The Judiciary Thread

[CrimsonJazz]

Clarence Thomas Gently Explains To KBJ That Not All Black People Are Mentally Disabled, Just Her

WASHINGTON, D.C. — After Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson claimed in court today that all black people are mentally disabled, Justice Clarence Thomas gently informed her that it's actually just her.

babylonbee.com

"I don't know how to say this best, Ketanji, but not all black people are mentally disabled. It's just you," said Thomas. "You having an exceptionally low IQ has absolutely nothing to do with your skin color, Ketanji. You're just an idiot. I know this is hard for you to understand... I mean, of course it is, you're mentally handicapped."

Onlookers reported Jackson was stunned by the news, shocked to learn that not all black people are mentally disabled. She sullenly closed the Leapfrog tablet she had been playing Sesame Street puzzles on, before hurling it at the wall in rage. Justice Thomas, however, managed to lift her spirits with a brief game of peek-a-boo.

 

[Bodhisattva]

The soft racism of low expectations.

 

[crimsonaudio]

When gerrymandering is used to protect minority representation and prevent vote dilution, it serves a vital democratic purpose. But when it’s used purely to entrench political power, it undermines democracy — and should be outlawed.

Good grief…

“When X is used for a political purpose I like it’s good, but when used for one I don’t it’s bad.”

SMH

 

[Bazza]

The soft racism of low expectations.

I posted the exact same video last year.

Amazing how the left tries so hard to gas light everyone how they aren't racist.

"If we prevent illegal immigrants from entering the country.....who is going to mow our lawns?"

Can't make this stuff up....lol......

 

[Bazza]

What Democrat said people of color didn't have access to copy machines...lol.....?

 

[Bazza]

Gerrymandering for any reason is a very slippery slope and should probably be avoided.

Talk about avoiding.......lol......

 

[Bamaro]

When gerrymandering is used to protect minority representation and prevent vote dilution, it serves a vital democratic purpose. But when it’s used purely to entrench political power, it undermines democracy — and should be outlawed.

True but once you start using gerrymandering for a 'good' purpose it opens it up for all types of not so good purposes. I would prefer none to what we have now which is out of control.

 

[Bodhisattva]

I posted the exact same video last year.

Amazing how the left tries so hard to gas light everyone how they aren't racist.

"If we prevent illegal immigrants from entering the country.....who is going to mow our lawns?"

Can't make this stuff up....lol......

I find the attitude that people in general - and minorities in particular - are retarded infants in need of a nanny state to provide for them condescending and many times racist. These leftists, of course, do not judge themselves to be the pathetic creatures that everyone else is deemed. Go figure.

 

[Bodhisattva]

What Democrat said people of color didn't have access to copy machines...lol.....?

Barring certain people from Kinko's is part of the structural racism.

 

[Bodhisattva]

True but once you start using gerrymandering for a 'good' purpose it opens it up for all types of not so good purposes. I would prefer none to what we have now which is out of control.

Agreed. I would extend that to the size of government in general. Every government program (and the massive deficit spending that comes with it) is sold as a good idea to solve some desperate need. But, once Dr. Frankenstein creates his monster, too late does he realize the monster has a mind of its own, existing way beyond it's intended purpose, growing and consuming more and more resources, and eventually destroying everything. A true horror show of our own creation.

 

[some_al_fan]

Let’s face the truth:
- The Democratic Party is trying to treat minorities as retards
- The Republican Party is trying to suppress minority votes, and contain minorities to ghettos and pre-1960 conditions

We can argue all day long about which approach is worse. Why is nobody talking about the path forward?

 

[CrimsonJazz]

Why is nobody talking about the path forward?

Either because there isn't one or no one wants one. Remember, Reps and Dems play off each other to keep grifting for those donations. They know what they are doing and it has been stated COUNTLESS times on this very board: this is just another example of kayfabe (like what you see in pro wrasslin.) The whole thing is just one big choreographed bull crap exercise.

But, like those people who still watch and go to the live matches, most Americans are willing to suspend disbelief to justify their moronic tribalism. I suspect some of these nitwits would literally rather die than face the truth. Imagine fighting tooth and nail for 50 years on behalf of one party only to find out that it was all for nothing because das party doesn't give a damn about the people and never has. That kind of anger is how you get a revolution and we simply can't have that in polite society. So our leaders will continue to put on the show and Americans will dutifully "follow orders" because that's just how we do things and it helps most avoid that pesky thing called reality.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

“Race-Based Remedies Should Have an End Point”: Justices Appear Poised to Issue Historic Ruling on the Voting Rights Act

Yesterday, the Supreme Court held the long-awaited argument in Louisiana v. Callais, considering an appeal of Louisiana’s congressional map. The two majority-black districts are being challenged un…

jonathanturley.org

Yesterday, the Supreme Court held the long-awaited argument in Louisiana v. Callais, considering an appeal of Louisiana’s congressional map. The two majority-black districts are being challenged under the 15th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment as unconstitutionally gerrymandered on the basis of race. The case could result in a rejection of race-based congressional districting under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

I've been waiting on Turley's thoughts about this and I suspect he will have much more to say in the coming days.

 

[Huckleberry]

Good grief…

“When X is used for a political purpose I like it’s good, but when used for one I don’t it’s bad.”

SMH

Good grief indeed. It’s not “good when I like it, bad when I don’t.” It’s lawful when it protects equal access and corrupt when it rigs outcomes. Big difference.

