All Things SCOTUS

[drayer54]

he honestly believes this

He believes whatever narrative foreign money and demand justice tell him to.

 

[Irish#1]

Listen… if someone can point me to a news source showing the liberal judges have done anything like this then great! No problems. Fuck them all. Maybe Fox News can stop jerking off to the Hunter Biden laptop and go out and find that story. As of now these are the stories and the news. Stop being so whiny about the news.

I was talking about your posts in general and it’s been more than just Fox who have written about the laptop.

 

[drayer54]

Listen… if someone can point me to a news source showing the liberal judges have done anything like this then great! No problems. Fuck them all. Maybe Fox News can stop jerking off to the Hunter Biden laptop and go out and find that story. As of now these are the stories and the news. Stop being so whiny about the news.

Serious question- Do you acknowledge that the laptop is real?

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Serious question- Do you acknowledge that the laptop is real?

His laptop is real sure. So is mine. Lol. Did he leave it somewhere due to forgetting about it or being on drugs? Sure. So what? People have drug problems. Is there a viable chain of custody for it after the store owner gave it to Guilloani? Do we know it wasn’t tampered with? Do we know if it was modified after Guilloani took it? Do we know if dseep fake technology wasn’t used to plant stuff on it? Do we have a back up of it before and after it was at the store and given to Guilloani? Was that illegal? Serious questions.

We already know what kind of people Are involved and they are about as trustworthy as a pedophile in a daycare center.


Who the fuck cares?

 

[NorthDakota]

A+ confirmation. Ty <3

Cack is what folks call a cuck. He's Trump level soft while pretending otherwise

 

[NorthDakota]

All nine SCOTUS justices signed off on a statement telling people like Cack to go fuck themselves lmaooo

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Poor Alito

 

[sixstar]

His laptop is real sure. So is mine. Lol. Did he leave it somewhere due to forgetting about it or being on drugs? Sure. So what? People have drug problems. Is there a viable chain of custody for it after the store owner gave it to Guilloani? Do we know it wasn’t tampered with? Do we know if it was modified after Guilloani took it? Do we know if dseep fake technology wasn’t used to plant stuff on it? Do we have a back up of it before and after it was at the store and given to Guilloani? Was that illegal? Serious questions.

We already know what kind of people Are involved and they are about as trustworthy as a pedophile in a daycare center.


Who the fuck cares?

This post perfectly summarizes how cack is committed to party lines over facts and logic.

Why are you all of a sudden so concerned with chain of custody and proof when you publish unsubstantiated and false garbage multiple times per day?

 

[SeekNDestroy]

This post perfectly summarizes how cack is committed to party lines over facts and logic.

Why are you all of a sudden so concerned with chain of custody and proof when you publish unsubstantiated and false garbage multiple times per day?

Is he wrong, though?

 

[SeekNDestroy]

Is he wrong to demand full chain of custody, assume tampering, allege deep fake plants, require backups, and accuse investigators as pedophiles when he constantly calls the entire GOP racist and posts partisan misinformation and outright lies?

yes, yes he is wrong until he applies the same rigor to the stuff that he posts.

Gimme a break. He didn’t assume anything, allege anything, or accuse anyone of anything. He brought up perfectly valid hypotheticals. And the GOP, although not all of it’s members are racist, is the party of racists.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Not shocked face people can’t read. Lol. Clowns. The fact the cpu was handed over which may be illegal to begin with to political operatives with no chain of custody or backups is literally the end of it. You are begging to be lied to at this point and in no way does HBs personal laptop have anything of importance to us other than a personal vendetta against Biden.

The owner of the shop has changed his stories, there are things on it that are highly suspected of being edited or doctored including emails and videos and Rudy Guilloani is ALREADY known to have worked with Russian intelligence operatives on previous schemes about Ukraine. He is a douche bag and 100% shady and untrustworthy.

Feds examining whether alleged Hunter Biden emails are linked to a foreign intel operation

One email, which has not been confirmed to be authentic, suggested a meeting between Joe Biden and a rep from a Ukraine firm that once paid his son Hunter.

www.nbcnews.com

I don’t give a shit about HB’s personal laptop. It affects me in no way.

 

[drayer54]

The administrative state is on notice.

 

[drayer54]

Well I guess there are many people on here who will defend this as acceptable behavior.

Is this acceptable?

Dem Senator Who Attacked Conservative Justices’ Wife’s Activism Pushed Legislation Related To His Own Wife’s Work

Whitehouse has raised concern about the employment of Thomas' wife while he introduced bills touching on issues his wife works on as a consultant.

dailycaller.com

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Is this acceptable?

