The Most Corrupt, Political Activist Supreme Court in American History

[dmallord]

But they did not say they wouldn't overturn it either if the occasion arose. No Justice applicant is expected to say how they will rule in the future.

So you are supportive of their actions enough to say they are everyday common garden varieties of typical two-faced lying lawyers?

Their hearing confirmation testimony is now just one of those famous 'depends on what the definition of is 'is.'

'Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus'—If this principle applies to Trump's jury decision, then it certainly applies to the biases of the current Supreme Court. Those lying candidates proved they didn't have the backbone to speak the truth during their testimony of declaring the Wade v Roe case was settled. Liars each of them.

 

[HisArpy]

I enjoyed you melting down over Fap, I didn't miss it....

Lol, I'm not the one hiding out in the barn hoping that Laurel gets tired of looking for him.

You really do have some kind of fucked up world view that makes you see shit that isn't real.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Lol, I'm not the one hiding out in the barn hoping that Laurel gets tired of looking for him.

You really do have some kind of fucked up world view that makes you see shit that isn't real.

talking to yourself again?

 

[HisArpy]

talking to yourself again?

Like I said, I'm not the one hiding out in the barn hoping to avoid a switching.

You could learn a lesson from that. Except you're one of those people who only learns from his own mistakes. Except you can't even manage to do that without fucking it up. Which means you never do learn anything.

 

[dmallord]

Until it was reversed by the SCOTUS. Just for your edification:

The U.S. Supreme Court has reversed its own constitutional precedents a total of 145 times from 1789 to 2020, which is less than one-half of one percent of all rulings123. This shows that while the Supreme Court does overturn its decisions, it does so relatively infrequently.

Any idea as to how many of those reversals are as impactful as those regarding women's rights to determine their own medical care?

Well, we can start with the reversal of the Dred Scott decision...

That divisive decision had widespread ramifications for sure. Historical views say it helped kindle the American Civil War. Chief Justice Taney pushed it further with his opinion, stating that African Americans were not and could never be citizens of the United States. In today’s court of public opinion, we would label Taney as racist 100%.

Taney’s reputation, after that blatant pro-slavery decision, followed him beyond his grave.

I expect that the Roe versus Wade reversal will also be attached to those Justices that successfully kill women’s rights to self-determination regarding medical care/abortion.

Will the same ‘into the grave’ sentiments about Taney also be inscribed into American history for those Supreme Court Justices who lied about their views on Roe v. Wade?

That accounts for one of the 145 times mentioned. Got others of similar consequences that less than one-half of one percent is a curious number - suspect even. [Edit: I've now read the link and find it a nice history review.]

 

[HisArpy]

That divisive decision had widespread ramifications for sure. Historical views say it helped kindle the American Civil War. Chief Justice Taney pushed it further with his opinion, stating that African Americans were not and could never be citizens of the United States. In today’s court of public opinion, we would label Taney as racist 100%.

Taney’s reputation, after that blatant pro-slavery decision, followed him beyond his grave.

I expect that the Roe versus Wade reversal will also be attached to those Justices that successfully kill women’s rights to self-determination regarding medical care/abortion.

Will the same ‘into the grave’ sentiments about Taney also be inscribed into American history for those Supreme Court Justices who lied about their views on Roe v. Wade?

That accounts for one of the 145 times mentioned. Got others of similar consequences that less than one-half of one percent is a curious number - suspect even. [Edit: I've now read the link and find it a nice history review.]

I kind of think that one decision which gives personal autonomy to an entire class of people is enough to say that women have control over their health care. After all prior to the reversal of Dred Scott slaves didn't have control over any aspect of their lives, health or otherwise.

And yet here you are saying that the Supremes don't care.

 

[dmallord]

I kind of think that one decision which gives personal autonomy to an entire class of people is enough to say that women have control over their health care. After all prior to the reversal of Dred Scott slaves didn't have control over any aspect of their lives, health or otherwise.

And yet here you are saying that the Supremes don't care.

What personal autonomy would that be that gives women control over their health care. That's not what the SC did for women by any stretch of the imagination.

Yes, the SC doesn't care about women's rights; that's self-evident in this decision. I say that, along with many obviously angry women, it seems that they are upset about this as well. Hopefully, the next election cycle will sweep some of those supporting such movements out of office, and the state laws will get revised to balance the radical language in those states governing abortion.

State decisions have gone too far - e.g., The Texas laws that make it criminal for a woman, an 'accomplice' that abets her transportation, the doctor, the lawyer, or even an Indian Chief that helps in the abortion process can be tried. To boot, a bounty can be collected by anyone turning them in—nice approach to medical care.

Unfortunately, we are unable to do anything about the SC justices. That sucks. We have to await vacancies and try to adjust the 'attitude' back to a more balanced decision-making body.

 

[HisArpy]

What personal autonomy would that be that gives women control over their health care. That's not what the SC did for women by any stretch of the imagination.

