US Supreme Court Justices grumble

[ZiprHead]

What is the constitutional basis for the decision by SCOTUS that it's okay for presidents to break the law if it's part of their duties?

 

[crazyfingers]

Except I reject your notion the 2020 and 2024 presidential elections presented to me and for me a “clear moral divide.”

Then you are either blind, psychopathic, or stupid.

Now, interestingly enough I could be all three, blind, psychopathic, stupid, and you remain wrong!

Perhaps, whatever you believe as moral/immoral, isn’t! Are you a absolutist? Subjectivist? Relativist? Utilitarianist? Normativist?

Or maybe I’m the smart one as for me neither candidate was morally palatable. Or maybe I am the smart one for not perceiving this as involving morality.

I appreciate you treat your view of “clear moral divide” as so ineluctable to be the equivalent of denying 2+2=4, equivalent of denying gravity causes objects to fall back to earth at 9.8 meters per second squared. I understand you perceive your claim and beliefs as immutable, laws of nature. They’re aren’t.

Why don't you knock off the useless blather and why don't you explain how Harris could have possibly been anywhere near as immoral, evil, dangerous to democracy and peace and all that's good than Trump?

You might want to reference this short list of Trump's immoral behavior

List of Trump's Immoral History | GCRR

A Short List of Mr. Trump’s Immoral and Corrupt History.

www.gcrr.org

 

[Jarhyn]

No, kingmaking is entirely the topic of this thread. They are grumbling about conflicts of interest in a process of kingmaking, and expectations to recuse being ignored.

Trying to pretend that it isn't is dishonest. That is the topic of this thread: the thin skin of justices being expected to act with propriety, not doing that, and then complaining about criticism. The propriety in question surrounds conflicts of interest and with the constitution's clear language and the actual stated intents of the drafters.

So no, go fish.

 

[lostone]

Except I reject your notion the 2020 and 2024 presidential elections presented to me and for me a “clear moral divide.”

Then you are either blind, psychopathic, or stupid.

Now, interestingly enough I could be all three, blind, psychopathic, stupid, and you remain wrong!

Perhaps, whatever you believe as moral/immoral, isn’t! Are you a absolutist? Subjectivist? Relativist? Utilitarianist? Normativist?

Or maybe I’m the smart one as for me neither candidate was morally palatable. Or maybe I am the smart one for not perceiving this as involving morality.

I appreciate you treat your view of “clear moral divide” as so ineluctable to be the equivalent of denying 2+2=4, equivalent of denying gravity causes objects to fall back to earth at 9.8 meters per second squared. I understand you perceive your claim and beliefs as immutable, laws of nature. They’re aren’t.

One sold out group of lawmakers would allow corporations to continue to to steal your labor and your wallet. The other would do the same, but also steal your home, your human rights, and diminish your livelihood, in perpetuity. That's far from being the same.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Why don't you knock off the useless blather and why don't you explain how Harris could have possibly been anywhere near as immoral, evil, dangerous to democracy and peace and all that's good than Trump?

You might want to reference this short list of Trump's immoral behavior

List of Trump's Immoral History | GCRR

A Short List of Mr. Trump’s Immoral and Corrupt History.

www.gcrr.org

Perhaps it'd be better off like this.

President Trump, while President conspired to get multiple State Legislatures and the Secretary of State of Georgia to amend their actual election results. The President's team went as far as to come up with a plot to have the Vice President cede the election results to the House, a power he did not have. They went as far as to change the statement used by the Vice President that was uttered by several previous Vice Presidents in the rubber stamping of election results, in order to open the door to having Trump get the election through the House. All of this is documented fact. This was a grave violation against his oath to the Constitution he took in 2017.

How is it possible for a person to say they adhere to the principles of the Constitution to passively accept Trump as an election winner by not supporting Trump's primary opponent, in this case VP Harris. Harris was not unfit to lead. Harris was not unqualified to lead. Harris was not a radical or a danger to the nation. What is the calculus to justify doing nothing?

This wasn't Kodos v Kang. This was Kodos v a Democrat, and that some people think the two are the same is terribly worrisome.

