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.

(Daily Kos)   As well as Roe v Wade and the ACA, Trump's SC nominee wants to get rid of the pesky 14th and 15th Amendments that stop people persecuting anyone who isn't a WASP   (dailykos.com) divider line
    More: Scary, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Kos Media, Daily Kos, Supreme Court of the United States, Daily Kos moves, Friday September, Traditional media, Supreme Court nominee  
•       •       •

3998 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Sep 2020 at 7:17 PM (3 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-09-27 3:42:32 PM  
And re-criminalizing homosexuality, no doubt.
 
2020-09-27 3:44:18 PM  

I am Tom Joad's Complete Lack of Surprise: And re-criminalizing homosexuality, no doubt.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-27 4:01:20 PM  

propasaurus: I am Tom Joad's Complete Lack of Surprise: And re-criminalizing homosexuality, no doubt.

[Fark user image image 425x416]


Which is exactly why she was nominated.
 
2020-09-27 4:04:37 PM  
That explains why all the right-wingers were celebrating and basking in their victory yesterday.

I was trying to figure it out... like, why are all these right wingers shiat-posting these threads like they are when they think they have a huge victory.

It's about overturning civil rights laws. Those laws and the 14th/15th amendment are the only thing keeping their hoards of incel cuck losers from finding a random non-white chick and removing the incel label from their masthead.
 
2020-09-27 4:07:53 PM  
They won't be happy until women and minorities are both property again.
 
2020-09-27 4:55:24 PM  

GardenWeasel: They won't be happy until women and minorities are both property again.


Yep, you can bet if they get rid of the 14th and 15th amendments they will be after the 19th amendment.
 
2020-09-27 6:02:31 PM  
So how exactly could a Supreme Court Justice rule the Constitutional unconstitutional? I'd think that even if she made some crazy-assed ruling that ran counter to the amendment, the rest of the justices wouldn't go along with it. Well, maybe Thomas.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2020-09-27 6:06:26 PM  

Mad_Radhu: So how exactly could a Supreme Court Justice rule the Constitutional unconstitutional? I'd think that even if she made some crazy-assed ruling that ran counter to the amendment, the rest of the justices wouldn't go along with it. Well, maybe Thomas.


If they rule it unconstitutional then it is unconstitutional.
 
2020-09-27 6:13:07 PM  

vpb: Mad_Radhu: So how exactly could a Supreme Court Justice rule the Constitutional unconstitutional? I'd think that even if she made some crazy-assed ruling that ran counter to the amendment, the rest of the justices wouldn't go along with it. Well, maybe Thomas.

If they rule it unconstitutional then it is unconstitutional.


But how could they justify it in their decision without making such a huge mockery of the court that it would make a strong case for either packing the court or impeachment? If you had the court say that they are just going to ignore the text of the amendment because reasons, it would bring forth a shiatshorm.
 
2020-09-27 6:17:27 PM  

Mad_Radhu: vpb: Mad_Radhu: So how exactly could a Supreme Court Justice rule the Constitutional unconstitutional? I'd think that even if she made some crazy-assed ruling that ran counter to the amendment, the rest of the justices wouldn't go along with it. Well, maybe Thomas.

If they rule it unconstitutional then it is unconstitutional.

But how could they justify it in their decision without making such a huge mockery of the court that it would make a strong case for either packing the court or impeachment? If you had the court say that they are just going to ignore the text of the amendment because reasons, it would bring forth a shiatshorm.


They no longer care. Such a play won't happen immediately. It will happen the next time the GOP wins, entrenching them in power forever.
 
2020-09-27 6:18:58 PM  

Mad_Radhu: vpb: Mad_Radhu: So how exactly could a Supreme Court Justice rule the Constitutional unconstitutional? I'd think that even if she made some crazy-assed ruling that ran counter to the amendment, the rest of the justices wouldn't go along with it. Well, maybe Thomas.

If they rule it unconstitutional then it is unconstitutional.

