Supreme Court Justice Kennedy to Retire at the end of July

[F250 29204]

Are the Democrats really trying to make an issue out of Trump relying on the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation to pick a SCOTUS nominee? I  assume a Russian connection will be made shortly.

 

 

 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

22 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Interesting that Kethledge and Hardiman are hash tags and Kavanaugh is a website.  Hmmmm.

[EMAWesome 101]

4 hours ago, Cheeseweasel said:

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.

 

If you listened to Warren you would have sworn Kavanaugh was running against her for her Senate seat instead of a Supreme Court seat.  The arguments aren't supposed to be about his political views.  The arguments are supposed to be about whether or not he keeps his political views out of his judicial decisions.  The idea of the Supreme Court isn't to decide good laws from bad laws or good policy from bad policy.  The idea is to decide constitutional laws from unconstitutional laws and constitutional policies from unconstitutional policies.  The idea behind our government is thus; legislative branch=make laws, executive branch=enforce laws, judicial branch=interpret laws,  not legislative branch=make laws, executive branch=enforce laws, judicial branch=make laws that can't get made by the legislative branch.

[Sgt Hulk 14469]

24 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

You know who’s a real dick.  That XX guy. He can go fuck himself 

[EMAWesome 101]

1 hour ago, Lagunamadre said:

I'm assuming the editors at NBC quadruple checked their sources and did their due diligence before they went public with this story. This would have had to come from a solid source. As much as people like to beat up on the press these days, they rarely get stories of this magnitude wrong. 

Brian Ross and Dan Rather on the Batphone for you.

[Cheeseweasel 26442]

Just now, EMAWesome said:

Brian Ross and Dan Rather on the Batphone for you.

What's the frequency, Kenneth? 

[TwiceHorn 32094]

2 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

Now scotusblog is actually just a dude who tweets, unlike NBC.  It is not affiliated with the actual SCOTUS.

SCOTUSblog isn't just a dude that tweets.  I mean yes, literally, there is some dude or dudette that posts the tweets, but surely the tweets are reflective of the collective opinion of the blog itself, which is one of the great resources on Supreme Court everything.

 

Also MOJO HAND beat me to it.  Is Goldstein the dude that tweets?  Because the blog itself has a bunch of contributors, so much so that I had forgotten that it was his baby.

Edited July 10, 2018 by TwiceHorn

[Cheeseweasel 26442]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

SCOTUSblog isn't just a dude that tweets.  I mean yes, literally, there is some dude or dudette that posts the tweets, but surely the tweets are reflective of the collective opinion of the blog itself, which is one of the great resources on Supreme Court everything.

[EMAWesome 101]

47 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

This is the closest thing the Democrats have came to a proposal to increase manufacturing jobs in the U.S.  in the last decade.

[GHOSTUSER 361]

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/09/opinion/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-trump.html

A Liberal’s Case for Brett Kavanaugh

July 9, 2018

By Akhil Reed Amar

Mr. Amar is a professor at Yale Law School.

The nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be the next Supreme Court justice is President Trump’s finest hour, his classiest move. Last week the president promised to select “someone with impeccable credentials, great intellect, unbiased judgment, and deep reverence for the laws and Constitution of the United States.” In picking Judge Kavanaugh, he has done just that.

In 2016, I strongly supported Hillary Clinton for president as well as President Barack Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland. But today, with the exception of the current justices and Judge Garland, it is hard to name anyone with judicial credentials as strong as those of Judge Kavanaugh. He sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the most influential circuit court) and commands wide and deep respect among scholars, lawyers and jurists.

Judge Kavanaugh, who is 53, has already helped decide hundreds of cases concerning a broad range of difficult issues. Good appellate judges faithfully follow the Supreme Court; great ones influence and help steer it. Several of Judge Kavanaugh’s most important ideas and arguments — such as his powerful defense of presidential authority to oversee federal bureaucrats and his skepticism about newfangled attacks on the property rights of criminal defendants — have found their way into Supreme Court opinions.

Except for Judge Garland, no one has sent more of his law clerks to clerk for the justices of the Supreme Court than Judge Kavanaugh has. And his clerks have clerked for justices across the ideological spectrum.

