SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)
Comments
-
who really gives a shit anyway, to be honest. this isn't the stuff, unfortunately, that will sway the election anyway. that's where america is at. that's the real problem.The Juggler said:
Well, now, just hold on a minute here, feller. Let's take a beat for one second please.Halifax2TheMax said:
They have no clue what’s in store.The Juggler said:
And people will continue giving him the benefit of the doubt over and over again...josevolution said:
Two great traits to possess as a presidentHughFreakingDillon said:
ok, I've said this before and I'll say it again. I'm not saying what he said wasn't racist, however, just because a racist says something, doesn't inherently mean it's a racist statement. sometimes it comes from a place of supreme ignorance. I personally don't like painting every comment with a racist brush as then the painting starts to lose its meaning.The Juggler said:
I didn't say you support him. I said you made an excuse for him.mace1229 said:
That was me. All I said was I interpret his “they’re taking black jobs away” as meaning illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from black people. He likes to claim he had the lowest black unemployment in history. I still don’t think it was an inherently racism thing to say. Just my interpretation, most disagree. Doesn’t mean I support him because I interpret what he said differently.The Juggler said:
People literally are. Someone was making an excuse for his racist "black jobs" thing in another thread the other day. It's 2024. This is ridiculous.HughFreakingDillon said:
literally no one is doing that. all I see is people operating under the assumption that the justice system will work just fine.The Juggler said:
I cannot believe people are still giving Trump the benefit of the doubt after everything we have been through the last ten years.gimmesometruth27 said:
until it happens.mace1229 said:
The president does not have absolute power. This ruling did not give him absolute power.bootleg said:If one of the Presidents main official acts is to defend the constitution, can you not then basically do whatever you want if it’s behind the guise of defending the constitution? If you considered the Supreme Court a threat to the constitution could you not then fire or arrest them? Determine Trump is a threat to the constitution, have him arrested? Biden won’t do any of these things because he believes in the institutions but Trump? He’ll have no hesitation to abuse this. It’s just another reckless ruling from this corrupted court.
Taking bribes and assassinating people for your own personal benefit is not official business. The president does not have authority to do those things, it would never be official business. Talking like this ruling will give a future president the ability to do such things is just absurd.
People have been giving him the benefit of the doubt for ten years and he's done absolutely nothing to earn it. So, I just don't understand it.
People like trump say stupid shit that sounds racist all the time but it doesn't necessarily mean it comes from a racist place. I've said things that were deemed racist in the very recent past (using the word aboriginal instead of indigenous, for example), so occasionally we need to use nuance when it comes to analyzing things like this.
we all know trump is a racist idiot. but sometimes he says things from the idiot place and not the racist place.
Idiot
Racist
He will be the president again and then you can add Dictator to his resume
You see, sometimes, known blatant racists who have a 4+ decade history of saying and doing racist things may say new racist things but they may not have meant it to be racist because they're also a stupid person....so that racist thing he said was really just stupid and clearly not racist, henceforth we all should probably give him a pass. He's definitely earned it this time.
Hope folks can see how ridiculous this sounds because that is what is happening here.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
Well it still matters to me. I still give a shit about the character of who I'm asked to vote for.HughFreakingDillon said:
who really gives a shit anyway, to be honest. this isn't the stuff, unfortunately, that will sway the election anyway. that's where america is at. that's the real problem.The Juggler said:
Well, now, just hold on a minute here, feller. Let's take a beat for one second please.Halifax2TheMax said:
They have no clue what’s in store.The Juggler said:
And people will continue giving him the benefit of the doubt over and over again...josevolution said:
Two great traits to possess as a presidentHughFreakingDillon said:
ok, I've said this before and I'll say it again. I'm not saying what he said wasn't racist, however, just because a racist says something, doesn't inherently mean it's a racist statement. sometimes it comes from a place of supreme ignorance. I personally don't like painting every comment with a racist brush as then the painting starts to lose its meaning.The Juggler said:
I didn't say you support him. I said you made an excuse for him.mace1229 said:
That was me. All I said was I interpret his “they’re taking black jobs away” as meaning illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from black people. He likes to claim he had the lowest black unemployment in history. I still don’t think it was an inherently racism thing to say. Just my interpretation, most disagree. Doesn’t mean I support him because I interpret what he said differently.The Juggler said:
People literally are. Someone was making an excuse for his racist "black jobs" thing in another thread the other day. It's 2024. This is ridiculous.HughFreakingDillon said:
literally no one is doing that. all I see is people operating under the assumption that the justice system will work just fine.The Juggler said:
I cannot believe people are still giving Trump the benefit of the doubt after everything we have been through the last ten years.gimmesometruth27 said:
until it happens.mace1229 said:
The president does not have absolute power. This ruling did not give him absolute power.bootleg said:If one of the Presidents main official acts is to defend the constitution, can you not then basically do whatever you want if it’s behind the guise of defending the constitution? If you considered the Supreme Court a threat to the constitution could you not then fire or arrest them? Determine Trump is a threat to the constitution, have him arrested? Biden won’t do any of these things because he believes in the institutions but Trump? He’ll have no hesitation to abuse this. It’s just another reckless ruling from this corrupted court.
