SCOTUS

[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.

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

Why single out one justice???? The ruling was 5 to 4. Why not rip on all 5 justices??? He called her a lying bag of poop. Oddly enough the moral crusader you are said diddly jack squat about his despicable comment on a sitting supreme court justice. What say you about the defamatory comment Doc made??? I'm waiting with baited breath as to how you overlooked such a defamatory comment. In your opinion is it fine and dandy to call a sitting supreme court justice a POS??? So if I refer to Justice Jackson as a POS in some future ruling she may make you wont have a problem with that?? You had the perfect opportunity to take Doc 72 out behind the woodshed, in typical fashion for you... YOU IGNORED HIS COMMENT!!! You wonder why PB makes fun of you all the time??? You have no reason to at least confront the FLP folks on this forum you constantly suck up to when you know they are out of line.

[Peter Brown]

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?

Why single out one justice???? The ruling was 5 to 4. Why not rip on all 5 justices??? He called her a lying bag of poop. Oddly enough the moral crusader you are said diddly jack squat about his despicable comment on a sitting supreme court justice. What say you about the defamatory comment Doc made??? I'm waiting with baited breath as to how you overlooked such a defamatory comment. In your opinion is it fine and dandy to call a sitting supreme court justice a POS??? So if I refer to Justice Jackson as a POS in some future ruling she may make you wont have a problem with that?? You had the perfect opportunity to take Doc 72 out behind the woodshed, in typical fashion for you... YOU IGNORED HIS COMMENT!!! You wonder why PB makes fun of you all the time??? You have no reason to at least confront the FLP folks on this forum you constantly suck up to when you know they are out of line.

This is such a commendable post. It deserves hall of fame status.

Exposing misogyny and hypocrisy, a 2-fir-1 center alley split. Perfection.

+1,000

[JoeMauer89]

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.

Could not have said it any better. Thanks!

Joe

[JoeMauer89]

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

..

What a crock of turd!



Joe

[dislaxxic]

Read the article that was linked!! Barrett makes statements that not only shade the truth but most clearly contradict the truth. Here's a chance to go beneath the surface and look at watch ACTUALLY happened...then debate it Your usual devolution into personal attack and mockery is predictable and unhelpful. Take Joe's advice and contribute to the actual discussion...in this case, a conversation about the shadow docket...

..

[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?

Why single out one justice???? The ruling was 5 to 4. Why not rip on all 5 justices??? He called her a lying bag of poop. Oddly enough the moral crusader you are said diddly jack squat about his despicable comment on a sitting supreme court justice. What say you about the defamatory comment Doc made??? I'm waiting with baited breath as to how you overlooked such a defamatory comment. In your opinion is it fine and dandy to call a sitting supreme court justice a POS??? So if I refer to Justice Jackson as a POS in some future ruling she may make you wont have a problem with that?? You had the perfect opportunity to take Doc 72 out behind the woodshed, in typical fashion for you... YOU IGNORED HIS COMMENT!!! You wonder why PB makes fun of you all the time??? You have no reason to at least confront the FLP folks on this forum you constantly suck up to when you know they are out of line.

Here's why:

Just two days earlier, Justice Amy Coney Barrett once again declared that the Supreme Court is not political during a speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation. Americans concerned that a particular ruling was “purely results-driven,” she said, should “read the opinion.” A close reading, Barrett asserted, would help the public decide if the ruling is “designed to impose the policy preferences of the majority” or an honest effort to “determine what the Constitution and precedent requires.”

[MDlaxfan76]

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

..

What a crock of turd!



Joe

Do you have an opinion on the use of the shadow docket, Joe?

Cradle apparently does not.

[JoeMauer89]

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

..

What a crock of turd!



Joe

Do you have an opinion on the use of the shadow docket, Joe?

Cradle apparently does not.

My response was to Dislaxxic's barb.

Joe

[dislaxxic]

Just two days earlier, Justice Amy Coney Barrett once again declared that the Supreme Court is not political during a speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation. Americans concerned that a particular ruling was “purely results-driven,” she said, should “read the opinion.” A close reading, Barrett asserted, would help the public decide if the ruling is “designed to impose the policy preferences of the majority” or an honest effort to “determine what the Constitution and precedent requires.”

add the paragraph that follows what MD quoted above...

