Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Washington Insider Reports Shouting, Conflict in Supreme Court Over Refusal to Hear Texas Lawsuit
Charisma News ^ | Staff

Posted on 12/14/2020 6:38:37 PM PST by Til I am the last man standing

A Supreme Court clerk reports that shouting and conflict between the justices of the nation's highest court occurred on Friday, Dec. 11, as the court was deciding to reject a Texas lawsuit challenging presidential election results in four key swing states.

(Excerpt) Read more at charismanews.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: 20201210; 2020election; 2022election; 2024election; assistantdemocrat; assistantdemocrats; clarencethomas; election2022; election2024; fiction; johnroberts; judiciary; neilgorsuch; oldnews; rino; rinos; rumor; rumormill; scotus; scotusclerk; scotustexas; shouting; sidebarabuse; spinelessroberts; stolenelection; stopthesteal; texas; trump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-291 last
To: fieldmarshaldj; Impy; NFHale; KC_Lion; LS

Interesting McCarthy was the lone “HELL NO” vote on Brennan when everyone else in the GOP was applauding the pick (shades of my own lonely one-man anti-Gorsuch campaign on here). I’m particularly surprised because that happened in the 50s, even by 1986, Scalia was confirmed with zero opposition from the RATS. Today, they would have all reflexively voted against him simply for the fact he had an “R” next to his name.

To his credit, I think Ike realized the damage he did with both Earl Warren AND William J. Brennan. I think a reporter asked him later if he ever made any mistakes as president, and he replied “I made two huge mistakes, and they’re sitting on the Supreme Court right now”


281 posted on 12/17/2020 11:43:35 AM PST by BillyBoy ("States rights" is NOT a suicide pact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: BEJ

I thought that was kind of a brilliant comment by the CIA guy. I love when people burst cliches to smithereens anyway, but it was so logically perfect as well.


282 posted on 12/17/2020 3:44:59 PM PST by firebrand ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: firebrand

It’s like everything becomes “evidence,” so what can we say is actual proof? Everything is conditional. But it is a playful, circular and clever bit of reasoning: “absence of evidence is actually evidence of absence.” If you take it to its logical end you end up with skepticism or maybe cynicism.


283 posted on 12/17/2020 4:21:00 PM PST by BEJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: BEJ

No, it’s not clever, because it’s wrong. Absence of evidence can exist in any situation, whether the contested thing happened or not.

That’s logic.

The statement is not clever, that was the CIA guy’s point, and it’s not even circular in the logical meaning. It just has the word “evidence” in it twice. That doesn’t make it circular.


284 posted on 12/18/2020 3:26:20 PM PST by firebrand ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: firebrand

It’s circular in that whatever is deemed proof becomes evidence. I think the CIA guy was doing trying to do the thing Donald Rumsfeld put forward about known and unknow.


285 posted on 12/18/2020 4:52:24 PM PST by BEJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: Til I am the last man standing

I suspect this is disinformation to undermine the Supreme Court and demoralize Trump’s political base.


286 posted on 12/18/2020 4:59:49 PM PST by WashingtonSource
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy

Good post. I agree, except I’m a little harder on ACB than you are. Do. Not. Like. She seems like a lib to me.


287 posted on 12/18/2020 5:02:18 PM PST by MayflowerMadam ("Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free" Galatians 5:1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: MayflowerMadam; Impy
>> Good post. I agree, except I’m a little harder on ACB than you are. Do. Not. Like. She seems like a lib to me. <<

I remember at the time of her nomination, I (rightly) pointed out that Trump had already screwed the pooch with his first two nominees, so we would not have a "conservative majority" regardless of how ACB turned out.

Impy told me at the time that it was pointless to dwell on his previous two SCOTUS picks, so the question is, what do you think of ACB?

I thought she clearly the "best" of Trump's three SCOTUS nominees, but given how mediocre they were overall, that's a bit like crowning Terminator 3 as the "best" of the non-James Cameron directed Terminator movies. Even if it is, that's a pretty low bar to reach.

You think she's actually a closet lib? I had the opposite feeling, I thought she was the LONE Trump nominee that DID seem to be a sincere conservative in her personal life (Gorsuch was obviously left-leaning on social issues, and Kav is wayyyy too much of a go-along, get-along beltway guy... and both of 'em were Kennedy clerks instead of clerking for an ACTUAL conservative)

I still had issues with ACB's nomination, mainly that she had a lot of oddball stuff in background, and she would be easy target for the Dems to vilify and caricature as a "crazy right-wing religious nut", and her career as a federal judge hardly showed she was some of kind of conservative intellectual powerhouse.

One thing I take into account is the cards we're dealt: Gorsuch seemed like a clear DOWNGRADE from Scalia, it was iffy if Kav would be an improvement over Kennedy, but even in a WORSE case scenario, ACB would be an improvement over Darth Bader Ginsburg. So I backed her and defended her, though my gut feeling was not happy with the pick.

In any case, she wouldn't have been my nominee, or even ended up on my short list.

I'm still holding out hope that there's about a 80% chance that ASIDE from her first action on SCOTUS, she turns out to to be a reliable conservative justice. If not, then Trump will be 0-3 on SCOTUS nominees.

