Jump to content

Donald Trump 2020

Francisco 2.0

By Francisco 2.0
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

BrickHorn

BrickHorn 18262

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

If you want to get married to Steve, I cannot deny you that right based on YOUR gender as a male.

Larry Tribe has been pushing that argument for at least 15 years. Hard to believe it took so long to become the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 43.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mrs Whiggins

    1391

  • Biff Tannen

    1374

  • 4th&Five

    1222

  • WhatTheBuck

    910

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Thatguy
Thatguy

Let me be candid and honest here my man. I cannot be sympathetic to your comments because this is how adult life has always been. From the moment I stepped out of my home and headed off to college I h

Francisco 2.0
Francisco 2.0
henrygandorf
henrygandorf

it won't matter if his taxes ever come out.  it won't matter if his taxes don't ever come out.  you wanna know why?  because we already know what's in them. since early 2017 when people starting

Posted Images

Kyrie Eleison

Kyrie Eleison 9312

Posted
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep.  THIS language:

....is just so big.  It's what my argument in favor of prohibiting bans on same-sex marriage was based on for years, and it's what I WISH Kennedy had written in that decision (Obergefell v Hodges).

If you want to get married to Steve, I cannot deny you that right based on YOUR gender as a male.  So, prohibitions on same-sex marriage were absolutely an equal protection violation, as they denied a fundamental right on the basis of the gender of the participants.

The reasoning here is no different.

I can't make a hiring decision based upon your private, at-home sexual practices.  Say you really love to suck dick and take anal from your significant other.  If your name is Susan*, that's fine.  If your name is Steve, I can refuse to hire you because that makes you gay.  No, it just makes you someone who loves to suck dick and take anal from your significant other -- the hiring decision discriminates because that's okay if you are female, but not okay if you are male.

I haven't read the entire decision, but that quoted language is the gist of the entire issue with any discrimination in any context based on homosexuality.  What's okay if a person is one gender magically becomes not okay, and a valid basis for discrimination, if the person is of another gender.  The SCOTUS just said "NOPE, can't discriminate based on gender, including here."

 

* Please note that the character of Susan is mostly fictitious.  She's a unicorn.

i'll be honest, i kind of teared up reading the opinion.

it's about goddamn time something good and decent and humane came out.

Edited by Kyrie Eleison
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kyrie Eleison

Kyrie Eleison 9312

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

Anytime Thomas chooses this side of a discrimination cases I hope someone reminds him that not too long ago his marriage was considered illegal. Until some liberal crazy SCOTUS ruled differently. I guess that same compassion isn't extended to others.

u2qTORB.gif?noredirect

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bruh Man

Bruh Man 3160

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Meh, if there were actual substance to this, we wouldn't be waiting a whole week to hear it.  He had his shot during impeachment.  Fuck that guy.

You don't call an interview a "special event" unless bombs are being dropped in the interview. Primetime, Sunday night...it's going to be juicy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31516

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, F250 said:

Is anyone really shocked by Gorsuch? I never had an issue with him as he wasn't a hack like Squi's buddy but I am not a Surly liberal.

 

 

 

Well most of the analysis around here ends with "appointed by Trump."  Which is fine as far as it goes, but both Gorsuch and Kavanagh could have been appointed by any GOP president.  Kavanagh and his kind of Opus Dei-y nature might have disqualified him from consideration by a couple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45697

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well most of the analysis around here ends with "appointed by Trump."  Which is fine as far as it goes, but both Gorsuch and Kavanagh could have been appointed by any GOP president.  Kavanagh and his kind of Opus Dei-y nature might have disqualified him from consideration by a couple.

Which is the same reason it's a stupid argument made by trumpkins that his choice of SCOTUS judges is an "accomplishment".  He was given the same list that any GOP president would have been given.  It's not like he did some exhaustive search and vetting of judges he thought really deserved and would compliment SCOTUS. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kyrie Eleison

Kyrie Eleison 9312

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Mmmm does it, though?  It's a Title VII decision.  I haven't scrutinized it that closely.

uhhh...yes, it does.

Title VII is empowered/made possible because of §1983...you know that.  

you fucking old-timers in recovery seem to get stingy as fuck in life sometimes, as if you're...ohhh, let's say...uncomfortable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well most of the analysis around here ends with "appointed by Trump."  Which is fine as far as it goes, but both Gorsuch and Kavanagh could have been appointed by any GOP president.  Kavanagh and his kind of Opus Dei-y nature might have disqualified him from consideration by a couple.

You're wrong on that.  It isn't "appointed by Trump" that is the problem.  It is "selectively confirmed by Mitch" that is the problem.

