Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Surly Horns

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Featured Replies

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

More evidence that it's always been Calvinball.

If you’re arguing for the attitudinal model or the strategic model that’s one thing, but I don’t believe history supports the idea that Supreme Court justices or Federal bench were always mostly partisan actors or mostly advocates for particular interests, prior to the dominance of the Federalist Society.
I’m not going to argue with you about matters of law, but in terms of history this is a recent phenomenon. That’s why I was ringing the fire alarm about Leegin two decades back when @washparkhorn was still caping for citizens united. If you knew anything about how the commercial economy operated, Leegin was a holy shit moment.

Edited by Bozo_Casanova

  • Replies 12.9k
  • Views 815.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • Brisketexan
    Brisketexan

    Some people and posts above see this for the incredibly dangerous thing it is.  See the whole forest, not just the tree.  Roe is built on the bedrock of the 14th amendment and the inherent right to pr

  • Ghost of LL
    Ghost of LL

    The whole episode is pretty bad for the Court.  The leak is embarrassing.  But the decision is catastrophic. You've got a 5-4 decision to get rid of a something that has been settled as a constit

  • in one of the many instances in which i debunked your oversimplified, unsupported bullshit and you simply never responded, i addressed your absolutist contention that religious are more charitable tha

Posted Images

2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:


Look, institutions come and go but a robust and equitable legal system is the only one we absolutely have to have in a constitutional Republic, and it seems to be failing.

There are four basic historical paths from this point, listed below. Two are violent, two are not, and it’s likely we won’t know which one we are on for 10-15 more years.

1) The Republic Holds: slow but successful return to norms via the institutions and the ballot box.
Precedent- Italy, but they weren’t nearly as far down the path.

2) Chaos: some flavor of civil war (cold or hot) or armed domestic conflict(s) eventually leading to a new order.  Precedent- lots

3) America, Humbled: lose a war with an ascendant power.
Precedent- Germany

4) SPQR: terminal but mostly peaceful decline and eventual collapse.
Precedent - Rome
 

The first path would be the most likely but requires the American elite to awaken from our hubris and recognize where we are.  The second and third path  strip us of it at a devastating human cost. The fourth lets us keep our hubris but we lose the Republic, even if we retain its costume.

 

FIFY

43 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Wouldn’t a 9-0 decision to seriously limit a popular and powerful POTUS suggest it hasn’t always been this level of Calvinball.

I'd suggest that the entire era was largely characterized by politicization, rather than Humphrey's Executor itself.  Four of the justices politically opposed to FDR, the rest more agnostic, but also acutely aware of the scenario.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_switch_in_time_that_saved_nine

But yeah, FedSoc vetting/training has been extraordinarily good for their purposes and takes things to a level heretofore unseen.  Or like no one has ever seen before.

The Court has always been political. It used to be common to nominate politicians and political operatives who had little-to-no judicial experience to the Court. But they operated in different contexts than we have today, contexts in which they understood the necessity of couching what were partially political decisions in something that at least resembled Law. As awful as it was, as wrong as it was, even Dred Scott was based on a thread of an intelligible legal theory. Lochner and the Slaughterhouse cases were based on intelligible legal theories. They were theories I very much disagree with and which I think are contrary to our Constitution, but they were coherent as legal arguments. Similarly, the changes brought about by the Warren Court were based on intelligible legal theories that had been around for a long time. The Warren Court was political, but it wasn't just nakedly siding with its preferred party with no or little reasoning and conflicting justifications from case to case. 

The Court has been awful more often than not during the history of our country. Never before has it made dozens of District court judges look at their decisions and go "what the fuck are we supposed to do with this?"

11 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The Court has been awful more often than not during the history of our country. Never before has it made dozens of District court judges look at their decisions and go "what the fuck are we supposed to do with this?"

QFMFT. It's like they're intentionally trying to make the government more dysfunctional - oh wait ...

The Court just allowed Trump to withhold 4 billion in foreign aid approved by Congress. Why is this noteworthy?
 

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-allows-trump-withhold-4-billion-foreign-aid-funding-rcna230348

The court has now granted 20 emergency applications filed by the administration since President Donald Trump’s second term began in January. The volume of emergency filings and the rate at which the court has ruled in the administration's favor are both unprecedented. The latter has sparked criticism from within the legal community, including lower court judges.

 

  • Author
1 hour ago, Satchel said:

The Court just allowed Trump to withhold 4 billion in foreign aid approved by Congress. Why is this noteworthy?
 

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-allows-trump-withhold-4-billion-foreign-aid-funding-rcna230348

The court has now granted 20 emergency applications filed by the administration since President Donald Trump’s second term began in January. The volume of emergency filings and the rate at which the court has ruled in the administration's favor are both unprecedented. The latter has sparked criticism from within the legal community, including lower court judges.