But those upset by Wednesday’s decision, which strayed so far from all known law that even Chief Justice John Roberts was driven to dissent, cannot “read the opinion”—because there is none. If that logic-free attack on the Clean Water Act is not a “purely results-driven” attempt to “impose the policy preferences of the majority,” it’s hard to see what is.

..

[JoeMauer89]

add the paragraph that follows what MD quoted above...

Just two days earlier, Justice Amy Coney Barrett once again declared that the Supreme Court is not political during a speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation. Americans concerned that a particular ruling was “purely results-driven,” she said, should “read the opinion.” A close reading, Barrett asserted, would help the public decide if the ruling is “designed to impose the policy preferences of the majority” or an honest effort to “determine what the Constitution and precedent requires.”

But those upset by Wednesday’s decision, which strayed so far from all known law that even Chief Justice John Roberts was driven to dissent, cannot “read the opinion”—because there is none. If that logic-free attack on the Clean Water Act is not a “purely results-driven” attempt to “impose the policy preferences of the majority,” it’s hard to see what is.

..

The Supreme Court's job is not to drive policy, but rather interpret/apply the law to the situation being ruled upon. ACB is right. There you go!

Joe

[dislaxxic]

So, the fact that when she says "read the opinion" ... and there IS no opinion to read (a feature of the shadow docket)...that's just fine with you? Maybe you have info about what Justice Barrett MEANT when she made that statement?

..

[JoeMauer89]

So, the fact that when she says "read the opinion" ... and there IS no opinion to read (a feature of the shadow docket)...that's just fine with you? Maybe you have info about what Justice Barrett MEANT when she made that statement?

..

I don't know enough to comment on that.

Joe

[MDlaxfan76]

add the paragraph that follows what MD quoted above...

Just two days earlier, Justice Amy Coney Barrett once again declared that the Supreme Court is not political during a speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation. Americans concerned that a particular ruling was “purely results-driven,” she said, should “read the opinion.” A close reading, Barrett asserted, would help the public decide if the ruling is “designed to impose the policy preferences of the majority” or an honest effort to “determine what the Constitution and precedent requires.”

But those upset by Wednesday’s decision, which strayed so far from all known law that even Chief Justice John Roberts was driven to dissent, cannot “read the opinion”—because there is none. If that logic-free attack on the Clean Water Act is not a “purely results-driven” attempt to “impose the policy preferences of the majority,” it’s hard to see what is.

..

The Supreme Court's job is not to drive policy, but rather interpret/apply the law to the situation being ruled upon. ACB is right. There you go!

Joe

Of course what she says is right.
But that's the whole point of the critique. She and her fellow 'conservative' justices ignored this and used the shadow docket, once again, to impact a policy outcome without even hearing arguments. There is no "interpret/apply the law to the situation being ruled upon"

Justice Roberts is in opposition, not necessarily to the ultimate decision, but to the process.

Do you have an opinion about the process?

[MDlaxfan76]

So, the fact that when she says "read the opinion" ... and there IS no opinion to read (a feature of the shadow docket)...that's just fine with you? Maybe you have info about what Justice Barrett MEANT when she made that statement?

..

I don't know enough to comment on that.

Joe

might want to read the article explain the topic?

[JoeMauer89]

add the paragraph that follows what MD quoted above...

Just two days earlier, Justice Amy Coney Barrett once again declared that the Supreme Court is not political during a speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation. Americans concerned that a particular ruling was “purely results-driven,” she said, should “read the opinion.” A close reading, Barrett asserted, would help the public decide if the ruling is “designed to impose the policy preferences of the majority” or an honest effort to “determine what the Constitution and precedent requires.”

But those upset by Wednesday’s decision, which strayed so far from all known law that even Chief Justice John Roberts was driven to dissent, cannot “read the opinion”—because there is none. If that logic-free attack on the Clean Water Act is not a “purely results-driven” attempt to “impose the policy preferences of the majority,” it’s hard to see what is.

..

The Supreme Court's job is not to drive policy, but rather interpret/apply the law to the situation being ruled upon. ACB is right. There you go!