The Voting Rights Act didn’t invent gerrymandering — it limited a version that was openly racial. Calling that the same thing as carving up maps for partisan gain is textbook false equivalency. One exists to stop discrimination; the other exists to preserve power.

It’s like saying the fire department starting a controlled burn to stop a wildfire is the same as an arsonist lighting one for fun. The purpose matters. One corrects a historic imbalance; the other creates one.

If that distinction feels too subtle, maybe that says more about our politics than about the principle.

 

[Bodhisattva]

Let’s face the truth:
- The Democratic Party is trying to treat minorities as retards
- The Republican Party is trying to suppress minority votes, and contain minorities to ghettos and pre-1960 conditions

We can argue all day long about which approach is worse. Why is nobody talking about the path forward?

I would add:

- Libertarians want to treat adults like adults and (benevolently) leave them alone. I won't tell you what to do; you don't tell me what do to do. In no small part, because to do so involves paying for the government (the most stupid entity on the planet) to enforce such intervention. So, by extension, I won't steal from you; you don't steal from me. That leaves an individual's tax burden to the federal government around a miniscule 6%. I hope you choose well in life and get the corresponding rewards. If you choose poorly, expect the corresponding detriment. Either way, the results of my choices are on me; the results of your choices are on you.

 

[crimsonaudio]

The Voting Rights Act didn’t invent gerrymandering — it limited a version that was openly racial. Calling that the same thing as carving up maps for partisan gain is textbook false equivalency. One exists to stop discrimination; the other exists to preserve power.

Tomato, tomato.

 

[Its On A Slab]

You see, in the purest sense, Libertarians have solved it all. Just treat adults like adults and then—poof!—no more problems. You do you, I’ll do me, and we’ll all ride off into the sunset on our self-funded horses, free from the tyranny of pothole repair.

No government handouts, no messy regulations, no bureaucrats deciding how many ounces of milk go in your coffee. If my bridge collapses, well, that’s on me for not inspecting it personally. If yours collapses, that’s on you for being the kind of person who trusts bridges.

And the tax burden? Practically nothing! Six percent, tops. Just enough to fund a flag, maybe a few fireworks on Independence Day, and someone to answer the phone at 911—if we decide we still want a 911.

We’ll finally reach that shining libertarian paradise we’ve all been waiting for—Somalia, where freedom rings loud, gunfire rings louder, and no one can tell you what to do because, well, there’s no one left to tell you anything at all.

But at least we’ll be free. Gloriously, independently, individually free… right up until the potholes, bridges, and everything else catch up to us!

 

[AlexanderFan]

Yeah, that exception for flags that represent the “international character” of the local population seems a bit suspicious.

I want to see some liberals condemn the ruling The judge is, after all, denying “marginalized” groups recognition.

The best part about this whole ordeal is that one marginalized group would gladly impale the other marginalized group with a flagpole.

 

[Bodhisattva]

You see, in the purest sense, Libertarians have solved it all. Just treat adults like adults and then—poof!—no more problems. You do you, I’ll do me, and we’ll all ride off into the sunset on our self-funded horses, free from the tyranny of pothole repair.

No government handouts, no messy regulations, no bureaucrats deciding how many ounces of milk go in your coffee. If my bridge collapses, well, that’s on me for not inspecting it personally. If yours collapses, that’s on you for being the kind of person who trusts bridges.

And the tax burden? Practically nothing! Six percent, tops. Just enough to fund a flag, maybe a few fireworks on Independence Day, and someone to answer the phone at 911—if we decide we still want a 911.

We’ll finally reach that shining libertarian paradise we’ve all been waiting for—Somalia, where freedom rings loud, gunfire rings louder, and no one can tell you what to do because, well, there’s no one left to tell you anything at all.

But at least we’ll be free. Gloriously, independently, individually free… right up until the potholes, bridges, and everything else catch up to us!

Wow. Pathetic. It is really sad that you cannot have a legitimate discussion involving political philosophy, economics, the Constitution and the division of federal and state roles, history, etc. You can’t even get basic definitions and concepts right and are instead reduced to trolling and constructing the most ignorant of strawmen. There has to be something more to your intellectual arsenal than non sequitur snark directed towards capitalism, libertarianism, Christianity, etc. You're vaguely against the aforementioned, but what are you for? I would like to think you could do better, but I guess not. Too bad. And so it goes. Good luck in life. 🤷‍♂️

 

[some_al_fan]

I would add:

- Libertarians want to treat adults like adults and (benevolently) leave them alone. I won't tell you what to do; you don't tell me what do to do. In no small part, because to do so involves paying for the government (the most stupid entity on the planet) to enforce such intervention. So, by extension, I won't steal from you; you don't steal from me. That leaves an individual's tax burden to the federal government around a miniscule 6%. I hope you choose well in life and get the corresponding rewards. If you choose poorly, expect the corresponding detriment. Either way, the results of my choices are on me; the results of your choices are on you.

.. and if you were born weak and sick, then you'd better die young, since nobody will help you.
Sure, I like libertarianism on paper. Like I like Utopia. There is no difference between the two.

Let’s look at a simple example… Pandemic. Let’s pick a disease other than COVID. Such as https://www.cdc.gov/cholera/about/about-cholera-in-the-united-states.html
To protect you, a wealthy, happy, healthy individual, and your children from Cholera, the evil government has to have the CDC working on prevention. If not, then you will get Cholera (or pick any other disease) and die like wealthy libertarians did several hundred years ago.

And we can go on and on about the need for Police, DoD, DARPA, USDA, CDC, FDA, OSHA, FRS, and other evil government agencies that ivory tower libertarians take for granted