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.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Featured Replies

Exactly.  How many kids could go to public school on what he spent on tuition to that exclusive school?  

None. Because public schools are the tool of the devil, and should be abolished. Duh.
  • Replies 12.9k
  • Views 815.6k
  • 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

SMU Football got the death penalty for less than what these two traitorous human slush funds take on an annual basis. 

10 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

The more I read about all of this the more convinced I become that the Federalist society is a domestic terrorist organization.

They certainly have done more harm to America than Al Qaeda, Taliban, and Al-Shabaab combined.  

10 hours ago, Red Five said:

Flash forward a few weeks. "Ok, just so the Thomas' deposited 10 checks of a million dollars each, with notes on all saying "for repealing Roe".... I mean just leave him alone ok??".

And if this very scenario actually happened, there would not be a damn thing that would happen to him since the only remedy is impeachment and senate conviction which will never ever ever happen to a republican until America ceases to exist.

  • Author

This guy is just a horrible human being ….

 

Yea, but think about how nice it would have been to have a beer with them!

8 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

This guy is just a horrible human being ….

 

This dude…. I mean, this guy is something else.

His life’s story is almost so ridiculous that if you put it in a novel you’d be widely panned. 

I don’t believe in the devil, but one has to question his existence when you consider that Thomas had reached the level of success that he has without any real repercussions.
Can you sell your soul to the devil? why hasn’t he come to me and at least ask if I’m interested?

 

https://www.msn.com/en-US/news/politics/senator-lays-out-possible-tax-violations-and-fraud-for-payments-to-clarence-thomas-wife/ar-AA1aOQW7?ocid=sapphireappshare

“The second thing is that all the mischief with Leo and these phony front groups – all of that is potentially in violation of the tax code,” the Rhode Island lawmaker continued. “Some of it is conceivably even fraud. There could be potentially criminal aspects to this, particularly if there was no work performed for that $25,000. And all of that can be properly investigated without getting into the internal operations of the court and Clarence Thomas.”

  • Author

I’m very curious of the Thomas’s reported all these cash payments on their income tax filings 

32 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

I’m very curious of the Thomas’s reported all these cash payments on their income tax filings 

Incredulous Come On GIF by Almost Christmas Movie

A reminder that Clarence Thomas’s wife helped organize and transport the violent insurrectionists who wanted to hang Mike Pence. This is classic Stockholm Syndrome stuff. 



 

 

1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

I’m very curious of the Thomas’s reported all these cash payments on their income tax filings 

Probably not, but the IRS is executive branch and because of separation of powers, SC justices only voluntarily comply with that the whole tax thing.

 

Yours Truly,

John Roberts

14 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

This guy is just a horrible human being ….

 

welfare queen is a narrative invented in a town in upstate new york when black families started moving there.  the town went so far as requiring welfare recipients to pick up their checks at the police station.  despite looking hard for them, the town never did find any lazy welfare leeches, but lack of evidence has never stopped conservatives from believing all their own bullshit narratives. 

conservatism consists of at least two propositions.  the first is the in group, out group one that you're familiar with.  the second is that conservatives lie about everything, all the time, even to themselves.  it's the only way to keep all the dissonance at bay. 

Edited by elfenix

At this point, it's almost that the conservative justices can't rescue themselves from cases due to entanglements because they'd have to do it in almost every damn case, which would negate their whole majority... 

  • Popular Post
On 4/29/2023 at 10:50 AM, Stilicho said:

 

Originalism is a deliberate interpretive choice. It's not the only the means of interpreting constitutional text and its relatively new compared to other forms of interpretation (Brennan / T. Marshall "living constitutionalism"). It really hit the legal mainstream under Reagan, championed by Scalia.

To interpret the Constitution under originalism is to disregard most, if not all, historical and legal context that has occurred in this country since its ratification. It seeks to enshrine law and the definitions of terms in the Constitution perpetually in 1783 or 1865 (ratification of the Reconstruction Amendments). There is no evidence, that I've run across, that any of the Federalists or drafters of the constitution were under the illusion that the Constitution was a static document. J. Marshall directly states that it is not, and since Madison wrote the damn thing, you think he would've argued the point in Marbury. He didn't.

In practice, originalism does not seek to protect civil rights. The only civil rights that originalism has successfully "protected" have been 2A rights (which are relatively new in historical interpretation) and putting its thumb on the religion side of the state / religion scale. I can assure that modern 4th Amendment jurisprudence does not reflect 1783 realities, for example. How the hell could it?

Most civil rights, as we know them, have been derived by judicial interpretation of the 14th Amendment (substantive due process). There are problems with the way the Court has defined those rights and where they "come" from (the first substantive due process case was actually Dred Scott), but originalism works against substantive due process, not with it. It's a legal response to the recognition of all sorts of civil rights under the 14th Amendment in the post-WWII era. It was "invented" strictly as a means of limiting constitutional scope and protections. It's a more educated Rush Limbaugh telling you the Constitution doesn't technically offer protections because they are not enumerated verbatim. That's not what the Constitution was, is, or was ever intended to be. At least not to my eyes.

