He probably wants to overturn Loving v. Virginia so he can get out of his own marriage without divorcing.
1 Like
Good!
Hey now. I posted that theory a week ago!
1 Like
Kind of bitchy for supposedly just calling balls and strikes
Justice Thomas said the left had adopted tactics that conservatives would not employ.
“You would never visit Supreme Court justices’ houses when things didn’t go our way,” he said. “We didn’t throw temper tantrums. It is incumbent on us to always act appropriately, and not to repay tit for tat.”
He added that conservatives had “never trashed a Supreme Court nominee.” He acknowledged that Merrick B. Garland, President Barack Obama’s third Supreme Court nominee, “did not get a hearing, but he was not trashed.”
“You will not see the utter destruction of a single nominee,” Justice Thomas said. “You will also not see people going to other people’s houses, attacking them at dinner at a restaurant, throwing things on them.”
He said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh had been subjected to particular abuse, but he referred only glancingly to his own brutal confirmation hearings, during which he angrily denied accusations of sexual harassment.
Taking sides on a contested point, Justice Thomas said the Senate Republicans who blockaded Mr. Garland’s nomination were following a rule that President Biden, then a senator, had proposed, “which is you get no hearing in the last year of an administration.”
So we have completely ignoring any kind of right wing activism towards judges including assassination attempts and quite obviously picking sides and then nodding approvingly towards blockading Garland with the little spiteful twist of mentioning that, in reality, it was Biden who really suggested that Supreme Court judges shouldn’t get a hearing. Something you’d hear a hack on the right wing nightly news make up
1 Like
And the rule no longer applied to Barrett obviously.
Boo-urns
1 Like
Apologies. Clearly I internalized what you said. I even gave you a bestof back in March.
lol laws
3 Likes
Surely a criminal referral to the DOJ is forthcoming and Garland will hold him responsible.
1 Like
Supreme Court Justices are subject to federal law
Imagine believing that in the year 2022.
2 Likes
That’s why Dems don’t want a vote. Their “conventional wisdom” is that this record has no upside but tremendous downside. And they’re on the first level not thinking about Villain and Villain’s downside
Glad more peoplw coming round to the truth that rule of law is a farcical myth
2 Likes
No it’s not. Not completely and not yet. If it was Trump would have stolen the election. We can’t get so cynical that we think we’re as bad as Russia, or everyone will just stop trying.
1 Like
The law is like the social contract about money. Money is “just made up” and has no “intrinsic value”. But if a critical mass of people believes in it, you get civilization because everyone else is forced to go along. The law is the same way.
2 Likes
Something something habit of obedience to an uncommanded sovereign something something
1 Like
Trump isn’t president solely because 2-3 republicans weren’t yet willing to just ignore the law. Those people have been fully run out of the party now and the law will be totally and completely ignored going forward. It has zero force. That’s not hyperbole. Literally zero.
The shibboleth the be republican today is one thing only, was the 2020 election stolen aka were they wrong to follow the law.
You are Russia.
3 Likes
This isn’t exactly true, the reality is actually worse in the sense that Republicans will continue to successfully pervert the law to their own ends. The law will continue to applied aggressively but asymmetrically. This has been true forever in the US (just ask any black person) but the Republicans are about the use all the tactics of systemic racism to oppress political opposition the same way they have historically oppressed black people. They actually benefit from powerful law enforcement because the cops are fascists on average and because the existence of a farcical legal system makes the eDems waste all their time debating the next impotent procedural move.
3 Likes
They will follow all the new anti-democratic laws they have written and simply ignore any others.
This is factually incorrect on many levels. Getting sick of posts like this.
I guess ramping up the hyperbole is a substitute for historical analysis nowadays.
3 Likes