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

  • Popular Post
Planet Houston

Planet Houston 4949

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)

I hate the Republican Party with every bit of my ethos. Not that it was a question since they all started supporting Trump, but tonight cements the fact that I will dedicate my voting rights to vote against them every single time. Fuck them all. 

Edited by Planet Houston
  • Hook 'Em 11
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
workswithseed

workswithseed 2201

Posted
Posted
31 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. 

 

Why not unlimited judges? I don't get the cutoff?

39 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Well it was nice for a few years not having to worry about the legitimacy of my marriage rights 

I remember ElGuapo (could be wrong on the name) talking about how legalizing gay marriage was going to make beastiality happen. This isn't going to take away gay marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SubliminalHorn

SubliminalHorn 6995

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, workswithseed said:

Why not unlimited judges? I don't get the cutoff?

I remember ElGuapo (could be wrong on the name) talking about how legalizing gay marriage was going to make beastiality happen. This isn't going to take away gay marriage.

2 justices have already said that it needs to be reversed. You are naive

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

workswithseed 2201

Posted
Posted
Just now, SubliminalHorn said:

2 justices have already said that it needs to be reversed. You are naive

If I remember correctly, @Brisketexan didn't like the way Justice Kennedy wrote his decision. I also didn't see anything about reversing, but that the religious part. 

"If the States had been allowed to resolve this question through legislation, they could have included accommodations for those who hold these religious beliefs," Thomas 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Incredulity

Incredulity 11861

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

If I remember correctly, @Brisketexan didn't like the way Justice Kennedy wrote his decision. I also didn't see anything about reversing, but that the religious part. 

"If the States had been allowed to resolve this question through legislation, they could have included accommodations for those who hold these religious beliefs," Thomas 

Congress actually doing their job???

my god...the possibilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29556

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

If I remember correctly, @Brisketexan didn't like the way Justice Kennedy wrote his decision. I also didn't see anything about reversing, but that the religious part. 

"If the States had been allowed to resolve this question through legislation, they could have included accommodations for those who hold these religious beliefs," Thomas 

Citizens’ constitutional rights shouldn’t require ratification by state legislatures.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

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

Why not unlimited judges? I don't get the cutoff?

I remember ElGuapo (could be wrong on the name) talking about how legalizing gay marriage was going to make beastiality happen. This isn't going to take away gay marriage.

 

28 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

2 justices have already said that it needs to be reversed. You are naive

I'm cautiously optimistic that Barrett understands what's going on. Even if McConnell and Trump think the people are willing to take more, we are past the breaking point. If America isn't going to represent 70% of its population, then what does that say about the future of America?

If Barrett does her job correctly and sides with the right side of history in a couple of pre-inauguration cases, the court packing thing probably goes away.  She can later become Thomas 2.0 a few years down the road, but she is going to have to decide correctly on the ACA and the election if she wants to continue having a country to be a justice in. Likewise, undoing gay marriage will equal civil war. The difference now from other potential insurrections is that state governments will begin to get on board with civil war as well. The last time that happened, we know how it turned out. 

Edited by FondrenRoad
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29556

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

 

I'm cautiously optimistic that Barrett understands what's going on. Even if McConnell and Trump think the people are will to take more, we are past the breaking point. If America isn't going to represent 70% of its population, then what does that say about the future of America?

If Barrett does her job correctly and sides with the right side of history in a couple of pre-inauguration cases, the court packing thing probably goes away.  She can later become Thomas 2.0 a few years down the road, but she is going to have to decide correctly on the ACA and the election if she wants to continue having a country to be a justice in. 

Ah yes, I’m sure we can trust the probable cult member to be reasonable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Ah yes, I’m sure we can trust the probable cult member to be reasonable.

That being said, I suppose optimistic is the wrong word. Ultimately, conservatives have sold me on states' rights. Stop federally taxing me, prevent movement between states without an explicit reciprocal agreement, and yall can do whatever you want in your states. Most states aren't interested in a better future.  Why not let the uncoupling happen naturally by giving those states the "rights" they seek?  Then, they will quit stealing my money and sending it to Iraq when I'd rather have it fund healthcare and welfare in my own state. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bateshorn

Bateshorn 9989

Posted
Posted (edited)

To conservatives I say: enjoy this thing.  You’ve spent 60 years coming here since Brown.  Enjoy your night.  Everything......EVERYTHING since then has been to come to this place.  It’s your night. Savor it. 
 

