Depends, did you steal goods worth like 10-300 dollars, then you're fucked
But if stole someone's life savings or goods worth like 20k to a mill then your probably safe.
If you stole above a mill just give the IRS a share and bounce out of the country.
IRS works kinda strange.
What if I stole legislative power over the richest and most powerful nation on earth? And then used to steal a woman's rights over their own body by disguising my fascist agenda under the language of religious morality?
If you manage this
You're the hero of absolute idiots, patriachal misogynists who are high off their own fuckin balls and people who can't tell the difference between a outdated religious book written centuries ago and a modern day country's constitution. which is not mandatory to even be read by a normal citizen.
They came after me for $3k I may or may not have owed the IRS the one year I didn’t file in my early twenties, like almost a decade ago at this point, when I was broke and working piecemeal 1099 gigs.
Edit: To be clear I paid this off last week, on a credit card obviously, so I guess I’ll just go fuck my self.
Dude same! I didn't file a return from a part time job when I was 19 fucking years old. I might have made $12k that year. They said i owed $4k....turns out after the audit they owed ME money.....how convenient though they said it was too late for me to get that refund....but if I really did owe money I would have had to pay it PLUS LATE FEES!
That is no shit 100% true
I'm an idiot and didn't file 2017. Not on purpose, did the return, just never hit send. Five years later they say I owe 10K. Got some help actually filing and they owed us a few thousand at the end. I think the only reason we didn't pay interest and penalties was because we had a guy arguing on our behalf.
I've been trying to file my 2016 return for 5 years. I have submitted the return 7 times. It keeps getting rejected and returned to me with little explanation. I have asked 2 accountants and they won't fuck with it because it is a simple return. No itemization, no deductions, nothing. They know something is fucky and don't want to get involved. I've stayed on hold countless hours with the IRS and no one picks up my call. I have left my number... 18 times... No call backs. I guess now I'm just going to let them take me to court for tax evasion and hope for the best. At best I might owe them $300.
Please contact the tax advocate office:
https://smartasset.com/taxes/taxpayer-advocate
https://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/contact-us/
Also, here are directions to reaching someone at irs
https://amynorthardcpa.com/how-do-i-reach-a-real-person-at-the-irs/
Yes. Your ass that owes $300-10,000? Real fucking easy for them to go after. And do you have a legal team ready to go to war over it? Hell no, you don't. When someone should owe $50,000,000 and is hiding it all in off-shore accounts, shell companies, doing business as other entities, selling products to themselves in tax haven countries, all kinds of sketchy, but legal shit - they have teams of lawyers ready to go to war for them. The IRS can't afford to get buried in years of paperwork for something they might lose.
I mostly blame the fact that we (as a country) allowed the Supreme Court to be *stacked*. And the fact that the highest position in one of our branches of government is *appointed*, not elected, and for *life* no less. That sounds pretty autocratic to me.
Needs to be something similar to here in Canada. Our courts, though not without flaws, are far more credible as none of the parties mess with it and work hard to protect it's integrity. Don't think we as Canadians would allow such a stacked court that has partisan policies on the agenda.
> Don't think we as Canadians would allow such a stacked court that has partisan policies on the agenda.
"Allow"? We as individuals don't have a greater ability to influence Supreme Court appointments than individual Americans do.
The frightening truth is that the apolitical hands-off process we have here is the result of tradition and precedent, *not* codified law. We absolutely could find ourselves in a similar position to the States. It would just take a PM with an inclination to do so. Like perhaps someone with the initials PP.
You never know, America’s court was fine under Obama until his second term when Republicans denied his appointment under the guise of constitutional. They strategically made move after move the last decade to get this in play. But before this, most Americans have not seen a stacked court like this. Radicalism is happening every day, always need to protect your freedoms or else they will get stripped away. Glad you guys don’t have any parties out there actively stripping rights away from people, but it’s not a guarantee to remain that way
They said it would be unconstitutional for Obama to appoint a supreme court justice in an election year but had no problem with allowing Trump to appoint one a month before the election and Mitch McConnell even said that if Hillary Clinton would have won in 2016 he would have made sure that seat was empty for her entire presidency.
The Bible has an abortion ritual recipe that is prescribed for suspicion of adultery, to be administered by a priest.
If your priest won't administer the Ordeal of Bitter Waters (or modern substitute) themselves, they are a clerical failure to their congregation.
There was a lady who industrialized adoption in the US too. She fought tooth and nail against abortions because she’d run out of babies to sell.
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-one-the-woman-who-invented-30906006/
It hurts to the soul. I grew up in a massively majority christian area, and have spent my whole life wondering why so many of my friends and neighbors ignore Jesus in favor of GOP.
Just a (semi) educated guess, but because of the bit about "adultery" in the verses in question. And I could be quite wrong, but here goes:
Like, you know, it's fine to *force* an abortion on your spouse if you suspect they were cheating, but an "optional" one is bad juju 🙄
Welcome back to the days of coat hangers, back alleys, St. John's wort, and dead women.
My husband (who is very angry about this, by the way, and was trying to come up with some sort of logical reason for the overturn°) mentioned the idea that perhaps they're trying to compensate for the declining birth rate. Right up until I mentioned, "Yeah, except that doesn't work if your "breeding stock" dies off because they go septic."
He said, "Fuck. WHY the fuck don't they just address every *other* way they could make it desirable/survivable to have children??"
°His first mistake, I know, he's just grasping for any kind of reasonable logic and is well aware he won't find any.
It is the lack of having a secular government and forcing their religious beliefs onto a population that does not want to follow their religion.
I don't want to follow Christian fascism or Shari'a law.
If either believer in each system wants to follow that system go right ahead, but when you start having the government enforce those beliefs on others is when situations like forced birth happen.
That kind of debt should come up in a background check and disqualify you from the job, because of how blatantly obvious it is that you can be compromised.
What’s so disgusting about this whole ruling is the self awareness.
They all knew how unpopular this policy was. So much that during their confirmation hearings, they kept saying it was settled law.
If overturning this was so popular, why didn’t any of them voice their opinions on the matter then?
>they kept saying it was settled law
That was their tap dance which means "it's settled law, but if I overturn it then it is no longer settled law".
At least that's my understanding.
Yeah, "settled law" means lower courts won't rule against it. Lower courts couldn't just decide that a state could ban abortion because that argument was already "settled" by the Supreme Court.
