Jump to content

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is dead

Michael Knight

By Michael Knight
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 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

Horn Dog

Horn Dog 9672

Posted
Posted

Come on guys.  GH is simply worried about decorum and the effect it might have on democratic norms.  This makes sense and he would advise any concerned citizen to use civilized, constitutionally sanctioned means to express their dissatisfaction.  These means include:

1. Marching and Demonstrating (wait...can't do that cause that makes you a angry ANTIFA/BLM MOB!)

2.  Protesting (wait....can't do that cause then you are being childish and through a hissy fit!)

3.  Voting (wait....can't do that cause GH fully supports voter suppression efforts championed by the GOP)

4.  Encouraging your representatives to pass new laws to address your grievances  (wait... can't do that cause that is "changing the rules")

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JBJ

JBJ 3649

Posted
Posted (edited)

Concern would be "I worry about how the Ginsburg family feels about this."

It's disdain: "this behavior is akin to a 2 year old temper tantrum."

....

Anyway I came here to post that the "rule of 6" would be counter-productive. It's the rule of 4 precisely so that the judicial minority can decide to hear cases.  All you are really doing with 6 is ensuring the majority controls the docket.

Edited by JBJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13049

Posted
Posted
1 hour 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.

It's one of the few times the President has been faced with the public that is not a rally or a heavily scrutinized appearance so it is good for a President to be exposed to the lamentations of the people, whether those include shouting, jeers, or other phrases. Seriously, a temper tantrum is what happens when you're told that you need to re-lower the flag to half staff for a Senator lying in State. A Senator who was a prisoner of war during a time that a certain current commander in chief managed to be afflicted with bone spurs.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Judge Roybeanbag

Judge Roybeanbag 11810

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours 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. 
 

 

Stop pretending you give a shit about decorum and respect.  "I learned it from YOU, Dad!"

Edited by Judge Roybeanbag
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BehoId, The Underminer!

BehoId, The Underminer! 11668

Posted
Posted

also, can we declare TDS idiotic?

 

you're just mad because the president undermines the first amendment, doesn't have a fundamental grasp on the makeup of the government, doesn't understand the importance of a peaceful transfer of power, conspires with foreign governments to manufacture dirt about political opponents, bans people based on their religion, gets his followers to chant that they should throw political opponents in jail, fosters racial violence, proposes brain dead plans that aren't worthy of a fifth grader's idea, lets his cronies fire state department officials.  you are totally deranged!

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted

Okay, Democrats, we have three options on how to respond here!
1. Do nothing, work within the existing framework to dig ourselves out of this hole
2. Blow the whole framework up and go nuclear on the GOP
3. Half measures that mean nothing

Ooh. #3. Definitely #3

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-termlimits/democrats-prepare-bill-limiting-u-s-supreme-court-justice-terms-to-18-years-idUSKCN26F3L3

Unreal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
troph

troph 24562

Posted
Posted
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.

This.

And there is nothing wrong with undoing the tyranny of the minority acting as the former majority here. We need to stop acting like it’s a bad thing to undo the wreckage caused by Trump and McConnell.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31280

Posted
Posted (edited)

I liked the idea (curtailing cert) at first, but yeah, I see it has its pitfalls.

I'm kind of down with exacting revenge on Trump/McConnell.  

But at some point, this tit for tat partisanship has got to end if we are going to continue on.  I tend to agree that Dems and left-center types need to stop taking the high road and retaliate in kind, at least for now.  I just worry about where/when it will all end.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29255

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I liked the idea (curtailing cert) at first, but yeah, I see it has its pitfalls.

I'm kind of down with exacting revenge on Trump/McConnell.  

But at some point, this tit for tat partisanship has got to end if we are going to continue on.  I tend to agree that Dems and left-center types need to stop taking the high road and retaliate in kind, at least for now.  I just worry about where/when it will all end.

It's a reasonable concern, but the more immediate concern is where we'll be six months from now if we stick to the high road. 

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

Doc Sam Beckett 5784

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's a reasonable concern, but the more immediate concern is where we'll be six months from now if we stick to the high road. 

It will be the end of the Democratic party and we will be wherever the Republicans want us to be. I will be the first defection and will work hard to undo everything they stand for. It is fucking imperative that the Democrats understand that these recent blue waves are not because we want to see business as usual. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 45495

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

 

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.

Better get used to this because it’s only going to get worse if Biden wins.  Tan suits and mustard again, but after they had the worst human on earth as President. They are just the worst.  Maybe worse than the derel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
softlynow

softlynow 1783

Posted
Posted
52 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I liked the idea (curtailing cert) at first, but yeah, I see it has its pitfalls.

I'm kind of down with exacting revenge on Trump/McConnell.  