 

[lostone]

Some people do not know the difference between petty theft and grand larceny over $100,000. Or Between vandalism and high treason.

 

[Shadowy Man]

It is a common thing I have been seeing in the right wing, conspiracy types. If two things are similar in kind then they are automatically the same irrespective of degree.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is a common thing I have been seeing in the right wing, conspiracy types. If two things are similar in kind then they are automatically the same irrespective of degree.

Or as Emily Lake likes to call it, Moore-Coulter.

 

[Patooka]

is this essentially “partisan hacks” because you dislike or disagree with the opinion?

No, it’s because they are partisan hacks helping Cheato destroy democracy.
Some people want that. Are you one of them?

Thank you kindly for regurgitating the claim. I’m well aware of the claim. I suspect many others having read this thread are well aware of the claim. The natural progression is to substantiate the claim. Repetition of the claim is a broken record.

Sorry pal. I have no cure for your willful blindness. I am sure some here have the patience to wade through pages of mind numbing faux legalese. Most, however, recognize it for what it is. A re-run.

I am sure some here have the patience to wade through pages of mind numbing faux legalese.

Inferring you lacked the patience to “wade through pages” of my post, and also suggesting you didn’t, which means you lack the requisite knowledge of the content of my post to opine my post constitutes as “mind numbing faux legalese.”

Sorry pal. I have no cure for your willful blindness.

Ostensibly, neither for your intentionally conspicuous pretense that you’ve read what I posted, yet you ironically alleged I have “willful blindness.” Pot meet kettle.

Ultimately you have already made up your mind, thereby obviating any desire or need for you to respond to the substance of my posts and much less read them. Given that, the comment “your willful blindness” is amusing.

Please do us all a favour and stop talking like your posts are typed by chatgpt. Kthnx.

See how I supplied my opinion without egregiously using circumlocution throughout my assertion in a conscious and deliberate attempt to have my point misconstrued? Give it a fucking go, son.

 

[bilby]

Except I reject your notion the 2020 and 2024 presidential elections presented to me and for me a “clear moral divide.”

Then you are either blind, psychopathic, or stupid.

More politely, I'd say "lacks any reasonable sense of pragmatism".

I wouldn't. Fascists depend to a grest extent upon the gentility and politeness of the masses, who hesitate to intrude upon immoral acts for fear of being thought unfair, unreasonable, or intolerant.

The only reasons I can see not to oppose Trump in every way, and by every means, possible are:

Ignorance of who he is and how he abuses any power he gets (blindness);

An expectation that his actions will benefit (or at least not harm) you personally, with abject and blatant disregard for the harms he will do to others (psychopathy);

Or an inability to understand the implications of his rise to power (stupidity).

I see no value in politeness in this, as the blind will not see it, the psycopathic will not care, and the stupid will not understand.

 

[bilby]

maybe I’m the smart one

The evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[bilby]

The problem as I see it is that in a functional modern representative democratic republic, most political disagreements are fairly minor. They are passionately fought over, sure; But regardless of the outcome, not very much really changes.

When a genuine disruptor, that has the potential to seriously damage the whole system, comes along, people find it hard to drop their petty party politics, and to recognise that one of these things is no longer like the other.

An analogy:

An office has a workplace consultative committee, that handles a small budget for staff morale, with two factions that constantly trade back and forth.

The secretaries want to spend the funds on providing herbal teas in the canteen, and to stop providing cookies. The file clerks want to spend the funds on cookies, and to stop providing herbal tea.

Most staff are bolted-on supporters of one or the other faction, but a few waverers change their minds each year, so sometimes the secretaries are pissed off that they need to provide their own herbal teas; And sometimes the file clerks are pissed off that they have to bring in their own cookies.

Then in comes a new file clerk, who promises to burn down the canteen, and to take pot-shots at the fleeing secretaries with a sniper rifle.

Thinking that he is just a larrikin who talks big, the file clerks put him up as their candidate, and (to everyone's surprise) he wins. He is found lugging a gasoline can into the building, but HR take a long time over deciding whether this is a disciplinary offense. Similarly, he is seen to have a long gun, and goes out to buy ammo for it, but perhaps he just likes hunting.