But how could they justify it in their decision without making such a huge mockery of the court that it would make a strong case for either packing the court or impeachment? If you had the court say that they are just going to ignore the text of the amendment because reasons, it would bring forth a shiatshorm.


Don't count on packing the court, either. They can also block that.
 
2020-09-27 6:43:06 PM  

GardenWeasel: Mad_Radhu: vpb: Mad_Radhu: So how exactly could a Supreme Court Justice rule the Constitutional unconstitutional? I'd think that even if she made some crazy-assed ruling that ran counter to the amendment, the rest of the justices wouldn't go along with it. Well, maybe Thomas.

If they rule it unconstitutional then it is unconstitutional.

But how could they justify it in their decision without making such a huge mockery of the court that it would make a strong case for either packing the court or impeachment? If you had the court say that they are just going to ignore the text of the amendment because reasons, it would bring forth a shiatshorm.

Don't count on packing the court, either. They can also block that.


"The Supreme Court has no power to enforce its decisions. It cannot call out the troops or compel Congress or the president to obey. The Court relies on the executive and legislative branches to carry out its rulings. In some cases, the Supreme Court has been unable to enforce its rulings"

Take away, the court has to be cautious. If it does not retain the appearance of legitimacy it will lose the only thing forcing the other branches to abide its rulings, public expectations and norms.
 
2020-09-27 6:55:48 PM  

Mad_Radhu: So how exactly could a Supreme Court Justice rule the Constitutional unconstitutional? I'd think that even if she made some crazy-assed ruling that ran counter to the amendment, the rest of the justices wouldn't go along with it. Well, maybe Thomas.


You are right.
There's plenty enough legitimately wrong with this woman, it's just silly and unnecessary to go overboard with speculation.

/ grips for sale
// get one before you need one
 
2020-09-27 7:00:42 PM  

hugadarn: GardenWeasel: Mad_Radhu: vpb: Mad_Radhu: So how exactly could a Supreme Court Justice rule the Constitutional unconstitutional? I'd think that even if she made some crazy-assed ruling that ran counter to the amendment, the rest of the justices wouldn't go along with it. Well, maybe Thomas.

If they rule it unconstitutional then it is unconstitutional.

But how could they justify it in their decision without making such a huge mockery of the court that it would make a strong case for either packing the court or impeachment? If you had the court say that they are just going to ignore the text of the amendment because reasons, it would bring forth a shiatshorm.

Don't count on packing the court, either. They can also block that.

"The Supreme Court has no power to enforce its decisions. It cannot call out the troops or compel Congress or the president to obey. The Court relies on the executive and legislative branches to carry out its rulings. In some cases, the Supreme Court has been unable to enforce its rulings"

Take away, the court has to be cautious. If it does not retain the appearance of legitimacy it will lose the only thing forcing the other branches to abide its rulings, public expectations and norms.


Interesting. Any examples?
 
2020-09-27 7:07:48 PM  

mjjt: hugadarn: GardenWeasel: Mad_Radhu: vpb: Mad_Radhu: So how exactly could a Supreme Court Justice rule the Constitutional unconstitutional? I'd think that even if she made some crazy-assed ruling that ran counter to the amendment, the rest of the justices wouldn't go along with it. Well, maybe Thomas.

If they rule it unconstitutional then it is unconstitutional.

But how could they justify it in their decision without making such a huge mockery of the court that it would make a strong case for either packing the court or impeachment? If you had the court say that they are just going to ignore the text of the amendment because reasons, it would bring forth a shiatshorm.

Don't count on packing the court, either. They can also block that.

"The Supreme Court has no power to enforce its decisions. It cannot call out the troops or compel Congress or the president to obey. The Court relies on the executive and legislative branches to carry out its rulings. In some cases, the Supreme Court has been unable to enforce its rulings"

Take away, the court has to be cautious. If it does not retain the appearance of legitimacy it will lose the only thing forcing the other branches to abide its rulings, public expectations and norms.

Interesting. Any examples?


Very interesting case indeed.
 
