Pot Kettle and the Supreme Court et al

[Foxfyre]

For going on four years we have listened to the Democrats, talking heads on TV, KJP, the President and others tell us how dangerous it is for Trump and Republicans to criticize the courts, criticize the DOJ, criticize the FBI, criticize the election process, etc. and that apparently makes them (non Democrats) all existential threats to our 'democracy.'

So could someone explain why the media, entertainment, talking heads on TV, members of Congress, the President himself criticizing/condemning the Supreme Court of the U.S. are NOT an existential threat to our 'democracy'?

Bette Midler parody on Wizard of Oz to complain about SCOTUS

MSN

(My thoughts were that it was no wizard behind that curtain. And there apparently is no President behind that curtain either.) But I digress. . .

AOC to file impeachment papers for SCOTUS justices? (I'll give pretty good odds on how far that is going to fly.)

MSN

Schumer raging on the steps of the Supreme Court building literally threated the justices:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/03/04/schumer_to_kavanaugh_gorsuch_you_will_pay_the_price.html#!

Biden made an official statement to the nation blasting the SCOTUS immunity decision:

Biden condemns Supreme Court's ruling on Trump immunity case

The Supreme Court's landmark decision ruled that Trump is immune from prosecution for official acts he took while in office.

www.cbsnews.com

And there are many others--various members of Congress, Democrat operatives, Brennan, Clapper et al all joining the chorus to condemn the high court.

So what makes Democrats immune but the Patriots/Republicans are existential threats to our 'democracy' when both criticize court rulings?

 

[excalibur]

We must accept court decisions. Same as believe all women. Democratic Party BS.

 

[Foxfyre]

We must accept court decisions. Same as believe all women. Democratic Party BS.

For a fact, SCOTUS has made some dreadful decision over the almost two and a half centuries it has been in existence. And from time to time it rightfully overturns those dreadful decisions and gets it right or at least a lot more right.

Of course a totalitarian minded government wants SCOTUS to do its bidding and when SCOTUS acts independently as the Constitution intended, those who participate and support that government are going to be angry. And when SCOTUS rules differently than the opposition party would have preferred those in the opposition party too can be angry.

The double standard, however, comes in when the opposition party is labeled an 'existential threat to our 'democracy' when they criticize a decision of the court at any level. But somehow it's okay if the Democrats and neoMarxists do that?

The double standard is galling and indefensible.

 

[sartre play]

For going on four years we have listened to the Democrats, talking heads on TV, KJP, the President and others tell us how dangerous it is for Trump and Republicans to criticize the courts, criticize the DOJ, criticize the FBI, criticize the election process, etc. and that apparently makes them (non Democrats) all existential threats to our 'democracy.'

So could someone explain why the media, entertainment, talking heads on TV, members of Congress, the President himself criticizing/condemning the Supreme Court of the U.S. are NOT an existential threat to our 'democracy'?

Bette Midler parody on Wizard of Oz to complain about SCOTUS

MSN

(My thoughts were that it was no wizard behind that curtain. And there apparently is no President behind that curtain either.) But I digress. . .

AOC to file impeachment papers for SCOTUS justices? (I'll give pretty good odds on how far that is going to fly.)

MSN

Schumer raging on the steps of the Supreme Court building literally threated the justices:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/03/04/schumer_to_kavanaugh_gorsuch_you_will_pay_the_price.html#!

Biden made an official statement to the nation blasting the SCOTUS immunity decision:

Biden condemns Supreme Court's ruling on Trump immunity case

The Supreme Court's landmark decision ruled that Trump is immune from prosecution for official acts he took while in office.

www.cbsnews.com

And there are many others--various members of Congress, Democrat operatives, Brennan, Clapper et al all joining the chorus to condemn the high court.

So what makes Democrats immune but the Patriots/Republicans are existential threats to our 'democracy' when both criticize court rulings?

Would prefer a more balanced court, Usually it leans a little in one direction. We can live with that.
apparent cheating and some out right lies, have harmed the basic trust,
Not just of the court, but of EVERYTHING from our elections to our government agency's.

 

[White 6]

For going on four years we have listened to the Democrats, talking heads on TV, KJP, the President and others tell us how dangerous it is for Trump and Republicans to criticize the courts, criticize the DOJ, criticize the FBI, criticize the election process, etc. and that apparently makes them (non Democrats) all existential threats to our 'democracy.'

So could someone explain why the media, entertainment, talking heads on TV, members of Congress, the President himself criticizing/condemning the Supreme Court of the U.S. are NOT an existential threat to our 'democracy'?

Bette Midler parody on Wizard of Oz to complain about SCOTUS

MSN

(My thoughts were that it was no wizard behind that curtain. And there apparently is no President behind that curtain either.) But I digress. . .

