A thread for Democrats Only
POSTED BY: THGRRI
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 15:36
VIEWED: 755368
PAGE 605 of 725
Quote:Not so, 6ix. The chief justice said that five Republican justices made a mockery of the constitution when they took away long held rights of citizens. See page 35 of https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-463_3ebh.pdf
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Conjecture.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:Not so, 6ix. The chief justice said that five Republican justices made a mockery of the constitution when they took away long held rights of citizens. See page 35 of https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-463_3ebh.pdf
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Conjecture.
He doesn't mention anything that you just said he did on page 35.
In fact, I read his entire Opinion, and he doesn't once mention any of the justices.
And WTF are you talking about when you say "they took away long held rights of citizens"?
Explain yourself.
Otherwise, pure conjecture.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Each one of Trump's Supreme Court nominees was asked about Roe v Wade because the case would be litigated again since Trump said he wanted the decision changed. The Democrats wanted to know the nominees' answers. Short version of their answers, each of Trump's nominees lied in order to get on the Supreme Court and do what Trump wanted. The chief justice of the Supreme Court knew what they answered. The chief justice also read those nominees', now judges, opinion before he wrote his reply saying they made a mockery of the Constitution. The chief justice might have seemed polite, because he was quoting Marbury v. Madison (1803), but he was damning Trump's nominees for what they did.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:Not so, 6ix. The chief justice said that five Republican justices made a mockery of the constitution when they took away long held rights of citizens. See page 35 of https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-463_3ebh.pdf]
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Conjecture.
He doesn't mention anything that you just said he did on page 35.
In fact, I read his entire Opinion, and he doesn't once mention any of the justices.
And WTF are you talking about when you say "they took away long held rights of citizens"?
Explain yourself.
Otherwise, pure conjecture.
In Marbury v. Madison, decided in 1803, the Supreme Court, for the first time, struck down an act of Congress as unconstitutional. This decision created the doctrine of judicial review and set up the Supreme Court of the United States as chief interpreter of the Constitution. Until Marbury v. Madison, there were people saying the Supreme Court cannot possibly overturn legislation because it was not explicitly granted that power by the Constitution. I speculate, a synonym for conjecture, a word frequently used by 6ix, that 6ix would have been one of those people saying it is not possible and saying the decision in Marbury v. Madison was itself unconstitutional. 6ix is one of those people who cannot possibly understand what they don't want to understand. There are far too many Americans who are the same way.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:Each one of Trump's Supreme Court nominees was asked about Roe v Wade because the case would be litigated again since Trump said he wanted the decision changed. The Democrats wanted to know the nominees' answers. Short version of their answers, each of Trump's nominees lied in order to get on the Supreme Court and do what Trump wanted. The chief justice of the Supreme Court knew what they answered. The chief justice also read those nominees', now judges, opinion before he wrote his reply saying they made a mockery of the Constitution. The chief justice might have seemed polite, because he was quoting Marbury v. Madison (1803), but he was damning Trump's nominees for what they did.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:Not so, 6ix. The chief justice said that five Republican justices made a mockery of the constitution when they took away long held rights of citizens. See page 35 of https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-463_3ebh.pdf]
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Conjecture.
He doesn't mention anything that you just said he did on page 35.
In fact, I read his entire Opinion, and he doesn't once mention any of the justices.
And WTF are you talking about when you say "they took away long held rights of citizens"?
Explain yourself.
Otherwise, pure conjecture.
In Marbury v. Madison, decided in 1803, the Supreme Court, for the first time, struck down an act of Congress as unconstitutional. This decision created the doctrine of judicial review and set up the Supreme Court of the United States as chief interpreter of the Constitution. Until Marbury v. Madison, there were people saying the Supreme Court cannot possibly overturn legislation because it was not explicitly granted that power by the Constitution. I speculate, a synonym for conjecture, a word frequently used by 6ix, that 6ix would have been one of those people saying it is not possible and saying the decision in Marbury v. Madison was itself unconstitutional. 6ix is one of those people who cannot possibly understand what they don't want to understand. There are far too many Americans who are the same way.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
Conjecture is not a word I frequently use. After writing this reply, I will have used the word conjecture more today than I ever have in the rest of my life combined. Lie.