But at some point, this tit for tat partisanship has got to end if we are going to continue on.  I tend to agree that Dems and left-center types need to stop taking the high road and retaliate in kind, at least for now.  I just worry about where/when it will all end.

Dems should look at it a different way. The constitution no longer functions correctly in a number of areas. It's framework needs updating because of the advent of a number of things, not the least of which is the need for a gigantic executive which the founders had zero suspicion would arise. The electoral college is on its way to losing its legitimacy, the two-party system encourages black and white thinking in a grey-shaded world and every Congressperson represents far too many people. It's time for a refresh.

Of course, that's why Dems will simply fight fire with kindling. Their personal wealth would likely take a hit in any effective plan to force actual change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lat22

Lat22 3994

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's not unheard of for a country to wage war in the most heinous imaginable ways and then treat the vanquished with basic decency and respect.  The Dems need to do whatever it takes and worry about being nice guys down the road.

Go for it.  LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

Her tribute in State is really moving this morning.  "Justice Ginsburg's dissents were not cries of defeat, but rather a blueprint for a future time.  She knew better than anyone her minority opinions weren't for today, but for a time that she would never know."  I adamantly disagree with a number of her opinions, but I those lines give me the chills.  I thought about Bob Dole struggling to stand to salute Pres. H.W. Bush's casket.  They were all different from one another, but Patriots All.  

I know this isn't the right thing to focus on while her body lays there in the Rotunda.....but what the fuck are people going to say about Trump at this public funerals?  Humans tend to romanticize someone's life during a eulogy...to focus on the good, perhaps even embellish.  But maybe in a cruel twist of history, even his supporters may finally be forced to admit it was just a mutual exchange of exploitation.  Not even his kids could say with a straight face crap like, 'He believed in public service, elevating your fellow man, giving of yourself to a greater cause, etc.'  Maybe Ivanka could say it with a straight face, but nobody else on the planet could stammer through such bullshit.  

Mark my words, 5-10 years from now when that pile of human garbage finally dies in a cage somewhere.....somebody is gonna call Mitch McConnell and Mike Pompeo and say, "We would like to extend an invitation for you to speak at President Trump's public service next week."  And those guys are going to genuinely respond with, "Who died?"  He's barely of use to them when he's out of office, he'll serve no purpose to them once he's dead except for maybe a chance to get in some funeral schwag to sell in Branson.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13132

Posted
Posted

Just focus on fixing the fundamentals of the democracy.

Don't make it about party, not just for political sales reasons, but because fuck the parties. They can die in a hole for all I care. I just want our democracy to be representative and healthy.

Issue #1 - Access to the ballot

A) Every American 18+ can vote, period. No holds of any kind. Owe some money? A pathetic degenerate? Lazy and ugly and stupid? Literally on death row for killing a school bus full of baby nuns and eating them as the cops arrived? Don't care, you're an American citizen and you can vote. Your state and local governments have no power to stop ANYONE from voting. None. Zero. Voting is not a privilege you can lose for any reason ever. 100% non-negotiable.

B) Accessible polling places. X# of polling places per X# of people, period. Can't afford it? We'll federally fund it. Can't get to your polling place because you're old? Fat? Lazy? Poor? Stupid? We'll cover your Uber.

C) Accessible polling times. Early voting AND a national voting holiday.

D) Uniform national voting standards. An independent, publicly-overseen panel comes up with simple and secure voting methods and they are applied across the nation in a standard.

Issue #2 - More Equal (but not Fully) Representation in Congress

A) Reapportion Congress such that no Congressman represents more than 100k people. The House will now have 3300+ members instead of the current 435. Each state rotates which districts get to send their people to Washington and the vast majority of Congressmen work from satellite locations and are primarily remote-voters and citizen liaisons. Congressmen have to have town halls and open hours regularly to be accountable and available to citizens.

B) Expand the Senate.
Wyoming has 1 senator per 290,000 people.
Texas has 1 senator per 14,500,000 people.

I'm all for pro-small-state inequality in the Senate, but no one can pretend this is actually democratic. Every state gets 2 minimum no matter how small (even if everyone leaves Wyoming but those two senators), but an extra for every 1M pop. Satellite Senators live and work in the home state while we maintain 2-from-every-state physically in DC.

I think the Senate being 10x less representative than the House is enough of a middle finger to the big states. (Does a middle finger to the big states even make sense anymore in 2020? I don't think so, but whatever I'll concede that anyway.)

Issue #3 - Money in Politics

There's so much here... it just makes me want to cry.

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

jimmyjazz 45558

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Lat22 said:

You want me to expound on "wage war in the most heinous way imaginable"? I said "go for it".  End of story.

