U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150625123238-will-mullery-justice-scalia-large-169.png

aaaaand here we go:

President Obama is to confer in the Oval Office on Tuesday with Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican majority leader, and Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, about filling the Supreme Court vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. If everyone maintains previously stated positions, it might be a very short meeting.

Mr. Obama is adamant that he will name a nominee to the court, most likely in the next few weeks. Republicans remain just as adamant that they will not even meet with Mr. Obama’s nominee, let alone hold confirmation hearings.

Then again, the meeting on Tuesday will bring together six men who have rarely been accused of keeping their remarks brief. Besides Mr. Obama, Mr. McConnell and Mr. Grassley, the invited participants include Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader; Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee; and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 March 2016 12:33 (four years ago) link

Thomas speaks!

“Ms. Eisenstein, one question,” he started, according to a transcript released by the court. “This is a misdemeanor violation. It suspends a constitutional right. Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?”

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

After some back and forth, Ms. Eisenstein said she could not think of one, though she added that First Amendment rights could be affected in comparable settings.

“O.K.,” he said. “So, can you think of a First Amendment suspension or a suspension of a First Amendment right that is permanent?”

Here again, Ms. Eisenstein offered a concession. “Your Honor,” she said, “it’s not necessarily permanent as to the individual, but it may be permanent as to a particular harm.”

The barrage of sharp, pointed questions continued, with Justice Thomas seeming to have the better of several of the exchanges.

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 March 2016 12:35 (four years ago) link

Chris Christie says there should be hearings. So you can all exhale now.

we can be heroes just for about 3.6 seconds (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 1 March 2016 13:16 (four years ago) link

“Ms. Eisenstein, one question,”

wish I could see video of Eisenstein's reaction to this

crüt, Tuesday, 1 March 2016 13:29 (four years ago) link

Ha! Yeah, jaw must've hit the floor.

Ⓓⓡ. (Johnny Fever), Tuesday, 1 March 2016 13:49 (four years ago) link

"Shit, I thought this was going well - I'm dreaming, aren't I?"

Andrew Farrell, Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:05 (four years ago) link

Dust and cobwebs covering Thomas' mike.

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:18 (four years ago) link

“Ms. Eisenstein, one question,”

http://i.imgur.com/jrbn9oI.gif

"Wha? Who said that!"

pplains, Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:21 (four years ago) link

and of course the motherfucker asks a question to which any non-lawyer could have given a reasonable answer: yeah, many constitutional rights have had court-imposed limits.

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:32 (four years ago) link

The cause that inspired Thomas to break a ten year silence: men convicted of domestic violence who wish to own guns.

Voisine v. United States involves a fairly technical question of whether two men with previous domestic assault convictions are subject to federal law prohibiting individuals convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” from possessing firearms. Justice Thomas, however, appeared deeply troubled by the idea that these men may not be able to carry a firearm.

Noting that the right to carry a gun is ordinarily “a constitutional right” under existing law, Thomas began his questioning by asking if Ilana Eisenstein, the attorney arguing the case on behalf of the federal government, could “give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right.”

There are many possible answers to this question. The Supreme Court has long recognized that U.S. citizens have a constitutional right to travel within the United States, yet a person convicted of a misdemeanor could be arrested and jailed for up to a year. Similarly, the First Amendment protects a right of “expressive association” with other individuals, but such an association may be difficult to maintain while an individual is incarcerated. The Constitution also provides fairly robust protections for property rights, but someone convicted of a misdemeanor may lawfully be fined.

In any event, Thomas continued to press Eisenstein for several pages of the argument transcript. At one point, he appeared bothered by the fact that domestic abusers have their right to own a gun suspended indefinitely. At another point, he seemed to suggest that the particular domestic abusers at issue in this case should not lose their ability to carry guns because they’ve never actually “use[d] a weapon against a family member.”

Thomas appeared unmoved when Eisenstein pointed out that “individuals who have previously…­­ battered their spouses, pose up to a six­fold greater risk of killing, by a gun, their family member.”

Justice Thomas has a record of near absolutism on the Second Amendment. Last December, while the nation was still mourning the mass killing of more than a dozen people at a facility for the developmentally disabled in San Bernadino, California — a crime that was committed with assault rifles — Thomas penned a dissenting opinion suggesting that assault rifle bans are unconstitutional.