 

 

 

IMG_5432.gif

Precedent? Who needs precedent!

GSA has long ruled it an illegal practice? Who cares!

2 hours ago, Satchel said:

The Court just allowed Trump to withhold 4 billion in foreign aid approved by Congress. Why is this noteworthy?
 

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-allows-trump-withhold-4-billion-foreign-aid-funding-rcna230348

The court has now granted 20 emergency applications filed by the administration since President Donald Trump’s second term began in January. The volume of emergency filings and the rate at which the court has ruled in the administration's favor are both unprecedented. The latter has sparked criticism from within the legal community, including lower court judges.

 

Yall that are into this really ought to follow Vladeck. https://www.stevevladeck.com/

One of the first academic casualties of the regime.

18 hours ago, Satchel said:

The Court just allowed Trump to withhold 4 billion in foreign aid approved by Congress. Why is this noteworthy?
 

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-allows-trump-withhold-4-billion-foreign-aid-funding-rcna230348

The court has now granted 20 emergency applications filed by the administration since President Donald Trump’s second term began in January. The volume of emergency filings and the rate at which the court has ruled in the administration's favor are both unprecedented. The latter has sparked criticism from within the legal community, including lower court judges.

 

image.gif.21eec0df298edbf560a107e6be1c50c8.gif

  • Popular Post

SCOTUS: Line item vetos are unconstitutional.

Trump: What if we call it a pocket rescission? 
 

SCOTUS: Sounds good, no real need to discuss further. 

On 9/26/2025 at 5:45 PM, pacman said:

Precedent? Who needs precedent!

GSA has long ruled it an illegal practice? Who cares!

Who needs precedent when you have this president.

Amiright?!?!!

Cracking Up Lol GIF
 

/maga

Edited by Dnaguy

Man, that tree of liberty is looking mighty parched.  Oh well, we got football.

On 9/27/2025 at 2:31 PM, 956 Worldwide said:

SCOTUS: Line item vetos are unconstitutional.

Trump: What if we call it a pocket rescission? 
 

SCOTUS: Sounds good, no real need to discuss further. 

At least a pocket Veto could theoretically be overridden by Congress.  Essentially, Congress would still maintain the power of the purse, provided they have enough votes.

Pocket rescission, on the other hand, takes all of the power away from Congress.  And there's nothing they can do to recover it.  But sure.  That sounds Constitutional.

2 hours ago, 27-25 said:

At least a pocket Veto could theoretically be overridden by Congress.  Essentially, Congress would still maintain the power of the purse, provided they have enough votes.

Pocket rescission, on the other hand, takes all of the power away from Congress.  And there's nothing they can do to recover it.  But sure.  That sounds Constitutional.

Ack.  Should have said Line Item Veto, not pocket veto.

 
so long gay marriage 

That’s exactly what this is.
4 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

so long gay marriage 

surely that will be the straw that breaks the camel's back right?  Guys????

 
so long gay marriage 


That’s exactly what this is.

Oh. My friends. It’s so much more than that. They’re coming for Griswold v Connecticut too. So long, birth control.
Interestingly, even though it absolutely fits in the line of cases he hates, he didn’t mention Loving v Virginia…which protected interracial marriage. Gosh. It’s a mystery why he left that out.
Seriously, though…they’re coming for EVERYTHING.
19 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 


Oh. My friends. It’s so much more than that. They’re coming for Griswold v Connecticut too. So long, birth control.
Interestingly, even though it absolutely fits in the line of cases he hates, he didn’t mention Loving v Virginia…which protected interracial marriage. Gosh. It’s a mystery why he left that out.
Seriously, though…they’re coming for EVERYTHING.

 

Good thing I got snipped. 

6 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Good thing I got snipped. 

Hate to break it to ya but you're going to need to have that reversed. Turns out being a procrastinator like me pays off yet again!

  • Popular Post

This piece is worth a read:

https://abovethelaw.com/2025/09/supreme-courts-shadow-docket-scam-collides-with-reality/

All of this is especially infuriating given the handling of the Trump insurrection and classified documents cases.  "Trying to stop a traitorous ex-president from committing another coup in the future?  Sorry, you're going to have to ping-pong back and forth between district and appellate courts for years on end.  Trying to gut the Constitution and decades of jurisprudence in a matter of months?  By all means, step to the front of the line and let us give you a hand."

If the Dems ever manage to get back in control, they better have a plan for dealing with the Supreme Court.  The masks have slipped, and we can't pretend that the conservative wing can be trusted to act in good faith.  

Just saw SCOTUS refused to allow POTUS to immediately fire Federal Reserve Board Governor Cook.