Dem Senator Who Attacked Conservative Justices’ Wife’s Activism Pushed Legislation Related To His Own Wife’s Work

Whitehouse has raised concern about the employment of Thomas' wife while he introduced bills touching on issues his wife works on as a consultant.

dailycaller.com

It is acceptable per your article. I dont like it and I think it is wrong. I dont think its on the same level or scale as the SCOTUS judges being influenced by donors or the Chief Justices wife making 10.5 mil on job placmenets for lawyers with business in front of the court. I bet you will find far worse issues with most other legislators than an Ocean conservancy lol.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

 

[ab2cmiller]

I do expect more out of of our Supreme Court justices than our legislators

 

[Irish#1]

It is acceptable per your article. I dont like it and I think it is wrong. I dont think its on the same level or scale as the SCOTUS judges being influenced by donors or the Chief Justices wife making 10.5 mil on job placmenets for lawyers with business in front of the court. I bet you will find far worse issues with most other legislators than an Ocean conservancy lol.

This is such a stretch. Just because she recruits lawyers doesn't mean she's influencing anything going in front of the SC. She doesn't get to determine what cases go before the SC and she doesn't get to decide who argues in front of the SC. She may have a firm that asks her to find them someone who has argued in front of the SC before, but that isn't influencing the SC.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

This is such a stretch. Just because she recruits lawyers doesn't mean she's influencing anything going in front of the SC. She doesn't get to determine what cases go before the SC and she doesn't get to decide who argues in front of the SC. She may have a firm that asks her to find them someone who has argued in front of the SC before, but that isn't influencing the SC.

:eyeroll: Its not a stretch. She is parlaying access and insight for a major personal profit. She can and will know the schedule before hand. She will know how the court is likely to come down on a case. She will know arguments that can and "should" be used to make their decisions. These are all entirely plausible issues at hand and there should be NO question at all. You are dismissing out of hand with no evidence other than assuming they are doing the right thing without basis. I hope they are but these conflicts are clear conflicts regardless of their leanings.

FOr example:
Lawfirm A has one or more cases pending before the SCOTUS and they obviously want to be successful. They approach her and say... "hey' we are looking for a lawyer that would a "GREAT" fit for our upcoming case on political contribution laws. Can you help us?" She says sure Ive got someone that would be a great fit because she knows this person would make the right arguments to satisfy the appropriate judges. This recommendation would be worth a lot of money to a law firm wanting to successfully argue far reaching important cases as well as for the lawyer who gets the job to pad their resumes. I could go on but this is essentially it.

Its to easy and she knows who to pass on because she knows what's going on behind the scenes at the court.

This is purely hypothetical but 100% totally plausible which is why everyone thinks at most its ethically wrong.

Also there are two ways to look at this and we can assume:
1: the judges already know how they are going to rule in any case so whats the point of having the arguments in court ( id like to believe these judges could be swayed by arguments because if they cant its pointless. They will just rule the way they would always rule and they very well could be seen as corrupt)
or 2: the judges are open to being convinced one way or the other and they can be swayed by the lawyers... there for getting the right lawyer in place to make your case to the SCOTUS is of utmost importance for those wanting to win and there for a very valuable job and opportunity for the law firm the lawyer works for (status, future cases, earnings etc).

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

I do expect more out of of our Supreme Court justices than our legislators

I expect the most out of the final arbiters of justice in this country who prides itself on democracy and equal treatment under the law. The fact there are no guardrails for the highest court in the land is problematic (regardless of their leanings).

 

[NorthDakota]

Is he wrong, though?

Ian Milheiser doesn't believe in the the US senate. He's a deeply broken man.

 

[NorthDakota]

Poor Alito

Poor all nine justices. Dealing with dumbass people like you chasing them around like they don't got enough on their plate.

Ian Milheiser is one of the crown jewels of retarded legal folks on Twitter. Got himself a good education, and dedicated his life to having shitty takes.

 

[Irish#1]

:eyeroll: Its not a stretch. She is parlaying access and insight for a major personal profit. She can and will know the schedule before hand. She will know how the court is likely to come down on a case. She will know arguments that can and "should" be used to make their decisions. These are all entirely plausible issues at hand and there should be NO question at all. You are dismissing out of hand with no evidence other than assuming they are doing the right thing without basis. I hope they are but these conflicts are clear conflicts regardless of their leanings.

FOr example:
Lawfirm A has one or more cases pending before the SCOTUS and they obviously want to be successful. They approach her and say... "hey' we are looking for a lawyer that would a "GREAT" fit for our upcoming case on political contribution laws. Can you help us?" She says sure Ive got someone that would be a great fit because she knows this person would make the right arguments to satisfy the appropriate judges. This recommendation would be worth a lot of money to a law firm wanting to successfully argue far reaching important cases as well as for the lawyer who gets the job to pad their resumes. I could go on but this is essentially it.

Its to easy and she knows who to pass on because she knows what's going on behind the scenes at the court.

This is purely hypothetical but 100% totally plausible which is why everyone thinks at most its ethically wrong.

