Supreme Shenanigans

Welcome to the Precious Metals Bug Forums

Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more. You can visit the forum page to see the list of forum nodes (categories/rooms) for topics.

Why not register an account and join the discussions? When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no Google ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!

searcher

morning
Moderator
Benefactor
Messages
13,466
Reaction score
2,801
Points
238

Justice Alito and Supreme Court Ethics​

Alito’s biting, political speech highlights the need for reform.
November 20, 2020
On November 12, Justice Samuel Alito gave a controversial speech to the Federalist Society, an influential conservative legal group with close ties to the judiciary.

Bemoaning what he characterized as growing threats to free speech and religious liberty, Alito took aim at the Supreme Court’s historic decision that same-sex couples have a right to marry, along with recent cases on abortion rights and restrictions imposed to prevent the spread of Covid-19.

It was an unusually political speech for a justice at a time of growing scrutiny about the Supreme Court’s public legitimacy. His remarks didn’t do the Court any favors in that regard — and it’s time to hold the Court to a higher standard.

Full article here:
 

Donald Trump Explains Why He Thinks His Supreme Court Justices Betrayed Him​

Story by Ewan Palmer • 5h ago

Donald Trump said the desire of conservative judges on the Supreme Court to appear impartial means it's "almost impossible" for Republicans to get a fair decision.

In a post on Truth Social, the former president said that right-wing judges on the majority-conservative SCOTUS bench "go out their way" to ensure they don't seem biased when handing out rulings, a trait he says isn't shared by judges appointed by Democrats.

The remarks were made days after the Supreme Court cleared the release of the former president's tax returns to be handed over to the Democrat-controlled House Ways and Means Committee, which has spent the past three years investigating Trump's compliance with Internal Revenue Service auditing.

More:

 
It does set a dangerous precedent. Now ALL POTUS tax records (supposedly private) are now public to anyone requesting them.

Watch for the leaks to the media next. That will prove Trump was correct. IT was a witch hunt.
 
Searcher, but decades of Liberal justices and liberal rulings were probably just fine right?

C'mon. Give me some credit will ya. I post both sides.

Stick around. Good stuff coming up.
 

Crazy Henry Baldwin, the Mentally Ill Supreme Court Justice​

In the history of the United States, only 120 people have served on the Supreme Court. Some suffered from mental illness. Henry Baldwin was one of them.

In 1833, Baldwin missed an entire term of the court after his hospitalization for “incurable lunacy.” Yet he returned in 1834 and served 12 more years until his death.

His colleagues thought the cure hadn’t worked. They found him disruptive, obnoxious and odd. The court reporter wrote that five people had called him crazy – in one day.

More about Crazy Henry:

 
Lotta peeps into that. R's, D's, religious fanatics, power crazed maniacs, the list goes on and on.
I was referring to those questioning the SC's legitimacy.

Of course the SC is legitimate. It's (the SC) creation is right there in Article 3 of the Constitution. How could it not be "legitimate"?
 
I was referring to those questioning the SC's legitimacy.

Of course the SC is legitimate. It's (the SC) creation is right there in Article 3 of the Constitution. How could it not be "legitimate"?

Did you read about Crazy Henry? He had “incurable lunacy.” :eek:
 
I was referring to those questioning the SC's legitimacy.

Of course the SC is legitimate. It's (the SC) creation is right there in Article 3 of the Constitution. How could it not be "legitimate"?
Okay.

Show us where the Kourt is vested with judicial review of legislation, and is given immunity from challenges by the sovereign States.
 
Remember this is someone's opinion. Nothing more. Take it fwiw and dyodd.

Three Worst Supreme Court Justices of All Time​

With the recent death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and the battle shaping up over whether Barack Obama should appoint his successor, I decided to jump in with my list of the three worst Supreme Court Justices of all-time (in chronological order).
https://www.huffpost.com/author/catajs-603
By Alan Singer, Contributor
Social studies educator, Hofstra University, my opinions, of course, are my own
Feb 18, 2016, 06:58 AM EST|Updated Feb 18, 2017

Top ten lists and rankings are very popular online: the best Presidents, the worst Presidents, the best-looking celebrities, best and worst athletes and sports teams. With the recent death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and the battle shaping up over whether Barack Obama should appoint his successor, I decided to jump in with my list of the three worst Supreme Court Justices of all-time (in chronological order). Scalia, of course makes my list. I hope social studies teachers find this especially useful. They can involve students in creating their own lists based on clear criteria supported by evidence.

