Jump to content

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is dead

Michael Knight

By Michael Knight
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Neonmoon

Neonmoon 38130

Posted
Posted

Mitch doesn’t give a fuck about the Democrats packing the court, because he knows they’re all talk. he doesn’t think for one instance they will do it. He’s going to push this through and laugh all the way down to hell. 

Democrats have to grow a set of balls and follow through 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

travelingtexan
travelingtexan

Just think, if RBG doesnt enter feminist ways into goverment, we dont have insta thots and tik tok sluts. I regret both of them exist.

travelingtexan
travelingtexan

No wonder anyone with sense avoids this subforum. This is Texags level of hivemind groupthink right here. Yall make Texans ashamed everywhere. Enjoy 4 more years of Trump you strap on loving biden sig

travelingtexan
travelingtexan

I'll joke about her right now. That woman is responsible for more abortions than south chicago!

Posted Images

Doc Sam Beckett

Doc Sam Beckett 5854

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

This is what Dems have to understand and act on.  The rules are gone.  If you continue to pretend there are rules, you will lose.  You have to play this dirty game.  There is no getting around it without losing.  Bill Maher has been saying this for years and it turns out he is 100% right.  It doesn't feel good, but it's the only way forward.  Destroy them.  Destroy them all.

I agree with Brisket that it might be too late to right this ship, but there's only one of three options that *could* right the ship....if Donald wins, we are done. If Biden wins and plays the reach around game to bring Republicans back, we are done faster than if Donald wins. The only chance we have, the only fucking chance, is if Biden wins and goes scorched earth. Give them what they've been giving us for 20 years and give it to them fucking hard. He doesn't do that and the Dems fucking lose me, and I'm guessing a shit ton more people, and the Pubs get another victory as if Donald had won in the first place. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
thepop

thepop 4418

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

I donated to the Get Mitch fund and also to my U.S Congress race.

What's the best way to donate to Biden/Harris? Through Act Blue? Or is that even worth doing? Should I take that money (not a huge amount) and instead give again to one or more Senate races?

ActBlue yes. I've donated to Biden but I would say if you had to choose one, definitely choose senate over presidential race.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc Sam Beckett

Doc Sam Beckett 5854

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Mitch doesn’t give a fuck about the Democrats packing the court, because he knows they’re all talk. he doesn’t think for one instance they will do it. He’s going to push this through and laugh all the way down to hell. 

Democrats have to grow a set of balls and follow through 

What's the best way to let our reps know this isn't fucking acceptable? Email? Call? I just want to set up a weekly reoccurring message to Levin, Kamala, and Feinstein that if they don't follow the @Bateshorn plan, I will switch to the Republican party and personally help campaign against them and every other Democrat before bouncing to Mexico. Fuck ya life if you don't save us

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bateshorn

Bateshorn 9989

Posted
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

And I'm going to spend the weekend convincing the Kansas lottery office that I really intended to pick the winning numbers last night, but just didn't get to the store to buy the ticket. 

Coons is a Biden confidant and one of the few Democrats with strong personal relationships with the Republicans. He’s calling GOP Senators to tell them if they do this, it’s war. 

Edited by Bateshorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
G650

G650 14421

Posted
Posted

I think people need to understand that the biggest difference between Biden and Obama is that Obama had so much hubris he always thought he could maneuver and compromise. Biden does not give a fuck and will absolutely fight.

 

Just look at him blowing up on that clown in the auto factory back in primary season. Obama never would have done that but Joe is a scrappy blue collar motherfucker, he is closer to an LBJ type than an Obama type.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bateshorn

Bateshorn 9989

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

What's the best way to let our reps know this isn't fucking acceptable? Email? Call? I just want to set up a weekly reoccurring message to Levin, Kamala, and Feinstein that if they don't follow the @Bateshorn plan, I will switch to the Republican party and personally help campaign against them and every other Democrat before bouncing to Mexico. Fuck ya life if you don't save us

spacer.png

If you are in blue states, call your rep and tell them “if the GOP does this, get rid of the filibuster and pack the court.  If you don’t, I will actively support your primary opponent.”

  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
3adays

3adays 454

Posted
Posted

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/ruth-bader-ginsburg-cooler-heads-will-prevail-merrick-garland-vote-n644711

 Ginsburg told a group of students at Georgetown University Law Center that lawmakers should appreciate that a president can appoint justices anytime during his term.

