SCOTUS

[Typical Lax Dad]

Yup, MTG is ‘everyone’. You got me.

If I’m responsible for every Republican loon, are you responsible for every Democrat loon?

You always say we are, even if we're not Democrats.

You are not referring to yourself correct? Because even if you claim you are not one, your post's on here almost entirely come from a democratic perspective. What the hell is so so wrong with admitting what you really are politically? Do you realize that makes it harder to accept what you say, at least in terms of political ideology?

Joe

No need to get worked up. What's it like thinking anyone who disagrees with you is a liberal Democrat? Sad you think we have to pick a specific side, that we can't support different issues from multiple parties.

At the national level and state level in my area, voting Democrat is like eating moldy, stale bread. Voting Republican is like eating a sandwich of moldy, stale bread with a hot steaming turd in the middle.

I responded to a false assertion with the fact that it's actually happening. Like I've said a few times, I just like calling out the far right B.S. It spews forth hourly on here. Claiming teachers want to teach 5 year olds sex ed. Or that an entire party is full of lunatics. Just two of many in the past day.

But sure, if it makes you happy, keep discussing posters rather than ideas. I can accept what people say (if it makes sense), even if I disagree with them ideologically. Why you would automatically discount someone if they don't think like you do?

There's ZERO ACTUAL "Far-Right" discourse pushed on this thread. Not even close to FAR right. That's where you are wrong. Go on Reddit, Twitter, etc. You will be slapped in the face at just what Far-Right discourse actually IS.

Am I discounting you? Not in the slightest. That's your misconception of the situation. Can't help you there...

Joe

Yikes, you must 'live' in some deep dark regions of the net...what do YOU consider to be "Far-Right" views?

No…Levittown (just joking Joe).

[JoeMauer89]

Yup, MTG is ‘everyone’. You got me.

If I’m responsible for every Republican loon, are you responsible for every Democrat loon?

You always say we are, even if we're not Democrats.

You are not referring to yourself correct? Because even if you claim you are not one, your post's on here almost entirely come from a democratic perspective. What the hell is so so wrong with admitting what you really are politically? Do you realize that makes it harder to accept what you say, at least in terms of political ideology?

Joe

No need to get worked up. What's it like thinking anyone who disagrees with you is a liberal Democrat? Sad you think we have to pick a specific side, that we can't support different issues from multiple parties.

At the national level and state level in my area, voting Democrat is like eating moldy, stale bread. Voting Republican is like eating a sandwich of moldy, stale bread with a hot steaming turd in the middle.

I responded to a false assertion with the fact that it's actually happening. Like I've said a few times, I just like calling out the far right B.S. It spews forth hourly on here. Claiming teachers want to teach 5 year olds sex ed. Or that an entire party is full of lunatics. Just two of many in the past day.

But sure, if it makes you happy, keep discussing posters rather than ideas. I can accept what people say (if it makes sense), even if I disagree with them ideologically. Why you would automatically discount someone if they don't think like you do?

There's ZERO ACTUAL "Far-Right" discourse pushed on this thread. Not even close to FAR right. That's where you are wrong. Go on Reddit, Twitter, etc. You will be slapped in the face at just what Far-Right discourse actually IS.

Am I discounting you? Not in the slightest. That's your misconception of the situation. Can't help you there...

Joe

Yikes, you must 'live' in some deep dark regions of the net...what do YOU consider to be "Far-Right" views?

Exactly what I described on twitter and other mediums and what you yourself agreed with as well in a post in Essex "Sin Bin" Extreme views that get pushed due to their ability to elicit emotion based on an algorithm. None of that stuff on here. If you think PB and a few others a Far-Right, that's laughable...
Joe

[JoeMauer89]

Yup, MTG is ‘everyone’. You got me.

If I’m responsible for every Republican loon, are you responsible for every Democrat loon?

You always say we are, even if we're not Democrats.

You are not referring to yourself correct? Because even if you claim you are not one, your post's on here almost entirely come from a democratic perspective. What the hell is so so wrong with admitting what you really are politically? Do you realize that makes it harder to accept what you say, at least in terms of political ideology?

Joe

No need to get worked up. What's it like thinking anyone who disagrees with you is a liberal Democrat? Sad you think we have to pick a specific side, that we can't support different issues from multiple parties.