2020-09-27 7:11:08 PM  
All of Trump's SCOTUS picks need to be impeached ASAP.
 
2020-09-27 7:18:16 PM  

I am Tom Joad's Complete Lack of Surprise: And re-criminalizing homosexuality, no doubt.


Death penalty.

/"And den they eat da po po" will be part of the majority opinion
 
2020-09-27 7:19:27 PM  

Mad_Radhu: So how exactly could a Supreme Court Justice rule the Constitutional unconstitutional? I'd think that even if she made some crazy-assed ruling that ran counter to the amendment, the rest of the justices wouldn't go along with it. Well, maybe Thomas.


Gut it like the 4th.
 
2020-09-27 7:22:29 PM  
Does she realize originalist intent means she's ineligible to be a judge?

No, of course not.
 
2020-09-27 7:22:30 PM  
they seem to believe that the "original meaning" of every word and phrase just happens to be a conservative meaning

That's what happens when you start with the result you want and reason your way backwards.
 
2020-09-27 7:22:32 PM  
Barrett seems like she'd be very sympathetic to making the maximum term for copyrights: 14 years.

And they'd only apply to books maps and charts, not Mickey Mouse, software, drug patents.

Please proceed.
 
2020-09-27 7:22:35 PM  
I may have a problem with this, but I'll have to wait and see what her husband's opinion is first.
 
2020-09-27 7:22:36 PM  
Wasn't roe v wade decision based upon your right to privacy from the government snooping about in your life?

Could an overturned roe v wade lead to legitimate government lists of what firearms you have, how much ammo, etc?

Could someone ask her this during confirmation hearings?
 
2020-09-27 7:22:56 PM  
possibly illegitimate Fourteenth Amendment

How can an amendment be "illegitimate"??
 
2020-09-27 7:23:22 PM  
If she truly believed the shiat she's spewing, she'd believe she should not be holding an official position on the SCOTUS either... women didn't have that level of power when those pesky amendments were added - hell, does she also believe women shouldn't vote?
 
2020-09-27 7:24:40 PM  
WASPs? Why would a Catholic side with WASPs?
 
2020-09-27 7:25:07 PM  
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.comView Full Size
 
2020-09-27 7:25:07 PM  

vpb: Mad_Radhu: So how exactly could a Supreme Court Justice rule the Constitutional unconstitutional? I'd think that even if she made some crazy-assed ruling that ran counter to the amendment, the rest of the justices wouldn't go along with it. Well, maybe Thomas.

If they rule it unconstitutional then it is unconstitutional.


By definition, the Constitution of the United States and its Amendments cannot be "unconstitutional."
 
2020-09-27 7:25:19 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: All of Trump's SCOTUS picks need to be impeached ASAP.


The only Supreme Court Justice to ever be impeached was Samuel Chase... and the Senate acquitted him. Same thing would happen today.
Just sayin'.

https://en.www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam​u​el_Chase
 
2020-09-27 7:26:40 PM  
Is there any chance that she's so far right that she makes one of the other right side judges think "This biatch is crazy far right and maybe I need to lean a little left to balance it out or we're all farked".

Yea, I know the answer, but it's at least a straw of hope for me.
 
2020-09-27 7:26:52 PM  
Poppy Bush replaced Thurgood Marshall with the shiatheel Clarence Thomas who has spent his entire career ensuring his career could not take place again.

Donald's replacing RBG with another bootlicker determined to undermine her own rights because Fark You, I've Got Mine.
 
2020-09-27 7:28:42 PM  
I saw WASP back at Feelgood's (now Vamp'd) in Vegas. Good show, but not somgood we need to start persecuting people who aren't Blackie Lawless.
 
2020-09-27 7:28:43 PM  

cob2f: WASPs? Why would a Catholic side with WASPs?


Vatican II
 
2020-09-27 7:29:30 PM  

Jackal_N: GardenWeasel: They won't be happy until women and minorities are both property again.

Yep, you can bet if they get rid of the 14th and 15th amendments they will be after the 19th amendment.


