Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, September 13, 2021

In the wake of a controversial decision on abortion rights, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett told a crowd of more than 100 here that she doesn't believe the highest court in the land is politically driven.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

I found this very interesting given the obvious impact the Supreme Court has on all of us. Personally, I believe Justice Barrett is either lying to herself or just lying to the rest of us. SCOTUS justices clearly are very political animals. Self serving arguments to the contrary notwithstanding. She can dance around it with -------- about "judicial philosophies" but at the end of the day pretty much every justice rules in keeping with their own political beliefs on pretty much every case.

#1 | Posted by moder8 at 2021-09-13 12:26 PM | Reply

"My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks"

You had your chance with the Texas law, which clearly flies in the face of current law.

Instead, you chose to be a hack. Wear it proudly.

#2 | Posted by Danforth at 2021-09-13 12:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Partisan hack claims not to be a partisan hack while speaking at partisan event held at center named for notorious partisan hack.

#3 | Posted by qcp at 2021-09-13 01:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

She's as hacky as they come. UNQUALIFIED.

#4 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2021-09-13 01:20 PM | Reply

Just ask yourself if you can accurately predict Clarence Thomas's opinion on most things? He's been there a very long time so that is why I sued him as an example. He consistently votes to the right of Adolph Hitler right after going hunting with Dick Cheney.

#5 | Posted by danni at 2021-09-13 01:43 PM | Reply

#5. On any politically charged case there is never ANY doubt as to how the liberal bloc will vote. Never.

#6 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-09-13 01:45 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

And they were just tourists on 1/6.

#7 | Posted by Nixon at 2021-09-13 01:46 PM | Reply

You had your chance with the Texas law, which clearly flies in the face of current law.

It violates the Constitution on it's face, but partisan hacks decided to ignore that fact.

#8 | Posted by Nixon at 2021-09-13 01:47 PM | Reply

The idea that we would deputize every citizen in the nation to report a 14 year old rape victim for attempting to have an abortion is so repulsive that I don't see how Republican women can continue to belong to the GQP. I don't understand how the men can either though. Think about it, what if it was your 14 year old daughter?

#9 | Posted by danni at 2021-09-13 02:05 PM | Reply

#9. Six weeks is insane to me. A woman, sorry, birthing person, being two weeks late for a period might not even be realized especially if she/he/they/zi is young. Young menstruating people haven't had enough periods to necessarily notice a two week lapse.

#10 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-09-13 02:15 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

He who is without a uterus should not be passing laws that effect it.

- Fallopians 5:12

#11 | Posted by Nixon at 2021-09-13 02:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 5

When John Roberts virtually calls the other conservatives partisan hacks you know one thing for sure i.e. they are partisan hacks.

#12 | Posted by danni at 2021-09-13 05:17 PM | Reply

She doesn't have the courage to admit what she is, McConnell's puppet.

#13 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-09-13 05:55 PM | Reply

She is a typical rightwinger. Excuses and explanations for why up is down and bad is good. And she repeats the same garbage enough that she actually believes it.

#14 | Posted by moder8 at 2021-09-13 05:58 PM | Reply

"My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks. We five are a collection of religious zealots. Don't confuse the two. Thank you."

#15 | Posted by YAV at 2021-09-13 07:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Those 5-to-4 decisions on the Supreme Court? 9 to 0 is far more common.

"The ratio is staggering. According to the Supreme Court Database, since 2000 a unanimous decision has been more likely than any other result " averaging 36 percent of all decisions. Even when the court did not reach a unanimous judgment, the justices often secured overwhelming majorities, with 7-to-2 or 8-to-1 judgments making up about 15 percent of decisions. The 5-to-4 decisions, by comparison, occurred in 19 percent of cases."

#16 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-09-14 09:56 AM | Reply

Meaning what? That the court always agrees? That the court is not partisan!? I'm not sure what posting that information is supposed to tell us.

Explain.

#17 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2021-09-14 10:04 AM | Reply

"Pay no attention to the pro-birth zealots behind the curtain!"
--Sitzkrieg

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-09-14 10:12 AM | Reply

It's good for my coat hanger distributorship.

