Skip to content
 
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.

(Mother Jones)   Theocrats unhappy that Justice Roberts does the bidding of big business instead of worshiping Republican Jesus   (motherjones.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Supreme Court of the United States, John G. Roberts, George W. Bush, Chief Justice John Roberts, Chief Justice of the United States, Supreme Court, Roberts' deciding vote, John Paul Stevens  
•       •       •

1771 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Jul 2020 at 4:35 PM (12 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



41 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-07-25 12:51:30 PM  
I thought big business was Republican Jesus
 
2020-07-25 1:40:30 PM  

BizarreMan: I thought big business was Republican Jesus


To a degree... but unrelenting cruelty to everyone is rather bad for business.
 
2020-07-25 1:43:25 PM  
Both the far right and the far left accuse judges of "abandoning their oaths" when a ruling doesn't please them.
Of course, everyone from "that side" in gov't only serves special interests and personal greed.
Not like "our guy", who epitomizes impartial and fair jurisprudence.
How about both of you just STFU and let judges judge, and then shut up some more?
That would be nice.
 
2020-07-25 3:14:28 PM  

BizarreMan: I thought big business was Republican Jesus


Beat me to it.  Pretending to love Jesus is the Republican's strategy - while the steal and pick your pocket.
 
2020-07-25 4:47:38 PM  
Tears of impotent rage
 
2020-07-25 4:47:42 PM  
I like how that article had a Trumper thanking Wiggy for Gorsuch....must be an old article.
 
2020-07-25 4:49:14 PM  
Awe poor little Theocrats. Here's some advice, put your damn bible down and read the US Constitution. Your right to choose and follow a religion is already protected, but under the Constitution you do not have any right to force your beliefs onto others. Also the US is, and has never been, or will be a Theocracy.
 
2020-07-25 4:49:26 PM  

lurkey: Both the far right and the far left accuse judges of "abandoning their oaths" when a ruling doesn't please them.
Of course, everyone from "that side" in gov't only serves special interests and personal greed.
Not like "our guy", who epitomizes impartial and fair jurisprudence.
How about both of you just STFU and let judges judge, and then shut up some more?
That would be nice.


The problem is when you get judges that employ logic that makes a classic pretzel look straight, so they can get to the end that they want, to fit their specific judicial philosophy. Scalia was one of the worst, and when things didn't go his way, he was one of the whiniest biatches ever on the bench. Of course that worked out for LGBTQ in the end, ironically enough, when his whiny dissent was used in a way he never thought.
 
2020-07-25 4:52:24 PM  

mrwknd: Awe poor little Theocrats. Here's some advice, put your damn bible down and read the US Constitution. Your right to choose and follow a religion is already protected, but under the Constitution you do not have any right to force your beliefs onto others. Also the US is, and has never been, or will be a Theocracy.


Your words make the Dominionists cry.  Good.
 
2020-07-25 4:52:44 PM  
Is Cruz now a Scientologist or just a fully paid lobbyist for Sheldon Adelson?

I'm pretty sure the non-profit status of churches and the for profit status of casinos must really wrinkle his briefs.

Why casinos can't be non-profit must be a question that brought him into politics, like other religiously minded politicians like Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, and various Native America tribes with casinos.
 
2020-07-25 4:55:22 PM  
Spend your entire life voting for the party of corporate power. Act shocked when judges nominated by said party enact corporate friendly policies.
 
2020-07-25 4:58:49 PM  
It's crazy that this even went that far! Stay home,
Wear a mask, wash your hands.

The only thing that doesn't make sense to me though is why it is a person limit and not a normal percentage with space limit.
 
2020-07-25 5:00:46 PM  
Dread Justice Roberts.
 
2020-07-25 5:00:55 PM  

mrwknd: Awe poor little Theocrats. Here's some advice, put your damn bible down and read the US Constitution. Your right to choose and follow a religion is already protected, but under the Constitution you do not have any right to force your beliefs onto others. Also the US is, and has never been, or will be a Theocracy.


I wish I had your . . . faith.
 
2020-07-25 5:03:23 PM  
You got your Hobby Lobby win, what are you biatching about?
 
2020-07-25 5:05:59 PM  
When Democracy won't allow you to impose your inflexible, wrong-headed, fundamentalist beliefs, the solution is not to change your beliefs but to get rid of Democracy.
 
2020-07-25 5:11:26 PM  

Ishkur: When Democracy won't allow you to impose your inflexible, wrong-headed, fundamentalist beliefs, the solution is not to change your beliefs but to get rid of Democracy.


Believe me, that's their next step.
 
2020-07-25 5:17:15 PM  
Since the bench is appointed by political parties, with affiliations attached to the nominees, it makes sense that citizens would expect justices to keep the promises made when political alliances are formed. Those promises are the compromises of the people, so why wouldn't the courts see those compromises as the answers to their hard cases?
 
2020-07-25 5:19:59 PM  

lurkey: Both the far right and the far left accuse judges of "abandoning their oaths" when a ruling doesn't please them.
Of course, everyone from "that side" in gov't only serves special interests and personal greed.
Not like "our guy", who epitomizes impartial and fair jurisprudence.
How about both of you just STFU and let judges judge, and then shut up some more?
That would be nice.