I don't think you're nearly as clever as you think you are, but thanks for the input.  I was quite literally talking about war -- you know, guns and bombs and shit.  I wasn't talking about the fucking election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Satchel

Satchel 6908

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, softlynow said:

Dems should look at it a different way. The constitution no longer functions correctly in a number of areas. It's framework needs updating because of the advent of a number of things, not the least of which is the need for a gigantic executive which the founders had zero suspicion would arise. The electoral college is on its way to losing its legitimacy, the two-party system encourages black and white thinking in a grey-shaded world and every Congressperson represents far too many people. It's time for a refresh.

Of course, that's why Dems will simply fight fire with kindling. Their personal wealth would likely take a hit in any effective plan to force actual change.

Some Votes Matter!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 12841

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Just focus on fixing the fundamentals of the democracy.

Don't make it about party, not just for political sales reasons, but because fuck the parties. They can die in a hole for all I care. I just want our democracy to be representative and healthy.

Issue #1 - Access to the ballot

A) Every American 18+ can vote, period. No holds of any kind. Owe some money? A pathetic degenerate? Lazy and ugly and stupid? Literally on death row for killing a school bus full of baby nuns and eating them as the cops arrived? Don't care, you're an American citizen and you can vote. Your state and local governments have no power to stop ANYONE from voting. None. Zero. Voting is not a privilege you can lose for any reason ever. 100% non-negotiable.

B) Accessible polling places. X# of polling places per X# of people, period. Can't afford it? We'll federally fund it. Can't get to your polling place because you're old? Fat? Lazy? Poor? Stupid? We'll cover your Uber.

C) Accessible polling times. Early voting AND a national voting holiday.

D) Uniform national voting standards. An independent, publicly-overseen panel comes up with simple and secure voting methods and they are applied across the nation in a standard.

Issue #2 - More Equal (but not Fully) Representation in Congress

A) Reapportion Congress such that no Congressman represents more than 100k people. The House will now have 3300+ members instead of the current 435. Each state rotates which districts get to send their people to Washington and the vast majority of Congressmen work from satellite locations and are primarily remote-voters and citizen liaisons. Congressmen have to have town halls and open hours regularly to be accountable and available to citizens.

B) Expand the Senate.
Wyoming has 1 senator per 290,000 people.
Texas has 1 senator per 14,500,000 people.

I'm all for pro-small-state inequality in the Senate, but no one can pretend this is actually democratic. Every state gets 2 minimum no matter how small (even if everyone leaves Wyoming but those two senators), but an extra for every 1M pop. Satellite Senators live and work in the home state while we maintain 2-from-every-state physically in DC.

I think the Senate being 10x less representative than the House is enough of a middle finger to the big states. (Does a middle finger to the big states even make sense anymore in 2020? I don't think so, but whatever I'll concede that anyway.)

Issue #3 - Money in Politics

There's so much here... it just makes me want to cry.

Remote reps is such a simple easy fix. It creates reps that are forced to interact with their constituents and prevents the Washington group think

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goredho

Goredho 17348

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I tend to agree that Dems and left-center types need to stop taking the high road and retaliate in kind, at least for now.  I just worry about where/when it will all end.

The Dems are going to be viewed as baby-killing, suburb-destroying socialists by the Cheeto worshippers no matter what they do.  So might as well earn their hatred.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horn Dog

Horn Dog 9672

Posted
Posted

Haven’t seen this proposal.  Looks like an interesting approach to limit SC without having to add justices.  Any comments from Surly Law Dogs?

www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/23/unmaking-supreme-court/

“Let’s start with the basics. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court limited original jurisdiction. As stated in Article III: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.” But this is a tiny portion of what the Supreme Court does. As the Federal Judicial Center reports: “Between 1789 and 1959, the Court issued written opinions in only 123 original cases. Since 1960, the Court has received fewer than 140 motions for leave to file original cases, nearly half of which were denied a hearing. The majority of cases filed have been in disputes between two or more states.” [Live updates on the Supreme Court vacancy] The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in all other cases — the ones we commonly associate with the court — are controlled at the complete discretion of Congress. (Per the Constitution: “In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”) The Supreme Court has huge, wide-ranging jurisdiction because Congress granted it, not because of some constitutional preordained scheme. The next Congress could, for example, decide that the Supreme Court will have no jurisdiction concerning the constitutionality of federal statutes. Congress could create a separate court for that or simply allow circuit courts to reach their own decisions. (The notion of having different laws in different circuits is not unprecedented. The Supreme Court does not take every case in which circuit courts have disagreed.) Congress could peel off other classes of cases — e.g., the constitutionality of state laws, disputes between Congress and the executive — as well. Conservatives in the 1970s and 1980s, increasingly worried about an imperial Supreme Court, considered all sorts of measures to limit jurisdiction (e.g., taking away school busing cases).”

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23395

Posted
Posted
Just now, 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. 

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?

  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
1 minute 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?

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

  • Hook 'Em 1
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...