Ruth Bader Ginsburg is dead

[formermav43 4,606]

4 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

No. This is the part where pseudo intellectuals who have no idea what they are talking about make snarky comments on the net. 

Accurate post is accurate.

[Anastasis 23,469]

5 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

no nothing

Fourth tier?

[Sawbonz 27,556]

7 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

This is the place where pseudo intellectuals who have no idea what they are talking about make snarky comments on the net. 

New motto?

[immortal13 4,059]

15 hours ago, GRHorn said:

 

Praise be

[Texaspython 231]

12 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Is this the part where the lawyers trained at second tier (or was it third tier?) law schools try to dunk on the women to mask their inadequacies?

Checkout People of Praise

[GRHorn 105]

4 hours ago, immortal13 said:

Praise be

Under His eye. 

[Underdog 28,627]

13 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

She’s a vapid no nothing who will do whatever her male leaders tell her to do.

So basically she’s the perfect Supreme Court justice per the modern Republican Party. 

Stepford Judge?  

[Anastasis 23,469]

42 minutes ago, Texaspython said:

Checkout People of Praise

Maybe check out the ACB thread where it has been discussed. It all sounds really scary though. 
 

How does the People of Praise serve the broader society?

In 1981, in response to a call from God, we established Trinity Schools—private Christian schools in South Bend, Indiana, Falls Church, Virginia, and Eagan, Minnesota. These middle/high schools have received a total of eight Blue Ribbon awards from the U.S. Department of Education. The Trinity curriculum has also served as a model for more than 30 private and public charter schools nationwide. Additionally, members of the People of Praise founded Trinity Academy, a middle/high school in Portland, Oregon, as well as Praise Academy, an elementary school located in an impoverished neighborhood of Shreveport, Louisiana.

In 2002, inspired by the Holy Spirit, some People of Praise members began moving into some of America's poorest neighborhoods. Since then, we have lived closely with our neighbors and worked together to help meet pressing neighborhood needs. Our efforts include: running camps for hundreds of children, repairing neighborhood homes, hosting prayer meetings, growing healthy food on an urban farm. Longtime local residents have credited these efforts with lowering the crime rate and making the neighborhoods more beautiful and peaceful places to live.

 

[Neonmoon 38,129]

13 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

No. This is the part where pseudo intellectuals who have no idea what they are talking about make snarky comments on the net. 

Definitely new motto worthy 

[Texaspython 231]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Maybe check out the ACB thread where it has been discussed. It all sounds really scary though. 
 

How does the People of Praise serve the broader society?

In 1981, in response to a call from God, we established Trinity Schools—private Christian schools in South Bend, Indiana, Falls Church, Virginia, and Eagan, Minnesota. These middle/high schools have received a total of eight Blue Ribbon awards from the U.S. Department of Education. The Trinity curriculum has also served as a model for more than 30 private and public charter schools nationwide. Additionally, members of the People of Praise founded Trinity Academy, a middle/high school in Portland, Oregon, as well as Praise Academy, an elementary school located in an impoverished neighborhood of Shreveport, Louisiana.

In 2002, inspired by the Holy Spirit, some People of Praise members began moving into some of America's poorest neighborhoods. Since then, we have lived closely with our neighbors and worked together to help meet pressing neighborhood needs. Our efforts include: running camps for hundreds of children, repairing neighborhood homes, hosting prayer meetings, growing healthy food on an urban farm. Longtime local residents have credited these efforts with lowering the crime rate and making the neighborhoods more beautiful and peaceful places to live.

 

No, the female survivors.

[Anastasis 23,469]

23 minutes ago, Texaspython said:

No, the female survivors.

I think some senators should ask a lot of questions about it during the confirmation hearing. 

[4th&Five 41,538]

 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,101]

From Bryant Park, the Empire State Building was red, white and blue to honor RBG.

 

 

 

[wildcat09 29,354]

18 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Is this the part where the lawyers trained at second tier (or was it third tier?) law schools try to dunk on the women to mask their inadequacies?

I had no idea you were such a big fan of credentialism.

[Anastasis 23,469]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

I had no idea you were such a big fan of credentialism.