This is apparently furthering a confusion about SCOTUS. They rarely work in judgement, not in the sense people develop thinking about a wise judge like King Solomon dispensing justice. SCOTUS isn't concerned with Justice or Right and Wrong. They parse laws. They look at language to decide what the written law actually says, how it's been interpreted before, and if it is consistent with The Constitution. It's incredibly esoteric.

The public generally reacts according to their personal sense of Right and Wrong. In contrast, a great many rulings hinge on what the heck Congress meant when they wrote some rather confused prose.
 
2020-07-25 6:12:05 PM  

lurkey: and the far left


Could you point me towards the "far left?"

I'd like to join that movement, pay dues, buy the t-shirt, contribute to policy discussions, attend meetings, and go to protests for "far left" street actions.
 
2020-07-25 6:13:37 PM  
Somewhere Satan is sobbing over the lives of the good Christians that this ruling will save the lives of.  Less so over gamblers exposed.
 
2020-07-25 6:20:48 PM  
I've got a general rule of thumb where I rate a Justice by how often they rule in a direction I like vs. one I don't like.  If the ratio is close to 1:1, they're probably an acceptable Justice in the long term view.  I'm personally annoyingly coming to the viewpoint where I can live with Roberts.
 
2020-07-25 6:29:21 PM  
Like the church isn't a business. fark you. The only reason you want to cram more people into your pews is so you can get that sweet, sweet cash.

One more fark you.
 
2020-07-25 6:35:28 PM  

Likwit: Like the church isn't a business. fark you. The only reason you want to cram more people into your pews is so you can get that sweet, sweet cash.

One more fark you.


Just like Paris Hilton and Snooki are famous for being famous, and the Kardashians are famous for having a famous dad, Jesus is famous for being famous, and having a celebrity dad. And churches are just social media for His brand.
 
2020-07-25 6:37:39 PM  

2wolves: lurkey: and the far left

Could you point me towards the "far left?"

I'd like to join that movement, pay dues, buy the t-shirt, contribute to policy discussions, attend meetings, and go to protests for "far left" street actions.


Whenever someone talks about the "Far Left" I think of this:

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-07-25 6:51:18 PM  

PaulRB: BizarreMan: I thought big business was Republican Jesus

Beat me to it.  Pretending to love Jesus is the Republican's strategy - while the steal and pick your pocket.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-07-25 6:56:42 PM  
The dilemma of appointing Supreme Court Justices is that these are lifetime appointments. That means the judges don't have to suck ass for any particular ideology for re-election purposes. If they have a true sense of justice, they vote accordingly.

Republicans figured this out only recently, and that's why they got Kavanaugh on the bench. When they appoint a naturally reprehensible piece of shiat they are guaranteed to have someone who supports their agenda, someone who just supports draconian ideas in his natural state. A rapist judge is perfect.

Their next Supreme Court nominee will be even worse, guaranteed.
 
2020-07-25 7:07:21 PM  

inglixthemad: lurkey: Both the far right and the far left accuse judges of "abandoning their oaths" when a ruling doesn't please them.
Of course, everyone from "that side" in gov't only serves special interests and personal greed.
Not like "our guy", who epitomizes impartial and fair jurisprudence.
How about both of you just STFU and let judges judge, and then shut up some more?
That would be nice.

The problem is when you get judges that employ logic that makes a classic pretzel look straight, so they can get to the end that they want, to fit their specific judicial philosophy. Scalia was one of the worst, and when things didn't go his way, he was one of the whiniest biatches ever on the bench. Of course that worked out for LGBTQ in the end, ironically enough, when his whiny dissent was used in a way he never thought.


Got more info to share on that one?

I could use some schadenfreude right about now.
 
2020-07-25 7:17:51 PM  

Jill Came Down With Two-Fifty: The dilemma of appointing Supreme Court Justices is that these are lifetime appointments. That means the judges don't have to suck ass for any particular ideology for re-election purposes. If they have a true sense of justice, they vote accordingly.

Republicans figured this out only recently, and that's why they got Kavanaugh on the bench. When they appoint a naturally reprehensible piece of shiat they are guaranteed to have someone who supports their agenda, someone who just supports draconian ideas in his natural state. A rapist judge is perfect.

Their next Supreme Court nominee will be even worse, guaranteed.


A rapist judge in heaps of debt that they can own for life.
 
2020-07-25 7:40:45 PM  

Likwit: Like the church isn't a business. fark you. The only reason you want to cram more people into your pews is so you can get that sweet, sweet cash.

One more fark you.


That's not fair...

...at least businesses provide goods or services when they're given money.

/though I suppose telling you you're a good person no matter how much you suck IS a kind of service
 
2020-07-25 7:41:47 PM  

inglixthemad: logic that makes a classic pretzel look straight


Now I just want to start a flamewar over your use of "classic pretzel." The word is just pretzel. Straightness is called a pretzel stick. A straight line made out of pretzel stuff, if you were. But pretzel describes the shape, and a pretzel stick is a kind of genetic mutation that the pretzel RNA did not fold properly.

