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

55 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

denying the mid term election results / denying the election will be the the final blow to this nation 

And then we'll all go to work like nothing happened because football season and Christmas.

Ahhhh, America.

  • Replies 12.9k
  • Views 815.2k
  • 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

15 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

aggy has a better shot at winning a national championship in one of the three major sports.

This. I don’t see how this gets fixed. 

  • Author

no longer a meme, now legal .....

 

IMG_5255.jpeg

5 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

SCOTUS sides with fascists in Los Angeles ICE case

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

  • Popular Post
3 hours ago, HenryJames said:

 

The snowflake who cried during a job interview about calendars and sneered as people asked questions about his past, is now telling everyone it is not an issue to answer questions.

2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

This is the plan. I really thought they were going to wait til 2028, but the midterms are the goal. 

They're absolutely the goal. If the GOP comes out of the 26 mid-terms with any kind of majority in the House and Senate, Trump is in the White House until he dies. And elections are probably over, legitimate ones anyways. They'll be like Russian elections.

Pardon the thread-jack, as this story is British, but it does deal with courts.

Quote

A new mural by elusive street artist Banksy showing a judge beating an unarmed protester with a gavel will be removed from a wall outside one of London’s most iconic courts, authorities said Monday.

The mural appeared Monday and depicts a protester lying on the ground holding a blood-splattered placard while a judge in a traditional wig and black gown beats him with a gavel. Banksy posted a photo of the work on Instagram, his usual method of claiming a work as authentic. It was captioned “Royal Courts Of Justice. London.”

image.png.015891bd2cac3b2ad11d5fa3a78f6f66.png
 

https://apnews.com/article/banksy-mural-london-royal-courts-justice-c08b2cef093ea6a0520302eacfbd871f

17 hours ago, Nivek said:

The snowflake who cried during a job interview about calendars and sneered as people asked questions about his past, is now telling everyone it is not an issue to answer questions.

Calvinball Kavanaugh's concurrence from yesterday's ICE detention decision:  ethnicity is a factor that can by used in deportation investigations.   

Calvinball Kavanaugh wen it comes to college admissions:  admissions process must be "colorblind."

 

16 hours ago, BurntOrange&White said:

lol at twice horn

For a bit of perspective on this, we've always known there is a lower threshold than probable cause for immigration-related stops as the lawdogs spent hours telling VAPA, years ago.  This low?  Maybe not.

And, the reason ethnicity is prohibited for criminal stops is that ethnicity is an invidious (extremely unfair) indicator of criminality or criminal activity in most cases, the exception being when the suspect has been identified as someone of a particular ethnicity.

But, ethnicity is kind of an unavoidable criterion when it comes to immigration.

Also, legally, immigration/removal/deportation is not criminal so the protections against unreasonable search and seizure are lower because the prosecution apparatus is not triggered.  I think that should be rethought, though, and it's not whether the criminal apparatus is invoked, but whether the government seeks to detain whether civilly, or criminally, or otherwise.  THAT is the deprivation of liberty we're concerned with. not whether a criminal proceeding is invoked, because the net result is the same.

That's not to say that I agree with any of this shit, but there are a lot of historical SCOTUS, including liberal ones, that would have come to a similar "conclusion."

 

40 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Also, legally, immigration/removal/deportation is not criminal so the protections against unreasonable search and seizure are lower because the prosecution apparatus is not triggered.  I think that should be rethought, though, and it's not whether the criminal apparatus is invoked, but whether the government seeks to detain whether civilly, or criminally, or otherwise.  THAT is the deprivation of liberty we're concerned with. not whether a criminal proceeding is invoked, because the net result is the same.

1) this is correct.

2) this will never happen.  Because we no longer have the Rule of Law, we just have the rule of Supreme Executive Power, as decreed by the POTUS and SCOTUS.

I will now list the limits on executive power (as wielded by the actual POTUS, so long as that POTUS is a Republican) this SCOTUS will ultimately find and uphold:

 

 

 

....

 

 

....

 

 

....

 

Yep, I think that covers it.

38 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

1) this is correct.

2) this will never happen.  Because we no longer have the Rule of Law, we just have the rule of Supreme Executive Power, as decreed by the POTUS and SCOTUS.

I will now list the limits on executive power (as wielded by the actual POTUS, so long as that POTUS is a Republican) this SCOTUS will ultimately find and uphold:

 

 

 

....

 

 

....

 

 

....

 

Yep, I think that covers it.