#19 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-09-14 10:34 AM | Reply

#2 the plaintiff didn't have standing.

#20 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-09-14 11:10 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

So Five Catholics said, anyway...

#21 | Posted by YAV at 2021-09-14 01:14 PM | Reply

No, the plaintiff really didn't have standing.

I hate legal technicalities as much as the next person, nevertheless, they exist and are applied broadly.

SCOTUS did not affirm this new Texas law. Legal and legislative remedies still exist.

#22 | Posted by BellRinger at 2021-09-14 02:52 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#9. Six weeks is insane to me. A woman, sorry, birthing person, being two weeks late for a period might not even be realized especially if she/he/they/zi is young. Young menstruating people haven't had enough periods to necessarily notice a two week lapse.

#10 | Posted by BellRinger

But you'll keep voting for the people whose policies you say are "insane"

#23 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-09-14 03:19 PM | Reply

It's good for my coat hanger distributorship.

#19 | Posted by sitzkrieg

Glad to see the human suffering your party causes provides such amusement for you.

#24 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-09-14 03:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Speaksoftly: You did hit the nail on the head. So many Republicans claim to be taken aback or even outraged by what Governor Abbot did in Texas (and what so many other GOP Governors say they now want to emulate), but these Republicans continue to vote straight GOP Party line.

#25 | Posted by moder8 at 2021-09-14 03:43 PM | Reply

Speaksoftly: You did hit the nail on the head. So many Republicans claim to be taken aback or even outraged by what Governor Abbot did in Texas (and what so many other GOP Governors say they now want to emulate), but these Republicans continue to vote straight GOP Party line.

#25 | Posted by moder8

And they say they don't approve of trumpism or the direction of their party, but every vote they cast for an "R" says to the republicans "I approve of your recent behavior and I want more of it." which is why they're going crazier and crazier. Their voters never punish them for it.

#26 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2021-09-14 04:17 PM | Reply

No, the plaintiff really didn't have standing.
I hate legal technicalities as much as the next person, nevertheless, they exist and are applied broadly.
SCOTUS did not affirm this new Texas law. Legal and legislative remedies still exist.

#22 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

That's not what the Supreme Court said.

They instead indicated the law was complex insofar as it covered ordinary citizens filing these lawsuits against abortion providers. Therefore the 5 wouldn't grant the injunction because there wasn't a "strong showing" that the applicants would "likely succeed on the merits."

Which is ironic because the Court already decided the State couldn't delegate enforcement of laws prohibiting abortion like this way back in 1976.

#27 | Posted by Sycophant at 2021-09-14 05:21 PM | Reply

You Ruth Bader Believe It!

#28 | Posted by LostAngeles at 2021-09-14 07:45 PM | Reply

I would agree, the SCOTUS is not ruled by partisan hacks. To be a partisan hack, you must knowingly and willfully go against principles you hold dear. It just so happens that the principles of too many on the SCOTUS hold dear are further to the right of most Americans.

#29 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2021-09-14 07:55 PM | Reply

When a Supreme Court Justice feels compelled to give the equivalent of Nixon's "I am not a crook!" line, the country is in serious trouble.

#30 | Posted by anton at 2021-09-15 06:24 AM | Reply

A Partisan Hack Claims She Isn't a Partisan Hack ... In other news, dog bites man ... Film at 11.

#31 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2021-09-15 06:55 AM | Reply

You Ruth Bader Believe It!

#28 | POSTED BY LOSTANGELES AT 2021-09-14 07:45 PM | FLAG:

Found the Futurama fan. The SC is more interesting when it's a bunch of heads in jars, and Snoop Dogg is one of them.

#32 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2021-09-15 10:40 AM | Reply

#2 the plaintiff didn't have standing.

#20 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Oh look how the worm squirms.

The Texas law is unconstitutional regardless of who has "standing". It's just a good thing Biden won. Or the DOJ would have been under the thumb of a fascist controlling dictator who thinks the DOJ is there to protect the President from criminal prosecution for his crimes and obstruct Congress in its oversight duty.

Because you see ... Elections really really matter.

#33 | Posted by donnerboy at 2021-09-15 05:40 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2021 World Readable

Drudge Retort