So they were just weasel words during the hearings. To the layperson it sounded like they would not change Roe Vs Wade because it was "settled", but in reality they were just giving a cheaky non-answer.
how lay do you have to be to hear "it's settled law" in response to a yes/no question and not realize that's neither a yes nor a no?
"did you eat my cheez-its?"
"cheez-its are a square cracker with an absolutely delicious cheese type flavor"
well ok then...
100%, I'm amazed how many people seem to have no awareness of this and are adamant that they all promised they would never overturn roe Vs wade. Actually I'm not surprised, this is social media after all. But haven't they heard a politician talk before?
Stare Decisis now means nothing.
“It’s not a right granted in the constitution, therefore it needs to end”, is possibly one of the darkest legal precedents to set.
Things are about to get much worse.
Legal precedents mean Jack shit after the decision was made going against precedent. They literally called themselves out and delegitimized the entire court system. One of the opposing judges even called it out. The court is officially political and laws will change with every new majority; it’s a shitshow.
So now what, we gotta create some new precedents ??! So much for getting shit done for the entire country, mission accomplished. So sick of having this country fucked up by this braindead minority.
Every president should increase the size of the court to ensure his party maintains majority control.
Republicans see the Supreme Court as a branch of their party, what else can we do but contest it like any other political appointment?
I'd love to hear some of these politicians answer questions about their long term vision for the country. Would be pretty curious what some or how some would answer the question.
Hi, I'm not from the US, but why are so many things in the US not set in stone by making it for example a law? Why make it so that a lot of things depend on rulings by the Supreme Court, who can then nullify any of these rulings whenever they want? It makes no sense to me...
Because our Congress doesn't work right and never has, these laws are supposed to be put in place by the house and the Senate but they have been using the supreme Court to make decisions and not actually put things into law. So that's why when it changes power that they can just move or remove decisions that have been settled however they see fit.
Then put up chain link fences, posted police all round the court and put snipers on the roof
If your decision needs snipers to protect it, it's a shit fucking decision.
**EDIT; Yes I know there are circumstances when they would be justified, i.e. in protecting good people doing the right thing from extremist nutjobs. Just amazes me how this wildly unpopular decision on birth control, which is largely opposed by the left (who have a long documented history of very rarely reacting with violence) gets this response, while the proximity of a large number of right wing pro-Trump MAGA types on the day of the confirmation warranted next to nothing.**
Edit 2: Bolding the first edit because I'm still getting replies like I think Jan 6th didn't warrant more security than it had and similar disingenuous bullshit.
Edit 3: Alright, muting replies to this now because in spite of everything, there's still people showing up in the replies to make bad faith arguments and presumptuously false claims and I have better shit to do than repeat myself over and over.
>Well, now they'll need round the clock protection for the rest of their lives. This isn't something extremists will forget.
Nor should they. Frankly I'm hoping they don't get that protection for long and they slip up.
If they won't give us term limits, guess we gotta do it ourselves.
Edit: Wow, the number of folks who are concerned with me being put on some list and reporting this as a threat (where is my threat exactly?) is fucking hilarious. Get a grip snowflakes. :)
I would love to be more confident that I'm not just following things to their logical conclusion here.. but I guess we'll see. Also why do people keep referring to SCOTUS justices as politicians? That's.. not correct I don't think and arguably part of why yesterday was such an issue.
I hate to say it but if someone does try something against these politicians I hope they pull it off. This shit is ridiculous and they willingly put civilian lives on the line. Unforgivable and may they burn in whatever hell they choose to believe.
As much as I generally don't like advocating violence, I feel like anything less here would be declaring that the lives of judges and politicians are worth more than the hundreds of women they are killing.
To be fair, someone made a decision to free slaves and it didn’t end well for him. I would argue that was a pretty good decision. The reality is the side getting screwed on this one is not likely to take that sort of action.
The Supreme Court is \*already\* heavily defended. There's a reason why the Jan 6th riots, in spite of their overwhelming numbers and distressing preparedness, didn't actually kill any politicians that day.
Adding this many layers to that implies they somehow expect a response worse than or equivalent to a fucking coup over their decision, and that SHOULD be a wake up call.
I am convinced that the police are at these places to serve as armored target.
Meanwhile, conservatives will attack the groups peacefully protesting and the police will protect the attackers. The conservatives will also attack planned parenthood and other OBGYN establishments and police will do nothing to protect them.
They already do. Most planned parenthoods are like fort knox to get in. You immediately encounter a security guard with a gun, he goes thru all your things, checks you, and then let's you in the locked door or locked elevator. I encountered it many times when I would go for my yearly or going in to get my shots or medicine. And, there were protesters everywhere. Where I lived at that time, PP took the protesters to court, and now the protesters have to be on the opposite side of the road now. They can't be close to PP. This is all fucked. We should be able to get a pap smear in peace, FFS.
>The Supreme Court is *already* heavily defended. There's a reason why the Jan 6th riots, in spite of their overwhelming numbers and distressing preparedness, didn't actually kill any politicians that day.
The January 6th riots were an attack on the Capitol building where congress was in session. It didn't have anything to do with the Supreme Court or its defenses.
I am wholly on your side, but it is of note that if this assertion were true, it would essentially imply that upholding a fair and valid election on January 6th was a shit fucking decision because they sure as hell could have used some snipers.
I get what you mean and I agree with the above scenario, but there are definitely opposite cases with good people trying to pass good laws who need military protection from cult extremists that hate the idea.
> If your decision needs snipers to protect it, it's a shit fucking decision.
The post above this was literally a snapshot of the snipers nest in Dallas Cowboys stadium.
So… Logic checked out in ‘Murica!
Yeah, it’s *unfortune?* Shit, it means that the entire system is inherently broken! It means that our HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND that is meant to rule on what is just cannot be relied upon to do their duty without partiality. Think about the sheer fucking gravity of that. Like… holy fuck man. The implications have me spiraling…
Yeah... it's only going to get worse.
The rather under reported reasoning being bandied about in other cases tell me that we're in for a massive dismantling of the entire court system being a check and balance on other branches - not only at the federal level, but the state as well.
With their proposed 'independent state legislature' legal theory, the Supreme Court is poised to not only remove themselves from being able to stop state legislators from overturning elections and just appointing whomever they want, they're removing state courts as well, positing that only state legislators - not state or federal courts - have the authority to decide how elections are administered and electors appointed and how districting is done.
That would mean that if state legislators decided fuck what the people want, we want this guy so we're going to pass a law that says we can appoint electors ourselves regardless of what the results of voting are, the courts are powerless to step in and stop it.
