Ruth Bader Ginsburg is dead

[ndawg 1242]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

Also and more importantly, Christine Blasey Ford was obviously telling the truth and everyone on earth fucking knew it. That wasn’t some manufactured political hit job.

Egads, hearing this from my parents made me die a little inside: "I definitely think something happened to her. I believe it's possible that somebody raped her. I just don't think it was Kavanaugh."

[DDD Dad 14571]

Just now, David Dennison said:

It's not my fault you make claims that you cannot back up with facts.

 

Oh just fuck off already.  I'm going to stop thread drifting.  Sorry, everyone else.

[David Dennison 19441]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

Oh just fuck off already.  I'm going to stop thread drifting.  Sorry, everyone else.

So what you're saying is, what happened to Merrick Garland was unprecedented.

Cool.

[TwiceHorn 31987]

12 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

So what you're saying is, what happened to Merrick Garland was unprecedented.

Cool.

It appears that it is.  Certainly in my lifetime.  Fucking wikipedia.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

It appears that three others were "no actioned" by the Senate.  Not clear what the circumstances were, exactly.

Edited September 23, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[DDD Dad 14571]

12 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Who was the last Supreme Court nominee to be denied a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee?

That's not the same point you were making before.

 

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

So what you're saying is, what happened to Merrick Garland was unprecedented.

Cool.

Um, actually no.  

 

Pierce Butler 1922

John Harlan 1954

Homer Thornberry 1968

Douglas Ginsberg 1987 (although he withdrew his name in the face of a smear attack on him for smoking pot with law students while a professor)

 

Frankly whether it was technically "unprecedented" or not is irrelevant.  The point is that there have been partisan attacks on Supreme Court nominees throughout modern history, but that they seem to have escalated exponentially both in frequency and scale.

But go on and take the win if it makes you happy.

 

Fuck. off.  already.

[wildcat09 29556]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

It appears that it is.  Certainly in my lifetime.  Fucking wikipedia.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

Every other nominee received a vote or the nomination was withdrawn.

And in the cases of withdrawn nominees, their replacements all got a fucking vote. 

[DDD Dad 14571]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

It appears that it is.  Certainly in my lifetime.  Fucking wikipedia.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsuccessful_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

Every other nominee received a vote or the nomination was withdrawn.

Not all were withdrawn.  Some expired without a vote. But. It. Doesn't. Matter.

[TwiceHorn 31987]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

And in the cases of withdrawn nominees, their replacements all got a fucking vote. 

See my correction.  There were three others no-actioned by the Senate.  In a couple of cases, it seems to have been politically motivated (probably was regardless, but there's not a ton of information on them).

[David Dennison 19441]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

Not all were withdrawn.  Some expired without a vote. But. It. Doesn't. Matter.

Which ones?

[TwiceHorn 31987]

4 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Not all were withdrawn.  Some expired without a vote. But. It. Doesn't. Matter.

I corrected.

Definitely agree that nominations have been the subject of acrimonious politics forever.

McConnell's stunt was especially disingenuous and especially since Obama deliberately nominated a guy that should not have been controversial.  Probably the last time we'll ever see that.

[TwiceHorn 31987]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Which ones?

1852 Edward Bradford (Fillmore) tabled by Senate

1852 WIlliam Macou (Fillmore) late nominee not acted on by Senate in view of election of Pierce

 

 

[DDD Dad 14571]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

1852 Edward Bradford (Fillmore) tabled by Senate

1852 WIlliam Macou (Fillmore) late nominee not acted on by Senate in view of election of Pierce

 

 

Pierce Butler too.

[David Dennison 19441]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

1852 Edward Bradford (Fillmore) tabled by Senate

1852 WIlliam Macou (Fillmore) late nominee not acted on by Senate in view of election of Pierce

Those crazy Whigs.

[David Dennison 19441]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

Pierce Butler too.

Yeah, but . . . he got confirmed.

Edited September 23, 2020 by David Dennison

[DDD Dad 14571]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Yeah, but . . . 