Indeed, it now appears that Thomas believes that the Second Amendment should be read so broadly that even domestic abusers must be allowed to own guns. And that he is so committed to this cause that it is the only thing that he’s spoken about in ten years of Supreme Court hearings.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/02/29/3754773/justice-thomas-just-broke-his-ten-year-silence-to-complain-that-domestic-abusers-cant-have-guns/

curmudgeon, Tuesday, 1 March 2016 14:42 (four years ago) link

The Notorious RBG at work:

That’s odd that you point to the New Mexico facility,” Ginsburg said, in a clear and firm voice. New Mexico, after all, doesn’t force abortion clinics to meet the same standards that Texas would—standards which, Texas claims, are absolutely critical to protect women.

“So if your argument is right,” Ginsburg continued, “then New Mexico is not an available way out for Texas, because Texas says: To protect our women, we need these things. But send them off to New Mexico,” to clinics with more lenient standards, “and that’s perfectly all right.”

“Well,” Ginsburg concluded, with just a hint of pique in her voice, “If that’s all right for the women in the El Paso area, why isn’t it right for the rest of the women in Texas?”
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/02/ruth_bader_ginsburg_asks_the_most_important_question_of_oral_arguments_in.html

curmudgeon, Thursday, 3 March 2016 16:14 (four years ago) link

However, per the NY Times, if the court deadlocks 4 to 4, the stringent Texas law upheld by the conservative Appeals Court could stay in effect:

Although Justice Antonin Scalia’s death last month may have muted the prospect of truly bold action in the case, even a 4-to-4 tie would have enormous consequences because it would leave in place the appeals court decision, which challengers say could drive down the number of abortion clinics in Texas to about 10 from roughly 40. On the other hand, Justice Scalia’s death means the court is very unlikely to weaken constitutional standards affecting abortion in the rest of the nation, as the four liberal justices would not go along.

curmudgeon, Thursday, 3 March 2016 16:19 (four years ago) link

yeah this is not a good outcome

Οὖτις, Thursday, 3 March 2016 17:39 (four years ago) link

TPM publishes one of those speculative pieces:

The current situation has put the chief justice in an awkward position. Senate Republicans have picked this fight with the White House in the hopes that a future GOP president can ultimately pick a Scalia successor, restoring the conservative majority on the Supreme Court. But in doing so, they also embroiled the court in the very partisan contentiousness from which Roberts tries to insulate the court.

“He’s in an interesting place, personally, because on the one hand, I’m sure he would like a reliable conservative vote, and on the other hand, I can’t imagine he wants to operate with a court of eight for two terms, which is what it effectively would be,” Barry Friedman, a professor at the New York University School of Law, told TPM. “My guess is he would rather have the position filled and get the court out of this particular spotlight.”

Unless Roberts makes the unlikely decision to speak out about the hardball Senate Republicans are playing, we won’t know how he feels about it. And even if he did object to their refusal to restore the full bench, at least for another year, saying so publicly might only make matters worse. But a review of Roberts’ record suggests the current standoff presents competing interests for the chief justice, and legal experts argue, at the very least, he would be torn.

“In his heart of hearts, he probably has views on these things. It would be very hard not to,” Arthur Hellman, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, said in an interview with TPM. "He really is very concerned about preserving the court’s legitimacy and its stature as an institution.”

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 3 March 2016 17:44 (four years ago) link

the TRAP laws case is so very infuriating to me; these fuckers trying to pretend their objection is not entirely moral but is about "helping women" is the most hypocritical load of bullshit

ulysses, Thursday, 3 March 2016 18:31 (four years ago) link

"He really is very concerned about preserving the court’s legitimacy and its stature as an institution.”

