Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(CNN)   It's the first Monday in October, which means we welcome back a fully armed and operational Supreme Court, ready and raring to go impose its will on America   ( cnn.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, travel ban, Supreme Court of the United States, justices, ideologically split justices, President of the United States, Supreme Court, full-strength Supreme Court, President Donald Trump  
•       •       •

765 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Oct 2017 at 11:50 AM (15 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



39 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2017-10-02 09:08:39 AM  
Luckily, it's tradition for a Supreme Court not to hand down decisions during the first year of a new president's administration.

Oh, wait. It's a Republican administration. Never mind.
 
2017-10-02 09:22:17 AM  

Pazuzu Smith-Jones: Luckily, it's tradition for a Supreme Court not to hand down decisions during the first year of a new president's administration.



No it is not, don't be a dolt.
 
2017-10-02 09:46:21 AM  

feckingmorons: No it is not, don't be a dolt.


You might want to see a doctor about that whooshing noise you're hearing.

/handle still checks out
 
2017-10-02 10:02:09 AM  
Let's hope the SCOTUS keeps us all free from corrupt politicians, suppression of voter rights and voter districts, discrimination against anyone and abuse of power.
 
2017-10-02 10:42:17 AM  

AirForceVet: Let's hope the SCOTUS keeps us all free from corrupt politicians, suppression of voter rights and voter districts, discrimination against anyone and abuse of power.


(._. )
 
2017-10-02 10:59:57 AM  
Who cares about this term?  I'm waiting for the 2019 one when Justice Cruz replaces Ginsberg and Justice Huckabee replaces Kennedy.  THAT's gonna be some serious judiciating.
 
2017-10-02 11:11:52 AM  
They need a justice Feckingmorons. Leave abortion alone and refuse to bake cakes for anyone you don't like.
 
2017-10-02 11:53:35 AM  
Well, if I'm not mistaken, a Supreme Court is just a regular court with tomatoes and sour cream anyway.
 
2017-10-02 11:53:42 AM  
We all can guess how this is going to go... badly.
 
2017-10-02 11:55:01 AM  
"Forcing Phillips to create expression for and participate in a ceremony that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs invades his First Amendment rights," acting Solicitor General Jeff Wall wrote for the Justice Department in briefs filed to the court.

I've never once heard of a the guy who baked the cake being part of the wedding ceremony.  In more than a few of the weddings I've been to, they weren't even present then, having dropped off the cake that morning and left.
 
2017-10-02 11:55:05 AM  
Looking forward to a term where nothing is decided in favor of anyone that isn't corporate or Republican.
 
2017-10-02 11:58:56 AM  

ToastmasterGeneral: Who cares about this term?  I'm waiting for the 2019 one when Justice Cruz replaces Ginsberg and Justice Huckabee replaces Kennedy.  THAT's gonna be some serious judiciating.


Ted Cruz on SCOTUS?  Dude, I'm trying to eat breakfast here!
 
2017-10-02 11:59:46 AM  
"The government may not enact content-based laws commanding a speaker to engage in protected expression: An artist cannot be forced to paint, a musician cannot be forced to play, and a poet cannot be forced to write," Wall added.

Which is true, but only as far as he's taken it.  If that speaker, artist, or musician went down to the courthouse and got a business license saying "I'll sell my goods to any customer", then the government isn't commanding them to speak, paint, or play - it's commanding them to abide by the contract they willingly entered into.

In fact, I was wrong and just what he said wasn't true.  Anti-discrimination laws are not content-based; they're customer based and content-neutral - as supported by the fact that he admits the content could be multiple things.  It doesn't matter what you're selling, but who and why you're refusing to sell it.
 
2017-10-02 12:00:18 PM  

feckingmorons: They need a justice Feckingmorons. Leave abortion alone and refuse to bake cakes for anyone you don't like.


No we need Chief Justice Inglix, ready with the gavel to smack an attorney on the head: "That's your best argument for what amounts to banning abortion? Come here, *smacks attorney upside head* and don't complain about the smack for your stupidity. You can still write unaided, if my name was Chief Justice (Sister) Mary Margaret you'd have your hand in a cast because I broke all your fingers with a ruler."