At the national level and state level in my area, voting Democrat is like eating moldy, stale bread. Voting Republican is like eating a sandwich of moldy, stale bread with a hot steaming turd in the middle.

I responded to a false assertion with the fact that it's actually happening. Like I've said a few times, I just like calling out the far right B.S. It spews forth hourly on here. Claiming teachers want to teach 5 year olds sex ed. Or that an entire party is full of lunatics. Just two of many in the past day.

But sure, if it makes you happy, keep discussing posters rather than ideas. I can accept what people say (if it makes sense), even if I disagree with them ideologically. Why you would automatically discount someone if they don't think like you do?

There's ZERO ACTUAL "Far-Right" discourse pushed on this thread. Not even close to FAR right. That's where you are wrong. Go on Reddit, Twitter, etc. You will be slapped in the face at just what Far-Right discourse actually IS.

Am I discounting you? Not in the slightest. That's your misconception of the situation. Can't help you there...

Joe

Yikes, you must 'live' in some deep dark regions of the net...what do YOU consider to be "Far-Right" views?

No…Levittown (just joking Joe).

Eh, Levittown is alright. Some good stores there. I can take a few shots about LI, we have been through way worse.

Joe

[Typical Lax Dad]

Yup, MTG is ‘everyone’. You got me.

If I’m responsible for every Republican loon, are you responsible for every Democrat loon?

You always say we are, even if we're not Democrats.

You are not referring to yourself correct? Because even if you claim you are not one, your post's on here almost entirely come from a democratic perspective. What the hell is so so wrong with admitting what you really are politically? Do you realize that makes it harder to accept what you say, at least in terms of political ideology?

Joe

No need to get worked up. What's it like thinking anyone who disagrees with you is a liberal Democrat? Sad you think we have to pick a specific side, that we can't support different issues from multiple parties.

At the national level and state level in my area, voting Democrat is like eating moldy, stale bread. Voting Republican is like eating a sandwich of moldy, stale bread with a hot steaming turd in the middle.

I responded to a false assertion with the fact that it's actually happening. Like I've said a few times, I just like calling out the far right B.S. It spews forth hourly on here. Claiming teachers want to teach 5 year olds sex ed. Or that an entire party is full of lunatics. Just two of many in the past day.

But sure, if it makes you happy, keep discussing posters rather than ideas. I can accept what people say (if it makes sense), even if I disagree with them ideologically. Why you would automatically discount someone if they don't think like you do?

There's ZERO ACTUAL "Far-Right" discourse pushed on this thread. Not even close to FAR right. That's where you are wrong. Go on Reddit, Twitter, etc. You will be slapped in the face at just what Far-Right discourse actually IS.

Am I discounting you? Not in the slightest. That's your misconception of the situation. Can't help you there...

Joe

Yikes, you must 'live' in some deep dark regions of the net...what do YOU consider to be "Far-Right" views?

No…Levittown (just joking Joe).

Eh, Levittown is alright. Some good stores there. I can take a few shots about LI, we have been through way worse.

Joe

I hope it made you smile.

[jhu72]

The Supreme Court's attack on the Clean Water Act was too extreme for John Roberts.

Shows Coney Barrett to be the lying bag of sh*t we thought her to be. This isn't a Supreme Court, it is a Star Chamber. A tool of oppression, to hold down the little people to cater to the monied, the powerful, the political elite. Another step on the path to fascism!

[NattyBohChamps04]

Yikes, you must 'live' in some deep dark regions of the net...what do YOU consider to be "Far-Right" views?

Maybe incel forums, militia places, white power stuff, some of the Q anon conspiracy stuff, the chan sites, etc. maybe? But that's more extremist libertarian and extremist right than far right.

Saying Democrats want to teach 3 year olds about sex, Democrats stole the election and that Democrats are mentally ill is the sample of the far right stuff we get around here.

But I guess Joe may be right - the sad thing is that all the lies and stuff PB posts to flame people around here is considered mainstream Right these days.

[MDlaxfan76]

Yikes, you must 'live' in some deep dark regions of the net...what do YOU consider to be "Far-Right" views?

