Bwahaha! It's a good day. Supreme Court triple slam dunks liberalism!

[Sallow]

"Elections Have Consequences."

It's only true and acceptable when Obama and Pelosi say it. Otherwise, it shouldn't be.

No.

I don't think ideologues should be sitting judges. Especially on the Supreme Court. Scalia and Thomas have made it very clear they are both ideologues and do not care about conflict of interest rules.

Alito, I feel, is not only an ideologue but doesn't have the standing (In terms of intellectual depth) to sit on the Supreme Court.

If you're the POTUS, you get to make those decisions.

We in the "chattering class" merely have to live with those decisions.

"Elections Have Consequences" is just a fact of life.

My point was..in regards to the SCOTUS, it shouldn't. That's something FDR got wrong..and that was something Reagan and George W. Bush got wrong.

Most American presidents have been very responsible in this regard.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

The basic issue of the class action was 9-0. That was the main idealogical issues.

The 5-4 thing hadn't got folks so wound up.

 

[Mad Scientist]

You know what "Class Action Lawsuit" means? The Lawyers get most of the money, that's all.

I get mailers all the time from Law firms wanting me to sign up for their class action scams. The more dupes they get on a lawsuit, the more money they can get.

One mailer was for a computer memory company that MAY have overcharged me a bit for the memory I ordered. Had I signed on it would have worked out to about .50 cents for me. Another one was that the company that built my lawnmower exaggerated it's horsepower claims. What? You mean instead of a 5 hp engine it's really 4.5? Oh the humanity! Grab the shotguns! Call my Lawyer!

My mower works just fine thank you.

There's no doubt that sometimes a class action suit is necessary, but not as much as these Lawyers (Mafioso) would have you believe.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Jesus how bent in the head do you have to be to call a 5/4 split unanimous for political purposes?

Same liberal BS as Bush v. Gore.

IGNORE the actual decision (in the case of Bush v. Gore it's 7/2 decision) to harp on the disagreement on what the disposition of such a decision should entail. (on that disagreement it was a 5/4 split)

You are a moron if you think repeating the same liberal spin over and over is going to cloud people's minds enough to ignore the actual UNAMIMOUS decision.

 

[Sallow]

None of these are any great surprise given the current make up of the court. Scalia, Thomas and Alito should not even be supreme court judges.

That's right, because non-liberals shouldn't be allowed to hold offices of power.

Down with free speech, down with liberty, down with democracy! Only anti-Christian liberals should be allowed to ascend.....

I don't have a problem with Roberts. He's pretty conservative. But I think he's got the chops to be a Supreme Court Justice.

 

[Truthmatters]

He finacially benifited from political activity.

To pretend you would not attack a left leaning judge with the same set of cerumstances is all one needs to ponder to know how partisan you are.

 

[teapartysamurai]

No.

I don't think ideologues should be sitting judges. Especially on the Supreme Court. Scalia and Thomas have made it very clear they are both ideologues and do not care about conflict of interest rules.

Alito, I feel, is not only an ideologue but doesn't have the standing (In terms of intellectual depth) to sit on the Supreme Court.

If you're the POTUS, you get to make those decisions.

We in the "chattering class" merely have to live with those decisions.

"Elections Have Consequences" is just a fact of life.

My point was..in regards to the SCOTUS, it shouldn't. That's something FDR got wrong..and that was something Reagan and George W. Bush got wrong.

Most American presidents have been very responsible in this regard.

Oh give me a break!

The only reason you hold out FDR on the left is because he tried to pack the court.

Your "responsible" court picks are far left idealogues like Ginsberg. You fool ABSOLUTELY no one!

 

[martybegan]

None of these are any great surprise given the current make up of the court. Scalia, Thomas and Alito should not even be supreme court judges.

Nothing like the good old "I dont agree with them politically, therefore they shouldnt be on the court" argument.

Scalia alone has more legal acumen is his big toe than most of his critics have in thier entire body.

 

[teapartysamurai]

None of these are any great surprise given the current make up of the court. Scalia, Thomas and Alito should not even be supreme court judges.

That's right, because non-liberals shouldn't be allowed to hold offices of power.

Down with free speech, down with liberty, down with democracy! Only anti-Christian liberals should be allowed to ascend.....

I don't have a problem with Roberts. He's pretty conservative. But I think he's got the chops to be a Supreme Court Justice.

Yeah, right.

What constitutional literalist (aka conservative) DOES have the "chops" to be on the Supreme Court in your opinion?

