America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 38,343 comments
  • 1,541,280 views
Andy Borowitz creating vile mental images again...

1717713631238.png
 
Joey D
He's from Idaho, I think it's a requirement you know how to spell it or they throw you in the Snake River. Plus it's on their license plates even.
Click to expand...
The Idaho Spud is however quite tasty in my opinion.

1920px-Idaho-Spud-Split.jpg
 
GBO Possum
Edit. Maybe I should have said "disclose", not "admit".
Click to expand...
Just depends on the point of your post. If you're trying to convey legal technicality, maybe. But if you're just trying to speak generally about what has happened, admit seems fine.
 
GBO Possum
The Supreme Court continues to admit corruption, but only under pressure, and only after a lot of delaying tactics.

Gift link - https://wapo.st/4aYn7lT

Edit. Maybe I should have said "disclose", not "admit".
Click to expand...
To be fair, earning $300k for being at what is pretty much the absolute peak of your profession is a bit of a joke. That's basically asking for them to be bribed. I think it wouldn't be unfair for a Supreme Court Justice to be paid a million dollars a year. With the sort of power that they have, anyone in that job should be worth paying that much.

That said, they also shouldn't be taking gifts or compensation worth more than a trivial amount from people, maybe a few thousand dollars with some sort of total yearly cap. They're supposed to be working for the country. If they want to contribute back to the community in other ways like teaching and stuff then that's great, but they should be paid enough already for that to be charity.

It should be very important for them not to be seen as biased in any way, although obviously the court as it stands now is constructed for the maximum amount of bias from whoever gets to decide the nominees.
 
Imari
To be fair, earning $300k for being at what is pretty much the absolute peak of your profession is a bit of a joke. That's basically asking for them to be bribed. I think it wouldn't be unfair for a Supreme Court Justice to be paid a million dollars a year. With the sort of power that they have, anyone in that job should be worth paying that much.

That said, they also shouldn't be taking gifts or compensation worth more than a trivial amount from people, maybe a few thousand dollars with some sort of total yearly cap. They're supposed to be working for the country. If they want to contribute back to the community in other ways like teaching and stuff then that's great, but they should be paid enough already for that to be charity.

It should be very important for them not to be seen as biased in any way, although obviously the court as it stands now is constructed for the maximum amount of bias from whoever gets to decide the nominees.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Unfortunately the check on the supreme court would be impeachment and removal from office. Ultimately the problem we're suffering under Trump is the same as the problem we're suffering under the Supreme court. A public willing to play teams rather than principles voting for representatives that do the same.
 
Imari
To be fair, earning $300k for being at what is pretty much the absolute peak of your profession is a bit of a joke. That's basically asking for them to be bribed. I think it wouldn't be unfair for a Supreme Court Justice to be paid a million dollars a year. With the sort of power that they have, anyone in that job should be worth paying that much.
Click to expand...
You'd have thought that being an actual Supreme Court Justice would be reward enough. It is pretty much the highest point a young lawyer can aim for if they decide to go down the Department of Justice route instead of work for a private law firm. $300k is hardly a pittance. If they wanted to earn the big bucks they should have gone into law and not justice. There's obviously going to be a relatively modest ceiling for govenment work.

If their lifestyle out performs their pay packet then they should quit and get into consulting work. i'd bet that's pretty lucrative for an Ex-SC justice.
 
Do you stay on top of the boat and get electrocuted or do you jump over by the shark and not get electrocuted?

Edit: I'm picking shark because electricity doesn't have a nose to punch.
 
Last edited:
www.rollingstone.com

Justice Alito Caught on Tape Discussing How Battle for America 'Can't Be Compromised'

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in a new recording says the battle for America "can't be compromised," and that one political party will "win."
www.rollingstone.com www.rollingstone.com

I'm shocked that Alito is a corrupt religious nutjob (who was certainly the one who leaked the Dobbs decision) and that Roberts in comparison has some sort of scruples about using the bench to legislate but is extremely weak as a Chief Justice.
 
