The Supremes

[Longhorn_Fan68 33825]

1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

Holy shit do NOT show those photos to the sack or he might have a brain aneurysm. 

or maybe do?

[JimmyJames 12271]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Hadn't seen this so I'll retract the liar allegation. Though I do expect that we'll find out in a few years that Project Veritas or Brietbart or someone similar paid her some money to change her story (as we know they've both offered to others in the past). 

Sack and his ilk think bretts stupid ass calendars prove he didn’t rape anyone. It’s hopeless trying to convince him otherwise.

Nevermind that the thing that did prove he wasn’t capable of serving on the court was his ridiculous meltdown during the confirmation hearings. Prior to that while I believed her it wasn’t gonna be proved and therefore wasn’t disqualifying. Then he pulls his hysterical crying stunt at the hearings and proved he’s just a Ken Starr style hack with no principles who doesn’t have the temperament to serve on the court. 

[jimmyjazz 45513]

1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

Nevermind that the thing that did prove he wasn’t capable of serving on the court was his ridiculous meltdown during the confirmation hearings. 

Well, that and his perjury.  He testified he hadn't been watching the proceedings when there was footage of him doing exactly that.  A white lie (SWIDT?), but a lie nonetheless.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The most solid posters talk about how they want to shoot someone for turning around in their driveway.

way out of context, but you do you.

Impressive.  Do you take notes?

[DDD Dad 14167]

15 minutes ago, slorch said:

To be fair when they go there, it's basically the white flag on their position.

Solid posters don't do that crap unless it's banter, as opposed to a deliberate shot.

Slorch'd!

[JimmyJames 12271]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Well, that and his perjury.  He testified he hadn't been watching the proceedings when there was footage of him doing exactly that.  A white lie (SWIDT?), but a lie nonetheless.

Yeah that too. All of it. 
 

Prior to the hearing I didn’t really oppose it because the result was preordained, the allegations were really old and never gonna be proved, and the republicans would just nominate some other asshole. 
 

After watching that hearing though I was saying there’s no way this guy should serve on the court. Then Lindsey had her hissy fit and donkey dong Doug got on anyway. 

[DDD Dad 14167]

29 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Well if you put Kamala in there at least you no longer have a worthless VP, amirite @Johnny Sack?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

3 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Well if you put Kamala in there at least you no longer have a worthless VP, amirite @Johnny Sack?

Past time we put someone who failed the bar exam the first go around on the SCOTUS.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

45 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Reported.  Your misogynism is disgusting.  

 

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Only person I have ignore is one Cloak Room dork.  Got tired of that ankle biter.

[JimmyJames 12271]

5 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Only person I have ignore is one Cloak Room dork.  Got tired of that ankle biter.

I really don’t mean to brag here, but, Im pretty sure this is me.
 

All you other anti-trolls have failed. 

[Biff Tannen 45477]

28 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Sack and his ilk think bretts stupid ass calendars prove he didn’t rape anyone. It’s hopeless trying to convince him otherwise.

Nevermind that the thing that did prove he wasn’t capable of serving on the court was his ridiculous meltdown during the confirmation hearings. Prior to that while I believed her it wasn’t gonna be proved and therefore wasn’t disqualifying. Then he pulls his hysterical crying stunt at the hearings and proved he’s just a Ken Starr style hack with no principles who doesn’t have the temperament to serve on the court. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

That’s one of my all time favorite SNL sketches. It was perfect. 

[Biff Tannen 45477]

2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

That’s one of my all time favorite SNL sketches. It was perfect. 

Yep.  Phenomenal.  

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

I really don’t mean to brag here, but, Im pretty sure this is me.
 

All you other anti-trolls have failed. 

You aren't even in my Top 10 PITA-posters.

At risk of tarnishing your reputation, hell I like you. You can come over to my house and fuck my sister.

[Michael Knight 12863]

for diversity, Amy Coney Barrett is the only current justice who did not go to Harvard or Yale

[OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys 2056]

I think paper credentials are going to be important here because they won't want this nomination to look like charity, so K Jackson has be the favorite, but I looked again at Kruger.  I just saw young and California Supreme Court and dismissed her.  But she was a SCOTUS clerk and clerk for the DC Cir court of appeal.  She worked as an AUSA in LA. Harvard/Yale.  I think K Jackson is much more likely, but so that $.19 on Kruger seems like a good bargain

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, slorch said:

You aren't even in my Top 10 PITA-posters.

At risk of tarnishing your reputation, hell I like you. You can come over to my house and fuck my sister.

Well at the risk of getting myself booted out of the cabal, I actually like you as a poster as well. Even the occasional meltdowns are usually entertaining. 