Taking bribes and assassinating people for your own personal benefit is not official business. The president does not have authority to do those things, it would never be official business. Talking like this ruling will give a future president the ability to do such things is just absurd.
People have been giving him the benefit of the doubt for ten years and he's done absolutely nothing to earn it. So, I just don't understand it.
People like trump say stupid shit that sounds racist all the time but it doesn't necessarily mean it comes from a racist place. I've said things that were deemed racist in the very recent past (using the word aboriginal instead of indigenous, for example), so occasionally we need to use nuance when it comes to analyzing things like this.
we all know trump is a racist idiot. but sometimes he says things from the idiot place and not the racist place.
Idiot
Racist
He will be the president again and then you can add Dictator to his resume
You see, sometimes, known blatant racists who have a 4+ decade history of saying and doing racist things may say new racist things but they may not have meant it to be racist because they're also a stupid person....so that racist thing he said was really just stupid and clearly not racist, henceforth we all should probably give him a pass. He's definitely earned it this time.
Hope folks can see how ridiculous this sounds because that is what is happening here.www.myspace.com0 -
I know, I'm talking bigger picture. That cat's outta the bag. Character of the president no longer matters to most. It's his affiliation, and nothing else. That has been made clear.The Juggler said:
Well it still matters to me. I still give a shit about the character of who I'm asked to vote for.HughFreakingDillon said:
who really gives a shit anyway, to be honest. this isn't the stuff, unfortunately, that will sway the election anyway. that's where america is at. that's the real problem.The Juggler said:
Well, now, just hold on a minute here, feller. Let's take a beat for one second please.Halifax2TheMax said:
They have no clue what’s in store.The Juggler said:
And people will continue giving him the benefit of the doubt over and over again...josevolution said:
Two great traits to possess as a presidentHughFreakingDillon said:
ok, I've said this before and I'll say it again. I'm not saying what he said wasn't racist, however, just because a racist says something, doesn't inherently mean it's a racist statement. sometimes it comes from a place of supreme ignorance. I personally don't like painting every comment with a racist brush as then the painting starts to lose its meaning.The Juggler said:
I didn't say you support him. I said you made an excuse for him.mace1229 said:
That was me. All I said was I interpret his “they’re taking black jobs away” as meaning illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from black people. He likes to claim he had the lowest black unemployment in history. I still don’t think it was an inherently racism thing to say. Just my interpretation, most disagree. Doesn’t mean I support him because I interpret what he said differently.The Juggler said:
People literally are. Someone was making an excuse for his racist "black jobs" thing in another thread the other day. It's 2024. This is ridiculous.HughFreakingDillon said:
literally no one is doing that. all I see is people operating under the assumption that the justice system will work just fine.The Juggler said:
I cannot believe people are still giving Trump the benefit of the doubt after everything we have been through the last ten years.gimmesometruth27 said:
until it happens.mace1229 said:
The president does not have absolute power. This ruling did not give him absolute power.bootleg said:If one of the Presidents main official acts is to defend the constitution, can you not then basically do whatever you want if it’s behind the guise of defending the constitution? If you considered the Supreme Court a threat to the constitution could you not then fire or arrest them? Determine Trump is a threat to the constitution, have him arrested? Biden won’t do any of these things because he believes in the institutions but Trump? He’ll have no hesitation to abuse this. It’s just another reckless ruling from this corrupted court.
