The supreme court is a joke with no credibility

[Gateman_Wen]

Temper tantrum works better?

No. The supreme court has been illegitimate for years at this point.

 

[noonereal]

Couldn't just be the proper interpretation of the law, huh? Of course not, because in this case the "law" didn't bend to meet the desires of the socialist/marxist/democrats.

I took the time to read the law. You should, if you are honest to yourself. The English was simple and exact. The deplorable judges had to totally bastardize it's meaning to rule as they did.

Sincerely. This should have never been in the court in the first place.

 

[Patrickt]

Does anyone here actually think the Justices read the Constitution and found a never before noticed right to have an abortion? I doubt anyone thinks that.

The Constitution was written to prevent tyranny and dictatorial abuses and that is not acceptable to some. They want unrestricted power for the federal government where healthy young people can be ordered to not go to church, not go to work, not to visit their parents, and not appear in public without a mask. And where older people in nursing homes see young people infected with a deadly virus moved in with them and alcoholics can by liquor, an essential business, but can't go to AA meetings.


Who would want to change anything? Give us back our left-wing Supreme Court.

 

[P_T]

Well: that sounds like total b.s.
Just keep pilling on your Hatred. I won't help at all.
Get a Booster, when the Army one passes tests get it !
Go away with your life !
Put the The Donald and his Cronies in Jail.
Make our Country better. spill your hate into the cesspool of B.S. where it belongs.

 

[upsideguy]

They seem to be working backwards, picking a result and then seeking legal justification for their shenanigans

Their rulings on two vaccine mandates are self contradictory.

The Supreme Court can’t get its story straight on vaccines

The Court is barely even pretending to be engaged in legal reasoning.

www.vox.com

The court is hopelessly partisan, legislating from the bench, and generally in need of a purge.

The one place that we really needed the filibuster.... or better, was with SCOTUS judges. There should be a 67 vote requirement to ensure we get centrist judges that call balls and strikes, not rule from this personal morality. What we now have is a sanhedrin, a court that thinks they can intrepret law consistent with their religious beliefs. That is a disaster in a country that believes in freedom of religion. Morality is a different matter than legality.

 

[GummyVitamins]

The one place that we really needed the filibuster.... or better, was with SCOTUS judges. There should be a 67 vote requirement to ensure we get centrist judges that call balls and strikes, not rule from this personal morality. What we now have is a sanhedrin, a court that thinks they can intrepret law consistent with their religious beliefs. That is a disaster in a country that believes in freedom of religion. Morality is a different matter than legality.

Which decision have they made based on religion?

 

[DarkWizard12]

They seem to be working backwards, picking a result and then seeking legal justification for their shenanigans

Their rulings on two vaccine mandates are self contradictory.

The Supreme Court can’t get its story straight on vaccines

The Court is barely even pretending to be engaged in legal reasoning.

www.vox.com

The court is hopelessly partisan, legislating from the bench, and generally in need of a purge.

awwww you gonna cry now? awww! cry harder!

 

[MaryP]

Exactly!

I posted the exact same thing a few days ago.

They start with how they want to rule than go about to justify it as best they can.

Haven't they been doing that for awhile now? With abortion clinics they have, anyway. There's a lot of law out there. The trick is being familiar enough with all of it to pull out the one that heads in the direction they want to go.

 

[MaryP]

Which decision have they made based on religion?

They seem to be working on funding private religious schools with taxpayer funds.

 

[GummyVitamins]

They seem to be working on funding private religious schools with taxpayer funds.

That's not based on religion, that's common sense and based on Supreme Court precedent. If the government chooses to give parents vouchers rather than providing educational services they should be capable of being used at the local accredited private schools that are available to them. Why would a rational person have a problem with that and which law restricts it? Regardless, precedent has already been set by Zelman (2002) that vouchers can be used for any private school as long as parents have a free choice in the matter.

 

[MaryP]

That's not based on religion, that's common sense. If the government chooses to give parents vouchers rather than providing educational services they should be capable of being used at the local accredited private schools that are available to them. Why would a rational person have a problem with that and which law restricts it? Regardless, precedent has already been set by Zelman (2002) that vouchers can be used for any private school as long as parents have a free choice in the matter.

Of course it's based on religion. Rational people don't want to pay for children to receive religious indoctrination. That's what church is for. The government is supposed to butt out. Secular only.

 

[GummyVitamins]

Of course it's based on religion. Rational people don't want to pay for children to receive religious indoctrination. That's what church is for. The government is supposed to butt out. Secular only.