Justice Roberts did not say anything that you say he said. Lie.
Your take is pure conjecture.
You'll also note that the link to this document itself is filed under "supremecourt.gov/opinions/"
These were opinions. Not a ruling.
You're basing your opinions of their opinions with incomplete information and your skewed lens.
That's the the textbook definition of conjecture.
Quote:
6ix is one of those people who cannot possibly understand what they don't want to understand.
Pot, meet kettle, you completely un-self-aware cretin.
Quote:
There are far too many Americans who are the same way.
On that, we can agree.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:A truly revealing opinion about yourself, 6ix.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
Chief Justice John Roberts used Marbury v. Madison to insult Trump’s appointees to the Supreme Court. It is there in the Supreme Court ruling, 6ix, even if you don’t want to understand it any more than you understand vaccination.
The Madison in Marbury v. Madison was Thomas Jefferson’s Secretary of State. Jefferson knew how the case would be decided because the Chief Justice back then was John Marshall, a second cousin, who had made his low opinion of Jefferson known. Jefferson and the new Democratic-Republican Congressmen passed a bill that canceled the Supreme Court's 1802 term. This prevented all its pending cases, including Marbury v. Madison, from being decided until 1803.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison
The wikipedia didn't explain why Jefferson's shutdown of the Supreme Court was not permanent, or at least until after Jefferson left office. Maybe Jefferson realized that was going too far and too obviously personal animosity.
Feuding Cousins and Founding Fathers
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2002/04/08/feuding-co
usins-and-founding-fathers/25ed4d24-1c68-42c2-9c6d-a9b7705ddf0a/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
lol
I'm done debating with you on this. You're an idiot.
--------------------------------------------------
Vaccinated People: "You need to get muh vaccination shots that don't work because I got muh vaccination shots that don't work and I'm afraid of people that didn't get muh vaccination shots that don't work because muh vaccination shots that don't work don't work."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How big is the rich-poor divide across the globe?
In terms of dollars, someone in the global top 10% earns $122,000 a year on average, while a person in the poorest half makes around $3,900.
Is inequality about income or wealth?
Both. In terms of dollars, people in the lower half own about $4,100 in net assets on average, compared with $771,000 on average for those in the top 10%.
https://news.yahoo.com/big-rich-poor-divide-across-140022303.html
Authors of the newly released World Inequality Database study claim it represents the "most up-to-date synthesis of international research efforts to track global inequalities."
https://wid.world/country/usa/
https://wid.world/income-comparator
https://wid.world/news-article/world-inequality-report-2022/ 
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This doesn’t mean that Trump won’t be the 2024 nominee, but a Pew survey conducted in September (published in October) shows that just 44 percent of Republicans want him to run for president again (and 32 percent want him out of politics altogether).
Anecdotally speaking, many of the same people who were the most passionate evangelists for George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” 20 years ago were ready to call Dubya a war criminal by 2016. Times change, and new characters are introduced into this political drama. We’re already seeing hints that, to some extent, the party is already moving on to younger leaders like Tucker Carlson and Ron DeSantis.
I’m old enough to remember when Sarah Palin was the straw that stirred Republicans’ drinks. Posting stories about her got clicks. She flirted with running for president (to sell books and stay relevant) and even got the media to chase her bus around the country. But she chose not to run for president (after choosing to step down as governor of Alaska), and eventually she became old news (for those who want Trump to go away, this is an admission against interest: If Trump’s goal is to continue garnering attention, he needs to run for office again).
Now, it’s true that Palin did not possess Trump’s resources or media savvy (nor was she president), but her prime shelf life lasted for about four years (2008-2012). At age 75, Trump is on year seven of largely dominating the news. How long can he keep it up? At the end of the day, Trump faces the same existential threat we all do: mortality. In his case, this means both his literal and political life.
Trends come and go, and people get swept up in them before moving on to the new, hot thing. Americans have a bias towards newness. Thrice-married Trump should appreciate this concept as the country looks like it finally might be ready to turn the page.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/old-man-donald-trump-is-looking-weaker-a
nd-weakersad
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It would be interesting to see how this stacks up against the US in relative terms. We tend to think of countries with extreme wealth gaps as being places like ... Nigeria, for example. But the US could be just as bad, in relative terms.