I can't wait to hear the crickets from you in response to that question.

 

[Liability]

None of these are any great surprise given the current make up of the court. Scalia, Thomas and Alito should not even be supreme court judges.

LOL.

It is Ginsburg and her ilk who should not be Justices.

 

[teapartysamurai]

He finacially benifited from political activity.

To pretend you would not attack a left leaning judge with the same set of cerumstances is all one needs to ponder to know how partisan you are.

Can you show me which of those judges on the USSC ever retired to the poor house?

 

[teapartysamurai]

The liberals fall silent!

 

[Sallow]

That's right, because non-liberals shouldn't be allowed to hold offices of power.

Down with free speech, down with liberty, down with democracy! Only anti-Christian liberals should be allowed to ascend.....

I don't have a problem with Roberts. He's pretty conservative. But I think he's got the chops to be a Supreme Court Justice.

Yeah, right.

What constitutional literalist (aka conservative) DOES have the "chops" to be on the Supreme Court in your opinion?

I can't wait to hear the crickets from you in response to that question.

You don't think Roberts is a conservative?

And "Constitutional Literalist"?

What a joke.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Front page of Drudge Report!

UNANIMOUS: Supreme Court sides with WAL-MART in sex-discrimination case...
UNANIMOUS: Blocks states' climate change lawsuit...
Won't hear ACORN claim over gov't funding...

DRUDGE REPORT 2011®

And the lawsuits from States suing Obama care haven't even reached the USSC!

I thought you libs told us it was "Constitutional" if the USSC said so!

I mean you libs sure told us that in the affirmative when it came to Roe v. Wade and all those "separation of church and state" decisions!

But Bush v. Gore comes along and suddenly what the USSC says isn't the last word on the Constitution any more!

So, what will be the flip flop on these?

I mean you idiot libs can't have it both ways. You can't tell us that Roe v. Wade is the final Constitutional word on abortion BUT any USSC decision that goes against your agenda ISN'T the final Constitutional word.

So, which flip flop will we get on this one?

I can't wait to hear!

Wal-Mart is a shit company to work for. Many of the rules they have are just nuts and anyone can feel like they are being descriminated against.

I took a 2nd job at one that had just opened. I didn't expect the management to be locals, but I did expect them to be from the PA. The pay was low and they expected people to show up and rep the company for free during community events.

~~~~

Even Obama was against the state suit to fuck over producers.


~~~~~

ACORN was a no brainer. They either dumped them or there would be a bigger investigation.

 

[Truthmatters]

Acorn was extensively investigated by the Bush DOJ.

The whole DOJ thing happened because too many DOJ lawyers (republican ones at that) were fired for not bringing false cases against ACORN for political reasons.

 

[teapartysamurai]

I don't have a problem with Roberts. He's pretty conservative. But I think he's got the chops to be a Supreme Court Justice.

Yeah, right.

What constitutional literalist (aka conservative) DOES have the "chops" to be on the Supreme Court in your opinion?

I can't wait to hear the crickets from you in response to that question.

You don't think Roberts is a conservative?

And "Constitutional Literalist"?

What a joke.

This is what libs do. They pretend you said something else when they know they are backed into a corner.

I ASKED what constitutional literalist (aka conservative) DO you think has the chops to be on the USSC?

You won't answer the question, revealing your agenda.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Acorn was extensively investigated by the Bush DOJ.

The whole DOJ thing happened because too many DOJ lawyers (republican ones at that) were fired for not bringing false cases against ACORN for political reasons.

Yeah, well looks like DOJ isn't the last word on Acorn is it?

Like you libs tell us on Roe v. Wade, looks like it's the USSC.

 

[editec]

Shocking!

The SCOTUS rules on behalf of big business once again.

Who'da thunk?

 

[teapartysamurai]

Shocking!

The SCOTUS rules on behalf of big business once again.

Who'da thunk?

Yeah, Big Business has access to the Constitution too!

I KNOW that's a shock to liberals!

 

[martybegan]

Shocking!

The SCOTUS rules on behalf of big business once again.

Who'da thunk?

All the ruling does is requires them to refile the class action, probably by limiting the class in a certain way, or forces the individuals to file discrimination suits on thier own.

The unanimous ruling was on the procedure of how the class action was created, and they found it unacceptable.

What I find disturbing is that the circuit court basically allowed this to continue, and got smacked down 9-0 on thier ruling. It makes me concerned about bias in the district court.