The Supreme Court

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

I'm just saying he isn't a kid raping high school classmates, forcing his dong into coeds faces or getting snot flinging drunk in public anymore.

The rest of what you are saying I agree with.

certainly not classmates,  as he isn't in high school anymore, but that doesn't mean he isn't hanging out at the high schools.

There's a reason he coaches girls basketball.

No way I'd let that guy or anyone like him anywhere near a kid.

Thinking he has upped his game to throwing SC rulings

Trapper Gus wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Take away their clerks the constitution doesn’t require that they get helpers to do their job.

The Supreme Court was in the basement of the capitol until the 1930s. Constitution definitely doesn’t require that they get their own fancy building. And I’m pretty sure it doesn’t say anything about requiring air conditioning on those hot DC days

They can have their toys back when they submit to accountability

My totally unrealistic solution would be for the President to just ignore the court if the President disagrees with their interpretation. It has happened, sort of, in the past, however it would require a vast majority of the people to be on the side of the President, and even that would probably not be enough.

You are correct that much of what goes on in government is only enforceable to the extent that there is military or police to back it up. Look at Florida. The administration preaches local control until you disagree with it. Then you are fired.

Thom Hartman has some interesting speculation about the pressure that public opinion and more importantly Congress moving some of its legislation beyond court review might be having on how the court rules.

https://hartmannreport.com/p/are-some-justices-ready-to-do-the-aff

I don’t like liars. I don’t like them when they’re elected to political office. And I surely don’t like them when they lie to land a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court.

Yes, there’s come to be an old song and dance that Supreme Court nominees perform—Senators ask direct questions about world-altering legal precedents like Roe v. Wade and the nominees deliver clever answers meant to convey their respect for that precedent without ever saying what they really think. That’s the performance that we’re all supposed to just gloss over or accept as the reality of “how it is.”

https://america.substack.com/p/liars-for-a-lifetime-again


[tw]1681343722930290698[/tw]

One Justice declares that the Supreme Court is the top of the food chain of the US Government.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Justice Samuel Alito says Congress lacks the power to impose a code of ethics on the Supreme Court, making him the first member of the court to take a public stand against proposals in Congress to toughen ethics rules for justices in response to increased scrutiny of their activities beyond the bench.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-ethics-alito-d98b0edf1340ff3ed66b345c5ddcf0dc

Talk about a Constitutional Crisis.

Of course, everyone knows that the Supreme Court does not explicitly in the Constitution have the power to decide what is Constitutional. It is simply a precedent that the three branches have accepted, and as this court has shown, precedents have no meaning now.

1) nothing in the constitution about the Supreme Court getting a fancy building return them to the dank pit in the bowels of Congress from whence they came 
2) nothing in the constitution about their dank pit having air conditioning.
3) nothing in the constitution saying that the toilets need to be fixed in any time frame after Clarence let’s one fly
4) nothing in the constitution granting them law clerks, make them do their own fraudulent work 
5) nothing in the constitution about them getting government funded protection when they’re out and about. Let them hear from the people whose lives they trample on for another free yacht trip
6) finally, nothing in the constitution saying that we can’t have 359 million Supreme Court justices, allowing us to vote on how we want to live our lives ourselves instead of vis unelected oracles.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:1) nothing in the constitution about the Supreme Court getting a fancy building return them to the dank pit in the bowels of Congress from whence they came 
2) nothing in the constitution about their dank pit having air conditioning.
3) nothing in the constitution saying that the toilets need to be fixed in any time frame after Clarence let’s one fly
4) nothing in the constitution granting them law clerks, make them do their own fraudulent work 
5) nothing in the constitution about them getting government funded protection when they’re out and about. Let them hear from the people whose lives they trample on for another free yacht trip
6) finally, nothing in the constitution saying that we can’t have 359 million Supreme Court justices, allowing us to vote on how we want to live our lives ourselves instead of vis unelected oracles.

Only number 6 has any merit.

Dude, sometimes you make such odd posts...

Trapper Gus wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:1) nothing in the constitution about the Supreme Court getting a fancy building return them to the dank pit in the bowels of Congress from whence they came 
2) nothing in the constitution about their dank pit having air conditioning.
3) nothing in the constitution saying that the toilets need to be fixed in any time frame after Clarence let’s one fly
4) nothing in the constitution granting them law clerks, make them do their own fraudulent work 
5) nothing in the constitution about them getting government funded protection when they’re out and about. Let them hear from the people whose lives they trample on for another free yacht trip
6) finally, nothing in the constitution saying that we can’t have 359 million Supreme Court justices, allowing us to vote on how we want to live our lives ourselves instead of vis unelected oracles.

Only number 6 has any merit.