Scalia, and others, have argued that it is meant to force legislative responsibility back on Congress, rather than have the judiciary be the final arbiter of what can be interpreted out of the 14th Amendment. In other words, Congress should pass laws or Constitutional amendments codifying interpretations of civil rights, so that they cannot be taken away by later Court opinions (like... abortion). That sounds nice in theory, but we have used the Court as a political proving ground going all the way back to Marbury. The amendment process is more or less dead in our current political gridlock (ERA been on the block for... 40ish years now?). It would be nice if we relied on judicial interpretation less, but its been baked into the system so to speak. There was never in any real chance that the federal government would suddenly become better legislators because a few hardcore conservative justices decided to be pedantic dicks about everything and go out of there way to make life for many Americans harder than it needs to be, and it's already hard enough for a lot of folks.

Originalism is the trickle-down economics of constitutional interpretation. It's spun up bullshit to keep certain interests in power perpetually. The shinejob that the Founders never intended the Constitution to be interpreted in a context outside of their own is a marketing ploy to conservatives to make them feel better about fucking people over legally.

Finally, the ultimate irony of originalism and its prohibition on substantive due process is that gets tossed out the window by Scalia, its chief proponent, when he goes looking for constitutional protections for the 2nd Amendment in Heller and and for religion in Hobby Lobby. Like every other weapon in the conservative's limited arsenal, it is not meant to be equitable. It's just another power grab under shoddy veneer.

It also completely ignores the plain text of the 9th amendment. 

It also completely ignores the plain text of the 9th amendment. 

I can’t like this post enough. The fact that the “Originalists” have functionally written the 9th amendment out of the constitution, and happily spring the trap that was ORIGINALLY (chose that word on purpose) warned about - reading the BOR as an exclusive grant of rights - is utterly insane. Well, it’s not insane. It’s actually entirely on purpose, because it suits their end: control and power.

Yes, the irony that (for instance) 2A is immutable, but let's just ignore 9A is rich.  All 10 original amendments were ratified at the same time.  

The convenient overlook of 14A is similarly infuriating.  Is it not "original"?  If it isn't, then none of the BOR are "original", either.

27 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Yes, the irony that (for instance) 2A is immutable, but let's just ignore 9A is rich.  All 10 original amendments were ratified at the same time.  

The convenient overlook of 14A is similarly infuriating.  Is it not "original"?  If it isn't, then none of the BOR are "original", either.

The "originalism" argument, as far as the 14th Amendment goes, really comes down to how it was passed. They are of the view that the ratification process was illegitimate because it was pushed through Congress by a majority of radical Republicans and that it forced ex-confederate states to adopt it as requirement for readmission to the Union.

The Court immediately gutted part of it (privileges and immunities clause) in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), just in time for the Great Compromise of 1877, where the North abandoned Reconstruction and laid the groundwork for the legality of Jim Crow.

That it was intended explicitly to prevent state-sponsored discrimination is irrelevant in their eyes. The Founders didn't pass it and they'd prefer to roll back to just the first ten, namely because James Madison wrote those ten in George Washington's blood the night before Yorktown. Evidence of this comes courtesy of some Lost Cause fucker with a doctorate from Stonewall Jackson University, who will chime in that it's the only possible interpretation available.

Also, dumb people are dumb and easily manipulated into viewing the 10 Commandments as being somehow directly linked to the first 10 Amendments. This bit is somewhat new to the "mainstream" (if there is such a thing), but it's been kicking around the religious SovCit and libertarian circlejerks for a while now.

Edited by Stilicho
fuck words

4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:


I can’t like this post enough. The fact that the “Originalists” have functionally written the 9th amendment out of the constitution, and happily spring the trap that was ORIGINALLY (chose that word on purpose) warned about - reading the BOR as an exclusive grant of rights - is utterly insane. Well, it’s not insane. It’s actually entirely on purpose, because it suits their end: control and power.

Listen man. They discovered various penumbras around the 2nd amendment, but realized that other parts had few penumbras because James Madison appeared to them in dreams.

18 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Yes, the irony that (for instance) 2A is immutable, but let's just ignore 9A is rich.  All 10 original amendments were ratified at the same time.  

The convenient overlook of 14A is similarly infuriating.  Is it not "original"?  If it isn't, then none of the BOR are "original", either.

Easy there, Grand Wizard.

New episode of Frontline last night on Clarence Thomas. It also includes background on Ginni and her John Birch Society upbringing. It’s well done and quite maddening. It includes interviews with several people who corroborate Anita Hill’s allegations and share similar stories of their own. It sure would’ve been nice if they had been called to testify during Uncle Thomas’ confirmation.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/clarence-thomas-long-battle-against-affirmative-action/

9 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

New episode of Frontline last night on Clarence Thomas. It also includes background on Ginni and her John Birch Society upbringing. It’s well done and quite maddening. It includes interviews with several people who corroborate Anita Hill’s allegations and share similar stories of their own. It sure would’ve been nice if they had been called to testify during Uncle Thomas’ confirmation.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/clarence-thomas-long-battle-against-affirmative-action/

It would have been nice if all Democrats voted no.

