Jump to content

The Supremes

tx 3 putt

By tx 3 putt
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 12.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Brisketexan
Brisketexan

Some people and posts above see this for the incredibly dangerous thing it is.  See the whole forest, not just the tree.  Roe is built on the bedrock of the 14th amendment and the inherent right to pr

Ghost of LL
Ghost of LL

The whole episode is pretty bad for the Court.  The leak is embarrassing.  But the decision is catastrophic. You've got a 5-4 decision to get rid of a something that has been settled as a constit

sidis
sidis

in one of the many instances in which i debunked your oversimplified, unsupported bullshit and you simply never responded, i addressed your absolutist contention that religious are more charitable tha

Posted Images

Voldemort86

Voldemort86 2259

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, GopherRock said:

Brent Kavanaugh's stomach-turning confirmation hearing didn't turn anyone off to the GOP. If anything, it won them Senate seats.

I seem to recall the Kavanaugh hearings hurting the democrats. It was the democrats pulling all out the stops and suffering the consequences after kavanaugh heroic MAGA outburst or Clarence Thomas 2.0

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Macanudo

Macanudo 12976

Posted
Posted

How about nominating Obama?   There's precedent (Taft.)

I'm only slightly kidding.

I really wish Biden had not, as a campaign pledge, shoe-horned himself into such a narrow category (a black female.)   I know there are several of them that are probably qualified but it seems like a risky thing to do.  Especially with large number of shit heads in the this country and in Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dbeasy

Dbeasy 15047

Posted
Posted

Lol at people thinking the GOP won’t make this whole process difficult for the Democrats. Their whole strategy is obstruct - anything, everything, all the time, unless it’s a Xmas present for the donors that own them (such as the infrastructure bill). 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foosters

Foosters 17850

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

I don't think it can be anything other than a minority woman nomination. Any other choice would have the far left up in arms, that's all Biden has left in his small corner of support.

Its your position that Biden's most ardent supporters are the "far left?" 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29349

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, pacman said:

Fighting the Democrats on everything is exactly what their base wants. Not fighting Democrats gets you hurt in midterms as a Republican incumbent.

This. There's still primaries to win. The GOP is absolutely not going to withhold fire on this because anyone who tries to stay quiet will be mercilessly dragged by the rest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TurkeyChew

TurkeyChew 383

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, GopherRock said:

Brent Kavanaugh's stomach-turning confirmation hearing didn't turn anyone off to the GOP. If anything, it won them Senate seats.

"stomach-turning" is an interesting descriptor. 

There are really two different America's who see the same situation and have two opposite responses, and both think the other is insane for not seeing the dress is blue. How can you see stomach-turning gold?

  • Fuck You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Voldemort86

Voldemort86 2259

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Bravo said:

That hearing was a disaster for the Ds. I would expect this be a little messy but seeing how we are in the middle of Biden's term and Manchin/Simena have more or less been voting party lines on judges this should be a fairly easy process relatively speaking.

Joe Donnelly, Claire Mccaskill, and ESPECIALLY Bill Nelson of Florida suffered that day.  They suffered the brunt of those hearings. Bill Nelson lost by 10k votes and would almost certainly have his seat right now if those hearings were handled better. The hearings were the nail I’m the coffin for Donnelly and mccaskill. They just shoveled 10-20 more pounds of dirt onto Heitcamps grave who was already screwed no matter what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SydneyCarton

SydneyCarton 48081

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Voldemort86 said:

Independents and moderate democrats / republicans could be turned off by the GOP’s behavior and cost them votes.

They haven't been turned off yet by fucking with judges. Why would they start now? Jesus, they've come around to apologizing for Jan 6th people. Abortion is about to be overturned. As far as they're concerned, they've got momentum. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Voldemort86

Voldemort86 2259

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

They haven't been turned off yet by fucking with judges. Why would they start now? Jesus, they've come around to apologizing for Jan 6th people. Abortion is about to be overturned. As far as they're concerned, they've got momentum. 

They can’t stop people in blue states from having abortions.  California, New York, and Illinois will pass state laws allowing abortion if roe goes down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Its your position that Biden's most ardent supporters are the "far left?" 

