All Things SCOTUS

drayer54 said:

This is why under qualified partisans should not be on the court and only damage its credibility.

Click to expand...

Your sources always crack me up. 😂

SeekNDestroy said:

Your sources always crack me up. 😂

Click to expand...

Pretty sure Bad Hombre writes for the Atlantic? Or is the BBC?

You know its bad when someone in the Caribbean has to use a VPN. You know the usual "Well you gotta listen to the video!" and we've already seen the typical slaps fall for anything remotely negative about people on the Left.

So to be clear- you guys are returning to the "this person is right center/pronoun deficient" thus terrible and I will completely disregard the point of the post because my preferred party put a DEI retard on the bench?

drayer54 said:

This is why under qualified partisans should not be on the court and only damage its credibility.

Click to expand...

Like no one saw that coming 🙄

drayer54 said:

So to be clear- you guys are returning to the "this person is right center/pronoun deficient" thus terrible and I will completely disregard the point of the post because my preferred party put a DEI retard on the bench?

Click to expand...

You keep getting force fed some slop from accounts in third world countries trying to trigger you, and it's working. Some random dude on Twitter called MAGAMatt1488 in the Congo could tell you that Chuck Schumer was feeding white christians to his friends and you'd be blasting that shit all over these threads, and the clip would just be "kids shouldn't be hungry".

Here- attack CSPAN for your retarded DEI judge.

I expected to see five follow ups as to why cspan is a redneck right wing garage network by now in the traditional attack the poster response plan.

I am A-OK with people dumping on the account being cited. I have done this when people share anythinf Meidas or OccupyDems or whatever.

As far as the clip, its just CSPAN so yes that part is safe.

Jackson will probably go down as a very poor choice. You can have some wild voices on the court who bring some different philosophies and that's well and good. But shes not Elena Kagan. There isn't going to be a legacy here.

NorthDakota said:

I am A-OK with people dumping on the account being cited. I have done this when people share anythinf Meidas or OccupyDems or whatever.

As far as the clip, its just CSPAN so yes that part is safe.

Jackson will probably go down as a very poor choice. You can have some wild voices on the court who bring some different philosophies and that's well and good. But shes not Elena Kagan. There isn't going to be a legacy here.

Click to expand...

She's got a JD from Harvard. I totally expect people to disagree with her positions and statements, but to think she's a "DEI retard" is astounding.

TorontoGold said:

She's got a JD from Harvard. I totally expect people to disagree with her positions and statements, but to think she's a "DEI retard" is astounding.

Click to expand...

I work with some people with very impressive papers and suspect you have as well. It doesn’t always produce results.
I won’t knock on Kagan's brain, because she has a very good one. A solid choice for a left wing President. Jackson has been a hot mess express who talks way too much. She got her gig for DEI qualifications and I suspect, ties and lobbying from Demand Justice. Biden, similar to Kamala, committed to a small demographic with a small talent pool and both decisions proved to be underperforming. The only nice thing about her is that we get to see the other justices absolutely go after her ridiculous takes.

NorthDakota said:

I am A-OK with people dumping on the account being cited. I have done this when people share anythinf Meidas or OccupyDems or whatever.

As far as the clip, its just CSPAN so yes that part is safe.

Jackson will probably go down as a very poor choice. You can have some wild voices on the court who bring some different philosophies and that's well and good. But shes not Elena Kagan. There isn't going to be a legacy here.

Click to expand...

It depends- if you are representing the opinion of a poster, sure. If it’s just for the media in the post- it’s irrelevant. If Alex Jones or Keith Olbermann shows a video of a sunset, it doesn’t mean the sun didn’t set.

TorontoGold said:

She's got a JD from Harvard. I totally expect people to disagree with her positions and statements, but to think she's a "DEI retard" is astounding.

Click to expand...

Having a JD from Harvard doesn't insulate her from questions about her nomination (DEI) or her intelligence (retard). She went to school at a time where quotas almost certainly existed. A Georgetown Law professor got fired or pressured to resign simply for observing that her black students consistently performed more poorly in her class than other groups.

When I was in law school, zero black students made Law Review (top ~10% of blindly scored conpetition) until they circulated a petition. The school relented and put about half of them on Law Review, and made one the Editor in Chief.

So I totally get people questioning her. Clarence Thomas has spoken extensively on this subject. When groups are held to different standards, people will rightly wonder whether members of the group with lower standards actually deserved what they got.

