The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

#10,127
#10,127
Tin Man said:
Sam’s reply was candid. I appreciated his point that his spouse’s freedom of expression shouldn’t be limited by his job. Honestly, how many married persons have had their spouses express reactions, opinions, or advocacy which were not necessarily shared?
Click to expand...
All the time! My wife is nuts for sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KptVFL
#10,130
#10,130
BowlBrother85 said:
As long as Easy Street is near a Chinese buffet and a liquor store .... You bet.
Click to expand...
Ha! You in Knoxville? If so, what’s your favorite Chinese buffet?

I don’t have a go-to buffet but my favorite Chinese food (it’s a Chinese-Thai combo really) is Little Bangkok. Their egg drop soup is the best I’ve ever had. Super heavy on the eggs, which I like better than the brothy ones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sea Ray
#10,131
#10,131




Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley

We are.....minutes away from the new releases from the Supreme Court. Here are some of “big ticket” cases to watch for: Fischer (limits on the use of obstruction charges in J6 case); Loper Bright Enterprises (continued viability of the Chevron doctrine); Moody (censorship on the Internet); Moore (scope of tax powers); Moyle (abortion and state rights); Murthy (censorship in social media); Trump (presidential immunity); and Rahimi (gun rights)...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#10,140
#10,140
It's hard to believe that there are people who would challenge a law prohibiting individuals (men) with domestic abuse restraining
orders from owning/possessing a gun. It's another indication of how insane and grotesquely irresponsible gun nuts are.
Thankfully, even this hack Supreme Court upheld the law in its ruling today, with only the uber-hack and uber-corrupt Clarence "Give Me Money" Thomas the only dissenting vote.
 
#10,141
#10,141
turbovol said:
It's hard to believe that there are people who would challenge a law prohibiting individuals (men) with domestic abuse restraining
orders from owning/possessing a gun. It's another indication of how insane and grotesquely irresponsible gun nuts are.
Thankfully, even this hack Supreme Court upheld the law in its ruling today, with only the uber-hack and uber-corrupt Clarence "Give Me Money" Thomas the only dissenting vote.
Click to expand...

I guess you support taking away the right to vote for people with domestic abuse restraining orders?
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, Vol since 77, EasternVol and 5 others
#10,147
#10,147
Sean Davis
@seanmdav


Is there a new leaker at the Supreme Court?

Just days ago, the Biden regime announced a radical new executive order to legalize the immigrant spouses of citizens, even if those immigrants were in the U.S. to commit crimes or were here legally. It was very strange timing for such an oddly specific EO.

Now we know why: the Supreme Court ruled today in a 6-3 decision that the U.S. is not required to admit immigrant spouses of American citizens in a case involving an MS-13 member whose spouse was a U.S. citizen and who demanded legalization.

“From this Nation’s beginnings, the admission of noncitizens into this country was characterized as ‘of favor [and] not right,” the Court ruled.

Somebody at the White House was clearly tipped off about the unannounced Supreme Court decision, which explains why the White House rushed out such a shoddily written and argued new executive order to open the border even more: the Biden regime knew how the Supreme Court was going to rule, and it sought to pre-empt the court with its absurd EO.

So the question now is: who, exactly, is leaking information on rulings to the Biden White House?



 
Last edited:
#10,148
#10,148
So if I understand that tax ruling correctly, any incentive for corporations to bring money back into the US just went up in smoke. That's great for places like Ireland.

😂
 
#10,149
#10,149
SpaceCoastVol said:
So if I understand that tax ruling correctly, any incentive for corporations to bring money back into the US just went up in smoke. That's great for places like Ireland.

😂
Click to expand...

No, not really. It was a one time repatriation tax (at a discounted rate) that was a pay-for with TCJA. Of course, TCJA was so poorly written that most companies planned around the pay-fors, including this item....

Probably the most troublesome aspect is this ruling makes it highly unlikely that a net worth or unrealized gains tax would be deemed unconstitutional if enacted in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol and 85SugarVol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top