The Supreme Court

TrapperGus wrote:

AvgMSUJoe wrote:Hillary and Warren... Harris... all mean nasty women.

Any one of the three would have been a better choice than Trump in 2016

My dog would have been a better choice than Trump in 2016

Jake from State Farm wrote:

TrapperGus wrote:

Any one of the three would have been a better choice than Trump in 2016

My dog would have been a better choice than Trump in 2016

Yes, Trump is a very low bar to use.

All three would have been better than any Republician.

Trump now recycling a failed Pence campaign slogan: Trump amends campaign slogan from MAGA to MAGAA

Jake from State Farm wrote:

TrapperGus wrote:

Any one of the three would have been a better choice than Trump in 2016

My dog would have been a better choice than Trump in 2016

A rock would have been a better choice

The Republicans have managed to break the Supreme Court ...

It is a total tool of the far right "christian", racist, corporate loving partisans now.

The Supreme Court is not being honest with you

https://www.vox.com/2022/2/19/22934915/supreme-court-justices-not-honest-amy-coney-barrett-notre-dame-abortion-voting-rights

Elections have consequences.

By electing Trump we got three solid and well qualified SCOTUS justices.

By electing Biden we got empty shelfs and inflation.

RQA wrote:Elections have consequences.

By electing Trump we got three solid and well qualified SCOTUS justices.

By electing Biden we got empty shelfs and inflation.

I'm guessing you didn't click the link.

It is clear we got three people who are shitting all over both their own probity and the Constitution of The United States.

Trapper Gus wrote:

I'm guessing you didn't click the link.

I read your link.

It is an opinion piece from Vox. The author is a leftist who expects the SCOTUS to support leftist political ideology rather than rule on constitutional merits.

One of the major reasons many of us voted for Trump was his promise to select qualified constitutionalists for SCOTUS vacancies. True to his word, he did.

Trapper Gus wrote:The Republicans have managed to break the Supreme Court ...

It is a total tool of the far right "christian", racist, corporate loving partisans now.

The Supreme Court is not being honest with you

https://www.vox.com/2022/2/19/22934915/supreme-court-justices-not-honest-amy-coney-barrett-notre-dame-abortion-voting-rights

wait a second.. right wing racist, bigoted christians lie?

I never noticed.

RQA wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

I'm guessing you didn't click the link.

I read your link.

It is an opinion piece from Vox.   The author is a leftist who expects the SCOTUS to support leftist political ideology rather than rule on constitutional merits.

One of the major reasons many of us voted for Trump was his promise to select qualified constitutionalists for SCOTUS vacancies.    True to his word, he did.  

No, you clearly didn't read the article, which points out that 5 Conservatives on the court have decided to ignore both what they said they believed in and all court precedence from 1789 onwards if favor of completely destroy the public's trust in the US Government in general and the court in particular.

The Chief Justice disagrees, and want to maintain a fig leaf of respectability and probity, but they don't give a fuck about that, they just want to "own the liberals"

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:The Republicans have managed to break the Supreme Court ...

It is a total tool of the far right "christian", racist, corporate loving partisans now.

The Supreme Court is not being honest with you

https://www.vox.com/2022/2/19/22934915/supreme-court-justices-not-honest-amy-coney-barrett-notre-dame-abortion-voting-rights

wait a second.. right wing racist, bigoted christians lie?

I never noticed.

Well, they were never a majority on the court, before this.

RQA wrote:Elections have consequences.

By electing Trump we got three solid and well qualified SCOTUS justices.

By electing Biden we got empty shelfs and inflation.

shelves

Cameron wrote:

RQA wrote:Elections have consequences.

By electing Trump we got three solid and well qualified SCOTUS justices.

By electing Biden we got empty shelfs and inflation.

shelves

The empty shelves were caused by Trump, not that RQA will understand that it is way too complex for his simple brain.

I don't care about that, the incorrect plural just bugs me.

Cameron wrote:I don't care about that, the incorrect plural just bugs me.

I just used your post to point out how ignorant the "shelfs" guy is ...

Grammer, is important, but so are ideas ...

