The Supreme Court Ruled in Favor of the First Amendment! (Page 1/4)
Vintage-Nut JUN 30, 07:13 PM
Day of Victory for Everyone
"The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court's six conservative justices.
MidEngineManiac JUN 30, 07:36 PM
Goddy goody

Your court allows you to use what words you want to speak, what thoughts you are allowed to have....and you call that "free"...So long as your words are approved...

Free men dont ask permission from other men to use words and thoughts...

Congratulations, slave. Orwell was right.

[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 06-30-2023).]

Wichita JUN 30, 08:31 PM
There is still a Marxist Leftist threat lurking. Remember that there is a fringe political element that has successfully brainwashed millions of people here in the USA. They still want control and power and they view our constitution as in the way.

Look for loud calls of "pack the court", where Democrats want to install brainwashed DEI third rate appointed lower court judges that will interpret the constitution like their pseudoscience religion where there is 52 genders and racist ideology where they believe people of color are inferior to them.

Registered Democrats outnumber every other voter. They goose-step together clutching their little red book of government enforced utopia. They will attempt to dilute the SCOTUS and their zombie puppet from the Biden crime family will be drugged up to help go along with it.

olejoedad JUN 30, 08:34 PM
Wrong.

Our Supreme Court shut down those people trying to control our speech and thinking, reminding them that the Constitution puts limits on the Government, not the People.

That's the difference between Free men, like us, vs a Subject, like you.
rinselberg JUL 01, 04:45 AM
That was a good ruling from the Supreme Court. But it shouldn't obscure the Supreme Court's failings. Basically, it's become a "hot mess."

(I think that should be "hot mess", with the period deferred until after the closing quotation mark, but 82-T/A [At Work] goes "bonkers" every time I do it that way.)

I say, expand the number of Supreme Court justices from the current 9 to 13, and put an end to the lifetime tenure of Supreme Court justices... neither of which requires a Constitutional Amendment.

"The Courts Should Be More Political, Not Less"
Jedediah "call me Jed" Britton-Purdy for the New York Times; May 17, 2023.
https://www.nytimes.com/202...ourts-democracy.html


quote
Mr. Britton-Purdy is a law professor at Duke and the author of seven books on American democracy.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-01-2023).]

82-T/A [At Work] JUL 01, 11:07 AM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

I say, expand the number of Supreme Court justices from the current 9 to 13, and put an end to the lifetime tenure of Supreme Court justices... neither of which requires a Constitutional Amendment.





And if the additional 4 justices appointed ended up being "conservative" judges, would you then ask to expand the number to 15, or 17, or 19?
rinselberg JUL 01, 11:36 AM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
And if the additional 4 justices appointed ended up being "conservative" judges, would you then ask to expand the number to 15, or 17, or 19?


I think it's a question of the Supreme Court not having enough justices to handle what should be their workload. I think they're taking too many shortcuts. Like that "shadow docket." And 9 is not the number of justices to—at least in theory—be fairly representative of a nation as diverse as the United States of America. I like 13. (Isn't it Taylor Swift's lucky number?)

I think that having them appointed to the Supreme Court for a fixed number of years, instead of for "life", is also a sine qua non in detoxifying the dysfunctional institution that the Supreme Court has become.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 07-01-2023).]

ray b JUL 01, 12:59 PM
43 and make them WORK FULL TIME

why do some see con as less then the evil it is

in the 60's the con's wanted war and discrimination
they did not want black Indian or mixed race people in white areas
even wrote that on house deeds only whites could buy the homes
many jobs were white only with very few exceptions

now many repeat the BS that there was no party swap or flip on race BY THE CONNED
sorry but I was alive and active and saw it happen

one reason to fear the rump afflicted is the total FACT avoidance that is their dogma
the head rump spews lies and they believe them no matter the facts

that is why the rump is EVIL
JUST AS NIXON WAS
AS ARE A DOGMAS BASED ON LYING
olejoedad JUL 01, 01:37 PM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

That was a good ruling from the Supreme Court. But it shouldn't obscure the Supreme Court's failings. Basically, it's become a "hot mess."

(I think that should be "hot mess", with the period deferred until after the closing quotation mark, but 82-T/A [At Work] goes "bonkers" every time I do it that way.)

I say, expand the number of Supreme Court justices from the current 9 to 13, and put an end to the lifetime tenure of Supreme Court justices... neither of which requires a Constitutional Amendment.

"The Courts Should Be More Political, Not Less"
Jedediah "call me Jed" Britton-Purdy for the New York Times; May 17, 2023.
https://www.nytimes.com/202...ourts-democracy.html





There you go quoting idiots with idiotic ideas again.

All due to an idiotic ideology and your idiotic allies not getting their idiotic way.

[This message has been edited by olejoedad (edited 07-01-2023).]

82-T/A [At Work] JUL 01, 02:23 PM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

I think it's a question of the Supreme Court not having enough justices to handle what should be their workload. I think they're taking too many shortcuts. Like that "shadow docket." And 9 is not the number of justices to—at least in theory—be fairly representative of a nation as diverse as the United States of America. I like 13. (Isn't it Taylor Swift's lucky number?)

I think that having them appointed to the Supreme Court for a fixed number of years, instead of for "life", is also a sine qua non in detoxifying the dysfunctional institution that the Supreme Court has become.





I go to Democratic Underground to get a good baseline for crazy. I know that when I see a lot of counter-arguments on there, that I'm kind of in the right. A lot of people on Democratic Underground are losing their minds over the website ruling, student loans, and affirmative action. There's at least a ~20% on there that I can see who are clearly articulating that these are good rulings. Of course, these individuals get totally **** on, but Democratic Underground is fantastic about sniffing out Republicans... so these are legitimate views from Democrats.

There's no reasonable concurrence that these were bad rulings. You may not like them, but as I've said before... the goal of the Supreme Court is not to enact change. The branch of government absolutely does not exist to make the world a better place. Their ONLY purpose, is to serve as a balance to executive branch and the legislative branch, and to prove the constitutionality of laws and decisions made by either branch. They are also, based on our common-low roots, the "final say" in the country for the entire Judicial system.

That's it...