So she gets into HLS. A great accomplishment really regardless of who you are, but much much easier for certain groups. Similar situation with Yale, I know two guys who went to YLS, both are army veterans. One is gay. One is from rural North Dakota. They checked some boxes. JD Vance also is a military veteran who went to Yale. Im not saying anything.....but im saying its normal to notice things.

Once you get into law school, you learn the same thing at most schools*. A Harvard lawyer will probably be better than a University of North Dakota lawyer. But that's based on being smarter, not based on the education itself. Had I went to Harvard, it would've got me a better job because of the network they have. Same deal with Notre Dame law or any of the prominent schools. I guess this is a long and sloppy way of saying, congrats to her on graduating law school. It isn't hard if you know how to read and are willing to put in the time to read. The hard part is getting in. But not everyone plays by the same rules getting in.

So while I dont think shes a "DEI retard", its very plausible if not likely that she is more akin to an affirmative action admission than some upper middle class white kid from Rhode Island or Chicago would be.

Finally, at some point people need to be judged on their work product rather than where they went to school. You'll absolutely get intellectually lazy people who just sat "black + lady + Harvard = DEI retard." But the average complaint you'll see from legal twitterverse/ecosystem about her is based on oral argument and her dissents. Same deal with Sotomayor when even very good "blue no matter who" types sounded the alarm on before she got confirmed. I believe conservatives tanked Harriet Miers when Bush43 was being deeply unserious. You only get so many Supreme Court nominees, and it's disappointing when it seems one (or more) arent up to the task either by choice or by intellectual limitations.

*I am told some low end schools use law school as a three year bar prep course. Even a 145-150 LSAT can pass the bar with adequate preparation. These schools would be different from the classical legal education.

drayer54 said:

I work with some people with very impressive papers and suspect you have as well. It doesn’t always produce results.
I won’t knock on Kagan's brain, because she has a very good one. A solid choice for a left wing President. Jackson has been a hot mess express who talks way too much. She got her gig for DEI qualifications and I suspect, ties and lobbying from Demand Justice. Biden, similar to Kamala, committed to a small demographic with a small talent pool and both decisions proved to be underperforming. The only nice thing about her is that we get to see the other justices absolutely go after her ridiculous takes.

Click to expand...

It doesn't produce results, but the choice of any supreme court justice is always going to be shit no matter the candidate because it's political.

Clarence Thomas was literally picked to fill Thurgood Marshall's spot, that is exact same DEI type garbage that Biden used to announce KBJ. I think anyone would would call Clarence Thomas a "DEI retard" an absolute moron. He's a smart guy who's a solid choice for a conversative president.

NorthDakota said:

Having a JD from Harvard doesn't insulate her from questions about her nomination (DEI) or her intelligence (retard). She went to school at a time where quotas almost certainly existed. A Georgetown Law professor got fired or pressured to resign simply for observing that her black students consistently performed more poorly in her class than other groups.

When I was in law school, zero black students made Law Review (top ~10% of blindly scored conpetition) until they circulated a petition. The school relented and put about half of them on Law Review, and made one the Editor in Chief.

So I totally get people questioning her. Clarence Thomas has spoken extensively on this subject. When groups are held to different standards, people will rightly wonder whether members of the group with lower standards actually deserved what they got.

So she gets into HLS. A great accomplishment really regardless of who you are, but much much easier for certain groups. Similar situation with Yale, I know two guys who went to YLS, both are army veterans. One is gay. One is from rural North Dakota. They checked some boxes. JD Vance also is a military veteran who went to Yale. Im not saying anything.....but im saying its normal to notice things.

Once you get into law school, you learn the same thing at most schools*. A Harvard lawyer will probably be better than a University of North Dakota lawyer. But that's based on being smarter, not based on the education itself. Had I went to Harvard, it would've got me a better job because of the network they have. Same deal with Notre Dame law or any of the prominent schools. I guess this is a long and sloppy way of saying, congrats to her on graduating law school. It isn't hard if you know how to read and are willing to put in the time to read. The hard part is getting in. But not everyone plays by the same rules getting in.

So while I dont think shes a "DEI retard", its very plausible if not likely that she is more akin to an affirmative action admission than some upper middle class white kid from Rhode Island or Chicago would be.