Still, he keeps on telling everyone that he is planning to burn down the building, and to shoot his factional opponents when they flee.

Is it really a good idea for the file clerks to keep on voting for this guy? Even if he claims to be one of them? Even though he rarely even mentions cookies, or herbal teas, and seems not to have a coherent policy on either?

I mean, I can see how one might really despise the idea of having to pay for herbal teas you don't drink, and also have to pay for cookies from your own pocket; But is that really worse than having somebody burn down the building and murder a bunch of your co-workers (even if he says he'll only murder the ones who spent your cookie money on herbal tea)?

 

[Swammerdami]

One might imagine that some Justices are devout and sincere believers in Leftism (whatever that is) and have a Leftist slant on the Social Contract embodied in the U.S. Constitution. Similarly some Justices, one might imagine, are sincere and devout Rightists. The Leftist judges will often dissent from a Right-thinking decision and vice versa. That's all well and good! Such a Justice would be applying sincerely his/her Brain, Heart and Conscience

But that is NOT what we see.

For example, consider the 2000 case Bush v. Gore. Stripped of lies and deliberate misconstructions, that case hinged on trivia, like whether 4 weeks were needed to inspect some ballots or 3 weeks would suffice. No Rightism vs Leftism there! There is no Left-vs-Right debate on how quickly ballots can be counted. And yet, the SCOTUS vote was 5-4 with 4 D-appointed Justices voting for the D and 5 R-appointed Justices voting for the R.

The odds of such a split WITHOUT partisanship are about 500-to-1 against, but such coincidences are everyday occurrences. However anyone who thinks those Justices all "voted their consciences" in the Bush v. Gore decision needs their dosages adjusted!

There IS another way to view Bush v. Gore. It was a State's Rights case! Should the Florida Judiciary have the duty and privilege of deciding how Floridan ballots to choose Florida's Electors are counted by Floridans in the State of Florida? Those who pretend to believe in "State's Rights" would obviously say "Yes, Florida should count Florida's ballots." Yet in Bush v. Gore it was the 4 respectable Justices -- those with integrity and conscience -- who voted to uphold State's Rights. The 5 corrupt Justices appointed by Presidents from the GOP -- the Party which pretends to believe in State's Rights -- acted illicitly to COUNTERVENE State's Rights, since that was the way to give the election to Bush and Cheney.

Anyone who cannot understand this -- or pretends not to understand it -- either lacks intellect or is himself a cynical partisan hack.

If they act like partisan hacks, then they deserve to be called partisan hacks.

What do you mean by “partisan hacks”?

What specifically did “they” do that constitutes as “partisan hack”?

Or is this essentially “partisan hacks” because you dislike or disagree with the opinion? The Left and Right are known for deriding opinions of the court as “partisan” because of, ostensibly for some but in fact for others, disapproval of the decision.

SCOTUS right-wing Justices have repeatedly demonstrated partisanship. For decades Justices have voted closely to their Party alignment. Many MANY decisions are decided by close votes with all or almost all Justices voting "along Party lines."

Four example, consider the 2012 case National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. Four D-appointed Justices voted for Obamacare; four R-appointed Justices voted against Obamacare. The deciding vote preserving Obamacare was cast by the Chief Justice John Roberts.

Does this prove that Roberts is the exception to the rule? An R-appointed Justice who is not a cynical and corrupt tool of the Koch Brothers, Republican Party, etc.? I do not think so. Recall that Roberts got his start in politics working in the Reagan White House on voter suppression techniques; he was an apprentice of Karl Rove. I think Roberts understood that dissolving Obamacare would lead to severe chaos, with an anti-Republican backlash to follow. (Perhaps the other Republican whores on the Court also realized this, but arranged a 4-5 dissent to please their GOP stable-masters.)

Most recently the two Justices who are most clearly unconvicted felons voted to keep the Orange Fascist from being formally assigned the label "convicted felon." (I don't know why they were joined by Alito -- Is he also an unconvicted felon?) In any event it is absurd to imagine that the R-appointed Justices are anything but partisan hacks serving their masters.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Except I reject your notion the 2020 and 2024 presidential elections presented to me and for me a “clear moral divide.”

