The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

[DC_Vol]

Falsely accused by her own words?

Did she use the word “boofing”???

 

[BowlBrother85]

Protesting for stronger election integrity is partisan?

That's a cop out. That event was highly partisan.

The January 6th rally was an extension of Donald Trump's effort to overturn the result of his own electoral defeat. The rally had nothing to do with preserving the American democratic system of elections. It had everything to do with Trump venting anger over his defeat, combined with his attempt to undermine the outcome. Trump was also suggesting that his Vice President had the legal authority to cast aside electoral college votes from states that their campaign had been contesting, which was a lie. The Constitution grants the Vice President no such authority. That rally did not have a damn thing to do with election integrity. It had to do with a man who can't admit that he lost.

 

[EasternVol]

Apparently when she was at Harvard she led protests to push the school to take action against a student who had hung a Confederate flag from his window. She did not accept the school's position that it was a free speech issue. I'd like to see that raised during these hearings. It would be troubling to have someone on the SC who favors censorship.

 

[BreatheUT]

Okay...

I don't think she'll get confirmed though. Props to Biden's handlers for convincing Breyer to retire in an election year though. Democrats don't have anything to run on, might as well make this one a "racist" election.

I think she'll get confirmed but they did force Breyer to retire to hopefully be able to play the race card as a last ditch effort to the November bludgeoning they are expecting.

 

[clarksvol00]

Is there any evidence a man in his 80s was "forced" to resign from his job earlier than he wanted?

 

[BowlBrother85]

Is there any evidence a man in his 80s was "forced" to resign from his job earlier than he wanted to do so?

No... just like Anthony Kennedy wasn't "forced" to retire either. If these mean ol' Democrats have the power to "force" out an old man like Breyer, just ahead of an election, why didn't they do the same thing to RBG in 2015? It's such a stupid thing to say... but let idiots be idiots.

 

[RockyTop85]

Is there any evidence a man in his 80s was "forced" to resign from his job earlier than he wanted?

There were some nasty and/or insensitive things said about Breyer by some of the crazies on the left fringe starting about the time Biden got elected.

 

[BowlBrother85]

There were some nasty and/or insensitive things said about Breyer by some of the crazies on the left fringe starting about the time Biden got elected.

And?

 

[clarksvol00]

No... just like Anthony Kennedy wasn't "forced" to retire either. If these mean ol' Democrats have the power to "force" out an old man like Breyer, just ahead of an election, why didn't they do the same thing to RBG in 2015? It's such a stupid thing to say... but let idiots be idiots.

The "boogeyman around every corner" mentality is popular now. Breyer may have had considerations about his successor's ideology when he retired, but doesn't mean he was "forced" out or Kennedy didn't weigh the same concerns.

 

[clarksvol00]

There were some nasty and/or insensitive things said about Breyer by some of the crazies on the left fringe starting about the time Biden got elected.

I seriously doubt a Supreme Court justice with a lifetime appointment cares that a few fringe loonies said a mean thing about him.

 

[BowlBrother85]

The "boogeyman around every corner" mentality is popular now. Breyer may have had considerations about his successor's ideology when he retired, but doesn't mean he was "forced" out or Kennedy didn't weigh the same concerns.

Most Supreme Court Justices do want their seat to be filled by a President from within the same party as the President who nominated them. That doesn't mean that they were "forced" out. RBG made the assumption that Hillary would win. She had gone in with a Clinton, and wanted to go out that way.... but that hit a snag. LOL.

 

[BowlBrother85]

I seriously doubt a Supreme Court justice with a lifetime appointment cares that a few fringe loonies said a mean thing about him.

LOL. They probably get as much hate mail as the President... with death threats included.

 

[Sea Ray]

Also just to note: this post that says CRT should be banned in ALL schools in the context of a conversation about a specific private school.

Author is saying people should not have the liberty to choose how their children are educated if they don’t choose the curriculum he prefers.

Moar freedom!!

Many principles of critical race theory are taught in many public schools. This is not a problem limited to private schools. In this case it happens to be a private school because that's the example that relates to this judge. It would serve no purpose to include a school she had nothing to do with.

I personally don't have a problem with private schools teaching this if they must but I'd sure question the judgment of their Board if they did. That's why it's being brought up now

 

[AM64]

They also tend to pick a convenient stopping point in history to omit context.

Liberals are hell on wheels when it comes to boundary conditions to frame an argument. Frame an argument based on very narrow and limited fact and extrapolate the crap out of it with no respect to fact or history.

 

[AM64]

Curriculum should be left to local school systems. Don't like it? Change the school board, move, or find a private school that fits your value system better. I chose the latter option with my kids.

Or maybe even better would be to revert to something resembling the three Rs and quit playing political and social games with the school curricula. Teach fact in schools and let parents handle the social and political agenda as they see fit. If there's controversy or political belief involved in a topic, it isn't fact.

