Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

halfmanhalfbronco

SCOTUS fear porn kiss HMHB's ass thread.

Recommended Posts

I am smart, you are dumb.  You are ignorant, I am informed.  I am strong, you are weak.  I am pretty, you are ugly.  I am young, you are decrepit.  I smell like a rose, you smell like the worst of Converts cats. You succumbed to idiot talking points, I tried to educate you.  You had "fears" about "conservative" justices but were too lazy to look up their actual decisions and writings, you giant fuggen morons.

Go.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Judges fear porn?

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RSF said:

Judges fear porn?

According to this board, yeah!  It was going to be a conservative activist hell hole of a bench bent on destroying liberty and legislating morality!!!

Idiots, all of you.

Next time actually read up on the nominations, read their decisions, read the synopsis on those decisions  from legal experts.

Idiots, all of you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, SalinasSpartan said:

Well if you like unions and dislike dark money in politics the last week hasn’t instilled much optimism regarding this court.

Only 5 decisions have been down "ideologically drawn lines".

Glad  they stood up for the first amendment though in the last decision.  Non profits should absolutely not be forced to disclose those who gave to them or in what amount.  That is not dark money.  

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Only 5 decisions have been down "ideologically draw lines".

Glad  they stood up for the first amendment though in the last decision.  Non profits should absolutely not be forced to disclose those who gave to them or in what amount.  That is not dark money.  

 

 

 

My understanding is this applies to political action committees also.   I would be happy to hear otherwise but the plaintiffs were political organizations.  
 

The justices’ ruling Thursday addressed lawsuits filed by two politically active, conservative nonprofit organizations in 2015. The Americans for Prosperity Foundation, backed by political megadonors Charles Koch and the late David Koch, brought one of the suits. The other was filed by the Thomas More Law Center, a Michigan-based legal organization active on behalf of Catholic causes that was bankrolled by Tom Monaghan, founder of Domino’s Pizza.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/01/supreme-court-california-disclosure-law-donors-497554
 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in dissent and joined by the two other liberal-leaning justices, did however predict that the decision would open the floodgates to weakening disclosure requirements.

“Today’s analysis marks reporting and disclosure requirements with a bull’s-eye,” she wrote. “Regulated entities who wish to avoid their obligations can do so by vaguely waving toward First Amendment ‘privacy concerns.’”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NevadaFan said:

I need to make it up to Idaho! Somebody’s growing shrooms in their backyard! 

 

You are too ignorant to discuss anything on the big boy board.  You are dumb, slow.  A pleb.  You smell bad.

Kiss my ass.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

My understanding is this applies to political action committees also.   I would be happy to hear otherwise but the plaintiffs were political organizations.  
 

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/07/01/supreme-court-california-disclosure-law-donors-497554
 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in dissent and joined by the two other liberal-leaning justices, did however predict that the decision would open the floodgates to weakening disclosure requirements.

“Today’s analysis marks reporting and disclosure requirements with a bull’s-eye,” she wrote. “Regulated entities who wish to avoid their obligations can do so by vaguely waving toward First Amendment ‘privacy concerns.’”

 

 

This thread is about you being a SCOTUS fear porn drooling idiot.  Nothing more.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

This thread is about you being a SCOTUS fear porn drooling idiot.  Nothing more.

 

Well again dark money and unrestricted and unknown corporations corrupting the political process was a major part of that concern.   I don’t see anything ameliorating that fear.  
 

I was pleasantly surprised by the floral decision.   We have yet to see any abortion cases.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sactowndog said:

Well again dark money and unrestricted and unknown corporations corrupting the political process was a major part of that concern.   I don’t see anything ameliorating that fear.  
 

I was pleasantly surprised by the floral decision.   We have yet to see any abortion cases.   

 

It's not dark money.  Stop being a donkey.  It was rejected for good reason.  The California ruling stated that ALLLLL Non profits must disclose the information of their donors.  That was struck down.  For good reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

It's not dark money.  Stop being a donkey.  It was rejected for good reason.  The California ruling stated that ALLLLL Non profits must disclose the information of their donors.  That was struck down.  For good reason.

Well given Sotomayor is concerned, I would need more evidence to set aside my concern. On one hand I agree about making non-profits disclose is overly broad...  

on the other hand when Sotomayor is concerned I have reason to believe I should be also until proven otherwise.   You calling Sotomeyer a Donkey also or are you going to provide substantiation for your claims? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Well given Sotomayor is concerned, I would need more evidence to set aside my concern. On one hand I agree about making non-profits disclose is overly broad...  

on the other hand when Sotomayor is concerned I have reason to believe I should be also until proven otherwise.   You calling Sotomeyer a Donkey also or are you going to provide substantiation for your claims? 

Sotomayor is always good for scathing dissents.

You are not Sotomayor, and the decision is far more sound than the dissent.  Pretty simple, really.

Your argument is dumb.  You are dumb.  It would be like me saying "well in Clarence's dissent he said this and you are no Thomas!!!!"

Stupid.  Make you own arguments, in your own words.  Or at least have the decency to paraphrase the dissent you donkey.
 

Now the point of this thread is that you need to kiss my ass based on your unreasonable fear porn of the high bench.  Kiss it....Kiiiiisssss it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Sotomayor is always good for scathing dissents.

You are not Sotomayor, and the decision is far more sound than the dissent.  Pretty simple, really.

Your argument is dumb.  You are dumb.  It would be like me saying "well in Clarence's dissent he said this and you are no Thomas!!!!"

Stupid.  Make you own arguments, in your own words.  Or at least have the decency to paraphrase the dissent you donkey.
 

Now the point of this thread is that you need to kiss my ass based on your unreasonable fear porn of the high bench.  Kiss it....Kiiiiisssss it.

What are you drinking tonight 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@smltwnrckr....I could use an ass kissing from you in the subject of the bench as well.

You played up the fear porn more than anybody.  Still love ya...

I guess I can just bump this thread in a few months when stare decisis means there is no real challenge to Roe.  That may be a better time to say "you are all dumb?"

What do you think?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

@smltwnrckr....I could use an ass kissing from you in the subject of the bench as well.

You played up the fear porn more than anybody.  Still love ya...

I guess I can just bump this thread in a few months when stare decisis means there is no real challenge to Roe.  That may be a better time to say "you are all dumb?"

What do you think?

 

Dont jump the gun even then. I doubt they're gonna overturn roe and make fetal personhood constitutional law, at least right now. But i also think that it is very likely that down the line they more likely than not give states more leeway to use zoning laws to functionally make abortions illegal in all but a few places. 

My  understanding is that this law they're taking up is batshit. If I wanted to chip away at abortion rights from the bench but didnt want to undermine my own cause, I'd rule against rubes in Mississippi a year or two before ruling for the technocrats in Ohio. 

But I do think fetal personhood will be a thing that the court takes seriously if not approves in 30 years or so. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, smltwnrckr said:

Dont jump the gun even then. I doubt they're gonna overturn roe and make fetal personhood constitutional law, at least right now. But i also think that it is very likely that down the line they more likely than not give states more leeway to use zoning laws to functionally make abortions illegal in all but a few places. 

My  understanding is that this law they're taking up is batshit. If I wanted to chip away at abortion rights from the bench but didnt want to undermine my own cause, I'd rule against rubes in Mississippi a year or two before ruling for the technocrats in Ohio. 

But I do think fetal personhood will be a thing that the court takes seriously if not approves in 30 years or so. 

I just hope you do not get to bump this thread in a year or two....

I would never live it down.

Still a chance I was willing to take :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...