All Things SCOTUS

[Cackalacky2.0]

I’m not doing anything. I expect the SCOTUS to be ethically sound and not corrupt. No matter who it is. Lol. Keep going…

 

[Irish#1]

As Democrats attempt to spur controversy relating to conservative judges by filing numerous ethics complaints, tables turned as the focus shifted to scandals involving Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

The far-leftist justice has recently been in the news for numerous improper disclosures relating to funded trips, purchases and connections that could potentially influence the bench.

Adding to the scandal, a recent Daily Wire report brought several copyright infringement cases Sotomayor failed to liberate herself from to light.

The cases involved books published by Penguin Random House, which has already paid her millions for her books. Records proved that this is her largest source of income by a stretch.


The report noted that she got a $1.2 million book advance from Knopf Doubleday Group, a part of the conglomerate, in 2010. Two years later, she confirmed that she received two advance payments from the publisher totaling $1.9 million.

In 2013, Sotomayor voted in a court decision to hear a case against Aaron Greenspan v. Random House, despite her then-colleague Justice Stephen Breyer withdrawing after also receiving money from the publisher.

Sotomayor received annual payments from Penguin Random House from 2017 through at least 2021, totaling $3.6 million, according to reports.

In 2019, children’s book writer Jennie Nicasso implored the Supreme Court to hear her case against Penguin Random House on claims that the publisher sold an identical book to hers. Surprisingly, Sotomayor received a $10,586 check from the publisher the day the writer distributed her petition to the justices.


The Court’s decision favored the publisher as the justices voted not to hear the case. Coincidentally, Sotomayor got her biggest check of $82,807 from the parent company only a few months after the court’s decision.

Reports noted that similar situations also occurred with authors Nicassio and Viacom, who both sued the publisher for copyright infringement.

These discoveries come as a coordinated attack has been launched against conservative justices by several far-left outlets, echoing the same misinformation about the court’s conservative justices’ alleged financial misconducts.

 

[Irish#1]

I’m not doing anything except posting articles that put any Republican or conservative in a bad light. I expect the SCOTUS to be ethically sound and not corrupt. No matter who it is. Lol. Keep going…

FIFY

 

[Bishop2b5]

I’m not doing anything. I expect the SCOTUS to be ethically sound and not corrupt. No matter who it is. Lol. Keep going…

That might be almost believable if you didn't totally ignore every bit of corruption posted about any Dem. You're the guy who ranted for six years about, what turned out to be false, allegations against Trump, but goes completely deaf, dumb, and blind about Biden selling his office via his son to China & Ukraine. You're a hypocrite, a blind one at that, and you post more dishonest, demonstrably false nonsense than anyone else in this forum... and when busted for it, instead of taking responsibility for spreading lies, you brush it off as others being triggered.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

FIFY

And it triggers you. I can’t help you with that cognitive dissonance.

 

[IrishLax]

Imagine being married to someone this fucking stupid

 

[Jiggafini19Deux]

 

[IrishLax]

 

[drayer54]

It was unanimous.9-0.

 

[NorthDakota]

This was very good.

People can agree or disagree whether the government should be taking people's homes (particularly elderly) over small tax bills, but keeping the excess balance is pretty gross.

 

[drayer54]

This was very good.

People can agree or disagree whether the government should be taking people's homes (particularly elderly) over small tax bills, but keeping the excess balance is pretty gross.

Caesar does not keep your stuff.

 

[Jiggafini19Deux]

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/08/1181002182/supreme-court-voting-rights

Buster Douglas knocks out Tyson surprise vibes.

 

[drayer54]

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/08/1181002182/supreme-court-voting-rights

Buster Douglas knocks out Tyson surprise vibes.

Why are you surprised?

 

[IrishLax]

Go Irish?

 

[zelezo vlk]

Catholic University is Pro Life more at 10?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Blazers46]

Go Irish?

Yes

 

[drayer54]

Catholic University is Pro Life more at 10?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tell Mike Pence that.

 

[NorthDakota]

Go Irish?

Yes. This was wise of them to do.

 

[jprue24]

Huge decision.

 

[Jiggafini19Deux]

Hello, Wisconsin.

 

[jprue24]

Huge decision.

Seriously huge. I'm not talking about congressional seats either.

If the NC legislature was able to ignore the state's constitution, one of these other legislatures were going to test this legal theory with electors.

Dodged a potential Constitutional crisis.

 

[Irish#1]

And when SCOTUS seats became a majority of GOP appointees all the lefties were sure SCOTUS was going to suddenly swing hard right and rubber stamp a GOP agenda.

 

[drayer54]

And when SCOTUS seats became a majority of GOP appointees all the lefties were sure SCOTUS was going to suddenly swing hard right and rubber stamp a GOP agenda.

It’s like the lefties have been spreading lies, threats, hyperbole, and leaks to do anything they can to discredit the SCOTUS.

 

[jprue24]

And when SCOTUS seats became a majority of GOP appointees all the lefties were sure SCOTUS was going to suddenly swing hard right and rubber stamp a GOP agenda.

You're right, I keep forgetting that Roe v Wade is still in place.
That they didn't completely neuter the EPA.
That they ruled against that prayer warrior of a football coach that led very public prayer sessions as a employee of the government.
That there was scant evidence of a considerable rightward slant in the opinions of 6 of the 9 justices, requiring at least two "moderate" swing justices for, what I would call the common sense idea that an election year state legislature isn't the ultimate election authority.
That the SCOTUS does not already have a documented history of swinging to one side of a the political spectrum (that also moves).

The Supreme Concern: The History of Bias and Power in the Supreme Court | The Saturday Evening Post

Does the Supreme Court have too much power? Is it too political? Archivist Jeff Nilsson looks at the not-very-impartial history of the highest court in the land.

www.saturdayeveningpost.com

Ridiculous to have evidence based fears.




**I deleted the multiple posts, because I can see that's just being a jackass.**

 

[drayer54]

You're right, I keep forgetting that Roe v Wade is still in place.
That they didn't completely neuter the EPA.
That they ruled against that prayer warrior of a football coach that led very public prayer sessions as a employee of the government.
That there was scant evidence of a considerable rightward slant in the opinions of 6 of the 9 justices, requiring at least two "moderate" swing justices for, what I would call the common sense idea that an election year state legislature isn't the ultimate election authority.
That the SCOTUS does not already have a documented history of swinging to one side of a the political spectrum (that also moves).

The Supreme Concern: The History of Bias and Power in the Supreme Court | The Saturday Evening Post

Does the Supreme Court have too much power? Is it too political? Archivist Jeff Nilsson looks at the not-very-impartial history of the highest court in the land.

www.saturdayeveningpost.com

Ridiculous to have evidence based fears.




**I deleted the multiple posts, because I can see that's just being a jackass.**

The EPA decision was unanimous because the EPA had dramatically overreached. Unanimous.
They are applying the rule of law. Roe should have been returned to the states to decide.

 

[NorthDakota]

The EPA decision was unanimous because the EPA had dramatically overreached. Unanimous.
They are applying the rule of law. Roe should have been returned to the states to decide.

Yeah complaining about the EPA thing seems kinda odd considering...

 

[Irish#1]

You're right, I keep forgetting that Roe v Wade is still in place.
That they didn't completely neuter the EPA.
That they ruled against that prayer warrior of a football coach that led very public prayer sessions as a employee of the government.
That there was scant evidence of a considerable rightward slant in the opinions of 6 of the 9 justices, requiring at least two "moderate" swing justices for, what I would call the common sense idea that an election year state legislature isn't the ultimate election authority.
That the SCOTUS does not already have a documented history of swinging to one side of a the political spectrum (that also moves).

The Supreme Concern: The History of Bias and Power in the Supreme Court | The Saturday Evening Post

Does the Supreme Court have too much power? Is it too political? Archivist Jeff Nilsson looks at the not-very-impartial history of the highest court in the land.

www.saturdayeveningpost.com

Ridiculous to have evidence based fears.




**I deleted the multiple posts, because I can see that's just being a jackass.**

Nothing wrong in letting the states decide about abortion. Remember the recent decision puts back in place what was there in the first place.
Did the conservative judges blackmail the liberals into voting against their beliefs on the EPA?
What the hell is wrong with pubic prayer regardless of who employees the guy? You don't want to participate? Fine, don't participate, but let those that wish to go ahead and pray.
So they have a documented history of swinging. Not surprising as it goes both ways. Yet here the right majority SCOTUS just voted against what some think was an attempt to push voting rights to the right. Looks like they're being impartial to me.

 

[jprue24]

And here we go with the reframing of the topic away from what I'm responding to...

I'm giving you examples of why "lefties" have been justified in their concern with the current makeup of the court and historical information about the court that adds further evidence to those concerns. I didn't even bring up all the shadow docket victories for the right.

I'm not asking for your thoughts on these examples, they are irrelevant because you aren't a "leftist".

 

[NorthDakota]

And here we go with the reframing of the topic away from what I'm responding to...

I'm giving you examples of why "lefties" have been justified in their concern with the current makeup of the court and historical information about the court that adds further evidence to those concerns. I didn't even bring up all the shadow docket victories for the right.

I'm not asking for your thoughts on these examples, they are irrelevant because you aren't a "leftist".

Its very difficult to take your list of concerns seriously when the list includes a unanimous decision. Sorta invites mockery.

 

[jprue24]

Its very difficult to take your list of concerns seriously when the list includes a unanimous decision. Sorta invites mockery.

Similar to lawyers that need the legal standard of intent explained to them?

Anyways, are you saying leftists aren't upset about that ruling?