You're right, never said it would.  But that's what SHOULD happen with this.

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

You're right, never said it would.  But that's what SHOULD happen with this.

Dude...."should" was escorted from the building, taken out in the back alley, and double-tapped to the back of the head a long fucking time ago when it comes to the Rule of Law.

It's over, man.  It's been over for a while, now's just when it all manifests, with no impediments or inhibitions.

42 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

This is next-level "well akshuly..." shit.

It's ackhuly called legal analysis.  Something SCOTUS, as well as surly, is notoriously short on.

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Dude...."should" was escorted from the building, taken out in the back alley, and double-tapped to the back of the head a long fucking time ago when it comes to the Rule of Law.

It's over, man.  It's been over for a while, now's just when it all manifests, with no impediments or inhibitions.

Maybe we should start to design a new country.

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Maybe we should start to design a new country.

Fine.  I have my design program queued up.....

tumblr_lrmxdsoJfz1qauwcn.gif

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Fine.  I have my design program queued up.....

tumblr_lrmxdsoJfz1qauwcn.gif

Give her the kneeshooters?

Possibly more seriously, roughly half of this country would seem to go along with a new country with a similar Constitution with a lot of the vagary and experimental shit taken out.

The only problem might be wresting the territory from the existing US.

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Give her the kneeshooters?

Possibly more seriously, roughly half of this country would seem to go along with a new country with a similar Constitution with a lot of the vagary and experimental shit taken out.

The only problem might be wresting the territory from the existing US.

The West Coast may just take care of that on its own.  We are running at breakneck speed towards dissolution, because when one side says "we don't want you or your approach here at all, and we'll enforce our will by authoritarian force," union is impossible.  When that split is over something as profound as slavery, that split is understandable.  When it's over....all of the stupid and performatively cruel shit of this regime...well, it's fucking baffling.  We're going to scrap the Republic because a trans kid played volleyball and because we didn't think multi-billionaires had enough of an advantage?  WTF?

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

For a bit of perspective on this, we've always known there is a lower threshold than probable cause for immigration-related stops as the lawdogs spent hours telling VAPA, years ago.  This low?  Maybe not.

And, the reason ethnicity is prohibited for criminal stops is that ethnicity is an invidious (extremely unfair) indicator of criminality or criminal activity in most cases, the exception being when the suspect has been identified as someone of a particular ethnicity.

But, ethnicity is kind of an unavoidable criterion when it comes to immigration.

Also, legally, immigration/removal/deportation is not criminal so the protections against unreasonable search and seizure are lower because the prosecution apparatus is not triggered.  I think that should be rethought, though, and it's not whether the criminal apparatus is invoked, but whether the government seeks to detain whether civilly, or criminally, or otherwise.  THAT is the deprivation of liberty we're concerned with. not whether a criminal proceeding is invoked, because the net result is the same.

That's not to say that I agree with any of this shit, but there are a lot of historical SCOTUS, including liberal ones, that would have come to a similar "conclusion."

 

The problem with ethnicity being an unavoidable criterion arises when one understands ethnicity in the context of a shared cultural background or descent. Such cannot be easily discerned by skin, social location or even accent. I’m a black man of light complexion with two black parents with nappy hair. Fiesta employees speak to me in Spanish every time I shop in the store without fail, because, they make incorrect assumptions about my ethnicity. Because it’s so easy to do, the protections should be stronger.

Just now, Satchel said:

The problem with ethnicity being an unavoidable criterion arises when one understands ethnicity in the context of a shared cultural background or descent. Such cannot be easily discerned by skin, social location or even accent. I’m a black man of light complexion with two black parents with nappy hair. Fiesta employees speak to me in Spanish every time I shop in the store without fail, because, they make incorrect assumptions about my ethnicity. Because it’s so easy to do, the protections should be stronger.

All of that is no doubt true.  But barring immigration inquiries, arrests, and detention based on ethnicity is really unmanageable because of the nature of immigration.

Maybe you could take detention off the table so the inquiries have no "penalty," but that doesn't seem realistic either.

5 minutes ago, Satchel said:

The problem with ethnicity being an unavoidable criterion arises when one understands ethnicity in the context of a shared cultural background or descent. Such cannot be easily discerned by skin, social location or even accent. I’m a black man of light complexion with two black parents with nappy hair. Fiesta employees speak to me in Spanish every time I shop in the store without fail, because, they make incorrect assumptions about my ethnicity. Because it’s so easy to do, the protections should be stronger.

You went into Fiesta.  Learn spanish, bitch.

