SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[PeterMP]

14 minutes ago, samy316 said:

 

I know, right?  They can't be serious with that.  Dems made a big mistake running Hilary in 2016.  Joe Biden should've ran.  He would've easily defeated Trump, and prevented the madness that was to come afterwards.  Joe not running in 2016 was a terrible blow.  He would've gotten Independents out to vote.  Hilary's unlikability numbers were off the charts, even before Trump decided to run.

 

She literally lost to the dumbest, and the worst presidential candidate OF ALL TIME.  How do you lose to a psychopath like Trump?  It defies logic and understanding, yet Dems STILL defend her candidacy and her campaign strategy.  It's unbelievable.

 

Before the election cycle really starts, Hillary's favorable ratings were actually higher than Biden's.

 

 

 

 

So if you're sitting in 2015 and deciding who has a better chance of being President, Hillary and Biden are essentially the same and Hillary has recently had much higher numbers.  Hillary's numbers start to go down as the GOP machine goes to work on her and Biden's go up.  But if you think that Biden's numbers wouldn't have dropped too if he'd declared and the GOP would have gone to work on him, you're deluding yourself.

[Fergasun]

Here's the issue I have moving forward. 

 

I have disdain and derision for about 50 percent of Democratic agenda.  I have disdain and derision for 90 percent of the GOP agenda.   I have disdain and derision for about 90 percent of our political "leaders".  Low character, pieces of garbage who continue the looting of America in their own self interests.  

 

Both political parties need to be destroyed in their current form.  I am hand tied when truly talking about politics.

[samy316]

6 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Before the election cycle really starts, Hillary's favorable ratings were actually higher than Biden's.

 

 

 

 

So if you're sitting in 2015 and deciding who has a better chance of being President, Hillary and Biden are essentially the same and Hillary has recently had much higher numbers.  Hillary's numbers start to go down as the GOP machine goes to work on her and Biden's go up.  But if you think that Biden's numbers wouldn't have dropped too if he'd declared and the GOP would have gone to work on him, you're deluding yourself.

 

The GOP attacks on Biden, had he run in 2016, wouldn't have worked.  First of all, Biden is more likeable than Hilary, so Joe would've had a cushion to withstand the GOP attacks.  Second, he was more relatable with his experience in Congress and as a VP at that point in time than Hilary was as a Senator and her time as First Lady.  Look at Biden's approval ratings now.  The GOP attack machine is off the charts, but none of the Hunter Biden crap has stuck to Joe, or has lowered his ratings.  The reason he has a sub 40 approval rating, is mostly due to the economy.  The GOP attack machine worked against Hilary, but it wouldn't have worked against Joe, and it hasn't worked so far, during his first term.  The only marks against Joe Biden are the economy and his age.

Edited September 28, 2023 by samy316

[tshile]

*looks at charts*
 

oh hey Clinton’s favorability starts plummeting just before she resigns as Secretary of State citing “health concerns”

 

 😂 

[The Evil Genius]

31 minutes ago, Larry said:

Just pointing out - Hillary is not on the Supreme Court.  

 

 

 

She'd been a hell of a lot better than  3 of the last 4 appointed. 

 

Also..everyone this is a SCOTUS thread. I think we've gone off topic enough. 🤔 

Edited September 28, 2023 by The Evil Genius

[Renegade7]

Inside the tactics that won Christian vendors the right to reject gay weddings

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2023/09/24/alliance-defending-freedom-wedding-lawsuit/

 

Another example of someone shaking the box with us all in it to distract us

[Cooked Crack]

Quote

The states argue that they have the authority to regulate social media companies to ensure that users receive equal access to the platforms. 

 

Conservative anger that led to the laws being enacted in 2021 was fueled by the decisions of Twitter, Facebook and others to ban former President Donald Trump after his effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election results ended in his supporters storming the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. 

 

The laws were enacted before Twitter was taken over last year by billionaire Elon Musk, who has allied himself with conservative critics of the platform and allowed various banned users, including Trump, to return. 