Then you are either blind, psychopathic, or stupid.

More politely, I'd say "lacks any reasonable sense of pragmatism".

I wouldn't. Fascists depend to a grest extent upon the gentility and politeness of the masses, who hesitate to intrude upon immoral acts for fear of being thought unfair, unreasonable, or intolerant.

The only reasons I can see not to oppose Trump in every way, and by every means, possible are:

Ignorance of who he is and how he abuses any power he gets (blindness);

An expectation that his actions will benefit (or at least not harm) you personally, with abject and blatant disregard for the harms he will do to others (psychopathy);

Or an inability to understand the implications of his rise to power (stupidity).

I see no value in politeness in this, as the blind will not see it, the psycopathic will not care, and the stupid will not understand.

Or what we have been seeing with big corporations--a fear of retaliation.

 

[NotreDame15]

If they act like partisan hacks, then they deserve to be called partisan hacks.

What do you mean by “partisan hacks”?

What specifically did “they” do that constitutes as “partisan hack”?

Or is this essentially “partisan hacks” because you dislike or disagree with the opinion? The Left and Right are known for deriding opinions of the court as “partisan” because of, ostensibly for some but in fact for others, disapproval of the decision.

The right-wing justices have broken with Precedence like it didn't mean anything. Their ruling on Loper-Bright, reversing Chevron was nothing but a power grab away from the branch that is supposed to Execute the law. Alito did some creative writing exercise and a rather poor look into history when they killed Dobbs, and then leaving it somewhat unresolved, while Thomas was fantasizing about ending Obgerfell and Griswold. In the Trump case, they went well beyond the scope of the actual case and then gave POTUS monarch like power. And finally, CJ Roberts didn't want to hear about issues like "standing" in a case that they (the right-wing) wanted to intervene in.

The right-wing justices have broken with Precedence like it didn't mean anything.

Surely if you’re capitalizing for dramatic emphasis you can use the correct word of “precedent.”

Yeah, I'm functionally illiterate when it comes to speling. But you did get wear eye wuz kumming frumm.

And I'll thank you for a well thought out and expressed reply. Not much of that coming from those supporting this court these days.

Their ruling on Loper-Bright, reversing Chevron was nothing but a power grab away from the branch that is supposed to Execute the law.

You undoubtedly disagree with the opinion. You’re disagreement doesn’t render the decision “nothing but a power grab away from the branch that is supposed to Execute the law.” After all, the case involved the overall question of which entity determines what the laws says, including an ambiguity in the law, and the Court affirms its the judiciary, not the agency within the executive branch. “But the Court did not extend similar deference to agency resolutions of questions of law. It instead made clear, repeatedly, that “[t]he interpretation of the meaning of statutes, as applied to justiciable controversies,” was “exclusively a judicial function.”

So the question becomes for me (and the nation) is one of functionality and presidence (I'm totally misspelling this every time now!, sometimes even on purpose). If a law or view of law is to change, why must it change. Violating presedense is dangerous because that bridge can only be burned so many times before SCOTUS becomes invalid and useless. There must be a compelling reason to violate it. Chevron wasn't broken. Chevron was working. Federal agencies weren't going out of their way to manage things well outside their scope, such as the EPA meddling with drug standards or the FDA seeing CAFE requirements.

You (or the far right conservative justices) can argue till your blue the justifications why it was obviously legally justified to reverse Chevron, but the liberals can easily pen why it wasn't. And generally, neither of these arguments would be wrong. Again, Constitutional Law is not objective. So what is the need to override a previous decision? Especially in the broader sense of the Chevron decision indicated that the Executive Branch had leniency to execute the law passed by Congress. If the Executive Branch was going too far outside the scope, Congress had the ability the fix that. This makes sense. The Executive Branch is charged with enforcing the law... and when it comes to regulation it is functionally impossible to encode everything. Interpolation and extrapolation will be necessary! It is guaranteed.

