This is the greatest piece of neolib pearl clutching:
As I have stated publicly, I had noting whatsoever to do with the flying of that flag. I was not even aware of the upside-down flag until it was called to my attention. As soon as I saw it, I asked my wife to take it down, but for severals days, she refused.
My wife and I own our Virginia home jointly. She therefore has the legal right to use the property as she sees fit, and there were no additional steps that I could have taken to have the flag taken down more promptly.
Let's take this at face value. People make sacrifices for their spouses every day. Whether it's picking up the kids from school when it's not your day, moving to a new state because your spouse got a new job, or moving across the country because your spouse got new orders.
I'm sorry, when you're the wife of a Supreme Court justice, you can't spit at your neighbor and desecrate the American flag. Too bad.
My wife's reasons for flying the flag are not relevant for present purposes, but I note that she was greatly distressed at the time...
This is a Supreme Court justice saying "women, am I right?"
I am confident that a reasonable person who is not motivated by political or ideological considerations or a desire to affect the outcome of Supreme Court cases would conclude that the events recounted above to not meet the applicable standard for recusal. I am therefore required to reject your request.
This is a Supreme Court justice saying "If you don't agree with me, you're crazy". This is a Supreme Court justice calling us buttholes.
As I said in reference to the other flag event, my wife is an independently minded private citizen. She makes her own decisions, and I honor her right to do so.
Alito wrote the Dobbs decision.
By the way, here's Donald Trump encouraging this behavior:
Desecrate the flag? Lmao
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
SCOTUS drama is great because there's absolutely nothing anyone can do about it, except
Those frickers are in for life. They don't give AF about anything but their own opinions on the constitution and the legacy of the court.
They cannot be pressured into doing anything. Heck, a schizo even showed up at one's house with guns and they didn't budge.
They rule on the law of the land. Once that institution is delegitimized, libs (or anyone) isn't going to like what will follow.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I don't think libs realize that, which is why you see these controversies being manufactured and blown up.
Ginsburg did shit that was worse and only now is it an issue.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Like what genuinely curious
All I know is she tried block sports betting and that's gay as frick !slots888
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
She made multiple comments about Trump being a faker or that he needs to return his tax returns, with a non-apology of "oops I shouldn't have said that". She never reclused from any Trump case, and the calls basically came from a few wingcuck Rs, and like two court ethicists.
She donated a signed copy of one her opinions to the National Organization for Women, and never recused from any case that NOW filed a brief.
Over the years took multiple trips from billionaires, her last one was to Israel.
Ginsburg was officiating same s*x weddings before Obergefell, which would have been a openly political activity.
After Trump won, she was wearing her dissent necklace, which was something she only ever wore to reading her dissenting opinions in a ruling.
Now, the last one is basically the same as what is Alito is doing, and I think they are nothing burgers, and the trips are the same as what Thomas was doing
The only one that really should be a pause for concern is related to NOW, but the rest are on par or worse than Alito.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
A justice showing that they have a stance on an issue that may come before the court is wildly different from corruption, though. She was not breaking the law by officiating ceremonies that still had no legal status. Justices have no obligation -- ethical or otherwise -- to pretend they lack opinions until a relevant case comes up. This applies to the flag-flying, too, even if a justice has directly done it.
The stuff with NOW and trips funded by billionaires are genuine issues of corruption. I agree on those. The difference is that those situations show or cultivate partiality to specific litigants, not just partiality to certain views on the law. The reason why partiality to litigants is a problem is that it suggests she'd rule in their favor regardless of case merit.
Justices are allowed to show that they're likely to prefer certain legal stances, as long as they apply those stances equivalently to all litigants.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
They did have legal status at times, they were conducted in states that had them legalized. The point for most of mine isn't that they are corrupt but the feckless pearl clutching over the flags is embarrassing considering the short term history of political words and actions by members of the court.
The NOW and trips are corruption, but the game was played that way for years. So the sudden calls for reform and punishment are suspect.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Off the top my head, she wore her infamous "dissent" collar after he was elected. She also called Trump a faker not long after. Her dying wish was Trump not nominating her replacement.