Taking bribes and assassinating people for your own personal benefit is not official business. The president does not have authority to do those things, it would never be official business. Talking like this ruling will give a future president the ability to do such things is just absurd.
People have been giving him the benefit of the doubt for ten years and he's done absolutely nothing to earn it. So, I just don't understand it.
People like trump say stupid shit that sounds racist all the time but it doesn't necessarily mean it comes from a racist place. I've said things that were deemed racist in the very recent past (using the word aboriginal instead of indigenous, for example), so occasionally we need to use nuance when it comes to analyzing things like this.
we all know trump is a racist idiot. but sometimes he says things from the idiot place and not the racist place.
Idiot
Racist
He will be the president again and then you can add Dictator to his resume
You see, sometimes, known blatant racists who have a 4+ decade history of saying and doing racist things may say new racist things but they may not have meant it to be racist because they're also a stupid person....so that racist thing he said was really just stupid and clearly not racist, henceforth we all should probably give him a pass. He's definitely earned it this time.
Hope folks can see how ridiculous this sounds because that is what is happening here.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
The Juggler said:
Well, now, just hold on a minute here, feller. Let's take a beat for one second please.Halifax2TheMax said:
They have no clue what’s in store.The Juggler said:
And people will continue giving him the benefit of the doubt over and over again...josevolution said:
Two great traits to possess as a presidentHughFreakingDillon said:
ok, I've said this before and I'll say it again. I'm not saying what he said wasn't racist, however, just because a racist says something, doesn't inherently mean it's a racist statement. sometimes it comes from a place of supreme ignorance. I personally don't like painting every comment with a racist brush as then the painting starts to lose its meaning.The Juggler said:
I didn't say you support him. I said you made an excuse for him.mace1229 said:
That was me. All I said was I interpret his “they’re taking black jobs away” as meaning illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from black people. He likes to claim he had the lowest black unemployment in history. I still don’t think it was an inherently racism thing to say. Just my interpretation, most disagree. Doesn’t mean I support him because I interpret what he said differently.The Juggler said:
People literally are. Someone was making an excuse for his racist "black jobs" thing in another thread the other day. It's 2024. This is ridiculous.HughFreakingDillon said:
literally no one is doing that. all I see is people operating under the assumption that the justice system will work just fine.The Juggler said:
I cannot believe people are still giving Trump the benefit of the doubt after everything we have been through the last ten years.gimmesometruth27 said:
until it happens.mace1229 said:
The president does not have absolute power. This ruling did not give him absolute power.bootleg said:If one of the Presidents main official acts is to defend the constitution, can you not then basically do whatever you want if it’s behind the guise of defending the constitution? If you considered the Supreme Court a threat to the constitution could you not then fire or arrest them? Determine Trump is a threat to the constitution, have him arrested? Biden won’t do any of these things because he believes in the institutions but Trump? He’ll have no hesitation to abuse this. It’s just another reckless ruling from this corrupted court.
Taking bribes and assassinating people for your own personal benefit is not official business. The president does not have authority to do those things, it would never be official business. Talking like this ruling will give a future president the ability to do such things is just absurd.
People have been giving him the benefit of the doubt for ten years and he's done absolutely nothing to earn it. So, I just don't understand it.
People like trump say stupid shit that sounds racist all the time but it doesn't necessarily mean it comes from a racist place. I've said things that were deemed racist in the very recent past (using the word aboriginal instead of indigenous, for example), so occasionally we need to use nuance when it comes to analyzing things like this.
we all know trump is a racist idiot. but sometimes he says things from the idiot place and not the racist place.
Idiot
Racist
He will be the president again and then you can add Dictator to his resume
You see, sometimes, known blatant racists who have a 4+ decade history of saying and doing racist things may say new racist things but they may not have meant it to be racist because they're also a stupid person....so that racist thing he said was really just stupid and clearly not racist, henceforth we all should probably give him a pass. He's definitely earned it this time.