TexRex
Do you stay on top of the boat and get electrocuted or do you jump over by the shark and not get electrocuted?

Edit: I'm picking shark because electricity doesn't have a nose to punch.
Click to expand...


Remember when we accused Sarah Palin of word salad? He's a buffet of glass shards and twisted metal.
 
Tornado
www.rollingstone.com

Justice Alito Caught on Tape Discussing How Battle for America 'Can't Be Compromised'

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in a new recording says the battle for America "can't be compromised," and that one political party will "win."
www.rollingstone.com www.rollingstone.com

I'm shocked that Alito is a corrupt religious nutjob (who was certainly the one who leaked the Dobbs decision) and that Roberts in comparison has some sort of scruples about using the bench to legislate but is extremely weak as a Chief Justice.
Click to expand...
And somehow that's not the worst thing the bitch has said.



Shouting fire in a crowded theater isn't a category of speech that's not protected. It's not a category of speech at all. It's an example of speech and it's not an example of speech that's not protected. It's an example of speech provided in a terrible SCOTUS decision (made even more terrible by its unanimity) to affirm a conviction for advocating against conscription. That decision would be overturned 50 years later, but the new precedent didn't affect whether shouting fire in a crowded theater is protected because that example of speech was offered as dicta, basically a passing phrase, rather than as legal precedent.

Understanding this is literally the job of a Supreme Court Justice. If you've ever authored a majority, concurring or dissenting opinion on a case before the Court (Alito has done all three), you were to understand and address legal precedent. Of course Alito isn't actually there to do the job. The bitch is there to make or break policy on the basis of ideology. Connie vermin decry "activist judges" and they skip over Alito every single time because the bitch is doing exactly what they want.
 
TexRex
And somehow that's not the worst thing the bitch has said.



Shouting fire in a crowded theater isn't a category of speech that's not protected. It's not a category of speech at all. It's an example of speech and it's not an example of speech that's not protected. It's an example of speech provided in a terrible SCOTUS decision (made even more terrible by its unanimity) to affirm a conviction for advocating against conscription. That decision would be overturned 50 years later, but the new precedent didn't affect whether shouting fire in a crowded theater is protected because that example of speech was offered as dicta, basically a passing phrase, rather than as legal precedent.

Understanding this is literally the job of a Supreme Court Justice. If you've ever authored a majority, concurring or dissenting opinion on a case before the Court (Alito has done all three), you were to understand and address legal precedent. Of course Alito isn't actually there to do the job. The bitch is there to make or break policy on the basis of ideology. Connie vermin decry "activist judges" and they skip over Alito every single time because the bitch is doing exactly what they want.
Click to expand...

We've established that Alito is a hack but are we sure that he, in this case, wasn't simply using that phrase as an example of inciting a panic which any normal person would agree is the definitive version of inciting a panic? He could've just said "inciting a panic" I suppose.

As for the Supreme Court case you're talking about, because likely nobody knows what you're talking about (I looked it up), I assume it is Schenck vs. USA.
 
TheCracker
You'd have thought that being an actual Supreme Court Justice would be reward enough.
Click to expand...
Our society doesn't value honour and achievement over pure wealth though. Which means that a Supreme Court Justice that is poorly rewarded monetarily is still vulnerable to being bought out.

"X should be reward enough" is what people say when they don't think a job is worth actually paying for. $300k isn't a pittance, but it's not even CEO of a medium sized company money in most places.
TheCracker
If they wanted to earn the big bucks they should have gone into law and not justice. There's obviously going to be a relatively modest ceiling for govenment work.
Click to expand...
If your work is valuable, then you should be paid appropriately. I think it's fair to assume that the work a (good) Supreme Court Justice is doing is valuable, incredibly so. They play a major role in shaping and protecting the laws of the country. That requires skill, intelligence and experience, and is not something where you want only the C+ students who couldn't get into a prestigious law firm.

