Jump to content

Amy Coney Barrett

Anastasis

By Anastasis
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

ousuxndallas
ousuxndallas

Will the left come up with a liar like Blasey Ford accusing her off rape at an undisclosed location and undisclosed date /time?

Continental Op
Continental Op

Everyone's answer to the question of "Am I in favor of the death penalty?" should be the same as the answer to the question of "Would I feel really good about being tried by a Williamson County jury f

Tom
Tom

Oh go fuck yourself, you intellectual pussy and your both sides bullshit.  Your party coalesced around the idea that a supreme court judge shouldn't be confirmed in an election year just a few years a

Posted Images

Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

On the same day that Kavanaugh cites Bush v. Gore to disenfranchise voters.

We’ve been talking too small. We shouldn’t add two or four seats, we should add fucking twenty. The price for disenfranchising Americans needs to be beyond devastating.

meh.   STFU.

all your dead/ fake/ burning ballot votes disenfranchise plenty of folks.

 

Y'all so pure though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pancho

Pancho 44492

Posted
Posted

' Dead, fake, burning ballots?  WTF?

 

 

20 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I'm more depressed about this than I thought I'd be. And I'm out of weed. And booze. Fuck 2020.

As to the above, I knew she would get confirmed but it just sank in that they will use here and the other 5 to steal the election in some way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AUS-97HORN

AUS-97HORN 11682

Posted
Posted
50 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

FIVE of the sitting Supreme Court justices were selected by Presidents that lost the popular vote.

Talk about a loss for democracy. 

dude,  I get it most of us are pissed, but your numbers are wrong. 

Like it or not in 2004 Bush got more than 50% of the vote.  2000 was 2000, but Alito was nominated in 2005.   "but, but he wouldnt have been President in 2004 if he lost in 2000 and it wudda been Al Gore"  Maybe maybe not.  The last time we had a 2 term Pres followed by his VP, the new Pres was only 1 term. That could very well have happened then. We can never know. 

but it comes down to this, since 2014, when the Democrats had the Senate Majority, they have managed to lose SIX seats.    Elections have consequences. 

I'm guessing the Dems win back at least 4 of the lost senate seats, and maybe they can go ahead and nominate 4 more judges to the Supreme Court to make it all right.  

But shit if I'm the Dems after this, I go ahead and nominate 10 more judges to the court. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23362

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, AUS-97HORN said:

dude,  I get it most of us are pissed, but your numbers are wrong. 

Like it or not in 2004 Bush got more than 50% of the vote.  2000 was 2000, but Alito was nominated in 2005.   "but, but he wouldnt have been President in 2004 if he lost in 2000 and it wudda been Al Gore"  Maybe maybe not.  The last time we had a 2 term Pres followed by his VP, the new Pres was only 1 term. That could very well have happened then. We can never know. 

but it comes down to this, since 2014, when the Democrats had the Senate Majority, they have managed to lose SIX seats.    Elections have consequences. 

I'm guessing the Dems win back at least 4 of the lost senate seats, and maybe they can go ahead and nominate 4 more judges to the Supreme Court to make it all right.  

But shit if I'm the Dems after this, I go ahead and nominate 10 more judges to the court. 

 

Oh wow, thanks.  That makes it so much better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29266

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, AUS-97HORN said:

dude,  I get it most of us are pissed, but your numbers are wrong. 

Like it or not in 2004 Bush got more than 50% of the vote.  2000 was 2000, but Alito was nominated in 2005.   "but, but he wouldnt have been President in 2004 if he lost in 2000 and it wudda been Al Gore"  Maybe maybe not.  The last time we had a 2 term Pres followed by his VP, the new Pres was only 1 term. That could very well have happened then. We can never know. 

but it comes down to this, since 2014, when the Democrats had the Senate Majority, they have managed to lose SIX seats.    Elections have consequences. 

I'm guessing the Dems win back at least 4 of the lost senate seats, and maybe they can go ahead and nominate 4 more judges to the Supreme Court to make it all right.  

But shit if I'm the Dems after this, I go ahead and nominate 10 more judges to the court. 

 

By 2040 nearly 70% of Americans will live in 15 states. The Senate is untenable and needs to be abolished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29266

Posted
Posted
Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

States rights tho!  LMAO. Republicans don’t believe in anything except pure power. 

It’s actually refreshing. If any of them had the restraint that John Roberts does, we’d never be able to convince moderates what needs to be done. But damned if they haven’t radicalized even Angus King, who isn’t even a Democrat. For most of the past four years I’ve been very pessimistic that the Dems will do what needs to be done if they manage to win, but it’s looking at least possible if not likely now. That’s how badly the GOP has fucked this up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AUS-97HORN

AUS-97HORN 11682

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

By 2040 nearly 70% of Americans will live in 15 states. The Senate is untenable and needs to be abolished.

actually, the Senate is doing EXACTLY what the founding fathers wanted.  in 1790 the top 4 states Populations were 50.2% of the population of the whole United States. 

Its why the Senate was designed to allow an equal representation of each state in one branch of Congress. 

 

and as you are well aware it takes 38 states to agree to amend the Constitution.    So by your very definition, why the fuck would the 35 smaller states ever agree to lose the equal represenation in the Senate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104638

Posted
Posted
' Dead, fake, burning ballots?  WTF?
 
 
As to the above, I knew she would get confirmed but it just sank in that they will use here and the other 5 to steal the election in some way. 

The downside of completely destroying all norms is that one of the norms that they may well destroy is the willingness of the people to follow a judgment of the SCOTUS.

If they dictate a result that is contrary to the obvious will of the people, their judgment can and should be ignored. If you want to kill the legitimacy of the SCOTUS in one fell swoop, that’s how you do it. And norms aren’t nearly as sacred as they were back in 2000.

Be careful what you ask for, GOP. You just might get it.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 104638

Posted
Posted
' Dead, fake, burning ballots?  WTF?
 
 
As to the above, I knew she would get confirmed but it just sank in that they will use here and the other 5 to steal the election in some way. 

The downside of completely destroying all norms is that one of the norms that they may well destroy is the willingness of the people to follow a judgment of the SCOTUS.

If they dictate a result that is contrary to the obvious will of the people, their judgment can and should be ignored. If you want to kill the legitimacy of the SCOTUS in one fell swoop, that’s how you do it. And norms aren’t nearly as sacred as they were back in 2000.

Be careful what you ask for, GOP. You just might get it.
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29266

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, AUS-97HORN said:

actually, the Senate is doing EXACTLY what the founding fathers wanted.  in 1790 the top 4 states Populations were 50.2% of the population of the whole United States. 

Its why the Senate was designed to allow an equal representation of each state in one branch of Congress. 

 

and as you are well aware it takes 38 states to agree to amend the Constitution.    So by your very definition, why the fuck would the 35 smaller states ever agree to lose the equal represenation in the Senate?

We’ll just get them really liquored up so they miss the vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23362

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, AUS-97HORN said:

actually, the Senate is doing EXACTLY what the founding fathers wanted.  in 1790 the top 4 states Populations were 50.2% of the population of the whole United States. 

Its why the Senate was designed to allow an equal representation of each state in one branch of Congress. 

 

and as you are well aware it takes 38 states to agree to amend the Constitution.    So by your very definition, why the fuck would the 35 smaller states ever agree to lose the equal represenation in the Senate?

Lol, the founders put in the anti-democratically appointed Senate as a check against a democratically elected House. 

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...