If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Kindergarten temper tantrum or what the Supreme Court calls "judicial intemperance"   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 115
    More: Dumbass, kindergartens, workplace discrimination, Sonia Sotomayor, judicial restraint, comity, Ginsberg, Sandra Day O'Connor, majority opinion  
•       •       •

4359 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Jun 2013 at 9:34 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



115 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-25 09:37:12 AM  
Alito can EABOD.
 
2013-06-25 09:38:02 AM  
The offense against decorum is greater when the object of scorn is a woman 17 years his senior, one who is acknowledged even by most of her critics to have spent a distinguished career selflessly pursuing justice in the precise area of her dissent--gender equality in society in general and the workplace in particular. Her words are as worthy of respectful attention as were his. Link
 
2013-06-25 09:41:47 AM  
The Joe Wilsonification of conservative politics has spread to the Supreme Court.  Quelle surprise.
 
2013-06-25 09:42:32 AM  
Wait, we are shocked now that Alito is a dick?  I thought that was the selling point when he was appointed.  When you come off as more of a douche that Scalia, you might want to re-evaluate your actions and choices in life.

Also, shouldn't Thomas have to recuse himself from any case dealing with sexual harrassment since he clearly doesn't know where the line between what is and isn't harrassment?
 
2013-06-25 09:44:20 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: The offense against decorum is greater when the object of scorn is a woman 17 years his senior, one who is acknowledged even by most of her critics to have spent a distinguished career selflessly pursuing justice in the precise area of her dissent--gender equality in society in general and the workplace in particular. Her words are as worthy of respectful attention as were his. Link


What? We can't make fun of batty old ladies?
 
2013-06-25 09:47:12 AM  
I wonder how Alito will vote on DOMA/P8? He looks like he has a little bit of secret fabulousness in him.
 
2013-06-25 09:49:22 AM  
Does Alito need to be burped?
 
2013-06-25 09:51:25 AM  

vernonFL: Dusk-You-n-Me: The offense against decorum is greater when the object of scorn is a woman 17 years his senior, one who is acknowledged even by most of her critics to have spent a distinguished career selflessly pursuing justice in the precise area of her dissent--gender equality in society in general and the workplace in particular. Her words are as worthy of respectful attention as were his. Link

What? We can't make fun of batty old ladies?


You shut your whore mouth when Ruth Bader Ginsburg is talking, biatch.
 
2013-06-25 09:52:59 AM  

vernonFL: Dusk-You-n-Me: The offense against decorum is greater when the object of scorn is a woman 17 years his senior, one who is acknowledged even by most of her critics to have spent a distinguished career selflessly pursuing justice in the precise area of her dissent--gender equality in society in general and the workplace in particular. Her words are as worthy of respectful attention as were his. Link

What? We can't make fun of batty old ladies?


You refer to Ruth Bader Ginsburg as "batty" at your peril. She could stare holes in adamantium-coated diamonds.

// to say nothing of what her mind-powers can do to the heartiest of competitors
 
2013-06-25 09:54:32 AM  
Conservative person acting like a petulant child.  News at 11.
 
2013-06-25 09:54:59 AM  
Wow, I was just joking!

I guess I just learned the first lesson of SCOTUS posting: Don't fark with Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
 
2013-06-25 09:57:10 AM  
Shut up barjockey Alito, you cock.
 
2013-06-25 09:57:48 AM  
Thank you so much, George Bush, for giving us this young asshole who, much like your policies, will plague our nation for years after you are gone.
 
2013-06-25 09:58:01 AM  
So no ScotusBlog link today?
 
2013-06-25 09:58:31 AM  
Alito makes Thomas and Scalia look good, so he has that going for him.  Which kind of sucks
 
2013-06-25 09:59:12 AM  

PanicMan: So no ScotusBlog link today?


Here you go.
 
2013-06-25 09:59:33 AM  

PanicMan: So no ScotusBlog link today?