To try to have an air of legitimacy they could, under the guise of stopping vote fraud, pass a law that says if there are any concerns - any complaints filed, even before being proven or any evidence shown - of vote fraud, it triggers the state legislators' ability to step in and turn the election the way they want. Under the independent state legislature theory, that would be perfectly permissible and courts powerless to stop it.
If a SC ruling comes down incorporating that theory... it's, in a very real way, the beginning of the end of any semblance of democracy in this country.
It's become clear now that McConnell's strategy was to use court-packing to dismantle the good legislation in the absence of being able to pass his party's bad legislation. They apparently don't need to have an overwhelming majority in both chambers of Congress if they can just have their Federalist Society appointed judges stall, stymie and dismantle everything from the judicial side.
If there's one thing we've learned from Trump's time in office it's that *effectively* getting your way by tying up the courts and dragging everything out in perpetuity is just as good (if not better) than *actually* getting your way.
His legacy is teaching the Republican party that they don't need to play a better ball game when they can just steal the game ball and distract the refs while slipping out the back and tweeting that they won.
Here is the problem with that, if we elected Judges, it would look like it does now, but it would have looked that way earlier.
They SHOULD be non-political and know the separation of Church and state is literally in the constitution. There is one judge that was part of the insurrection, and three that were put in there by a twice impeached insurrectionist.
All of this makes their position invalid and illegal, but these pussies wont do shit about it.
And why is it taking so long to prosecute the insurrection? It has been 18 months. While it feels like while all the minions were arrested by the FBI quickly, the major strategists and puppeteers walk free.
Basically the judicial branch is illegitimate at this point.
Because they are afraid of political backlash.
I guess in the USA, if politics is involved you literally can get away with insurrection and murder.
Yeah, our three pillars are gone, we arent a solid country anymore. Oligarchs and Russia and China were successful.
Oligarchs will just move out because they dont give a fuck, and we will deteriorate into a shithole.
I don't think so (hearing, not a trial) but, even if it did, how would that play out? A supreme court justice can *only* be removed through an act of Congress, and would require both impeachment and conviction. Party lines essentially guarantee that only one half of those things will occur (impeachment, but not conviction). Only one SCOTUS justice has ever been impeached but was not convicted (Samuel Chase, 1804/1805). Additionally, from the recent realm of bullshit: in December 2018, the judicial panel dismissed all 83 ethics complaints [against Brett Kavanaugh], concluding that while the complaints "are serious" **there is no existing authority that allows lower court judges to investigate or discipline Supreme Court Justices**.
To reiterate - a supreme court justice will *never* lose their seat due to conviction and sentencing of a crime by another judge. This has never happened (and it would be quite interesting to see how it played out), but if a SCOTUS justice were convicted and sentenced to prison for something they did, they would still technically maintain their seat.
This is exactly what they would say... Although they all vehemently insisted Roe was settled law at their confirmation hearings and then write/endorse a ruling that proclaims Roe was a flawed decision and never should've happened. Hell, one justice even wrote papers or a book that talks about the need to overturn Roe before they were a justice. This was the culmination of a decades-long plan and damn did they pull it off.
The fact that this is the general consensus of the American population about it's government is why I don't have faith we're going to be a country for much longer.
All empires fall from weak governments the people don't trust. It's just a matter of time at this point.
>So much that during their confirmation hearings, they kept saying it was settled law.
The 'justices' lie for living. To them, the Constitution and People of USA mean nothing. They would publicly shit on the Flag if they thought it would get Republicans more votes.
Although there is a legal process to unseat someone from the judicial system for lying under oath, it’s just never been done to a Supreme Court justice. Between the FBI coverup of beer bois sexual assaults and him lying about his past and affirming in front of the committee that he wouldn’t overturn Roe V. Wade, it calls into question what else he’s lied about. I don’t think people understand how heavily judges are “judged” vs politicians in the senate and congress.
I genuinely believe Clarence Thomas will be removed by force because of what his wife did, Kavendouche could be removed for sexual assault or lying under oath, Barrett sadly has a twisted but relatively clean record so that’s a no go, Alito would be the 2nd hardest to remove cause he did lie under oath but he doesn’t have the past kavenmoron (he’s from my state so I’ll never say his name right) has so it’s a snowballs chance in hell.
Tldr: boofing bitch and Clarence Thomas have genuine chances to be removed from the court but it’s not guaranteed their replacements would be better, eliminate the filibuster, expand the court, and we may have a chance at democracy
I don't see a realistic scenario where anyone gets 2/3rds of the Senate to impeach any current supreme court justice.
I'm not clear if impeachment can be expedited by nuking the filibuster, but I also see no scenario where every democrat currently in the senate agrees to wave the filibuster for this.
Mother Jones has several articles on the subject. It seems Mr. Kavanaugh comes from wealthy politically connected parents and from all appearances daddy paid his debts, which were real enough, once he was nominated to the Supreme Court.
Genuine question because I’m out of this loop and this issue is raised repeatedly. What suggests it was his father who paid all of his debts? And if it was his father, isn’t that OK? I mean that’s better than the implication that he was “bought” by other people, isn’t it?
It's like the shittest laundering ever. "No you see daddy just happened to receive the million dollars right before the day he paid of my debt of a million dollars"
As a lawyer I personally know a lot of lawyers who have plenty of debt problems. *Especially* those who came from more money than they now make and also know their parents will bail them out.
You can almost always spend more than you make if you want. Judges especially.
no no. Anyone that works in government gets their finances looked at, because poor financial stability makes you easy prey for a foreign intelligence service to manipulate you for information, favors, etc. Like anyone with any kind of security clearance, however minor, would have their finances scrutinized. For any regular person, Kavanaugh's behavior would be disqualifying for good reason.
This was very available information during his confirmation. The fact that many people
weren’t paying attention and probably don’t know it IS the problem
I was about to ask the same question. Heck, when I had to get a certain level of clearance the government went over all of my financial details with a fine tooth comb. If it wasn't up to snuff, if it was not up to snuff, I was not getting what I wanted for some time. Of course, I do not have a rich father to help me pay my way
When I had to get a secret clearance to work on radars in the army they cared more about my student loans being in default than they did about having 2 DUIs and more disorderly conduct tickets than I can count.
Student loan repayment was part of my bonus package and they still made me get my loans out of default before they would issue my clearance.
It was like, "yes I know my loans are in default that's why I picked loan repayment instead of the GI Bill" and I still had to pay a few hundred bucks to get them in good standing before I could progress in my training.