He thinks anyone to the left of trump is a “Leftist.”  He also was absolutely  furious at the treatment of fellow frat dude donkey dong Doug during his rape confirmation hearing. He’s kinda like a non gay version of Lindsey graham. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21805

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Voldemort86 said:

They can’t stop people in blue states from having abortions.  California, New York, and Illinois will pass state laws allowing abortion if roe goes down.

You don't need laws allowing it, just need no laws criminalizing it, although congress will surely pass a law making it illegal once they get a majority, and will kill the filibuster to get it passed. Manchin and Sinema will say "okay, good with us."

Edited by 'stache
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Michael Knight

Michael Knight 12977

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Biden has already promised to put a black woman in. Similar to the VP nom, this decision will be based purely on sex and race. 

I still find it hilarious that saying "I will only hire a person of X gender and X race" is considered "progressive".

Would it make you feel better if he promised to put a white man in?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyJames

JimmyJames 12271

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Biden has already promised to put a black woman in. Similar to the VP nom, this decision will be based purely on sex and race. 

I still find it hilarious that saying "I will only hire a person of X gender and X race" is considered "progressive".

Trump nominated only white men until he was forced to nominate an unqualified white women by the bortion jesus freaks. 
 

You are the most dense poster on this board. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Voldemort86

Voldemort86 2259

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

Breyer should have announced this a year ago.  before Sinema and Manchin did their complete heel turns.  and not in a year with mid-terms.

I’m ok with it actually.  The midterm outlook for the dems is so bad right now that they might benefit from something to shake things up. It can’t get much worse for the dems right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Nobody seriously doubts the veracity of Christine Blasey Ford's testimony. Johnny Sack is just mad that she didn't "know her place" enough to shut the fuck up. 

You are such a hack.  That is objectively false.  The country was deeply divided on her vague and unsubstantiated allegations.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23469

Posted
Posted (edited)

Predictit market on confirmation (any justice) by end of 2022 @ 0.91 Yes/0.10 No. 

No lines on specific justices for nomination yet, but should be some easy money on the No side of specific individuals. 

Edited by Anastasis
2022, duh.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13511

Posted
Posted

Not by a lack of trying, but the GOP can only delay any nominee's confirmation. But Schumer and Biden have zero room for error. In the last cycle, McConnell could afford a few GOP no votes but Schumer doesn't have that luxury. Sure, if the nominee is a moderate, we may hear from Collins that she's considering him/her but Collins will vote no at the end.

Biden will need to nominate a moderate to ensure full Dem yes votes. 

Of course, whoever Biden nominate will be to the left of Chairman Mao. According to the GOP. It's going to be horrible listening to Cruz go on about how this nomination will bring about the destruction of the western world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14335

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:


Wanna make any bets on whether the GQP (including Manchin and Sinema) even let Biden’s nominee come up for a vote?

The GQP simply won’t allow any Biden nominee to be seated.

I guess we're about to find out whether Manchin and/or Sinema want to remain in the Democratic caucus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29349

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Not by a lack of trying, but the GOP can only delay any nominee's confirmation. But Schumer and Biden have zero room for error. In the last cycle, McConnell could afford a few GOP no votes but Schumer doesn't have that luxury. Sure, if the nominee is a moderate, we may hear from Collins that she's considering him/her but Collins will vote no at the end.

Biden will need to nominate a moderate to ensure full Dem yes votes. 

Of course, whoever Biden nominate will be to the left of Chairman Mao. According to the GOP. It's going to be horrible listening to Cruz go on about how this nomination will bring about the destruction of the western world.

Pretty much all liberal judges are moderates. People on the far left aren't big fans of the justice system and certainly weren't going to Harvard and Yale law in the late 90s and early 2000s. There's no left equivalent of the Federalist Society.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14335

Posted
Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, Bravo said:

i'd go for most qualified and not mention race or gender?

Not sure there's a way to identify the "most" qualified (I would posit that there isn't ONE person who fits that term).  There are many who are all completely suitable.  Among those, Biden can fulfill a promise to appoint an African-American female.

ETA: I clerked for a former Fifth and Eleventh Circuit judge who was on the short list for SC appointment for many years.  I suspect he was passed over several times because he was Catholic (and prior to Roberts/Thomas there had been only one prior Catholic on the Court) and probably too moderate for Reagan.