 

[AM64]

No I'm not. I believe it's perfectly fine for schools to teach things like systemic racism is a key reason for the economic disparity we have today; because it's true. I'm opposed to the more radical beliefs of the ideology like people are either victims or oppressors based on their racial/social/economic group. I've seen some pretty crazy documentaries on CRT. Seriously, I don't think parents would be upset if their kids weren't coming home with crazy homework assignments and reading materials.

Why? Are schools for educating or for reeducation totalitarian style. How about teaching the factual stuff like math, sciences, history that actually happened without political/social interpretation, geography, communication (reading, writing, and speaking coherently), etc, and leave out the social/political agenda. Probably would be smart to bring back some skill classes like shop, too.

 

[volfanhill]

That's a cop out. That event was highly partisan.

The January 6th rally was an extension of Donald Trump's effort to overturn the result of his own electoral defeat. The rally had nothing to do with preserving the American democratic system of elections. It had everything to do with Trump venting anger over his defeat, combined with his attempt to undermine the outcome. Trump was also suggesting that his Vice President had the legal authority to cast aside electoral college votes from states that their campaign had been contesting, which was a lie. The Constitution grants the Vice President no such authority. That rally did not have a damn thing to do with election integrity. It had to do with a man who can't admit that he lost.

Her exercising her right to protest should not be an issue. Even if you disagree with why she's protesting. This is ********.

 

[volfanhill]

Why? Are schools for educating or for reeducation totalitarian style. How about teaching the factual stuff like math, sciences, history that actually happened without political/social interpretation, geography, communication (reading, writing, and speaking coherently), etc, and leave out the social/political agenda. Probably would be smart to bring back some skill classes like shop, too.

Sure. But it's also accurate, and ok, to say some white folks took advantage of some non white folks.

 

[Carl Pickens]

All I know is that she’s been soft on child pornographers in the past….. therefore it’s a no for me.

 

[RockyTop85]

I seriously doubt a Supreme Court justice with a lifetime appointment cares that a few fringe loonies said a mean thing about him.

It was going on for over a year before he retired. The timing is his decisions would suggest that it had no effect.

 

[AM64]

Opinion | Even by 2022 standards, this new Ginni Thomas scandal is bad

Clarence Thomas's wife, Ginni, now admits that she did attend the January 6th "Stop the Steal" rally at The White House, but still maintains that she did not march down to the Capitol. She previously denied being there at all.

The optics of the wife of a Supreme Court Justice being such a high-profile, politically partisan activist aren't great... and if there was nothing wrong with attending that rally, then why did she lie about it?

Maybe she just didn't want to discuss it or have to "defend" her position? Are you arguing that some people don't have the right to free speech or to assemble with a group? There are things I would not admit in some circumstances because there are people with whom I wouldn't wish to justify my position - serves no purpose to argue a controversial topic with someone who will never alter a point of view and cannot disagree gracefully.

 

[AM64]

Most Supreme Court Justices do want their seat to be filled by a President from within the same party as the President who nominated them. That doesn't mean that they were "forced" out. RBG made the assumption that Hillary would win. She had gone in with a Clinton, and wanted to go out that way.... but that hit a snag. LOL.

Why should a judge be anything other than blind to politics and unbiased? Why should a judge at any level represent a political party? That in itself is an admission of partiality, and has no place on the bench.

 

[volfanhill]

Most Supreme Court Justices do want their seat to be filled by a President from within the same party as the President who nominated them. That doesn't mean that they were "forced" out. RBG made the assumption that Hillary would win. She had gone in with a Clinton, and wanted to go out that way.... but that hit a snag. LOL.

And that's precisely what's wrong. They should not be beholden to party but instead the freaking founding doc. That's it.

 

[AM64]

Sure. But it's also accurate, and ok, to say some white folks took advantage of some non white folks.

Then that's part of history and can be proven. It's also important to throw in context like slavery didn't happen in isolation, it didn't happen here first, and it hasn't ended. This is where we get in trouble with this kind of issue; you cannot apply today's standards to events that happened years, decades, or centuries ago. Remember we have "evolved" and we as a country aren't the same people we were even ten years ago much less decades ago. Imagine in 50 years how we may be criticized and considered wrong for what we see as the norm today. What if in a century people in sunny NY are growing oranges in their backyards and saying "What the hell were those people thinking?"

 

[BowlBrother85]

Her exercising her right to protest should not be an issue. Even if you disagree with why she's protesting. This is ********.

It's not about her for f*** sake! It is quite possible that the Supreme Court will soon be hearing a case involving a January 6th rioter... Thomas should have to recuse himself from that case, because of his wife's involvement in the events of that day.