 

Trump, now running again for president, filed a brief urging the court to hear the Florida case, arguing the law should be upheld

If we had a legitimate court this would be 9-0

[Cooked Crack]

 

[China]

Doesn't matter.  Those in Congress don't poll at the same numbers and they're the ones that would have to approve an increase in the number of justices.  No way it would get through Congress.

[China]

How the Billionaire Corrupted SCOTUS Could End Social Security, Medicare — and America

 

If the six Republican SCOTUS justices rule the way the oligarchs who support their extravagant lifestyles want, America could be a very, very different place in just a few years.
 

Republicans are “this close”—just a matter of months away—from ending Social Security, a goal they’ve worked toward ever since 1935. They’re hoping to use six Republicans on a corrupted Supreme Court to get there.

 

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse points out, in his book The Scheme and his YouTube series about same, that American oligarchs launched a campaign to seize control of the Supreme Court—and, thus, the American government—over 40 years ago and they’re now close to their goal of turning America back to the 1920s.

 

Recently we learned from ProPublica reporting that Clarence Thomas has been the featured attraction at several multi-million-dollar fundraising events put on by the Koch brothers to marshal resources that could apparently be used, in part, to bring cases before the Supreme Court. In previous years, the late Antonin Scalia often joined him at these events.

 

Now that the billionaires have succeeded in packing the Court with six hard-right justices who are perfectly willing to ignore federal law about ethics on federal courts and enthusiastic to dance to their benefactors’ tunes, we’re getting close to the point that David Koch envisioned in 1980 when he ran for Vice President on the Libertarian ticket.

 

His platform was clear, calling for the end of the EPA and other regulatory agencies, and the privatization of the Post Office, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public schools, libraries, and all the nation’s roads and rivers, among other things.

 

Now, with two cases that the six corrupt Republicans on the Court will be hearing this fall, David could be getting his wish.

 

The first is  Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association (CFPB v CFSA), which could lead to a shutdown of not just the CFPB but Social Security and Medicare as well. All three of those programs are funded on an “open ended” basis without specific annual appropriations that mention how long they may exist or exactly how much money they can or must spend.

 

This is called “nondiscretionary spending” because these programs were designed by Congress as a permanent part of the American governmental landscape. Their funding legislation sets up perpetual and specific funds with specific funding mechanisms—the Social Security and Medicare funds are paid for by the FICA tax, and the Federal Reserve funds the CFPB—so they won’t be political footballs when it comes time for annual appropriations.

 

There’s also the problem that Medicare and Social Security have no way of knowing the exact dollar amounts they’ll spend each year; they can’t predict who’s going to get sick when, or who’s going to die or become disabled. (This is true for most federal agencies, which is why this lawsuit could also shut down everything from the USDA to the FDA to the EPA.)

The plaintiffs in CFPB v CFSA argue that the provision of the Constitution that lets Congress set up agencies and fund them requires that Congress also set specific lifetimes and exact specific annual funding levels for all agencies. This is based on Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution, which says:

 

Quote

“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

 

Click on the link for more

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Renegade7]

On 9/28/2023 at 2:51 PM, Fergasun said:

 

I have disdain and derision for about 50 percent of Democratic agenda.

 

OK, I'll bite:

 

What specificly and why?

 

Half is a lot.

[The Evil Genius]

I didn't even know we had an agenda.

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Captain Wiggles]

Truly an inspiring individual. 

 

 

[Fergasun]

8 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

OK, I'll bite:

 

What specificly and why?

 

Half is a lot.

Being anti-government, no-nothing, racist policy pricks (GOP) has made me not want to politically align with the GOP. 

 

I am a deficit hawk,. but think the GOP needs to balance the budget in 15 or 20 years.  10 is an insane slope to hit. Since they have failed to take a reasonable track, I can only assume they aren't remotely serious about spending.

 

I am an immigration hawk, but think there oughtta be a deal for the dreamers and other immigrants.