Joe

Of course what she says is right.
But that's the whole point of the critique. She and her fellow 'conservative' justices ignored this and used the shadow docket, once again, to impact a policy outcome without even hearing arguments. There is no "interpret/apply the law to the situation being ruled upon"

Justice Roberts is in opposition, not necessarily to the ultimate decision, but to the process.

Do you have an opinion about the process?

The Justices aren't perfect, if she erred in this particular ruling its not the first time it's happened and won't be the last. I don't take this the way you want me to. I'm not going to make that jump you are and think that the Shadow Docket is going to become a comment occurrence. If that's what your hinting at, and it sure seems that way, that's a whole lot of projection on your part.

Joe

[MDlaxfan76]

add the paragraph that follows what MD quoted above...

Just two days earlier, Justice Amy Coney Barrett once again declared that the Supreme Court is not political during a speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation. Americans concerned that a particular ruling was “purely results-driven,” she said, should “read the opinion.” A close reading, Barrett asserted, would help the public decide if the ruling is “designed to impose the policy preferences of the majority” or an honest effort to “determine what the Constitution and precedent requires.”

But those upset by Wednesday’s decision, which strayed so far from all known law that even Chief Justice John Roberts was driven to dissent, cannot “read the opinion”—because there is none. If that logic-free attack on the Clean Water Act is not a “purely results-driven” attempt to “impose the policy preferences of the majority,” it’s hard to see what is.

..

The Supreme Court's job is not to drive policy, but rather interpret/apply the law to the situation being ruled upon. ACB is right. There you go!

Joe

Of course what she says is right.
But that's the whole point of the critique. She and her fellow 'conservative' justices ignored this and used the shadow docket, once again, to impact a policy outcome without even hearing arguments. There is no "interpret/apply the law to the situation being ruled upon"

Justice Roberts is in opposition, not necessarily to the ultimate decision, but to the process.

Do you have an opinion about the process?

The Justices aren't perfect, if she erred in this particular ruling its not the first time it's happened and won't be the last. I don't take this the way you want me to. I'm not going to make that jump you are and think that the Shadow Docket is going to become a comment occurrence. If that's what your hinting at, and it sure seems that way, that's a whole lot of projection on your part.

Joe

Except this has become a common occurrence under this Court...a dramatic expansion of the usage of the shadow docket...you might want to homework that one before saying it hasn't.

quickie primer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_docket

Since 2017[edit]
Use of the shadow docket for important rulings has increased precipitously since 2017.[9][15] This coincided with the presidency of Donald Trump, when the Department of Justice sought emergency relief (generally to stay lower court rulings against its executive actions[16]) from the Supreme Court at a far higher rate than had previous administrations, filing 41 emergency applications over Trump's four years in office (by comparison, over the prior 16 years the Obama administration and the Bush administration together filed only eight emergency applications).[9]

Rulings made by way of the shadow docket during Trump's term included rulings over his travel ban,[clarification needed] the diversion of military funds to the construction of a border wall on the U.S.–Mexico border, the prohibition of transgender people from openly serving in the United States military, use of the federal death penalty,[clarification needed] and restrictions on asylum seekers from Central America.[17][9] The Supreme Court granted 28 of the Trump administration's requests; in the 16 years prior, only four were granted.[15]

Following Trump's departure from office, the Court has made rulings against the Biden administration, putting an end to a federal eviction moratorium and nullifying the White House's attempt to end the Remain in Mexico policy. The latter was decided in a order two paragraphs long.[18] In September 2021, the shadow docket gained more prominence after the Court declined to block the Texas Heartbeat Act from being enforced and decided some technical matters concerning how it could be challenged in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson.[4]

In 2021, both the House Judiciary Committee and its Senate counterpart held its first hearings on the practice in February and September respectively.[4]

[JoeMauer89]

add the paragraph that follows what MD quoted above...

Just two days earlier, Justice Amy Coney Barrett once again declared that the Supreme Court is not political during a speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation. Americans concerned that a particular ruling was “purely results-driven,” she said, should “read the opinion.” A close reading, Barrett asserted, would help the public decide if the ruling is “designed to impose the policy preferences of the majority” or an honest effort to “determine what the Constitution and precedent requires.”