This is a stupid argument.  I feel ashamed for having engaged.

[David Dennison 19441]

Just now, DDD Dad said:

This is a stupid argument.  I feel ashamed for having engaged.

Justice Butler agrees.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

LOL I got negged by Slorch for this post

you got negged for your neg, and only because of that.

Edited September 23, 2020 by slorch

[Dahobbs 18190]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Edith Jones or  Priscilla Owen from the FIfth Circuit.

The most toxic Supreme Court nominee evar.

Sorry, the rage emote was the only proper response. I'm sorry that it counts as a neg, but it needed to be done. 

[TwiceHorn 31987]

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Sorry, the rage emote was the only proper response. I'm sorry that it counts as a neg, but it needed to be done. 

Lmao.  Fair.

[Buzzrock 15115]

Please link me to the written material that you are basing your assessment of their dogma regarding the controlling handmaiden-in-charge that pulls the puppet strings on ACB's legal interpretations.  Would also be helpful if you can cite some specific examples of how this controlling religious influence has exerted their control on her legal decisions to date.

It’s right after the part in the Catholic manual where it says fuck as many young boys as possible.

[workswithseed 2201]

32 minutes ago, Buzzrock said:

 

It’s right after the part in the Catholic manual where it says fuck as many young boys as possible.

 

I couldn't find where the DMV fucked young boys, but close enough.

[burntorangebongos 10809]

Douglas Ginsberg 1987 (although he withdrew his name in the face of a smear attack on him for smoking pot with law students while a professor)  Damn, he would have been a cool justice. 

Also a Jew, my fave. 

[TwiceHorn 31987]

1 minute ago, burntorangebongos said:

Douglas Ginsberg 1987 (although he withdrew his name in the face of a smear attack on him for smoking pot with law students while a professor)  Damn, he would have been a cool justice. 

Also a Jew, my fave. 

I actually don't recall it as a smear.  It was something that was raised, and in turn raised a lot of eyebrows.  The nation wasn't ready for it.

He was done in a week or 10 days, IIRC.

[TwiceHorn 31987]

Looks like my recollection was substantially correct.  Nine days after the revelation and subsequent admission, and under pressure mostly from conservatives.  https://www.nytimes.com/1987/11/08/us/ginsburg-withdraws-name-as-supreme-court-nominee-citing-marijuana-clamor.html

[workswithseed 2201]

29 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

Douglas Ginsberg 1987 (although he withdrew his name in the face of a smear attack on him for smoking pot with law students while a professor)  Damn, he would have been a cool justice. 

Also a Jew, my fave. 

I didn't know people had Jew fetishes.

[burntorangebongos 10809]

I do for Supreme Court Justices

[bolverk 30231]

Seems like an easy, straightforward, noncontroversial, and moderating alternative to court packing. What say the Surly law dogs?

Column: How Democrats could curb a conservative SCOTUS without court-packing - Frankel

NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Donald Trump and Republicans in the U.S. Senate are barreling forward with plans to lock down conservative control of the U.S. Supreme Court for decades to come. The president has said he will announce his nominee on Saturday to fill the seat of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Republicans have sketched out plans to vote on the president’s nominee before the Nov. 3 election.

But if Democrats gain control of the Senate and the White House in the election, there is a simple way they can blunt the impact of a conservative Supreme Court – without provoking a wrenching nationwide debate over expanding the number of justices on the court or sparking a constitutional crisis over Congressional power to restrict the Supreme Court’s purview.

According to an upcoming California Law Review article, The Supreme Court and the 117th Congress, Congress can home in on how the Supreme Court decides which cases to hear. By enacting a law to require at least six justices to agree to take a case, the paper’s authors, Stanford lecturer Andrew Jennings and former federal appellate clerk Athul Acharya, Congress would empower the Supreme Court’s liberal contingent to block “the most ideologically, socially or politically divisive” cases from going before the court.

“It would cool things down by requiring greater consensus,” said Jennings, who told me that he and Acharya, an associate at BraunHagey & Borden, drafted the paper in a matter of days after Justice Ginsburg’s death.