I'm just following on the website and on the twitters.
 
2013-06-25 10:05:00 AM  
'Vote is 5-4.' Is the damn SCOTUS always so divided along ideological lines? Makes me question the very legitimacy of the institution.
 
2013-06-25 10:05:56 AM  
Sounds much more high school than kindergarten.

Also, I rolled my eyes, too.
 
2013-06-25 10:07:14 AM  

Cythraul: 'Vote is 5-4.' Is the damn SCOTUS always so divided along ideological lines? Makes me question the very legitimacy of the institution.


At least when it comes to business interests, yes, it seems to be that way. This is the fourth case released in the last two days on the exact same 5-4 split.
 
2013-06-25 10:09:11 AM  
"Adoptive Couple vs. Baby Girl". Apparently the adoptive couple were successful, and their baby girl is finally going back to jail. Or something.
 
2013-06-25 10:09:23 AM  

vernonFL: Wow, I was just joking!

I guess I just learned the first lesson of SCOTUS posting: Don't fark with Ruth Bader Ginsburg.


You learn faster than Alito.
 
2013-06-25 10:10:18 AM  
If tenure for life is too difficult a job for Mr. Alito, I'm sure there are plenty of lobbying firms that would love for him to stop taking bribes and start paying them out to other corrupt federal officials.
 
2013-06-25 10:11:13 AM  
Is this out SC thread today? The Chief wrote the VRA case. Don't know if thats good or bad yet.
 
2013-06-25 10:11:41 AM  
I suspect that Alito cost Arlen Specter his job - Specter went with party loyalty instead of personal conviction is ultimately voting for Alito.
 
2013-06-25 10:11:43 AM  

vernonFL: Wow, I was just joking!

I guess I just learned the first lesson of SCOTUS posting: Don't fark with Ruth Bader Ginsburg.


images.politico.com
Come at the king queen, you best not miss.
 
2013-06-25 10:11:51 AM  
VRA PRECLEARANCE FORMULA IS STRUCK DOWN

Jesus.
 
2013-06-25 10:12:05 AM  
Shelby: 5-4:  Holding: Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. Its formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance.
 
2013-06-25 10:12:07 AM  
Amy Howe: I should have a macro for the dissent.

Might as well.
 
2013-06-25 10:12:41 AM  
Well, there goes voting rights for a crapton of people.
 
2013-06-25 10:12:55 AM  
You have got to be kidding me.
 
2013-06-25 10:13:21 AM  
Great job with the whole judicial restraint thing, conservative justices. Law has been in effect for 50 years, was just re-authorized 98-0, and they overturn it.
 
2013-06-25 10:14:24 AM  

Cythraul: PanicMan: So no ScotusBlog link today?

Here you go.


Hey now.  I'll have none of your shenanigans.

/I meant a Fark discussion link.
 
2013-06-25 10:14:40 AM  
Holding continued:  The Court makes clear that: "Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in [Section] 2. We issue no holding on [Section] 5 itself, only on the coverage formula. Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions"
 
2013-06-25 10:15:37 AM  
"Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in [Section] 2. We issue no holding on [Section] 5 itself, only on the coverage formula."

So the idea of a preclearance list is OK, but the list in use is not OK? That's what it looks like.
 
2013-06-25 10:16:32 AM  

DamnYankees: VRA PRECLEARANCE FORMULA IS STRUCK DOWN

Jesus.


I'm not super happy with that outcome, but it's not a disaster. It just means Congress has to step in and write a new preclearance formula.

Oh, wait. Congress has to do something now.
 
2013-06-25 10:16:48 AM  

USCLaw2010: Holding continued:  The Court makes clear that: "Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in [Section] 2. We issue no holding on [Section] 5 itself, only on the coverage formula. Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions"


Yeah, I'm sure Congress will get right on that.
 
