1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Running SCOTUS thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by 2muchcoffeeman, Jun 15, 2020.

  1. maumann

    maumann Well-Known Member

    Something wire hanger something something Roe v. Wade something.
     
    HanSenSE, Driftwood and UNCGrad like this.
  2. TigerVols

    TigerVols Well-Known Member

  3. BitterYoungMatador2

    BitterYoungMatador2 Well-Known Member

    Uncle Thomas at that Prevost dealer like
    IMG_4011.jpeg
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2024
    garrow, sgreenwell and franticscribe like this.
  4. micropolitan guy

    micropolitan guy Well-Known Member

  5. qtlaw

    qtlaw Well-Known Member

    As dire as times feel nowadays, I was recently reminded how in the 70's they were dealing with:

    deterioration in trust in our government due to Watergate scandal;
    energy crisis (oil embargo from Middle East);
    rampant inflation (10%+ year over year); and
    interest rates neighborhood of 10-18%.
    Hopefully we can survive now as we did before.
     
    maumann likes this.
  6. goalmouth

    goalmouth Well-Known Member

    You may hope for whatever you wish.
     
  7. Slacker

    Slacker Well-Known Member

    In ruling for the former mayor, the justices drew a distinction between bribery, which requires proof of an illegal deal, and a gratuity that can be a gift or a reward for a past favor. They said the officials may be charged and prosecuted for bribery, but not for taking money for past favors if there was no proof of an illicit deal.

    “The question in this case is whether [the federal law] also makes it a crime for state and local officials to accept gratuities — for example, gift cards, lunches, plaques, books, framed photos or the like — that may be given as a token of appreciation after the official act. The answer is no,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, writing for the majority.


    More total bullshit from this court. "Illicit deals" just got easier ...

    "Hey, steer my company this nice, fat contract, and there will be a nice, fat tip for you later."

    "Oooo, that sounds nice. Very well, you're hired. This is all off the record, of course."

    "Yes, of course, sir. That's why we're standing in the middle of a cornfield."
     
  8. Hermes

    Hermes Well-Known Member

    If you look at it all as a return to pre-FDR America, their plan all makes sense. Next step: Every President being from Ohio, run by a party boss and corrupt as hell.
     
  9. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    A lot of pies are about to be baked.

     
  10. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    Honestly, how you could read about the original case and find/believe/imagine no quid pro quo was involved - is astounding. It sounds like these justices might be short-timers and want to make sure they get PAID!!! and not have to hand out many more ridiculous decisions.
     
  11. MileHigh

    MileHigh Moderator Staff Member

  12. micropolitan guy

    micropolitan guy Well-Known Member

    As Sotomayor said about bump stocks, "If it walks like a duck, if it talks like a duck ... "
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page