Finally, at some point people need to be judged on their work product rather than where they went to school. You'll absolutely get intellectually lazy people who just sat "black + lady + Harvard = DEI retard." But the average complaint you'll see from legal twitterverse/ecosystem about her is based on oral argument and her dissents. Same deal with Sotomayor when even very good "blue no matter who" types sounded the alarm on before she got confirmed. I believe conservatives tanked Harriet Miers when Bush43 was being deeply unserious. You only get so many Supreme Court nominees, and it's disappointing when it seems one (or more) arent up to the task either by choice or by intellectual limitations.

*I am told some low end schools use law school as a three year bar prep course. Even a 145-150 LSAT can pass the bar with adequate preparation. These schools would be different from the classical legal education.

Click to expand...

Affirmative action can only be an excuse so far. At some point the merits of the person become more important. I could see the compliant if this was some fresh grad, but she got nominated to the supreme court.

I am out of my depth assessing the legal qualities of replacement level supreme court justice vs. KBJ. But when it's some random AI third world country slop account just using a random clip to add their "commentary" to it, I know that they're fucking morons.

It’s a thread, not a law review article. The point was pretty obvious, and people clutching pearls over the wording are just dodging the substance. A Harvard JD doesn’t make her untouchable. I’ve worked with Yale grads who weren’t any more impressive than folks out of IU or Purdue. The paper doesn’t guarantee the product.

She talks non-stop and contributes with activist POV and reinforces the notion that the left views the court as a political post.

TorontoGold said:

It doesn't produce results, but the choice of any supreme court justice is always going to be shit no matter the candidate because it's political.

Clarence Thomas was literally picked to fill Thurgood Marshall's spot, that is exact same DEI type garbage that Biden used to announce KBJ. I think anyone would would call Clarence Thomas a "DEI retard" an absolute moron. He's a smart guy who's a solid choice for a conversative president.



Affirmative action can only be an excuse so far. At some point the merits of the person become more important. I could see the compliant if this was some fresh grad, but she got nominated to the supreme court.

I am out of my depth assessing the legal qualities of replacement level supreme court justice vs. KBJ. But when it's some random AI third world country slop account just using a random clip to add their "commentary" to it, I know that they're fucking morons.

Click to expand...

This is undeniable.

drayer54 said:

It’s a thread, not a law review article. The point was pretty obvious, and people clutching pearls over the wording are just dodging the substance. A Harvard JD doesn’t make her untouchable. I’ve worked with Yale grads who weren’t any more impressive than folks out of IU or Purdue. The paper doesn’t guarantee the product.

She talks non-stop and contributes with activist POV and reinforces the notion that the left views the court as a political post.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with her points. I think the framing used by the third world slop AI account is wrong and I know that many on here get routinely confused by it so that's why I pointed it out.

The world needs an ACLU, but the current org is a joke.

DEI hire got schooled again.

May get a ruling on Trump's tariffs today.

A specific approach was struck down by the Supreme Court. But before anyone gets the panties in a wad or conversely salivates over the demise of our nation, it won't change much of anything.

The tariffs will move forward under various statutes and methods, and continue to make us a stronger nation to the agony of the commie crowd who hate our nation. Carry on

I’m generally of the belief that Thomas and Alito are on the right side of everything, so…

drayer54 said:

I’m generally of the belief that Thomas and Alito are on the right side of everything, so…

Click to expand...

Same

Yes, tariffs which hurt the free market and involve government intervention definitely things that a communist would hate. This is all from noted "if you criticize me, I mute you" - Boobyok.

Now corporations will sue to get back the money they were illegally taxed. Any guesses on how much of that money average Americans will see?

At least this has eradicated fentanyl.

GATTACA! said:

Now corporations will sue to get back the money they were illegally taxed. Any guesses on how much of that money average Americans will see?

At least this has eradicated fentanyl.

Click to expand...

Between this and the DOGE checks we will be receiving any day now things are looking up for working Americans.

GoIrish41 said:

Between this and the DOGE checks we will be receiving any day now things are looking up for working Americans.

Click to expand...

The Dow Jones is almost at $50k, gas is $3 a gallon, and inflation is under 3%. Which one of those bothers you compared to 2022?

Like I said. Nothing will change other than the particular avenue of leveraging tariffs.

And as with anything, you can’t convince the cult mind of anything.

Polish Leppy 22 said:

The Dow Jones is almost at $50k, gas is $3 a gallon, and inflation is under 3%. Which one of those bothers you compared to 2022?

Click to expand...

$50k 😂😂😂

Polish Leppy 22 said:

The Dow Jones is almost at $50k, gas is $3 a gallon, and inflation is under 3%. Which one of those bothers you compared to 2022?

Click to expand...

Brilliant!