Maybe incel forums, militia places, white power stuff, some of the Q anon conspiracy stuff, the chan sites, etc. maybe? But that's more extremist libertarian and extremist right than far right.

Saying Democrats want to teach 3 year olds about sex, Democrats stole the election and that Democrats are mentally ill is the sample of the far right stuff we get around here.

But I guess Joe may be right - the sad thing is that all the lies and stuff PB posts to flame people around here is considered mainstream Right these days.

That's probably fair and it's why I'm so uncomfortable with that "mainstream Right" set of views. Pretty darn strange, relative to actual conservatism.

[Peter Brown]

Yikes, you must 'live' in some deep dark regions of the net...what do YOU consider to be "Far-Right" views?

Maybe incel forums, militia places, white power stuff, some of the Q anon conspiracy stuff, the chan sites, etc. maybe? But that's more extremist libertarian and extremist right than far right.

Saying Democrats want to teach 3 year olds about sex, Democrats stole the election and that Democrats are mentally ill is the sample of the far right stuff we get around here.

But I guess Joe may be right - the sad thing is that all the lies and stuff PB posts to flame people around here is considered mainstream Right these days.

That's probably fair and it's why I'm so uncomfortable with that "mainstream Right" set of views. Pretty darn strange, relative to actual conservatism.

Nattys post is a bewildering set of unsupported claims, semi to full falsehoods, and bizarre conspiracy, but what’s really germane is everyone’s lack of acknowledgement of the overarching principle of so much of what upsets the left: their extreme views simply bring the mockery on themselves. Cassady Campbell’s video humor is so hilarious because he’s tapped a well into the left’s extremes. If you can’t laugh at those videos, there’s a great chance you’re not simply a liberal but you’ve bought into the furthest left lunacy.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Another non-contribution. Boycott Stupid. Seriously.

[JoeMauer89]

Another non-contribution. Boycott Stupid. Seriously.

Boycott narrow-mindedness.

Joe

[MDlaxfan76]

Boycott no contribution?

[cradleandshoot]

The Supreme Court's attack on the Clean Water Act was too extreme for John Roberts.

Shows Coney Barrett to be the lying bag of sh*t we thought her to be. This isn't a Supreme Court, it is a Star Chamber. A tool of oppression, to hold down the little people to cater to the monied, the powerful, the political elite. Another step on the path to fascism!

More dumbassery from the dirty doctor. Justice Barrett sits on the SCOTUS, all you can do is play with yourself and prove how intolerant and irrational you are becoming. So sad to witness your cognitive decline as you plummet into the abyss of FLP hatred.

[cradleandshoot]

Boycott no contribution?

So you have now become the self proclaimed arbiter of what a valid contribution on this forum is? If you spent less time taking the bait you would do what any intelligent person would do.. ignore what he says and activate your ignore function. You seem more hell bent on pounding your head against the whining and complaining about what PB has to say. I bet you have your drywall repair guy on speed dial. I had a similar issue with a poster on this forum. Ignoring this person was the best move I ever made. PB is living rent free in your head and enjoying every minute of it.

[Seacoaster(1)]

The Supreme Court's attack on the Clean Water Act was too extreme for John Roberts.

Shows Coney Barrett to be the lying bag of sh*t we thought her to be. This isn't a Supreme Court, it is a Star Chamber. A tool of oppression, to hold down the little people to cater to the monied, the powerful, the political elite. Another step on the path to fascism!

The Court's only real conservative finds himself in the minority, and unhappy with the gang of five:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... water-act/

"Conservatives on the Supreme Court on Wednesday reinstated for now a Trump-era environmental rule that limited the ability of states to block projects that could pollute rivers and streams, a decision more notable because Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined liberals in calling it an abuse of the court’s emergency powers.

The five members of the court who granted the request from Louisiana, other states and the oil and gas industry did not explain their reasoning, which is common in emergency requests at the court.

But Justice Elena Kagan, dissenting along with Roberts and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, said her conservative colleagues were turning what critics have called the court’s “shadow docket” into something it was never intended to be.

The majority’s order “renders the Court’s emergency docket not for emergencies at all,” Kagan wrote. “The docket becomes only another place for merits determinations — except made without full briefing and argument.”