But now, with Loper-Bright, regulation needs to be explicit, which isn't remotely reasonable. So SCOTUS took a ruling on executive leniency in regulations that was reasonable and working just fine and broke it, making it harder for Congress to pass laws on regulations and tougher for the Executive Branch to enforce the intent of the Legislative Branch.

Alito did some creative writing exercise and a rather poor look into history when they killed Dobbs

No, this ^^ was the decision of Roe v Wade.
In Roe, the majority relied upon a judicially created doctrine to arrive at a meaning of the Due Process Clause in the 14th Amendment that protects abortion as a privacy right within the concept of Liberty of the DPC, contrary to the long understood meaning of Due Prcoess Clause.

Did they? Like they did with birth control access for married and then unmarried couples via a right to privacy? Or how parents have a right to privacy regarding child rearing? Most of the rights recognized by SCOTUS are fabrications of one kind of another, if not explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights. There is no explicit right to privacy. There is the Tenth Amendment, but that is always ignored by conservatives.

Perhaps you’ve heard or read of this judicially created doctrine recognizing the existence of unenumerated rights in the text of the Constitution that where the text does not support such an interpretation. The judicial doctrine, infamously known to many conservatives, whereas lovingly embraced by many liberals and moderates, is Substantive Due Process.

The long historical meaning of the phrase Due Process originates by first appearing in a 1354 English statute (“No man of what state or condition he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements nor taken, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without he be brought to answer by due process of law”). Sir Edward Coke, commenting upon the phrase Due Process of Law in the “Institutes of the Laws of England” spilled ink to explain the DPC referred to the procedural safeguards for the deprivation of rights and liberties, such the procedural protections for the deprivation of rights and liberties enumerated in the Magna Charta. “No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or deprived of his freehold or his liberties or free customs, or outlawed or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, nor shall we come upon him or send against him, except by a legal judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” See Magna Charta.

For the sake of brevity, and avoid potentially boring you with several centuries of English judicial, American colonial and early U.S. judicial, development of the meaning of Due Process, the clause referred to procedural protections to deprive rights and liberties. After all the plain text the legal authority to take away life, liberty, and property. “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” 14th Amendment. The plain text necessarily acknowledges the authority of the State to take away those three rights where due process is followed to do so. Roe and its progeny of recognizing unenumerated rights and elevating them beyond the reach of procedural protections simply doesn’t adhere to the plain text or historical meaning of Due Process.

The Dobbs majority, contrary to your assertion, invoked historical evidence to sufficiently arrive at a historical meaning contrary to Roe.

Did they though? Again, via hyper-technicality, they created an argument. Great. So did the Liberals. Had the Liberals had the majority, that would be law. Having a partisan majority is relevant to legal interpretation, but that doesn't mean the argument is sound (see every decision that has been reversed). In a more meaningful way, looking more broadly, the question is 'is a woman privy to herself?' Where does the line of Government intrusion into her life no longer violate the implied Constitutional right to privacy. You can't get blood from a person without a warrant! Yet, somehow, I'm supposed to rise and provide grand applause to a hyper-technical argument that somehow implies that a woman has no right to treat herself as she deems reasonable? If the state can't take my blood without due cause, how in the hell is logical to say a state can enforce my wife to endure pregnancy and give birth, with all of the consequences involved... without relying on pretzel logic? Having personally given a blood sample and observed my wife's pregnancy and daughter's birth, I can easily conclude which one was more involved.

In judicial review, interpretation of the law must make sense. It is contradictory to suggest invading the privacy of someone to take their blood is more invasive that forcing a woman to endure pregnancy and birth... not without first legally recognizing there is a third party involved, which was not done in Dobbs. It makes no sense! So again, the Roberts court took something that was working and broke it.... and broke it in a manner so brazenly offensive, as not to draw up boundary lines, letting the states try to figure it out for themselves, all the while Thomas was fantasizing about Obergfell and Griswold.

