Active Member
Brett Kavanaugh was forced out of a DC restaurant by protesters amid anger at SCOTUS overturning Roe v Wade
oh, frowny face.Protestors held a demonstration outside a Washington D.C. restaurant after getting word that Brett Kavanaugh was inside, forcing the Supreme Court justice to depart from a back door, Politico reported.
Active Member
Active Member
Active Member
Active Member
I get why they can't admit who leaked b/c it would certainly point to Alito (the man has a history of leaking decisions...google him and the Hobby Lobby decision), and I also get that there is sadly a very narrow sliver of people who still even care about this story, but this only adds to the preponderance of evidence that the court is corrupt & broken, is not something to be deified any longer, and needs to be reformed (or really, obliterated).
Active Member
Justice Samuel Alito Took Luxury Fishing Vacation With GOP Billionaire Who Later Had Cases Before the Court
In early July 2008, Samuel Alito stood on a riverbank in a remote corner of Alaska. The Supreme Court justice was on vacation at a luxury fishing lodge that charged more than $1,000 a day, and after catching a king salmon nearly the size of his leg, Alito posed for a picture. To his left, a man stood beaming: Paul Singer, a hedge fund billionaire who has repeatedly asked the Supreme Court to rule in his favor in high-stakes business disputes.
Singer was more than a fellow angler. He flew Alito to Alaska on a private jet. If the justice chartered the plane himself, the cost could have exceeded $100,000 one way.
In the years that followed, Singer’s hedge fund came before the court at least 10 times in cases where his role was often covered by the legal press and mainstream media. In 2014, the court agreed to resolve a key issue in a decade-long battle between Singer’s hedge fund and the nation of Argentina. Alito did not recuse himself from the case and voted with the 7-1 majority in Singer’s favor. The hedge fund was ultimately paid $2.4 billion.“If you were good friends, what were you doing ruling on his case?” said Charles Geyh, an Indiana University law professor and leading expert on recusals. “And if you weren’t good friends, what were you doing accepting this?” referring to the flight on the private jet.
Active Member
(Unused symbol)
This entire scenario was made up. Everything about it. The business doesn't exist. The request for services didn't exist. Nothing about it is real. There are provable lies on a sworn documents. And yet!....
There is no fucking way this entire fiasco wasn't drafted and funded by the same dark money assholes that take these justices on vacations and getaways.
Burn it the fuck down.
Last edited by cdm; 06-30-2023 at 09:19 AM.
Active Member
Active Member
Thank you, everyone who stayed at home in 2016 because Hillary was "too corporate" or whatever. I hope that you are happy with the current Supreme Court and the three Justices Trump appointed.
Active Member
This country is so cooked. I hate it
Active Member
I agree that there is plenty of onus on people in the swing states that stayed home & gave Trump his slim victory (it's maddening that people need their hands held & their heads beaten over messaging-wise, but low information/non-voters are the vast majority sadly), but Hillary & the party are as culpable if not moreso b/c they did not make the case & galvanize those people. Hillary did not campaign heavily in states like Wisconsin & Michigan. Retail politics like that matters, and gets people to the polls if they see you in their area, can interact with you, etc. And the Dem party has done an absolutely piss poor job of making the Supreme Court the thing that gets their voters to the polls. The evangelical vote turned out in huge numbers for Trump precisely bc of that in 2016. The Repub party has been making the court more & more the centerpiece of their strategy for years, and 2016 was the grand finale of that. McConnell was very smart in how he approached things in the lead-up. Disgusting & anti-democratic yes, but also smart, ruthless & a WINNING strategy. Brute force politics on full display.Originally Posted by GulDukat
And it's clear that the Dem party apparatus hasn't learned enough from 2016. Biden & his admin just simply will not meet the moment. To be fair to Biden, he can't frankly. He's not wired like that as a politician. He still wants things to be like it's 1986. Couple that w/his advanced age & lack of energy to react & be involved in the 24 hour news cycle style of our politics now, and this is what we get. This was one of the many fears people had in 2020 when the party poisoned the well to ensure he got the nom. His style of politics coupled with his age make for a really bad combo when up against the Republican party how its constituted now, and this rogue court. Even someone like Klobuchar, whose politics overall are horrendous, at least fully recognizes the existential threat the reactionary right is in this country, and would act/govern accordingly (in theory), b/c she is far younger, has much more energy & is plucky enough to not take this shit lying down.
There's alot of handwringing & muted statements AFTER these decisions come down. There needs to be a constant, full throated drumbeat coming out of the party in regards to the Supreme Court. Biden doesn't have that in him. He still hopes the court can be saved/"return" to being apolitical. Laughable. It's ALWAYS been political, so BE A POLITICIAN about it. Enough with the fucking civility. These pricks are ratfucking his agenda, stealing rights away from people every year (all of this on the FLIMSIEST premises ever too. They're being so bald faced about it now...not even bothering to hide their agenda behind semi-legit premises they can lean on to defend their decisions. That cunt in Colorado & the Missouri loan people didn't even have standing tor their cases...should have been thrown out immediately). We should be hearing messaging about the Roe overturn & what his admin is constantly doing about it EVERY DAY. It should be a top priority of his admin as well as the Dems in the legislature. It should be the main topic they talk about in the media so it stays on the mind of everyone as we approach the election next year. It will get people out to the polls for Dems (as seen in the midterms), so this really isn't complicated. But is this being done? Of course not.
Last edited by bobbie solo; 07-01-2023 at 03:32 AM.
Active Member
This is dark, so I understand future facepalms: these people should be getting harassed just as much as the justices are getting in their day to day lives. No peace for dinner, outside their houses, walking their fucking dogs. You asked for the notoriety, now wallow in it.
Active Member
Active Member
The legal eagles on MSNBC are saying that even if The Supreme Court says that the president doesn't have total immunity, by taking the case, they could just kick the can down the road for Trump's trial until after the election.
Appalling
tempus est umbra in mente
I just can’t believe this is actually going to the Supreme Court. On its face it’s just absurd. How can you even argue that the president is fucking immune from being punished for committing crimes?!
If the court sides with Trump, we’ve officially entered the Twilight Zone
Active Member
sadly wouldn't be surprised if they agree. no way to put it other than the way I keep putting it: we are in serious trouble.
Active Member
One third of The Supreme Court was nominated by the guy.
And why wait until late April?
Active Member
The Supreme Court will kick the can until it's too late to start a trial before the election. The 6 conservatives want Trump to win, so that the older ones can retire with Trump as president. This way they can keep their 6-3 super majority for a few more decades.
Active Member
and another third were the lawyers for Bush v. Gore. You know, that infamous case that was 'not precedent' but blew the fuck out of the election and America for the past 24 years. I see this as another one of those: "in this specific instance Trump is immune but Biden isn't".
Posting Permissions
Likes: 
Faceplams: 
Reply With Quote