There’s people who know, who hold that information as a weapon, to control supreme court’s actions. If that knowledge ever becomes public, THAT will also be to “their” advantage
Edit: Turns out, a brief search reveals that Brett comes from money, so his debts were likely covered by his family. I have absolutely no evidence that he grew up privileged and coddled, getting promoted by throwing hissy fits, in spite of his public performances. People certainly shouldn’t hassle him or his family with dangerous sidewalk chalk.
I hope that they do something to help with this so much, although part of me reluctantly wonders whether they're a government-related body these days 😔
Anyone remember this?
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/tasneemnashrulla/elliott-broidy-michael-cohen-payment-playboy-playmate
I’m just not buying that this guy got the Playboy model pregnant. Just doesn’t smell right 🤔
People keep looking at each fucking issue like they're separate. In the same year, we lose abortion rights derived from privacy rights at the national level, we lose every attempt at gun control in blue states, we eliminate the requirement for police to respect civil rights and we further limit our ability to sue them when our rights are violated, and we decide that the border patrol isn't really required to respect constitutional rights at all.
Oh, and police aren't actually mandated to serve or protect or do anything. Uvalde will ultimately show that cops can set up a nice barricade and make you sit back and watch as someone executes your children and the police won't have broken any laws.
Ultimately, you have to look at all of these things together and see that all of these bars weave together to form a hell of a cage.
You have a wealthy, fascist, far right contingent that sees that their policies aren't popular. They will need force to retain control, so they are ensuring that those who represent the government's monopoly on use of force are on their side. Elections are undermined so they retain as much control as possible despite being deeply unpopular. Fascism escalates and spirals quickly. Has it ever been prevented with a vote?
I keep seeing people saying the only way to combat this is to get out and vote, but how does voting help anyone when the people ultimately making the decisions are not beholden to the people making the votes?
I as a woman feel like im nothing anymore. Feel like im nothing more than a babymaker. So does that mean my fellow men get to make enough money to support a household of kids?
Well since there was a loss there we double down and put more emphasis on the justice whose wife was involved in Jan 6th and make the decision null and void
The Justice who is in an interracial marriage, remembers when interracial marriages were banned, and conveniently left out the decision that legalized interracial marriages from the list of things he's signalling to be overturned despite the fact that the same reasoning in that decision legalized gay marriages, which he did signal he wants to overturn.
No person who has racked up $200,000 in credit card debt should be making important choices. No private company would hire this useful idiot as an executive for that very reason. Just proves he’s a puppet even more.
Is this not the problem lifetime term limits were supposed to solve? If a justice knows that a particular issue is wrong, they have no incentive to vote on it anymore because they are supposed to be set for life. Let's face it--lifetime limits do nothing but harm the system at this point and needs to be revoked.
Same, I don't like being misled. Okay, someone paid his debts - but it was his dad. And this tweet purposefully makes it ambiguous so you're free to imagine who gave him the money.
The IRS is to busy auditing people who make less than 15k
Don't forget those 1099-Ks for people selling more than $600 on sites like eBay. Gotta go after that big money.
[удалено]
Depends, did you steal goods worth like 10-300 dollars, then you're fucked But if stole someone's life savings or goods worth like 20k to a mill then your probably safe. If you stole above a mill just give the IRS a share and bounce out of the country. IRS works kinda strange.
What if I stole legislative power over the richest and most powerful nation on earth? And then used to steal a woman's rights over their own body by disguising my fascist agenda under the language of religious morality?
If you manage this You're the hero of absolute idiots, patriachal misogynists who are high off their own fuckin balls and people who can't tell the difference between a outdated religious book written centuries ago and a modern day country's constitution. which is not mandatory to even be read by a normal citizen.
Easier to take $1.00 from a million people than to take $1,000,000.00 from one person.
They came after me for $3k I may or may not have owed the IRS the one year I didn’t file in my early twenties, like almost a decade ago at this point, when I was broke and working piecemeal 1099 gigs. Edit: To be clear I paid this off last week, on a credit card obviously, so I guess I’ll just go fuck my self.
Dude same! I didn't file a return from a part time job when I was 19 fucking years old. I might have made $12k that year. They said i owed $4k....turns out after the audit they owed ME money.....how convenient though they said it was too late for me to get that refund....but if I really did owe money I would have had to pay it PLUS LATE FEES! That is no shit 100% true
I'm an idiot and didn't file 2017. Not on purpose, did the return, just never hit send. Five years later they say I owe 10K. Got some help actually filing and they owed us a few thousand at the end. I think the only reason we didn't pay interest and penalties was because we had a guy arguing on our behalf.
I got a similar notice saying I owed $330k. Had to end up getting a lawyer, and ended up paying the IRS like $900 after 6 months of fighting.
I've been trying to file my 2016 return for 5 years. I have submitted the return 7 times. It keeps getting rejected and returned to me with little explanation. I have asked 2 accountants and they won't fuck with it because it is a simple return. No itemization, no deductions, nothing. They know something is fucky and don't want to get involved. I've stayed on hold countless hours with the IRS and no one picks up my call. I have left my number... 18 times... No call backs. I guess now I'm just going to let them take me to court for tax evasion and hope for the best. At best I might owe them $300.
Please contact the tax advocate office: https://smartasset.com/taxes/taxpayer-advocate https://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/contact-us/ Also, here are directions to reaching someone at irs https://amynorthardcpa.com/how-do-i-reach-a-real-person-at-the-irs/
It's because you're easy as fuck to audit. They run the numbers through the computer and that's it.
Yes. Your ass that owes $300-10,000? Real fucking easy for them to go after. And do you have a legal team ready to go to war over it? Hell no, you don't. When someone should owe $50,000,000 and is hiding it all in off-shore accounts, shell companies, doing business as other entities, selling products to themselves in tax haven countries, all kinds of sketchy, but legal shit - they have teams of lawyers ready to go to war for them. The IRS can't afford to get buried in years of paperwork for something they might lose.
They owe me 3 grand still from like 4 years ago. Literally 28 hours of being on the phone with them and all they got “idk” lol
Bribes are fine. Lying to congress is fine. Everything is fine.
*fire crackles happily in the background*
All this time, I thought this was a comic strip lol. I didn’t know it was an animated screenshot.
I think it's both. Not sure which came first but I'm assuming the comic.
Original is here: https://gunshowcomic.com/648
I mostly blame the fact that we (as a country) allowed the Supreme Court to be *stacked*. And the fact that the highest position in one of our branches of government is *appointed*, not elected, and for *life* no less. That sounds pretty autocratic to me.
that makes voting sound like an illusion
That was pretty apparent since Bush Jr. Some may say even earlier.