Of course, Democrats can only push through such a law if they win the Senate and the White House. But for liberals wondering if they’re going to be stuck for decades with a conservative court, Jennings and Acharya offer a prospective solution that just might work. And Democrats wouldn’t even have to rewrite any existing law to change the Supreme Court’s procedure.

CHANGE THE ‘RULE OF FOUR’

Right now, the justices have complete discretion over their docket. The Supreme Court receives thousands of petitions every year asking the justices to review decisions by lower courts. The court grants review in fewer than 100 cases. To decide which cases merit their attention, the court has for more than a century applied the so-called rule of four: At least four of the nine justices must vote to take a case.

But the rule of four, as Jennings and Acharya explain in their paper, is not even a formal procedure, much less an actual law. “The ‘rule of four’ is not a command of Congress,” wrote Justice Felix Frankfurter in a 1957 dissenting opinion. “It is a working rule devised by the court as a practical mode of determining that a case is deserving of review.”

If Congress were to mandate that six or more justices must agree to take a case – which could be accomplished with a one-sentence amendment to the U.S. Code, according to Jennings and Acharya – the court’s liberals could block the Supreme Court from deciding politically divisive issues. The Supreme Court, they predicted, would instead hear mostly technical legal disputes, such as patent, tax or government contract cases, and would resolve splits among federal appellate courts on how to interpret the law.

NO CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE
I should note that the paper by Jennings and Acharya discusses other ways that a Democratic Congress and president could rein in a conservative Supreme Court.

Democrats could, for instance, expand the number of justices on the court to dilute the power of the conservative bloc. The U.S. Constitution does not mandate the number of justices on the court, and, as Jennings and Acharya explain, Congress has directed at various moments in U.S. history that the court contain as few as five justices and as many as 10.

If a Democratic Congress were to decide to add justices to restore the court’s ideological balance, it would just have to change one word in the operative 1866 law specifying the size of the court.

RESTRICT CASES
Alternatively, wrote Jennings and Acharya, Congress could attempt to restrict the kinds of cases that the Supreme Court is entitled to hear. The Constitution, they explained, says only that the Supreme Court must hear cases of “original jurisdiction,” such as disputes between states. And Congress, they said, has constitutional power to create “exceptions” to the Supreme Court’s purview.

Lawmakers have exercised that power from time to time, the paper said, including in an immigration law that bars all courts from reviewing certain immigration decisions by the executive branch of the government.

A Democratic Congress, wrote Jennings and Acharya, could enact a wholesale restriction on the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over federal cases. Or it could take a more targeted approach, by including provisions in particular laws, such as civil rights or healthcare statutes.

Either option would be contentious, to say the least. As would legislation to expand the number of justices on the court. As Acharya pointed out in an interview, “court-packing” and “jurisdiction-stripping” are already dirty words in the public imagination.

The rule of four, by contrast, is an obscure Supreme Court procedure that’s hardly sacrosanct in the minds of most Americans. So enacting a law to require that at least six justices must agree to grant review, said Acharya and Jennings, could be less controversial than the other choices available to a Democratic Congress.

“The politics,” Acharya said, “would definitely be easier.”

(The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.)

[Grade of D as in David 13255]

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

Seems like an easy, straightforward, noncontroversial, and moderating alternative to court packing. What say the Surly law dogs?

Column: How Democrats could curb a conservative SCOTUS without court-packing - Frankel

NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Donald Trump and Republicans in the U.S. Senate are barreling forward with plans to lock down conservative control of the U.S. Supreme Court for decades to come. The president has said he will announce his nominee on Saturday to fill the seat of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Republicans have sketched out plans to vote on the president’s nominee before the Nov. 3 election.

But if Democrats gain control of the Senate and the White House in the election, there is a simple way they can blunt the impact of a conservative Supreme Court – without provoking a wrenching nationwide debate over expanding the number of justices on the court or sparking a constitutional crisis over Congressional power to restrict the Supreme Court’s purview.