Are you familiar with the Lawrence v Texas decision? This case ignored years of its own precedent, decades of its own precedent, to recognize a privacy interest within the Liberty Clause of the 14th Amendment DPC. See opinion here https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZO.html

The Lawrence decision fits within your parameter of “creative writing exercise and a rather poor look into history” as it overturned a 17 year old precedent of Bowers v Hardwick. Based upon your parameters there’s a reasonable expectation you’ll have similar derision for the disdain for the “breaking of Precedence like it didn’t mean anything.”

Again, this is an issue of you being under the illusion that constitutional law is objective. I care what is right. Adherence to constitutional law is important, but such an adherence can not be an excuse to violate people's rights. Justices O'Conner and Kennedy were conservative as all heck, but they understood the importance of rights.

This isn’t to deny SCOTUS conservatives as “partisan hacks” as I can’t show such a negative. However, these decisions do not demonstrate “partisan hacks” as at least two of those decisions you reference have a reasonably sound foundation within the text and meaning of the law(s). In other words, they reached a meaning/interpretation of the law consistent and in adherence to discovering and discerning what the law says. As opposed to a meaning and interpretation not supported by the plain text and historical understanding and conjured within the mind of a justice and inspired/conceived because of their own personal/political/ideological beliefs.

They are meddling with laws that were working and functional, for partisan reasons, because they (and their benefactors) wanted it that way. SCOTUS's job is to see to unresolvable constitutional questions and issues. This court is just paving the road with the wish list of The Heritage Foundation.

I get that my response is soft on Judicial citations, but as I explained, the subjective nature of Constitutional Law really makes those things less important than the broader application of oversight on Constitutional Law. Again, I thank you for your reply as it was stuffed with content and observations that were worth reading.

Not much of that coming from those supporting this court these days.

I would not construe my position as “supporting this court these days.” Rather, I’m addressing the underlying issue of the Court is partisan based upon a facile reason, dislike or disagreement with the Court rulings, yourself ostensibly excluded. Given the paucity of substantive replies, indeed the prominent nonsense replies, speaks for itself.

Yeah, here is the thing, unlike yourself, I'm not under the illusion that Constitutional Law is remotely objective. We wouldn't need SCOTUS otherwise. The nine Supreme Court justices are obscenely skilled and could successfully argue that a cat was actually a dog in court.

Textual interpretation, whether the Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, Plato’s “Republic” in original Greek, “Best Poor Man’s Country” by Lemon, “God, Evil, and Free Will” by Plantinga, a statute, a novel, are amenable to the same practices of interpretation, some utilized daily, such as plain text meaning.

Plain text meaning, the words of a text are paramount, what the words express and/or what they convey, including contextual definitions, their definitions from common usage as revealed in a dictionary, etc, is what the words mean. Words do have a limited range of meaning, rendering highly capable the efficient communication of a message, prose, writing, speech, etcetera.

The Constitution is amenable to the same practices of interpretation. We can read various provisions and understand a meaning: 1.) “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” A rebellion or invasion and public safety is necessary to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus. 2.) “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,” Every 2 years those in the HOR are required to again be “chosen” for another 2 years and election of a new person every two years for those not presenting themselves to be “chosen.”

Of course, I do not suggest the entire exercise of reading and interpreting the Constitution is so easy was cave man can do it. A definition or concept of what words and phrases mean or reference is at times required to interpret the Constitution.

“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

What does “rebellion” mean? What does “rebellion”‘reference? What does “Invasion” mean? What does invasion reference?

Again, words have a limited range of meaning. The words “Invasion” and “Rebellion” were defined at the time the Constitution was composed and ratified. I’m not merely referring to dictionary meanings of the era, but the writings of people of the era revealing how they used those words, writings discussing what those words mean, debates, writings of this provision, writings and debates at the ratification conventions, etcetera, along with the legal meanings.

This process revealed the word “speech” in 1790 didn’t include libel, slander, illuminating for us today what isn’t protected by the Free Speech Clause. The phrase “due process of law” enjoys a long history of legal writing, from England, the colonial U.S., and subsequently U.S. jurisprudence, or inform us the phrase regarded procedural protections.

