Got it. Pack the courts right. Left don't like so change the rules? Weak. Weak. Weak
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,882
    Out of My Mind and Time said:
    gimmesometruth27 said:
    the court gets once decision right, then tanks the next 4 or 5. that tracks with this fucking court.
    So you don't like the Constitution.  Got it. Pack the courts right. Left don't like so change the rules? Weak. Weak. Weak
    So you didn't like the Constitution when Roe was the law of the land for 50 years? What a bizarre comment.  
  • mace1229
    mace1229 Posts: 9,831
    mickeyrat said:
    mace1229 said:
    cblock4life said:
    mace1229 said:
    mickeyrat said:


    The whole wrong identity is weird. But it was filed 7 years ago and no one contacting him until now? That is just as weird.

    I don’t agree with other comments I’ve seen that relate this to open discrimination, such as restaurants refusing service to gay couples.

    To me there’s a difference. One is creating something, the other is selling what already exists. I wouldn’t ask a Jewish Bakery to make me an Easter cake, but I’d expect them to sell me whatever dessert they already have for sale.
    Might be bad business, but I think it should be their choice what they create.
    I wouldn’t expect an immigrant-run shop to print signs for me that are anti-illegal immigration for a protest. They should be allowed to deny creating that for me. I don’t see the difference.
    Well everyone is entitled to feel how they feel.  I get what you’re saying.  I just think it will segregate us further.  And I do mean segregate.  If I’m black I’m moving into a neighborhood close to black businesses because why bother if my skin color allows you not to serve me.  That is segregation. 
    I disagree.
    For one, I think that right should only be reserved for those creating or making something unique. Like a website. I don’t think that is very common. I can’t remember the last time I had a business create something for me. Even my wedding I’m pretty sure we just got a standard cake and stock invitations, unless you count adding our name and date to it. And a refusal should require more than just race. How you enforce that part, or if you can, I don’t know.
    And second, I know racism still exist, but I truly believe the majority of people are good. I may not always like their politics or how they think government should spend money, but I don’t think they are bad. If a business is known for openly refusing service based on race or other criteria, I think it would most often hurt them more than it helps. But if you’re a Jewish Bakery who refused to write “Jesus Lives” on a cake for Easter, I think most people would understand.

    this website case wasnt real. plaintiff made it up. admits it.
    I’m surprised it made it all the way to the SC and nobody fact checked the basis of the suit to begin with.
  • Halifax2TheMax
    Halifax2TheMax Posts: 42,254
    mrussel1 said:
    Out of My Mind and Time said:
    gimmesometruth27 said:
    the court gets once decision right, then tanks the next 4 or 5. that tracks with this fucking court.
    So you don't like the Constitution.  Got it. Pack the courts right. Left don't like so change the rules? Weak. Weak. Weak
    So you didn't like the Constitution when Roe was the law of the land for 50 years? What a bizarre comment.  
    Particularly in light of this gobbledygook explanation.

    Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, writing for the majority, said that because Lorie Smith’s designs are recognized as speech, the state cannot compel her to create a message she does not believe in, even if she offers her talents for hire.

    “Were the rule otherwise, the better the artist, the finer the writer, the more unique his talent, the more easily his voice could be conscripted to disseminate the government’s preferred messages,” Gorsuch wrote. “That would not respect the First Amendment; more nearly, it would spell its demise.”

    “Your last name is probably Bradford or Bennett, your verbal baggage ain’t got nothing in it.”

    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • cblock4life
    cblock4life Posts: 1,855
    mace1229 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    mace1229 said:
    cblock4life said:
    mace1229 said:
    mickeyrat said:


    The whole wrong identity is weird. But it was filed 7 years ago and no one contacting him until now? That is just as weird.

    I don’t agree with other comments I’ve seen that relate this to open discrimination, such as restaurants refusing service to gay couples.

    To me there’s a difference. One is creating something, the other is selling what already exists. I wouldn’t ask a Jewish Bakery to make me an Easter cake, but I’d expect them to sell me whatever dessert they already have for sale.
    Might be bad business, but I think it should be their choice what they create.
    I wouldn’t expect an immigrant-run shop to print signs for me that are anti-illegal immigration for a protest. They should be allowed to deny creating that for me. I don’t see the difference.
    Well everyone is entitled to feel how they feel.  I get what you’re saying.  I just think it will segregate us further.  And I do mean segregate.  If I’m black I’m moving into a neighborhood close to black businesses because why bother if my skin color allows you not to serve me.  That is segregation. 
    I disagree.
    For one, I think that right should only be reserved for those creating or making something unique. Like a website. I don’t think that is very common. I can’t remember the last time I had a business create something for me. Even my wedding I’m pretty sure we just got a standard cake and stock invitations, unless you count adding our name and date to it. And a refusal should require more than just race. How you enforce that part, or if you can, I don’t know.
    And second, I know racism still exist, but I truly believe the majority of people are good. I may not always like their politics or how they think government should spend money, but I don’t think they are bad. If a business is known for openly refusing service based on race or other criteria, I think it would most often hurt them more than it helps. But if you’re a Jewish Bakery who refused to write “Jesus Lives” on a cake for Easter, I think most people would understand.