But those upset by Wednesday’s decision, which strayed so far from all known law that even Chief Justice John Roberts was driven to dissent, cannot “read the opinion”—because there is none. If that logic-free attack on the Clean Water Act is not a “purely results-driven” attempt to “impose the policy preferences of the majority,” it’s hard to see what is.

..

The Supreme Court's job is not to drive policy, but rather interpret/apply the law to the situation being ruled upon. ACB is right. There you go!

Joe

Of course what she says is right.
But that's the whole point of the critique. She and her fellow 'conservative' justices ignored this and used the shadow docket, once again, to impact a policy outcome without even hearing arguments. There is no "interpret/apply the law to the situation being ruled upon"

Justice Roberts is in opposition, not necessarily to the ultimate decision, but to the process.

Do you have an opinion about the process?

The Justices aren't perfect, if she erred in this particular ruling its not the first time it's happened and won't be the last. I don't take this the way you want me to. I'm not going to make that jump you are and think that the Shadow Docket is going to become a comment occurrence. If that's what your hinting at, and it sure seems that way, that's a whole lot of projection on your part.

Joe

Except this has become a common occurrence under this Court...a dramatic expansion of the usage of the shadow docket...you might want to homework that one before saying it hasn't.

quickie primer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_docket

So what are you getting at here? Your so quick to ensure my contribution to this thread? Are insinuating that this practice is tearing at the fabric of the Supreme Court? Or are you implying that it's the conservative judges amongst the bench that championing this practice and that they themselves are a threat to the fabric of the Supreme Court? My guess is it's the later, as you tend to take every little issue and think it's some massive threat to the existence of humanity. Remember, your personal anxieties need not be projected onto others in the form of your "opinion" You are not the moral police for this thread, or better yet, for humanity. Cradle said it perfectly earlier, you just CANNOT help yourself. Sad...

Joe

[Peter Brown]

add the paragraph that follows what MD quoted above...

Just two days earlier, Justice Amy Coney Barrett once again declared that the Supreme Court is not political during a speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation. Americans concerned that a particular ruling was “purely results-driven,” she said, should “read the opinion.” A close reading, Barrett asserted, would help the public decide if the ruling is “designed to impose the policy preferences of the majority” or an honest effort to “determine what the Constitution and precedent requires.”

But those upset by Wednesday’s decision, which strayed so far from all known law that even Chief Justice John Roberts was driven to dissent, cannot “read the opinion”—because there is none. If that logic-free attack on the Clean Water Act is not a “purely results-driven” attempt to “impose the policy preferences of the majority,” it’s hard to see what is.

..

The Supreme Court's job is not to drive policy, but rather interpret/apply the law to the situation being ruled upon. ACB is right. There you go!

Joe

Of course what she says is right.
But that's the whole point of the critique. She and her fellow 'conservative' justices ignored this and used the shadow docket, once again, to impact a policy outcome without even hearing arguments. There is no "interpret/apply the law to the situation being ruled upon"

Justice Roberts is in opposition, not necessarily to the ultimate decision, but to the process.

Do you have an opinion about the process?

The Justices aren't perfect, if she erred in this particular ruling its not the first time it's happened and won't be the last. I don't take this the way you want me to. I'm not going to make that jump you are and think that the Shadow Docket is going to become a comment occurrence. If that's what your hinting at, and it sure seems that way, that's a whole lot of projection on your part.

Joe

Except this has become a common occurrence under this Court...a dramatic expansion of the usage of the shadow docket...you might want to homework that one before saying it hasn't.

quickie primer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_docket

Since 2017[edit]
Use of the shadow docket for important rulings has increased precipitously since 2017.[9][15] This coincided with the presidency of Donald Trump, when the Department of Justice sought emergency relief (generally to stay lower court rulings against its executive actions[16]) from the Supreme Court at a far higher rate than had previous administrations, filing 41 emergency applications over Trump's four years in office (by comparison, over the prior 16 years the Obama administration and the Bush administration together filed only eight emergency applications).[9]

Rulings made by way of the shadow docket during Trump's term included rulings over his travel ban,[clarification needed] the diversion of military funds to the construction of a border wall on the U.S.–Mexico border, the prohibition of transgender people from openly serving in the United States military, use of the federal death penalty,[clarification needed] and restrictions on asylum seekers from Central America.[17][9] The Supreme Court granted 28 of the Trump administration's requests; in the 16 years prior, only four were granted.[15]

