Bwahaha! It's a good day. Supreme Court triple slam dunks liberalism!

[teapartysamurai]

Front page of Drudge Report!

UNANIMOUS: Supreme Court sides with WAL-MART in sex-discrimination case...
UNANIMOUS: Blocks states' climate change lawsuit...
Won't hear ACORN claim over gov't funding...

DRUDGE REPORT 2011®

And the lawsuits from States suing Obama care haven't even reached the USSC!

I thought you libs told us it was "Constitutional" if the USSC said so!

I mean you libs sure told us that in the affirmative when it came to Roe v. Wade and all those "separation of church and state" decisions!

But Bush v. Gore comes along and suddenly what the USSC says isn't the last word on the Constitution any more!

So, what will be the flip flop on these?

I mean you idiot libs can't have it both ways. You can't tell us that Roe v. Wade is the final Constitutional word on abortion BUT any USSC decision that goes against your agenda ISN'T the final Constitutional word.

So, which flip flop will we get on this one?

I can't wait to hear!

 

[Truthmatters]

The walmart decision was not all unnanimous.

 

[Liability]

The walmart decision was not all unnanimous.

Try honesty, truthdon'tmattertoyou.

The BASIC ruling which dismissed the CLASS ACTION lawsuit was certainly unanimous.

The Justices did split (very narrowly in fact) on whether the suits -- as NON class action individual suits -- could continue.

And they can.

But the SCOTUS smack down was on the CLASS ACTION aspect; and THAT was unanimous.

 

[Truthmatters]

The justices all agreed that the lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. cannot proceed as a class action in its current form, reversing a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. But they split 5-4 along ideological lines over whether the plaintiffs should in essence get another chance to make their case.

Read your own article

 

[teapartysamurai]

The walmart decision was not all unnanimous.

Wrong again TruthDoesnt'Matter!

The justices all agreed that the lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. cannot proceed as a class action in its current form, reversing a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. But they split 5-4 along ideological lines over whether the plaintiffs should in essence get another chance to make their case.

Supreme Court limits Wal-Mart sex bias case - Yahoo! News

 

[teapartysamurai]

The justices all agreed that the lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. cannot proceed as a class action in its current form, reversing a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. But they split 5-4 along ideological lines over whether the plaintiffs should in essence get another chance to make their case.

Read your own article

Which still boils down to a unanimous decision they can't proceed as a class action.

 

[Sallow]

None of these are any great surprise given the current make up of the court. Scalia, Thomas and Alito should not even be supreme court judges.

 

[teapartysamurai]

None of these are any great surprise given the current make up of the court. Scalia, Thomas and Alito should not even be supreme court judges.

Yeah, only people who think the Constitution is a "living document" should be on the USSC right?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

None of these are any great surprise given the current make up of the court. Scalia, Thomas and Alito should not even be supreme court judges.

"Elections Have Consequences."

It's only true and acceptable when Obama and Pelosi say it. Otherwise, it shouldn't be.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

two different cases in Wal Mart. 9-0 in the issue of class action, as there was no unifying action or policy from wal mart they could point to as discriminatory, as much of the policy was delegated.

Individual stores had problems, and cases can procede against the individual stores. But it can be pointed out that the stores with problems acted contrary to stated company policy if there were violations.

The greenhouse gas thing is about judges making law parallel to the legislative and executive process. A huge win for common sense.

The acorn case is more problematic. It amounts to a bill of attainder. Congress said they can't get money because we think they broke the law.

 

[Truthmatters]

Then why didi the founders make amendments part of the process?

Its was NOT a fully unanimous decision.

Facts just dont permeate your braincase

 

[Sallow]

None of these are any great surprise given the current make up of the court. Scalia, Thomas and Alito should not even be supreme court judges.

"Elections Have Consequences."

It's only true and acceptable when Obama and Pelosi say it. Otherwise, it shouldn't be.

No.

I don't think ideologues should be sitting judges. Especially on the Supreme Court. Scalia and Thomas have made it very clear they are both ideologues and do not care about conflict of interest rules.

Alito, I feel, is not only an ideologue but doesn't have the standing (In terms of intellectual depth) to sit on the Supreme Court.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

None of these are any great surprise given the current make up of the court. Scalia, Thomas and Alito should not even be supreme court judges.

"Elections Have Consequences."

It's only true and acceptable when Obama and Pelosi say it. Otherwise, it shouldn't be.

No.

I don't think ideologues should be sitting judges. Especially on the Supreme Court. Scalia and Thomas have made it very clear they are both ideologues and do not care about conflict of interest rules.

Alito, I feel, is not only an ideologue but doesn't have the standing (In terms of intellectual depth) to sit on the Supreme Court.

If you're the POTUS, you get to make those decisions.

We in the "chattering class" merely have to live with those decisions.

"Elections Have Consequences" is just a fact of life.

 

[Truthmatters]

Thomas has never recused himself when he obviously should have.

 

[teapartysamurai]

Then why didi the founders make amendments part of the process?

Its was NOT a fully unanimous decision.

Facts just dont permeate your braincase

It was a unanimous decision.

It's just like in the Bush v. Gore case where 7 of the 9 Justices agreed that the Recount was Unconstitutional, but 5 of the 4 justices agreed on what should be the result of such a decision.

So, the liberal media called it a "divided court." When the fact was it was a 7 out of 9 court.

Same thing goes here. It's a UNAMIMOUS COURT. It's just a disagreement on what the result of this decisions should entail.

As usual with liberals, you are going to spin that and ignore the UNAMIMOUS DECISION.

As for your comment on amendments. Amendments are done by Congress and the States voting. NOT the USSC making arbitrary law from the bench as in the case of Roe v. Wade.

 

[Dr.House]

None of these are any great surprise given the current make up of the court. Scalia, Thomas and Alito should not even be supreme court judges.

"Elections Have Consequences."

It's only true and acceptable when Obama and Pelosi say it. Otherwise, it shouldn't be.

No.

I don't think ideologues should be sitting judges. Especially on the Supreme Court. Scalia and Thomas have made it very clear they are both ideologues and do not care about conflict of interest rules.

Alito, I feel, is not only an ideologue but doesn't have the standing (In terms of intellectual depth) to sit on the Supreme Court.

You're just cool with ideologues who support your liberal ideals... Baby Ruth Ginsberg is the worst on the bench... Kagan is a fucking joke...

Awesome...

 

[teapartysamurai]

None of these are any great surprise given the current make up of the court. Scalia, Thomas and Alito should not even be supreme court judges.

"Elections Have Consequences."

It's only true and acceptable when Obama and Pelosi say it. Otherwise, it shouldn't be.

No.

I don't think ideologues should be sitting judges. Especially on the Supreme Court. Scalia and Thomas have made it very clear they are both ideologues and do not care about conflict of interest rules.

Alito, I feel, is not only an ideologue but doesn't have the standing (In terms of intellectual depth) to sit on the Supreme Court.

And OF COURSE, people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Thurgood Marshall; I bet a DIME you don't think they are "idealogues."

What a coinkydink!

 

[teapartysamurai]

Thomas has never recused himself when he obviously should have.

You libs think he should recuse himself if YOU know he's not going to decide your way so give it up!

 

[Truthmatters]

Jesus how bent in the head do you have to be to call a 5/4 split unanimous for political purposes?

 

[AllieBaba]

None of these are any great surprise given the current make up of the court. Scalia, Thomas and Alito should not even be supreme court judges.

That's right, because non-liberals shouldn't be allowed to hold offices of power.

Down with free speech, down with liberty, down with democracy! Only anti-Christian liberals should be allowed to ascend.....