If the government wants to butt out they can provide public schools to the children that are forced to go to a private school due to the government not providing any services to them. And if the local school is sectarian why do you care? It sounds to me like your perspective is anti-religion which is not the same thing as the Supreme Court making a decision based on religion. Precedent has been set and nobody is being forced to attend a religious school. It's interesting how quickly people become anti-choice when anything "conservative" comes into discussion.

 

[Logician Man]

If the government wants to butt out they can provide public schools to the children that are forced to go to a private school due to the government not providing any services to them. And if the local school is sectarian why do you care? It sounds to me like your perspective is anti-religion which is not the same thing as the Supreme Court making a decision based on religion. Precedent has been set and nobody is being forced to attend a religious school. It's interesting how quickly people become anti-choice when anything "conservative" comes into discussion.

No child is being "forced to go to a private school due to the government not providing any services to them." And if you spam the forum for the umpteenth time by cutting and pasting one of my posts as a response, should you summon the courage to respond without citing a credible, verifiable citation to validate your positive claim, you're only conceding your argument is complete and utter bullshit.

 

[dncc]

They seem to be working backwards, picking a result and then seeking legal justification for their shenanigans

Their rulings on two vaccine mandates are self contradictory.

The Supreme Court can’t get its story straight on vaccines

The Court is barely even pretending to be engaged in legal reasoning.

www.vox.com

The court is hopelessly partisan, legislating from the bench, and generally in need of a purge.

We have at least 2 seated justices right now who believe in a concept called "super precedents" which, in short, mean that some decisions handed down by the court in the past are open for being overturned while others are not.

Strange how the decisions handed down that are valid for overturning seem to coincide with the feelings of the President who appointed them. I wonder what will happen when a judge who thinks Brown v. Board of Education is not a "Super Precedent"...

We now have party hacks on the court. Much like the Senate and usually the House, they are no longer by the people or for the people.

 

[Superfly]

The court is hopelessly partisan, legislating from the bench, and generally in need of a purge.

Not hard to do at all when seats on the Bench are for sale.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

The one place that we really needed the filibuster.... or better, was with SCOTUS judges. There should be a 67 vote requirement to ensure we get centrist judges that call balls and strikes, not rule from this personal morality. What we now have is a sanhedrin, a court that thinks they can intrepret law consistent with their religious beliefs. That is a disaster in a country that believes in freedom of religion. Morality is a different matter than legality.

And term limits. Short ones.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

awwww you gonna cry now? awww! cry harder!

Don't be stupider than you have to be.

 

[mrjurrs]

They seem to be working backwards, picking a result and then seeking legal justification for their shenanigans

Their rulings on two vaccine mandates are self contradictory.

The Supreme Court can’t get its story straight on vaccines

The Court is barely even pretending to be engaged in legal reasoning.

www.vox.com

The court is hopelessly partisan, legislating from the bench, and generally in need of a purge.

I have to concur, there decisions thus far seem very transactional in supporting R positions.

 

[American]

They seem to be working backwards, picking a result and then seeking legal justification for their shenanigans

Their rulings on two vaccine mandates are self contradictory.

The Supreme Court can’t get its story straight on vaccines

The Court is barely even pretending to be engaged in legal reasoning.

www.vox.com

The court is hopelessly partisan, legislating from the bench, and generally in need of a purge.

Now that the court doesn't lean to the Left, they are HOPELESSLY partisan? LOL, your bias is duly noted.

 

[DarkWizard12]

I have to concur, there decisions thus far seem very transactional in supporting R positions.

Huh, I remember a time when they were....er... "very transactional" in supporting D positions.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Now that the court doesn't lean to the Left, they are HOPELESSLY partisan? LOL, your bias is duly noted.

They haven't "leaned left" in decades. They leaned moderately right for that time, but recently fell off the cliff.

 

[P_T]

Showing the 10 card here !

 

[GummyVitamins]

No child is being "forced to go to a private school due to the government not providing any services to them." And if you spam the forum for the umpteenth time by cutting and pasting one of my posts as a response, should you summon the courage to respond without citing a credible, verifiable citation to validate your positive claim, you're only conceding your argument is complete and utter bullshit.

What an illogical and lying post you've made. How embarrassing this has to be. The facts of the case before the Supreme Court are from Maine where many children do not have access to public schools because Maine does not provide services in some of their rural locations. I understand the desire to be contrarian due to the lack of faculties to provide intelligent information into the thread. I'm quite used to reading that in your posts. However, this is one of your more embarrassing post I've read. Do a little more research, find some logic, and try again. This post is beyond stupid and ignorant.

 

[DarkWizard12]

They haven't "leaned left" in decades. They leaned moderately right for that time, but recently fell off the cliff.

right, yea, okay, maybe they weren't "left enough" for you, im sure.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

right, yea, okay, maybe they weren't "left enough" for you, im sure.

They weren't left at all.