LMAO at Rafi Cruz getting less than 10% of what John Cornyn got.  Ain't that a kick in the nonexistent nuts.

2 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

 

One of these things is not like the others.  Cornyn be like

IMG_1243.gif.0cd906bd50731e65aa42e2579ce6c6f3.gif

 

 

Edited by Horn Dog

UT Law professor, Steve Vladeck is on Rachel Maddow discussing his new book on the vagaries of the SC’s shodow  docket.

Yes, the irony that (for instance) 2A is immutable, but let's just ignore 9A is rich.  All 10 original amendments were ratified at the same time.  
The convenient overlook of 14A is similarly infuriating.  Is it not "original"?  If it isn't, then none of the BOR are "original", either.

The "originalism" argument, as far as the 14th Amendment goes, really comes down to how it was passed. They are of the view that the ratification process was illegitimate because it was pushed through Congress by a majority of radical Republicans and that it forced ex-confederate states to adopt it as requirement for readmission to the Union.
The Court immediately gutted part of it (privileges and immunities clause) in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), just in time for the Great Compromise of 1877, where the North abandoned Reconstruction and laid the groundwork for the legality of Jim Crow.
That it was intended explicitly to prevent state-sponsored discrimination is irrelevant in their eyes. The Founders didn't pass it and they'd prefer to roll back to just the first ten, namely because James Madison wrote those ten in George Washington's blood the night before Yorktown. Evidence of this comes courtesy of some Lost Cause fucker with a doctorate from Stonewall Jackson University, who will chime in that it's the only possible interpretation available.
Also, dumb people are dumb and easily manipulated into viewing the 10 Commandments as being somehow directly linked to the first 10 Amendments. This bit is somewhat new to the "mainstream" (if there is such a thing), but it's been kicking around the religious SovCit and libertarian circlejerks for a while now.

America was originally established as an oligarchy of white, Protestant Christian, landowning men. That, or at least as close as you can get to it in the modern world, is what originalism is aiming to restore at its core. The whole text of the constitution nonsense is a load of shit meant to get the dumbass GOP base in line.

America was originally established as an oligarchy of white, Protestant Christian, landowning men. That, or at least as close as you can get to it in the modern world, is what originalism is aiming to restore at its core. The whole text of the constitution nonsense is a load of shit meant to get the dumbass GOP base in line.

100% real.

Finds for the photographer against Warhol, and section 230 remains unchanged per the headline I just saw

When were people forced to remain in their homes?  News to me.  Beyond that, schools weren't "shuttered", they went virtual.  Some businesses were, to be sure.

How out of touch can he be?  Don't answer that.

That would be Kav. Gorsuch would have gotten on when Kennedy retired rather than Kav. Gorsuch was tops on fuckwad whose parents hated him Leo Leo's list. I think Barrett would probably have been nominated to replace RBG over Kav because replacing a woman with a frat bro would be even worse optics.

Sotomayor and Kagan getting a bit spicy with each other in the Warhol opinion and dissent.  Pretty entertaining.

Also, I see all the court of appeals citations take this form (CA2 2020) instead of (2d Cir. 2020).  Is that the new, new thing?

Also, on the Twitter case, they just sidestepped 230 altogether and held that 230 or not, the activities of an internet service provider can't constitute aiding and abetting under 18 USC 2333.  No effect on 230 at all.

Edited by TwiceHorn

On 5/11/2023 at 8:38 AM, WhatTheBuck said:

Here’s the full Frontline doc on Clarence and Ginni.

 

Of course Ginni Thomas joined a cult.

Christ. 

These people are sad. I mean, their whole life is one of a warped existence. Anger, self loathing, detachment, and determined. Scary.

2 hours ago, elfenix said:

That would be Kav. Gorsuch would have gotten on when Kennedy retired rather than Kav. Gorsuch was tops on fuckwad whose parents hated him Leo Leo's list. I think Barrett would probably have been nominated to replace RBG over Kav because replacing a woman with a frat bro would be even worse optics.
 

just speaking to the actual timeline of the stolen Obama pick

Huh, I guess a tidal wave of amici that all basically say “what the fuck are you thinking you goddamned lunatics?!” can sway the republicans, at least when they don’t really know what they even want to do and just decided to take a case because Fox News told them to.

This is what happens when the bribes, I mean gifts, don't show up.

Ballsy. Harlan Crow's letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee argues that Congress has no right to investigate the supreme court.  
 

 

Edited by Horn Under a Bad Sign

4 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Ballsy. Harlan Crow's letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee argues that Congress has no right to investigate the supreme court.  
 

 

I don't care how much a client is paying me, there's no way I'm putting my name on something that stupid.

ETA: Durbin's response really should be something along the lines of this classic:

CNH7w20.jpg

Edited by wildcat09

Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

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.