Jump to content

Supreme Court Justice Kennedy to Retire at the end of July

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

GHOSTUSER

GHOSTUSER 361

Posted
Posted
59 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

This asshole (Trump) is the most divisive President in history. He picked a guy with a resume that will get him confirmed.  That doesn't have jack shit to do with "healing divisions".

Mussolini made the trains run on time.  Trump picked Ivy League judges.  Great.

Did you listen to Kavanaugh’s speech? The left is trying to paint this guy as an extremist, misogynist, God knows what else. The American public once they listen to his speech and get to know him will see through the left’s lies and that this man is exceptional at what he does and is a decent, family man with a love for the rule of law and the Constitution.  The problem is that the intolerant left has nothing in the tank other than baseless demonization. If they bothered to learn about the man, they’d realize that he is a guy who is exceptionally qualified and deserving.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Johnny Sack
Johnny Sack
Mojo Hand
Mojo Hand

Oops, sock fail!   Forgot which sock you were posting under, huh?   So, you not only post under multiple socks, but you actually use them to defend your own moronic posts, to make people think that ot

El Guapo
El Guapo
F250

F250 28990

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

Lake of education makes some forget Art. 2, Section 2 of the Constitution which provides for the Consent of the Senate, which therefore explains why protests and other techniques designed to sway Senators make perfect sense.

Yes, which is why one would expect the protests to be held at the Capitol Building so that they can get the attention of Congress.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29454

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Good luck.  Let’s also get guys like Robert O’Rourke and the red state senators up for election to go on record about this pick.  

For Texans, a vote for Robert O’Rourke means you’re giving a senate vote to Schumer.  

Huh. I could’ve sworn Senator Chuck Schumer has had a senate vote since he was first elected to that seat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom

Tom 2960

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Did you listen to Kavanaugh’s speech? The left is trying to paint this guy as an extremist, misogynist, God knows what else. The American public once they listen to his speech and get to know him will see through the left’s lies and that this man is exceptional at what he does and is a decent, family man with a love for the rule of law and the Constitution.  The problem is that the intolerant left has nothing in the tank other than baseless demonization. If they bothered to learn about the man, they’d realize that he is a guy who is exceptionally qualified and deserving.

The right outright stole a Supreme Court seat from a decent, qualified judge with a love for the rule of law and the Constitution because they made a vow in 2010 to obstruct every single thing Obama tried to do.  You don't get to bitch about Democrats being salty and obstructing now.  You lost that right years ago. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexArcher

TexArcher 38448

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

If they bothered to learn about the man, they’d realize that he is a guy who is exceptionally qualified and deserving.

Having a great resume and being deserving are different things.  Hillary had a great resume and I'm sure you think she didn't deserve to be president.

But all of this ought to be a moot point anyway.  The president is under criminal investigation right now, his allies are pleading guilty and rolling over as we speak, and he gets to name the swing vote in the Supreme Court that may someday hear his case?  That isn't the most obvious conflict of interest in history?  And all of this after the Right stalled for almost a year on a perfectly valid nominee because they just didn't think Obama should get a nominee in his final year?  This is the crookedest shit in the history of American jurisprudence.  Historians will scratch their heads at this for centuries.

It's just another chapter in the farce that we've become.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, TexArcher said:

Having a great resume and being deserving are different things.  Hillary had a great resume and I'm sure you think she didn't deserve to be president.

But all of this ought to be a moot point anyway.  The president is under criminal investigation right now, his allies are pleading guilty and rolling over as we speak, and he gets to name the swing vote in the Supreme Court that may someday hear his case?  That isn't the most obvious conflict of interest in history?  And all of this after the Right stalled for almost a year on a perfectly valid nominee because they just didn't think Obama should get a nominee in his final year?  This is the crookedest shit in the history of American jurisprudence.  Historians will scratch their heads at this for centuries.

It's just another chapter in the farce that we've become.

She did?  Other than getting jobs she did t deserve due to who she married, what was so great about her resume?  How did she perform in those jobs she didn’t deserve?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Patron

Patron 230

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Link?

Some conservatives don't like him: There is some grousing in some conservative circles over Kavanaugh. These conservatives, including Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, believe he is not sufficiently conservative. They disagree with portions of opinions he has written relating to abortion and the Affordable Care Act, for example.

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/09/626164904/who-is-brett-kavanaugh-president-trumps-pick-for-the-supreme-court

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Did you listen to Kavanaugh’s speech? The left is trying to paint this guy as an extremist, misogynist, God knows what else. The American public once they listen to his speech and get to know him will see through the left’s lies and that this man is exceptional at what he does and is a decent, family man with a love for the rule of law and the Constitution.  The problem is that the intolerant left has nothing in the tank other than baseless demonization. If they bothered to learn about the man, they’d realize that he is a guy who is exceptionally qualified and deserving.

Def Leppard should be calling the DNC to see how much they would be willing to pay to get the rights for Hysteria to be used as their official 2018 midterm elections song.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
EuroHorn

EuroHorn 3277

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

Def Leppard should be calling the DNC to see how much they would be willing to pay to get the rights for Hysteria to be used as their official 2018 midterm elections song.

That or

 

 

Edited by EuroHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChiTownDoc

ChiTownDoc 21255

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Patron said:

Some conservatives don't like him: There is some grousing in some conservative circles over Kavanaugh. These conservatives, including Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, believe he is not sufficiently conservative. They disagree with portions of opinions he has written relating to abortion and the Affordable Care Act, for example.

https://www.npr.org/2018/07/09/626164904/who-is-brett-kavanaugh-president-trumps-pick-for-the-supreme-court

Fucktard Ted Cruz hates him?  And the ass clowns on the far left hate him?  And how aren’t the 80% of us that fit between those groups happy?