Edited by DDD Dad
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21805

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Pretty much all liberal judges are moderates. People on the far left aren't big fans of the justice system and certainly weren't going to Harvard and Yale law in the late 90s and early 2000s. There's no left equivalent of the Federalist Society.

The American Constitution Society is the left's equivalent to the Federalist Society, but it also is far more moderate than what the Federalist Society has become.

https://www.acslaw.org/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13511

Posted
Posted

Good on Breyer for not pulling a RBG. Overall I think she's a hero but she really screwed her legacy in not retiring in 2014. Retiring justices just don't go out to the nursing home. They can still have an active role in other federal courts, not too mention other aspects of public life.

hot take: justices should not have lifetime appointments. Each seat should be for 18 years, giving us an guaranteed justice seat every 2 years. Even if a seat becomes empty sooner than the 18, the replacement justice only gets the remainder of the term.  

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29349

Posted
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Good on Breyer for not pulling a RBG. Overall I think she's a hero but she really screwed her legacy in not retiring in 2014. Retiring justices just don't go out to the nursing home. They can still have an active role in other federal courts, not too mention other aspects of public life.

hot take: justices should not have lifetime appointments. Each seat should be for 18 years, giving us an guaranteed justice seat every 2 years. Even if a seat becomes empty sooner than the 18, the replacement justice only gets the remainder of the term.  

This is rank speculation on my part, but I think he really wanted to stay on the Court to try to maintain the nonpolitical facade he values, and hoped the conservatives would moderate enough as a sort of olive branch in order to keep him from retiring. I think his book, book tour, and other public statements emphasizing the importance of the Court's political neutrality weren't just intended for Americans generally, but specifically for the conservative justices, telling them he'd play along if they'd restrain themselves somewhat. Had they been willing to wait another year, there's a good chance the GOP would've been able to steal another SCOTUS seat, but they went full throttle on the political nonsense this term and he realized his efforts were worthless. 

That and there may be some health problems with one of the geriatric Dem senators that made announcing his retirement now instead of in the summer vital. 

Edited by wildcat09
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDD Dad

DDD Dad 14335

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Biden has already promised to put a black woman in. Similar to the VP nom, this decision will be based purely on sex and race. 

I still find it hilarious that saying "I will only hire a person of X gender and X race" is considered "progressive".

Not purely based. Of those most qualified, I imagine he will choose someone that will help the court better reflect the country's populace.  

Trump has stacked the deck with Catholics, two out of his three appointments (which now represents a majority of 5 members).  Why was there no outrage from you over those choices?

Edited by DDD Dad
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhorn_Fan68

Longhorn_Fan68 33869

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Bravo said:

who cares what religion someone is? religion should be taken into account? i get it. identity politics is the left's game.

really? you can see no reason why someone's religion might be important here? would you be ok if the person Biden chose was muslim? what if he decided to nominate someone and it turned out they were an active member of the church of satan? what about a filthy, godless atheist like me? would that ok with you as well? I mean, after all, it has no bearing, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Johnny Sack

Johnny Sack 8397

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Not purely based. Of those most qualified, I imagine he will choose someone that will help the court better reflect the country's populace.  

Trump has stacked the deck with Catholics, two out of his three appointments, (which now represents a majority of 5 members).  Why was there no outrage from you over those choices?

It's that type of pandering that stuck him with that worthless anchor of a VP.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34232

Posted
Posted
Not purely based. Of those most qualified, I imagine he will choose someone that will help the court better reflect the country's populace.  
Trump has stacked the deck with Catholics, two out of his three appointments, (which now represents a majority of 5 members).  Why was there no outrage from you over those choices?

*2.5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29349

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Bravo said:

I don't give a rat's ass what a judge's religion is. I care about prior opinions and quality of their opinions. Seriously, dont give 2 fucks. Muslim, catholic, jewish, atheist wouldn't matter to me.

Thank you for this. It's literally the funniest thing I've seen posted on this forum.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RPM

RPM 26318

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Bravo said:

I don't give a rat's ass what a judge's religion is. I care about prior opinions and quality of their opinions. Seriously, dont give 2 fucks. Muslim, catholic, jewish, atheist wouldn't matter to me.

Wow. I agree. I just want a level headed human basing decisions on science, not someone bound to an ideology.

  • Hook 'Em 1
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...