Now, I have no pretense this is a scientific method. However, it is a method closer to any semblance of objectivity in relation to another approach of making up meanings for the words or redefining words. It is said for those Senate laws/edicts Nero disfavored he would affix them to the top of the posts in the Roman Forum. The point being no or only the very few can know what is in the law or what the law says or protects since the law is practically concealed, much like an interpretative method of redefining words or new meanings.

The approach of making up meanings or redefining contravenes a characteristic of placing the law into writing, to reasonably fix rights, obligations, privileges, in the law, thereby protecting those rights, privileges, and announcing obligations etc. the Free Speech Clause offers illusory protection where its meaning isn’t fixed in the written law and subject to a redefining the phrase to protect nothing, or a new meaning that protects nothing.

Otherwise, absent any such notion there is a meaning that existed when the Constitution was drafted and ratified, all the rebukes here are vacuous, as fhe allegations of partisan Court is then based upon their partisan beliefs that are contrary to the opinions.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Dissension at the Supreme Court as justices take their anger public - CNNPolitics

Supreme Court justices have revealed a new level of defensiveness and anger in recent weeks, showing irritation with public expectations, the news media and one another.

The extraordinary public display extends beyond any single justice or case, although the majority's decision to let a Texas near-ban on abortions take effect has plainly triggered much of the consternation.

What did they expect?

On Thursday, Samuel Alito became the fifth of the nine justices to speak out, denouncing critics he said were seeking to portray the court as "sneaky" and "sinister" in an attempt "to intimidate" the justices.

Alito told a Notre Dame Law School audience that the court has been wrongly cast as "a dangerous cabal ... deciding important issues in a novel, secretive, improper way, in the middle of the night."

Then Amy Coney Barrett's speech at the McConnell Center of the University of Louisville in Kentucky. Mitch McConnell himself introduced her, at that place that was named after him. He had successfully obstructed Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court, something that he once chuckled over. He also got ACB in the court shortly before the Nov-2020 election.

"My goal today is to convince you that the court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks," Barrett told the audience. "The media, along with hot takes on Twitter, report the results of decisions," she said, according to local media reports at a speech where no audio or video recordings were allowed. "It leaves the reader to judge whether the court was right or wrong based on whether she liked the results of the decision."

If they act like partisan hacks, then they deserve to be called partisan hacks.

Justice Clarence Thomas at the Notre Dame Law School last month:

"I think the media makes it sound as though you are just always going right to your personal preferences," Thomas said. "If they think you're anti-abortion or something personally, they think that's the way you'll always come out."

Self-pity.

Justice Stephen Breyer is promoting a new book, and he also spoke out.

The senior liberal has urged audiences not to take such confidence for granted. He also had urged people not to see the justices as "junior-varsity politicians."

Breyer, too, has criticized journalists and politicians for identifying justices by the presidents who appointed them and their political parties. The Bill Clinton appointee also argues that the current 6-3 split at the high court does not reflect politics or ideology but rather jurisprudential methods.

Is that serious? The conservative Justices were appointed by Republican Presidents and the liberal ones by Democratic ones.

Decisions in closely watched cases often follow the familiar lines. In the 2020-21 term, the six conservative justices (over liberal dissent) narrowed the reach of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and ruled against union organizers on agricultural land. The recent disputes regarding abortion, the eviction moratorium and asylum policy also split the justices largely by ideological and political affiliation.

If they act like partisan hacks, then they deserve to be called partisan hacks.

What do you mean by “partisan hacks”?

What specifically did “they” do that constitutes as “partisan hack”?

Or is this essentially “partisan hacks” because you dislike or disagree with the opinion? The Left and Right are known for deriding opinions of the court as “partisan” because of, ostensibly for some but in fact for others, disapproval of the decision.

I can easily ask why you seem so against people criticizing Supreme Court justices. Perhaps you are an authoritarian? A reasonable person simply wouldn't care and move on.

 

[NotreDame15]

Except I reject your notion the 2020 and 2024 presidential elections presented to me and for me a “clear moral divide.”

Then you are either blind, psychopathic, or stupid.

Now, interestingly enough I could be all three, blind, psychopathic, stupid, and you remain wrong!