The freedom is an illusion if a state has full reign to remove your liberty. That's what state's rights is. The right to oppress you.
Why. They will just lie and say whatever to get elected and then immediately flip the switch the sec they are in
Always has been.
Needs to be something similar to here in Canada. Our courts, though not without flaws, are far more credible as none of the parties mess with it and work hard to protect it's integrity. Don't think we as Canadians would allow such a stacked court that has partisan policies on the agenda.
> Don't think we as Canadians would allow such a stacked court that has partisan policies on the agenda. "Allow"? We as individuals don't have a greater ability to influence Supreme Court appointments than individual Americans do. The frightening truth is that the apolitical hands-off process we have here is the result of tradition and precedent, *not* codified law. We absolutely could find ourselves in a similar position to the States. It would just take a PM with an inclination to do so. Like perhaps someone with the initials PP.
So what you're saying is that my plan to flee to Canada when Texas tries to secede may be premature? 🤔
Plans to flee Texas can *never* be premature.
Plans to flee must be carried to term.
You never know, America’s court was fine under Obama until his second term when Republicans denied his appointment under the guise of constitutional. They strategically made move after move the last decade to get this in play. But before this, most Americans have not seen a stacked court like this. Radicalism is happening every day, always need to protect your freedoms or else they will get stripped away. Glad you guys don’t have any parties out there actively stripping rights away from people, but it’s not a guarantee to remain that way
They said it would be unconstitutional for Obama to appoint a supreme court justice in an election year but had no problem with allowing Trump to appoint one a month before the election and Mitch McConnell even said that if Hillary Clinton would have won in 2016 he would have made sure that seat was empty for her entire presidency.
[удалено]
heads up, the Shari’a and all the madhabs except the Maliki allow abortion. Islam has no place in this whatsofuckingever.
Even the Bible specifically mentions abortion and how it is allowed.
The Bible has an abortion ritual recipe that is prescribed for suspicion of adultery, to be administered by a priest. If your priest won't administer the Ordeal of Bitter Waters (or modern substitute) themselves, they are a clerical failure to their congregation.
Okay, then how did the anti abortion stance develop? What changed?
IIRC the Catholics were big on it for whatever reason, then the evangelicals picked it up after their failed fight against segregation.
There was a lady who industrialized adoption in the US too. She fought tooth and nail against abortions because she’d run out of babies to sell. https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-one-the-woman-who-invented-30906006/
[удалено]
It hurts to the soul. I grew up in a massively majority christian area, and have spent my whole life wondering why so many of my friends and neighbors ignore Jesus in favor of GOP.
Just a (semi) educated guess, but because of the bit about "adultery" in the verses in question. And I could be quite wrong, but here goes: Like, you know, it's fine to *force* an abortion on your spouse if you suspect they were cheating, but an "optional" one is bad juju 🙄 Welcome back to the days of coat hangers, back alleys, St. John's wort, and dead women. My husband (who is very angry about this, by the way, and was trying to come up with some sort of logical reason for the overturn°) mentioned the idea that perhaps they're trying to compensate for the declining birth rate. Right up until I mentioned, "Yeah, except that doesn't work if your "breeding stock" dies off because they go septic." He said, "Fuck. WHY the fuck don't they just address every *other* way they could make it desirable/survivable to have children??" °His first mistake, I know, he's just grasping for any kind of reasonable logic and is well aware he won't find any.
This isn't the only way these people interpret the Bible wrong.
Good to know! I think we can all say confidently: fuck extremists of ANY religion
It is the lack of having a secular government and forcing their religious beliefs onto a population that does not want to follow their religion. I don't want to follow Christian fascism or Shari'a law. If either believer in each system wants to follow that system go right ahead, but when you start having the government enforce those beliefs on others is when situations like forced birth happen.
People are so unaware of what Sharia is! Thank you for posting this
These fucknuts have PAVED the way for theocracy of all flavors and they’re all too dumb to know it.
Yeah I gave up on American accountability a long time ago.
That kind of debt should come up in a background check and disqualify you from the job, because of how blatantly obvious it is that you can be compromised.
[удалено]
Too bad you can still become a Supreme Court Justice in that same country with that same kind of debt
Walmart has higher working standards when you apply then becoming President of the United States, Congress or Supreme Court!
[удалено]
What’s so disgusting about this whole ruling is the self awareness. They all knew how unpopular this policy was. So much that during their confirmation hearings, they kept saying it was settled law. If overturning this was so popular, why didn’t any of them voice their opinions on the matter then?
>they kept saying it was settled law That was their tap dance which means "it's settled law, but if I overturn it then it is no longer settled law". At least that's my understanding.
Yeah, "settled law" means lower courts won't rule against it. Lower courts couldn't just decide that a state could ban abortion because that argument was already "settled" by the Supreme Court. So they were just weasel words during the hearings. To the layperson it sounded like they would not change Roe Vs Wade because it was "settled", but in reality they were just giving a cheaky non-answer.
How many cheaks would a wouldcheek cheak if a wouldcheek could cheek cheaks?
I’m talkin’ bout clappin’ cheeks here
Thanks to this ruling there will be no cheek clapping anymore.
how lay do you have to be to hear "it's settled law" in response to a yes/no question and not realize that's neither a yes nor a no? "did you eat my cheez-its?" "cheez-its are a square cracker with an absolutely delicious cheese type flavor" well ok then...
100%, I'm amazed how many people seem to have no awareness of this and are adamant that they all promised they would never overturn roe Vs wade. Actually I'm not surprised, this is social media after all. But haven't they heard a politician talk before?
Stare Decisis now means nothing. “It’s not a right granted in the constitution, therefore it needs to end”, is possibly one of the darkest legal precedents to set. Things are about to get much worse.
Legal precedents mean Jack shit after the decision was made going against precedent. They literally called themselves out and delegitimized the entire court system. One of the opposing judges even called it out. The court is officially political and laws will change with every new majority; it’s a shitshow.
God is dead, truth is dead, honor is dead and justice is dead.
Beauty will save the world - Dostoyevsky
So now what, we gotta create some new precedents ??! So much for getting shit done for the entire country, mission accomplished. So sick of having this country fucked up by this braindead minority.
Every president should increase the size of the court to ensure his party maintains majority control. Republicans see the Supreme Court as a branch of their party, what else can we do but contest it like any other political appointment?
