While I took the title from the article linked it's not exactly what I wanted to bring up. It's just something I came across in my search. It's worth it's own discussion, however.
I wanted to see Barret's opinion on why she voted as she did. I don't care about the sitting commies' opinion because I can likely make an accurate guess. I wanted to be charitable and see why this "conservative" would vote against a state's autonomy.
Turns out, there isn't a published opinion. There is a very short statement released by the court, a pdf linked in the article, but that's it.
I'll be the first to admit I know little to nothing about law and the way the Supreme Court operates. Is this unusual? I'm thinking about Justice Thomas writing a short opinion about the recent affirmative action case, most of which was about Justice Jackson's opinion being stupid. Both were published and widely spread.
They don't have to release opinions for these. Realistically, they can't release opinions for everything they deal with as it would take too long to explain every single case.
That said, they can write why they did/didn't do something, and sometimes they do. Often times they're enlightening one way or another. I expect roberts cucked because of course he did, and barret probably went with him because she's a dumb cunt when it comes to social issues (abortion aside).
You might consider at least glancing over the leftoid scum's dissents sometimes. Housekeeping started writing hers with ChatGPT and it's hilarious, at one point it started ranting about ostriches. I don't even think she can read.
It's about culture, not skin colour. (Nevermind the fact that white people are a minority, for the sake of the discussion.) It doesn't matter whether it be thousands of Africans, Middle Easterners and South Americans or thousands of Swedish woke communists, the issue is that they are a disparate people who will form their own enclaves in which they will refuse to integrate themselves to the rest of the society they're attempting to join. A society that only became so much greater than the shithole they came from because of the values and culture of the people that lived there and built up the country to its greatness. Shifting those key aspects by illegally invading it, showing a blatant disregard for the laws of the land that maintained society, right from the very first second they stepped onto its soil, shows that they have no intent whatsoever of being there to benefit society. They are parasites whose only intent is to steal resources for their own benefit, and whose intent it is to turn their new land into the same kind of unstable, futureless cesspool they abandoned.
While I took the title from the article linked it's not exactly what I wanted to bring up. It's just something I came across in my search. It's worth it's own discussion, however.
I wanted to see Barret's opinion on why she voted as she did. I don't care about the sitting commies' opinion because I can likely make an accurate guess. I wanted to be charitable and see why this "conservative" would vote against a state's autonomy.
Turns out, there isn't a published opinion. There is a very short statement released by the court, a pdf linked in the article, but that's it.
I'll be the first to admit I know little to nothing about law and the way the Supreme Court operates. Is this unusual? I'm thinking about Justice Thomas writing a short opinion about the recent affirmative action case, most of which was about Justice Jackson's opinion being stupid. Both were published and widely spread.
They don't have to release opinions for these. Realistically, they can't release opinions for everything they deal with as it would take too long to explain every single case.
That said, they can write why they did/didn't do something, and sometimes they do. Often times they're enlightening one way or another. I expect roberts cucked because of course he did, and barret probably went with him because she's a dumb cunt when it comes to social issues (abortion aside).
You might consider at least glancing over the leftoid scum's dissents sometimes. Housekeeping started writing hers with ChatGPT and it's hilarious, at one point it started ranting about ostriches. I don't even think she can read.
Housekeeping?
Sotomayor. I call her Justice Housekeeping. Brown is Jumanji Jackson Five, and Kagan is Pet Lesbian.
A few of us call her diabetes dora.
Not OP, but I'd guess Sotomayor.
Please tells me which one. I need this in my life
I actually think it was the Dobbs decision.
You choose to be a faggot. You can stop anytime.
You have the power. I believe in you.Yeah, I agree with that last bit being crossed out. I don't think he has it in him to not be a cuck.
First good funniuser take?
It's about culture, not skin colour. (Nevermind the fact that white people are a minority, for the sake of the discussion.) It doesn't matter whether it be thousands of Africans, Middle Easterners and South Americans or thousands of Swedish woke communists, the issue is that they are a disparate people who will form their own enclaves in which they will refuse to integrate themselves to the rest of the society they're attempting to join. A society that only became so much greater than the shithole they came from because of the values and culture of the people that lived there and built up the country to its greatness. Shifting those key aspects by illegally invading it, showing a blatant disregard for the laws of the land that maintained society, right from the very first second they stepped onto its soil, shows that they have no intent whatsoever of being there to benefit society. They are parasites whose only intent is to steal resources for their own benefit, and whose intent it is to turn their new land into the same kind of unstable, futureless cesspool they abandoned.
Race being portrayed as just skin color is such a malicious deceit. I hate it and how widespread the notion has become.
Speaking from experience, I recommend everyone get a cushioned, anti slip floor mat for one's barefoot wife.