Perhaps, whatever you believe as moral/immoral, isn’t! Are you a absolutist? Subjectivist? Relativist? Utilitarianist? Normativist?

Or maybe I’m the smart one as for me neither candidate was morally palatable. Or maybe I am the smart one for not perceiving this as involving morality.

I appreciate you treat your view of “clear moral divide” as so ineluctable to be the equivalent of denying 2+2=4, equivalent of denying gravity causes objects to fall back to earth at 9.8 meters per second squared. I understand you perceive your claim and beliefs as immutable, laws of nature. They’re aren’t.

Why don't you knock off the useless blather and why don't you explain how Harris could have possibly been anywhere near as immoral, evil, dangerous to democracy and peace and all that's good than Trump?

You might want to reference this short list of Trump's immoral behavior

List of Trump's Immoral History | GCRR

A Short List of Mr. Trump’s Immoral and Corrupt History.

www.gcrr.org

“Maybe you could knock off the useless blather” and cease treating your perception of the presidential election as a epic struggle between moral and immoral, like a religious fundy, as the only perception. Let’s begin there.

Next, if both candidates suck for me, regardless of whatever source for your morality by which you seek to impose and evaluate other people, then it doesn’t make any sense for me to vote for either, your personal moral evaluations being irrelevant.

Are you a religious fundie? You and others could surely qualify in this instance as they view this presidential race as some Star Wars-esque battle of morality.

Like you, I know of innumerable religious people who say Harris is immoral, her views morally reprehensible, her proposed policies morally repugnant, so they must vote for Trump. And like you and others they’re just as resolute in their moral convictions. Yet somehow you, not them, have the absolute, immutable, right moral beliefs, descended straight down from Mt. Sinai on two stone tablets hanging from your living room walls, by which you decree others not sharing in your moral perceptions are the lost ones.

 

[NotreDame15]

is this essentially “partisan hacks” because you dislike or disagree with the opinion?

No, it’s because they are partisan hacks helping Cheato destroy democracy.
Some people want that. Are you one of them?

Thank you kindly for regurgitating the claim. I’m well aware of the claim. I suspect many others having read this thread are well aware of the claim. The natural progression is to substantiate the claim. Repetition of the claim is a broken record.

Sorry pal. I have no cure for your willful blindness. I am sure some here have the patience to wade through pages of mind numbing faux legalese. Most, however, recognize it for what it is. A re-run.

I am sure some here have the patience to wade through pages of mind numbing faux legalese.

Inferring you lacked the patience to “wade through pages” of my post, and also suggesting you didn’t, which means you lack the requisite knowledge of the content of my post to opine my post constitutes as “mind numbing faux legalese.”

Sorry pal. I have no cure for your willful blindness.

Ostensibly, neither for your intentionally conspicuous pretense that you’ve read what I posted, yet you ironically alleged I have “willful blindness.” Pot meet kettle.

Ultimately you have already made up your mind, thereby obviating any desire or need for you to respond to the substance of my posts and much less read them. Given that, the comment “your willful blindness” is amusing.

Please do us all a favour and stop talking like your posts are typed by chatgpt. Kthnx.

See how I supplied my opinion without egregiously using circumlocution throughout my assertion in a conscious and deliberate attempt to have my point misconstrued? Give it a fucking go, son.

“Please do us all a favour and” pretend your replies are typed by ChatGPT, more likely you’d have an intelligent reply to the substance.

See how I supplied my opinion without egregiously using circumlocution throughout my assertion in a conscious and deliberate attempt to have my point misconstrued? Give it a fucking go, son.

Indeed, as a matter of fact for you, absolute zero reply is the best way for you to express your vacuous opinion, as opposed to having others yield to your 10 word limit, derived no doubt from an aversion to reading. “Give it a go” boy!

 

[laughing dog]

There is enough vacuous hot air here to keep a balloon fleet circling Earth for a couple of decades.

 

[Elixir]

There is enough vacuous hot air here to keep a balloon fleet circling Earth for a couple of decades.

The boy learned a few new words - why deny him the pleasure of trying them out?