My criteria are significant influence and negative impact, which leaves out justices like John Rutledge, James Byrnes, and Thomas Johnson who each served for slightly more than a year, and Clarence Thomas who appears to have virtually no influence. For a more judicial discussion of the Supreme Court appointment process I recommend "Supreme Court Nominations: Questions and Answers" on the History New Network.

Full article here:

 
Remember this is someone's opinion. Nothing more.
Then that person's opinion is not worth a plug nickel.


Scalia, of course makes my list.

Of late, he is one of the only Originalists in the bunch, and he's labeled as the worst one ever? How does one take an oath to "protect preserve and defend the Constitution", without supporting the original intent of the Document?

Anyone who doesn't support the original intent of the Document, obviously does not believe in the principles and ideals enshrined within it's pages.
...and therefor cannot possibly support the Constitution.
 
Then that person's opinion is not worth a plug nickel.




Of late, he is one of the only Originalists in the bunch, and he's labeled as the worst one ever? How does one take an oath to "protect preserve and defend the Constitution", without supporting the original intent of the Document?

Anyone who doesn't support the original intent of the Document, obviously does not believe in the principles and ideals enshrined within it's pages.
...and therefor cannot possibly support the Constitution.

Which song did you like? Mine or Goldhedge's? :D I like mine the best. The one you pick will be the official thread theme song.
 
Last edited:
PSA: Since JK appears to be MIA, it's up to me to say "Stoned Love" is the official thread theme song on this rainy day. :D

_______________________________________

Back to business at hand.....................

Is the Supreme Court turning the Constitution into a homicide pact?​

Opinion by Steven Lubet, Opinion Contributor • 6h a

It looks as though there will be no end to the fallout from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s majority opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen holding that gun control regulations are “presumptively” unconstitutional unless they are sufficiently “analogous” to a 19th century law. The Court’s requirement of a close historical comparator has turned out to be almost impossible to satisfy, causing lower courts to invalidate or question otherwise reasonable laws prohibiting the obliteration of guns’ serial numbers and firearm possession by convicted felons or domestic abusers.

Most recently, a judge held that the absence of a “historical tradition of sufficiently analogous regulations” limited New York’s ability to restrict bringing concealed weapons onto others’ private property.

Read the rest here:

 
Why should I read the rest? The Left likes a "living, breathing" (ergo, flexible, and therefore meaningless) Constitution. They want NO rules - and that's the one consistency of their lives, private, political, public. NO RULES. Chaos is kewel. Rules for others - WE can DO WHAT WE LIKE.

It doesn't work that way. Abolish rules, and might-makes-right. And spaghetti-armed basement-dwellers with their privates hacked up, aren't the strong horses here. Someone else, another faction, is going to come out...and reduce them to compost.

Yeah, us, too. America's age is just about over, unless trends change fast.
 
In this 8 minute vid Alex Wagner and Melissa Murray discuss how a group of religious zealots were able to infiltrate the so-called "honorable" scotus justices in order to advance their agendas. Wonder if any money was exchanged? Gifts? Looks like Alito ate this up.


Coordinated Scheme To Influence SCOTUS Shows Susceptibility Of Justices To Activists​


MSNBC

Dec 1, 2022

 

House Judiciary Committee To Probe Supreme Court Corruption​


They will hold a hearing on Dec. 8 investigating the lobbying campaign that led to allegations that Justice Samuel Alito leaked the outcome of a 2014 decision.

 

House Judiciary Committee To Probe Supreme Court Corruption​


They will hold a hearing on Dec. 8 investigating the lobbying campaign that led to allegations that Justice Samuel Alito leaked the outcome of a 2014 decision.


Gee there seems to be a LOT more important case that leaked VERY recently.... The sound of silence.
 
From the link:

"There’s no downplaying the suffering [Coney Barrett] can cause from the bench. But to get her there, McConnell laid bare that this is all about power and Dems are poised to gain a lot of power a week from now. We have to vote," Jentleson tweeted on Oct. 26, 2020. "Then Dems have to use the power we give them to expand the court."

"If you are not willing to reform the filibuster and expand the court, you are not willing to do what it takes to win this fight," he added in a Sept. 1, 2021 tweet. "If we keep playing beanbag while they play hardball, the results will be more of this. It's that simple."

 

Brett Kavanaugh Raises Ethics Concerns After Attending Holiday Party With Ex-Trump Officials, Hard Righters​

Story by Ken Meyer • 2h ago

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s judicial ethics came under scrutiny after it was reported that he attended a holiday party with former Donald Trump officials and numerous other prominent right-wing operatives.

Politico Playbook reported on a Christmas party held on Friday at the home of American Conservative Union leader Matt Schlapp and his wife, Trump White House Director of Strategic Communications Mercedes Schlapp. Kavanaugh was at the top of the guest list, among several other prominent names flagged by Politico.

