Liberal Forum

The Supreme Court is once again under attack from those calling for packing, or even eliminating, the institution as hopelessly ideological and divided.

 The Philadelphia Inquirer recently proclaimed that “The Supreme Court’s conservative majority keeps choosing ideology over impartiality.”

 Other media outlets reported “devastating” polling showing the Court as unpopular and losing institutional respect.

 It is all clearly alarming — despite being entirely untrue.

 Looking at the actual rulings disproves the argument of a “biased” court

 The Court ruled unanimously in more than 44% of cases, slightly up from the prior year.
 When you add the roughly 11% of opinions that were 8-1 and 6% that were 7-1 or 7-2, the rate of unanimous or nearly unanimous jumps to 62%.
 In over 77% of cases, there was no ideological split in the resulting opinions.
 While slightly up, the ideological split emphasized in the coverage is found in less than a quarter of the cases.Now look at those supposed ideologically besieged liberal justices.
 Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had the lowest percentage in the majority in the last term.
 However, she was still in the majority in 72% of cases.

https://nypost.com/2026/09/18/opinion/s ... -the-time/
 

Huey » 18 Sep 2026, 10:47 am » wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2026, 10:47 am

The Supreme Court is once again under attack from those calling for packing, or even eliminating, the institution as hopelessly ideological and divided.

 The Philadelphia Inquirer recently proclaimed that “The Supreme Court’s conservative majority keeps choosing ideology over impartiality.”

 Other media outlets reported “devastating” polling showing the Court as unpopular and losing institutional respect.

 It is all clearly alarming — despite being entirely untrue.

 Looking at the actual rulings disproves the argument of a “biased” court

 The Court ruled unanimously in more than 44% of cases, slightly up from the prior year.
 When you add the roughly 11% of opinions that were 8-1 and 6% that were 7-1 or 7-2, the rate of unanimous or nearly unanimous jumps to 62%.
 In over 77% of cases, there was no ideological split in the resulting opinions.
 While slightly up, the ideological split emphasized in the coverage is found in less than a quarter of the cases.Now look at those supposed ideologically besieged liberal justices.
 Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had the lowest percentage in the majority in the last term.
 However, she was still in the majority in 72% of cases.

https://nypost.com/2026/09/18/opinion/s ... -the-time/

It’s only prevalent when the vote comes in split…then it’s quite telling…
 

Huey » 18 Sep 2026, 10:47 am » wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2026, 10:47 am

The Supreme Court is once again under attack from those calling for packing, or even eliminating, the institution as hopelessly ideological and divided.

 The Philadelphia Inquirer recently proclaimed that “The Supreme Court’s conservative majority keeps choosing ideology over impartiality.”

 Other media outlets reported “devastating” polling showing the Court as unpopular and losing institutional respect.

 It is all clearly alarming — despite being entirely untrue.

 Looking at the actual rulings disproves the argument of a “biased” court

 The Court ruled unanimously in more than 44% of cases, slightly up from the prior year.
 When you add the roughly 11% of opinions that were 8-1 and 6% that were 7-1 or 7-2, the rate of unanimous or nearly unanimous jumps to 62%.
 In over 77% of cases, there was no ideological split in the resulting opinions.
 While slightly up, the ideological split emphasized in the coverage is found in less than a quarter of the cases.Now look at those supposed ideologically besieged liberal justices.
 Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had the lowest percentage in the majority in the last term.
 However, she was still in the majority in 72% of cases.

https://nypost.com/2026/09/18/opinion/s ... -the-time/

Get the **** out of here with that ponce...


This is for an audience of *******.
 

Blackvegetable » 18 Sep 2026, 2:47 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2026, 2:47 pm

Get the **** out of here with that ponce...

This is for an audience of *******.

                       
how far did ya get?

Blackvegetable » 18 Sep 2026, 2:47 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2026, 2:47 pm

Get the **** out of here with that ponce...

This is for an audience of *******.

ponce 

noun

1. A pimp. 
2. A posh or effeminate person. 

verb

1. To act as a pimp. 

      3x?       
 

ROG62 » 18 Sep 2026, 3:30 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2026, 3:30 pm

ponce 

noun

1. A pimp. 
2. A posh or effeminate person. 

verb

1. To act as a pimp. 

      3x?     

To a "t"

ROG62 » 18 Sep 2026, 3:28 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2026, 3:28 pm

                       
how far did ya get?

NYPost

Jonathan Turley


 

Blackvegetable » 18 Sep 2026, 2:47 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2026, 2:47 pm

Get the **** out of here with that ponce...

This is for an audience of *******.

Why? Because it didn't come from Vanity Fair or Soros funded MediasTouch?   

SouthernFried » 18 Sep 2026, 6:49 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2026, 6:49 pm

Why? Because it didn't come from Vanity Fair or Soros funded MediasTouch? 

It came through the NYPosr and Jonathan Turley..

Do you even know who he is?
 

Blackvegetable » 18 Sep 2026, 6:56 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2026, 6:56 pm

It came through the NYPosr and Jonathan Turley..

Do you even know who he is?

He ain't VanityFair or George Soros. So that's a big **** positive.