According to an upcoming California Law Review article, The Supreme Court and the 117th Congress, Congress can home in on how the Supreme Court decides which cases to hear. By enacting a law to require at least six justices to agree to take a case, the paper’s authors, Stanford lecturer Andrew Jennings and former federal appellate clerk Athul Acharya, Congress would empower the Supreme Court’s liberal contingent to block “the most ideologically, socially or politically divisive” cases from going before the court.

“It would cool things down by requiring greater consensus,” said Jennings, who told me that he and Acharya, an associate at BraunHagey & Borden, drafted the paper in a matter of days after Justice Ginsburg’s death.

Of course, Democrats can only push through such a law if they win the Senate and the White House. But for liberals wondering if they’re going to be stuck for decades with a conservative court, Jennings and Acharya offer a prospective solution that just might work. And Democrats wouldn’t even have to rewrite any existing law to change the Supreme Court’s procedure.

CHANGE THE ‘RULE OF FOUR’

Right now, the justices have complete discretion over their docket. The Supreme Court receives thousands of petitions every year asking the justices to review decisions by lower courts. The court grants review in fewer than 100 cases. To decide which cases merit their attention, the court has for more than a century applied the so-called rule of four: At least four of the nine justices must vote to take a case.

But the rule of four, as Jennings and Acharya explain in their paper, is not even a formal procedure, much less an actual law. “The ‘rule of four’ is not a command of Congress,” wrote Justice Felix Frankfurter in a 1957 dissenting opinion. “It is a working rule devised by the court as a practical mode of determining that a case is deserving of review.”

If Congress were to mandate that six or more justices must agree to take a case – which could be accomplished with a one-sentence amendment to the U.S. Code, according to Jennings and Acharya – the court’s liberals could block the Supreme Court from deciding politically divisive issues. The Supreme Court, they predicted, would instead hear mostly technical legal disputes, such as patent, tax or government contract cases, and would resolve splits among federal appellate courts on how to interpret the law.

NO CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE
I should note that the paper by Jennings and Acharya discusses other ways that a Democratic Congress and president could rein in a conservative Supreme Court.

Democrats could, for instance, expand the number of justices on the court to dilute the power of the conservative bloc. The U.S. Constitution does not mandate the number of justices on the court, and, as Jennings and Acharya explain, Congress has directed at various moments in U.S. history that the court contain as few as five justices and as many as 10.

If a Democratic Congress were to decide to add justices to restore the court’s ideological balance, it would just have to change one word in the operative 1866 law specifying the size of the court.

RESTRICT CASES
Alternatively, wrote Jennings and Acharya, Congress could attempt to restrict the kinds of cases that the Supreme Court is entitled to hear. The Constitution, they explained, says only that the Supreme Court must hear cases of “original jurisdiction,” such as disputes between states. And Congress, they said, has constitutional power to create “exceptions” to the Supreme Court’s purview.

Lawmakers have exercised that power from time to time, the paper said, including in an immigration law that bars all courts from reviewing certain immigration decisions by the executive branch of the government.

A Democratic Congress, wrote Jennings and Acharya, could enact a wholesale restriction on the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over federal cases. Or it could take a more targeted approach, by including provisions in particular laws, such as civil rights or healthcare statutes.

Either option would be contentious, to say the least. As would legislation to expand the number of justices on the court. As Acharya pointed out in an interview, “court-packing” and “jurisdiction-stripping” are already dirty words in the public imagination.

The rule of four, by contrast, is an obscure Supreme Court procedure that’s hardly sacrosanct in the minds of most Americans. So enacting a law to require that at least six justices must agree to grant review, said Acharya and Jennings, could be less controversial than the other choices available to a Democratic Congress.

“The politics,” Acharya said, “would definitely be easier.”

(The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.)

No offense but fuck that shit.

No half measures.

[StassneyHorn 6755]

9 hours ago, workswithseed said:

I didn't know people had Jew fetishes.

You've never heard of Joobies? Jewbies?

[wildcat09 29556]

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

Seems like an easy, straightforward, noncontroversial, and moderating alternative to court packing. What say the Surly law dogs?

Column: How Democrats could curb a conservative SCOTUS without court-packing - Frankel

NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Donald Trump and Republicans in the U.S. Senate are barreling forward with plans to lock down conservative control of the U.S. Supreme Court for decades to come. The president has said he will announce his nominee on Saturday to fill the seat of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Republicans have sketched out plans to vote on the president’s nominee before the Nov. 3 election.

But if Democrats gain control of the Senate and the White House in the election, there is a simple way they can blunt the impact of a conservative Supreme Court – without provoking a wrenching nationwide debate over expanding the number of justices on the court or sparking a constitutional crisis over Congressional power to restrict the Supreme Court’s purview.

According to an upcoming California Law Review article, The Supreme Court and the 117th Congress, Congress can home in on how the Supreme Court decides which cases to hear. By enacting a law to require at least six justices to agree to take a case, the paper’s authors, Stanford lecturer Andrew Jennings and former federal appellate clerk Athul Acharya, Congress would empower the Supreme Court’s liberal contingent to block “the most ideologically, socially or politically divisive” cases from going before the court.

“It would cool things down by requiring greater consensus,” said Jennings, who told me that he and Acharya, an associate at BraunHagey & Borden, drafted the paper in a matter of days after Justice Ginsburg’s death.

Of course, Democrats can only push through such a law if they win the Senate and the White House. But for liberals wondering if they’re going to be stuck for decades with a conservative court, Jennings and Acharya offer a prospective solution that just might work. And Democrats wouldn’t even have to rewrite any existing law to change the Supreme Court’s procedure.

CHANGE THE ‘RULE OF FOUR’

Right now, the justices have complete discretion over their docket. The Supreme Court receives thousands of petitions every year asking the justices to review decisions by lower courts. The court grants review in fewer than 100 cases. To decide which cases merit their attention, the court has for more than a century applied the so-called rule of four: At least four of the nine justices must vote to take a case.

But the rule of four, as Jennings and Acharya explain in their paper, is not even a formal procedure, much less an actual law. “The ‘rule of four’ is not a command of Congress,” wrote Justice Felix Frankfurter in a 1957 dissenting opinion. “It is a working rule devised by the court as a practical mode of determining that a case is deserving of review.”

If Congress were to mandate that six or more justices must agree to take a case – which could be accomplished with a one-sentence amendment to the U.S. Code, according to Jennings and Acharya – the court’s liberals could block the Supreme Court from deciding politically divisive issues. The Supreme Court, they predicted, would instead hear mostly technical legal disputes, such as patent, tax or government contract cases, and would resolve splits among federal appellate courts on how to interpret the law.

NO CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE
I should note that the paper by Jennings and Acharya discusses other ways that a Democratic Congress and president could rein in a conservative Supreme Court.

Democrats could, for instance, expand the number of justices on the court to dilute the power of the conservative bloc. The U.S. Constitution does not mandate the number of justices on the court, and, as Jennings and Acharya explain, Congress has directed at various moments in U.S. history that the court contain as few as five justices and as many as 10.

If a Democratic Congress were to decide to add justices to restore the court’s ideological balance, it would just have to change one word in the operative 1866 law specifying the size of the court.

RESTRICT CASES
Alternatively, wrote Jennings and Acharya, Congress could attempt to restrict the kinds of cases that the Supreme Court is entitled to hear. The Constitution, they explained, says only that the Supreme Court must hear cases of “original jurisdiction,” such as disputes between states. And Congress, they said, has constitutional power to create “exceptions” to the Supreme Court’s purview.

Lawmakers have exercised that power from time to time, the paper said, including in an immigration law that bars all courts from reviewing certain immigration decisions by the executive branch of the government.

A Democratic Congress, wrote Jennings and Acharya, could enact a wholesale restriction on the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over federal cases. Or it could take a more targeted approach, by including provisions in particular laws, such as civil rights or healthcare statutes.