Also there are two ways to look at this and we can assume:
1: the judges already know how they are going to rule in any case so whats the point of having the arguments in court ( id like to believe these judges could be swayed by arguments because if they cant its pointless. They will just rule the way they would always rule and they very well could be seen as corrupt)
or 2: the judges are open to being convinced one way or the other and they can be swayed by the lawyers... there for getting the right lawyer in place to make your case to the SCOTUS is of utmost importance for those wanting to win and there for a very valuable job and opportunity for the law firm the lawyer works for (status, future cases, earnings etc).

I did some recruiting before. I know how it
works. Client has a need. You try to fulfill it. Client and perspective employee agree, she gets paid and then it’s on them after that. This is no different than me needing a web developer that fits my specific needs and a firm finding me one that meets those specific needs.

It’s a free market.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

I did some recruiting before. I know how it
works. Client has a need. You try to fulfill it. Client and perspective employee agree, she gets paid and then it’s on them after that. This is no different than me needing a web developer that fits my specific needs and a firm finding me one that meets those specific needs.

It’s a free market.

Sorry but the courts and especially the SCOTUS are not a free market enterprise. It just can’t be and I have never heard anyone say that before lol.

 

[NorthDakota]

I did some recruiting before. I know how it
works. Client has a need. You try to fulfill it. Client and perspective employee agree, she gets paid and then it’s on them after that. This is no different than me needing a web developer that fits my specific needs and a firm finding me one that meets those specific needs.

It’s a free market.

He acts like she isn't independently competent while he'll turn a blind eye to Biden's crackhead kid "selling art" and 100x worse...Joe not owning his grandkid.

 

[Irish#1]

Sorry but the courts and especially the SCOTUS are not a free market enterprise. It just can’t be and I have never heard anyone say that before lol.

Agree, they aren't free market enterprises, but recruiting is.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Agree, they aren't free market enterprises, but recruiting is.

soooo......

 

[drayer54]

We used to have a country…

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

We used to have a country…

View attachment 3053453

I fucking literally laughed out loud at your comment.

Wait did we have a country before Thomas got busted or is it just now we dont have one anymore because its Sotomayor?
LOLOLOLOLOLO>..... please learn to link instead of pics of articles...where did that come from anyway?

also....lmao apparently its a thing. I hear ya. Why are the SCOTUS justices doing this? They clearly need oversight. Now you wouldnt be trying to be biased now would you? I'd hate for you to be tarred with the same feather I am...

SCOTUS justices went on cushy teaching trips to Italy, Iceland, and the UK funded by a conservative law school: NYT

Neil Gorsuch, Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh went on George Mason University teaching trips that, per one expert, look a lot like free vacations.

www.businessinsider.com

Neil Gorsuch went to Padua, Italy, in 2018 and to Iceland in 2021, where he was joined by Elena Kagan. Brett Kavanaugh taught in the picturesque countryside of Runnymede, England, in 2019, the report said.

Teaching gigs are a permitted way for justices to earn extra money on top of their salaries of around $280,000.

But the overseas postings drew scrutiny for the perks that came with them, covering flights, food, drink, and plush accommodation.

From The Times's investigation, informed by a cache of internal George Mason emails:

• Gorsuch was hosted in an "aristocratic" old-town apartment in Padua at the school's expense in 2018.
• He was flown there at a cost of $3,771.
• Gorsuch was asked to help pick which Italian city would host his teaching trip.
• He only had to teach in the mornings.
• Gorsuch's accommodation in Iceland in 2021 cost $5,250.
• The school paid thousands of dollars more to bring in friends and colleagues of Gorsuch as guest speakers, Kagan among them.
• Kavanaugh was taken to Runnymede, England, in 2019 and supplied "a nice cottage" in the countryside.

The Times spoke to a legal-ethics expert, Amanda Frost of the University of Virginia's law school, who said the arrangements raised issues.

"Some of this sounds like all-expenses-paid vacations, with a little teaching thrown in," she said.

If they are permitted to do so and they are free they dont need to be dicslosed? Right?

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Chief Justice Roberts doubles down in letter to Senate Dems

Chief Justice John Roberts is doubling down on his claim that the U.S. Supreme Court needs no ethics reforms in the wake of bombshell reports that at least two justices have engaged in what some consider corruption.Late Monday afternoon, in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats...

www.rawstory.com

Buried lede: "We investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong."

 

[drayer54]

Chief Justice Roberts doubles down in letter to Senate Dems

Chief Justice John Roberts is doubling down on his claim that the U.S. Supreme Court needs no ethics reforms in the wake of bombshell reports that at least two justices have engaged in what some consider corruption.Late Monday afternoon, in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats...

www.rawstory.com

Buried lede: "We investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong."

“Bombshell”

This is a coordinated attack to de-legitimize the one institution that isn’t pushing Biden’s insanity. This is about power and perception to let them ignore the courts. This is only a bombshell to those ideologically aligned with Keith Olbermann or people who get news on TikTok.

The humanity destroyed here is just plain awful.