[Satchel 6908]

1 hour ago, Michael Knight said:

for diversity, Amy Coney Barrett is the only current justice who did not go to Harvard or Yale

And who does not know the correct pronunciation of poignant.

[Satchel 6908]

4 hours ago, Bravo said:

there is a lot of that being actually said or implied.

Trump’s judicial appointments just happened to be virtually all white and male because reasons.

[Anastasis 23375]

2 hours ago, OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys said:

I think paper credentials are going to be important here because they won't want this nomination to look like charity, so K Jackson has be the favorite, but I looked again at Kruger.  I just saw young and California Supreme Court and dismissed her.  But she was a SCOTUS clerk and clerk for the DC Cir court of appeal.  She worked as an AUSA in LA. Harvard/Yale.  I think K Jackson is much more likely, but so that $.19 on Kruger seems like a good bargain

Kruger already moved to 0.26.  Good call. 

[horn4life 3753]

The Bottom line on Kavanaugh is that the ALLEGATIONS, were not at all investigated by the FBI.  

There simply was no search for truth.

But fuck, without lies is there even a GOP anymore?

[Neonmoon 38127]

Choose the youngest one with a family history of living for a long ass time. Oh and the yale/Harvard thing

[Satchel 6908]

4 hours ago, Bravo said:

• President Franklin D. Roosevelt. ... 
• First Lady Michelle Obama.  
• John F. Kennedy
• Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. ... 
• Stanford Law School Dean, Kathleen Sullivan. 
• Jerry Brown. ... 
• Governor Pete Wilson.

all say hi and what to know what point is

[Horn Dog 9644]

Biden should nominate Chelsea Clinton’s daughter just to fuck with the GOP

[Satchel 6908]

Just now, Bravo said:

were they Supreme Court Justices?

Doesn’t matter. One can be a SC justice or POTUS, for that matter, without even taking the bar exam. Hell, you can even become POTUS while having one of your college professors call you the dumbest sob he ever had in class.

[Satchel 6908]

4 minutes ago, Bravo said:

except they werent. 33% female. hyperbole at Justice level.

I offer this correction: Trump’s judicial appointments were virtually all white because of reasons.

[Satchel 6908]

1 minute ago, Bravo said:

I think you're missing the point here. Would you want a justice who failed the bar?

Stanford chose a dean of its law school who failed the bar. Would you want an Affirmative Action jurist on the SC? 

[elfenix 34168]

except they werent. 33% female. hyperbole at Justice level.

55/226 = 24.33%

37/226 = 16.37%

[Satchel 6908]

27 minutes ago, Bravo said:

WTF is an affirmative action jurist? I'd only want a very qualified one. Not sure what you want to label that?

Clarence is an affirmative action jurist who occupies space on the Supreme Court. Ben Carson is an affirmative action neurosurgeon who occupied space at HUD during Trump’s reign. 

[Planet Houston 4922]

8 hours 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.

You’re just being dishonest if you’re seriously arguing that religion has nothing to do with GOP politics. 

[Planet Houston 4922]

8 hours ago, Bravo said:

I care about prior opinions and quality of their opinions. 

You’ve never read a fucking opinion in your life. 

[Planet Houston 4922]

I see I’m late responding to those idiotic posts and just piling on. 

[Planet Houston 4922]

1 hour ago, Bravo said:

Ha, OK. You really have no clue. Guess those briefs wrote themselves. Dumbass. 

You ever take a couple Dr. Sager's classes at UT? I doubt you ever have stepped foot in a classroom on the 40? Now scurry off troll. 

BTW anyone know if he is still teaching? He'd probably be 75 by now. By far my favorite professor at UT in mid 90s. Took 2 of his pre law classes. Also, the hardest courses I ever took. Maybe was the only openly conservative professors at Texas I knew of. His office hrs used to be at Trudy's. Never missed one. He also had a parlor trick which I could never tell if was due to photographic memory. He had assigned seating. He had everyone's name memorized by the 2nd class by where you sat. He also owned all these supercuts or sportsclips. Fascinating man. 

Congrats, you must have learned as much in your one pre-law class as I learned in 3 years in Townes Hall. Last I checked that was still on the 40, no?

Also clearly you’ve never heard of Professor Graglia. 

Now scurry off, troll. 

['stache 21744]

I'm reading through the resumes of the three who are considered front runners. Ketanji Brown Jackson, Leondra Kruger, and J. Michelle Childs. 

SCOTUS clerks, Big Law Partners, California Supreme Court, federal district court and circuit court judges, Solicitor General, dozens of appearances before SCOTUS.

Surly Conservative Cabal: "iT'S JuSt 'CaUsE ThEy'rE BlAcK"

Never stop surly, never stop.

[elfenix 34168]

there's probably several hundred people out there that meet the criteria of extremely well educated and high-grade government service, whether that's as a judge or as an AG/SG.  