Most judges are not scholars or even serious readers of scholarship. Judge Kavanaugh, by contrast, has taught courses at leading law schools and published notable law review articles. More important, he is an avid consumer of legal scholarship. He reads and learns. And he reads scholars from across the political spectrum. (Disclosure: I was one of Judge Kavanaugh’s professors when he was a student at Yale Law School.)

This studiousness is especially important for a jurist like Judge Kavanaugh, who prioritizes the Constitution’s original meaning. A judge who seeks merely to follow precedent can simply read previous judicial opinions. But an “originalist” judge — who also cares about what the Constitution meant when its words were ratified in 1788 or when amendments were enacted — cannot do all the historical and conceptual legwork on his or her own.

Judge Kavanaugh seems to appreciate this fact, whereas Justice Antonin Scalia, a fellow originalist, did not read enough history and was especially weak on the history of the Reconstruction amendments and the 20th-century amendments.

A great judge also admits and learns from past mistakes. Here, too, Judge Kavanaugh has already shown flashes of greatness, admirably confessing that some of the views he held 20 years ago as a young lawyer — including his crabbed understandings of the presidency when he was working for the Whitewater independent counsel, Kenneth Starr — were erroneous.

Although Democrats are still fuming about Judge Garland’s failed nomination, the hard truth is that they control neither the presidency nor the Senate; they have limited options. Still, they could try to sour the hearings by attacking Judge Kavanaugh and looking to complicate the proceedings whenever possible.

This would be a mistake. Judge Kavanaugh is, again, a superb nominee. So I propose that the Democrats offer the following compromise: Each Senate Democrat will pledge either to vote yes for Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation — or, if voting no, to first publicly name at least two clearly better candidates whom a Republican president might realistically have nominated instead (not an easy task). In exchange for this act of good will, Democrats will insist that Judge Kavanaugh answer all fair questions at his confirmation hearing.

Fair questions would include inquiries not just about Judge Kavanaugh’s past writings and activities but also about how he believes various past notable judicial cases (such as Roe v. Wade) should have been decided — and even about what his current legal views are on any issue, general or specific.

Everyone would have to understand that in honestly answering, Judge Kavanaugh would not be making a pledge — a pledge would be a violation of judicial independence. In the future, he would of course be free to change his mind if confronted with new arguments or new facts, or even if he merely comes to see a matter differently with the weight of judgment on his shoulders. But honest discussions of one’s current legal views are entirely proper, and without them confirmation hearings are largely pointless.

The compromise I’m proposing would depart from recent confirmation practice. But the current confirmation process is badly broken, alternating between rubber stamps and witch hunts. My proposal would enable each constitutional actor to once again play its proper constitutional role: The Senate could become a venue for serious constitutional conversation, and the nominee could demonstrate his or her consummate legal skill. And equally important: Judge Kavanaugh could be confirmed with the ninetysomething Senate votes he deserves, rather than the fiftysomething votes he is likely to get.

[bad_teammate 13566]

Very cool to see "centrists" and "moderates" joining the buffoon con-man Donald Trump in assailing the free press.

Undoubtedly, journalists* have gotten things wrong, but they issue retractions and explanations and work to at least end up with the truth even if they don't get it immediately.

American journalists from real publications: Right 90% of the time and apologize/retract for the 10%
Donald Trump: Wrong 75% of the time and never apologizes

Very Brilliant Centrist, "Hmm, looks the same to me!"

* - Not pundits and op-ed writers, but actual journalists.

Past that, why are you people acting like it's beyond conscience that Donald Trump and the Kennedys colluded on the pick? Is it really unbelievable that the con-man and one of the most disgusting wannabe-royal-families in the nation rubbed shoulders in order to secure their power?

Do you people not pay attention to the world around you?

54 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

It's almost like they knew ahead of time who the picks would be and knew all the picks would be a threat to the values the sign-makers hold dear. Weird. I wonder how they knew those names!

The "gotcha" in this stupid picture is like revealing that Hillary was preparing to run against all the GOP primary candidates. "Oh, Hillary, you were already coming up with a plan to defeat Jeb before he ran? I guess you don't even wait to see who the opponent is before trying. You are a crazy reactionary!"

American centrists are the dumbest fucking smart people imaginable.

[Cheeseweasel 26442]

I heard from undisclosed sources close to the White House that Akhil Reed Amar's family is being threatened with a no-fly listing if Akhil doesn't write a favorable article. 