And the 13th.
 
2020-09-27 7:30:28 PM  
My Jill Stein protest vote is going exactly as planned!
 
2020-09-27 7:31:32 PM  
She's in a cult.
 
2020-09-27 7:31:54 PM  
They really need to ask her about this during her confirmation hearing, and then just turn that into a Biden campaign ad.
 
2020-09-27 7:32:40 PM  
Senate confirmation questions must include:

So, does your husband know you're here right now?

Have you already made his sammich?

Does the time on your stove match the time on your phone/watch/both/neither?

Could you get ME a sammich?.. NOW!? (don't forget my beer)
 
2020-09-27 7:33:14 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-27 7:34:05 PM  
She is an absolutely horrid person who happens to know some law.
 
2020-09-27 7:34:52 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-27 7:35:28 PM  
Interesting.  So we should throw out every amendment save for the Bill of Rights?

Originalism is a load of horseshiat.  The Founders would tell that to these people's faces today.
 
2020-09-27 7:39:21 PM  

fusillade762: possibly illegitimate Fourteenth Amendment

How can an amendment be "illegitimate"??


If Trump signs an Executive order adding a 28th Amendment to move the capitol to Wasilla, would that be legitimate?
 
2020-09-27 7:40:07 PM  
It looks like the 14th is the principle that will lead to prosecuting police for killing people in all kinds of circumstances. The cops are probably backing Trump so that his Bench will continue to rule that a police bullet or a rough ride is a form of due process.
 
2020-09-27 7:40:54 PM  

Alien Robot: fusillade762: possibly illegitimate Fourteenth Amendment

How can an amendment be "illegitimate"??

If Trump signs an Executive order adding a 28th Amendment to move the capitol to Wasilla, would that be legitimate?


If it goes through the ratification process... as outlined on the constitution.... yes.
 
2020-09-27 7:41:29 PM  

hugadarn: GardenWeasel: Mad_Radhu: vpb: Mad_Radhu: So how exactly could a Supreme Court Justice rule the Constitutional unconstitutional? I'd think that even if she made some crazy-assed ruling that ran counter to the amendment, the rest of the justices wouldn't go along with it. Well, maybe Thomas.

If they rule it unconstitutional then it is unconstitutional.

But how could they justify it in their decision without making such a huge mockery of the court that it would make a strong case for either packing the court or impeachment? If you had the court say that they are just going to ignore the text of the amendment because reasons, it would bring forth a shiatshorm.

Don't count on packing the court, either. They can also block that.

"The Supreme Court has no power to enforce its decisions. It cannot call out the troops or compel Congress or the president to obey. The Court relies on the executive and legislative branches to carry out its rulings. In some cases, the Supreme Court has been unable to enforce its rulings"

Take away, the court has to be cautious. If it does not retain the appearance of legitimacy it will lose the only thing forcing the other branches to abide its rulings, public expectations and norms.


Citing the Federalist Papers in a Fark Constitution thread?

I'm pretty sure that's against some rule.
 
2020-09-27 7:42:22 PM  

Alien Robot: fusillade762: possibly illegitimate Fourteenth Amendment

How can an amendment be "illegitimate"??

If Trump signs an Executive order adding a 28th Amendment to move the capitol to Wasilla, would that be legitimate?


The executive order would not be legitimate, considering you cannot amend the constitution in that way.  That has nothing to do with the legitimacy of existing amendments.
 
2020-09-27 7:44:27 PM  

fusillade762: possibly illegitimate Fourteenth Amendment

How can an amendment be "illegitimate"??


Conservatives don't like it.

I'm not being glib, that's their working definition of illegitimate.
 
2020-09-27 7:45:16 PM  
Bye bye birthright citizenship
 
2020-09-27 7:45:54 PM  

Senseless_drivel: cob2f: WASPs? Why would a Catholic side with WASPs?

Vatican II


The Catholic Church's reform which made the Church more like Protestant Churches? How so?
 
Displayed 50 of 189 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


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.