1 hour ago, BevoAbyss said:

Surly Law Dogs:

Where the hell are the inexorable Wheels of Justice?

Where the hell is the collective wisdom of the Justices, Courts, legal scholars that will stop this madness?

Face it: Y'all were fucking clueless about what is ultimately going down in this country.

Y'all were little more than gaslighters for the mystified "conservatives" and others in Surly who just could not believe that was going down in Ronnie Reagan's and W's super-patriotic Team USA. 

Cheerleaders of the Drug War, the GQP has always loved throwing people of color in jails. Now they get to add artists, writers, intellectuals, professors and any others they claim is a threat to their pre-shrunk worldview.

What is happening now is the Reagan-Falwell-GQP wet dream!

-- A Medieval Anti-Science Fascist America ruled by White Christian fanatics and billionaires.

 

 

Who, specifically, are you talking about?

46 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You went into Fiesta.  Learn spanish, bitch.

Si, correcto.. Dos librae. Gracias, Senora. Don’t tell me a bitch don’t know Spanish.

5 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Who, specifically, are you talking about?

I know he won't like it, and probably neither will you, but the judiciary in the form of the lower courts is about the only thing opposing and restraining Trump in any way these days.

  • Popular Post
15 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

But, ethnicity is kind of an unavoidable criterion when it comes to immigration.

This is bullshit and you are smarter than this.

NATIONALITY is an unavoidable criterion when it comes to immigration.

In some countries, ethnicity and nationality overlap very heavily, but they do not here.

In the United States of America, our nationality encompasses all ethnicities. No American should be detained and questioned on the basis of their ethnicity. None. Zero. 

All Americans should be equally safe before the law, even administrative applications of the law, regardless of the color of skin suit we wear. 

14 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's ackhuly called legal analysis.  Something SCOTUS, as well as surly, is notoriously short on.

It's falsely equating two unequal things, providing cover for those that would use it as a weapon to hurt our fellow American citizens.

This type of "legal analysis" should go the way of the dodo, because the law is extinct.

The system you constantly champion has been destroyed by an asteroid of lies and bad faith arguments. The asteroid has already hit, the country is on fire and the last glimpses of the sun are disappearing behind the gathering dust storm. 

You seem like a decent dude, but you are becoming a fossil, intent on living in a past that has already been destroyed, and this type of "legal analysis" provides cover to the asteroid that did it. Keep doing that and you'll only get more and more asteroids. 

Nuclear winter is here. If you ever want to see the sun again, adapt. 

Edited by Pods

On 9/8/2025 at 4:12 PM, tx 3 putt said:

no longer a meme, now legal .....

 

IMG_5255.jpeg

Plenty of Texas valley folks cheering this on, puro 956..until it happens to them

Edited by pacman

17 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

It's ackhuly called legal analysis.  Something SCOTUS, as well as surly, is notoriously short on.

unimpressed michael keaton GIF

I mean, the statement that SCOTUS is short on legal analysis gives it away that your analysis is irrelevant. 

2 hours ago, pacman said:

Plenty of Texas valley folks cheering this on, puro 956..until it happens to them

wayward pines GIF

1 hour ago, pacman said:

 

 

 

So, we can all see the next logical steps in the hellish timeline, right? Maybe not in this exact order, but I can see folks getting fed up and starting to protest more—maybe a little more lively this time. Maybe ICE/LASD/LAPD dudes instigate shit. Maybe it gets more violent, and a crackdown comes.

Maybe some dudes know a guy who knows a guy, and eventually get a hold of some military grade shit from the cartels or their domestic suppliers from the US. Maybe they decide to use some of that shit for domestic terrorism purposes. Maybe none of that happens, but the feds false-flag some shit like the Empire on Ghorman as a pretext for a *real crackdown* on Hispanics.

Maybe everyone starts to (well, even more than Montgomery County types) associate Latino brown skin like they do Middle Eastern brown skin with terrorists. Maybe the story this time is they’re aligned with those evil cartels down in Mexico. Maybe that’s always been the story about the cartels; they’ve been trying to destabilize America all along with sleeper cell street gangs in their quest for the Reconquista—fireworks across northern Mexico, the American Southwest, and beyond.

Congrats, we’ve destabilized ourselves, intentionally, with a paranoid conspiracy theory. Who will be our savior? Who’s the only one who can fix it? What do Fox, OAN, and Newsmax say? What do Rogan and all the other podcast bros on the payroll of our feudal tech lords say? What do our white nationalist evangelical leaders say from the pulpit? Who can stop this chaos? Will SCOTUS or Congress stand in the Chosen One’s way?