"I do think cooler heads will prevail, I hope sooner rather than later," Ginsburg said, according to the Associated Press. "The president is elected for four years, not three years, so the power he has in year three continues into year four. And maybe our members of the Senate will wake up and appreciate that that's how it should be."

 

I was curious as to what her thoughts were on then Merrick Garland being nominated in an election year and came across this article. It seems she would have, at least in theory, supported Trump nominating and the senate voting on a replacement. 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zonahorn

Zonahorn 8079

Posted
Posted
Just now, 3adays said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/ruth-bader-ginsburg-cooler-heads-will-prevail-merrick-garland-vote-n644711

 Ginsburg told a group of students at Georgetown University Law Center that lawmakers should appreciate that a president can appoint justices anytime during his term.

"I do think cooler heads will prevail, I hope sooner rather than later," Ginsburg said, according to the Associated Press. "The president is elected for four years, not three years, so the power he has in year three continues into year four. And maybe our members of the Senate will wake up and appreciate that that's how it should be."

 

I was curious as to what her thoughts were on then Merrick Garland being nominated in an election year and came across this article. It seems she would have, at least in theory, supported Trump nominating and the senate voting on a replacement. 

 

 

Jesus dude

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ruth-bader-ginsburg-rbg-death-supreme-court-trump-justice-b490603.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chuckie Finster

Chuckie Finster 22978

Posted
Posted
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/ruth-bader-ginsburg-cooler-heads-will-prevail-merrick-garland-vote-n644711

 Ginsburg told a group of students at Georgetown University Law Center that lawmakers should appreciate that a president can appoint justices anytime during his term.

"I do think cooler heads will prevail, I hope sooner rather than later," Ginsburg said, according to the Associated Press. "The president is elected for four years, not three years, so the power he has in year three continues into year four. And maybe our members of the Senate will wake up and appreciate that that's how it should be."

 

I was curious as to what her thoughts were on then Merrick Garland being nominated in an election year and came across this article. It seems she would have, at least in theory, supported Trump nominating and the senate voting on a replacement. 

 
 

Genuine question: do you think this is a compelling argument or are you just wasting everyone’s time by trolling?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc Sam Beckett

Doc Sam Beckett 5854

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Calihorn said:

4 years ago or 48 hours ago hmmmmmmm

That's what's funny about the people who yell "but what about when Obama was president?!? Why didn't she retire then?!?!?" 

Well, you fucking assholes, the GOP war was in its infancy at that point and Donald wasn't here fucking our faces every day. Before Obama's final year, when Moscow Mitch blocked Garland, it would have been perfectly natural to assume that the Senate would never pull the bullshit they did with Garland and what they are doing now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90548

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

It's gonna be a lame duck confirmation, y'all.

If they wait too long, Kelly in Arizona is sworn in, and it gets real dicey for them.

And if they try and fail to get a new Justice sworn in, Mitch and the GOP will be publicly humiliated, and Trump will burn down the GOP on the way out.  Look at how he's treated people like Sessions when he thinks they failed him.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Chuckie Finster

Chuckie Finster 22978

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

3adays: I’d like to go to Vegas with the boys
3adays wife: okay
3adays: *loses life savings, gets arrested, fucks a stripper*
... three years later...
3adays: I’d like to go to Vegas with the boys
3adays wife: nah
3adays: omg but three years ago you said you didn’t have a problem with it?!?!

  • Hook 'Em 12
  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bateshorn

Bateshorn 9989

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

If you are in blue states, call your rep and tell them “if the GOP does this, get rid of the filibuster and pack the court.  If you don’t, I will actively support your primary opponent.”

Also, remember the person on the other end of that line is a 24 year old making 26K a year, so be polite.  They are about to have a very long week being yelled at over the phone all day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, 3adays said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/ruth-bader-ginsburg-cooler-heads-will-prevail-merrick-garland-vote-n644711

 Ginsburg told a group of students at Georgetown University Law Center that lawmakers should appreciate that a president can appoint justices anytime during his term.

"I do think cooler heads will prevail, I hope sooner rather than later," Ginsburg said, according to the Associated Press. "The president is elected for four years, not three years, so the power he has in year three continues into year four. And maybe our members of the Senate will wake up and appreciate that that's how it should be."

 

I was curious as to what her thoughts were on then Merrick Garland being nominated in an election year and came across this article. It seems she would have, at least in theory, supported Trump nominating and the senate voting on a replacement. 