Yes, the SC doesn't care about women's rights; that's self-evident in this decision. I say that, along with many obviously angry women, it seems that they are upset about this as well. Hopefully, the next election cycle will sweep some of those supporting such movements out of office, and the state laws will get revised to balance the radical language in those states governing abortion.

State decisions have gone too far - e.g., The Texas laws that make it criminal for a woman, an 'accomplice' that abets her transportation, the doctor, the lawyer, or even an Indian Chief that helps in the abortion process can be tried. To boot, a bounty can be collected by anyone turning them in—nice approach to medical care.

Unfortunately, we are unable to do anything about the SC justices. That sucks. We have to await vacancies and try to adjust the 'attitude' back to a more balanced decision-making body.

Lol, slaves have ZERO control over their bodies. Freedmen do.

That's a huge difference which you're choosing to ignore in your attempts to paint the SCOTUS as racist and corrupt.

Basically, because you disagree with ONE CASE you loudly proclaim them illegitimate while forgetting that without them there wouldn't BE "health care" for minorities in the first place.

And you ignore that the reversal of the Dred Scott decision was done at a time when bigotry and racism was part of the culture and society. The SCOTUS isn't racist, YOU ARE because that's the lens through which you view the world. A lens which only highlights that which you disagree with while blanking out all the good that's done for everyone just so you can point the finger of blame and make yourself feel better about the crap and controversy you've set loose in the world.

 

[dmallord]

Lol, slaves have ZERO control over their bodies. Freedmen do.

That's a huge difference which you're choosing to ignore in your attempts to paint the SCOTUS as racist and corrupt.

Basically, because you disagree with ONE CASE you loudly proclaim them illegitimate while forgetting that without them there wouldn't BE "health care" for minorities in the first place.

And you ignore that the reversal of the Dred Scott decision was done at a time when bigotry and racism was part of the culture and society. The SCOTUS isn't racist, YOU ARE because that's the lens through which you view the world. A lens which only highlights that which you disagree with while blanking out all the good that's done for everyone just so you can point the finger of blame and make yourself feel better about the crap and controversy you've set loose in the world.

Not talking about slavery issues here ... women's medical autonomy is the issue. I'm not painting SCOTUS as racist - corruption does lie in the realm of believability, though. I didn't take issue with the racist acts as you stated about the cultural beliefs of those times. I noted that American history shows racism became an issue for the former SC Justice who made those statements about Africans not becoming citizens. Obviously, you could not distinguish that I was not judging the issue within the times, merely pointing out that HISTORY did. I have no control over history, either, if you are thinking that now.

Your tinted lenses ignore the anger women have over the unacceptable ruling in Roe v Wade's reversal. That's not racist. Neither is it a blanket disagreement about the good Justices may have done on the whole. I'm not obligated to say: here's a list of good things SC did while pointing out the current decision was bad. One can excoriate a bad ruling without impugning the court's other decisions. I never implied or stated that notion; I suppose you conjured that up much like your albatross statements, jokingly you claimed, about some carbon water formula.

Got any references where this decision has 'improved' the rights of a woman to obtain an abortion? I see the opposite occurring; restrictions are being piled on across numerous Red states via legislation. Ladies see that and are rightly angry. Vote they will - unless the SC reconsiders that right as well.

Got a list of 'crap and controversy' that I set loose on the world? Please, don't paint me with some broad, dismissive brush strokes as though I represent a whole of some political party of which you disapprove.

Such tactics are the marks of your 'whataboutism fallacies'—common accusations that use double standards and hypocrisy to relativize criticism of one's own viewpoints or behaviors.

As usual, you've gone far afield of the topic with your lack of clarity and your attribution of blame for things not said.

You'd be better off, counselor, to tone down your remarks and stick to facts rather than spouting fantasy opinions.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Like I said, I'm not the one hiding out in the barn hoping to avoid a switching.

You could learn a lesson from that. Except you're one of those people who only learns from his own mistakes. Except you can't even manage to do that without fucking it up. Which means you never do learn anything.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

A fine example of an old man yelling at the people walking by on the sidewalk.

 

[HisArpy]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

A fine example of an old man yelling at the people walking by on the sidewalk.

I'm still not the one hiding in the barn.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I'm still not the one hiding in the barn.

True, you're the idiot yelling at the passer by's on the sidewalk......*chuckles*

 

[HisArpy]

True, you're the idiot yelling at the passer by's on the sidewalk......*chuckles*

You should see if the DA will try to make that a conspiracy or something.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

You should see if the DA will try to make that a conspiracy or something.

Why? I want you standing on your lawn, making an ass of yourself, yelling at the passer by's...

 

[HisArpy]

Why? I want you standing on your lawn, making an ass of yourself, yelling at the passer by's...

I see you're enjoying your fantasies again. The problem is that this is the PB not fantasy world.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I see you're enjoying your fantasies again. The problem is that this is the PB not fantasy world.

I'm curious if you want to enter into a lease agreement, me being rent free in your mind without some type of legal document just doesn't seem fair. I mean you being a Lawyer and all...