Hope folks can see how ridiculous this sounds because that is what is happening here.Trump is so stooopid he figured out how to beat democrat darling and savvy political veteran Hilary,
how to lock up the Supreme Court for the next twenty years,
rewrite the constitution giving him immunity for everything(when all legal experts said his lawsuit was a laugh)
put a two trillion dollar tax cut in circulation that benefits his back pocket enormously,
how to it debate democrat mastermind Dark Brandon with zero preparation time, the biggest debate rout in history
turn a $400 million inheritance into a five billion plus net wealth.
And he figured out to do this while having unprotected relations with pornstars and playmates, without his wife divorcing him
who here wishes they were this stoopid? I think I’ve just changed my mind who to vote for.0 -
SCOTUS will become KCOTUS if we don't defeat Trump. It already is to some degree.(K= King's)"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0
-
Analysis
Supreme Court’s Radical Immunity Ruling Shields Lawbreaking Presidents and Undermines Democracy
The Court’s opinion in Trump v. United States is a dangerous attack on the rule of law.
July 2, 2024Susan Walsh/APIn a shocking and lawless opinion, the Supreme Court granted presidents broad protections from criminal prosecution for “official acts” they undertake while in office. This ruling from the Court’s conservative supermajority pulls a new constitutional rule from thin air. And it raises daunting, unjustifiable barriers to criminally prosecuting lawbreaking presidents. Trump is now positioned to renew his push to dismiss the charges against him and evade accountability for the grave crimes he’s accused of committing against our democracy. The Court has left the rule of law in tatters — even as it looks the other way.
The Court’s 6–3 opinion — authored by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — attempts to set out rules to govern prosecutions of any and all future occupants of the Oval Office. Presidents, the Court rules, “may not be prosecuted for exercising [their] core constitutional powers, and [are] entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for [their] official acts.” The Court notes that presidents “enjoy[] no immunity for [their] unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official.” But the latter assertion rings hollow in the context of the opinion that surrounds it. The Court has created an elaborate system of ambiguous rules that will not only ratchet up the complexity of the case against Trump but also erode the checks on presidential illegality. It is both a roadblock to prosecution and an encouragement to more insurrection.
continues....
_____________________________________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 '140 -
-
_____________________________________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 '140 -
mickeyrat said:All that means is the speaker and senate majority in 2025 will impeach Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson. Let’s hope the Dems can scrape together 34 senate seats in the upcoming bloodbath in November to prevent their removal from the bench.0
-
_____________________________________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 '140 -
And some people think the PTAPE ain’t a thang.mickeyrat said: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©0 -
kompromat is possible. visit alone, if true. would be enough imo.
_____________________________________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 '140 -
The russia, russia, russia hoax lives. Damn right you should follow the money.About time: Senators demand special counsel to investigate Clarence ThomasFor once, Attorney General Merrick Garland should act quickly.
Opinion
Fed up with the justice’s stonewalling, egregious violation of judicial ethics, inaccurate legal filings and gross money grubbing from right-wing billionaires with business before the Supreme Court, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland this week demanding a special counsel be appointed “to investigate possible violations of federal ethics and tax laws by Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Clarence Thomas.” Well, it’s about time someone took Thomas’s inexcusable conduct seriously. (Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s introduction of articles of impeachment in a Republican-controlled House, meanwhile, which followed on Wednesday, is a showy gesture but a nonstarter.)
This is not a complaint about failure to recuse, as reprehensible as it might be for Thomas to sit on cases concerning the insurrection in which his wife played a limited role, or about bribery; thanks to this court, such prosecutions are practically impossible. Instead, the letter concerns bread-and-butter allegations of false statements signed under oath and tax violations.The letter details “repeated and willful omissions of gifts and income from Justice Thomas’s financial disclosure reports required by the Ethics in Government Act.” And as the senators point out, investigations have been raised against other government officials for far less serious allegations.
The list of issues is gobsmacking. For example: forgiveness of the principal on a $267,000 loan that was never reported as income. (“Documents obtained by the Senate Finance Committee indicate that no principal was ever repaid on the loan and that Justice Thomas only made interest payments on the loan prior to all payments ceasing on the loan. Forgiven or discharged debt is taxable income, and the Ethics in Government Act requires justices to disclose any ‘income from discharge of indebtedness.’”) This was never included on Thomas’s financial disclosure reports. Thomas has refused to say whether he accounted for the loan forgiveness on his income taxes.
