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

GSU&UT

GSU&UT 1799

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

I’m a transactional guy. Very good at what I do. Haven’t bought a knockoff in a while. The $99 legit versions are a good price point. NFL wised up and brought their jersey prices to what MLB charges. They super duper official game NFL jerseys are close to $300. You have to be doing meth/insane to buy those. 

Hahahahahaha, this is like an amalgamation of Rocko, Johnny Sack (or whoever was posting pay stubs recently), and Hank Scorpio but actually serious.

  • 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
GRHorn

GRHorn 105

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

 

This is a great post.  I have no idea whether you are being serious or sarcastic.  Really brilliant. I mean that sincerely. 

It is awesome. Has to be sarcastic.  Quadruple checked.  Lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11401

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Mojo Hand said:

I would hope so, but all I saw was a reporter tweeting out that sources told him this.  While I doubt he was lying, I wonder if the informality and directness of Twitter lacks the layers of editing that normal publishing channels have. 

yeah, i went to the nbc news website and that story is nowhere to be seen.

while the appearance of impropriety doesn't mean impropriety shit went down, you still got to avoid the appearance of such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lagunamadre

Lagunamadre 1975

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I would hope so, but all I saw was a reporter tweeting out that sources told him this.  While I doubt he was lying, I wonder if the informality and directness of Twitter lacks the layers of editing that normal publishing channels have. 

Ahh, I retract my statement, I'm late to the news this morning so was just assuming NBC had gone public with the story, didn't know it was based off of some reporters tweets. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I would be surprised if Trump didn’t coordinate Kennedy to Kavanaugh via Kennedy’s son.

It’s not like all these guys had close personal relationships prior to Trump becoming president.

I see what you did there. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRHorn

GRHorn 105

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

I would hope so, but all I saw was a reporter tweeting out that sources told him this.  While I doubt he was lying, I wonder if the informality and directness of Twitter lacks the layers of editing that normal publishing channels have. 

The reporter wasn't lying.  He was just reporting what his "source" told him.  People familiar with the NBA will be familiar with Chris Broussard and his "sources".  The same game is played by many of the anonymous people in the background.  Trying to drive the conversation, and/or mislead for their own gain.

Chris-Broussard-Sources.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

Dude. 

Lots of good reasons for BK to be added to a list of potential nominees.  Any timing around list adding and Trump’s campaign manager getting indicted is by all accounts coincidental.

 However, I would like to know the timeline of when exactly WH specifically examined BK’s opinions on indicting a sitting POTUS - if there is validity to that claim.  That would be illuminating in various ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lagunamadre

Lagunamadre 1975

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

The reporter wasn't lying.  He was just reporting what his "source" told him.  People familiar with the NBA will be familiar with Chris Broussard and his "sources".  The same game is played by many of the anonymous people in the background.  Trying to drive the conversation, and/or mislead for their own gain.

Chris-Broussard-Sources.jpg

Now who would do that?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23699

Posted
Posted
Just now, GRHorn said:

The reporter wasn't lying.  He was just reporting what his "source" told him.  

#NBCActiveMeasures.  Attempting to stoke divisions and discord and undermine the faith of the American people in the Judicial System. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

schumer is on record as saying he'll oppose kavanaugh with everything he's got. that's a self-defeating move, imo.

He really doesn’t have much of a choice. What is he supposed to do?  Roll over and give the nominee a “fair hearing”?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

#NBCActiveMeasures.  Attempting to stoke divisions and discord and undermine the faith of the American people in the Judicial System. 

If you had faith in the judicial system after Bush v. Gore, I'm not sure how anything is going to change your mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11401

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

He really doesn’t have much of a choice. What is he supposed to do?  Roll over and give the nominee a “fair hearing”?

yes?

i know mcconnell is a douchenozzle hypocrite, but it is my considered opinion that the right choice for democrats at this point in time is a fair hearing. i know a lot of left-leaning surly want to throw out marquess of queensbury rules and fight dirty, but i think it's a short-term tactic and a losing strategy overall. i think it feeds into trump's narrative, and i think just because the republicans robbed the public of a qualified judge doesn't mean the democrats have to do the same.

IS HE QUALIFIED? si o no. that's how this should go.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRHorn

GRHorn 105

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Huh? The reporter's name is on the tweet, just like Trump's is on his.

He’s citing anonymous sources.  

 

8 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

He's quoting unnamed sources, just like the NBC guy who also "put his name on it". 

I guess I see the President “hearing reports” meaning actual reports given to him by officials.  I’m probably giving him too much credit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11401

Posted
Posted
Just now, GRHorn said:

He’s citing anonymous sources.  

 

I guess I see the President “hearing reports” meaning actual reports given to him by officials.  I’m probably giving him too much credit. 

dude. the president always uses "i'm hearing" and "people are saying." that's what he does to lend some further credibility to his tweets so morons like you can believe them and defend them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

i think it feeds into trump's narrative,

In case you haven’t noticed, any move feeds into Trump’s narrative because he makes it up as he goes along. Democrats should NEVER use this logic in their strategy again.

Democrats don’t need to peel away any trump voters, they’re gone.

They need to get the people that don’t usually vote. The more noise they can make on a tangible issue the better IMO.

Just start screaming and hope the reinforcements come to the rescue.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRHorn

GRHorn 105

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

dude. the president always uses "i'm hearing" and "people are saying." that's what he does to lend some further credibility to his tweets so morons like you can believe them and defend them.

giphy.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tantric superman

tantric superman 4668

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

IS HE QUALIFIED? si o no. that's how this should go. 

As someone who wants to read the Constitution correctly, the job of the Senate is to advise and consent.  It doesn't read - "the Senate shall verify the nominees bona fides."

[Oh Brother bona fide gif]

All that being said, the only nominee in memory that I would not have consented to would be Clarence Thomas, because he was a lying POS.  But that doesn't mean I would respect other Sentators' right to withhold consent for a myriad of reasons.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lagunamadre

Lagunamadre 1975

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

He’s citing anonymous sources.  

 

I guess I see the President “hearing reports” meaning actual reports given to him by officials.  I’m probably giving him too much credit. 

Ya, that was certainly not part of his CIA daily briefing. The things he "hears" can generally be traced to the far right wings of twitter. Like "no go" zones and "spygate". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11401

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

In case you haven’t noticed, any move feeds into Trump’s narrative because he makes it up as he goes along. Democrats should NEVER use this logic in their strategy again.

Democrats don’t need to peel away any trump voters, they’re gone.

They need to get the people that don’t usually vote. The more noise they can make on a tangible issue the better IMO.

Just start screaming and hope the reinforcements come to the rescue.

bringing the ruckus on an eminently qualified candidate could backfire in november, imo. because mcconnell did it is not a reason to do it, too, and the circumstances ARE different, even though tat twat mcconnell subverted the system. making a power move is what someone does WHEN THEY HAVE POWER. also, there is the balance of doing what is right and doing what you think will win. engaging in a losing battle for the sake of the battle is the height of stupidity, imo.

 

4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29558

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

yes?

i know mcconnell is a douchenozzle hypocrite, but it is my considered opinion that the right choice for democrats at this point in time is a fair hearing. i know a lot of left-leaning surly want to throw out marquess of queensbury rules and fight dirty, but i think it's a short-term tactic and a losing strategy overall. i think it feeds into trump's narrative, and i think just because the republicans robbed the public of a qualified judge doesn't mean the democrats have to do the same.

IS HE QUALIFIED? si o no. that's how this should go.

I disagree. Though they can't unify to actually run together with the message, I think Bob Casey is doing it right:

"We're being fair to the other side!" isn't going to win the Dems any votes and it will hurt them with their base. Politics isn't a game of chess any more. The Republicans flipped the board over, lit it on fire, and started punching the Dems in the face. Trying to put the fire out and reassemble the chess board is not an appropriate response.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SuingToGetAMessageBoard?

SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

As someone who wants to read the Constitution correctly, the job of the Senate is to advise and consent.  It doesn't read - "the Senate shall verify the nominees bona fides."

[Oh Brother bona fide gif]

All that being said, the only nominee in memory that I would not have consented to would be Clarence Thomas, because he was a lying POS.  But that doesn't mean I would respect other Sentators' right to withhold consent for a myriad of reasons.

 

 

 

And Harriet Miers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11401

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

I disagree. Though they can't unify to actually run together with the message, I think Bob Casey is doing it right:

"We're being fair to the other side!" isn't going to win the Dems any votes and it will hurt them with their base. Politics isn't a game of chess any more. The Republicans flipped the board over, lit it on fire, and started punching the Dems in the face. Trying to put the fire out and reassemble the chess board is not an appropriate response.

throwing the equivalent of an impotent tantrum will not win any votes either. the D base is showing up. what the democrats need is the swing voters. "appealing to the base" is how we end up with donald trump, dan patrick and ted cruz, not how to win over the larger electorate. 

again, just my opinion on the longer term strategy for success in governance. i happen to think it favors short-term tactics as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11401

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

You mean the candidate Donald Trump selected? 

That pretty much immediately disqualifies him to many people, regardless of experience and education.

again, and i'm starting to get repetitive and preachy, so i'll leave well enough alone soon enough, but this is the fucking problem. we should reward good behavior and punish bad behavior. if my kid has had a shitty day, just one of those days where he's really feeling his oats and is a smart ass, defying authority, and generally not listening, he knows he's going to be grounded the next day. however, after all that, if he does something right, i'm not going to bring up all the other stuff. he still gets praise for doing the right thing at the end of the day.

this judge has already cited precedent on roe v wade. he's made what appear to be logical, if conservative, decisions in the past. reward trump for not trying to ramrod rudy giuliani or some other shitty equivalent through. reward the good behavior, and keep an eye on some kind of endgame. if we continue this cycle of obstuct on partisan lines JUST FOR THE SAKE OF IT, then our government will break down further. and that's not a good thing. be good stewards. that's what hey are supposed to do. not make us feel good about some empty "win."

Edited by hayden_horn
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29558

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

throwing the equivalent of an impotent tantrum will not win any votes either. the D base is showing up. what the democrats need is the swing voters. "appealing to the base" is how we end up with donald trump, dan patrick and ted cruz, not how to win over the larger electorate. 

 again, just my opinion on the longer term strategy for success in governance. i happen to think it favors short-term tactics as well.

I don't think opposing a SCOTUS nominee on the grounds that Trump allowed a special interest group to pick the candidate in exchange for their political support will scare away any potential swing voters or prior non-voters. The people that will be pissed by Dem opposition were always going to vote Trump.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mdhorn

Mdhorn 6153

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I think Kavanaugh will pass with...

53 votes (3 GOP and no McCain)

Gorsuch got 54.

Yea: Heitkamp, Donnelly, Manchin

No: Baldwin, Casey, Nelson, McCaskill, Jones

Manchin is a yes for actual Conservative issues. He's not going to vote with his party on things for the sake of optics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11401

Posted
Posted
Just now, wildcat09 said:

I don't think opposing a SCOTUS nominee on the grounds that Trump allowed a special interest group to pick the candidate in exchange for their political support will scare away any potential swing voters or prior non-voters. The people that will be pissed by Dem opposition were always going to vote Trump.

the people that will be pissed about dem opposition won't vote in november. trump isn't winning re-election, i think we all know this. this isn't about trump. disengage from trump and think if this guy is someone for whom you would support a fair hearing if selected by mitt romney or someone not named trump.

take issue with the process, that's fine and dandy. point to the special interest influence - good tactics. but pulling out all the stops to obstruct, AND THEN FAILING, is a loser move. the democrats have to be goal oriented. what goal is accomplished by obstructing this relatively benign selection?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GSU&UT

GSU&UT 1799

Posted
Posted (edited)

Jesus hayden, if swing voters got their jimmies rustled over the Democratic Senators opposing any Trump nominee, they are NEVER going to vote D, plain and simple. The Democratic party needs to drop their balls and start fighting this shit in any way that they can. I completely agree with Hugo, focus needs to be on helping people get registered and those who are registered but stayed home to the polls that generally lean Democrat. Fuck trying to appeal to "swing" voters, there are so many more who never showed up in 2016.

Edited by GSU&UT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tuco

Tuco 5093

Posted
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

throwing the equivalent of an impotent tantrum will not win any votes either. the D base is showing up. what the democrats need is the swing voters. "appealing to the base" is how we end up with donald trump, dan patrick and ted cruz, not how to win over the larger electorate. 

again, just my opinion on the longer term strategy for success in governance. i happen to think it favors short-term tactics as well.

You're listing three examples of people of have been elected in the last six years for examples on what not to do?  I think there is something to be said for appealing (or exciting) the base.

That being said, I agree with just about everything else you said. The Democrats don't have an end game.  Even if Schumer somehow is able to thwart this nominee, the next one will still be a Trump nominee selected for him by his conservative advisors.  It's not like Schumer is going to come up with some awesome argument that gets a Gorsuch-like judge installed.  While I loathe the idea that Kennedy negotiated for his replacement, the fact that is a viable story would imply Kavanaugh isn't a wild departure from Kennedy.  An alternative pick might be.  So, give him in the hearing, ask the questions, and if there is something you truly cannot tolerate - where you'd expect a better option on an alternate pick - then raise hell. 

I think it's likely Schumer knows this and this is all just political theater to excite the base.  The problem is, much of the grassroots/liberal/far-left folks are as sick of the political theater as they are of losing ground.  I think Schumer would be better for being sincere and just say, "hey, we're kind of fucked here no matter what we do." 

There may also be a general play here to gum Congress up for a bit to slow down the Trump/Republican-controlled agenda.  Fight every battle to allow fewer of them.  That's about the only rationale I could get behind.

 

 

 

Edited by Tuco
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...