Kagan said the applicants had waited months to bring the request and provided no evidence that they would suffer irreparable harm if the Supreme Court did not intervene, which is one of the essential elements necessary for putting on hold a lower court’s order.

Democratic members of Congress have been increasingly critical of the court’s use of the emergency docket, which has expanded since Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court to provide a more consistent conservative majority. She granted the stay along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh.

Stephen Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor who has documented the court’s use of the shadow docket, said Wednesday’s order was significant for what it says about the chief justice’s role on the court.

“This is the ninth time that Chief Justice Roberts has publicly been on the short side of a 5-4 ruling since Justice Barrett’s confirmation,” Vladeck said. “Seven of the nine have been from shadow docket rulings. This is the first time, though, that he’s endorsed criticism of the shadow docket itself.”

The fight is over a rule put forward by the Environmental Protection Agency during the Trump administration. It limited objecting states’ ability to stop pipeline and other projects that could pollute navigable waters regulated by the Clean Water Act, reacting to complaints that some states and Native American tribes were abusing their discretion.

A coalition of states and environmental groups challenged the rule, saying it was at odds with 50 years of environmental regulations. After President Biden was elected, the agency said it would revise the rule and asked judges in three cases filed against the regulation to return the rule to the agency.

Two did, but a third, Judge William H. Alsup in San Francisco, vacated it nationwide. Louisiana and other plaintiffs defending the rule appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, but judges there declined to put Alsup’s order on hold while they considered the case. That’s when those states went to the Supreme Court.

If allowed to stand, Louisiana and groups such as the American Petroleum Institute told the court, “the district court’s decision will become an easy-to-replicate blueprint for a new Administration’s premature elimination of rules adopted by the prior Administration, with the help of aligned plaintiffs and a single, sympathetic district court.”

Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, representing the EPA, acknowledged in her reply to the Supreme Court that Alsup “lacked authority to vacate the 2020 rule without first determining that the rule was invalid.” But she said his ruling only returned the regulations to the status quo while the agency came up with a new rule.

Barrett in an address Monday told a California audience that in judging the court’s actions, citizens should read the court’s ruling. But a frequent criticism of the court’s “shadow docket” decisions is that often no reasoning is provided. That was true in Wednesday’s order.

Kagan, in her dissent, said the court’s precedents allow emergency intervention only in “extraordinary circumstances,” including that one of the parties will suffer irreparable injury.

The states wanting to stop Alsup’s decision did not even attempt that, she said.

“The applicants have not identified a single project that a State has obstructed in the five months since the District Court’s decision,” she wrote. “Still more, they have not cited a single project that the court’s ruling threatens, or is likely to threaten, in the time before the appellate process concludes.”

Kagan noted that action in the appeals court is imminent, and that by intervening without full briefing and argument, the Supreme Court majority “signals its view of the merits.”

Kagan and the court’s other liberals have become frequent critics of the shadow docket. And while Roberts has sometimes been on their side regarding the outcome of one of the emergency petitions, it is the first time he has joined their criticism of the process.

The court’s order came in Louisiana, et al. v. American Rivers, et al."

[dislaxxic]

Why the Clarence and Ginni Thomas Scandal Vanished From the News

Dahlia Lithwick is the BEST. Love her prose...

It’s easy enough to understand why the Ginni Thomas texts managed to be both horrifying and nothing at the same time. In part they benefit from the soft presumption of comedy that Donald Trump brought to public life. If something is goofy enough, if it involves a Sharpie, or an open plea to the Proud Boys, or the blurting out of a crackpot QAnon theory, then it doesn’t rise to the level of real or substantial political discourse. We would likely have taken Ginni Thomas’ texts more seriously if they implicated actual legal theories as opposed to advocating for the immediate release of the Kraken. Relatedly, it’s easy to blow Ginni off because, as George Will puts it, in his defense of her conduct, “She is, politically, mad as a hatter. The shelves in her mental pantry groan beneath the weight of Trumpian hysterics about the 2020 presidential election having been stolen and the republic’s certain ruination under Joe Biden.” It’s the old “it can’t be serious if its bonkers” defense, and the Thomas’ have been reaping the benefit of this particular chestnut for decades. The failure to comprehend that someone can be unserious and deadly serious at the same time may well be one of the reasons democracy is so constantly imperiled.