Either option would be contentious, to say the least. As would legislation to expand the number of justices on the court. As Acharya pointed out in an interview, “court-packing” and “jurisdiction-stripping” are already dirty words in the public imagination.

The rule of four, by contrast, is an obscure Supreme Court procedure that’s hardly sacrosanct in the minds of most Americans. So enacting a law to require that at least six justices must agree to grant review, said Acharya and Jennings, could be less controversial than the other choices available to a Democratic Congress.

“The politics,” Acharya said, “would definitely be easier.”

(The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.)

This would be incredibly weak shit. It might be worth doing on its own merits, but hardly addresses the problem of conservative judges overturning democratically enacted policies.

[TwiceHorn 31987]

13 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

No offense but fuck that shit.

No half measures.

Actually, I think that's a fantastic idea.  

Court-packing, while it feels good right now, affects the legitimacy of the Court and risks turning into a tit-for-tat every time one party or another is in power.

Changing the number of votes required to grant cert sounds great.

[Gap03 3374]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This would be incredibly weak shit. It might be worth doing on its own merits, but hardly addresses the problem of conservative judges overturning democratically enacted policies.

And wouldn't this leave decisions to lower federal courts, which have also been jam-packed with Republican crazy / stupid over the McConnell reign?  I agree with Wildcat.  I don't think that's going to have any deterrent effect for the Rs, who have long demonstrated their willingness to act in bad faith.

[Nivek 17330]

You've never heard of Joobies? Jewbies?

Reminds me of an old gf, thanks for the mammaries.

[wildcat09 29556]

58 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Actually, I think that's a fantastic idea.  

Court-packing, while it feels good right now, affects the legitimacy of the Court and risks turning into a tit-for-tat every time one party or another is in power.

Changing the number of votes required to grant cert sounds great.

Like I said, it may be worth doing on its own merits, but it doesn't address the problem that court packing is meant to address. And the Court's legitimacy has already been destroyed. It's time we stop pretending otherwise.

[StassneyHorn 6755]

How shitty would it be for 9 justices to get to hear the case and make arguments, but only a random 5 get to decide a case?

I was drunkenly on board for packing when you have the chance, but only letting a certain number take on the case. Could be a lottery style or could be everyone writes an opinion and the 9 most agreeable decide.

Edited September 24, 2020 by StassneyHorn

[Doc Sam Beckett 5854]

1 hour ago, Grade of D as in David said:

No offense but fuck that shit.

No half measures.

 

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

This would be incredibly weak shit. It might be worth doing on its own merits, but hardly addresses the problem of conservative judges overturning democratically enacted policies.

Yeah fuck that, there's only one option at this point, and that's regardless of what the GOP does with the RBG appointment:

 

Also, the people cautioning against fighting fire with fire are far more depressing than the GOP who is actually fighting dirty. The more people who suggest restraint the more likely the Dems actually listen. "Well son, I know this latest ass kicking over RBG was the worst, but you just stay the course young man, you tattle like your life depends on it, one day a teacher will do something." Thanks dad! I don't know how I grew up to be such a huge pussy with such a strong dad like you! 

[wildcat09 29556]

1 minute ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

 

Yeah fuck that, there's only one option at this point, and that's regardless of what the GOP does with the RBG appointment:

 

Also, the people cautioning against fighting fire with fire are far more depressing than the GOP who is actually fighting dirty. The more people who suggest restraint the more likely the Dems actually listen. "Well son, I know this latest ass kicking over RBG was the worst, but you just stay the course young man, you tattle like your life depends on it, one day a teacher will do something." Thanks dad! I don't know how I grew up to be such a huge pussy with such a strong dad like you! 

It's the paradox of tolerance. Tolerance is good and vital to any society, particularly one as diverse as ours. But it can also be a weakness that fascists exploit by acting like fascists then going "aha, by your own rules you have to be tolerant of us!" Then they kill us all.