But ultimately courts have only as much power as the public imbues it. To paraphrase Felix Frankfurter: possessing neither purse nor sword, they rely on the sustained support of the public. 
 

Don’t be surprised if in 20 years you look back and realize this was your high water mark.  Much as the New Deal progressives did in 1985 looking back at the passage of the Great Society in 1965.
 

Also: how incalculable stupid do you have to be to expose Clarence Thomas to a mask less public gathering in a Covid hot spot.

Edited by Bateshorn
  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29556

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

That being said, I suppose optimistic is the wrong word. Ultimately, conservatives have sold me on states' rights. Stop federally taxing me, prevent movement between states without an explicit reciprocal agreement, and yall can do whatever you want in your states. Most states aren't interested in a better future.  Why not let the uncoupling happen naturally by giving those states the "rights" they seek?  Then, they will quit stealing my money and sending it to Iraq when I'd rather have it fund healthcare and welfare in my own state. 

Does your state want to let white people keep black and/or brown people as slaves? No? Then the GOP isn’t interested in states rights for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29556

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Probably worth noting that by most if not all analyses, the 2000 election would have obtained the same result with or without the recount halted and terminated by Bush v. Gore.

It depends on how the recount would’ve been conducted, but assuming for the moment that you’re correct, this isn’t the defense of SCOTUS’s intervention republicans seem to think it is. If Bush was going to win the recount regardless, why intervene with no real legal basis in order to stop the recount? Wouldn’t it have been preferable to count the votes and determine the legitimate winner?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Does your state want to let white people keep black and/or brown people as slaves? No? Then the GOP isn’t interested in states rights for you.

Nope. It doesn't.  Even though it has its own faults. But I can help the plight of minorities in your state better if your majority isn't actively fucking up my state as well.  We'd all be better off if we had treated the south as the vanquished enemy it was.  We should have treated them the same way we treated the Germans and the Japanese. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cairn Horn88

Cairn Horn88 8500

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

To conservatives I say: enjoy this thing.  You’ve spent 60 years coming here since Brown.  Enjoy your night.  Everything......EVERYTHING since then has been to come to this place.  It’s your night. Savor it. 
 

But ultimately courts have only as much power as the public imbues it. To paraphrase Felix Frankfurter: possessing neither purse nor sword, they rely on the sustained support of the public. 
 

Don’t be surprised if in 20 years you look back and realize this was your high water mark.  Much as the New Deal progressives did in 1985 looking back at the passage of the Great Society in 1965.
 

Also: how incalculable stupid do you have to be to expose Clarence Thomas to a mask less public gathering in a Covid hot spot.

All that glitters....is not gold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

So is Steve not part of the Federalist Society? I thought most of those Lincoln Project guys were. huh. 

The Lincoln Project are the original bad enablers of the GOP and the Federalist Society, but they also see the writing on the wall.  Judges mean nothing if the populace is ungovernable.  Trump thinks that throwing even more money at cops will shut down protests. The Lincoln Project knows better. They know you need to passify the populace, and right now the populace is ready to start kicking down doors. 

Dick Cheney always knows how to save himself. The Lincoln Project does that. 

Sadly, the Lincoln Project shitstains are going to win. They took America to the exact point they desired, and they are going to be able to stop the bleeding right at that point. 

Edited by FondrenRoad
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TtomTerrific

TtomTerrific 200

Posted
Posted (edited)

While the Democrats are howing at the sky somewhere, bedecked in their Halloween Handsmaid's Tale outfits, the real Party of Diversity is watching a woman Supreme Court Justice being sworn in by a black Supreme Court Justice. 

 

spacer.png

Edited by TtomTerrific
photo
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
washparkhorn

washparkhorn 9967

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TtomTerrific said:

While the Democrats are howing at the sky somewhere, bedecked in their Halloween Handsmaid's Tale outfits, the real Party of Diversity is watching a woman Supreme Court Justice being sworn in by a black Supreme Court Justice. 

How goeth the Dark Ages?

Looks like Mitch went down and made a deal with the Devil . . . 

image.thumb.png.461ac251db4cf682e549019d8368c8c3.png

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...