Then there are the gifts — lots of gifts. The senators cite “undisclosed gifts from other wealthy donors … including private jet travel from Paul Anthony Novelly; private jet travel and country club membership from the late Wayne Huizenga; and private jet travel, luxury sports tickets, and lodging at a ranch from David Sokol.” The senator include an appendix detailing these lavish gratuities. The senators write, “Justice Thomas has claimed that some omissions were ‘inadvertent,’ and he has amended some past reports accordingly. However, Justice Thomas has not disclosed all of the gifts that have been uncovered, and there may well be more.” Therefore, they charge: “His long history of omissions indicates a pattern of willfulness meriting investigation under the Ethics in Government Act.”
Then there are the gifts specifically from Leonard Leo — the right-wing legal impresario and former vice president of the Federalist Society who has helped pick Supreme Court justices and contrived to bring cases before the court to advance his dark money groups agenda, according to Whitehouse. The senators explain:
Last year, the Washington Post reported that Leo directed payments of at least $25,000 to a consulting firm run by Justice Thomas’s spouse, with Leo specifying that the documents related to the payments should make “[n]o mention” of Mrs. Thomas. The furtive nature of the payments raises further questions about how many such payments were orchestrated, whether legitimate services were actually rendered, and whether such payments required additional reporting by Justice Thomas. We have not yet adequately been able to investigate the extent to which any or all these undisclosed gifts were part of a coordinated gifts program to reward recipient justices.In sum, the senators raise allegations of willfully false statements on government disclosure forms and income tax and gift tax violations. At this stage, these are allegations only. But surely there is a basis for further inquiry, the senators argue. After detailing other investigations into less egregious conduct, the senators argue that only a special counsel can properly investigate. (“Since no litigant appears before the Supreme Court more frequently than the United States government, represented by the Department of Justice, the Department may understandably hesitate to offend a member of that Court.”)
The senators are not the only ones to have advanced these arguments. In April 2023, the anti-corruption group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sent a letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Garland after Pro Publica broke news of lavish gifts Thomas received from another billionaire, Harlan Crow.
In that letter, CREW and several ethics experts wrote: “If true, Justice Thomas’ acceptance and failure to report these gifts and sales transactions on his annual mandatory financial disclosure statements not only undermines trust in his ability to impartially and fairly administer his duties as a member of the Court, but also threatens to corrode public confidence in the Supreme Court as an institution.” CREW’s president, Noah Bookbinder, tells me CREW never received a response.
One of the ethics experts who signed that letter, Richard Painter, tells me, “The attorney general may or may not decide to appoint a special counsel. I believe it is justified in this case.” If Garland does not appoint a special counsel or undertake any investigation, the Supreme Court justices, like the president in the new scheme of government concocted by this court, will conclude they operate in a world of criminal immunity, secure in the knowledge a partisan Senate will never remove them from the bench.
And so Whitehouse and Wyden, with no alternative, ask for the Justice Department to do its job. “The request is foundational to the rule of law,” constitutional scholar Dennis Aftergut tells me. “While many won’t expect Garland to pick it up before the election, if democracy survives November, the senators have written the bottom line for what must happen if we are to get corruption out of the court.”
“Justice Thomas’s serious and frequent misconduct, including consistent failure to report lavish gifts from a wealthy benefactor with strong interests in the Supreme Court’s work and repeated failure to recuse from cases in which he had a clear conflict of interest, requires thorough investigation and genuine accountability,” Bookbinder tells me.
The Thomas scandal is what comes from refusing to adopt a mandatory ethics code for the Supreme Court and investing its justices with lifetime security. That leaves the rule of law dependent on the justices’ own good graces to remain ethical. That has obviously proven insufficient.
Unfortunately, if felon and former president Donald Trump is elected, one can be sure no investigation will be undertaken. It therefore behooves Garland to move quickly, lest — again — justice delayed becomes justice denied.
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©0 -
gift article.....Biden set to announce support for major Supreme Court changes
By Tyler Pager and Michael Scherer
July 16, 2024 at 17:16 ET
President Biden is finalizing plans to endorse major changes to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks, including proposals for legislation to establish term limits for the justices and an enforceable ethics code, according to two people briefed on the plans.
He is also weighing whether to call for a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad immunity for presidents and other constitutional officeholders, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.