SouthernFried » 18 Sep 2026, 6:58 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2026, 6:58 pm

He ain't VanityFair or George Soros. So that's a big **** positive.

I take that as a "I have no idea, Master Vegetable. "

I'm not saying that Jonathan Turley blurs the line between man and woman, I'm  just pointing out that he has "fabulous skin"...


 

Blackvegetable » 18 Sep 2026, 2:47 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2026, 2:47 pm

Get the **** out of here with that ponce...

This is for an audience of *******.

Well, bring the whole family.....

Blackvegetable » 18 Sep 2026, 2:47 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2026, 2:47 pm

Huey » 18 Sep 2026, 10:47 am » wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2026, 10:47 am

The Supreme Court is once again under attack from those calling for packing, or even eliminating, the institution as hopelessly ideological and divided.

 The Philadelphia Inquirer recently proclaimed that “The Supreme Court’s conservative majority keeps choosing ideology over impartiality.”

 Other media outlets reported “devastating” polling showing the Court as unpopular and losing institutional respect.

 It is all clearly alarming — despite being entirely untrue.

 Looking at the actual rulings disproves the argument of a “biased” court

 The Court ruled unanimously in more than 44% of cases, slightly up from the prior year.
 When you add the roughly 11% of opinions that were 8-1 and 6% that were 7-1 or 7-2, the rate of unanimous or nearly unanimous jumps to 62%.
 In over 77% of cases, there was no ideological split in the resulting opinions.
 While slightly up, the ideological split emphasized in the coverage is found in less than a quarter of the cases.Now look at those supposed ideologically besieged liberal justices.
 Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had the lowest percentage in the majority in the last term.
 However, she was still in the majority in 72% of cases.

https://nypost.com/2026/09/18/opinion/s ... -the-time/

Get the **** out of here with that ponce...


This is for an audience of *******.
 

 

I don't think I will, ****.  You come here, ranting and raving like a madman, misusing the word ponce, and saying the numbers in the post are wrong.

With no proof.  You get the **** out of here with that whiny **** or YOU bring some numbers to refute it, Balless Wonder.
 

Blackvegetable » 18 Sep 2026, 6:56 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2026, 6:56 pm

SouthernFried » 18 Sep 2026, 6:49 pm » wrote: ↑

18 Sep 2026, 6:49 pm

Why? Because it didn't come from Vanity Fair or Soros funded MediasTouch? 

It came through the NYPosr and Jonathan Turley..

Do you even know who he is?
 

 

He is the guy who rejected your sexual advances that caused your wife to leave, Balless Wonder.  That is why this thread put you immediately in Meltdown Mary mode.

Huey » 19 Sep 2026, 8:03 am » wrote: ↑

19 Sep 2026, 8:03 am

He is the guy who rejected your sexual advances that caused your wife to leave, Balless Wonder.  That is why this thread put you immediately in Meltdown Mary mode.

It's GoldBrick, the Stalking CuckREMF...

9 SCJ's.. 18 year term. One elected by the people every two years..

The Court passes on the hard decisions.

Thomas and Alito sold the Constitution to the Devil.. Cheap...

Huey » 19 Sep 2026, 8:01 am » wrote: ↑

19 Sep 2026, 8:01 am

I don't think I will, ****.  You come here, ranting and raving like a madman, misusing the word ponce, and saying the numbers in the post are wrong.

With no proof.  You get the **** out of here with that whiny **** or YOU bring some numbers to refute it, Balless Wonder.

Just run away because you will not defend it.
 

Blackvegetable » 19 Sep 2026, 8:10 am » wrote: ↑

19 Sep 2026, 8:10 am

Huey » 19 Sep 2026, 8:03 am » wrote: ↑

19 Sep 2026, 8:03 am

He is the guy who rejected your sexual advances that caused your wife to leave, Balless Wonder.  That is why this thread put you immediately in Meltdown Mary mode.

It's GoldBrick, the Stalking CuckREMF...

 

Balless, go ahead the facts that prove the article.  Or go start a thread where you can mock the writer.

Blackvegetable » 19 Sep 2026, 8:14 am » wrote: ↑

19 Sep 2026, 8:14 am

Huey » 19 Sep 2026, 8:01 am » wrote: ↑

19 Sep 2026, 8:01 am

I don't think I will, ****.  You come here, ranting and raving like a madman, misusing the word ponce, and saying the numbers in the post are wrong.

With no proof.  You get the **** out of here with that whiny **** or YOU bring some numbers to refute it, Balless Wonder.

Just run away because you will not defend it.
 

 

Tell you what Balless Wonder, go back to the Supreme Court thread I started and post proof that the numbers in the article are wrong (defend your position) and I will comment on this.

YOU are running from your words.  **** off, Balless.  Hey, it is your phone ringing.  It's wife calling and she said you do not deserve to get your balls back.

Huey » 19 Sep 2026, 8:14 am » wrote: ↑

19 Sep 2026, 8:14 am

Balless, go ahead the facts that prove the article.  Or go start a thread where you can mock the writer.

6 in 10 cases must have been no brainers..

it's  the only way there was unaminity..