Then we can get into not wanting to serve teh gheys, "So you're client is claiming baking them (and decorating) a cake harms him? Can he or others refuse to serve n**gers, sp*cs, j*ws, hon*ies, sl*nts, g**ks, and so on because it might cross some religious boundary?"
 
2017-10-02 12:01:52 PM  
This makes me want to scream in the face of all the people I know who voted for Jill Stein or wrote in Bernie because "there's no difference between Hillary and Trump"
It will take decades, probably most of our natural lives to reverse the damage done by this court and this president. I hope you like working for pennies and watching corporations and the mega wealthy run roughshod over everything. I'm tired of being great again. Fark Citizens United, fark all the asshats who listen to talk radio and don't think for themselves, fark all the hipsters who were too cool to vote for Hillary, fark the media for sucking off that orange idiot day and night, fark the GOP for not doing anything to stop this, fark anyone who thinks any of this will be good for anyone.
/end rant
 
2017-10-02 12:04:59 PM  
Do they just hate each other's guts over there or do they try to pretend that the new guy ISNT a scam pick meant to shiat all over everything.

"Hey what's up Gorsuch?"

"fark THE POOR AND YOU, YOU shiatLIB COMMIE"

"Haha alright."
 
2017-10-02 12:05:28 PM  
The Wisconsin redistricting case is going to be interesting.  First time we'll see if political affiliation being used in drawing voting districts is constitutional or not.  One of those, it feels like it should be illegal, but can we actually find a reason to make it illegal instances.

Also of note, Trump's DOJ has reversed position on two of these cases - forced arbitration over collective bargaining and refusing service to a same sex couple.  Unsurprisingly, the DOJ position has flipped from supporting worker and LGBT rights to FARK You.
 
2017-10-02 12:08:30 PM  

Karac: "Forcing Phillips to create expression for and participate in a ceremony that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs invades his First Amendment rights," acting Solicitor General Jeff Wall wrote for the Justice Department in briefs filed to the court.

I've never once heard of a the guy who baked the cake being part of the wedding ceremony.  In more than a few of the weddings I've been to, they weren't even present then, having dropped off the cake that morning and left.


Plus some religions believe that women should be subservient. Would it be ok for a shopkeeper to refuse to serve a woman who is out and about without her husband?

Actually don't answer that...
 
2017-10-02 12:11:01 PM  
"...impose its will..."

This is why Gorsuch is so important. Unlike the left side of the bench, he's enforcing the constitution's letter of the law.
 
2017-10-02 12:12:27 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-10-02 12:14:51 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-10-02 12:17:05 PM  
Also:

They need a justice Feckingmorons. Leave abortion alone and refuse to bake cakes for anyone you don't like.

So, overturn the Civil Rights Act and open the door for "Whites Only" restaurants and banks again.  Good to know people's priorities.
 
2017-10-02 12:17:29 PM  

freidog: The Wisconsin redistricting case is going to be interesting.  First time we'll see if political affiliation being used in drawing voting districts is constitutional or not.  One of those, it feels like it should be illegal, but can we actually find a reason to make it illegal instances.


They aren't going to change the redistricting bit at all, just say fark you to everyone. This is why we need to elect some people with a mandate to make gerrymandering seriously difficult, if not near impossible. In theory there should be no such thing as a "safe seat" in a state or national office, because a competitive seat will keep people from going too crazy. That's part of the problem today, we get these safe seats and all they do is drive people further to the edges and make compromise impossible because that makes the person who did the compromise a durty traitor who must be purged.
 
2017-10-02 12:19:39 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: feckingmorons: No it is not, don't be a dolt.

You might want to see a doctor about that whooshing noise you're hearing.

/handle still checks out


He's just butthurt he didn't get his traditional thread shiat  all over the boobies
 
2017-10-02 12:20:58 PM  
Could've been worse. Maybe. Could've been this guy.,
pixel.nymag.comView Full Size
 
2017-10-02 12:26:40 PM  

UNC_Samurai: Also:

They need a justice Feckingmorons. Leave abortion alone and refuse to bake cakes for anyone you don't like.