 

[jimmyjazz 46976]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Actually, I think that's a fantastic idea.  

Court-packing, while it feels good right now, affects the legitimacy of the Court and risks turning into a tit-for-tat every time one party or another is in power.

Changing the number of votes required to grant cert sounds great.

Well, a "rule of six" isn't exactly going to change the calculus once the new justice is seated.  I mean, 6-3 pretty much means 6 conservatives can control the docket.  Am I missing something?

[GRHorn 105]

Screaming at the memorial of someone they supposedly revere. Behavior akin to a 2 year old temper tantrum. TDS in video form. 
 

 

[wildcat09 29556]

I’ve said it before, when this is all over concern trolls get gibbets.

[hayden_horn 11401]

2 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Screaming at the memorial of someone they supposedly revere. Behavior akin to a 2 year old temper tantrum. TDS in video form. 
 

 

consider that the man they are screaming at likely had advance notice of rbg's condition, and decided that was the appropriate time to come out and read a list of her replacement candidates before she was even dead. he deserves worse. fuck him.

[Gatorubet 30631]

It's the paradox of tolerance. Tolerance is good and vital to any society, particularly one as diverse as ours. But it can also be a weakness that fascists exploit by acting like fascists then going "aha, by your own rules you have to be tolerant of us!" Then they kill us all.
 

This. Saying that the bronze sword people should try to reason with the iron sword people sounds good - but will get you massacred.

You adopt their methods and improve on them, and then dictate from a position of strength - but with restraint. Like winning and finally having the Bomb but not using it on a defeated Europe or Asia when you could.

[jimmyjazz 46976]

6 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

Screaming at the memorial of someone they supposedly revere. Behavior akin to a 2 year old temper tantrum. TDS in video form. 

Fuck your "concern".  RBG would approve.

[SubliminalHorn 6995]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Fuck your "concern".  RBG would approve.

I'd like to think so. Though she, herself, did say that responding with anger is only self-defeating. Then again, it's trump so I think she would be ok with bending her rule again.

[jimmyjazz 46976]

She was a fighter, and she despised Trump.  She would smile.

I am mostly just infuriated that a Trumpkin would concern troll about an "indiscretion" yet be absolutely fine with Trump and his Republican base shitting all over basic decorum, not to mention the Constitution and the rule of law for 4 years.  Fuck GRHorn and his tut-tutting.

[hayden_horn 11401]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

She was a fighter, and she despised Trump.  She would smile.

I am mostly just infuriated that a Trumpkin would concern troll about an "indiscretion" yet be absolutely fine with Trump and his Republican base shitting all over basic decorum, not to mention the Constitution and the rule of law for 4 years.  Fuck GRHorn and his tut-tutting.

today, donald trump conceded that he might not peacefully concede power if he lost the election.

but the most important thing for @GRHorn to post about were a few protesters at the rbg memorial. 

total concern troll.

[wildcat09 29556]

8 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

today, donald trump conceded that he might not peacefully concede power if he lost the election.

but the most important thing for @GRHorn to post about were a few protesters at the rbg memorial. 

total concern troll.

Someone better get that poor guy a fainting couch. We're going to be really fucking uncivil when Donald Trump tries to steal an election and have his political opponents killed.

[Walser 1125]

6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Someone better get that poor guy a fainting couch. We're going to be really fucking uncivil when Donald Trump tries to steal an election and have his political opponents killed.

If it comes to that I also aim to misbehave.

[GRHorn 105]

43 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

today, donald trump conceded that he might not peacefully concede power if he lost the election.

but the most important thing for @GRHorn to post about were a few protesters at the rbg memorial. 

total concern troll.

If Trump loses he will step down, no doubt. 

[Pig Bellmont 8867]

Americans have the freedom to boo any politician in a public space, and you honestly think RBG would be offended, regardless of her personal politics, about the exercise of free speech at her casket?

GTFOH with that crap. And don’t even start with trying to delegitimize critiques of this president or his administration with your Hugh Hewitt talking points. It’s embarrassing for you.