Well, what fun is it to be the Chief Justice of a despised and disrespected institution? People just spit on you in public or chant your name in a funny voice.

a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Thursday, 3 March 2016 18:32 (four years ago) link

once you determine on a bone level that fetuses are children and abortion is murder, whatever machiavellian notions you put to bear in support of anti-abortion laws are totally self justifying to these pontificating assholes
housing/feeding/clothing the child and the mother however is SOCIALISM and not the state's business. these bastards are willing to put actual lives in danger in practice rather than risk their principals not being fully executed
so angry

ulysses, Thursday, 3 March 2016 18:34 (four years ago) link

Don't we all do that? I mean, don't some of us trade security for freedom/privacy?

schwantz, Thursday, 3 March 2016 18:44 (four years ago) link

it's a bit different when you're risking lives of people that you're not even remotely connected to because you want to save their miraculous soul babies but don't give a damn about what happens post partem

ulysses, Thursday, 3 March 2016 18:48 (four years ago) link

Sadly, George Clinton can no longer make Richard Pryor minister od education

Check Yr Scrobbles (Moodles), Thursday, 3 March 2016 18:51 (four years ago) link

Oops, wrong thread

Check Yr Scrobbles (Moodles), Thursday, 3 March 2016 18:51 (four years ago) link

true though

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 3 March 2016 18:55 (four years ago) link

once you determine on a bone level that fetuses are children and abortion is murder, whatever machiavellian notions you put to bear in support of anti-abortion laws are totally self justifying to these pontificating assholes

OTM -- these people see themselves as fetus Harriet Tubmans and John Browns.

on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Thursday, 3 March 2016 19:29 (four years ago) link

with respect to the case, it's not a "good outcome" but it doesn't strike me as a worse outcome than you'd likely get if Scalia were alive.

on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Thursday, 3 March 2016 19:30 (four years ago) link

i saw this a few weeks ago and some of the actual cases these laws impact are utterly heartbreaking
http://www.trappeddocumentary.com/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjgVPPEoFt8

Same director as the outstanding 'Gideon's Army'; she spent months at the clinics in question to see what the actual work that they're doing is about and it's utterly damning to the "for the safety of women" argument.

ulysses, Thursday, 3 March 2016 19:33 (four years ago) link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHIvZuypso4

𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Saturday, 5 March 2016 01:58 (four years ago) link

omg the bunk as Clarence Thomas, so much would watch

on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Monday, 7 March 2016 15:49 (four years ago) link

Fuck. Fuck fuck fucking fuck. Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.

Josh in Chicago, Monday, 7 March 2016 16:04 (four years ago) link

that actress looks like Ginny!

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 7 March 2016 16:09 (four years ago) link

that parent's rights case djp cites upthread is some bullshit

ulysses, Monday, 7 March 2016 16:29 (four years ago) link

I am so much less terrified of SC thread revives post-Nino

Οὖτις, Monday, 7 March 2016 16:34 (four years ago) link

right?

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 7 March 2016 16:37 (four years ago) link

that is the same story that DJP linked, no?

micro brewbio (crüt), Monday, 7 March 2016 23:04 (four years ago) link

ah sorry

Οὖτις, Monday, 7 March 2016 23:11 (four years ago) link

the Scalia Effect in full effect

The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:19 (four years ago) link

hahaha wait, why didn't they just resubmit the ad without the claim of a reward

were they THAT enamored of the wild west aesthetic that they couldn't take out the patently false info that made their shitty ads unlawful to print?

i like to trump and i am crazy (DJP), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:22 (four years ago) link

I would assume the identities of the people in the "photos of militants" are also legally problematic (that link doesn't say if all 16 people were actually wanted by the FBI or not)

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:25 (four years ago) link

you can't just throw up a photo of anybody on a bus w/a "WANTED TERRORIST" caption, that seems p blatantly illegal

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:26 (four years ago) link

I would bet a dollar that if he nominates a woman, there will be mindbendingly stupid hot takes from Nat'l Review types saying that a man should be nominated in place of a man

tremendous crime wave and killing wave (Joan Crawford Loves Chachi), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:28 (four years ago) link

*crumples sketch, fumes*

micro brewbio (crüt), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:29 (four years ago) link

(xpost)

micro brewbio (crüt), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:29 (four years ago) link

The article pretty clearly states that it was rejected because the claim of a reward was false; I'm not going to speculate on the rest of it without knowing who these alleged "militants" are.

i like to trump and i am crazy (DJP), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:30 (four years ago) link

you can't just throw up a photo of anybody on a bus w/a "WANTED TERRORIST" caption, that seems p blatantly illegal