Dude, sometimes you make such odd posts...

It’s actually not that complicated traps. Slow down and think about it for a minute before responding.

Here, I’ll help. Who pays for all of those things listed? Three guesses… hint, it’s not John Roberts and it’s not Harlan Crowe.

Ah, that’s right, it’s Congress! If the Supreme Court thinks itself unaccountable to the will of congress, then fine, let the Supreme Court foot its own bills.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Only number 6 has any merit.

Dude, sometimes you make such odd posts...

It’s actually not that complicated traps. Slow down and think about it for a minute before responding.

Here, I’ll help. Who pays for all of those things listed? Three guesses… hint, it’s not John Roberts and it’s not Harlan Crowe.

Ah, that’s right, it’s Congress! If the Supreme Court thinks itself unaccountable to the will of congress, then fine, let the Supreme Court foot its own bills.

Certainly, Congress holds the power of the purse, if that is the point you are making just spit it out.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
It’s actually not that complicated traps. Slow down and think about it for a minute before responding.

Here, I’ll help. Who pays for all of those things listed? Three guesses… hint, it’s not John Roberts and it’s not Harlan Crowe.

Ah, that’s right, it’s Congress! If the Supreme Court thinks itself unaccountable to the will of congress, then fine, let the Supreme Court foot its own bills.

Certainly, Congress holds the power of the purse, if that is the point you are making just spit it out.

It’s much more fun to list the things they could do with that power instead of saying “we control the power of the purse though” like whiny pouty babies and do absolutely nothing with it other than continue to capitulate to the Supreme Court, as centrist democrats are want to do.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Certainly, Congress holds the power of the purse, if that is the point you are making just spit it out.

It’s much more fun to list the things they could do with that power instead of saying “we control the power of the purse though” like whiny pouty babies and do absolutely nothing with it other than continue to capitulate to the Supreme Court, as centrist democrats are want to do.

It is a balance of power thing.  Until the court went off the deep end no one cared.

Now the Republicans are loving it and the Democratics do not have the votes to change it.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
It’s much more fun to list the things they could do with that power instead of saying “we control the power of the purse though” like whiny pouty babies and do absolutely nothing with it other than continue to capitulate to the Supreme Court, as centrist democrats are want to do.

\\

It is a balance of power thing.  Until the court went off the deep end no one cared.

Now the Republicans are loving it and the Democratics do not have the votes to change it.

Always with the excuses for democrats. Did they have the votes last summer when some protesters interrupted John Robert’s’ supper so they immediately passed a bill in a 396-27 vote to increase their security? Remind me was Nancy pelosi willing to use her power then or no?

Democrats need to be held accountable too traps.

they could do with that power instead of saying “we control the power of the purse though”

So, essentially what you are saying is that 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 in addition to 6 have merit.

anyways, just another lie from that arsehole. He claims congress can't regulate the scotus. But they can. Even if it's only "the power of the purse", that is, in fact, a form of regulation.

Odd that one of the top members of the entire court system in this country would be caught on such a simple matter of definition. It's almost as if they are used to making up their own self-serving definitions whenever they please.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:
\\

It is a balance of power thing.  Until the court went off the deep end no one cared.

Now the Republicans are loving it and the Democratics do not have the votes to change it.

Always with the excuses for democrats. Did they have the votes last summer when some protesters interrupted John Robert’s’ supper so they immediately passed a bill in a 396-27 vote to increase their security? Remind me was Nancy pelosi willing to use her power then or no?

Democrats need to be held accountable too traps.

Any attempt to reform the court during the last Congress would have been filibustered in the Senate due to the two "Democratic" Senators who are bought & paid for by the billionaires, as you well know. So no, the Democratics in Congress didn't have the votes. That along with all the Republicans voting in a block, but you just want to blame the Democratics and ignore the Republicans.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Certainly, Congress holds the power of the purse, if that is the point you are making just spit it out.

It’s much more fun to list the things they could do with that power instead of saying “we control the power of the purse though” like whiny pouty babies and do absolutely nothing with it other than continue to capitulate to the Supreme Court, as centrist democrats are want to do.

Just to note, since you went there, that the Constitution says the Justices have to be paid.  It would be no surprise if this court's interpretation of that would extend to paying for court operations.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
Always with the excuses for democrats. Did they have the votes last summer when some protesters interrupted John Robert’s’ supper so they immediately passed a bill in a 396-27 vote to increase their security? Remind me was Nancy pelosi willing to use her power then or no?

Democrats need to be held accountable too traps.

Any attempt to reform the court during the last Congress would have been filibustered in the Senate due to the two "Democratic" Senators who are bought & paid for by the billionaires, as you well know.  So no, the Democratics in Congress didn't have the votes.  That along with all the Republicans voting in a block, but you just want to blame the Democratics and ignore the Republicans.