While it may be true now that government jobs tend to be less well paid, I see no reason why that should be the case. In jobs like this where you want the best, you should pay rates appropriate for the best. Or at least in the general ballpark. It's not about wanting to earn the big bucks, a million dollars isn't even that much for someone at the very top of their field. It's about fair compensation so that they're not as easily bought by people offering them luxury cruises and motorhomes.
 
apnews.com

President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, is convicted of all 3 felonies in federal gun trial

Hunter Biden has been convicted of all three felony charges related to the purchase of a revolver in 2018 when, prosecutors argued, the president’s son lied on a mandatory gun-purchase form by saying he was not illegally using or addicted to drugs.
apnews.com apnews.com

I remember a time when this would have been the scandal of the century. Now it hardly even feels relevant other than as evidence that there is not some vast conspiracy.
 
I wonder, knowing the answer already, if the idiots who say Biden has the justice system in his pocket to nab Trump ever question why the Feds are able to target the actual President's son?

Also a tough time for deregulation gun loonies. They should be outraged that there were restrictions impeding this man's right to bear arms.

If he's done wrong, he's done wrong. I'm sure Joe Biden loves his son. Sadly I fear this will just lead to insufferable gloating by the far-right.
 
It's interesting to see the mental gymnastics going on by some people. You have a few left-leaning people saying it was politically motivated while Trump's wasn't. You also have a large number of right-leaning people saying Hunter's case wasn't politically motivated while Trump's was. Really, I don't think either was politically motivated, and it's people facing the consequences for their actions. They're still going to get a comparative slap on the wrist over it, but it's better than either of them skating free. Rich, powerful, famous, and influential people should be held to the same standard as us "regulars". And you know for a fact if any one of us normal folks have three federal gun charges, we'd be in prison, but Hunter will probably get probation. Same with Trump, he'll get probation while the rest of us would be serving time.

Everyone should have an equal chance under the law to have a trial and be judged by a jury of their peers. The prosecution in both Trump and Hunter's case obviously swayed the jury to believe that they were guilty. It's not a perfect system by any means, but I'll take it over some of the alternatives.
 
Danoff
apnews.com

President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, is convicted of all 3 felonies in federal gun trial

Hunter Biden has been convicted of all three felony charges related to the purchase of a revolver in 2018 when, prosecutors argued, the president’s son lied on a mandatory gun-purchase form by saying he was not illegally using or addicted to drugs.
apnews.com apnews.com

I remember a time when this would have been the scandal of the century. Now it hardly even feels relevant other than as evidence that there is not some vast conspiracy.
Click to expand...
So about that...

Screenshot-20240611-142942-Samsung-Internet.jpg


To be clear I'm not personally arguing against anything you said, rather I'm showing they've already got their ducks in a row.
Liquid
They should be outraged that there were restrictions impeding this man's right to bear arms.
Click to expand...
They're likely to support drug prohibitions, including federally (but "states' rights"?). Plus that's not an individual right explicitly enshrined in the Constitution [grumbles in Ninth Amendment] so they're emboldened.

Because they're likely to support drug prohibitions, they offer that as an exception to the right. Cognitive dissonance averted.
 
Last edited:
Lol...
newrepublic.com

Hunter Biden Verdict Sparks Unbelievable MAGA Conspiracy Theories

The far-right’s reaction to Hunter Biden’s guilty verdict is truly unbelievable.
newrepublic.com newrepublic.com
Conservatives are reacting to Hunter Biden’s felony conviction on Tuesday in seemingly the only way they know how: claiming it’s part of an elaborate conspiracy by the Department of Justice to weaken their outrage over Trump’s own felony convictions.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
It's interesting to read the Conservative sub on Reddit that many hold the position that this was an unjust case that infringes on Hunter's 2A rights.


Mind you that is, until one sees the accompanying users go right into the conspiracy theories noted above that this was done to "justify prosecuting Trump" and "they went with these charges instead of the one that involves the big guy". I even got a chuckle that one commenter said this story is being covered up on the Politics sub, and it's sitting there at #3 in said sub w/ 1700+ comments. Such a funny subreddit to read if you ever need convincing there really are that many dumb Trump supporters.
 
Last edited:

Latest Posts

Back