• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

the official new supreme court thread - Very political

To be fair, the Founding Fathers were insurrectionists.
 
That's fair. I guess the modern conservative is indeed following the constitution (3/5 of a person, property and voting rights for landowners, insurrection... ) and doing as the founding father's said and did.

So no pivot?
 
deaconson said:
Do you really think it does anyone (but insurrectionists) any good to have a sitting supreme court justices spouse prominently espousing far right lies and planning events that foment insurrection? That's certainly a pivot from originalism.
Click to expand...

Do you really think this whole "conflict of interests" claim is anything more than a political hit because libs don't like Justice Thomas? This is what Judge Stephen Reinhardt had to say about the issue when his wife's political activity before the 9th Circuit put him in a similar position a little over a decade ago:

My wife’s views, public or private, as to any issues that may come before this court, constitutional or otherwise, are of no consequence. She is a strong, independent woman who has long fought for the principle, among others, that women should be evaluated on their own merits and not judged in any way by the deeds or position in life of their husbands (and vice versa). I share that view and, in my opinion, it reflects the status of the law generally, as well as the law of recusal, regardless of whether the spouse or the judge is the male or the female. My position is the same in the specific case of a spouse whose views are expressed in the capacity of an officer, director, or manager of a public interest or advocacy organization that takes positions or supports legislation or litigation or other actions of local, state, or national importance.

Proponents’ contention that I should recuse myself due to my wife’s opinions is based upon an outmoded conception of the relationship between spouses. . . .That time has passed, and rightly so. [M]y wife and I share many fundamental interests by virtue of our marriage, but her views regarding issues of public significance are her own, and cannot be imputed to me, no matter how prominently she expresses them. It is her view, and I agree, that she has the right to perform her professional duties without regard to whatever my views may be, and that I should do the same without regard to hers. Because my wife is an independent woman, I cannot accept Proponents’ position that my impartiality might reasonably be questioned under § 455(a) because of her opinions or the views of the organization she heads.

Nor can I accept the argument that my wife’s views constitute an “interest” that could warrant my recusal under § 455(b)(5)(ni), . . . . The ACLU/SC is devoted to advocating for numerous social issues, many of which come before the court, of which same-sex marriage is but one. To suggest that because my wife heads the ACLU/SC she has an “interest” cognizable under § 455(b)(5)(iii) in cases regarding which the organization has expressed a position would be to suggest that I must recuse myself from cases implicating the constitutionality of the death penalty, school prayer, and affirmative action, among many others. Moreover, because § 455(b)(5)(iii) applies not only to the interests of a judge’s spouse, but to the interests of any “person within the third degree of relationship to either” a judge or a judge’s spouse, § 455(b)(5), such a reading would require a judge’s recusal when various other relatives, such as great-grandchildren and nephews-in-law, head a public interest organization that has expressed a position concerning a case. I cannot agree that § 455(b)(5)(iii) requires judges to recuse themselves whenever a relative, close or otherwise, plays a prominent role in a public interest organization that, as part of a broad and general mission, takes a position on a subject that is at issue in a case, or on a case itself.
Click to expand...

Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 630 F.3d 909, 912-13 (2011).

Like so many issues on this board, this one epitomizes the harm from getting your news from one side only.
 
Yeah, the harm of getting actual news about what Ginni Thomas is doing as opposed to burying your head in the sand.

Looks like Junebug is buying the “nothing to see here” argument so when the Jan 6 committee investigates Ginni’s role in planning Jan 6, he can pass it off as a political attack on the Court.
 
Now we are comparing the ACLU to helping do an insurrection.

Advancing civil liberties is the same as doing domestic terrorism and trying to overthrow our republic.

All very on brand from Junebug.
 
Junebug, you’ve said you believe Biden is the president of the United States. You’ve also said you disagree with Jan 6. Both statements put you on the fringe of your party. Do you believe the Jan 6 commission is legitimate?
 
PhDeac said:
Junebug, you’ve said you believe Biden is the president of the United States. You’ve also said you disagree with Jan 6. Both statements put you on the fringe of your party. Do you believe the Jan 6 commission is legitimate?
Click to expand...

Something, something, Jo Jorgensen.
 
PhDeac said:
Junebug, you’ve said you believe Biden is the president of the United States. You’ve also said you disagree with Jan 6. Both statements put you on the fringe of your party. Do you believe the Jan 6 commission is legitimate?
Click to expand...

You should really meet more actual Republicans and watch a lot less bias-confirming cable news.
 
WokeandBroke said:
You should really meet more actual Republicans and watch a lot less bias-confirming cable news.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, Broke, but your party has left you. It no longer shares your values.

The Republican Party affirmed the actions on January 6 as "legitimate political discourse."

It disciplines and/or culls it's members who tell the truth about January 6 while tacitly supporting members who repeat the Big Lie or support the efforts of January 6.

A majority of Republicans support the efforts of the January 6 insurrection according to polling.

A majority of Republicans believe the 2020 election was stolen.

Republican candidates across the country are repeating these lies because they have the support of a majority of actual Republicans.

You cannot dismiss what is happening to the Republican Party as simply "bias-confirming cable news."

The Republican Party cares only about fighting the "Christian" white nationalist culture wars and opposing leftists. It has no room for thoughtful policy discussion or working to solve problems. It's time to move on.
 
Last edited:
WokeandBroke said:
You should really meet more actual Republicans and watch a lot less bias-confirming cable news.
Click to expand...

I think you should listen to your own party leaders and observe their actions. It doesn’t take confirmation bias to see the GOP justify the attempted coup in 2020.
 
What news is jhmd watching that tells him Republicans aren’t sympathetic to Jan 6 insurrectionists?
 
Justice Thomas is the most shameless motherfucker who ever served on the Court. Period.
 
Graham saying Childs would get at least 10 Republican votes is such BS. Leaving off the fact that she is probably the most moderate and the oldest of the 3 judges. There is no guarantee she would get those votes, Graham is speaking for himself, not his party, and even if a judge is confirmed 51-50, they are no less a Supreme Court Justice, as we have seen recently.

I am not going to hold Judge Childs time with Nexsen Pruet against her, good for her, its a good firm, but to say she is more qualified than Brown-Jackson is a stretch. Biden should appoint the judge most likely to fight for those minority decisions rather than the judge who will get the most votes. If we have learned anything from the Pubs, its do what you want, because there are no consequences anyways.
 
dcnelso said:
I wouldn't be surprised where the next step is Ohio and NC republicans appeal to the Supreme Court and they put a stay on those state supreme court decisions saying those state maps to be redrawn.
Click to expand...

Looks like I might be correct with my prediction. Ohio republicans just refused to submit a new Ohio Supreme Court ordered map by the deadline today. I guess the next step will be either contempt charges by the court or republicans suing to move to the US Supreme Court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top