Trapper I desperately need you to slow down and read before responding. Stop responding to the post you think you’re reading and respond to the post you’re reading instead.

The post you are responding to is not about reform. The post you are responding to is a changed that Congress passed in defense of the Supreme Court, just last year. Doing what the court wants them to do. This has nothing to do with the filibuster. They simply could have just not done that and said best of luck getting out of your driveway sam Alito. instead they capitulate.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
It’s much more fun to list the things they could do with that power instead of saying “we control the power of the purse though” like whiny pouty babies and do absolutely nothing with it other than continue to capitulate to the Supreme Court, as centrist democrats are want to do.

Just to note, since you went there, that the Constitution says the Justices have to be paid.  It would be no surprise if this court's interpretation of that would extend to paying for court operations.

Oh the court says so? Awesome. If they don’t do it I bet they’ll sic the Marshall of the Supreme Court on the halls of Congress and make them do it it. 

Grow up trapper. Fucking facists are going to be at your throat before you realize that saying “well actually I think we do need to pay for Clarence Thomas’ $10,000 lunch because Clarence Thomas says so” is part of the problem

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Any attempt to reform the court during the last Congress would have been filibustered in the Senate due to the two "Democratic" Senators who are bought & paid for by the billionaires, as you well know.  So no, the Democratics in Congress didn't have the votes.  That along with all the Republicans voting in a block, but you just want to blame the Democratics and ignore the Republicans.

Trapper I desperately need you to slow down and read before responding. Stop responding to the post you think you’re reading and respond to the post you’re reading instead.

The post you are responding to is not about reform. The post you are responding to is a changed that Congress passed in defense of the Supreme Court, just last year. Doing what the court wants them to do. This has nothing to do with the filibuster. They simply could have just not done that and said best of luck getting out of your driveway sam Alito. instead they capitulate.

I sort of assume that a thread has more than one post at a time. Your response in which you brought up the Act adding additional security for the Justices was replying to a post about the Democratics not having the votes to reform the court. The posts are related and my answer stands.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
Trapper I desperately need you to slow down and read before responding. Stop responding to the post you think you’re reading and respond to the post you’re reading instead.

The post you are responding to is not about reform. The post you are responding to is a changed that Congress passed in defense of the Supreme Court, just last year. Doing what the court wants them to do. This has nothing to do with the filibuster. They simply could have just not done that and said best of luck getting out of your driveway sam Alito. instead they capitulate.

I sort of assume that a thread has more than one post at a time.  Your response in which you brought up the Act adding additional security for the Justices was replying to a post about the Democratics not having the votes to reform the court.  The posts are related and my answer stands.

Your answer is garbled nonsense because you can’t defend the indefensible and refuse to admit that democrats aren’t the picture perfect leaders in this moment that you like to pretend they are.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Just to note, since you went there, that the Constitution says the Justices have to be paid.  It would be no surprise if this court's interpretation of that would extend to paying for court operations.

Oh the court says so? Awesome. If they don’t do it I bet they’ll sic the Marshall of the Supreme Court on the halls of Congress and make them do it it. 

Grow up trapper. Fucking facists are going to be at your throat before you realize that saying “well actually I think we do need to pay for Clarence Thomas’ $10,000 lunch because Clarence Thomas says so” is part of the problem

Somewhere in this thread I noted that this situation, if the whole court said it, would be a Constitutional Crisis.

Which side would the executive branch, which has the departments which pay the bills, honor? If the executive branch did pay the courts' bills anyway what would the Congress do.

All due to Altios big mouth and poorly thought out statement.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

I sort of assume that a thread has more than one post at a time.  Your response in which you brought up the Act adding additional security for the Justices was replying to a post about the Democratics not having the votes to reform the court.  The posts are related and my answer stands.

Your answer is garbled nonsense because you can’t defend the indefensible and refuse to admit that democrats aren’t the picture perfect leaders in this moment that you like to pretend they are.

Dude, much of the time you are sane, but when you get into these threads you seem to lose it.

FTR I am always supporting policies, not parties.  I have said on this board that I agree with some of the actions Trump & the Republicans took when he was President.  As for my support of the Democratic Party, the reason is that many of the policies that a majority of that party support are ones I support, and since the only other rational choice in our politics is to support the Republican Party, and since many of the policies the majority of that party support I do not support the choice of supporting the Democratic Party is obvious.

"I am always supporting policies, not parties."

While I do agree that Thom Hartman fights from the left, still, this quote is a zinger...

...one of the Barbies said:

“In Barbieland, corporations are not people, and money is not considered protected free speech!”