No idea you were such a big fan of misogynistic shit from glue sniffers. Maybe instead of worrying about my view of credentials you challenge the dipshit calling a woman quite successful in your professional a vapid subservient “no nothing”. 

[StassneyHorn 6,575]

Am I wrong in thinking a Supreme Court Justice should have more than 3 years experience? 

[UpperWestside 6,163]

16 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

Am I wrong in thinking a Supreme Court Justice should have more than 3 years experience? 

I want to compare this to an idiocracy, but I would be doing that term a disservice. 

[Texaspython 231]

On 9/26/2020 at 5:24 PM, Anastasis said:

No idea you were such a big fan of misogynistic shit from glue sniffers. Maybe instead of worrying about my view of credentials you challenge the dipshit calling a woman quite successful in your professional a vapid subservient “no nothing”. 

She is, what else is there to say?

[Dahobbs 17,534]

On 9/26/2020 at 5:24 PM, Anastasis said:

No idea you were such a big fan of misogynistic shit from glue sniffers. Maybe instead of worrying about my view of credentials you challenge the dipshit calling a woman quite successful in your professional a vapid subservient “no nothing”. 

She is barely engaged in the profession. I'm fairly confident she has never written a motion, argued to a jury, taken a deposition, or cross-examined a witness. She has been successful in academia, but you don't even need to be a licensed lawyer to do that. She simply hasn't practiced law to any  significant degree. 

Your focus on academic credentials is a bizarre one. I also don't understand using it as an insult. Plenty of very successful lawyers (in fact, some of the very best) have come from lower tier schools. I certainly don't evaluate my colleagues or opposing counsel based on the school they went to. 

Edited September 28, 2020 by Dahobbs

[Texaspython 231]

6 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

She is barely engaged in the profession. I'm fairly confident she has never written a motion, argued to a jury, taken a deposition, or cross-examined a witness. She has been successful in academia, but you don't even need to be a licensed lawyer to do that. She simply hasn't practiced law to any  significant degree. 

Your focus on academic credentials is a bizarre one. I also don't understand using it as an insult. Plenty of very successful lawyers (in fact, some of the very best) have come from lower tier schools. I certainly don't evaluate my colleagues or opposing counsel based on the school they want to. 

I can usually tell where someone has been to law school based on their demeanor. Sometimes it translates to competence, usually it’s just a marker of where they came from.

 

She’s a light weight, isn’t qualified, and is simply a tool of a very specific political agenda. It is what it is, and we’ll all be the worse for it.

[Hank Scorpio 17,729]

 

[Poolflood 845]

34 minutes ago, Texaspython said:

I can usually tell where someone has been to law school based on their demeanor. Sometimes it translates to competence, usually it’s just a marker of where they came from.

 

She’s a light weight, isn’t qualified, and is simply a tool of a very specific political agenda. It is what it is, and we’ll all be the worse for it.

All that said, she's more qualified and less overtly political than Kagan was at the time of her nomination.  

[Texaspython 231]

8 minutes ago, Poolflood said:

All that said, she's more qualified and less overtly political than Kagan was at the time of her nomination.  

She’s been Judge a couple of years, I’ll give you that, of course, she should not have been nominated to begin with. More political than Kagan? Come on man.

[Poolflood 845]

2 minutes ago, Texaspython said:

She’s been Judge a couple of years, I’ll give you that, of course, she should not have been nominated to begin with. More political than Kagan? Come on man.

How many years was Kagan a judge?  How many republican administrations has Barrett worked in?  I said overtly - kagan is a political animal. It's rather inane to say Barrett isn't qualified.  

[Texaspython 231]

2 minutes ago, Poolflood said:

How many years was Kagan a judge?  How many republican administrations has Barrett worked in?  I said overtly - kagan is a political animal. It's rather inane to say Barrett isn't qualified.  

What qualifies her to be a Judge to begin with? Kagan was the solicitor general, someone with intimate knowledge of how the court works. Yes, she was involved in a prior administration, just like many scotus justices. The difference is, Barrett really has no practical experience at all. She comes drone academy. That’s fine, but don’t act like she’s anything other than a political ideologue.

[Poolflood 845]

5 minutes ago, Texaspython said:

What qualifies her to be a Judge to begin with? Kagan was the solicitor general, someone with intimate knowledge of how the court works. Yes, she was involved in a prior administration, just like many scotus justices. The difference is, Barrett really has no practical experience at all. She comes drone academy. That’s fine, but don’t act like she’s anything other than a political ideologue.