The other reason we’ve all moved on is that there is seemingly nothing to be done. Everyone agrees that until and unless there is a binding, enforceable code of conduct on Supreme Court Justices, they will do what they want. Besides, the justices are seemingly unbothered and unfazed by the prospect of plummeting approval ratings and a decline in public confidence. (Today’s shadow docket decision is Exhibit a billion to that effect) In other words, if the same nine people who are meant to be fighting for the idea of an apolitical court have given up on that project, there’s not much the rest of us can do about it either.

Of course that is completely wrong. No functioning democracy can operate at the whim of nine individuals, with lifetime tenure, who choose to have no workplace conduct rules at all. The fact is that whether Congress imposes a code of ethics on the high court, or the court enacts one for itself, there could be sustained and bipartisan momentum to create a court that isn’t a punchline to a joke it penned itself. But, of course that is the final reason we have all more or less moved on from Ginni and the is-it-a-coup-or-an-insurrection hair-splittery: it requires precisely the sort of sustained and bipartisan momentum that is difficult to muster when every institution seems to be melting down at the same time. But perhaps that, too, is the lesson. Institutions seem to be melting down all at the same time because of unenforceable norms, limited public attention, and the trickery of suggesting that partisan politics animates all things, including any effort to bolster norms.

..

[MDlaxfan76]

Boycott no contribution?

So you have now become the self proclaimed arbiter of what a valid contribution on this forum is? If you spent less time taking the bait you would do what any intelligent person would do.. ignore what he says and activate your ignore function. You seem more hell bent on pounding your head against the whining and complaining about what PB has to say. I bet you have your drywall repair guy on speed dial. I had a similar issue with a poster on this forum. Ignoring this person was the best move I ever made. PB is living rent free in your head and enjoying every minute of it.

I was referring to Joe, who keeps attacking fellow posters, personally, rather than add some new contribution to the discussion. I suspect he has perspectives that would be interesting to others, but that's not what he most frequently chooses to do. I wish he'd contribute. He certainly does on the lax threads, especially on the women's side.

PB is a troll.
Every day, many times per day, spreading actual lies, simply to incite negative responses.
Yup, just to tick off those like me.

[MDlaxfan76]

The Supreme Court's attack on the Clean Water Act was too extreme for John Roberts.

Shows Coney Barrett to be the lying bag of sh*t we thought her to be. This isn't a Supreme Court, it is a Star Chamber. A tool of oppression, to hold down the little people to cater to the monied, the powerful, the political elite. Another step on the path to fascism!

More dumbassery from the dirty doctor. Justice Barrett sits on the SCOTUS, all you can do is play with yourself and prove how intolerant and irrational you are becoming. So sad to witness your cognitive decline as you plummet into the abyss of FLP hatred.

What's your disagreement with him on this topic?
Do you support the use of the shadow docket this way?

[cradleandshoot]

Boycott no contribution?

So you have now become the self proclaimed arbiter of what a valid contribution on this forum is? If you spent less time taking the bait you would do what any intelligent person would do.. ignore what he says and activate your ignore function. You seem more hell bent on pounding your head against the whining and complaining about what PB has to say. I bet you have your drywall repair guy on speed dial. I had a similar issue with a poster on this forum. Ignoring this person was the best move I ever made. PB is living rent free in your head and enjoying every minute of it.

I was referring to Joe, who keeps attacking fellow posters, personally, rather than add some new contribution to the discussion. I suspect he has perspectives that would be interesting to others, but that's not what he most frequently chooses to do. I wish he'd contribute. He certainly does on the lax threads, especially on the women's side.

PB is a troll.
Every day, many times per day, spreading actual lies, simply to incite negative responses.
Yup, just to tick off those like me.

All I can tell you is the ignore function works very well. I'm guessing you are enjoying chasing your tail around in circles because you think PB is a troll. Are you on some sort of moral crusade to enlighten the hearts and minds of people on our forum?? I don't think you are stupid, i do wish I was your drywall repair guy. IMO Joe is not attacking anyone, your hypersensitive nature tells you he is. Go ahead and keep tormenting yourself, the ignore function works very well. The only other explanation is you you enjoy being a masochist. Go ahead and keep taking the bait...