I suppose it shouldn’t surprise me that Barbie has more common sense than Sam Alito, but there it is.

https://hartmannreport.com/p/is-sam-alito-barbielands-nightmare-c97

Trapper Gus wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
Your answer is garbled nonsense because you can’t defend the indefensible and refuse to admit that democrats aren’t the picture perfect leaders in this moment that you like to pretend they are.

Dude, much of the time you are sane, but when you get into these threads you seem to lose it.

FTR I am always supporting policies, not parties.  I have said on this board that I agree with some of the actions Trump & the Republicans took when he was President.  As for my support of the Democratic Party, the reason is that many of the policies that a majority of that party support are ones I support, and since the only other rational choice in our politics is to support the Republican Party, and since many of the policies the majority of that party support I do not support the choice of supporting the Democratic Party is obvious.

And you will continue to lose because of it. Enjoy following dick Durbin into the abyss. “Oh John Roberts said no to my request for him to testify? Ho hum guess there’s nothing I can do”

So long as you and your party keep acting like that, Sam Alito is right, the Supreme Court is in fact more powerful because you continue to concede that yeah they are.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Dude, much of the time you are sane, but when you get into these threads you seem to lose it.

FTR I am always supporting policies, not parties.  I have said on this board that I agree with some of the actions Trump & the Republicans took when he was President.  As for my support of the Democratic Party, the reason is that many of the policies that a majority of that party support are ones I support, and since the only other rational choice in our politics is to support the Republican Party, and since many of the policies the majority of that party support I do not support the choice of supporting the Democratic Party is obvious.

And you will continue to lose because of it. Enjoy following dick Durbin into the abyss. “Oh John Roberts said no to my request for him to testify? Ho hum guess there’s nothing I can do”

So long as you and your party keep acting like that, Sam Alito is right, the Supreme Court is in fact more powerful because you continue to concede that yeah they are.

Seriously?

What a bunch of horse pucky you write sometimes.

Please explain your "winning" stratagem of attacking the Democratics and ignoring the Republicans with regard to getting the Democratic policies enacted, which we both, I think, support, such as student loan forgiveness?

To be attacking the Democratics, el mass, as you seemingly propose we do, is a losing proposition for enacting Democratic supported policies.

I don't think he's advocating attacking Dems en mass, I think he's advocating criticizing them openly and honestly when they fall short or act weak or capitulate unnecessarily.

Cameron wrote:I don't think he's advocating attacking Dems en mass, I think he's advocating criticizing them openly and honestly when they fall short or act weak or capitulate unnecessarily.

If that is the case, then we are arguing at where to draw the line.

I have been super critical of Manchin & the former Democratic Senator from AZ, however in the 117th Congress their votes were critical to getting all Acts that the Democratics got through Congress and for all the Judges approved who were appointed by Joe, and they still are for the judges in the 118th Congress.

That they shit all over the Voting Rights Act, which would have stopped bunches of the anti-democracy laws in the States is abhorrent, but in politics you take the bad with the good and move one.

Which is my point. In such a closely divided Congress going to an attack on members of the party who are supporting more of the policies you want enacted can be self-defeating. Same thing as not voting for Clinton back in 2016. That fucked the country up something fierce. Voting matters. In fact, it is the number one freedom we have.

So, many things I would like to see done, are not getting done, even when the Democratic Party has complete control of Congress, as it did for about 3 months during the first Congress during the Obama Administration. But many more things that I don't want to see getting done occurred when the Republicans had control, thus my support for all Democratics in general elections.

Voting for Democrats does not obligate one to carry water for them.

Cameron wrote:I don't think he's advocating attacking Dems en mass, I think he's advocating criticizing them openly and honestly when they fall short or act weak or capitulate unnecessarily.

This. Sam alito says that the Supreme Court is functionally above the other branches and can’t be held accountable by Congress or the president. Democrats do absolutely nothing to suggest that he isn’t dead on right. He’s constitutionally wrong, of course, but you actually have to do something to prove him wrong or he is functionally right. Democrats have shown themselves completely unwilling to stand up to them to this point, and that is not good. 

Do anything to suggest that you’re going to hold them accountable. When you ask Roberts to come to congress and he says no, subpoena him. Subpoena all of them. That’s such an easy and obvious step. Don’t give them the added security they ask for after they make wildly unpopular decisions. Not doing these things leaves me no faith whatsoever that they’ll actually entertain bigger court reforms. Talking about adding justices is way beyond the pale when they’re not even willing to do the smallest things to stand up to them.

-------
Since too many posts were made, this topic has been divided automatically. You can find the rest of this topic here :
https://spartanswill.forumotion.com/t26059-the-supreme-court