 

I honestly do think that we shouldn't redefine "biological sex" into "gender".  But if it helps you live another day for me to define you by your "gender", I'll respect you enough to do that. 

 

All three of those would make me a top-rate GOP mark.  But today's GOP would rather pop off and incite me over "gender affirming care" (we could call it "mental health care") than actually work on deficit and immigration policy.  

[dfitzo53]

55 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

Being anti-government, no-nothing, racist policy pricks (GOP) has made me not want to politically align with the GOP. 

 

I am a deficit hawk,. but think the GOP needs to balance the budget in 15 or 20 years.  10 is an insane slope to hit. Since they have failed to take a reasonable track, I can only assume they aren't remotely serious about spending.

 

I am an immigration hawk, but think there oughtta be a deal for the dreamers and other immigrants.

 

I honestly do think that we shouldn't redefine "biological sex" into "gender".  But if it helps you live another day for me to define you by your "gender", I'll respect you enough to do that. 

 

All three of those would make me a top-rate GOP mark.  But today's GOP would rather pop off and incite me over "gender affirming care" (we could call it "mental health care") than actually work on deficit and immigration policy.  

Nobody tell him he's a moderate democrat, he'd be crushed.

[Renegade7]

11 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

I didn't even know we had an agenda.

 

I know you know this, but for those that claim they dont Dems sign off on one every time they formally nominate someone for president...

 

https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/

[Larry]

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I know you know this, but for those that claim they dont Dems sign off on one every time they formally nominate someone for president...

 

https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/

 

Sure they do. 

 

But I pick my political party (and my vote) based on what they actually do with the power they have. 

 

(It's not a tough choice.)

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

Sure they do. 

 

But I pick my political party (and my vote) based on what they actually do with the power they have. 

 

(It's not a tough choice.)

 

We should make a scavenger hunt for the GOP Platform from the same year.

 

Good luck, everyone.

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[China]

A Supreme Court dispute over a $15,000 IRS bill may be aimed at a never-enacted tax on billionaires

 

Charles and Kathleen Moore are about to have their day in the Supreme Court over a $15,000 tax bill they contend is unconstitutional.

 

The couple from Redmond, Washington, claim they had to pay the money because of their investment in an Indian company from which, as Charles Moore, 62, said in a sworn statement, they “have never received a distribution, dividend, or other payment.”

 

But significant parts of the story they have told to reach this point seem at odds with public records.

 

The Moores are the public face of a high court case backed by business and conservative political interests that could call into question other parts of the U.S. tax code and rule out a much-discussed but never-enacted tax on wealth. The case is set for arguments on Dec. 5.

 

The Moores are the latest example of plaintiffs whose lawsuits seem to simply be exercising their legal rights, but whose cases are backed by others with enormous amounts of money or a consequential social issue at stake. The Moores sought help from the anti-regulatory Competitive Enterprise Institute.

 

Underscoring the case’s importance at a recent Heritage Foundation event, lawyer Paul Clement said, “The constitutionality of a wealth tax may well be decided in the context of this case.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

[ixcuincle]

Barrett says it would be a "good idea" for Supreme Court to adopt ethics rules https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-code-of-conduct-amy-coney-barrett-ethics/

[tshile]

On 10/11/2023 at 12:08 PM, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

this one is important because it’s possible “racial gerrymandering” may be restricted in a serious way (in terms of when and how it can be claimed) and may be thrown out all together. 
 

which, following several cases closely, is a good thing in my opinion. Although I’m sure no one here will agree with me. 
 

SCOTUS already got rid of partisan gerrymandering claims several years ago, and since then there’s been a lot of partisan gerrymander claims where they pretend it’s actually a racial gerrymandering situation. 
 

following some cases closely what always strikes me is the people claiming gerrymandering often have a problem of producing an alternative map that doesn’t somehow suffer from the same of similar problems 😂 

[Larry]

Admiring the notion that what some people are hoping for, is for SCOTUS, from the bench, to make intentionally unfair elections even more unfair.