AOC to file impeachment papers for SCOTUS justices? (I'll give pretty good odds on how far that is going to fly.)

MSN

Schumer raging on the steps of the Supreme Court building literally threated the justices:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/03/04/schumer_to_kavanaugh_gorsuch_you_will_pay_the_price.html#!

Biden made an official statement to the nation blasting the SCOTUS immunity decision:

Biden condemns Supreme Court's ruling on Trump immunity case

The Supreme Court's landmark decision ruled that Trump is immune from prosecution for official acts he took while in office.

www.cbsnews.com

And there are many others--various members of Congress, Democrat operatives, Brennan, Clapper et al all joining the chorus to condemn the high court.

So what makes Democrats immune but the Patriots/Republicans are existential threats to our 'democracy' when both criticize court rulings?

Can you tell us why it is OK for Supreme Court Justices to accept $4,042,286 Dollars in gifts, mostly from wealthy conservative/republican donars given to mostly conservative member of the court, and what other part of US or State government agencies, allows it, under ethics constraints at all other levels of government? The big decisions, seem to be going their way. They could be the best justices money can buy.

 

[kyzr]

Can you tell us why it is OK for Supreme Court Justices to accept $4,042,286 Dollars in gifts, mostly from wealthy conservative/republican donars given to mostly conservative member of the court, and what other part of US or State government agencies, allows it, under ethics constraints at all other levels of government? The big decisions, seem to be going their way. They could be the best justices money can buy.

Got a link for that $4m?

 

[White 6]

Got a link for that $4m?

Yes. Of course.

Supreme Court: Gifts for justices explained in 3 charts

Over the last two decades, U.S. Supreme Court justices have accepted 445 gifts valued at over $4 million, a new report suggests.

www.newsweek.com

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4708390-thomas-has-accepted-4m-in-gifts-during-career-watchdog/

 

[berg80]

For going on four years we have listened to the Democrats, talking heads on TV, KJP, the President and others tell us how dangerous it is for Trump and Republicans to criticize the courts, criticize the DOJ, criticize the FBI, criticize the election process, etc. and that apparently makes them (non Democrats) all existential threats to our 'democracy.'

You understand there is a difference with respectfully expressing disagreement with a SC ruling and attacking prosecutors, judges, the system of justice, court clerks, the families of prosecutors, with threats to their well being in addition to assassinating their character, right?

 

[kyzr]

Yes. Of course.

Supreme Court: Gifts for justices explained in 3 charts

Over the last two decades, U.S. Supreme Court justices have accepted 445 gifts valued at over $4 million, a new report suggests.

www.newsweek.com

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4708390-thomas-has-accepted-4m-in-gifts-during-career-watchdog/

That $4m was over two decades!! Not "mostly from conservative/Republican donors".

Total bullshit. Liberal & conservative justices both took gifts.

If y9ou want to say no gifts, fine, make it criminal, but don't try to make it sound partisan, like only Republicans take gifts.

 

[Foxfyre]

Would prefer a more balanced court, Usually it leans a little in one direction. We can live with that.
apparent cheating and some out right lies, have harmed the basic trust,
Not just of the court, but of EVERYTHING from our elections to our government agency's.

IMO there is no 'balance' appropriate on the high court. The purpose of the Court is to interpret what the letter and intent of the Court is when parties cannot agree on that. Something is either lawful/constitutional or it isn't. The individual justices ideology should have no bearing on it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Can you tell us why it is OK for Supreme Court Justices to accept $4,042,286 Dollars in gifts, mostly from wealthy conservative/republican donars given to mostly conservative member of the court, and what other part of US or State government agencies, allows it, under ethics constraints at all other levels of government? The big decisions, seem to be going their way. They could be the best justices money can buy.

Would have to see each individual situation but this thread is not about that. Do you have an answer for the question in the OP?

 

[Foxfyre]

You understand there is a difference with respectfully expressing disagreement with a SC ruling and attacking prosecutors, judges, the system of justice, court clerks, the families of prosecutors, with threats to their well being in addition to assassinating their character, right?

Yep. But I don't see that happening in the examples listed in the OP.

 

[White 6]

That $4m was over two decades!! Not "mostly from conservative/Republican donors".

Total bullshit. Liberal & conservative justices both took gifts.

If y9ou want to say no gifts, fine, make it criminal, but don't try to make it sound partisan, like only Republicans take gifts.

Looks like Thomas, Scalia and Alito are the big winners, Thomas by millions more.

 

[Foxfyre]

View attachment 971329
Looks like Thomas, Scalia and Alito are the big winners, Thomas by millions more.

Again there are any number of threads discussing the pros and cons of gifts to justices. Please do not attempt to turn this thread into one of those. This thread is about a double standard of how those who criticize the court are treated.

