Jump to content

Supreme Court Justice Kennedy to Retire at the end of July


Hugo Stiglitz

Recommended Posts

On 7/16/2018 at 8:33 AM, Cheeseweasel said:

Growing up, I never missed The McLaughlin Group (I was an odd child). I enjoyed hearing all sides of an argument and you could tell that each of the guests/regulars enjoyed the hearty debate. I feel like those days are gone. Now it's FUCK OFF LIBTARD and FUCK YOU TRUMPKIN. Little substantial debate on issues. Our Congress is a reflection of us.

/rant

The creator of the show died of course.  Then it was off the air for about a year.  Then they did a pilot.  Then a few months later it started up again.  It is still rolling along.  3 main plus the host with at least one guest every week.

Watch it here and all the archived shows.  It is interesting to watch them later even if you miss because the topics are very timely.

https://www.mclaughlin.com/

They are surprisingly civil to each other for the most part.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because of course he did.

 

 

Supreme court nominee Brett Kavanaugh suggested several years ago that the unanimous high court ruling in 1974 that forced President Richard Nixon to turn over the Watergate tapes, leading to the end of his presidency, may have been wrongly decided.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites



I can’t keep up with plaid CR threads, but don’t many legal scholars say that RvW was a bad decision (on legal merits, not the subject matter), and also wouldn’t having RvW overturned just send it back to the states, where something like 45 have already said they would legalize abortion at the state level?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Buzzrock said:

 


I can’t keep up with plaid CR threads, but don’t many legal scholars say that RvW was a bad decision (on legal merits, not the subject matter), and also wouldn’t having RvW overturned just send it back to the states, where something like 45 have already said they would legalize abortion at the state level?

 

Yes and yes. I'm not sure about that 45 number, though. I have no idea how many states want to outlaw abortion completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Yes and yes. I'm not sure about that 45 number, though. I have no idea how many states want to outlaw abortion completely.

Not 45.

From Axios:

Where access would be restricted: Four states — Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota and South Dakota — have trigger laws that would immediately make abortion illegal. In seven states, pre-Roe restrictions on abortion would take effect.

Where access would be protected: There are 17 states that have either laws or court rulings protecting access to abortion regardless of Roe.

Uncertain: The remaining 23 states are without explicit laws or court decisions. Abortion access would be determined by state legislatures and governors. Of the “uncertain” states, three lean pro-choice and 12 lean pro-life, based on the pro-choice group NARAL’s categorization of state governors and legislatures. States with mixed governments (8) appear gray.

And before anyone snarks at the math, they include DC.  Hence, 51.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
19 minutes ago, Party_Taco said:

Just saw an add on CNN from the Judicial Crisis Network painting Kavanaugh as bright, curious and dedicated to his family. No mention of his stance on torture, women's rights or the president pardoning himself... curious!

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Judicial_Crisis_Network

And yet, he's underwater on voters wanting him to be confirmed. Guess the "aw shucks, family man, coaches his daughter's basketball team" takes a back seat to overturning Roe v. Wade, pro-torture, pro-corporations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Js1 said:

And yet, he's underwater on voters wanting him to be confirmed. Guess the "aw shucks, family man, coaches his daughter's basketball team" takes a back seat to overturning Roe v. Wade, pro-torture, pro-corporations.

Well, all of those are problematic politically....

....but lying under oath in his 2006 confirmation hearing?  I'd like to dig into that.  That's a 100% disqualification for me, if true.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/17/2018 at 4:22 PM, Brisketexan said:

Well, all of those are problematic politically....

....but lying under oath in his 2006 confirmation hearing?  I'd like to dig into that.  That's a 100% disqualification for me, if true.

No shit, but you know, nobody really cares, 'cause SCOTUS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Doug Jones torpedoes any chance of reelection in Alabama.

Let's be honest, it would take re-nominating Roy Moore again in 2020 and Trump's approval rating to be at like 12% nationwide (still ~30% in the state) for Alabama to vote for Doug Jones in a presidential year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Let's be honest, it would take re-nominating Roy Moore again in 2020 and Trump's approval rating to be at like 12% nationwide (still ~30% in the state) for Alabama to vote for Doug Jones in a presidential year. 

Probably true. But shame on you for counting Roy out. Never underestimate the stupidity of the 45% who supported him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...