 

 

She would have supported it in 2016. And she would have supported it now if Garland had been confirmed like he should have been.  Given what happened to Garland, she would not support a new Trump appointment now. The Republicans changed the rules in 2016.  They need to remain consistent with their new rules. 

Alternatively, the truly right thing to do would be to appoint and confirm Garland now, and then reset this new nonsense Mitch implemented so a President can be President for 4 years once again.  

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Reynolds Woodcock

Reynolds Woodcock 5064

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Coons is a Biden confidant and one of the few Democrats with strong personal relationships with the Republicans. He’s calling GOP Senators to tell them if they do this, it’s war. 

It should be war regardless of what happens to this seat. We cannot continue to be ruled by a minority of the country. DC statehood, abolishing the filibuster and expanding the number of reps should all be done within the first 100 days. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90548

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Aqua Buddha said:

I actually think if Mitch believes the Dems are serious about court packing that he'll back off.  Might depend on how he sees his chances with the Senate races.  If he thinks they lose the Senate and they're serious, no way he goes through with this.

1 hour ago, Bateshorn said:

This is the actual conversation:  if you do it before the election and you win, then you’ve won the game for years to come, likely for the rest of our lifetimes. Trump will be ensconced as a de facto dictator and you can minimize the House through judicial rulings and executive actions. Eventually he could declare a national emergency and Barr will start arresting political opponents and the Court will look away due to executive deference. 

But if you lose,  then the fury of the Democrats is likely to result in a shattering of the post Reagan stasis state and a complete policy realignment.  The dems will go hell’s bells to improve their election chances via voting rights, house expansion, judicial term limits, and redistricting reform.  Just to name a few.

Honestly, it’s a Pearl Harbor strategy:  if you can catch the carriers at port, you can see a path to victory.  But if you don’t,  the demographics of the changing nation could result in a wipe out of your party. 

Mitch and Co. know what the numbers are, probably far better than a lot of organizations currently doing polling.  Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, went Trump by less than 1%, less than 90,000 votes combined.  Florida was a Trump win by 1.2%.  I'm betting that Mitch's numbers people are surveying the mood in those states.  And there are other states - North Carolina, Georgia, Iowa, etc. that are in play as well.

I keep thinking Mitch has decided the USSC is more important than retaining power, but upon further reflection, if he thinks a vote before the election is going to ensure that the Democrats run a train on the GOP, thanks to the states above, he might try and work out something to push it off (maybe procedural delays).    Would piss Trump off, but Mitch has been in Congress since the early 80s, and he is beholden to his backers and ideology, not to Trump - Trump doesn't realize that he's a useful tool for Mitch, but Mitch will toss him to the side if he thinks it would help him keep the Senate.

He and the GOP, and his financial backers, desperately need the GOP to retain control of the Senate, if they want to keep the Dems in some kind of check.  Because even if he gets a SC nominee through and confirmed, it will do him little good if a President Biden and a Democrat-led Senate and House reverse a shitload of stuff that Trump and Mitch did in 2017-2019.  More importantly, the major money that backs him will be pissed off to no end.

I'm not sure about the Pearl Harbor analogy.  If he pushes it through now, and it costs him the Senate (and the WH), the Dems get to reverse a everything he and Trump did.  If he waits and he pushes it through in a lame duck session after a Trump and/or GOP Senate loss, the Dems will be angry and motivated to go to town making sure the GOP will be the minority party going forward, complete with the things you mentioned - judicial term limits, redistricting reform, and I'd toss in voting reform.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goredho

Goredho 17627

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Coons is a Biden confidant and one of the few Democrats with strong personal relationships with the Republicans. He’s calling GOP Senators to tell them if they do this, it’s war. 

It’s been war for a long goddamn time, but only one side has been conducting themselves accordingly.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6982

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, 3adays said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/ruth-bader-ginsburg-cooler-heads-will-prevail-merrick-garland-vote-n644711

 Ginsburg told a group of students at Georgetown University Law Center that lawmakers should appreciate that a president can appoint justices anytime during his term.

"I do think cooler heads will prevail, I hope sooner rather than later," Ginsburg said, according to the Associated Press. "The president is elected for four years, not three years, so the power he has in year three continues into year four. And maybe our members of the Senate will wake up and appreciate that that's how it should be."

 

I was curious as to what her thoughts were on then Merrick Garland being nominated in an election year and came across this article. It seems she would have, at least in theory, supported Trump nominating and the senate voting on a replacement. 

