Welcome to Thunderdome

Leisher wrote: Thu Jun 05, 2025 2:41 pm I say racism is racism and doesn't need qualifiers like "reverse".

Agree, and I'm with SCOTUS here.

Clarence doesn't talk cuz he doesn't understand what's happening.

Racist.

Although, same thing could be said for why Jackson talks so much.

Leisher wrote: Mon Jan 19, 2026 9:49 am Racist.

Although, same thing could be said for why Jackson talks so much.

Damn, racist/sexist much?

TheCatt wrote: Mon Jan 19, 2026 10:34 am

Leisher wrote: Mon Jan 19, 2026 9:49 am Racist.

Although, same thing could be said for why Jackson talks so much.

Damn, racist/sexist much?

Facts are facts. *shrug*

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/supreme ... ?st=VV1sFT

Scotus let's late arriving ballots be counted if postmarked by election day. This is correct, imho. Sad that it was 5-4 instead of 9-0

I'd agree.

Although, I also think mail in ballots need to be reigned way the fuck in. We shouldn't be seeing results that are called "statistically impossible" when the mail in votes are being counted.

Leisher wrote: Mon Jun 29, 2026 12:24 pm We shouldn't be seeing results that are called "statistically impossible" when the mail in votes are being counted.

I haven't seen that. And when I have people say things like that, they've been lying.

The LA mayoral primary was questionable, at best. Raman was getting massacred and conceded. Then counting went on for days and she overcame Pratt. Every other country in the world can get their votes tabulated in 24 hours, but not here in the U.S.

Raman lost her own district...Yet somehow got 40% of mail in votes throughout the rest of the city to advance. She got trounced by her opponents until those mail ins got counted, and then she beat them both.

Not the first time weird shit happened in LA either:


There's a news link somewhere in the CA thread where a convicted felon was in an accident, I think drunk driving, and had thousands of mail in ballots in his car. I believe those ballots were related to the failed Newscom recall and in was in the SF area?

There's a reason the vast majority of first world countries have banned mail in ballots.

Encouraging mail-in voting, demanding no ID requirements (despite over 80% of Americans disagreeing), wanting illegals to vote (and passing laws to enable it), taking longer than any other civilized country to count ballots, etc.

All good shit that cannot possibly result in anything bad.

It inherently makes sense to me, as I can see how mail-in ballot voters have different profiles than in-person ballot voters. But can also see how people would see it as suspicious and how it could indeed be.

The Supreme Court ruled that states can ban transgender women and girls from playing on female sports teams.

Imma take a wild guess that this was a 6-3 decision, before I look. But this is another one I agree with.

KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. THOMAS,
J., and GORSUCH, J., filed concurring opinions. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an
opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in
which KAGAN and JACKSON, JJ., joined. JACKSON, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.

So 6 concurred. 3 partly concurred and partly dissented. I don't think I get credit for guessing 6-3

Ultimately, the Democratic appointees agreed that these plaintiffs’ Title IX claims fail, which is why they all concurred in the judgment in part.

But on the bigger and more important constitutional question — which is whether limits on transgender athletic participation violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause — the court split along its usual 6-3 conservative-liberal lines. The three Democratic appointees all argued that, at least at this stage of the litigation, the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims should’ve been allowed to go forward

ok, maybe I do.

6-3 in favor of birthright citizenship. I'm sorry, but those in the 3 (Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch ) have no business being on the court if they cannot understand what's going on.

I don't think any SCOTUS member should be there if they constantly vote on party lines and not based on the Constitution.

I understand the argument against birthright citizenship, but tough shit. Babies cannot control where they're born. Punishing them is completely stupid.