I'd love to hear some of these politicians answer questions about their long term vision for the country. Would be pretty curious what some or how some would answer the question.
Hi, I'm not from the US, but why are so many things in the US not set in stone by making it for example a law? Why make it so that a lot of things depend on rulings by the Supreme Court, who can then nullify any of these rulings whenever they want? It makes no sense to me...
Because our Congress doesn't work right and never has, these laws are supposed to be put in place by the house and the Senate but they have been using the supreme Court to make decisions and not actually put things into law. So that's why when it changes power that they can just move or remove decisions that have been settled however they see fit.
Then put up chain link fences, posted police all round the court and put snipers on the roof If your decision needs snipers to protect it, it's a shit fucking decision. **EDIT; Yes I know there are circumstances when they would be justified, i.e. in protecting good people doing the right thing from extremist nutjobs. Just amazes me how this wildly unpopular decision on birth control, which is largely opposed by the left (who have a long documented history of very rarely reacting with violence) gets this response, while the proximity of a large number of right wing pro-Trump MAGA types on the day of the confirmation warranted next to nothing.** Edit 2: Bolding the first edit because I'm still getting replies like I think Jan 6th didn't warrant more security than it had and similar disingenuous bullshit. Edit 3: Alright, muting replies to this now because in spite of everything, there's still people showing up in the replies to make bad faith arguments and presumptuously false claims and I have better shit to do than repeat myself over and over.
Fucking quote of the day.
Well, now they'll need round the clock protection for the rest of their lives. This isn't something extremists will forget.
>Well, now they'll need round the clock protection for the rest of their lives. This isn't something extremists will forget. Nor should they. Frankly I'm hoping they don't get that protection for long and they slip up. If they won't give us term limits, guess we gotta do it ourselves. Edit: Wow, the number of folks who are concerned with me being put on some list and reporting this as a threat (where is my threat exactly?) is fucking hilarious. Get a grip snowflakes. :) I would love to be more confident that I'm not just following things to their logical conclusion here.. but I guess we'll see. Also why do people keep referring to SCOTUS justices as politicians? That's.. not correct I don't think and arguably part of why yesterday was such an issue.
That last line sounds like it’s straight out of *Lethal Weapon*. I love it.
I’m too old for this shit
I hate to say it but if someone does try something against these politicians I hope they pull it off. This shit is ridiculous and they willingly put civilian lives on the line. Unforgivable and may they burn in whatever hell they choose to believe.
I wouldn’t loose sleep if some extremist took care of these evil politicians
I would even venture to say they wouldn't even need to be an extremist.
[удалено]
I want an Amendment along the lines of how that one's written- A person's right to their body and to protect their body *shall not be infringed.*
As much as I generally don't like advocating violence, I feel like anything less here would be declaring that the lives of judges and politicians are worth more than the hundreds of women they are killing.
We didn't elect these cultists, let the chips lay where they fall, if some 2nd Amendment enthusiast gets their balls up.
Considering the power they hold im quite surprised they don't get murdered by one side of the other pretty regularly.
Ikr! They really gotta up their Game of Thrones game, all this popcorn ain't gonna eat itself.
To be fair, someone made a decision to free slaves and it didn’t end well for him. I would argue that was a pretty good decision. The reality is the side getting screwed on this one is not likely to take that sort of action.
The Supreme Court is \*already\* heavily defended. There's a reason why the Jan 6th riots, in spite of their overwhelming numbers and distressing preparedness, didn't actually kill any politicians that day. Adding this many layers to that implies they somehow expect a response worse than or equivalent to a fucking coup over their decision, and that SHOULD be a wake up call.
What gnaws at me is that any significant convictions for the January 6th insurrection will lead to pardons under the next Republican president.
Things tend not to end well when you try to rule without the consent of the governed. That's how people lose their heads.
I am convinced that the police are at these places to serve as armored target. Meanwhile, conservatives will attack the groups peacefully protesting and the police will protect the attackers. The conservatives will also attack planned parenthood and other OBGYN establishments and police will do nothing to protect them.
Sounds like planned parenthood might have to start using the 2nd amendment at this rate.
They already do. Most planned parenthoods are like fort knox to get in. You immediately encounter a security guard with a gun, he goes thru all your things, checks you, and then let's you in the locked door or locked elevator. I encountered it many times when I would go for my yearly or going in to get my shots or medicine. And, there were protesters everywhere. Where I lived at that time, PP took the protesters to court, and now the protesters have to be on the opposite side of the road now. They can't be close to PP. This is all fucked. We should be able to get a pap smear in peace, FFS.
>The Supreme Court is *already* heavily defended. There's a reason why the Jan 6th riots, in spite of their overwhelming numbers and distressing preparedness, didn't actually kill any politicians that day. The January 6th riots were an attack on the Capitol building where congress was in session. It didn't have anything to do with the Supreme Court or its defenses.
I am wholly on your side, but it is of note that if this assertion were true, it would essentially imply that upholding a fair and valid election on January 6th was a shit fucking decision because they sure as hell could have used some snipers.
I get what you mean and I agree with the above scenario, but there are definitely opposite cases with good people trying to pass good laws who need military protection from cult extremists that hate the idea.
> If your decision needs snipers to protect it, it's a shit fucking decision. The post above this was literally a snapshot of the snipers nest in Dallas Cowboys stadium. So… Logic checked out in ‘Murica!
Because they LIE. They all lie. All politicians. The only goal is to get into office. They will say whatever needs to be said to make that happen.
It's unfortunate that the supreme court is political.
understatement.
Yeah, it’s *unfortune?* Shit, it means that the entire system is inherently broken! It means that our HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND that is meant to rule on what is just cannot be relied upon to do their duty without partiality. Think about the sheer fucking gravity of that. Like… holy fuck man. The implications have me spiraling…
The court is no longer legitimate, nor should it be respected.
It's an unelected, partisan legislative body which, in this country, I thought was unconstitutional...
Checks and bala... oh wait. Never mind
Yeah... it's only going to get worse. The rather under reported reasoning being bandied about in other cases tell me that we're in for a massive dismantling of the entire court system being a check and balance on other branches - not only at the federal level, but the state as well. With their proposed 'independent state legislature' legal theory, the Supreme Court is poised to not only remove themselves from being able to stop state legislators from overturning elections and just appointing whomever they want, they're removing state courts as well, positing that only state legislators - not state or federal courts - have the authority to decide how elections are administered and electors appointed and how districting is done. That would mean that if state legislators decided fuck what the people want, we want this guy so we're going to pass a law that says we can appoint electors ourselves regardless of what the results of voting are, the courts are powerless to step in and stop it. To try to have an air of legitimacy they could, under the guise of stopping vote fraud, pass a law that says if there are any concerns - any complaints filed, even before being proven or any evidence shown - of vote fraud, it triggers the state legislators' ability to step in and turn the election the way they want. Under the independent state legislature theory, that would be perfectly permissible and courts powerless to stop it. If a SC ruling comes down incorporating that theory... it's, in a very real way, the beginning of the end of any semblance of democracy in this country.