[dislaxxic]

Go to work to sell your baloney, Cranky. We got this...and in this case, MD nailed it...

..

[Peter Brown]

Why the Clarence and Ginni Thomas Scandal Vanished From the News

Dahlia Lithwick is the BEST. Love her prose...

It’s easy enough to understand why the Ginni Thomas texts managed to be both horrifying and nothing at the same time. In part they benefit from the soft presumption of comedy that Donald Trump brought to public life. If something is goofy enough, if it involves a Sharpie, or an open plea to the Proud Boys, or the blurting out of a crackpot QAnon theory, then it doesn’t rise to the level of real or substantial political discourse. We would likely have taken Ginni Thomas’ texts more seriously if they implicated actual legal theories as opposed to advocating for the immediate release of the Kraken. Relatedly, it’s easy to blow Ginni off because, as George Will puts it, in his defense of her conduct, “She is, politically, mad as a hatter. The shelves in her mental pantry groan beneath the weight of Trumpian hysterics about the 2020 presidential election having been stolen and the republic’s certain ruination under Joe Biden.” It’s the old “it can’t be serious if its bonkers” defense, and the Thomas’ have been reaping the benefit of this particular chestnut for decades. The failure to comprehend that someone can be unserious and deadly serious at the same time may well be one of the reasons democracy is so constantly imperiled.

The other reason we’ve all moved on is that there is seemingly nothing to be done. Everyone agrees that until and unless there is a binding, enforceable code of conduct on Supreme Court Justices, they will do what they want. Besides, the justices are seemingly unbothered and unfazed by the prospect of plummeting approval ratings and a decline in public confidence. (Today’s shadow docket decision is Exhibit a billion to that effect) In other words, if the same nine people who are meant to be fighting for the idea of an apolitical court have given up on that project, there’s not much the rest of us can do about it either.

Of course that is completely wrong. No functioning democracy can operate at the whim of nine individuals, with lifetime tenure, who choose to have no workplace conduct rules at all. The fact is that whether Congress imposes a code of ethics on the high court, or the court enacts one for itself, there could be sustained and bipartisan momentum to create a court that isn’t a punchline to a joke it penned itself. But, of course that is the final reason we have all more or less moved on from Ginni and the is-it-a-coup-or-an-insurrection hair-splittery: it requires precisely the sort of sustained and bipartisan momentum that is difficult to muster when every institution seems to be melting down at the same time. But perhaps that, too, is the lesson. Institutions seem to be melting down all at the same time because of unenforceable norms, limited public attention, and the trickery of suggesting that partisan politics animates all things, including any effort to bolster norms.

..

Couple things here.

First, the article is good. It’s funny. And to some extent I agree that Ginni Thomas (no scotus spouse) really needs to step away from trying to ‘help’.

I disagree that she’s ‘mad as a hatter’. I think she’s genuinely kind and very patriotic, but somewhat naive in that DC bubble naïveté way of considering only their preferred exigency, rather than stepping back to reflect how some guy in Iowa looks at a similar situation. DC is a conglomeration of people with no real skill, so they try to convince themselves of utility by whatever means.

The underlying passion of Ginni springs from the correct feeling that Democrats rig the votes. The Dems always say, show me the fraud, but when the fraud is committed by ballot harvesting, street cash, and unsupervised city precincts, poof goes the fraud. You can’t prosecute what you don’t arrest.

The great thing about America, regardless of voting fraud, is we remain free to excel. So long as we remain free enough to excel, the Democrats can’t win. Far more votes are cast by people with ‘skin in the game’, and no one has more skin in the game than those who excel. That’s why Democrats must ruin the economy. They need to make everyone equally miserable. When far more voters are miserable, the jig of those with skin in the game outvoting those with no skin in the game is up.

This explains why people object to any nominee like KBJ. She’s going to vote to ruin this country with any case of substance. This explains general hostility to all things Democratic; the party seeks to destroy the womb from which it sprang forth. Americans need to be on constant guard against the cancer that is the Democratic Party; their policies and energy are like water weakening a houses foundation. We must remain free enough to keep the water out.