 

[Bn2f]

Not talking about slavery issues here ... women's medical autonomy is the issue. I'm not painting SCOTUS as racist - corruption does lie in the realm of believability, though. I didn't take issue with the racist acts as you stated about the cultural beliefs of those times. I noted that American history shows racism became an issue for the former SC Justice who made those statements about Africans not becoming citizens. Obviously, you could not distinguish that I was not judging the issue within the times, merely pointing out that HISTORY did. I have no control over history, either, if you are thinking that now.

Your tinted lenses ignore the anger women have over the unacceptable ruling in Roe v Wade's reversal. That's not racist. Neither is it a blanket disagreement about the good Justices may have done on the whole. I'm not obligated to say: here's a list of good things SC did while pointing out the current decision was bad. One can excoriate a bad ruling without impugning the court's other decisions. I never implied or stated that notion; I suppose you conjured that up much like your albatross statements, jokingly you claimed, about some carbon water formula.

Got any references where this decision has 'improved' the rights of a woman to obtain an abortion? I see the opposite occurring; restrictions are being piled on across numerous Red states via legislation. Ladies see that and are rightly angry. Vote they will - unless the SC reconsiders that right as well.

Got a list of 'crap and controversy' that I set loose on the world? Please, don't paint me with some broad, dismissive brush strokes as though I represent a whole of some political party of which you disapprove.

Such tactics are the marks of your 'whataboutism fallacies'—common accusations that use double standards and hypocrisy to relativize criticism of one's own viewpoints or behaviors.

As usual, you've gone far afield of the topic with your lack of clarity and your attribution of blame for things not said.

You'd be better off, counselor, to tone down your remarks and stick to facts rather than spouting fantasy opinions.

An excellent post - one that resulted in HisArp, per his typical operating mode, taking leave of the thread. He only uses his petulant beef here with Fuzzy as a smokescreen deflection. You’ve the patience of Job for carefully deliberating your position while also having to wade through all his slippery arguments in attempting to get him to say anything of substance because, of course, the Dred Scott decision laid the foundation for the overturning of Roe .

 

[colddiesel]

Americans can console themselves that none of their current SC judges matches up to Rayner Goddard the Lord Chief Justice of England from 1946 to 1968. A keen hanging and flogging judge, Goddard was alleged to have jerked himself off with excitement when sentencing criminals to death. Bernard Levin wrote a wonderfully scurrilous obit which a deluge of flattery from the legal profession has failed to overcome.

 

[HisArpy]

I'm curious if you want to enter into a lease agreement, me being rent free in your mind without some type of legal document just doesn't seem fair. I mean you being a Lawyer and all...

dudly, I'm not the one making up fantasies about other people. Which is easy since I don't think about you at all when I'm not replying to your posts and never when I'm not on Lit.

You, however, can't seem to say the same since you make up these odd fantasies where you somehow manage to always fuck yourself over no matter what you try.

 

[HisArpy]

Americans can console themselves that none of their current SC judges matches up to Rayner Goddard the Lord Chief Justice of England from 1946 to 1968. A keen hanging and flogging judge, Goddard was alleged to have jerked himself off with excitement when sentencing criminals to death. Bernard Levin wrote a wonderfully scurrilous obit which a deluge of flattery from the legal profession has failed to overcome.

Closer to home is Judge Roy Bean. If you actually knew something you wouldn't have to go so far afield to find someone to traumatize yourself with.

 

[SmokingFap]

Lol, I'm not the one hiding out in the barn hoping that Laurel gets tired of looking for him.

Umm, I'm still here. I just get bored with you and have better things to do sometimes. And I'm pretty sure Laurel could find me on her own website and banish me if she chose to. Shockingly, she doesn't seem to give a single fuck about your "report" about me supposedly threatening you. So just remember, if you and I ever meet in person, you'll be walking funny for the rest of your pathetic life.

 

[HisArpy]

Umm, I'm still here. I just get bored with you and have better things to do sometimes. And I'm pretty sure Laurel could find me on her own website and banish me if she chose to. Shockingly, she doesn't seem to give a single fuck about your "report" about me supposedly threatening you. So just remember, if you and I ever meet in person, you'll be walking funny for the rest of your pathetic life.

I see you're still trying to be something you're not.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

dudly, I'm not the one making up fantasies about other people. Which is easy since I don't think about you at all when I'm not replying to your posts and never when I'm not on Lit.

lol sure you don't....

You, however, can't seem to say the same since you make up these odd fantasies where you somehow manage to always fuck yourself over no matter what you try.

Hey, you don't want an agreement, that's fine. Never thought you were a Lawyer anyhow.

 

[ll74]

I didn't agree with the Dobbs decision, but overall, I've been happier than expected with the current court's rulings.

 

[HisArpy]

lol sure you don't....

Hey, you don't want an agreement, that's fine. Never thought you were a Lawyer anyhow.

Not my fault you insist on being fucking stupid.