 
This is hysterical.

Lawrence: Texts Show ‘Lying Clown’ Giuliani Was Ginni Thomas’s ‘Hero’​

MSNBC
Dec 14, 2022


MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell analyzes new reporting from Talking Points Memo about text messages that were sent between former Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and Virginia Thomas, the conservative activist and wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, during Rudy Giuliani’s performance at the infamous “hair dye” press conference in the weeks after the 2020 election. 6:21
 

Can We Stop Wealthy Rightwing “Christians” from Bribing the Supreme Court?​


Thom Hartmann Pr
Dec 14, 2022


The Republicans who control this Supreme Court will never voluntarily hold themselves to account, even as they take millions in gifts from special interests; party or pray with white religious fanatics over cases before them having to do with religion, white supremacism, or voting rights; and issue increasingly bizarre and grotesque rulings in defiance of common sense, public opinion, Congress and the Presidency.

Congress has the explicit power — Madison or Hamilton would say obligation — under Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution to “regulate” the Supreme Court. 4:40
 
Time has come today. I say put them under a microscope. Let's see if they are bought and paid for.

'Let’s do that!' Internet cheers Republican warning that Supreme Court Justices' tax returns could go public​

Story by David Badash, The New Civil Rights Movement • Yesterday 6:50 PM

Republicans are outraged that after three years, Democrats may release Donald Trump’s taxes, which the House Ways and Means Committee received and has been examining since Tuesday afternoon at 3:00 PM.

But one Republican lawmaker was mocked after delivering a stern warning, insisting with no basis that should Democrats choose to release Trump’s taxes, that would open the floodgates, allowing the tax returns of ordinary citizens, or even the tax returns of Supreme Court justices to be made public.

More great reading here:

 

Trump's court rolling back decades of progress based on MAGA fantasies about a past that never existed: analysis​

Opinion by Travis Gettys • Yesterday 11:15 AM

Donald Trump's three appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court launched a judicial revolution this year rolling back the past half-century of constitutional advancements.

The Trump-shaped right-wing majority reversed abortion rights, declared the separation of church and state dead and decided the Second Amendment blocked state concealed-carry laws, and seems poised to steer the court in an even more radical direction in next year's decisions, according to Bloomberg columnist Noah Feldman.

"What unifies this conservative revolution is a radical vision of the restoration of constitutional law to the state it was in before the liberal decisions of the Warren court created modern constitutional law more than 50 years ago," Feldman wrote. "But this conservative court doesn’t only want to roll back the clock. They also want to change how judicial decisions are made: Instead of relying on precedent and principle, they insist on using a nostalgic version of history to decide major cases. And like most forms of nostalgia, the court’s approach is less historical than pseudo-historical."

Full article:

 

"Donald Trump's three appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court launched a judicial revolution this year rolling back the past half-century of constitutional advancements."​


What a big steaming pile of dung! Half-century of "ADVANCEMENTS".... hahahahahhahahahahhah *snort-bbig breath* hahahhahahahhahah
 
issue increasingly bizarre and grotesque rulings in defiance of common sense, public opinion, Congress and the Presidency.
I notice that you did not include the Constitution as being one of the thngs the decisions went against.
.....and isn't that the only thing that really counts in a Supreme Court decision? That it be in harmony with what the Constitution actually says, as opposed to being in harmony with what some people wished it said?

Donald Trump's three appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court launched a judicial revolution this year rolling back the past half-century of constitutional advancements.
That's a good start. Now, when will they undo the previous half-century of progressive claptrap "advancement"?
 
Come with me back in time when men were men and women were women.

The Rifleman and Have Gun Will Travel were great tv shows. But that isn't really western history.

Ozzie and Harriet along with Leave It To Beaver were neat shows, but they weren't a real depiction of how most Americans lived.

Some of the supremes seem to want us to go back in time to an America that existed only in their minds. Today is a new day. Gotta get away from a non-existent past and deal with today's America.
 
Last edited:
Some of the supremes seem to want us to go back in time to an America that existed only in their minds.
No, what their decisions were based on was the Constitution. If the Constitution does not authorize a particular gov action, then no matter how many wish it to be so, it just ain't Constitutional.

For example, if enough people were to want guns banned, the Constitution would be amended to reflect that.
....but until such time, it says that the Right of the people to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed upon by government. Why is that so hard for so many of the woketards to understand? All they gotta do is to Amend the Constitution, and Poof! All the communism they want will then be Constitutional.

Same applies to abortion, but in reverse, as the Constitution makes no guarantee of a Right to be able to end another's life.
 
Back
Top Bottom