The primary problem with Gorsuch is that Merrick Garland was nominated for that vacancy by the sitting POTUS in accordance with the Constitution.  The Senate abandoned its Constitutional responsibility and refused to even hold a hearing, much less confirm him.  That also introduced a precedence and possibility that future Senates may never again confirm any nominations made by opposition Presidents.  Just wait until next year when Mitch maintains his narrow Senate majority and confirms 0 of Biden's judge/justice nominations for the next 2 years.

So while Kavanaugh is much less qualified than Gorsuch, Kavanaugh did fill a vacancy properly.  However, I would prefer a court with Garland and Gorsuch on it rather than Garland and Kavanaugh.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31516

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

You're wrong on that.  It isn't "appointed by Trump" that is the problem.  It is "selectively confirmed by Mitch" that is the problem.

The primary problem with Gorsuch is that Merrick Garland was nominated for that vacancy by the sitting POTUS in accordance with the Constitution.  The Senate abandoned its Constitutional responsibility and refused to even hold a hearing, much less confirm him.  That also introduced a precedence and possibility that future Senates may never again confirm any nominations made by opposition Presidents.  Just wait until next year when Mitch maintains his narrow Senate majority and confirms 0 of Biden's judge/justice nominations for the next 2 years.

So while Kavanaugh is much less qualified than Gorsuch, Kavanaugh did fill a vacancy properly.  However, I would prefer a court with Garland and Gorsuch on it rather than Garland and Kavanaugh.

Fair point on Mitch, but you think about these things more than the average Surly poster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Fair point on Mitch, but you think about these things more than the average Surly poster.

Mitch is a symptom.  The Senate structure is the disease which has our nation on the brink of collapse.  It should be the lower chamber and get the House of Lords treatment.  Instead it allows a tyrannical minority party to essentially control all 3 branches of government.  It can outright block new legislation, can dictate court appointments, and can control executive enforcement.

Edited by FondrenRoad
  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29194

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Bullshit.  Fuck all will come out of it other than a ratings boost for ABC.

the only pull quote i’ve seen from his book is that “every single decision trump made in office was based on the calculus of reelection.”

uh, yeah. no fucking shit, john. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28795

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, Bruh Man said:

You don't call an interview a "special event" unless bombs are being dropped in the interview. Primetime, Sunday night...it's going to be juicy. 

Sure you do. Anything that might potentially be a bombshell will be phrased as, "You'll have to buy my book." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bama Chick

Bama Chick 28596

Posted
Posted
I wonder if the Bama/Auburn rivalry is so thick that some Bama fans refuse to vote for him in the primary and hopefully the general. 

Oh yes.

Tuberville will be forever hated by Bama fans - not solely because he coached at AU but because he was a mouthy shittalker who tucked tail and ran when Bama got off probation and hired Saban.

He and Phillip Fulmer are absolutely DESPISED.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5077

Posted
Posted
Anytime Thomas chooses this side of a discrimination cases I hope someone reminds him that not too long ago his marriage was considered illegal. Until some liberal crazy SCOTUS ruled differently. I guess that same compassion isn't extended to others.

Considering his wife, that might be part of his calculation.
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
safe sex

safe sex 11739

Posted
Posted
COVID-19 is only serious if you have underlying health problems like overweight, smoking, diabetes and the like. Trumpkins have nothing to worry about.
I assume this is somewhat sarcastic, but for anyone who actually believes COVID is only serious for those with poor medical history, I promise it is not .
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TornACL

TornACL 7722

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, tchookem said:

I personally know one person who bought a ticket specifically so there would be an empty seat.

I think it's a stupid play, but it might explain some of the "enthusiasm" he's seeing.

I've wanted to do this before, but as I recall they ask you for a ton of personal information in order to make your reservation. So needless to say I don't want to share any of that shit with those people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31516

Posted
Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Arrogance is not a good look, bro.

 

I'd neg you for this post and attitude, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, this time, based on your posting history.

 

I can't count the number of posts on here that assume that Kavanagh and Gorsuch are going to ratify every aspect of "Trump's agenda" because Trump.  More accurately, the GOP-beholden-to-Trump's agenda, because he doesn't really have any agenda other than reelection and pwning the libs.

While those that have paid actual attention have noticed that Gorsuch seems to have quite the independent streak.

It should be no secret that I think FondrenRoad is one of the more thoughtful posters hereabouts.  There are quite a few, including you and Roma.

There are also a number of kind of thoughtless ones, or ones that post thoughtlessly.  

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31516

Posted
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Oh, the humanity.

 

 

 

 

Screen-Shot-2020-06-15-at-12.51.09-PM.pn

 

 

 

 

and the best of all:

 

 

 

 

 

This is kind of interesting in that current thinking is the modern "vetting process" has largely eliminated or will eliminate "surprise shifts" on the Court.

I have never been quite that convinced.  Why?

Actually, because once appointed for life, and presented with the magnitude of some of the decisions, hewing to some party line or rarefied ideology becomes difficult.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...