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, March 8, 2016 2:26 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

So out of curiosity I looked it up, and apparently a majority of states do not have criminal defamation laws (seventeen states and two territories do). However you'd have a pretty strong civil case because in nearly all states falsely accusing someone of criminal activity is a level of defamation you don't have to prove damages for. As a result, it's unlikely that any public bus system would allow such ads or that anyone could successfully sue them for refusing to display such ads.

on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:37 (four years ago) link

(and presumably a court would uphold the right of a public bus company to refuse to display blatantly defamatory ads).

on entre O.K. on sort K.O. (man alive), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:42 (four years ago) link

It appears that the FBI Puget Sound office came up with the ads originally but their version didn't include 16 profile pics - it wasn't until this other group picked up the ball and put up altered versions of the ads (including adding the pics and the false award claim) that legal challenges arose.

Οὖτις, Tuesday, 8 March 2016 19:49 (four years ago) link

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cornyn-pinata-scotus-nom

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, said Monday that President Obama's yet-to-be-named Supreme Court nominee would be like a "piñata."

"I think they will bear some resemblance to a piñata," Cornyn told reporters on Capitol Hill, according to CNN.

When pressed, Cornyn clarified, "I believe that the nominee will be covered in papier-mâché and decorated with many colorful bits of paper and fringe. I also believe that the nominee will be filled with delicious candy and wonderful toys that I will grasp with both fists after he or she bursts open on the Senate floor."

"It's my birthday!" Senator Cornyn added excitedly.

i like to trump and i am crazy (DJP), Tuesday, 8 March 2016 20:11 (four years ago) link

FUCK

... that's Traore! (Neanderthal), Monday, 27 January 2020 20:07 (three months ago) link

i wish more and more that somehow Obama had rammed Merrick Garland through during recess. if we'd known what was coming....fuck.

... that's Traore! (Neanderthal), Monday, 27 January 2020 20:08 (three months ago) link

fucking disgusting

Fuck the NRA (ulysses), Monday, 27 January 2020 20:41 (three months ago) link

Give me your tired, but not too tired, we’re not made of money here

Li'l Brexit (Tracer Hand), Monday, 27 January 2020 21:16 (three months ago) link

Wait, I havent read the ruling itself yet but based on the news isn’t this just a temporary, not on the merits decision that says no injunction for the moment?

longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Monday, 27 January 2020 21:38 (three months ago) link

yes, it allows the trump administration's plans to proceed (not sure on the timeline for their plans to implement?) while challenges work their way up the system

But guess what? Nobody gives a toot!😂 (Karl Malone), Monday, 27 January 2020 21:40 (three months ago) link

Man, I was really thrown off by the emoji in your dn for a sec, like what an odd reaction to that

longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Monday, 27 January 2020 21:42 (three months ago) link

it does insert a sometime unwanted levity to any topic

But guess what? Nobody gives a toot!😂 (Karl Malone), Monday, 27 January 2020 21:45 (three months ago) link

one month passes...

https://i.imgur.com/qEYxCJr.png

holy shit, have never considered this. NYT on the beat!!!!

But guess what? Nobody gives a toot!😂 (Karl Malone), Friday, 28 February 2020 19:12 (two months ago) link

so i think i have one more 'good' year

The New York Times reports:

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a third major case on the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama’s health care law, granting petitions from Democratic state officials and the House of Representatives in a case with the potential to wipe out the entire law. The court did not say when it would hear the case, but, under its ordinary practices, arguments would be held in the fall and a decision would land in the spring or summer of 2021.

Democrats, who consider health care a winning issue and worry about possible changes in the composition of the Supreme Court, had urged the justices to act quickly even though lower courts had not issued definitive rulings. They wanted to keep the fate of the Affordable Care Act, sometimes called Obamacare, in the public eye during the presidential campaign and to ensure that the appeal was decided while justices who had rejected earlier challenges remain the court.

brooklyn suicide cult (Dr Morbius), Monday, 2 March 2020 15:36 (two months ago) link

possible changes in the composition of the Supreme Court

I'm assuming this is code for RBG

A is for (Aimless), Monday, 2 March 2020 18:16 (two months ago) link

xp some real galaxy brain stuff that this is actually good because it's bad electoral politics for the trump administration

𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Monday, 2 March 2020 18:28 (two months ago) link

one month passes...