Edited by bolverk
Edit: Maybe Charlie Kirk gets shot and the national crackdown gets going.

  • 2 weeks later...
25 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

Just calling balls & strikes here, folks - once again through the shadow docket.

annoyed-fuck.gif

17 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

 


There is no unitary executive theory any longer.

There is a unitary executive and we are just going to litigate by how much exactly. 90%? 95?

 

53 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

 

Our forefathers could never have imagined a Supreme Court this partisan.  

Just another day where SCOTUS uses the shadow docket to confirm that the President can do whatever he wants. Surprising to those of us who were always taught otherwise, but you learn something new every day. 

  • Author
40 minutes ago, Gap03 said:

Just calling balls & strikes here, folks - once again through the shadow docket.

annoyed-fuck.gif

 

 

shadow docket = trump 3rd term 

Edited by tx 3 putt

So, when will the President be able to fire Supreme Court justices?

29 minutes ago, Stringer said:

So, when will the President be able to fire Supreme Court justices?

If he deems them a national security threat he can already just have them detained at Gitmo indefinitely, right? 

2 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Just another day where SCOTUS uses the shadow docket to confirm that the REPUBLICAN President can do whatever he wants. Surprising to those of us who were always taught otherwise, but you learn something new every day. 

FIFY 

2 hours ago, Stringer said:

So, when will the President be able to fire Supreme Court justices?

Whenever John Roberts has had enough of KBJ.  

Quote

The court’s majority, Kagan wrote, “may be raring” to invalidate for-cause removal requirements approved by Congress. But until it does, she wrote, a 1935 precedent on that issue should control.

 

“Our emergency docket should never be used, as it has been this year, to permit what our own precedent bars,” she wrote, echoing a point she made earlier in the year in a similar case. “Still more, it should not be used, as it also has been, to transfer government authority from Congress to the president, and thus to reshape the nation’s separation of powers.”

Quote

In a separate order Monday, the court declined to hear arguments in two related cases – one dealing with Cathy Harris, former chair of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which reviews federal firings and can reinstate wrongly terminated workers, and another focused on Gwynne Wilcox, a member of the National Labor Relations Board. Those moves effectively focus the dispute on the FTC.

Somebody explain the concept of independent to the right wingnuts on the SC.

10 hours ago, pacman said:

Somebody explain the concept of independent to the right wingnuts on the SC.

That’s just the thing, the theory of law they advance (Unitary Executive) holds that any independence of commissions or executive branch agencies mandated by Congress is unconstitutional. Until recently this was fairly fringe but packing the court with people ready to advance it has been the goal. 

9 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

That’s just the thing, the theory of law they advance (Unitary Executive) holds that any independence of commissions or executive branch agencies mandated by Congress is unconstitutional. Until recently this was fairly fringe but packing the court with people ready to advance it has been the goal. 

The way my leg counsel explained it:

This Supreme Court: Congress needs to give clear, unambiguous guidance or it’s not real.

Congress:

Independent Commissions are independent and the president can only fire their members for clear literal malfeasance.

This Supreme Court: Well, that’s just like your opinion, man. 

The way my leg counsel explained it:
This Supreme Court: Congress needs to give clear, unambiguous guidance or it’s not real.
Congress:
Independent Commissions are independent and the president can only fire their members for clear literal malfeasance.
This Supreme Court: Well, that’s just like your opinion, man. 

And in the battle of opinions, scotus wins.
On 9/8/2025 at 4:00 PM, Biff Tannen said:

This. I don’t see how this gets fixed. 


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) SQPR: 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.

 

The court is going to overturn Humphry’s Executor, which was a unanimous decision against FDR. I remember when conservatives hated FDR and called him a dictator (not without some cause) but this admin is so, so much more grasping. 

5 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The court is going to overturn Humphry’s Executor, which was a unanimous decision against FDR. I remember when conservatives hated FDR and called him a dictator (not without some cause) but this admin is so, so much more grasping. 

More evidence that it's always been Calvinball.

At the risk of being a superlib, the inability of Congress to create agencies independent of the executive is another one of these problematic things that I would fix in US Constitution II, electric boogaloo.

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

More evidence that it's always been Calvinball.

At the risk of being a superlib, the inability of Congress to create agencies independent of the executive is another one of these problematic things that I would fix in US Constitution II, electric boogaloo.

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

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.