Their eventual reasoning on why POTUS can fire the boards of every other agency but not the Fed's is going to be crazy and completely estranged from any semblance of principle.

 

Edited by Chopper

I’m really enjoying this recent thing where SCOTUS makes a semi-decision that it can still take back and gives no explanation, and then passive-aggressively hints to all the other judges that they shouldn’t HAVE to explain themselves if they’d all just pay attention sometimes. They’re working really hard here! 
 

Thinking here that my wife is well-positioned to snag the next vacancy.

6 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I’m really enjoying this recent thing where SCOTUS makes a semi-decision that it can still take back and gives no explanation, and then passive-aggressively hints to all the other judges that they shouldn’t HAVE to explain themselves if they’d all just pay attention sometimes. They’re working really hard here! 
 

Thinking here that my wife is well-positioned to snag the next vacancy.

Yeah, chiding the lower courts for not following their precedent, established by opinion-free, non-precedential orders on the "interim docket."

Also, they're analyzing "likelihood of success on the merits," a key component of any emergency relief, not on existing precedent, but on what they're likely to do with the question.

Quote

On September 8, in a case that permits Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to use racial profiling, Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that such profiling is acceptable because “f the officers learn that the individual they stopped is a U.S. citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States, they promptly let the individual go.” In practice, though, reports of abuses have become so commonplace that such encounters have been dubbed “Kavanaugh stops.”

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/u-s-citizen-wrongfully-detained-twice-in-alabama-workplace-raids-sues-immigration-authorities

Quote

 “[t]wice in the past few months, federal immigration officers have raided…private construction sites…without a warrant, and detained Leo simply for being at work. Both times, Leo told the officers he was a citizen and showed them his REAL ID, an identification card issued only to citizens and lawful residents. But the officers still wouldn’t let him go.”

 

“Once immigration officers are on a site,” the suit alleges, “they preemptively seize everybody they think looks undocumented. And they detain these workers indefinitely—even those who have a REAL ID—until the officers eventually check the legal status of the people they’ve detained. Sometimes it takes 20 minutes; sometimes it takes days.”

 

15 minutes ago, pacman said:

Sounds like Leo needs to bring the case looking for an injunction again.  Of course, Kavanaugh will probably say, "Sorry, you don't have standing to sue because there's no way they'll detain you a THIRD time, right?"  Willfully obtuse piece of shit ...

Edited by Gap03

1 hour ago, Gap03 said:

Sounds like Leo needs to bring the case looking for an injunction again.  Of course, Kavanaugh will probably say, "Sorry, you don't have standing to sue because there's no way they'll detain you a THIRD time, right?"  Willfully obtuse piece of shit ...

From that article: “It feels like there is nothing I can do to stop immigration agents from arresting me whenever they want,” Leo said in a statement released by the law firm. “I just want to work in peace. The Constitution protects my ability to do that.”

The U.S. Supreme Court literally just ruled that it does not. 

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Author

if they hear the voting rights act case this week, we'll have the verdict much later ?

I’m not sure why.  This SC already has decided the cases before the hearings.  They should just skip the formality at this point.  

Dark times for the Catholic Church. Six of seven justices are RC, and five of them fucking lied before the Senate.

  • 2 weeks later...

I hadn't heard anything about this before, but, wow, this seems incredibly fucked up

 

2 minutes ago, fuggled said:

I hadn't heard anything about this before, but, wow, this seems incredibly fucked up

 

Samuel Alito will be in his bunk.

49 minutes ago, fuggled said:

I hadn't heard anything about this before,

The reason is that our media is captured.

On 10/14/2025 at 12:12 AM, Willfully Horn said:

Dark times for the Catholic Church. Six of seven justices are RC, and five of them fucking lied before the Senate.

It's all good. They have the greatest cop out ever invented.  They can just go to confession and be forgiven.  

On 10/14/2025 at 12:12 AM, Willfully Horn said:

Dark times for the Catholic Church. Six of seven justices are RC, and five of them fucking lied before the Senate.

To be fair, to most of them, the Church represents a cudgel and symbol for virtue signaling, but really it is mostly just a clubhouse.   

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Popular Post

Now go away forever Kim Davis. 

5 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

 

Unfortunately, that was procedurally a shitty case to overturn Obergefell.  I wouldn't take this as much of a victory.

That said, fuck Kim Davis in her goatse ass.

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Unfortunately, that was procedurally a shitty case to overturn Obergefell.  I wouldn't take this as much of a victory.

 

Goddam it, Twice, I'm fucking grabbing for any piece of hope that can exist right now. C'mon man, let us have this one for like at least 24 hours first.

11 minutes ago, YChang said:

Now go away forever Kim Davis. 

I feel like she’s related to the Perfect Neighbor lady. 

Why would Thomas give a shit if it's a good case or not?

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.