Edited by ChiTownDoc
Engrish
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13343

Posted
Posted
51 minutes ago, Vince_McCoy_Williams said:

You cant wait till he dies? Don't sound too excited you sick fuck. Seek help. 

Liberals, such tolerant and compassionate people. 

I think it's going to be good when he dies, not because he'll be dead (which I don't care about either way), but because it gives the then-president an opportunity to find a better SC justice to secure the rights and freedoms of Americans.

Clutch the pearls harder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85925

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Patron said:

Cruz was not for Kavanaugh claiming he would be another Souter.

He’s for him now. Because that’s our Senator, the least principled, most spineless cuck imaginable. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
riloh05

riloh05 107

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, TexArcher said:

Having a great resume and being deserving are different things.  Hillary had a great resume and I'm sure you think she didn't deserve to be president.

 

hold up...it is your belief that hilary had a great resume? her lack of resume is a good reason she is not potus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, tantric superman said:

Lake of education makes some forget Art. 2, Section 2 of the Constitution which provides for the Consent of the Senate, which therefore explains why protests and other techniques designed to sway Senators make perfect sense.

*Lack  (nice illustrations your point).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pancho

Pancho 45570

Posted
Posted

I find it comical that republicans/conservatives are trying to paint liberals as being intolerant as if it’s some sort of demeaning claim when they themselves are intolerant. 

How can you call others intolerant when you and your party are intolerant themselves?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
deadshank

deadshank 24653

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Pancho Negro said:

I find it comical that republicans/conservatives are trying to paint liberals as being intolerant as if it’s some sort of demeaning claim when they themselves are intolerant. 

How can you call others intolerant when you and your party are intolerant themselves?

Ask BT.  He has the "both sides!!!"  flow chart mapped out.  He will be pleased to bloviate about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85925

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Parliament said:

That's a bit unseemly, imho.

Actually pretty par for the course in 2018, really. 

All of our government institutions are so politicized that this country is on the verge of something terrifying. We’re going to have 2-4 year wild swings in majority parties, a court that’s heavily political and an executive branch that keeps gaining powers under the guise of “national security” while congress turns into part-time legislators and full-time campaigners. 

Edited by Js1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted

Although now I think about it, it may explain his vote in the Muslim ban case.  You read his concurrence and you’d swear it was going to be a dissent.  But if he felt beholden to Trump so Trump would fulfill his promise of Kavanaugh, he might have voted with the majority just for that.  A little tit for tat.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRHorn

GRHorn 105

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Tom said:

The right outright stole a Supreme Court seat from a decent, qualified judge with a love for the rule of law and the Constitution because they made a vow in 2010 to obstruct every single thing Obama tried to do.  You don't get to bitch about Democrats being salty and obstructing now.  You lost that right years ago. 

200w.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
plimon

plimon 190

Posted
Posted
Although now I think about it, it may explain his vote in the Muslim ban case.  You read his concurrence and you’d swear it was going to be a dissent.  But if he felt beholden to Trump so Trump would fulfill his promise of Kavanaugh, he might have voted with the majority just for that.  A little tit for tat.  
Seems obvious now that Kennedy's recent decisions have been in line with Trump.

Sent from my KFGIWI using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cheeseweasel

Cheeseweasel 26438

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Is it just me or does protesting at the Supreme Court seem to reflect a rather fundamental misunderstanding of its role in our government?

Yes! And I blame the CNN/FOX talking heads for this. We've reduced honest debate SCOTUS appointment =  "Der took er jerbs" / "Der took er abortions". 

Frankly, the quotes from Sanders, Warren, Murphy et. al. sum up what is wrong with our process. They are "NO" votes before the process has begun. What happened to honest discourse and debate? YOU fuckers are supposed to be the checks and balances to the system but you stomp your feet and play "gotya" whenever you have any power.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85925

Posted
Posted (edited)

I mean, not to #bothsides, but all the automatic "yes" quotes from roughly 80% of the GOP Senate caucus is also what is wrong with the process.  Most of them have not even sat down to speak to Kavanaugh either, but their party's guy nominated him, so it's a "yes" before anything happens.

But not like a GOP senator will buck their party on a SCOTUS vote. They historically never do.

Edited by Js1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cheeseweasel

Cheeseweasel 26438

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I mean, not to #bothsides, but all the automatic "yes" quotes from roughly 80% of the GOP Senate caucus is also what is wrong with the process.  Most of them have not even sat down to speak to Kavanaugh either, but their party's guy nominated him, so it's a "yes" before anything happens.

But not like a GOP senator will buck their party on a SCOTUS vote. They historically never do.

That's also true. It pisses me off to see #bothsides of the aisle flinging poo and acting like victims. IT'S YOUR JOB TO CONFIRM OR DENY. NUT UP BITCHES.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GHOSTUSER

GHOSTUSER 361

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Tom said:

The right outright stole a Supreme Court seat from a decent, qualified judge with a love for the rule of law and the Constitution because they made a vow in 2010 to obstruct every single thing Obama tried to do.  You don't get to bitch about Democrats being salty and obstructing now.  You lost that right years ago. 

McConnell gambled that Trump was going to win when the consensus opinion was that he’d lose. If Hillary was elected,  she would have had her nominee confirmed with lots of bitching from the right. Turn around is fair play if the Dems are in the position like that in the future. I have no problem going scorched earth, no mercy when it comes to Supreme Court justices. It’s that important. The prospect of someone of Scalia’s stature being replaced by a hack like Darth Bader or Sotamayor was scary as fuck. I have no problem saying that Garland got fucked but that’s the stakes when it comes to something this important 

Edited by Iconoclast Texan
  • Like 2
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...