Die, voters!

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court denied its support Monday for the growing consensus that voting in the midst of a pandemic may be best done by mail.

Refusing to depart from its opposition to last-minute changes that can confuse voters, the justices blocked a federal court order that voters in Wisconsin should be able to vote absentee for six days beyond Tuesday's primary election.

"Extending the date by which ballots may be cast by voters — not just received by the municipal clerks but cast by voters — for an additional six days after the scheduled election day fundamentally alters the nature of the election," the court said in an unsigned opinion.

The vote broke down on ideological lines, with the four liberal justices dissenting.

"The question here is whether tens of thousands of Wisconsin citizens can vote safely in the midst of a pandemic," Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote. Under the court's decision, "either they will have to brave the polls, endangering their own and others’ safety. Or they will lose their right to vote, through no fault of their own."

TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 7 April 2020 00:09 (one month ago) link

BREAKING: Supreme Court on 5 to 4 vote sides with Wisconsin Republicans and says absentee voting cannot be extended

There’s a Wisconsin primary scheduled for Tuesday to vote on an elected judge position ( and I think Biden v Sanders also). Democratic governor tried to postpone the election and Republican legislators won in Wisconsin courts and federal that Wisconsin constitution doesn’t give governor that power. Governor tried to extend period for submitting absentee ballots and Republicans challenged that all the way to US Supreme Court and won.

curmudgeon, Tuesday, 7 April 2020 00:13 (one month ago) link

The issue for Wisconsin voters should be that the Republican legislators blocked the governor's plan in the first place, putting them in jeopardy. If the state constitution legit doesn't give the governor that power (which seems likely), then surely the legislature had the power to make that happen and failed to use it to protect the safety of voters. They won the battle, but at the cost of parading in front of the whole state what assholes they are.

A is for (Aimless), Tuesday, 7 April 2020 00:19 (one month ago) link

does this mean that in-person voting will happen? it does seem like an attempt to suppress the vote. I hope the democrats can optimize the number of voters by November

Dan S, Tuesday, 7 April 2020 00:36 (one month ago) link

The in place voting is now scheduled for tomorrow but they’re having trouble getting volunteers to work polling places and likely will have less polling spots open.

curmudgeon, Tuesday, 7 April 2020 02:53 (one month ago) link

The jerks who elected Republican legislators are probably happy with Republican legislators doing this.

curmudgeon, Tuesday, 7 April 2020 02:55 (one month ago) link

There's always a ray of hope that some of the voters in Wisconsin who once vaguely thought they liked Republican ideas will tire of the flaming assholes on parade.

A is for (Aimless), Tuesday, 7 April 2020 03:12 (one month ago) link

Milwaukee will have five polling places tomorrow, instead of 180. Five! My mom, who's been waiting for her absentee ballot for ~a month, won't get to vote.

geoffreyess, Tuesday, 7 April 2020 04:28 (one month ago) link

This is insanity

Mario Meatwagon (Moodles), Tuesday, 7 April 2020 04:29 (one month ago) link

I have no idea what the political climate is like in WI right now. Are there going to be repercussions for this shit or are people rolling with it?

Mario Meatwagon (Moodles), Tuesday, 7 April 2020 04:39 (one month ago) link

People have rioted over less

silby, Tuesday, 7 April 2020 04:48 (one month ago) link

Yes, they have, but will they now?

Mario Meatwagon (Moodles), Tuesday, 7 April 2020 04:56 (one month ago) link

ashamed to say that one of those WI-R legislators is a family member of mine. not immediately close but have had to be made more and more aware of their shitty political decisions over the more recent Walker/Evers years.