Or was it undisclosed sources close to the Waffle House.

I get them confused.

[bad_teammate 13566]

8 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

(Disclosure: I was one of Judge Kavanaugh’s professors when he was a student at Yale Law School.)

NYT up against the fucking wall.

"Guys how can you even begin to imply that a cadre of wealthy and powerful people centered around incestuous centers of elite power (Wall Street, NYC, ivy league universities, etc...) are all glad-handing freaks who conspire amongst each other in conscious and unconscious ways!? You sound like PizzaGaters!" - Brilliant Centrists

Edited July 10, 2018 by bad_teammate

[wildcat09 29597]

32 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

If you listened to Warren you would have sworn Kavanaugh was running against her for her Senate seat instead of a Supreme Court seat.  The arguments aren't supposed to be about his political views.  The arguments are supposed to be about whether or not he keeps his political views out of his judicial decisions.  The idea of the Supreme Court isn't to decide good laws from bad laws or good policy from bad policy.  The idea is to decide constitutional laws from unconstitutional laws and constitutional policies from unconstitutional policies.  The idea behind our government is thus; legislative branch=make laws, executive branch=enforce laws, judicial branch=interpret laws,  not legislative branch=make laws, executive branch=enforce laws, judicial branch=make laws that can't get made by the legislative branch.

And the Dem argument is that he doesn't.

[Cheeseweasel 26442]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

 

American centrists are the dumbest fucking smart people imaginable.

Down right Deplorable, right?

[David Dennison 19567]

9 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/09/opinion/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-trump.html

A Liberal’s Case for Brett Kavanaugh

July 9, 2018

By Akhil Reed Amar

Mr. Amar is a professor at Yale Law School.

The nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be the next Supreme Court justice is President Trump’s finest hour, his classiest move. Last week the president promised to select “someone with impeccable credentials, great intellect, unbiased judgment, and deep reverence for the laws and Constitution of the United States.” In picking Judge Kavanaugh, he has done just that.

In 2016, I strongly supported Hillary Clinton for president as well as President Barack Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland. But today, with the exception of the current justices and Judge Garland, it is hard to name anyone with judicial credentials as strong as those of Judge Kavanaugh. He sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the most influential circuit court) and commands wide and deep respect among scholars, lawyers and jurists.

Judge Kavanaugh, who is 53, has already helped decide hundreds of cases concerning a broad range of difficult issues. Good appellate judges faithfully follow the Supreme Court; great ones influence and help steer it. Several of Judge Kavanaugh’s most important ideas and arguments — such as his powerful defense of presidential authority to oversee federal bureaucrats and his skepticism about newfangled attacks on the property rights of criminal defendants — have found their way into Supreme Court opinions.

Except for Judge Garland, no one has sent more of his law clerks to clerk for the justices of the Supreme Court than Judge Kavanaugh has. And his clerks have clerked for justices across the ideological spectrum.

Most judges are not scholars or even serious readers of scholarship. Judge Kavanaugh, by contrast, has taught courses at leading law schools and published notable law review articles. More important, he is an avid consumer of legal scholarship. He reads and learns. And he reads scholars from across the political spectrum. (Disclosure: I was one of Judge Kavanaugh’s professors when he was a student at Yale Law School.)

This studiousness is especially important for a jurist like Judge Kavanaugh, who prioritizes the Constitution’s original meaning. A judge who seeks merely to follow precedent can simply read previous judicial opinions. But an “originalist” judge — who also cares about what the Constitution meant when its words were ratified in 1788 or when amendments were enacted — cannot do all the historical and conceptual legwork on his or her own.

Judge Kavanaugh seems to appreciate this fact, whereas Justice Antonin Scalia, a fellow originalist, did not read enough history and was especially weak on the history of the Reconstruction amendments and the 20th-century amendments.

A great judge also admits and learns from past mistakes. Here, too, Judge Kavanaugh has already shown flashes of greatness, admirably confessing that some of the views he held 20 years ago as a young lawyer — including his crabbed understandings of the presidency when he was working for the Whitewater independent counsel, Kenneth Starr — were erroneous.

Although Democrats are still fuming about Judge Garland’s failed nomination, the hard truth is that they control neither the presidency nor the Senate; they have limited options. Still, they could try to sour the hearings by attacking Judge Kavanaugh and looking to complicate the proceedings whenever possible.