So, overturn the Civil Rights Act and open the door for "Whites Only" restaurants and banks again.  Good to know people's priorities.


The silver-lining to the return of American apartheid is that it lays bare the true will of the right wing in America. There's no more denying it. Our shame is their shame.
 
2017-10-02 12:33:52 PM  

inglixthemad: feckingmorons: They need a justice Feckingmorons. Leave abortion alone and refuse to bake cakes for anyone you don't like.

No we need Chief Justice Inglix, ready with the gavel to smack an attorney on the head: "That's your best argument for what amounts to banning abortion? Come here, *smacks attorney upside head* and don't complain about the smack for your stupidity. You can still write unaided, if my name was Chief Justice (Sister) Mary Margaret you'd have your hand in a cast because I broke all your fingers with a ruler."

Then we can get into not wanting to serve teh gheys, "So you're client is claiming baking them (and decorating) a cake harms him? Can he or others refuse to serve n**gers, sp*cs, j*ws, hon*ies, sl*nts, g**ks, and so on because it might cross some religious boundary?"


I would totally support your nomination to SCOTUS.

On a more serious note, I'm very nervous about the upcoming hearing regarding the whole "gay wedding cake" case (Masterpiece Cake v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission).  With the current makeup of SCOTUS (especially with Gorsuch on the bench), I'm not holding out much hope that this particularly stupid case is thrown out. If the Plaintiffs (that would be the homophobic God-bothering nutters who wouldn't bake a wedding case for a gay couple, and the rest of the hangers-on who have joined in as co-Plaintiffs) win, the ruling would create a legal precedence that would open the door for the passage of that particularly nasty religious "freedom" bill, the First Amendment Defense Act, which would make it legal for any business, organization, non-critical healthcare provider, bank, mortgage company, homeless shelter and so on to deny service  to LGBT people if doing so offends their "sincerely held religious beliefs"*.

What FADA is, actually, is just a new version of segregation. If it's passed by Congress (which it probably will be) and is signed by Trump (which he has promised to do), queer people like my husband and I will be relegated to second-class citizen status.  It's farking sad that my husband, who is currently serving his country in Iraq, is afraid that when he comes home next month, it will be to a country that has stripped him and all LGBT people of their Constitutional rights. It's not hyperbole to say that gay people are going to have to use a modern version of the Negro Motorist Green Bookin order to travel the country.

*IMHO, any business etc who chooses to discriminate against LGBT people should be required to place a large "NO F*AGGOTS ALLOWED" sign in their windows so that everyone knows that they're homophobic, bigoted assholes. If you're going to discriminate, it should be required that you make a public declaration to that effect.
 
2017-10-02 12:35:09 PM  
Excuse me, they're only "interpreting" the law.

Don't you know your 3 branches exclusive and restricted powers??

1. Creates
2. Executes
3. Interprets

It doesn't go beyond that and no one overlaps into the other.
 
2017-10-02 12:37:25 PM  

giantmeteor: This makes me want to scream in the face of all the people I know who voted for Jill Stein or wrote in Bernie because "there's no difference between Hillary and Trump"
It will take decades, probably most of our natural lives to reverse the damage done by this court and this president. I hope you like working for pennies and watching corporations and the mega wealthy run roughshod over everything. I'm tired of being great again. Fark Citizens United, fark all the asshats who listen to talk radio and don't think for themselves, fark all the hipsters who were too cool to vote for Hillary, fark the media for sucking off that orange idiot day and night, fark the GOP for not doing anything to stop this, fark anyone who thinks any of this will be good for anyone.
/end rant


I knew after the last presidential election that it's over for my lifetime. Gorsuch will be on the bench for the rest of my life, most likely. Two of the non-lunatic justices are well past the average life expectancy. It's over in my life and that fact made me realize that this is as good as it'll get unless I do something drastic like leave the country. We've gone down the toilet so quickly as a country, it's so sad.
 
2017-10-02 12:39:55 PM  
Here's an idea.   Maybe, just maybe... we should write laws to protect the things we hold dear so that many of the laws of the land that were created by SCOTUS decisions can't be reversed by a new SCOTUS ruling.