Following Trump's departure from office, the Court has made rulings against the Biden administration, putting an end to a federal eviction moratorium and nullifying the White House's attempt to end the Remain in Mexico policy. The latter was decided in a order two paragraphs long.[18] In September 2021, the shadow docket gained more prominence after the Court declined to block the Texas Heartbeat Act from being enforced and decided some technical matters concerning how it could be challenged in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson.[4]

In 2021, both the House Judiciary Committee and its Senate counterpart held its first hearings on the practice in February and September respectively.[4]

Does MD have any opinion about a fellow FLP calling Amy Coney Barrett a, let me quote, “POS”. I assume we all know what the acronym stands for.

It’s probably worth recalling that Amy took in two young kids of color, adopting them and providing them love, education, pride, family, and time. So I’m fascinated that the FLP stands on such righteous ground regarding the one female of the five votes, feebly calling a woman like this a “POS”.

I think you’d need to be Jesus Christ himself to have the standing to call a woman like this a “POS”.

Still no response from our tolerant left here, though. Just tryin’ to get others to learn all about the shadow docket, the new excuse to call a female justice a “POS”.

Too rich.

[MDlaxfan76]

add the paragraph that follows what MD quoted above...

Just two days earlier, Justice Amy Coney Barrett once again declared that the Supreme Court is not political during a speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation. Americans concerned that a particular ruling was “purely results-driven,” she said, should “read the opinion.” A close reading, Barrett asserted, would help the public decide if the ruling is “designed to impose the policy preferences of the majority” or an honest effort to “determine what the Constitution and precedent requires.”

But those upset by Wednesday’s decision, which strayed so far from all known law that even Chief Justice John Roberts was driven to dissent, cannot “read the opinion”—because there is none. If that logic-free attack on the Clean Water Act is not a “purely results-driven” attempt to “impose the policy preferences of the majority,” it’s hard to see what is.

..

The Supreme Court's job is not to drive policy, but rather interpret/apply the law to the situation being ruled upon. ACB is right. There you go!

Joe

Of course what she says is right.
But that's the whole point of the critique. She and her fellow 'conservative' justices ignored this and used the shadow docket, once again, to impact a policy outcome without even hearing arguments. There is no "interpret/apply the law to the situation being ruled upon"

Justice Roberts is in opposition, not necessarily to the ultimate decision, but to the process.

Do you have an opinion about the process?

The Justices aren't perfect, if she erred in this particular ruling its not the first time it's happened and won't be the last. I don't take this the way you want me to. I'm not going to make that jump you are and think that the Shadow Docket is going to become a comment occurrence. If that's what your hinting at, and it sure seems that way, that's a whole lot of projection on your part.

Joe

Except this has become a common occurrence under this Court...a dramatic expansion of the usage of the shadow docket...you might want to homework that one before saying it hasn't.

quickie primer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_docket

So what are you getting at here? Your so quick to ensure my contribution to this thread? Are insinuating that this practice is tearing at the fabric of the Supreme Court? Or are you implying that it's the conservative judges amongst the bench that championing this practice and that they themselves are a threat to the fabric of the Supreme Court? My guess is it's the later, as you tend to take every little issue and think it's some massive threat to the existence of humanity. Remember, your personal anxieties need not be projected onto others in the form of your "opinion" You are not the moral police for this thread, or better yet, for humanity. Cradle said it perfectly earlier, you just CANNOT help yourself. Sad...

Joe

It's a discussion, Joe.

Do some homework and then share your opinion and whatever perspective and thoughts you think are relevant. Don't attack personally.

Back to the discussion, Yes, it is the 'conservative' justices who are using this process to drive policy outcomes they desire. Not the 'liberal' ones.

This is quintessential judicial activism.
If the liberal justices were doing it would be the wrong process to decide cases.

Your hyperbolic projection of my views notwithstanding, I agree with Justice Roberts.

[MDlaxfan76]

ahhh, let me be clear.
I don't agree with calling ACB a "POS'.

I do think she's a hypocrite, an ideologue.

I agree with Roberts.