This would be a mistake. Judge Kavanaugh is, again, a superb nominee. So I propose that the Democrats offer the following compromise: Each Senate Democrat will pledge either to vote yes for Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation — or, if voting no, to first publicly name at least two clearly better candidates whom a Republican president might realistically have nominated instead (not an easy task). In exchange for this act of good will, Democrats will insist that Judge Kavanaugh answer all fair questions at his confirmation hearing.

Fair questions would include inquiries not just about Judge Kavanaugh’s past writings and activities but also about how he believes various past notable judicial cases (such as Roe v. Wade) should have been decided — and even about what his current legal views are on any issue, general or specific.

Everyone would have to understand that in honestly answering, Judge Kavanaugh would not be making a pledge — a pledge would be a violation of judicial independence. In the future, he would of course be free to change his mind if confronted with new arguments or new facts, or even if he merely comes to see a matter differently with the weight of judgment on his shoulders. But honest discussions of one’s current legal views are entirely proper, and without them confirmation hearings are largely pointless.

The compromise I’m proposing would depart from recent confirmation practice. But the current confirmation process is badly broken, alternating between rubber stamps and witch hunts. My proposal would enable each constitutional actor to once again play its proper constitutional role: The Senate could become a venue for serious constitutional conversation, and the nominee could demonstrate his or her consummate legal skill. And equally important: Judge Kavanaugh could be confirmed with the ninetysomething Senate votes he deserves, rather than the fiftysomething votes he is likely to get.

Counterpoint: piss off, you wanker.

[bad_teammate 13566]

1 minute ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Down right Deplorable, right?

Worse than the Deplorables. At least with the Deplorables you can count on them having beliefs of some kind.

Say what you will about the tenets of MAGAism, dude, at least it's an ethos.

[Tuco 5094]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Worse than the Deplorables. At least with the Deplorables you can count on them having beliefs of some kind.

Say what you will about the tenets of MAGAism, dude, at least it's an ethos.

Okay bt, what's your best case scenario for how this all plays out.  Walk me through it.

[F250 29204]

Centrists are the evil.

[bad_teammate 13566]

Define "this".

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

redacted

Edited July 10, 2018 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Tuco 5094]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Define "this".

How the Democratic Senators (or whomever) should approach the Supreme Court nomination.  What do you believe is the best possible outcome and how should one go about achieving it?

[David Dennison 19567]

2 minutes ago, Tuco said:

How the Democratic Senators (or whomever) should approach the Supreme Court nomination.  What do you believe is the best possible outcome and how should one go about achieving it?

Delay, delay, delay. Bring the business of the Senate to a halt.

[bad_teammate 13566]

Just now, Tuco said:

How the Democratic Senators (or whomever) should approach the Supreme Court nomination.  What do you believe is the best possible outcome and how should one go about achieving it?

The best possible outcome is stalling it until the mid-terms, winning the Senate, and then holding the seat empty until 2020. I don't think that's possible and I don't really care about the Supreme Court (as you can see by my almost complete lack of participation in this thread). 

I just think it's astonishing that our Brilliant Centrist Brains are expressing disbelief at the idea that a fucking KENNEDY acted in a sleazy way to influence government and are so easily won over by Trump's anti-press campaign. 

[F250 29204]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Delay, delay, delay. Bring the business of the Senate to a halt.

In all seriousness, I would really like Congress to get something done regarding the immigration fiasco the administration has created. Personally, I would hate for that issue to be lost in political gamesmanship.

 

[Anastasis 23724]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Past that, why are you people acting like it's beyond conscience that Donald Trump and the Kennedys colluded on the pick? Is it really unbelievable that the con-man and one of the most disgusting wannabe-royal-families in the nation rubbed shoulders in order to secure their power?

 Do you people not pay attention to the world around you?

Nicely done. 

[Cheeseweasel 26442]

5 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Delay, delay, delay. Bring the business of the Senate to a halt.

Bold strategy, Cotton.

[Tuco 5094]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The best possible outcome is stalling it until the mid-terms, winning the Senate, and then holding the seat empty until 2020. I don't think that's possible and I don't really care about the Supreme Court (as you can see by my almost complete lack of participation in this thread). 

I just think it's astonishing that our Brilliant Centrist Brains are expressing disbelief at the idea that a fucking KENNEDY acted in a sleazy way to influence government and are so easily won over by Trump's anti-press campaign. 

My apologies. I thought you were attacking the "centrists" based on dealing with Kavanaugh, rather than putting credence in the Kennedy story. 

 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Delay, delay, delay. Bring the business of the Senate to a halt.

The Senate does business?  I actually think the Dems should confirm Kavanaugh quickly if hearings ever occur.  I expect the GOP to delay the confirmation hearings and to try to make the election a SCOTUS referendum.  For one, it would allow McConnell to save face. For two, it would put pressure on Dem Senators in red states, and take the focus off Trump's GOP takeover.

The next one will be the hill for Dems to die on.  Of course, RBG could surprise me again and live another 3 or 400 years, so maybe that hill never arrives.

[Anastasis 23724]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

I just think it's astonishing that our Brilliant Centrist Brains are expressing disbelief at the idea that a fucking KENNEDY acted in a sleazy way to influence government and are so easily won over by Trump's anti-press campaign. 

 

Trolling level 11, engage. 

[bad_teammate 13566]

Just now, FondrenRoad said:

The next one will be the hill for Dems to die on.

*insane, maniacal laughing as this phrase is repeated until nuclear hellfire*

[David Dennison 19567]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

The Senate does business?  I actually think the Dems should confirm Kavanaugh quickly if hearings ever occur.  I expect the GOP to delay the confirmation hearings and to try to make the election a SCOTUS referendum.  For one, it would allow McConnell to save face. For two, it would put pressure on Dem Senators in red states, and take the focus off Trump's GOP takeover.

The next one will be the hill for Dems to die on.  Of course, RBG could surprise me again and live another 3 or 400 years, so maybe that hill never arrives.

I'd love for the midterms to be a SCOTUS and Trump referendum. 

[bad_teammate 13566]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Trolling level 11, engage. 

This is how you square the circle of being completely played by Trump re: the press and your irrational knee-jerk defense of inbred American royalty? lol you are pure garbage

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3874]

17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Very cool to see "centrists" and "moderates" joining the buffoon con-man Donald Trump in assailing the free press.

Undoubtedly, journalists* have gotten things wrong, but they issue retractions and explanations and work to at least end up with the truth even if they don't get it immediately.

American journalists from real publications: Right 90% of the time and apologize/retract for the 10%
Donald Trump: Wrong 75% of the time and never apologizes

Very Brilliant Centrist, "Hmm, looks the same to me!"

* - Not pundits and op-ed writers, but actual journalists.

Past that, why are you people acting like it's beyond conscience that Donald Trump and the Kennedys colluded on the pick? Is it really unbelievable that the con-man and one of the most disgusting wannabe-royal-families in the nation rubbed shoulders in order to secure their power?

 

Are you retarded? He is not one of *those* Kennedy’s.  Any brilliant insight into Senator Kennedy from Louisiana?

let me guess: President Nixon and Otis Nixon are brothers.  

[Js1 87225]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

The Senate does business?  I actually think the Dems should confirm Kavanaugh quickly if hearings ever occur.  I expect the GOP to delay the confirmation hearings and to try to make the election a SCOTUS referendum.  For one, it would allow McConnell to save face. For two, it would put pressure on Dem Senators in red states, and take the focus off Trump's GOP takeover.

The next one will be the hill for Dems to die on.  Of course, RBG could surprise me again and live another 3 or 400 years, so maybe that hill never arrives.

I don't think they're going to delay it.  I think they're going to push for it to get done.  The average (not including Garland) is like 66 days from announcement to confirmation. I could see a mid-September confirmation.  The GOP isn't going to let the new SCOTUS term start without Kavanaugh on the bench.

[Tuco 5094]

4 minutes ago, F250 said:

In all seriousness, I would really like Congress to get something done regarding the immigration fiasco the administration has created. Personally, I would hate for that issue to be lost in political gamesmanship.

 

I don't see the Republican Congress addressing the immediate crisis of the detention centers before the court remedies make it moot.  In some ways, I think the courts will bail them out.  But thank fucking God for that. 

I also don't see the Republican Congress addressing immigration continuing issues in any kind of agreeable way while Trump is spouting anti-immigrant rhetoric, at least not before the midterms.  They will lose swing voters if they follow Trump's lead and get killed by Trumpsters if they don't. 

[Anastasis 23724]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

This is how you square the circle of being completely played by Trump re: the press and your irrational knee-jerk defense of inbred American royalty? lol you are pure garbage

Wait, you really think that Anthony Kennedy is related to the Kennedy political dynasty?  Maybe I gave you too much credit for trolling.

[hayden_horn 11402]

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The best possible outcome is stalling it until the mid-terms, winning the Senate, and then holding the seat empty until 2020. I don't think that's possible and I don't really care about the Supreme Court (as you can see by my almost complete lack of participation in this thread). 

I just think it's astonishing that our Brilliant Centrist Brains are expressing disbelief at the idea that a fucking KENNEDY acted in a sleazy way to influence government and are so easily won over by Trump's anti-press campaign. 

to which branch of the massachusetts kennedys does justice kennedy belong?

[Mojo Hand 4580]

54 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

The arguments aren't supposed to be about his political views.  The arguments are supposed to be about whether or not he keeps his political views out of his judicial decisions.  

Garland.

[Anastasis 23724]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

to which branch of the massachusetts kennedys does justice kennedy belong?

LOL.  Don't burden him with these types of questions, deflects from his mission to tell us what smooth brain idiots centrists who don't pay attention to the world around them are. 

[bad_teammate 13566]

The Massachusetts branch is the only one in the powerful world of finance and ivy league education. Definitely not the ivy league education executives in Duetche Bank. Those are the salt-of-the-earth Kennedys!

[ChiTownDoc 21347]

3 hours ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

I do appreciate FondrenRoad telling me, a lawyer who has been practicing for over 19 years, about stuff a law student in his first semester would learn. 

To be fair it’s rather common for lawyers, even after practicing for 19 years, to be ignorant on ‘stuff a law student learns in his first semester’, among a whole lot of other shit...

[hayden_horn 11402]

it's okay to admit you fucked up, dude

[David Dennison 19567]

1 minute ago, ChiTownDoc said:

To be fair it’s rather common for lawyers, even after practicing for 19 years, to be ignorant on ‘stuff a law student learns in his first semester’, among a whole lot of other shit...

This is so true.

[Tuco 5094]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I'd love for the midterms to be a SCOTUS and Trump referendum. 

Not me. I think perhaps the Dems might have a slight advantage on such a proposition, if you were to poll people randomly.  But they might not.  With the Senate map so much in the Republican's favor, I don't want a 50/50 split issue.  And, many Republicans are demoralized by Trump.  They may support their Congressman/Senator generally, but not enough to go to the polls. If you put Roe v. Wade on the plate, many of them will show up.  The Democrats should show up in atypical numbers for a midterm regardless.  Adding a SC nomination does little for them. The Republicans have practically nothing to run on.  An unpopular tax cut?  Increased spending?  Obamacare repeal?  A Supreme Court nomination is easy campaign material for them.

[Pods 7637]

1 minute ago, ChiTownDoc said:

To be fair it’s rather common for lawyers, even after practicing for 19 years, to be ignorant on ‘stuff a law student learns in his first semester’, among a whole lot of other shit...

Same thing happens with doctors and every other profession too. Not many doctors could pass a gross anatomy practical exam without some major prep time to re-learn the material. 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3874]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

it's okay to admit you fucked up, dude

I give him a 3.5 for at least trying to pull out of that nosedive.

[bad_teammate 13566]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

it's okay to admit you fucked up, dude

On the Kennedy? I knew he was from California, but thought he was Joseph Patrick's cousin. Definitely wrong about that.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

These upcoming GOP campaigns should be interesting.

 

[David Dennison 19567]

1 minute ago, Tuco said:

Not me. I think perhaps the Dems might have a slight advantage on such a proposition, if you were to poll people randomly.  But they might not.  With the Senate map so much in the Republican's favor, I don't want a 50/50 split issue.  And, many Republicans are demoralized by Trump.  They may support their Congressman/Senator generally, but not enough to go to the polls. If you put Roe v. Wade on the plate, many of them will show up.  The Democrats should show up in atypical numbers for a midterm regardless.  Adding a SC nomination does little for them. The Republicans have practically nothing to run on.  An unpopular tax cut?  Increased spending?  Obamacare repeal?  A Supreme Court nomination is easy campaign material for them.

It's also easy for Democrats.