    this website case wasnt real. plaintiff made it up. admits it.
    I’m surprised it made it all the way to the SC and nobody fact checked the basis of the suit to begin with.
    I’m not.  I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t make the whole thing up themselves (the 6 asses).  Can’t put anything past these POS. 
  • cblock4life
    cblock4life Posts: 1,855
    mickeyrat said:
    expect more of this.

    Love CB but all they have to do is not accept them.  Unless it is for athletes only then bring on the blacks cause we know them southerners love their black athletes (entertainment purposes only).  
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,663
    edited July 2023
    This Court is in disrepair.  So many gains made and now undone.  Who will fix it?  And when?

    Post edited by brianlux on
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,663
    Worth a thousand words:
    May be an image of the Pantheon

    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • mace1229
    mace1229 Posts: 9,831
    cblock4life said:
    mace1229 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    mace1229 said:
    cblock4life said:
    mace1229 said:
    mickeyrat said:


    The whole wrong identity is weird. But it was filed 7 years ago and no one contacting him until now? That is just as weird.

    I don’t agree with other comments I’ve seen that relate this to open discrimination, such as restaurants refusing service to gay couples.

    To me there’s a difference. One is creating something, the other is selling what already exists. I wouldn’t ask a Jewish Bakery to make me an Easter cake, but I’d expect them to sell me whatever dessert they already have for sale.
    Might be bad business, but I think it should be their choice what they create.
    I wouldn’t expect an immigrant-run shop to print signs for me that are anti-illegal immigration for a protest. They should be allowed to deny creating that for me. I don’t see the difference.
    Well everyone is entitled to feel how they feel.  I get what you’re saying.  I just think it will segregate us further.  And I do mean segregate.  If I’m black I’m moving into a neighborhood close to black businesses because why bother if my skin color allows you not to serve me.  That is segregation. 
    I disagree.
    For one, I think that right should only be reserved for those creating or making something unique. Like a website. I don’t think that is very common. I can’t remember the last time I had a business create something for me. Even my wedding I’m pretty sure we just got a standard cake and stock invitations, unless you count adding our name and date to it. And a refusal should require more than just race. How you enforce that part, or if you can, I don’t know.
    And second, I know racism still exist, but I truly believe the majority of people are good. I may not always like their politics or how they think government should spend money, but I don’t think they are bad. If a business is known for openly refusing service based on race or other criteria, I think it would most often hurt them more than it helps. But if you’re a Jewish Bakery who refused to write “Jesus Lives” on a cake for Easter, I think most people would understand.

    this website case wasnt real. plaintiff made it up. admits it.
    I’m surprised it made it all the way to the SC and nobody fact checked the basis of the suit to begin with.
    I’m not.  I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t make the whole thing up themselves (the 6 asses).  Can’t put anything past these POS. 
    Maybe.  But how many courts does it have to go through before it gets to the SC? I don’t know the answer, but I’m sure it’s at least several. And none of them figured it out before hand? Even none on the SC who voted on it? Just seems weird that it goes all that way without fact checking any of it. I wouldn’t have thought that was possible a week ago.
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,117
    Out of My Mind and Time said:
    gimmesometruth27 said:
    the court gets once decision right, then tanks the next 4 or 5. that tracks with this fucking court.
    So you don't like the Constitution.  Got it. Pack the courts right. Left don't like so change the rules? Weak. Weak. Weak
    are you talking to me? your guys stole a fucking seat that was obama's to choose. do not come at me with that "left wants to change the rules" bullshit.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • gimmesometruth27
    gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,117
    gimmesometruth27 said:
    Out of My Mind and Time said:
    gimmesometruth27 said:
    the court gets once decision right, then tanks the next 4 or 5. that tracks with this fucking court.
    So you don't like the Constitution.  Got it. Pack the courts right. Left don't like so change the rules? Weak. Weak. Weak
    are you talking to me? your guys stole a fucking seat that was obama's to choose. do not come at me with that "left wants to change the rules" bullshit.
    they also allowed trump to appoint the new lady less than 4 months before an election after millions of people had already voted.

    maybe look at recent supreme court history before posting.
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,882
    mace1229 said:
    cblock4life said:
    mace1229 said:
    mickeyrat said:
    mace1229 said:
    cblock4life said:
    mace1229 said:
    mickeyrat said:


    The whole wrong identity is weird. But it was filed 7 years ago and no one contacting him until now? That is just as weird.

