dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Jfc joe, oann?
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!
- Thread starter MissThundercat
- Start date
- Status
Jfc joe, oann?
FadeToBlack&Gold
Kettle Medallion
I'm not surprised at all. Trumpism is like having a serious substance addiction - you eventually reach a point where one of two things happens:
1. You realize you fcked up big time, repent, make amends, and move away from the abyss, or...
2. You keep denying, give up on yourself and everyone else around you, double down, and ultimately you die by your own hand
Fact is, most addicts don't recover; especially after age 40, they tend to just croak. Joe's made his choice obvious, and just like drugs it's sad to watch a life go to waste in defense of a destructive and habitual political ideology and the man who leads it.
1. You realize you fcked up big time, repent, make amends, and move away from the abyss, or...
2. You keep denying, give up on yourself and everyone else around you, double down, and ultimately you die by your own hand
Fact is, most addicts don't recover; especially after age 40, they tend to just croak. Joe's made his choice obvious, and just like drugs it's sad to watch a life go to waste in defense of a destructive and habitual political ideology and the man who leads it.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
No Republican who stayed this long will repent or recover. They aren't in a crisis, this is their identity and always was.
Evil exists. This is not a miscommunication. We can't educate or medicate this away, it is who they really are. We have to contain until their number shrink to where they are no more than a local zoological curiousity.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Why? The man has been off his rocker for at least the past 18 months. For someone who tells us to trust people when they tell us who they are you seem to fall for the "I am an honest man just asking questions" schtick way too often.
MichVandal
Well-known member
joe's "christian" schtick was pretty exposed early on in the dumpy years. Hardly a shock where he gets his news- it's the news that he knows he agrees with, even if much of it's fake. Could have easily gotten the news from any news source, since it's impossible to spin a 9-0 SCOTUS vote, but reality just came through, again.
And I'm pretty confident that he's super happy that his "christianity" can stay exclusive for him and people who are just like him.
Slap Shot
I got nothing
Not to pile on, but why are you surprised? joe has shown his hand for years yet you keep giving him the benefit of the doubt. I wish him all the best but he's a Ququmber without question.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
I am still surprised. I didn't think he was that bad. I was wrong.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Deutsche Gopher Fan
Registered User
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Will he learn from Notorious RBG's greatest folly?
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Yeah. He has to go today.
All three should quit and be replaced by 40-somethings.
Deutsche Gopher Fan
Registered User
At the risk of sounding like Matt gaetz- the younger the better
Interesting day at the SCOTUS today.
First, the Court tossed the lawsuit brought by some residents of Mali against Nestle, claiming they were the subject of human trafficking in Africa to make cocoa. As I understand it, basically the court said the bad act had to have happened here.
Next, the Court, on a 7-2 basis, tossed the challenge of a couple of states to Obamacare. It looks like it was tossed on sort of a technicality, that the states didn't have standing to sue, but nevertheless it is another instance of the Court deflecting attempts to overturn that law.
Finally, in a case that will probably bring about the most discussion, the Court ruled in favor of a Catholic agency that didn't want to work with same sex couples for foster care. I think it was Philly which then said fine, we're terminating our contract with you if you are going to discriminate like that.
The Court ruled in favor of the agency, it looks like on a first amendment basis. However, perhaps what's most shocking is that all nine justices in one way or another concurred with the result.
First, the Court tossed the lawsuit brought by some residents of Mali against Nestle, claiming they were the subject of human trafficking in Africa to make cocoa. As I understand it, basically the court said the bad act had to have happened here.
Next, the Court, on a 7-2 basis, tossed the challenge of a couple of states to Obamacare. It looks like it was tossed on sort of a technicality, that the states didn't have standing to sue, but nevertheless it is another instance of the Court deflecting attempts to overturn that law.
Finally, in a case that will probably bring about the most discussion, the Court ruled in favor of a Catholic agency that didn't want to work with same sex couples for foster care. I think it was Philly which then said fine, we're terminating our contract with you if you are going to discriminate like that.
The Court ruled in favor of the agency, it looks like on a first amendment basis. However, perhaps what's most shocking is that all nine justices in one way or another concurred with the result.
Thx for the groundwork, Hovey
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Haven't read the decision, but this isn't necessarily shocking. Often decisions are such that everybody agrees with something in part (this works in reverse too).
I can well imagine this coming down to:
3 sane justices: concur on procedural technicality
Roberts, Gorsuch: concur on destroying government
4 Gilead Justices: concur on declaring the US a theocracy
RETIRE, BREYER.
A 7-2 decision on standing seems like an odd thing to dismiss as "some kind of technicality". There are very strict criteria over who can challenge what and when to SCOTUS, and 7 justices determined that these (idiot) states did not meet that criteria.
ACA has been repeatedly upheld, now even by a conservative court. They aren't deflecting anything.
ACA has been repeatedly upheld, now even by a conservative court. They aren't deflecting anything.
Well, technicality maybe isn't the exactly correct word, since you do have to have standing to sue. I guess what I mean by that is that they didn't decide the basic legal challenge to the ACA. Instead, it was basically a ruling that these states couldn't bring that challenge to the court to decide it. So, whether you say it was decided on a technicality or a procedural basis or what, I guess I don't care.
With respect to "deflecting," what I mean is that the Court has again turned aside a request that they get rid of the ACA.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
I actually understood your meaning wasn't pejorative.
The GOP is stuck with ACA now, for the same reason they can't destroy Social Security and Medicare despite their decades of trying. The main chance for Republicans to harm people is to make sure they are harmed all along. The second we actually fix something, people welcome that and then the Reactionaries can't roll those rights back except by bankrupting government.
Once we finally get to Single Payer they will have to accept that, too. And minimum wage locked to COLA. And UBI. That's why they fight so hard at the beginning: they know they will always lose once people have a right, because the Right is the bane of anyone but billionaires and authoritarian Death Cult fanatics.
Last edited:
You're literally the only one. The rest of us have been telling you who Joe really is for years and for some reason you kept defending him.
- Status