Trapper Gus wrote:

Cameron wrote:I don't care about that, the incorrect plural just bugs me.

I just used you post to point out how ignorant the "shelfs" guy is ...

Grammer, is important, but so are ideas ...

Grammar

Trapper Gus wrote:

I just used you post to point out how ignorant the "shelfs" guy is ...

Come back Cameron, you missed one.

Cameron wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

I just used you post to point out how ignorant the "shelfs" guy is ...

Grammer, is important, but so are ideas ...

Grammar

That is spelling, not grammar.

Trapper Gus wrote:

That is spelling, not grammar.

Trapper Gus wrote:
I just used your post...

This is grammar.    

RQA wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

That is spelling, not grammar.

Trapper Gus wrote:
I just used your post...

This is grammar.    

Yes, which is why I corrected it ... so although your point is correct, you used the wrong quote ...

All this nit picking about spelling and grammar, and you didn't even read why the Conservative justices are unqualified to be on the court.

Trapper Gus wrote:

RQA wrote:



This is grammar.    

Yes, which is why I corrected it ... so although you point is correct, you used the wrong quote ...

All this nit picking about spelling and grammar, and you didn't even read why the Conservative justices are unqualified to be on the court.

Agreed. It’s dumber than saying you work so someone you disagree with can cash government checks…… while you took a socialist government issued free and forgiven loan to save the business you claim you have.

Trapper Gus wrote:

so although you point is correct

RQA still fine with Conservative Justices who say one thing but do another.

RQA is fine with the total destruction of the United States.

Trapper Gus wrote:

RQA is fine with the total destruction of the United States.

This is why nobody takes you seriously. You are a running joke.

RQA wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

RQA is fine with the total destruction of the United States.

This is why nobody takes you seriously.  You are a running     joke.

that you are totally unaware of what the Republican Party is trying to do is typical for you.

Why do you support the Conservatives on the court who have both abandon both "the strict reading of the Constitution" they claim to follow, and the principle of following court precedent unless there is actual new reasoning to overturn?

In the first one their actions show they didn't mean what they said, a total lack of probity, which is a huge deal for a lawyer, and the second shows they are willing to destroy a basic principle of the United States for political gain.

Saying that the ends justify the means, as they are doing and you are supporting, is saying the rule of law is meaningless, thus the bedrock of thought that the United States is built on is meaningless.

Trapper Gus wrote:

RQA wrote:

This is why nobody takes you seriously.  You are a running     joke.

that you are totally unaware of what the Republican Party is trying to do is typical for you.

Why do you support the Conservatives on the court who have both abandon both "the strict reading of the Constitution" they claim to follow, and the principle of following court precedent unless there is actual new reasoning to overturn?

In the first one their actions show they didn't mean what they said, a total lack of probity, which is a huge deal for a lawyer, and the second shows they are willing to destroy a basic principle of the United States for political gain.

Saying that the ends justify the means, as they are doing and you are supporting, is saying the rule of law is meaningless, thus the bedrock of thought that the United States is built on is meaningless.

One can agree or disagree with Clarence Thomas.

However agreeing with him does not mean that person is " fine with the total destruction of the United States."

Stating that makes you a joke and is why nobody here takes you seriously.

RQA wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

that you are totally unaware of what the Republican Party is trying to do is typical for you.

Why do you support the Conservatives on the court who have both abandon both "the strict reading of the Constitution" they claim to follow, and the principle of following court precedent unless there is actual new reasoning to overturn?

In the first one their actions show they didn't mean what they said, a total lack of probity, which is a huge deal for a lawyer, and the second shows they are willing to destroy a basic principle of the United States for political gain.

Saying that the ends justify the means, as they are doing and you are supporting, is saying the rule of law is meaningless, thus the bedrock of thought that the United States is built on is meaningless.

One can agree or disagree with Clarence Thomas.

However agreeing with him does not mean that person is " fine with the total destruction of the United States."

Stating that makes you a joke and is why nobody here takes you seriously.  

When what he is doing is the total destruction of the United States, which is what he is doing, then agreeing with him is supporting that.  