 

 

I felt just as she did before the McConnell rule took root in 2016

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31987

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Chuckie Finster said:


Genuine question: do you think this is a compelling argument or are you just wasting everyone’s time by trolling?

I mean, I think she's right.  The appointment power doesn't expire in an election year.  And a nominee should receive a vote, if time permits a thorough confirmation hearing.

The Senators, during the vote, can/should quibble about whether they should confirm pending election/results.  But there's no viable reason not to give the nominee a hearing and a vote.

What McConnell did in 2016 was utter and complete bullshit. It's simply indefensible, even if it would be nice to hoist him on his own petard today.  If the Senate doesn't want to confirm because of his shenanigans, or concerns about the election/results, that's perfectly fine and I support that.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
A-Tex Devil

A-Tex Devil 2492

Posted
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Satchel said:

I felt just as she did before the McConnell rule took root in 2016

Right. This is only an issue because of the bullshit of 2016.  If Garland were appointed as he should have been (he was a perfectly reasonable choice, meant for a quick approval), then right now Dems would be devastated by the timing, but the uproar would be different and focused on the nominee, not the process. And, yeah, a guy like Schumer May have suggested trying to force the senate to wait until after election. I get that.  But for the most part a lot of controversy here would not exist.  The GOP senators stole Obama’s nomination and now they are reaping the whirlwind.  


If one of them would just come out and say, “Yeah, we were being obstructionist because we could, and now we are going to facilitate a quick nomination, because we can.  Suck it Dems.  Win the Senate or stop bitching,” it would at least feel like there was finally some intellectual honesty going on. 

Edited by A-Tex Devil
  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chuckie Finster

Chuckie Finster 22978

Posted
Posted
I mean, I think she's right.  The appointment power doesn't expire in an election year.  And a nominee should receive a vote, if time permits a thorough confirmation hearing.
The Senators, during the vote, can/should quibble about whether they should confirm pending election/results.  But there's no viable reason not to give the nominee a hearing and a vote.
What McConnell did in 2016 was utter and complete bullshit. It's simply indefensible, even if it would be nice to hoist him on his own petard today.  If the Senate doesn't want to confirm because of his shenanigans, or concerns about the election/results, that's perfectly fine and I support that.

I wasn’t referring to RBG’s views, of course those are valid. I mean the bullshit “GOTCHA!” attempt at posting them when things have obviously changed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PenelopeWitherspoon

PenelopeWitherspoon 19279

Posted
Posted

If the GOP hadn't pulled what they did in 2016, I think this appointment might (key word being might) be less acrimonious.

On the RBG front, for many women like myself who are in positions of seniority in largely male dominated industries/careers, she is an inspiration. She fought the fight she did so that her children, and the generations after, could make their own path without antiquated views on sex/gender hampering them. We still have more to go on equal pay and equal representation in the boardrooms and halls of power, and I hope we can continue with the same spirit and decorum that RBG exhibited during her life.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

If the GOP hadn't pulled what they did in 2016, I think this appointment might (key word being might) be less acrimonious.

On the RBG front, for many women like myself who are in positions of seniority in largely male dominated industries/careers, she is an inspiration. She fought the fight she did so that her children, and the generations after, could make their own path without antiquated views on sex/gender hampering them. We still have more to go on equal pay and equal representation in the boardrooms and halls of power, and I hope we can continue with the same spirit and decorum that RBG exhibited during her life.

lol who gives a fuck. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 24
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted

Keep negging cowards. No one can dispute the amount of suffering produced by the inequality between owners of capital and their hench(wo)men in the PMC is far greater than that produced by intra-class gender/race inequality. If you believe otherwise then do us all a favor and vote Republican. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Bateshorn

Bateshorn 9989

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)

Look, I’m not going to kink shame, Every one has an itch.

 

But sitting in your Mom’s basement masturbating to getting group banned from a board you’ve been active on for years defending *checks notes* Mitch McConnell is......Something. 

Edited by Bateshorn
  • Hook 'Em 9
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Bateshorn said:

Look, I’m not going to kink shame, Every one has an itch.

 

But sitting in your Mom’s basement masturbating ton getting group banned from a board you’ve been active on for years defending *checks notes* Mitch McConnell is......Something.

This is just a flat out lie but for some reason bald faced lies do not draw the ire of the legions of surly shitlibs. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 26
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 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...