But I guarantee, if there is a future GOP president, they could nominate Chelsea Clinton for SCOTUS and a bunch of useless idiots on here would IMMEDIATELY buy the idea that's she a "home run for conservatives" if the White House put out propaganda that her "judicial philosophy" is "originalist".

We've gotten decades of failures from the GOP base drinking the "anyone who claims to be strict constructionist or originalist or textulaist, or whatever they're calling it these days, will magically be awesome" kool-aid.

288 posted on 12/18/2020 7:27:16 PM PST by BillyBoy ("States rights" is NOT a suicide pact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy; MayflowerMadam

I would have much preferred Barbara Lagoa. Cuban Americans understand what happens if we let things drift left.

Kavanaugh and Barrett are much too stare decisis for me. Kavanaugh wrote a whole book about it which everyone ignored.

I think Trump was going after the anti-abortion sentiment. Also, everyone seems to think women with a lot of children are indisputably conservative.

And looks. They are all picture perfect. He was going after public opinion with that and other things.

But it is hard in a way to learn all about each nominee in a strictly legal sense.


289 posted on 12/19/2020 2:49:10 AM PST by firebrand ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: firebrand; MayflowerMadam

I agree with you on Kav being way too much of a “stare decisis” guy for me to trust him. It was that reason I didn’t like the nominee, I think he will refuse to overturn “landmark” liberal “precedents” like gay marriage and the “right” to an abortion because of that. Susan Collins even said she was voting FOR Kavanaugh because of that. Bizarrely, a bunch of conservatives on our side applauded her for saying that. A pro-abortion Senator votes for a judge because she thinks he’s pro-abortion, and a bunch of conservatives think it’s great. Cue Twilight Zone music….

ACB using her maiden name as her middle name and adopting a bunch of kids from third world countries (I know a couple from my Catholic parish that did the latter), strike me as more “eccentric” that a warning sign that she is secretly “not conservative”. Though you do have a good point that liberal women tend to pretentiously use their maiden name as a middle name, e.g. Hillary Rodham Clinton. I don’t know anyone personally who does that, it would be weird if women in my family used their maiden name as a middle name. In any case, RINO Collins being AGAINST ACB was more evidence for me that she was “more conservative” than Kav.

Much more of a warning sign for me was Gorsuch being raised Roman Catholic and switching to Episcopalian as an adult. 95% of the people who do so go that direction because they dislike the Catholic church’s conservative views on social issues, so they switch to Episcopalian since its 90% identical to the church they grew up in, except it has liberal stuff like they want like women “priests” and marrying gays. While there are probably a handful of conservatives who switched from Catholic to Episcopalian, I have yet to see any examples of one. Worse, there are two Episcopalian churches in Gorsuch’s hometown of Boulder, Colorado, and Gorsuch and his wife attend the far MORE liberal of the two, happily sitting the pews every Sunday listening to an insane SJW “womyn pastor” who preaches the virtues of gun control and tree hugging. A bunch of FReepers shrugged it off and said Gorsuch’s private life didn’t matter one bit since he said they wanted to hear in public. I said if they truly believed that, then they owed Barack Obama an apology for attacking him for associating with Jeremiah Wright and Trinity UCC for years. Sure enough, Gorsuch is showing his true colors now and does indeed appear to be socially liberal, just as I predicted he would be.

I had issues with Barbara Lagoa too, she wouldn’t have ended up on my short list, either. Trump’s vaulted “list” that FReepers had been crowing about since 2016 had a lot of lemons on it. As others have noted, a big problem was the narrow range of candidates, with 95% of them being ivy league elites from Harvard or Yale, and career federal judges & Bush cronies. Trump needed to think outside the box (for example, Rehnquist was a Lutheran and the no. 3 guy in the justice department, he had never spent a day on his life on the federal courts before he was named to SCOTUS). A lot of the actual, PROVEN solid conservatives, like Charles Canady and Jennifer Elrod, never ended up on Trump’s “list” of “good” candidates. And remember all that “vote for Trump and we’ll get Ted Cruz on SCOTUS” talking point they used to “sell” Trump in the primary, which the Cruz haters on FR now admit was BS? Lame.

Ultimately, I think his legacy on SCOTUS appointments will probably be one of the weakest areas of his presidency, if Trump ends with Eisenhower-like SCOTUS judges for decades, I don’t think history will be too kind to his “accomplishments” on the Supreme Court.


290 posted on 12/19/2020 8:18:58 AM PST by BillyBoy ("States rights" is NOT a suicide pact.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Arthur Wildfire! March; Berosus; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...
Chief Justice Roberts was screaming, 'Are you going to be responsible for the rioting if we hear this case?' ... Don't tell me about Bush versus Gore. We weren't dealing with riots then, and you're forgetting what your role is. And I don't want to hear anything from the two junior justices... I will tell you how to vote," and that "Justice Clarence Thomas said, 'This will end be the end of democracy, John.'" "When they left the room, Roberts and the liberals and Kavanaugh had big smiles; Alito and Thomas [were] visibly upset; ACB and Gorsuch didn't seem fazed at all,"
This topic was posted 12/14/2020, thanks Til I am the last man standing.

291 posted on 12/12/2021 11:25:45 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Imagine an imaginary menagerie manager imagining managing an imaginary menagerie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280281-291 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson