New Studies Show Supreme Courts Imperial Behavior Really Is Unprecedented

[easyt65]

Making a ruling based on Constitutionality instead of partisan preferrence is considered 'Imperial Behavior' by Democrats and snowflakes who did not ge their way in RvW...

...but directly threatening USSC Justices' lives, calling for violence against them, doxxing them, inciting a political assassination attempt against them, refusing to enforce laws intended to keep them safe, undermining them, and calling for an insurrection is okay with them.

....and snowflakes line up for miles to do it...

 

[bripat9643]

what are you talking about? of course they can

ROFL! How can two guys have children?

 

[struth]

ROFL! How can two guys have children?

adoption....duh

 

[bripat9643]

adoption....duh

Those aren't their own. Gays should not be allowed to adopt children.

 

[struth]

Those aren't their own. Gays should not be allowed to adopt children.

haha on what planet are you living? Of course when someone, anyone, adopts a child it becomes their own child. Geez man.

 

[bripat9643]

haha on what planet are you living? Of course when someone, anyone, adopts a child it becomes their own child. Geez man.

I live on a planet where it takes a male and a female to have a child. Please explain how two guys do it. Please explain how two fuck buddies can provide a child with a normal home life.

 

[struth]

I live on a planet where it takes a male and a female to have a child. Please explain how two guys do it. Please explain how two fuck buddies can provide a child with a normal home life.

how they can do it? they adopt a child. it’s not a hard concept…adopts isn’t something new

 

[bripat9643]

how they can do it? they adopt a child. it’s not a hard concept…adopts isn’t something new

I just told you there is no rational reason for allowing that.

It's a new concept to allow a couple of queers to adopt children. That doesn't make for a normal home environment.

 

[struth]

I just told you there is no rational reason for allowing that.

It's a new concept to allow a couple of queers to adopt children. That doesn't make for a normal home environment.

of course there is…a kid needs a home and to be provided for…would you rather they be aborted??

 

[easyt65]

I live on a planet where it takes a male and a female to have a child. Please explain how two guys do it. Please explain how two fuck buddies can provide a child with a normal home life.

These retards Don't know what a woman is, don't know which bathroom to use, believe a biological male can give birth, believe a thin 'bedazzled' cloth mask bought from Wal Mart can stop a virus, and believe cow farts are destroying the earth, believe paying 'reparations' to the largest polluting manufacturing nation - our enemy - will save it...

...and you want them to explain ANYTHING to you...?!

 

[bripat9643]

of course there is…a kid needs a home and to be provided for…would you rather they be aborted??

There are plenty of hetero couples willing to adopt them.

 

[Cellblock2429]

As Republican nominees of archconservative Supreme Court yank back precedents of the last hundred years in an attempt to scrub American society of any rights that old-timey English witch-hunters or Colonial-era slaveholders would find distasteful, we've landed ourselves in a place where nobody's quite sure what is or isn't covered by United States law because court conservatives have been increasingly unwilling to bother with explaining it to us. Or, rather more urgently, to the lower courts who have been trying to piece together their rulings into a consistency that Justice Blackout Drunk or Justice Papal Seance haven't bothered to themselves provide.

It's nice to see judicial experts and reporters alike putting some real numbers to the problem, and The New York Times has a genuinely good(!) examination of the court's eagerness to change even their own internal processes in order to more efficiently arrive at the preferred conservative outcomes without argument or, increasingly, without waiting for lower court decisions in the first place.

We'll have to leave it to legal experts for suggestions on counteracting a Supreme Court that's decided the last 200 years of history was a mistake that needs correcting. Filling the court with a few more justices who haven't been specifically handpicked by the Federalist Society to sabotage human rights and cooperative governance both seems like it'd be a plus, so long as we're talking about correcting past errors. But apparently, doing that would be (checks notes) an insult to the current Court and to the seditionist who created it.

New studies show the Supreme Court's 'imperial' behavior really is unprecedented

As Republican nominees of archconservative Supreme Court yank back precedents of the last hundred years in an attempt to scrub American society of any rights that old-timey English witch-hunters or Colonial-era slaveholders would find distasteful,...

www.dailykos.com

The most corrupt court in history. Any means by which to change it is justified. And every decision it has made revisited also justified.

/——-/ Translation: Libs can’t have their way.

 

[Indeependent]

There are plenty of hetero couples willing to adopt them.

Gays first in the new US.

 

[Cellblock2429]

of course there is…a kid needs a home and to be provided for…would you rather they be aborted??

/——/ My daughter and SIL want to adopt. The cost is at least $50,000 and a year or longer process. So STFU with your ignorant rant.

 

[easyt65]

Gays first in the new US.

Only because libs have not 'normalized' / legalized pedophes / pedophilia yet...

'Oh no you di'int!'

 

[Indeependent]

Only because libs have not 'normalized' / legalized pedophes / pedophilia yet...


View attachment 742343
'Oh no you di'int!'

Or bestiality.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Or bestiality.

/——/ Then Fido sleeps with one eye open.

 

[struth]

/——/ My daughter and SIL want to adopt. The cost is at least $50,000 and a year or longer process. So STFU with your ignorant rant.

what did i say that was incorrect? the poster i am responding to is suggesting that child wouldn’t be their or your grandchild

that’s idiotic

 

[struth]

There are plenty of hetero couples willing to adopt them.

ok…would you tell them that it wouldn’t be there kid?

 

[Thinker101]

As Republican nominees of archconservative Supreme Court yank back precedents of the last hundred years in an attempt to scrub American society of any rights that old-timey English witch-hunters or Colonial-era slaveholders would find distasteful, we've landed ourselves in a place where nobody's quite sure what is or isn't covered by United States law because court conservatives have been increasingly unwilling to bother with explaining it to us. Or, rather more urgently, to the lower courts who have been trying to piece together their rulings into a consistency that Justice Blackout Drunk or Justice Papal Seance haven't bothered to themselves provide.

It's nice to see judicial experts and reporters alike putting some real numbers to the problem, and The New York Times has a genuinely good(!) examination of the court's eagerness to change even their own internal processes in order to more efficiently arrive at the preferred conservative outcomes without argument or, increasingly, without waiting for lower court decisions in the first place.

We'll have to leave it to legal experts for suggestions on counteracting a Supreme Court that's decided the last 200 years of history was a mistake that needs correcting. Filling the court with a few more justices who haven't been specifically handpicked by the Federalist Society to sabotage human rights and cooperative governance both seems like it'd be a plus, so long as we're talking about correcting past errors. But apparently, doing that would be (checks notes) an insult to the current Court and to the seditionist who created it.

New studies show the Supreme Court's 'imperial' behavior really is unprecedented

As Republican nominees of archconservative Supreme Court yank back precedents of the last hundred years in an attempt to scrub American society of any rights that old-timey English witch-hunters or Colonial-era slaveholders would find distasteful,...

www.dailykos.com

The most corrupt court in history. Any means by which to change it is justified. And every decision it has made revisited also justified.

Sooo....which rights do you feel are being taken away?