Western® with Bacon Flavor, Tuesday, 7 April 2020 04:57 (one month ago) link

Terrible situation in Wisconsin. But Justice Roberts, who keeps insisting he’s impartial, is comfortable with the ruling

curmudgeon, Tuesday, 7 April 2020 12:22 (one month ago) link

he's an umpire iirc

TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 7 April 2020 12:23 (one month ago) link

tip for voting in WI: wear a hazmat suit covered in protest signs

let me be your friend on the other end! (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 7 April 2020 14:44 (one month ago) link

then burn the state capitol down on the way home

let me be your friend on the other end! (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 7 April 2020 14:44 (one month ago) link

fucking bullshit

let me be your friend on the other end! (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 7 April 2020 14:44 (one month ago) link

It's been quite surprising to see the sheer numbers of Twitter pundits suddenly shocked, shocked I tell you(!), that Roberts might not be as impartial as he hinted.

soaring skrrrtpeggios (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Tuesday, 7 April 2020 14:48 (one month ago) link

if you’re young and healthy and vote in a heavy republican district just go and conspicuously cough at the old whites. what are they going to do? Arrest you?

A-B-C. A-Always, B-Be, C-Chooglin (will), Tuesday, 7 April 2020 15:00 (one month ago) link

In the middle of the coronavirus pandemic, THIS is the line for in person voting as the polls open for Election Day in Wisconsin. #COVID19 #ElectionDay pic.twitter.com/WplsSHy9RF

— Omar Jimenez (@OmarJimenez) April 7, 2020

Yanni Xenakis (Hadrian VIII), Tuesday, 7 April 2020 15:03 (one month ago) link

also while it’s fun and cool and good to wish death on the most powerful man in the world I know of 5 guys that i humbly submit would be better targets for covid-19

A-B-C. A-Always, B-Be, C-Chooglin (will), Tuesday, 7 April 2020 15:05 (one month ago) link

die, fuckers

sleeve, Tuesday, 7 April 2020 15:14 (one month ago) link

elections have consequences

but so did that one time mcconnell brazenly STOLE a supreme court seat and got away with it and counts it as his greatest legislative moment.

let me be your friend on the other end! (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 7 April 2020 15:17 (one month ago) link

oh I bet there’s time for McConnell and the fellas to top it

A-B-C. A-Always, B-Be, C-Chooglin (will), Tuesday, 7 April 2020 15:21 (one month ago) link

not to blame the victims here, but: WEAR YOUR FUCKING MASKS

Polls open in minutes. Here’s a look at the line in Waukesha, the city’s only polling location pic.twitter.com/Uqg08gannt

— Matt Smith (@mattsmith_news) April 7, 2020

let me be your friend on the other end! (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 7 April 2020 15:24 (one month ago) link

Waukesha is the most rock-solid Republican part of the state btw.

Guayaquil (eephus!), Tuesday, 7 April 2020 16:06 (one month ago) link

Or rather Waukesha County is -- city of Waukesha is the liberal mecca of the county (still voted for Walker over Evers though)

Guayaquil (eephus!), Tuesday, 7 April 2020 16:07 (one month ago) link

there are literally only 5 polling places open in Milwaukee. the election is a sham.

frogbs, Tuesday, 7 April 2020 16:10 (one month ago) link

if the entire election plays out like this, shit is going to get apocalyptic, with the 1999 WTO protest crew returned from the dead as the leaders, and everyone in homemade hazmat suits and masks prowling the streets with pitchforks

let me be your friend on the other end! (Karl Malone), Tuesday, 7 April 2020 16:15 (one month ago) link

three weeks pass...

So Thomas asked a question this morning during the first live stream!

TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 4 May 2020 14:54 (three weeks ago) link

!!!!

holy shit

let me be your friend on the other end! (Karl Malone), Monday, 4 May 2020 15:12 (three weeks ago) link

Every time this thread gets bumped I'm terrified it's going to be something like "RBG joins the majority in declaring the entire concept of Federal statute unconstitutional"

silby, Monday, 4 May 2020 15:29 (three weeks ago) link

during the first live stream!

Was he wearing sweatpants?

A is for (Aimless), Monday, 4 May 2020 18:07 (three weeks ago) link

It seems plausible that SCOTUS will establish a heightened standard for subpoenas targeting the president, then send the case back down to the lower courts to determine whether Vance's subpoena of Trump's tax returns meets that standard.

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) May 12, 2020

TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 12 May 2020 16:41 (one week ago) link

NB: I will never get used to Thomas asking questions.

TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 12 May 2020 16:41 (one week ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.