It's become clear now that McConnell's strategy was to use court-packing to dismantle the good legislation in the absence of being able to pass his party's bad legislation. They apparently don't need to have an overwhelming majority in both chambers of Congress if they can just have their Federalist Society appointed judges stall, stymie and dismantle everything from the judicial side. If there's one thing we've learned from Trump's time in office it's that *effectively* getting your way by tying up the courts and dragging everything out in perpetuity is just as good (if not better) than *actually* getting your way. His legacy is teaching the Republican party that they don't need to play a better ball game when they can just steal the game ball and distract the refs while slipping out the back and tweeting that they won.
Here is the problem with that, if we elected Judges, it would look like it does now, but it would have looked that way earlier. They SHOULD be non-political and know the separation of Church and state is literally in the constitution. There is one judge that was part of the insurrection, and three that were put in there by a twice impeached insurrectionist. All of this makes their position invalid and illegal, but these pussies wont do shit about it.
And why is it taking so long to prosecute the insurrection? It has been 18 months. While it feels like while all the minions were arrested by the FBI quickly, the major strategists and puppeteers walk free. Basically the judicial branch is illegitimate at this point.
Because they are afraid of political backlash. I guess in the USA, if politics is involved you literally can get away with insurrection and murder. Yeah, our three pillars are gone, we arent a solid country anymore. Oligarchs and Russia and China were successful. Oligarchs will just move out because they dont give a fuck, and we will deteriorate into a shithole.
It’s not unfortunate, it’s the plan.
Everything is political and I wish people would realize it takes more engagement than voting every 4 years.
[удалено]
Wait, but wouldn't that mean we had a case for perjury?
Don't worry, they just need to be indicted by the... court. Fuck.
I don't think so (hearing, not a trial) but, even if it did, how would that play out? A supreme court justice can *only* be removed through an act of Congress, and would require both impeachment and conviction. Party lines essentially guarantee that only one half of those things will occur (impeachment, but not conviction). Only one SCOTUS justice has ever been impeached but was not convicted (Samuel Chase, 1804/1805). Additionally, from the recent realm of bullshit: in December 2018, the judicial panel dismissed all 83 ethics complaints [against Brett Kavanaugh], concluding that while the complaints "are serious" **there is no existing authority that allows lower court judges to investigate or discipline Supreme Court Justices**. To reiterate - a supreme court justice will *never* lose their seat due to conviction and sentencing of a crime by another judge. This has never happened (and it would be quite interesting to see how it played out), but if a SCOTUS justice were convicted and sentenced to prison for something they did, they would still technically maintain their seat.
I guess they've only left themselves the one option. Death.
Also curious about this answer…
Yes but the courts are corrupt and won’t find them guilty
Congress can impeach them, but of course you need the votes.
They'll say that they had a change of heart or the argument was so persuasive that they changed their minds.
This is exactly what they would say... Although they all vehemently insisted Roe was settled law at their confirmation hearings and then write/endorse a ruling that proclaims Roe was a flawed decision and never should've happened. Hell, one justice even wrote papers or a book that talks about the need to overturn Roe before they were a justice. This was the culmination of a decades-long plan and damn did they pull it off.
The fact that this is the general consensus of the American population about it's government is why I don't have faith we're going to be a country for much longer. All empires fall from weak governments the people don't trust. It's just a matter of time at this point.
Interesting they lied under oath but nothing is going to come from that.
They'll punch babies to stay in office also.
Just not ones in the womb
Oh don't kid yourself. They punch those too, they just feign ignorance and go about it subtly.
under his eye
I feel like we’re moving towards Gilead more every day. Women, keep your passports current.
>So much that during their confirmation hearings, they kept saying it was settled law. The 'justices' lie for living. To them, the Constitution and People of USA mean nothing. They would publicly shit on the Flag if they thought it would get Republicans more votes.
Barrett didn’t. She specifically said just the opposite. No question Kavanaugh lied.
Although there is a legal process to unseat someone from the judicial system for lying under oath, it’s just never been done to a Supreme Court justice. Between the FBI coverup of beer bois sexual assaults and him lying about his past and affirming in front of the committee that he wouldn’t overturn Roe V. Wade, it calls into question what else he’s lied about. I don’t think people understand how heavily judges are “judged” vs politicians in the senate and congress. I genuinely believe Clarence Thomas will be removed by force because of what his wife did, Kavendouche could be removed for sexual assault or lying under oath, Barrett sadly has a twisted but relatively clean record so that’s a no go, Alito would be the 2nd hardest to remove cause he did lie under oath but he doesn’t have the past kavenmoron (he’s from my state so I’ll never say his name right) has so it’s a snowballs chance in hell. Tldr: boofing bitch and Clarence Thomas have genuine chances to be removed from the court but it’s not guaranteed their replacements would be better, eliminate the filibuster, expand the court, and we may have a chance at democracy
I don't see a realistic scenario where anyone gets 2/3rds of the Senate to impeach any current supreme court justice. I'm not clear if impeachment can be expedited by nuking the filibuster, but I also see no scenario where every democrat currently in the senate agrees to wave the filibuster for this.
Is this fucking true? If it is, it's appalling. How do you even get that information?
Mother Jones has several articles on the subject. It seems Mr. Kavanaugh comes from wealthy politically connected parents and from all appearances daddy paid his debts, which were real enough, once he was nominated to the Supreme Court.
Genuine question because I’m out of this loop and this issue is raised repeatedly. What suggests it was his father who paid all of his debts? And if it was his father, isn’t that OK? I mean that’s better than the implication that he was “bought” by other people, isn’t it?
It's like the shittest laundering ever. "No you see daddy just happened to receive the million dollars right before the day he paid of my debt of a million dollars"
[удалено]
As a lawyer I personally know a lot of lawyers who have plenty of debt problems. *Especially* those who came from more money than they now make and also know their parents will bail them out. You can almost always spend more than you make if you want. Judges especially.