    I don’t agree with other comments I’ve seen that relate this to open discrimination, such as restaurants refusing service to gay couples.

    To me there’s a difference. One is creating something, the other is selling what already exists. I wouldn’t ask a Jewish Bakery to make me an Easter cake, but I’d expect them to sell me whatever dessert they already have for sale.
    Might be bad business, but I think it should be their choice what they create.
    I wouldn’t expect an immigrant-run shop to print signs for me that are anti-illegal immigration for a protest. They should be allowed to deny creating that for me. I don’t see the difference.
    Well everyone is entitled to feel how they feel.  I get what you’re saying.  I just think it will segregate us further.  And I do mean segregate.  If I’m black I’m moving into a neighborhood close to black businesses because why bother if my skin color allows you not to serve me.  That is segregation. 
    I disagree.
    For one, I think that right should only be reserved for those creating or making something unique. Like a website. I don’t think that is very common. I can’t remember the last time I had a business create something for me. Even my wedding I’m pretty sure we just got a standard cake and stock invitations, unless you count adding our name and date to it. And a refusal should require more than just race. How you enforce that part, or if you can, I don’t know.
    And second, I know racism still exist, but I truly believe the majority of people are good. I may not always like their politics or how they think government should spend money, but I don’t think they are bad. If a business is known for openly refusing service based on race or other criteria, I think it would most often hurt them more than it helps. But if you’re a Jewish Bakery who refused to write “Jesus Lives” on a cake for Easter, I think most people would understand.

    this website case wasnt real. plaintiff made it up. admits it.
    I’m surprised it made it all the way to the SC and nobody fact checked the basis of the suit to begin with.
    I’m not.  I wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t make the whole thing up themselves (the 6 asses).  Can’t put anything past these POS. 
    Maybe.  But how many courts does it have to go through before it gets to the SC? I don’t know the answer, but I’m sure it’s at least several. And none of them figured it out before hand? Even none on the SC who voted on it? Just seems weird that it goes all that way without fact checking any of it. I wouldn’t have thought that was possible a week ago.
    Here's the thing.. it seems to be true that there was no real person that wanted the cake.  If that means the case would not have had standing,  then I agree it's a stunning oversight by the state of Colorado or anyone filling amicus briefs on the matter.  

    But if it would still have been a case,  then what's the point?  I'm not sure which scenario it is. 
  • brianlux
    brianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,663
    edited July 2023
    gimmesometruth27 said:
    Out of My Mind and Time said:
    gimmesometruth27 said:
    the court gets once decision right, then tanks the next 4 or 5. that tracks with this fucking court.
    So you don't like the Constitution.  Got it. Pack the courts right. Left don't like so change the rules? Weak. Weak. Weak
    are you talking to me? your guys stole a fucking seat that was obama's to choose. do not come at me with that "left wants to change the rules" bullshit.

    gimmesometruth27 said:
    gimmesometruth27 said:
    Out of My Mind and Time said:
    gimmesometruth27 said:
    the court gets once decision right, then tanks the next 4 or 5. that tracks with this fucking court.
    So you don't like the Constitution.  Got it. Pack the courts right. Left don't like so change the rules? Weak. Weak. Weak
    are you talking to me? your guys stole a fucking seat that was obama's to choose. do not come at me with that "left wants to change the rules" bullshit.
    they also allowed trump to appoint the new lady less than 4 months before an election after millions of people had already voted.

    maybe look at recent supreme court history before posting.

    I hope OMMT or anyone else who buys the Trump-republican line of bullshit takes note of what you're saying, gimme, but don't hold your breath. 
    Post edited by brianlux on
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • mickeyrat
    mickeyrat Posts: 44,437

    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Out of My Mind and Time
    Out of My Mind and Time Posts: 1,333

  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,882
    Out of My Mind and Time said:

    Since you are obviously an expert in the unconstitutionality of the student loan plan, can you tell me why you don't think the HEROES act provided Biden the power to modify the terms of the loans, using the typical conservative lens of textualism?  Doesn't that originalism fall squarely within the power granted to the president by Congress from the 2003 bill?  I'm sure you thought of that before posting this cartoon, so I'd be interested in a debate about it. 
  • mace1229
    mace1229 Posts: 9,831
    There are several reasons I don’t like the student loan forgiveness.
    It only rewards those who took out student loans, and completely ignored everyone else, including….