Again would you care to address the question in the OP?

 

[task0778]

For going on four years we have listened to the Democrats, talking heads on TV, KJP, the President and others tell us how dangerous it is for Trump and Republicans to criticize the courts, criticize the DOJ, criticize the FBI, criticize the election process, etc. and that apparently makes them (non Democrats) all existential threats to our 'democracy.'

So could someone explain why the media, entertainment, talking heads on TV, members of Congress, the President himself criticizing/condemning the Supreme Court of the U.S. are NOT an existential threat to our 'democracy'?

First, I am not entirely sure that claiming the other side is an existential threat is more than political demagoguery that is designed to get out the vote and support for your side. IOW, is running your mouth an actual threat? For the most part, whatever one president or party does can be wiped away when the other side wins the WH and controls Congress. Even if Trump wins, he's not going to have a 60-vote Senate majority and the democrats are not going to give him free rein to do as he pleases. And I do not believe the current Supreme Court is going to allow him to overstep his authority any further than Biden has been doing. So, I do not see Trump as capable to doing anything that seriously and permanently changes the way our gov't is run.

Frankly, it is the democrats that I worry about. These guys tried to abolish the filibuster back in 2021, and that IS a big threat to our form a gov't because it could mean permanent changes that could lead to a one-party gov't. If all they need is a simple 50%+1 vote in the Senate then we descend into mob rule with no input from the minority party (GOP) in both houses of Congress. As bad as the gridlock is that we have now, the changes the democrats would make are more likely IMHO to threaten our 'democracy'.

 

[Foxfyre]

First, I am not entirely sure that claiming the other side is an existential threat is more than political demagoguery that is designed to get out the vote and support for your side. IOW, is running your mouth an actual threat? For the most part, whatever one president or party does can be wiped away when the other side wins the WH and controls Congress. Even if Trump wins, he's not going to have a 60-vote Senate majority and the democrats are not going to give him free rein to do as he pleases. And I do not believe the current Supreme Court is going to allow him to overstep his authority any further than Biden has been doing. So, I do not see Trump as capable to doing anything that seriously and permanently changes the way our gov't is run.

Frankly, it is the democrats that I worry about. These guys tried to abolish the filibuster back in 2021, and that IS a big threat to our form a gov't because it could mean permanent changes that could lead to a one-party gov't. If all they need is a simple 50%+1 vote in the Senate then we descend into mob rule with no input from the minority party (GOP) in both houses of Congress. As bad as the gridlock is that we have now, the changes the democrats would make are more likely IMHO to threaten our 'democracy'.

The Democrats/extreme left want to:
--End the electoral college
--End the filibuster once they have total power and are sure they can keep it
--Pack the Supreme Court with SJW activists obedient to the Democrat Party
--Essentially rewrite the Constitution to eliminate the clauses most problematic for them

Toward that end they have taken control of as much education, media, entertainment, social media, scientific institutions, big business and religion as they can--everything that controls the message the people are allowed to hear--weaponized the FBI/DOJ and other departments of government with authority to enforce law and are systematically harassing, prosecuting, jailing, suppressing, silencing all who seriously oppose them.

Hence Republicans who criticize the courts are labeled an 'existential threat to our 'democracy' and causing danger to those in the courts. . .but. . .

When democrats do that, they are just exercising their right to free speech.

The double standard is glaring.

 

[White 6]

Again there are any number of threads discussing the pros and cons of gifts to justices. Please do not attempt to turn this thread into one of those. This thread is about a double standard of how those who criticize the court are treated.

Again would you care to address the question in the OP?

It is perfectly fine to criticize to your heart's content, and disagree, as long as accepting and acting as if it is established law, until somebody brings a case where the court sees the error of their earlier ways and changes it. The ones we got, have the authority, but the people know some of them are dirty, and place themselves above what other elected officials and government department heads and general government workers are allowed at all levels of government, so they give the appearance of being corrupt.

 

[kyzr]

Looks like Thomas, Scalia and Alito are the big winners, Thomas by millions more.

The Biden's are raking in $30,000,000 by selling access and democrats are whining about $4m over 20-years.
If that upsets you, Trump will be replacing Thomas with a younger version.

 

[White 6]

The Biden's are raking in $30,000,000 by selling access and democrats are whining about $4m over 20-years.
If that upsets you, Trump will be replacing Thomas with a younger version.

Oh, you are another "Republicans are simply TOO Stupid to be able for find a money trail in modern banking" guy. All I can tell you, is if they cannot find it, they simply cannot find it, and proof is required in courts or than can be no convictions, leaving them innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Zincwarrior]

We must accept court decisions. Same as believe all women. Democratic Party BS.

Biden should have Trump, Alito, Thomas,all the elector frauds and all Republican house members immediately hung as an "official" act.