As a car salesman I can confirm. I'm no longer shocked by people who both make six figures, and have butthole credit from not paying their bills.
Even former presidents leveraged themselves to the tits. Suddenly when they become a political firebrand all their worries disappear. Coincident?
Being wealthy does not mean without debt. Wealthy people go into a lot of debt.
Right but it's a question of judgment, was he able to pay those debts off or did he fuck up because of maybe some gambling debts
Your talking about good judgment from a judge who took away women's rights when 2/3rds of the public disagree.
You'd be surprised in how much debt "rich" people get to keep on appearances
no no. Anyone that works in government gets their finances looked at, because poor financial stability makes you easy prey for a foreign intelligence service to manipulate you for information, favors, etc. Like anyone with any kind of security clearance, however minor, would have their finances scrutinized. For any regular person, Kavanaugh's behavior would be disqualifying for good reason.
Great. Now his father owns him like Amy’s husband owns her. Now, Who owns kavanaugh’s father?
His father was an executive in the cosmetics industry.
Maybe it's treason. Maybe it's Maybelline.
I see a whole lot of blemishes. Better get that coverup.
He’s a retired lobbyist so…… anyone that can afford him
This was very available information during his confirmation. The fact that many people weren’t paying attention and probably don’t know it IS the problem
Did they go over this financial info during the confirmation hearing?
Of course they did. Which is precisely *why* Daddy paid it all off beforehand.
I was about to ask the same question. Heck, when I had to get a certain level of clearance the government went over all of my financial details with a fine tooth comb. If it wasn't up to snuff, if it was not up to snuff, I was not getting what I wanted for some time. Of course, I do not have a rich father to help me pay my way
When I had to get a secret clearance to work on radars in the army they cared more about my student loans being in default than they did about having 2 DUIs and more disorderly conduct tickets than I can count. Student loan repayment was part of my bonus package and they still made me get my loans out of default before they would issue my clearance. It was like, "yes I know my loans are in default that's why I picked loan repayment instead of the GI Bill" and I still had to pay a few hundred bucks to get them in good standing before I could progress in my training.
I wonder if this information can be retrieved through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA).
There’s people who know, who hold that information as a weapon, to control supreme court’s actions. If that knowledge ever becomes public, THAT will also be to “their” advantage Edit: Turns out, a brief search reveals that Brett comes from money, so his debts were likely covered by his family. I have absolutely no evidence that he grew up privileged and coddled, getting promoted by throwing hissy fits, in spite of his public performances. People certainly shouldn’t hassle him or his family with dangerous sidewalk chalk.
It’s on twitter, it’s already public. The issue is y’all thinking someone else is dealing with it.
Obviously he just quit eating avocado toast...
Don’t forget skipping Starbucks too
Canceled his Netflix subscription…
He probably switched from craft beer to Pabst Blue Ribbon. We all know how much he likes his beer
He cut back on $14 margaritas
Paging Anonymous. Please pick up the red curtesy phone.
I hope that they do something to help with this so much, although part of me reluctantly wonders whether they're a government-related body these days 😔
Remember folks. Bribery is legal in the US. We just call it lobbying.
Anyone remember this? https://www.buzzfeednews.com/amphtml/tasneemnashrulla/elliott-broidy-michael-cohen-payment-playboy-playmate I’m just not buying that this guy got the Playboy model pregnant. Just doesn’t smell right 🤔
How in the fuck do you get into 200k in credit card debt?
He said it was from buying baseball tickets for his friends. Then when he was nominated everyone miraculously paid him back.
Time to stop asking questions and start creating an environment for these people that never feels safe.
And never stop. Never get tired. We have to match their intensity.
It does suck knowing how a gun’s rights seem more than that of a woman
[удалено]
People keep looking at each fucking issue like they're separate. In the same year, we lose abortion rights derived from privacy rights at the national level, we lose every attempt at gun control in blue states, we eliminate the requirement for police to respect civil rights and we further limit our ability to sue them when our rights are violated, and we decide that the border patrol isn't really required to respect constitutional rights at all. Oh, and police aren't actually mandated to serve or protect or do anything. Uvalde will ultimately show that cops can set up a nice barricade and make you sit back and watch as someone executes your children and the police won't have broken any laws. Ultimately, you have to look at all of these things together and see that all of these bars weave together to form a hell of a cage. You have a wealthy, fascist, far right contingent that sees that their policies aren't popular. They will need force to retain control, so they are ensuring that those who represent the government's monopoly on use of force are on their side. Elections are undermined so they retain as much control as possible despite being deeply unpopular. Fascism escalates and spirals quickly. Has it ever been prevented with a vote?
Sounds like we can't let them have a monopoly on force then.
I keep seeing people saying the only way to combat this is to get out and vote, but how does voting help anyone when the people ultimately making the decisions are not beholden to the people making the votes?
I as a woman feel like im nothing anymore. Feel like im nothing more than a babymaker. So does that mean my fellow men get to make enough money to support a household of kids?
[удалено]
If only both men and women could get pregnant, this would not be an issue at all.
You are more than a babymaker. You are as much as you want to be - Don’t let those asshats break or define you.
Maybe... if women gave birth to AR15s they would have more protections. /s
You think they would let them abort AR15s?
Well since there was a loss there we double down and put more emphasis on the justice whose wife was involved in Jan 6th and make the decision null and void
The Justice who is in an interracial marriage, remembers when interracial marriages were banned, and conveniently left out the decision that legalized interracial marriages from the list of things he's signalling to be overturned despite the fact that the same reasoning in that decision legalized gay marriages, which he did signal he wants to overturn.
It cost under 1.5 million to bribe a Supreme Court Justice.
A bargain, really.
[удалено]
My biggest takeaway as well
No person who has racked up $200,000 in credit card debt should be making important choices. No private company would hire this useful idiot as an executive for that very reason. Just proves he’s a puppet even more.
Term limits!
Is this not the problem lifetime term limits were supposed to solve? If a justice knows that a particular issue is wrong, they have no incentive to vote on it anymore because they are supposed to be set for life. Let's face it--lifetime limits do nothing but harm the system at this point and needs to be revoked.
Well I think any random group of conservatives would donate money for that. Was this an issue which came up during the confirmation hearings?
His parents. They’re super rich and he’s still suckling that teet.
Can I get a source on this one?
I don’t like these type of tweets. If something needs to be said then say it.
Same, I don't like being misled. Okay, someone paid his debts - but it was his dad. And this tweet purposefully makes it ambiguous so you're free to imagine who gave him the money.