Now, I sympathize with your need to make a point. Because, frankly, your point would have been lost if you were proper, and said, "Judges with their logic that makes pretzel sticks..." because like, pretzel sticks are tasty and have at least one electrolyte.

(That electrolyte being salt, or: What the French call "sel" and in German would sound like "zel" and the French word "prete" means "beside" therefore pretzels are French for "German salt beside itself" and that is why they are the culinary depiction of a wormhole and five dimensional knot theory in German particle physics (eaten by Schrodinger and Bohr, most notably)).

But we don't need to say "classic pretzel" because, one, pretzel is a pretzel and pretzel sticks are sticks; two, that confuses pretzels with Newtonian eletrolytes. Your salty rhetoric is misleading, at best, sir.
 
2020-07-25 7:42:54 PM  

FleshMonkey: inglixthemad: lurkey: Both the far right and the far left accuse judges of "abandoning their oaths" when a ruling doesn't please them.
Of course, everyone from "that side" in gov't only serves special interests and personal greed.
Not like "our guy", who epitomizes impartial and fair jurisprudence.
How about both of you just STFU and let judges judge, and then shut up some more?
That would be nice.

The problem is when you get judges that employ logic that makes a classic pretzel look straight, so they can get to the end that they want, to fit their specific judicial philosophy. Scalia was one of the worst, and when things didn't go his way, he was one of the whiniest biatches ever on the bench. Of course that worked out for LGBTQ in the end, ironically enough, when his whiny dissent was used in a way he never thought.

Got more info to share on that one?

I could use some schadenfreude right about now.


Pavan v Smith at the end of the article
 
2020-07-25 7:47:25 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: inglixthemad: logic that makes a classic pretzel look straight

Now I just want to start a flamewar over your use of "classic pretzel." The word is just pretzel. Straightness is called a pretzel stick. A straight line made out of pretzel stuff, if you were. But pretzel describes the shape, and a pretzel stick is a kind of genetic mutation that the pretzel RNA did not fold properly.

Now, I sympathize with your need to make a point. Because, frankly, your point would have been lost if you were proper, and said, "Judges with their logic that makes pretzel sticks..." because like, pretzel sticks are tasty and have at least one electrolyte.

(That electrolyte being salt, or: What the French call "sel" and in German would sound like "zel" and the French word "prete" means "beside" therefore pretzels are French for "German salt beside itself" and that is why they are the culinary depiction of a wormhole and five dimensional knot theory in German particle physics (eaten by Schrodinger and Bohr, most notably)).

But we don't need to say "classic pretzel" because, one, pretzel is a pretzel and pretzel sticks are sticks; two, that confuses pretzels with Newtonian eletrolytes. Your salty rhetoric is misleading, at best, sir.


Pretzels are often as salty as you.
 
2020-07-25 7:47:58 PM  

texanjeff: It's crazy that this even went that far! Stay home,
Wear a mask, wash your hands.

The only thing that doesn't make sense to me though is why it is a person limit and not a normal percentage with space limit.


Have you ever asked an *average* person a snap question about percentages? Because... it's pretty sad, most of the time.

/'lol why would i ever need to know percentages in the real world? math is dumb.'
 
2020-07-25 8:05:50 PM  
Or, just perhaps, the constitution was written guided by principles that came out of Enlightened Christian views that all people are worthy souls that should be treated equally and that Governments should be acting to increase their welfare, to create laws that treat them equally, and not create laws that bring down some of them unfairly or that discriminate against some of them.

Perhaps the contemporary American Conservative Christians should reflect on how far they've drifted from the values of the framers of the Constitution.
 
2020-07-25 8:07:48 PM  

inglixthemad: FleshMonkey: inglixthemad:
Got more info to share on that one?

I could use some schadenfreude right about now.

Pavan v Smith at the end of the article


Thanks
 
2020-07-25 8:11:05 PM  

inglixthemad: Pretzels are often as salty as you.


That was a fascinating read.
 
2020-07-25 8:11:13 PM  

The Irresponsible Captain: 2wolves: lurkey: and the far left

Could you point me towards the "far left?"

I'd like to join that movement, pay dues, buy the t-shirt, contribute to policy discussions, attend meetings, and go to protests for "far left" street actions.

Whenever someone talks about the "Far Left" I think of this:

[Fark user image 425x711]


"Al Nelson, Tired-Ass Motherf*cker"
 
2020-07-25 8:19:03 PM  
Republican Jesus is Satan.
 
2020-07-25 8:31:14 PM  

lurkey: Both the far right and the far left accuse judges of "abandoning their oaths" when a ruling doesn't please them.
Of course, everyone from "that side" in gov't only serves special interests and personal greed.
Not like "our guy", who epitomizes impartial and fair jurisprudence.
How about both of you just STFU and let judges judge, and then shut up some more?
That would be nice.


NO CAN DO; I remember Bush v. Gore.
 
2020-07-25 9:30:34 PM  

Markus5: Dread Justice Roberts.


There will be no Certiorari!!
 
Displayed 41 of 41 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter



  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.