Not necessarily "worse" but like ridiculous, petty shit that would get dragged on if a conservative justice did it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
never gets old
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It got old now, literally with your comment
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
How creative
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
RBG shot and killed a guy at Walmart over the last PS5 on Black Friday
!historychads
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
is this real
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
yeah, it's posted on the Internet because I wrote it myself
!chads
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Would be megabased if any Supreme Court Justice did that tbh
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
How do I feed this comment into an AI model
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
She hired like one black clerk out of the hundreds of clerks over her whole career and didn't sign and agree with Sotomayor's most r-slurred shit on prisoners, black people, and Indians (see the Utah v Strieff dissent where Sotomayor is literally citing r-slurs like Ta Nehisi Coates)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Devastating. Epic. Ringing.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Hot take: Ginsberg was actually a very good justice and respect her quote a lot.
I also believe the same about Alito, Thomas, Roberts and Kavanaugh
Gorsuch is pretty mid, Scalia was too gabagoolpilled for me, and Kagan and Sotomayor are 100%
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I'd put Breyer in the shit category, his opinions are shit. Not everything needs a 37 point test that needs to be applied to the letter, and for someone who whines about bad statistics was always happy to include shit ones for his appeals to emotion.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Frick Utah
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Ginsburg could have saved the average straight white male thousands of dollars and yet you still think she was against you
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
She cost me millions because I couldn't hammer 2011 LSU
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
!slotsmb8888
!goomblers
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
!slots1000
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
!slots1000
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
!slots1000
When you are hot you are hot
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
!slots333
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
!slots1000
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Lol the sc has basically no credibility left and every little rightoid stunt like this increases the odds the dems just gut the sc whenever they get a chance.
This is now 2 sc justices that happen to have bat shit insane right wing extremist wives
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Why because the NYT is lying about the flags to paint Alito as an extremist?
What would they do to gut it?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
What was lied about?
Increase the size.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
They lied that an upside down flag was a "Stop the Steal" Symbol, there are no contemporary sources that actually demonstrate that its a symbol they used, other than publications remarking that a few people flew it that way. Its a symbol that has a 50 year history of being used politically. Burying the lede about any other uses of a highly common symbol, and stating that its a "Stop The Steal" symbol, despite a lack of supporting evidence, is a yellow journ*lism at best, and a lie in every other case.
Then the Appeal to Heaven flag being a "Stop the Steal" symbol is an invention of the last week. It, like other Revolutionary War Flags, has a long history of being flown at protests where people feel their rights are violated, including Black Live Matters protestors. All of this is absent from their article, anyone with five minutes of Google could come up with that explanation, thus a lie.
And then the Republicans win and do the same. Packing the court without a rational limit will actually end the country, and why even the UN recognizes such actions as a coup.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
When are you going to stop posting the weakest bait on this entire site and finally keep yourself safe like you promised?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Lol sometimes I forget what a frickin moron you are
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
At least only their spouses are extremist. Fricking Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan have had the same opinions as 18 year old college activists
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
The elites already know this but the lumpenproletariat don't. I truly believe total delegitimization of one of the balances of power is the first step towards civil war
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Just wait until there's 37 supreme Court justices all confirmed in one night and they vote 31-6 that actually the FBI can round up and imprison all terrorists and it's totally legal
Terrorism is defined as voting Republican or libertarian, owning guns, not supporting BLM
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Not true. This guy was impeached from SCOTUS for being a wingcuck
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
A wingcuck was kicked off for Wingcuck reasons because Adams didn't like that SCOTUS now had the power of Judicial Review.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Imagine how mine-bogglingly neurodivergent Jeffersonian wingcucks must have been, and they were only in charge because they were the only moids who didn't have to spend twelve hours a day dirt farming so they didn't starve to death.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
The first paragraph literally refutes your point.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
OP said nothing about impeachment.
He said he couldn't be removed from office (not the same thing), to which you replied "not true".
Idiot.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
He was still impeached fam
Like Slick Willy
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Umm ackshully protecting democracy means we need to stack the court with 500 DEI advocates who will rule that anything Biden wants to do is fully constitutional
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
My favorite was that one who went full demendia and they couldnt do anything about it. Until he voted against his own opion or something.
Then rest of them said to him they will stop counting his vote.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Well there was that one dude a couple years ago, that showed up outside a Justice's house with some half-baked murder plans.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context