I said overtly political.  Go read the Time's article from 2010 on kagan.  She was qualified.  But was solicitor general for a year?  Barrets been a. Judge for 2+?  I said it on another board.  If you want to claim fruit of tree argument re trump - cool.  Unqualified?   Disingenuous. 

[TexasBeta 1,261]

How many years was Kagan a judge?  How many republican administrations has Barrett worked in?  I said overtly - kagan is a political animal. It's rather inane to say Barrett isn't qualified.  

Kagan was never a judge.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/many-justices-were-never-judges-before-appointment-11552596987

[Texaspython 231]

11 minutes ago, Poolflood said:

I said overtly political.  Go read the Time's article from 2010 on kagan.  She was qualified.  But was solicitor general for a year?  Barrets been a. Judge for 2+?  I said it on another board.  If you want to claim fruit of tree argument re trump - cool.  Unqualified?   Disingenuous. 

You said “more qualified and less overtly political”. That’s just not true at all.

[Dahobbs 17,534]

14 minutes ago, Poolflood said:

I said overtly political.  Go read the Time's article from 2010 on kagan.  She was qualified.  But was solicitor general for a year?  Barrets been a. Judge for 2+?  I said it on another board.  If you want to claim fruit of tree argument re trump - cool.  Unqualified?   Disingenuous. 

I don't think Kagan was particularly well qualified either. You should have had to practice law at some point to be a judge, much less a Supreme Court Justice. I don't like the pure academia types dictating to a profession they barely understand. Ginsburg? Super qualified. Scalia? Super qualified. Breyer? Super qualified. Seriously, Kagan and Kavanaugh are the light weights of the current court. And even they are a infinitely more qualified than Barrett. She isn't a member of the profession in any real sense.   

Edited September 28, 2020 by Dahobbs

[Poolflood 845]

8 minutes ago, TexasBeta said:

Kagan was never a judge.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/many-justices-were-never-judges-before-appointment-11552596987
 

That was the point

[TexasBeta 1,261]

That was the point

Ahhhh. Well. Lord help me. While I was awarded a degree from Texas I may, at times, not use it.

Thx

[Poolflood 845]

3 minutes ago, Texaspython said:

You said “more qualified and less overtly political”. That’s just not true at all.

yes.  Very good.  Barrett has more years on bench than Kagan had as solicitor and more years teaching than kagan and fewer years as a political appointee.

[Poolflood 845]

9 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't think Kagan was particularly well qualified either. You should have had to practice law at some point to be a judge, much less a Supreme Court Justice. I don't like the pure academia types dictating to a profession they barely understand. Ginsburg? Super qualified. Scalia? Super qualified. Breyer? Super qualified. Seriously, Kagan and Kavanaugh are the light weights of the current court. And even they are a infinitely more qualified than Barrett.   

Dictating to a profession....?  And the ABA thought Kagan was super qualified.

[Dahobbs 17,534]

2 minutes ago, Poolflood said:

yes.  Very good.  Barrett has more years on bench than Kagan had as solicitor and more years teaching than kagan and fewer years as a political appointee.

Dude, she was the fucking dean of Harvard Law for 6 years. That is 1000x more impressive than being a law professor at Notre Dame,. 

[Dahobbs 17,534]

Just now, Poolflood said:

Dictating to a profession....?

Yes, where are you lost? Judges that don't understand the meat and potatoes of the legal practice tend to have rulings that disregard reality in favor of fantasy. 

[Texaspython 231]

7 minutes ago, Poolflood said:

yes.  Very good.  Barrett has more years on bench than Kagan had as solicitor and more years teaching than kagan and fewer years as a political appointee.

Well, she would have been a judge but repubs blocked her and never gave her a vote. Had she gotten her vote she would have been on a circuit court bench for 10 years...

[Poolflood 845]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Dude, she was the fucking dean of Harvard Law for 6 years. That is 1000x more impressive than being a law professor at Notre Dame,. 

What did she teach while dean?  What papers did she author?  Or was it, you know administrative?  Heard the students loved her!