In any case, I couldn't find equivalent figures for the US with a quick search, just for example, the minimum income one needs to squeak under the 10% threshold. It would be nice if someone did those calculations, or found them.
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
How big is the rich-poor divide across the globe?
In terms of dollars, someone in the global top 10% earns $122,000 a year on average, while a person in the poorest half makes around $3,900.
Is inequality about income or wealth?
Both. In terms of dollars, people in the lower half own about $4,100 in net assets on average, compared with $771,000 on average for those in the top 10%.
https://news.yahoo.com/big-rich-poor-divide-across-140022303.html
Authors of the newly released World Inequality Database study claim it represents the "most up-to-date synthesis of international research efforts to track global inequalities."
https://wid.world/country/usa/
https://wid.world/income-comparator
https://wid.world/news-article/world-inequality-report-2022/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Bogus Bashing of Build Back Better by Paul Krugman
Dec. 13, 2021
Build Back Better — the Biden administration’s effort to create a better future for America — is resting on a political knife edge. It’s anyone’s guess whether it will become law. What we do know is that to make it through Congress it will have to weather a perfect storm of bad faith, bad logic and bad arithmetic.
First things first: Build Back Better is primarily a plan to invest in America’s future. Roughly a third of the proposed spending is on children: pre-K, child care and tax credits that would greatly reduce child poverty. Another third is spending to help restructure the economy to limit climate change. If you include the already enacted infrastructure bill, the Biden agenda is overwhelmingly future-oriented.
And there’s every reason to believe that these investments would be highly productive. This is clearly true of aid to children. There’s overwhelming evidence that helping disadvantaged children makes them much healthier and more productive when they reach adulthood; the benefits are so large that even in a narrowly fiscal sense, aid to children may well pay for itself over the long run.
The same is true for environmental investment. Most discussion of such investment focuses on the long-run mitigation of climate change, and rightly so: The prospect of civilizational collapse does tend to focus the mind.
It’s important to note, however, that reducing our dependence on fossil fuels wouldn’t just reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. It would also reduce other forms of pollution, notably nitrogen oxides and sulfur, that have negative effects on death rates, illness and crop yields. And the benefits of reduced pollution would arrive quickly. One recent NASA study suggested that the health gains from climate mitigation policy would not only be worth trillions of dollars but would also materialize fast enough to outweigh any costs of energy transition in a decade or less.
So how can anyone be opposed to making these investments?
I guess reporting conventions require that journalists pretend to believe that Republicans have good-faith objections to the Biden plan — that they’re worried about deficits, or the effect on incentives, or something. But we all know that their main objection is simply the fact that it’s a Democratic initiative, which means that it must fail.
Also, it would tax the rich and help the poor.
Actually, can anyone even remember the last time leading figures in the G.O.P. seriously engaged with real policy concerns? The most recent important example I can think of is the enactment of the Children’s Health Insurance Program in 1997. It has been bad faith ever since.
While the most important source of opposition to Build Back Better is simply the desire to see Biden fail while keeping the rich as rich as possible, there may be some sincere concern that the bill would increase budget deficits. Actually, it wouldn’t have a significant deficit impact — the Congressional Budget Office says that the spending is almost completely paid for, and attempts to claim otherwise aren’t credible. But even if the deficit did rise, why would that be such a bad thing?
I was struck the other day by Elon Musk’s declaration that Build Back Better shouldn’t pass because it would increase the budget deficit. Interesting fact: Tesla was founded in 2003 and had its first profitable year in 2020. That is, it spent 17 years spending more money than it was taking in, because it was investing in the future. If, as many executives like to say, the government should be run like a business, why shouldn’t it be willing to do the same thing?
Again, most of the proposed spending would consist of highly productive investments.
Finally, there’s a lot of talk about how Build Back Better might worsen inflation — talk that mainly seems to involve failure to do the math, for example, by confusing decades with single years and failing to divide by gross domestic product.
It’s true that the bill’s $1.75 trillion price tag is,
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME