Amy Coney Barrett

[TtomTerrific 200]

nope...hookers and blow - 

 

[Beantown Express 2.0 6586]

7 minutes 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. 

 

Why don’t you have a drink or two.  Think how delicious that alcohol would taste right now.  You know you want some.

[Tom 2960]

6 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

How goeth the Dark Ages?

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

 

 

 

[Chuckie Finster 22978]

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. 
 

Speaking as an Astros fan, last year there was about an hour in between Altuve hitting the home run off of Chapman and Brandon Taubman making an ass out himself in the clubhouse followed by all of the stuff that came next.
Tonight is your Altuve home run. Drink up (lol who am I kidding), because shit is about to suuuuuuuuuuuuck for you.

[Mdhorn 6153]

On 10/18/2020 at 2:04 PM, Cacti said:

Maybe the outlook isn’t so grim; the world population seems to be headed for an adjustment:

Link

That's good because there's going to be less land for them to wander and a tad warmer.  

 

16 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Superspreader The Sequel: Are You Feeling Lucky?

 

Nope, masks are required. Edit: that's what I get for listening to the news.  Fuck 'em--glad they are immune in thought.  Already making bad decisions.  If there's a silver lining, maybe it's that pride goes before a fall.  

Edited October 27, 2020 by Mdhorn

[Longhorn_Fan68 34079]

[TtomTerrific 200]

what has Trump actually accomplished anyway?

 

 

[washparkhorn 9967]

[ndawg 1242]

32 minutes 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. 

 

Are you okay?

[staboner 5067]

its a slow bleed death kind of thing. sorry friends. very hard to stop backwards. Its a natural force of this fair planet I am afraid. 

[TtomTerrific 200]

[Gatorubet 30631]

...,,,the real Party of Diversity is watching a woman Supreme Court Justice being sworn in by a black Supreme Court Justice. 

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

 

[Gatorubet 30631]

 

K-K-K-K-Ken c-c-c-c-coming to k-k-k-kill me?

[TtomTerrific 200]

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

[TtomTerrific 200]

Hey Pete-


Here’s what an insurance policy

Looks like

[Pancho 46054]

6 hours 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. 

 

The Dems were more diverse in 1996 than the Republican Party is today. WaPo did an article on it.

Yes we all realize Clarence is your token so you can make crazy diversity statements like what’s above, but he isn’t the savior for Blacks and radical right wingers like yourself wishes he was. 

[DigglerontheHoof 21516]

3 hours ago, TtomTerrific said:

Hey Pete-


Here’s what an insurance policy

Looks like

ttom

[Guest]

The GOP will never have the right kind of black folks.  I mean even ole Pancho takes shot at the less than black dude.

 

LOLz.  It's such a fool's errand attempting to appease the scorekeepers.   Just fucking roll with the best candidate...

 

Oh that's what happened?   mmmmkay, then.  Moving on.

Edited October 27, 2020 by slorch

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

1 hour ago, Pancho said:

The Dems were more diverse in 1996 than the Republican Party is today. WaPo did an article on it.

Yes we all realize Clarence is your token so you can make crazy diversity statements like what’s above, but he isn’t the savior for Blacks and radical right wingers like yourself wishes he was. 

Maybe the GOP Superspreader II Celebration at the WH yesterday with Thomas participating was to increase his exposure chances so Trump could gain another nominee. It's not like anyone in that group really cares about another person beyond an orbit of self.

[DDD Dad 14571]

[Mo Horn 8933]

Given that I'm a white upper middle class male, nothing she or a conservative court does will really have a direct impact on me. But that's not the case for my kids, and friends of mine. I didn't even watch any of the vote or swearing in. Just too depressing. 

[Tom 2960]

6 hours ago, TtomTerrific said:

Hey Pete-


Here’s what an insurance policy

Looks like

 

 

Rooting for voter suppression?  How very American of you.

Edited October 27, 2020 by Tom

[Anastasis 23699]

Wonder if this guy regrets giving Trump all that free air time.

He is a keen political strategist no doubt.  

 

 

[hayden_horn 11401]

i am surprised at how more depressed/angry i am at what i already knew was a foregone conclusion. i will never vote for a republican again. congrats i guess

Edited October 27, 2020 by hayden_horn

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

On 10/13/2020 at 2:07 PM, Satchel said:

Think of it more of balancing the Court. I like the idea of 7more SC Justices, which would bring the number to 19. This would dilute the power (real,or imagined) of any one judge and would make the national spectacle that occurs when a justice retires or dies unnecessary. There’s really no good reason for us to have the smallest SC among 1st world nations other than the fact it’s been this way for 100 years. Republican senators are arguing against Observing precedent as I write this and Barrett’s not a big fan of it either.. 

To skittish Democrats I say, what’s the point of having power if you’re not going to use it? Be like Republicans. Give the finger to anybody objecting to your exercise of your power.

19 ?  That's a lot of people to have to debate issues.  Sounds like a recipe judicial gridlock. What are most 1st world nations SC sizes ?

[DigglerontheHoof 21516]

32 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

Given that I'm a white upper middle class male, nothing she or a conservative court does will really have a direct impact on me. But that's not the case for my kids, and friends of mine. I didn't even watch any of the vote or swearing in. Just too depressing. 

Same here.  In addition, I don't have kids, so I'm not really moved by what happens after I'm 6 feet under.  But, I have friends, family and coworkers whose lives could be really upturned by this group of "Christian" tools.  

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

4 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

19 ?  That's a lot of people to have to debate issues.  Sounds like a recipe judicial gridlock. What are most 1st world nations SC sizes ?

The Senate Judiciary Committee itself has 22 members (obviously an even number though) which does seem a bit high to be workable. I have no basis in legal stuff, but I like 15 because it's like a rugby team and if necessary they could have an all purpose scrum for decisions.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, Mrs Whiggins said:

The Senate Judiciary Committee itself has 22 members (obviously an even number though) which does seem a bit high to be workable. I have no basis in legal stuff, but I like 15 because it's like a rugby team and if necessary they could have an all purpose scrum for decisions.

I can see needing more folks to decide on who gets to sit on a court, but it seems like too many justices would end up having to be a group of compromisers to get anything done.  

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Nine is somewhat of an upper limit for effective small group communication (*Comm 101 so take that with a grain of salt) but they've made it work until it didn't. So, I guess we will find out.

 

*If there are any comm specialists around here I'd appreciate insight, but the thinking goes that as groups grow much beyond those boundaries people tend to migrate toward the smaller number of 6-8. I have no citations for this, going off memory.

[Aqua Buddha 14782]

42 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Wonder if this guy regrets giving Trump all that free air time.

He is a keen political strategist no doubt.  

 

 

The Hillary Clinton confirmation process will be fucking epic on Fox.  I might actually tune in.

[TwiceHorn 31987]

10 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

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?

I'm not particularly justifying it.  Just saying the "stolen election" rhetoric is overheated if not false.

[Mo Horn 8933]

I get wanting to expand the court, and I could get on board with it. It would feel good now, but the implications for the future would be huge. We are where we are today because Harry Reid pushed through a change in the number of votes required to approve a new justice, so they could do something immediately. Huge change on the course of history. 

[Aqua Buddha 14782]

Just now, Mo Horn said:

I get wanting to expand the court, and I could get on board with it. It would feel good now, but the implications for the future would be huge. We are where we are today because Harry Reid pushed through a change in the number of votes required to approve a new justice, so they could do something immediately. Huge change on the course of history. 

Mitch would have rolled those over regardless of what Reid did or didn't do.  Don't kid yourself.

[DigglerontheHoof 21516]

I'm all for expanding.  The electorate will only move more and more Dem, as Boomers die off and Z's and those behind them become a larger part of the electorate.  Dems might lose an election or two but will get back in power pretty quickly, I think. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

10 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

The Hillary Clinton confirmation process will be fucking epic on Fox.  I might actually tune in.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA that's some funny shit right there, you on the way to the top, you the next Lenny Bruce....

[TwiceHorn 31987]

19 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

The Senate Judiciary Committee itself has 22 members (obviously an even number though) which does seem a bit high to be workable. I have no basis in legal stuff, but I like 15 because it's like a rugby team and if necessary they could have an all purpose scrum for decisions.

Yeah, this is an interesting point, as are your prior observations on "numbers of deciders."

As an initial matter, I think reaching a "judicial consensus" is or should be a different thing from reaching a "political" or "voting" consensus.  That may be naivete or an elevation of form over substance.

I do think with a larger number of justices, we are going to have more fragmented pluralities (concurrences in part, dissents in part) than ever before, which may raise issues of clarity. And that would weaken the court.  Maybe that's appropriate. 

A large majority, like 80% I think, of the opinions of the court currently are unanimous.  A larger percentage still are "not very" divided, i.e. 8-1 or 7-2 with crackpot dissents from Thomas and/or Alito.

That kind of thing might fall by the wayside.

[David Dennison 19441]

3 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

I get wanting to expand the court, and I could get on board with it. It would feel good now, but the implications for the future would be huge. We are where we are today because Harry Reid pushed through a change in the number of votes required to approve a new justice, so they could do something immediately. Huge change on the course of history. 

That's why I favor jurisdiction stripping over court expansion. Congress should use its power to curtail judicial review.

[Beantown Express 2.0 6586]

4 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

I get wanting to expand the court, and I could get on board with it. It would feel good now, but the implications for the future would be huge. We are where we are today because Harry Reid pushed through a change in the number of votes required to approve a new justice, so they could do something immediately. Huge change on the course of history. 

It's a little revisionist history blaming Harry Reid for getting rid of the filibuster.  It wasn't for a Supreme Court justice but for lower court judges/other appointees/laws that the Republicans were stonewalling since a black guy was president and the goal of the Republican party was to make sure Obama got zero laws passed, judges appointed at any level, etc...  This is really on the feet of McConnell.  That being said, I have no problem if the Democrats do take the Presidency and the Senate and remove the Filibuster so they can pass legislation including an update of the Supreme Court.  Yeah it could hurt them in the future but you know what would really hurt them.... DOING FUCKING NOTHING.  The Republicans have proven they will do whatever they want with no consequence so it's about time for the Dems to try that also.  

[wildcat09 29556]

12 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm not particularly justifying it.  Just saying the "stolen election" rhetoric is overheated if not false.

I strongly disagree because what would have resulted had the count been allowed to continue wasn't known when the five conservative justices acted to stay the recount. In fact, Bush's lead when they did so had slipped to fewer than 200 votes. The stay was wrong and the ultimate ruling was absolute bullshit with no basis in law, which they made pretty obvious with their "ok guys seriously we'll only do this one time we promise" bullshit. The (arguable) fact that Bush would've won had the recount been allowed to finish does nothing to retroactively make their wrongful actions ok.

[wildcat09 29556]

18 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

I get wanting to expand the court, and I could get on board with it. It would feel good now, but the implications for the future would be huge. We are where we are today because Harry Reid pushed through a change in the number of votes required to approve a new justice, so they could do something immediately. Huge change on the course of history. 

Harry Reid eliminated the filibuster for lower court judges because the GOP was engaging in unprecedented obstructionism and had he not done so, Trump would've had even more vacancies to fill. If you think Mitch McConnell wouldn't have immediately eliminated that himself the moment Trump took office you are a fool.

And anyone who is scared of what might eventually result from court expansion needs to be a hell of a lot more scared of what will definitely result if we don't.

[MC Fresh Breath 4075]

11 hours 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.

Fair enough, but that means little in regards to the 3 justices who were doing their best to 'make sure.'

 

[Jive Turkey 12930]

when the Sixth Circuit rehears cases en banc, there are 18 judges deciding the case.  when the Fifth Circuit goes en banc, it's 16 judges. 

there is no magic to 9 justices.  it can easily be expanded to 13 or 15.  after all, SCOTUS is essentially a super en banc hearing.  adding 4 or 6 new voices isn't something radical.  appellate lawyers already deal with it when they argue to en banc panels, and circuit courts churn out hundreds of en banc rulings each year.  having 13 or 15 SCOTUS justices ruling on 75-80 cases a year is workable and manageable.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

That's why I favor jurisdiction stripping over court expansion. Congress should use its power to curtail judicial review.

Oh that's nice, let's pass a law, and not allow judicial review to see that it passes constitutional muster ?  Yep 3 branches of gov't, sooo outdated....

[swraith 348]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

That's why I favor jurisdiction stripping over court expansion. Congress should use its power to curtail judicial review.

I don't understand the concept this statement is advocating.

[wildcat09 29556]

5 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Oh that's nice, let's pass a law, and not allow judicial review to see that it passes constitutional muster ?  Yep 3 branches of gov't, sooo outdated....

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. 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.

[Texaspython 231]

8 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Oh that's nice, let's pass a law, and not allow judicial review to see that it passes constitutional muster ?  Yep 3 branches of gov't, sooo outdated....

I don’t think you understand how article III works.

[Gatorubet 30631]

Cool story.

If the donkeys get the Congress and WH, no whining about anything that follows Ttom. Anything at all.

Because there will be no lube, and no fucks given for the next four years. Just bend over and morder la almohada when your Blue Overlords require it.

[Gatorubet 30631]

Oh that's nice, let's pass a law, and not allow judicial review to see that it passes constitutional muster ?  Yep 3 branches of gov't, sooo outdated....