[Poolflood 845]

3 minutes ago, Texaspython said:

Well, she would have been a judge but repubs blocked her and never gave her a vote. Had she gotten her vote she would have been on a circuit court bench for 10 years...

and still qualified.  Never argued she wasn't. 

[Dahobbs 17,534]

1 minute ago, Poolflood said:

What did she teach while dean?  What papers did she author?  Or was it, you know administrative?  Heard the students loved her!

I'm at a loss here. I've already said I thought she wasn't particularly well qualified. But, being the dean of Harvard Law School is shit ton more impressive than being a professor at Notre Dame, come the fuck on. Are you really suggesting that every professor at a mid tier law school is qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice?

[Texaspython 231]

Just now, Poolflood said:

and still qualified.  Never argued she wasn't. 

However, you’re basing her qualifications on the fact she was nominated by a fool and confirmed by a fraudulent senate. I’ll give you this, she’s been very fortunate in her timing and political connections. 

[Poolflood 845]

5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Yes, where are you lost? Judges that don't understand the meat and potatoes of the legal practice tend to have rulings that disregard reality in favor of fantasy. 

Care to point to an example of scotus rulings that disregard the meat and potatoes of your profession?  Not that anyone cares.  

[Poolflood 845]

3 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I'm at a loss here. I've already said I thought she wasn't particularly well qualified. But, being the dean of Harvard Law School is shit ton more impressive than being a professor at Notre Dame, come the fuck on. Are you really suggesting that every professor at a mid tier law school is qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice?

And I've said they both are.  You're rather dense.  Aba agreed with me on Kagan.  Though I doubt will with barrett.

[Dahobbs 17,534]

Just now, Poolflood said:

Care to point to an example of scotus rulings that disregard the meat and potatoes of your profession?  Not that anyone cares.  

Do you have any idea what judges do? Do you know who is responsible for the rules of civil and criminal procedure? If you don't care, why the fuck are you commenting on this? 

[Dahobbs 17,534]

Just now, Poolflood said:

And I've said they both are.  You're rather dense.  Aba agreed with me on Kagan.  Though I doubt will with barrett.

I'm giving you my opinion. I don't think she was particularly well qualified. She hit the bare minimum for a Supreme Court Justice. But she wasn't the best candidate. Compare her resume to others on the bench (except for Kavanaugh) and you'll find it extremely lacking. And Barret isn't in Kagan's league. 

[Poolflood 845]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Do you have any idea what judges do? Do you know who is responsible for the rules of civil and criminal procedure? If you don't care, why the fuck are you commenting on this? 

Oh you're that special little jd!  

Ok, cool! 

[Poolflood 845]

Just now, Dahobbs said:

I'm giving you my opinion. I don't think she was particularly well qualified. She hit the bare minimum for a Supreme Court Justice. But she wasn't the best candidate. Compare her resume to others on the bench (except for Kavanaugh) and you'll find it extremely lacking. And Barret isn't in Kagan's league. 

Cool.  You're boring.  

[Dahobbs 17,534]

2 minutes ago, Poolflood said:

Oh you're that special little jd!  

Ok, cool! 

 

1 minute ago, Poolflood said:

Cool.  You're boring.  

Your wit astounds me. I also don't understand why you'd engage in a conversation if you didn't really want to participate in it. Apparently you just like speaking in complete ignorance, which I guess is a sort of skill. Good for you. 

[Texaspython 231]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

 

Your wit astounds me. I also don't understand why you'd engage in a conversation if you didn't really want to participate in it. Apparently you just like speaking in complete ignorance, which I guess is a sort of skill. Good for you. 

He made an indefensible statement and he’s just trolling now.

[TwiceHorn 31,463]

On 9/25/2020 at 3:39 PM, DDD Dad said:

A significant one being that Trump has appointed 53 of the 179 seats on the federal appellate courts.

Does the 179 include senior status or only fully active judges?

[TwiceHorn 31,463]

24 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Do you have any idea what judges do? Do you know who is responsible for the rules of civil and criminal procedure? If you don't care, why the fuck are you commenting on this? 

Sidenote on this.  The vast, vast majority of Supreme Court decisions are unanimous and those decisions generally affect only lawyers and frequent flyers in the justice system.