    Families like mine-we wen without sp we could save up for college. My dad created college savings since the day I was born. We’d keep family cars for 10+ years. Didn’t have cable TV. Didn’t upgrade and move into a bigger house. Etc. We were a single income house where my dad was a cop, not a large income. My parents made a lot of sacrifices for 18 years so I wouldn’t have to take on debt. I remember not even getting a microwave or answering machine when everyone else I knew had one. Every time I’d ask why don’t we buy something, the reply was saving for a rainy day and so we can go to college. I know a lot of people with more income not do the same. It’s a slap in the face to see families who didn’t save, but could have, get bailed out.

    I had friends who chose not to go to a 4 year school because of the cost. Those chose something else instead because they didn’t want to take on debt. They started working after high school and are still in the same field. 

    But the biggest slap in the face are those who joined the military to pay for school. They gave up years of their life to join so they don’t have to take on debt, and now it doesn’t matter?

    None of that seems right to me if you’re going to bail out someone who made the decision to take out loans for school, but not compensate anyone else who made other sacrifices. Not only not compensating them, but who’s paying they bill? They are if you’re using their tax money to do it.
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,882
    mace1229 said:
    There are several reasons I don’t like the student loan forgiveness.
    It only rewards those who took out student loans, and completely ignored everyone else, including….

    Families like mine-we wen without sp we could save up for college. My dad created college savings since the day I was born. We’d keep family cars for 10+ years. Didn’t have cable TV. Didn’t upgrade and move into a bigger house. Etc. We were a single income house where my dad was a cop, not a large income. My parents made a lot of sacrifices for 18 years so I wouldn’t have to take on debt. I remember not even getting a microwave or answering machine when everyone else I knew had one. Every time I’d ask why don’t we buy something, the reply was saving for a rainy day and so we can go to college. I know a lot of people with more income not do the same. It’s a slap in the face to see families who didn’t save, but could have, get bailed out.

    I had friends who chose not to go to a 4 year school because of the cost. Those chose something else instead because they didn’t want to take on debt. They started working after high school and are still in the same field. 

    But the biggest slap in the face are those who joined the military to pay for school. They gave up years of their life to join so they don’t have to take on debt, and now it doesn’t matter?

    None of that seems right to me if you’re going to bail out someone who made the decision to take out loans for school, but not compensate anyone else who made other sacrifices. Not only not compensating them, but who’s paying they bill? They are if you’re using their tax money to do it.
    I wasn't for it either,  but that doesn't make it unconstitutional.  That was my question to the cartoon poster.  Unless he agrees with,, and posts something that he doesn't understand at all.  Surely that isn't the case,  is it?
  • Lerxst1992
    Lerxst1992 Posts: 7,913
    mrussel1 said:
    Out of My Mind and Time said:

    Since you are obviously an expert in the unconstitutionality of the student loan plan, can you tell me why you don't think the HEROES act provided Biden the power to modify the terms of the loans, using the typical conservative lens of textualism?  Doesn't that originalism fall squarely within the power granted to the president by Congress from the 2003 bill?  I'm sure you thought of that before posting this cartoon, so I'd be interested in a debate about it. 



    Good luck getting a reply. GOP politics is only about dropping bombs on the other side, they don’t stop to consider all of the republicans IN CONGRESS, who personally benefited from loan forgiveness in the last three years. Court didnt seem to mind when it was republicans forming this policy.


    and if you get an answer, maybe our gop friend can explain the danger of the court issuing an ideological ruling on this topic without an aggrieved party? 
  • mrussel1
    mrussel1 Posts: 30,882
    Lerxst1992 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Out of My Mind and Time said:

    Since you are obviously an expert in the unconstitutionality of the student loan plan, can you tell me why you don't think the HEROES act provided Biden the power to modify the terms of the loans, using the typical conservative lens of textualism?  Doesn't that originalism fall squarely within the power granted to the president by Congress from the 2003 bill?  I'm sure you thought of that before posting this cartoon, so I'd be interested in a debate about it. 



    Good luck getting a reply. GOP politics is only about dropping bombs on the other side, they don’t stop to consider all of the republicans IN CONGRESS, who personally benefited from loan forgiveness in the last three years. Court didnt seem to mind when it was republicans forming this policy.


    and if you get an answer, maybe our gop friend can explain the danger of the court issuing an ideological ruling on this topic without an aggrieved party? 
    Yes, the more I read, the more it sounds like the plaintiff had no standing.  It seems like the order should be vacated. 

Categories