The announcement would mark a major shift for Biden, a former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has long resisted calls to reform the high court. The potential changes come in response to growing outrage among his supporters about recent ethics scandals surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas and decisions by the new court majority that have changed legal precedent on issues including abortion and federal regulatory powers.
Biden previewed the shift in a Zoom call Saturday with the Congressional Progressive Caucus.continues.....
_____________________________________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 '140 -
what took so long? was he waiting to see how many rights the supreme court could take away before he finally did something?mickeyrat said:gift article.....Biden set to announce support for major Supreme Court changes
By Tyler Pager and Michael Scherer
July 16, 2024 at 17:16 ET
President Biden is finalizing plans to endorse major changes to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks, including proposals for legislation to establish term limits for the justices and an enforceable ethics code, according to two people briefed on the plans.
He is also weighing whether to call for a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad immunity for presidents and other constitutional officeholders, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.
The announcement would mark a major shift for Biden, a former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has long resisted calls to reform the high court. The potential changes come in response to growing outrage among his supporters about recent ethics scandals surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas and decisions by the new court majority that have changed legal precedent on issues including abortion and federal regulatory powers.
Biden previewed the shift in a Zoom call Saturday with the Congressional Progressive Caucus.continues....."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."0 -
Can you list the rights that the Supreme Court has taken away of the “many”. I might have missed some.gimmesometruth27 said:
what took so long? was he waiting to see how many rights the supreme court could take away before he finally did something?mickeyrat said:gift article.....Biden set to announce support for major Supreme Court changes
By Tyler Pager and Michael Scherer
July 16, 2024 at 17:16 ET
President Biden is finalizing plans to endorse major changes to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks, including proposals for legislation to establish term limits for the justices and an enforceable ethics code, according to two people briefed on the plans.
He is also weighing whether to call for a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad immunity for presidents and other constitutional officeholders, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.
The announcement would mark a major shift for Biden, a former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has long resisted calls to reform the high court. The potential changes come in response to growing outrage among his supporters about recent ethics scandals surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas and decisions by the new court majority that have changed legal precedent on issues including abortion and federal regulatory powers.
Biden previewed the shift in a Zoom call Saturday with the Congressional Progressive Caucus.continues.....I know they sent abortion to the states so each state could decide but what others?0 -
Hahaha.......love how he just casually mentions abortion as if that is not an issue that literally affects tens of millions of women.teskeinc said:
Can you list the rights that the Supreme Court has taken away of the “many”. I might have missed some.gimmesometruth27 said:
what took so long? was he waiting to see how many rights the supreme court could take away before he finally did something?mickeyrat said:gift article.....Biden set to announce support for major Supreme Court changes
By Tyler Pager and Michael Scherer
July 16, 2024 at 17:16 ET
President Biden is finalizing plans to endorse major changes to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks, including proposals for legislation to establish term limits for the justices and an enforceable ethics code, according to two people briefed on the plans.
He is also weighing whether to call for a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad immunity for presidents and other constitutional officeholders, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.
The announcement would mark a major shift for Biden, a former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has long resisted calls to reform the high court. The potential changes come in response to growing outrage among his supporters about recent ethics scandals surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas and decisions by the new court majority that have changed legal precedent on issues including abortion and federal regulatory powers.
Biden previewed the shift in a Zoom call Saturday with the Congressional Progressive Caucus.continues.....I know they sent abortion to the states so each state could decide but what others?www.myspace.com0 -
Good question!gimmesometruth27 said:
what took so long? was he waiting to see how many rights the supreme court could take away before he finally did something?mickeyrat said:gift article.....Biden set to announce support for major Supreme Court changes
By Tyler Pager and Michael Scherer
July 16, 2024 at 17:16 ET
President Biden is finalizing plans to endorse major changes to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks, including proposals for legislation to establish term limits for the justices and an enforceable ethics code, according to two people briefed on the plans.
He is also weighing whether to call for a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad immunity for presidents and other constitutional officeholders, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.
The announcement would mark a major shift for Biden, a former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has long resisted calls to reform the high court. The potential changes come in response to growing outrage among his supporters about recent ethics scandals surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas and decisions by the new court majority that have changed legal precedent on issues including abortion and federal regulatory powers.