2013-06-25 10:17:06 AM  
<i>The Court makes clear that: "Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in [Section] 2."</i>

Really? Gee, thanks, Roberts. How terribly magnanimous of you, to point out that racial discrimination is still illegal, even though you've just eviscerated the only mechanism for actually enforcing it.
 
2013-06-25 10:17:15 AM  
So much for the gay stuff. They wouldn't doom the VRA and gay people in the same day. They'll wait to screw over another minority later in the week.
 
2013-06-25 10:18:08 AM  

Cythraul: So much for the gay stuff. They wouldn't doom the VRA and gay people in the same day. They'll wait to screw over another minority later in the week.


Yep, pretty sure we're farked.
 
2013-06-25 10:18:11 AM  

Serious Black: DamnYankees: VRA PRECLEARANCE FORMULA IS STRUCK DOWN

Jesus.

I'm not super happy with that outcome, but it's not a disaster. It just means Congress has to step in and write a new preclearance formula.

Oh, wait. Congress has to do something now.


Congress couldn't agree that the sky is blue these days.
 
2013-06-25 10:18:12 AM  

RminusQ: "Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in [Section] 2. We issue no holding on [Section] 5 itself, only on the coverage formula."

So the idea of a preclearance list is OK, but the list in use is not OK? That's what it looks like.


That's what it looks like to me. They're saying many of the jurisdictions in Section 4 have not been discriminating while many discriminations not in Section 4 have been.
 
2013-06-25 10:18:54 AM  

Cythraul: 'Vote is 5-4.' Is the damn SCOTUS always so divided along ideological lines? Makes me question the very legitimacy of the institution.


I got jumped on hard here a couple of years ago for suggesting 5-4 was this courts consistent pattern

/I still think I was right
 
2013-06-25 10:19:21 AM  
As of today, George Bush has officially caused more damage due to his Supreme Court appointments than from his actions in office.

/Citizens United wasn't quite enough to be worse than the Iraq war by itself.
//Looks like Anthony Kennedy has completed his descent into Old Conservative Dumbass.
 
2013-06-25 10:19:32 AM  
From scotusblog:


10:18Amy Howe:Justice Ginsburg has begun reading from her dissent. Alito said to be making "jerk-off" motions and sticking out his tongue.
 
2013-06-25 10:19:32 AM  

PonceAlyosha: Cythraul: So much for the gay stuff. They wouldn't doom the VRA and gay people in the same day. They'll wait to screw over another minority later in the week.

Yep, pretty sure we're farked.


At this rate, I might be able to get gay married in the state of North Carolina by the time I'm 50 (currently 35).
 
2013-06-25 10:19:52 AM  

The 2008 House vote to renew the Voting Rights Act was 390-33. #SCOTUS vote to eviscerate it is 5-4.

- Alec MacGillis (@AlecMacGillis) June 25, 2013


Now that's Judicial activism.
 
2013-06-25 10:20:09 AM  

Cythraul: 'Vote is 5-4.' Is the damn SCOTUS always so divided along ideological lines? Makes me question the very legitimacy of the institution.


95+% of cases that are appealed to the Supreme Court don't get heard which implies all the justices agree on them.  Only when there is intense disagreement or the lower courts really fark things up do the justices take a case.
 
2013-06-25 10:23:05 AM  

Cythraul: Serious Black: DamnYankees: VRA PRECLEARANCE FORMULA IS STRUCK DOWN

Jesus.

I'm not super happy with that outcome, but it's not a disaster. It just means Congress has to step in and write a new preclearance formula.

Oh, wait. Congress has to do something now.

Congress couldn't agree that the sky is blue these days.


To be fair, that's not exactly a cut and dry issue.
 
2013-06-25 10:23:24 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: The 2008 House vote to renew the Voting Rights Act was 390-33. #SCOTUS vote to eviscerate it is 5-4.

- Alec MacGillis (@AlecMacGillis) June 25, 2013


Correction: That vote was in 2006, not 2008.
 
Displayed 50 of 115 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report