That he now has 4 other people with no Probity who knowingly or not, supporting the idea that the ends justify the means" not the basic rule of law which the United States was founded upon and on which its continued exists requires adherence to, and that you support this means you are supporting the destruction of the United States, knowingly, or unknowingly, but that last clause doesn't change your support for the total destruction of the United States as a "Shining City on the Hill"

Trapper Gus wrote:

When what he is doing is the total destruction of the United States, which is what he is doing, then agreeing with him is supporting that.  

RQA wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

When what he is doing is the total destruction of the United States, which is what he is doing, then agreeing with him is supporting that.  

So as expected, you are refusing to see what they are doing because you support the ends, and thus, that the means, which are the destruction of the rule of law, are okay by you.

John Roberts disagrees with you.

Trapper Gus wrote:

RQA wrote:

So as expected, you are refusing to see what they are doing because you support the ends, and thus, that the means, which are the destruction of the rule of law, are okay by you.

Let me know when I need to evacuate to one of your favored countries like Cuba, Venezuela or maybe one of Xiden's favorites like Russia or China.

RQA wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

So as expected, you are refusing to see what they are doing because you support the ends, and thus, that the means, which are the destruction of the rule of law, are okay by you.

Let me know when I need to evacuate to one of your favored countries like Cuba, Venezuela or maybe one of Xiden's favorites like Russia or China.

Right now, dude.

Trapper Gus wrote:

RQA wrote:

Let me know when I need to evacuate to one of your favored countries like Cuba, Venezuela or maybe one of Xiden's favorites like Russia or China.  

Right now, dude.

So you are saying that the destruction of the USA (caused by Clarence Thomas) is imminent?

Correction: "total destruction"

RQA wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Right now, dude.

So you are saying that the destruction of the USA (caused by Clarence Thomas) is imminent?

Yes, the effects of that will take years to fully be seen.

Just like it has taken years for the destructiveness of electing Republicans to be seen.

This isn't a video game, nothing occurs instantly.

Trapper Gus wrote:

RQA wrote:

So you are saying that the destruction of the USA (caused by Clarence Thomas) is imminent?

Yes, the effects of that will take years to fully be seen.

So the complete destruction of the US is imminent but we won't know about for years??

RQA wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Yes, the effects of that will take years to fully be seen.

So the complete destruction of the US is imminent but we won't know about for years??

Without drastic action, which is seemingly more and more unlikely, the Republicans have already destroyed this country.

We are all frogs, but the water is already boiling.

Trapper Gus wrote:

RQA wrote:

So the complete destruction of the US is imminent but we won't know about for years??

Without drastic action, which is seemingly more and more unlikely, the Republicans have already destroyed this country.

We are all frogs, but the water is already boiling.

So we have gone from your claim that the destruction ("total destruction") is imminent to this claim that the country has already been destroyed.

You are an insane man.

RQA wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Without drastic action, which is seemingly more and more unlikely, the Republicans have already destroyed this country.

We are all frogs, but the water is already boiling.

So we have gone from your claim that the destruction ("total destruction") is imminent to this claim that the country has already been destroyed.  

You are an insane man.  

The destruction is in process.

Having the court packed with 5 Justices whose actions are the opposite of their words and whose decisions are directly opposite what the laws and Constitution says is the destruction of the rule of law and the Constitution.  

Roberts is slightly, but not much, better, as he wants to do what the 5 want to do but he wants to at least pay lip service to the law and the Constitution.

The recent rulings on the Voting Rights Act, where the court simple overturned parts that they didn't like, with no legal justification, is part of the destruction.

So was Citizens United, which created not a set of rights, but an entirely new entity, "the corporation" as an entity which has the same rights as a person.

Trapper Gus wrote:

the Republicans have already destroyed this country.

Trapper Gus wrote:The destruction is in process.

Which is it?

RQA wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

the Republicans have already destroyed this country.

Trapper Gus wrote:The destruction is in process.

Which is it?

You sure are fascinated by time.

I'm thinking you spend your days watching a clock.

Both.