You know... like... abortion rights, gay marriage, rules against discrimination based on sexual orientation, etc.

We can even throw in a law against treating corporations as people whose money in campaigns is "free speech." for fun.   Gee... if only there were a party that could run on such issues.

What was it that Clinton ran on last time?   I can't remember any sound bites from stump speeches.   Seems like it was "I'm a woman, and it's my turn to be president!" or something like that.   I know Obama's slogan was "Yes, We Can"... along with "Hope and Change"  which was good.   Trump's was "Make America Great Again" -- which resonated with the rust belt, the unemployed and underemployed... as well as bigots.    Clinton's seemed like it was "I'm with Her!"  but I can't really remember.

I suggest the next Dem run on a slogan of "Let's do it!" -- maybe get an endorsement from Nike.   We need to set certain rights in stone so SCOTUS can't do much other than misinterpret the meaning of the law.  Modify and/or create some Constitutional Amendments so that SCOTUS can't go astray.
 
2017-10-02 12:43:03 PM  

Lady J: Plus some religions believe that women should be subservient. Would it be ok for a shopkeeper to refuse to serve a woman who is out and about without her husband?

Actually don't answer that...


If any of this "religious freedom" or "sincerely-held religious belief" nonsense is allowed, that opens the door for the sane to show just how stupid the whole concept is, kind of like how the church of satan trolls these religious groups. Some people could claim to belong to a religion that doesn't allow them to serve evangelicals because they're heretics, or straight people because their religion only allows homosexuality. They could claim to be a practicing Aztec priest.... or really get to the rural rednecks by saying they're Muslim and therefore can't serve unescorted women, or women with their heads uncovered, or whatever. It's madness, all of it. I can't believe this could even happen.
 
2017-10-02 12:43:09 PM  

feckingmorons: They need a justice Feckingmorons. Leave abortion alone and refuse to bake cakes for anyone you don't like.


Just how would you condense your vast resume down into one page?
 
2017-10-02 12:45:57 PM  

docpeteyJ: *IMHO, any business etc who chooses to discriminate against LGBT people should be required to place a large "NO F*AGGOTS ALLOWED" sign in their windows so that everyone knows that they're homophobic, bigoted assholes. If you're going to discriminate, it should be required that you make a public declaration to that effect.


I like it, and say we should allow people to discriminate how the like, but have similar signs:

"No F**gots, G*oks, Sl*nts, C*nts, K*kes, Allowed"

"No Irish allowed" "Indians not allowed" "White people not allowed"

and so on. I like making them label their hatred. Minimum font point size required or they can sue you for not posting it, but you can discriminate against anyone you want. You just have to put your hatred on display in big letters so everyone else can see you are an arse.
 
2017-10-02 12:49:36 PM  
I wouldn't wish death on anyone, but the day Mitch McConnell dies, I'll be drinking myself into a happy stupor.
 
2017-10-02 12:51:56 PM  

Moroning: feckingmorons: They need a justice Feckingmorons. Leave abortion alone and refuse to bake cakes for anyone you don't like.

Just how would you condense your vast resume down into one page?


It would involve a picture and a screen name, followed by a colon and then that screen name parsed into two words.  But eliminate the plural in the second word there to avoid confusion.
 
2017-10-02 12:52:18 PM  
Fear not. I'm sure the originalists on the court will endeavor to return all political and economic power to landowning white men, just as the framers intended.

We're boned.
 
2017-10-02 01:45:12 PM  
Well at least they attended the traditional Red Mass. Not yet a Black Mass. Maybe next year.
 
2017-10-02 03:22:36 PM  
Is it  an imposition when the decisions go your way? Gay marriage or Obamacare being legal for instance?
 
2017-10-02 06:10:26 PM  

jjorsett: Is it  an imposition when the decisions go your way? Gay marriage or Obamacare being legal for instance?


Marriage Equality is an imposition how  exactly? Do you even understand the reason SCOTUS ruled the way they did in regards to that particular case?

Hint: When marriage (and its many benefits) was legally classified as a right under DOMA, it had to be granted to ALL the People, regardless of sexual orientation. This is backed up by the 10th and 14th Amendments, and to some degree under the Civil Rights Act.
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report