Biden previewed the shift in a Zoom call Saturday with the Congressional Progressive Caucus.continues.....
All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and shortest means to accomplish it.0 -
teskeinc said:
Can you list the rights that the Supreme Court has taken away of the “many”. I might have missed some.gimmesometruth27 said:
what took so long? was he waiting to see how many rights the supreme court could take away before he finally did something?mickeyrat said:gift article.....Biden set to announce support for major Supreme Court changes
By Tyler Pager and Michael Scherer
July 16, 2024 at 17:16 ET
President Biden is finalizing plans to endorse major changes to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks, including proposals for legislation to establish term limits for the justices and an enforceable ethics code, according to two people briefed on the plans.
He is also weighing whether to call for a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad immunity for presidents and other constitutional officeholders, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.
The announcement would mark a major shift for Biden, a former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has long resisted calls to reform the high court. The potential changes come in response to growing outrage among his supporters about recent ethics scandals surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas and decisions by the new court majority that have changed legal precedent on issues including abortion and federal regulatory powers.
Biden previewed the shift in a Zoom call Saturday with the Congressional Progressive Caucus.continues.....I know they sent abortion to the states so each state could decide but what others?
idk the right to bodily autonomy seems like a pretty big one
now give me your liver, I need it more than you do and will make better use of it0 -
CM189191 said:teskeinc said:
Can you list the rights that the Supreme Court has taken away of the “many”. I might have missed some.gimmesometruth27 said:
what took so long? was he waiting to see how many rights the supreme court could take away before he finally did something?mickeyrat said:gift article.....Biden set to announce support for major Supreme Court changes
By Tyler Pager and Michael Scherer
July 16, 2024 at 17:16 ET
President Biden is finalizing plans to endorse major changes to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks, including proposals for legislation to establish term limits for the justices and an enforceable ethics code, according to two people briefed on the plans.
He is also weighing whether to call for a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad immunity for presidents and other constitutional officeholders, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.
The announcement would mark a major shift for Biden, a former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has long resisted calls to reform the high court. The potential changes come in response to growing outrage among his supporters about recent ethics scandals surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas and decisions by the new court majority that have changed legal precedent on issues including abortion and federal regulatory powers.
Biden previewed the shift in a Zoom call Saturday with the Congressional Progressive Caucus.continues.....I know they sent abortion to the states so each state could decide but what others?
idk the right to bodily autonomy seems like a pretty big one
now give me your liver, I need it more than you do and will make better use of it
I'm reminded of Andrew Sullivan's infamous, astonishingly tone-deaf "Setting aside the Dobbs decision..." comment. Dobbs is far from a side note for anyone with a uterus.
All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and shortest means to accomplish it.0 -
Listen, lady, just move to a blue state. lolcurmudgeoness said:CM189191 said:teskeinc said:
Can you list the rights that the Supreme Court has taken away of the “many”. I might have missed some.gimmesometruth27 said:
what took so long? was he waiting to see how many rights the supreme court could take away before he finally did something?mickeyrat said:gift article.....Biden set to announce support for major Supreme Court changes
By Tyler Pager and Michael Scherer
July 16, 2024 at 17:16 ET
President Biden is finalizing plans to endorse major changes to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks, including proposals for legislation to establish term limits for the justices and an enforceable ethics code, according to two people briefed on the plans.
He is also weighing whether to call for a constitutional amendment to eliminate broad immunity for presidents and other constitutional officeholders, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.
The announcement would mark a major shift for Biden, a former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has long resisted calls to reform the high court. The potential changes come in response to growing outrage among his supporters about recent ethics scandals surrounding Justice Clarence Thomas and decisions by the new court majority that have changed legal precedent on issues including abortion and federal regulatory powers.
Biden previewed the shift in a Zoom call Saturday with the Congressional Progressive Caucus.continues.....I know they sent abortion to the states so each state could decide but what others?
idk the right to bodily autonomy seems like a pretty big one
now give me your liver, I need it more than you do and will make better use of it
I'm reminded of Andrew Sullivan's infamous, astonishingly tone-deaf "Setting aside the Dobbs decision..." comment. Dobbs is far from a side note for anyone with a uterus.www.myspace.com0
Thomas Wolf
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help