pos 'pubs being complete pieces of crap

[steve dave]

Are you anti vote by mail Dax?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chum1]

https://twitter.com/brianefallon/status/1257446936220782601

[MakeItRain]

https://twitter.com/brianefallon/status/1257446936220782601

Farmer asks fox to investigate what animal ate all of the chickens

[Spracne]

https://twitter.com/brianefallon/status/1257446936220782601

Farmer asks fox to investigate what animal ate all of the chickens

Chief Justice John Roberts is the fox in this metaphor?

[MakeItRain]

Yes. I'm sure he takes his role seriously, but my confidence in the entire supreme court is completely eroded, it has become just as partisan as the executive and legislative branches. If Bitch did in fact force this judge out, no crap, nothing at all will happen. I wish I linked the article I read a few weeks ago, but the number of 5-4 votes, by this current makeup of the court, is at an all-time high, by far.

Maybe one day I'll dig into the history of the SC and see if it has always been this way or if there was a change, pretty sure of the answer though.

[sonofdaxjones]

Over the last 6 months to a year, the Useful Idiots on the SCOTUS have made political comments on level that are almost unprecedented in SCOTUS history.

It's quite clear who the true partisans are on the SCOTUS and it ain't the right leaning justices.

[steve dave]

lmao


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sonofdaxjones]

lmao


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SD punches it straight to the tap out

[Spracne]

Yes. I'm sure he takes his role seriously, but my confidence in the entire supreme court is completely eroded, it has become just as partisan as the executive and legislative branches. If Bitch did in fact force this judge out, no crap, nothing at all will happen. I wish I linked the article I read a few weeks ago, but the number of 5-4 votes, by this current makeup of the court, is at an all-time high, by far.

Maybe one day I'll dig into the history of the SC and see if it has always been this way or if there was a change, pretty sure of the answer though.

This is a stub article, but you can find similar analyses everywhere. SCOTUS has always agreed more than it disagrees:

The ratio is staggering. According to the Supreme Court Database, since 2000 a unanimous decision has been more likely than any other result — averaging 36 percent of all decisions. Even when the court did not reach a unanimous judgment, the justices often secured overwhelming majorities, with 7-to-2 or 8-to-1 judgments making up roughly 15 percent of decisions. The 5-to-4 decisions, by comparison, occurred in only 19 percent of cases.

https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2018/06/those-5-to-4-decisions-on-supreme-court-9-to-0-is-far-more-common/

Justices are people. As such, they are subject to the same passions and prejudices as the world in which they live. SCOTUS has always tried to remain apolitical. Of course, concepts such as the Political Question Doctrine and Separation of Powers can look like political cudgels depending on whether you like or dislike the ultimate ruling. I just don't think it's fair or warranted to lump the Judicial Branch together with the two political branches of government. That erodes the public trust in the single institution that was designed to be a check on the otherwise unchecked potential of the political branches of government. It hasn't always been perfect, but over time it does a far better job protecting our rights than the Legislative and Executive Branches.

And don't forget that Roberts was the crucial 5th vote needed to uphold Obamacare. Since Kennedy's retirement, he has often stepped into the role of swing vote in sensitive cases.

By the way, SCOTUS is experimenting with broadcasting oral arguments live. I'll be listening to one tomorrow morning, and resident politics wonks may want to tune in next week when SCOTUS will hear arguments in the Trump tax return/financial records subpoena cases.

[MakeItRain]

Just saw that 5-4 stat was debunked on politifact.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that the judicial branch is just as partisan than the executive and legislative branches, but it's impossible for them to be fully removed from the partisanship when they were all nominated using litmus tests. Unlike dax, I don't think one party is more culpable than the other, it's just the nature of where we are now.

If we checked historically, I guess the litmus tests and partisanship bleeding into the SCOTUS has its roots in Roe v. Wade.

[Spracne]

Just saw that 5-4 stat was debunked on politifact.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that the judicial branch is just as partisan than the executive and legislative branches, but it's impossible for them to be fully removed from the partisanship when they were all nominated using litmus tests. Unlike dax, I don't think one party is more culpable than the other, it's just the nature of where we are now.

If we checked historically, I guess the litmus tests and partisanship bleeding into the SCOTUS has its roots in Roe v. Wade.

To me, it would be FDR and the New Deal era. Roosevelt threatened to "pack the court" (increase the number of justices from 9 to some number I forget; maybe 15 or 20?) unless the Court started upholding his programs as constitutional. (Nowhere does the Constitution specify that SCOTUS must have 9 justices; it's just been that way for a very long time. The original Court had 6 Justices, but as RBG recently opined, "9 seems like a good number to me."). During this era there was a staunch core of conservative justices referred to as "the Four Horsemen" (lol). Lots of 5-4 defeats for Roosevelt. Anyway, one of the justices who had reliably found the New Deal programs unconstitutional had a change of heart and started voting to uphold every single one. The whole confrontation between FDR and the Court is known as "the switch in time that saved nine". Thus, the limitless expansion of congressional authority pursuant to the Commerce Clause and the corresponding expansion of federal power that marked the 20th century.

The interesting thing about Roe is that it was far less controversial when decided than it later became.

[sys]

https://twitter.com/ReichlinMelnick/status/1259251913666805760

[michigancat]

https://twitter.com/ReichlinMelnick/status/1259251913666805760

Truly a piece of crap take

[Spracne]

https://twitter.com/ReichlinMelnick/status/1259251913666805760

Not saying he's not a piece of crap, but that article is merely Politico weaving a narrative of the conversation based on a few snippets from democrats who were on the call. Not exactly a primary source.

[sys]

fair point.

[Katpappy]

https://twitter.com/ReichlinMelnick/status/1259251913666805760

Sounds like Beto complaining about the lack of servants, due to the virus.

[bucket]

https://twitter.com/robertfaturechi/status/1240746141236359168?s=21.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://twitter.com/DelWilber/status/1260765064195383301

They seem to be zeroing in on Burr.

[Dugout DickStone]

Stepped down.  This guy is a major POS

[Institutional Control]

Stepped down.  This guy is a major POS

Stepped down as chair of the intelligence committee, he should probably step down as Senator.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chum1]

Trump doesn't care about insider trading. He does, however, hate Burr chairing the IC.

[DaBigTrain]

https://twitter.com/mattgaetz/status/1267615035767107586

[star seed 7]

https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1267594880634806279

[Institutional Control]

https://twitter.com/Shishterelliana/status/1267503968252579842?s=20

[8manpick]

https://twitter.com/Shishterelliana/status/1267503968252579842?s=20

I don't think that was about Garner, I think it was to Bloomberg for choking maybe?

[Institutional Control]

Thanks. I looked it up and he was referring to Mitt Romney and how he choked like a dog.