Go back
Justice Kagan steps out of line, big-time

Justice Kagan steps out of line, big-time

Debates


@no1marauder said
So he didn't "create" it and your claim was false and misleading to suggest the agency was created by executive fiat rather than Congressional action.
you are lying, I never said that

what do you get out of making yourself look like a fool?


@mghrn55 said
I read somewhere a few days back that Clarence Thomas was saying that he would make life miserable for liberals as long as he was on SCOTUS.
This was in retribution for the rough ride he was given over the Anita Hill affair.

This seems a lot more harmful in terms of stepping over one's boundaries of the job.
Seems a little angry for the job, one would think ?
Real Statesman-like, huh?


@jimm619
What do you expect when now SCOTUS is just a partisan puppet of the religious right?
Make that the religious ULTRA right.


@averagejoe1 said
You are saying that the dissent should go outside the parameters of the ruling, including the reasons therefor, and add to it what they think about social problems. That is what you are saying. You are saying that. I will put it in my journal. You. been having a sidebar with Marauder??????
I think it’s reasonable for a dissenting judge to include within their dissent the objectively likely negative consequences that will result from the ruling, their isn’t a universe where castrating the EPA is a grown up rational decision.


@kevcvs57
Short sighted assswipes now with SCOTUS beholding to religious ultrarightwingers.
I guess they are hell bent on destroying what little of the planet we have left worth living on.


Marauder wrote a post that 6 learned judges saw that the statute, in their opinion, was not clearly worded, but that he disagrees with the findings of these 6 judges. One being the Premier judge in the land.
So, everyone pick who probably spent more time and reached a studied conclusion as to the statute....the judges, or Marauder. Who is more like likely correct in their assessment? Set aside your rabid discontent about abortion, EPA, guns, all that stuff...we are talking abut a legal decision...from SCOTUS. They even explain in detail.
Libs just say things, like Marauder has, and cause people like me to have to type out enough to keep you turkeys between the rails when I could rather be having a glass of JDaniels.

Marauder, your referenced post has disappeared??


@sonhouse said
@kevcvs57
Short sighted assswipes now with SCOTUS beholding to religious ultrarightwingers.
I guess they are hell bent on destroying what little of the planet we have left worth living on.
Hey Sonhouse, I asked somewhere for a definition of Democracy, no one answered. What is your Def of democracy?

1 edit

@AverageJoe1
That is where EVERYONE has the right to vote, not republicans rigging the system by removing voting places where dems are likely to vote and intimidating them LEGALLY in their voting lines, and OF COURSE you will vehemently deny any such thing happens but that is on YOU, the truth is out there.
I don't think you give a rats ass if we lose our democracy or not, as long as your precious money is safe.
You would MUCH rather be rich under a dictatorship than poor under a FAIR democratic government.
I also think you don't even WANT there to be a federal government, just let the US be 50 separate countries with passports to go from one state to another.


@sonhouse said
@jimm619
What do you expect when now SCOTUS is just a partisan puppet of the religious right?
Make that the religious ULTRA right.
turn about is fair play right?


@averagejoe1 said
So, thank God we have Biden running our country? What specifically is the thanks for? Just a question.
Just to get Trump out.
I'm sure democracy will deal with Biden in due time.
And hopefully the justice system will take care of Trump.
From everything we are constantly learning about this buffoon, the whole world is concerned about this clown having access to the nuclear codes.


@averagejoe1 said
Yes he did say that, you could start a thread on it and I would be the first to say that he, in that instance, also was not in keeping with the office to say something like that. Justices have a very tight line to walk, they cannot just speak freely, which is too bad. He did catch hell at his confirmation hearing, thus his reasoning, but he was wrong to speak it. I hope ...[text shortened]... on to save the planet, which would be a wrong thing to do? Or thinking of the law, the Constitution.
Don't need a new thread.
This thread is about a SCOTUS judge stepping outside their job description.
You picked one judge. I picked one.

1 edit

@sonhouse said
@AverageJoe1
That is where EVERYONE has the right to vote, not republicans rigging the system by removing voting places where dems are likely to vote and intimidating them LEGALLY in their voting lines, and OF COURSE you will vehemently deny any such thing happens but that is on YOU, the truth is out there.
I don't think you give a rats ass if we lose our democracy or not, ...[text shortened]... government, just let the US be 50 separate countries with passports to go from one state to another.
NOTE: I asked Sonhouse to define democracy,,,,,he is a bit lax on telling us what he is responding to...Anyway,
I really know how to ferret out an answer from one that is convoluted beyond recognition, and by golly, I have done it again!
You gave me your answer in 6 words,,,,,thankyou very much. I didn't ask you what it is not. Jesus.
So, to our readers far and wide, Sonhouse says democracy is defined a 'Everyone has the right to vote". You must mean govt by the people . Like it is in the USA. Where everyone has a right to vote. We agree.,


@mghrn55 said
Just to get Trump out.
I'm sure democracy will deal with Biden in due time.
And hopefully the justice system will take care of Trump.
From everything we are constantly learning about this buffoon, the whole world is concerned about this clown having access to the nuclear codes.
I dont know which of the two you refer to in last sentence, but as Biden is the buffoon of the two, you must mean Trump is the Clown? I don't get it. I don't consider him a clown. And a sick old man can hardly strike us as a clown, one who brings smiles to our faces. Which is the clown? Which is the buffoon?
I don't get this post


@mghrn55 said
Don't need a new thread.
This thread is about a SCOTUS judge stepping outside their job description.
You picked one judge. I picked one.
Fair enough, but Kagan wrote this IN HER DISSENT. Thomas' comments are at best hearsay. I win this bout, you have no counter.
I seem to debate better in the evening, I guess.

1 edit

@mott-the-hoople said
you are lying, I never said that

what do you get out of making yourself look like a fool?
Page 1 of this thread:

Mott: "Richard Nixon created the EPA not the representatives."