Liberal Forum

Huey » Today, 12:35 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 12:35 pm

Must everything you say come with a wall of stipulations? The article made no such distinction, but nice try reframing it.  Meaning bring the stats showing that the article is wrong on decisions.

Yes, I do know the difference.

Acknowledge you were answered.

If you understand that there's a difference, and that the complaint is about the shadow docket, I shouldn't have to explain why data about signed opinions is irrelevant..

Unless, of course, you're a moron...

Blackvegetable » 31 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

31 minutes ago

Huey » Today, 12:35 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 12:35 pm

Must everything you say come with a wall of stipulations? The article made no such distinction, but nice try reframing it.  Meaning bring the stats showing that the article is wrong on decisions.

Yes, I do know the difference.

Acknowledge you were answered.

If you understand that there's a difference, and that the complaint is about the shadow docket, I shouldn't have to explain why data about signed opinions is irrelevant..

Unless, of course, you're a moron...

 

And there you have it, folks—precisely as predicted: absolute mastery of ignorant ****, with zero action to show for it.
 

Huey » 13 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

13 minutes ago

And there you have it, folks—precisely as predicted: absolute mastery 

No....that's "nailing it shut", ignorant credulous little ****.

In its term that ended last October, the Supreme Court passed an important milestone that went unnoticed: For the first time, it decided more cases by secret ballot, and with few signed opinions, than it did for cases argued in open court. 

These decisions, which make up the court’s “shadow docket,” are a fast-track way to get a decision from the top court. They rarely include arguments, have limited briefings and have expedited timetables, and justices infrequently provide explanation of how they voted or to cite legal precedent.  

The Supreme Court’s increased willingness to bypass its regular process has empowered President Donald Trump at the same time as the administration has increased use of executive authority. The court has repeatedly green-lit policies of his that lower courts have blocked — and has done so with little to no explanation. 

https://www.propublica.org/article/supr ... -milestone

THERE you "have it"....


Nod.

Blackvegetable » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

Huey » 13 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

13 minutes ago

And there you have it, folks—precisely as predicted: absolute mastery

No....that's "nailing it shut", ignorant credulous little ****.

In its term that ended last October, the Supreme Court passed an important milestone that went unnoticed: For the first time, it decided more cases by secret ballot, and with few signed opinions, than it did for cases argued in open court. 

These decisions, which make up the court’s “shadow docket,” are a fast-track way to get a decision from the top court. They rarely include arguments, have limited briefings and have expedited timetables, and justices infrequently provide explanation of how they voted or to cite legal precedent.  

The Supreme Court’s increased willingness to bypass its regular process has empowered President Donald Trump at the same time as the administration has increased use of executive authority. The court has repeatedly green-lit policies of his that lower courts have blocked — and has done so with little to no explanation. 

https://www.propublica.org/article/supr ... -milestone

How cute. Call it whatever you want, but you still haven't disproved a single statistic in the piece.  Mary is here!
 

Huey » 16 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

16 minutes ago

How cute. Call it whatever you want, but you 

That's not me "calling it whatever I  want", **** idiot.

but you still haven't disproved a single statistic in the piece

I have made my case and disproven the entire premise....

**** idiot.

Blackvegetable » 8 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

8 minutes ago

Huey » 21 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

21 minutes ago

How cute. Call it whatever you want, but you 

That's not me "calling it whatever I  want", **** idiot.

but you still haven't disproved a single statistic in the piece

I have made my case and disproven the entire premise....

**** idiot.

 

You haven't disproven ****. Endlessly reframing the point just shows everyone you brought nothing to the table.
 

Huey » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

You haven't disproven ****. Endlessly reframing the point just shows everyone you brought nothing to the table.

You're a **** idiot...


Were there more unsigned than signed cases in 2025?
 

Blackvegetable » Today, 2:39 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 2:39 pm

You're a **** idiot...

Were there more unsigned than signed cases in 2025?

Bump...

@Huey  
 

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 2:39 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 2:39 pm

You're a **** idiot...


Were there more unsigned than signed cases in 2025?
 

Every judge that sits on a bench protects vernacular tribalism born to buried. Every citizen of their selected reality after birth defends their ancestral ;lineages choices practiced throughout history of imaging humanity larger than time lived since a fertilized cell.

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/

Another swiftly orphaned OP..


 

Blackvegetable » 2 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

2 minutes ago

Another swiftly orphaned OP..


 

Another intellectual soul abandoning their instinctive sole's ^^^^^ time evolving in plain sight.

Blackvegetable » Today, 5:54 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 5:54 am

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/

Another swiftly orphaned OP..


 

 

Calling it an 'orphaned thread' doesn't change the facts, it was so devastatingly accurate you couldn't even attempt a rebuttal.

Oh wait, you are a numbers guy..my bad...except when the numbers don't support your foolish opinion.

Buh bye, asshwipe.
 

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 2:39 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 2:39 pm

You're a **** idiot...

Were there more unsigned than signed cases in 2025?

Bump.

@Huey   

Blackvegetable » Yesterday, 2:39 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 2:39 pm

Huey » Yesterday, 2:37 pm » wrote: ↑

Yesterday, 2:37 pm

You haven't disproven ****. Endlessly reframing the point just shows everyone you brought nothing to the table.

You're a **** idiot...


Were there more unsigned than signed cases in 2025?
 

 

Waiting on those numbers, not questions, Askholio.  If you don't have them, just say so, Asshole.
 

Huey » 32 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

32 minutes ago

Waiting on those numbers, not questions, Askholio.  If you don't have them, just say so, Asshole.

start answering questions...

If you don't acknowledge facts there's no point in posting them.
 

Blackvegetable » 5 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

5 minutes ago

Huey » 37 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

37 minutes ago

Waiting on those numbers, not questions, Askholio.  If you don't have them, just say so, Asshole.

start answering questions...

If you don't acknowledge facts there's no point in posting them.
 

 

Keep dodging and trying to reframe all you want. The fact remains: I am still waiting on those numbers, and everyone sees you running from them.

Huey » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

Keep dodging 

I've already posted the evidence of Turley's deceit..

If I have to explain how, you must acknowledge what you've been shown.

Blackvegetable » 11 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

11 minutes ago

Huey » 17 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

17 minutes ago

Keep dodging 

I've already posted the evidence of Turley's deceit..

If I have to explain how, you must acknowledge what you've been shown.

 

Nice attempt to pivot away from your own total lack of evidence. The task is simple. Post the numbers that prove him wrong. Time's running out, ****.

Huey » 17 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

17 minutes ago

Keep dodging and trying to reframe all you want. The fact remains: I am still waiting on those numbers, and everyone sees you running from them.

You really need to stop debating hypothetical facts and compare ever changing details with results never same outcome twice except humanity repeating human behavior every generation gap arriving one reproduction at a time in series parallel positions here now.

Binary code of zero or one of a kind. that centers around how chromosomes are combined ancestrally here in this atmosphere. You debate that using context and theories and theologies manifesting reasonable doubt 24/7 last 7,000 planetary revolutions around the star 3rd planet from the sun.

Evolving changes everything displaced now in series parallel cycles present.

Your circle or life metaphor is 2 dimensional concepts covering last 7 generations existed in the last 3 centuries combined.

every 7th generation forward each son or daughter has 126 relatives parenting the previous 6 generations that created their mom and dad reproducing their sole time living now.
the eternal connection between chromosomes chronologically, biologically here in plain sight defending ideas life isn't self evident cradle to grave, or born to buried pretending their social mind is greater than any brain positioned currently alive.