[Neonmoon 38127]

Take the pain away

[wildcat09 29187]

31 minutes ago, elfenix said:

there's probably several hundred people out there that meet the criteria of extremely well educated and high-grade government service, whether that's as a judge or as an AG/SG.  

Yeah, the pool of people who would be perfectly fine on the Supreme Court is actually enormous. It's a shame we've narrowed it almost entirely to YLS and HLS grads (with one weirdo charismatic ND Law grad thrown in to appeal to the nutters*). There's plenty of brilliant people who didn't go to Harvard or Yale for law school and would make much better Supreme Court justices than most of the well-connected dipshits who did. 

 

 

* hi formermav!

Edited January 27, 2022 by wildcat09

[JimmyJames 12271]

18 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Past time we put someone who failed the bar exam the first go around on the SCOTUS.

Sack is of course being a disingenuous asshole like always. Almost everyone fails the California bar the first time. The people who become lawyers pass it on the second try. The ones who fail it again typically don’t.  
 

In any event Kamala isn’t getting the nomination so it’s just sack being the sack again. 
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/abovethelaw.com/2020/05/with-record-low-pass-rate-almost-everyone-fails-california-bar-exam/%3famp=1

[JimmyJames 12271]

12 hours ago, Bravo said:

Ha, OK. You really have no clue. Guess those briefs wrote themselves. Dumbass. 

You ever take a couple Dr. Sager's classes at UT? I doubt you ever have stepped foot in a classroom on the 40? Now scurry off troll. 

BTW anyone know if he is still teaching? He'd probably be 75 by now. By far my favorite professor at UT in mid 90s. Took 2 of his pre law classes. Also, the hardest courses I ever took. Maybe was the only openly conservative professors at Texas I knew of. His office hrs used to be at Trudy's. Never missed one. He also had a parlor trick which I could never tell if was due to photographic memory. He had assigned seating. He had everyone's name memorized by the 2nd class by where you sat. He also owned all these supercuts or sportsclips. Fascinating man. 

Pics or it didn’t happen. 

['stache 21744]

25 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Yeah, the pool of people who would be perfectly fine on the Supreme Court is actually enormous. It's a shame we've narrowed it almost entirely to YLS and HLS grads (with one weirdo charismatic ND Law grad thrown in to appeal to the nutters*). There's plenty of brilliant people who didn't go to Harvard or Yale for law school and would make much better Supreme Court justices than most of the well-connected dipshits who did. 

 

 

* hi formermav!

To believe that any of the noted "front runners" would be an "affirmative action" appointment would be to believe that no black woman could possibly be qualified for the position, or not on par with a qualified white male. The pool of qualified candidates is, as you say, quite wide, even if limited to Harvard or Yale graduates who clerked for SCOTUS. You can add in "served on a State Supreme Court or Federal Appeals Court" and you still have a number of qualified black female candidates. The righty cabal here clearly thinks that it's impossible for any black woman to be qualified. It's the least surprising thing these days. It'll be fun to see the tweets from Trump and friends who now say the quiet parts out loud.

Edited January 27, 2022 by 'stache

[JimmyJames 12271]

Has anyone noticed how important it is to Dr. Bravo to prove to us he went to UT? It’s fucking psycho level bizarre.

[JimmyJames 12271]

11 hours ago, Bravo said:

Just responding to your false claim I've never read an opinion. BTW it wasn't 1 class jackass. I'm not an attny nor have I claimed to be an expert. I have some exposure and education in law from a great university. Probably much more than most on this board do. 

I award you five internet points, the equivalent of one cookie. 

[TwiceHorn 31184]

10 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Sack is of course being a disingenuous asshole like always. Almost everyone fails the California bar the first time. The people who become lawyers pass it on the second try. The ones who fail it again typically don’t.  
 

In any event Kamala isn’t getting the nomination so it’s just sack being the sack again. 
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/abovethelaw.com/2020/05/with-record-low-pass-rate-almost-everyone-fails-california-bar-exam/%3famp=1

A major reason California has a low pass rate is that it has a shit ton of unaccredited law schools (and a mega fuck ton of bad accredited law schools) and permits people who have never attended law school, or even graduated college, to take the bar, see, e.g., Kim Kardashian.

In any event, failing the bar, even the California bar, is a bad sign.  Not the end of the world or necessarily a reflection of one's fitness to practice, but not a good sign.

Edited January 27, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[JimmyJames 12271]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

A major reason California has a low pass rate is that it has a shit ton of unaccredited law schools (and a mega fuck ton of bad accredited law schools) and permits people who have never attended law school, or even graduated college, to take the bar, see, e.g., Kim Kardashian.

In any event, failing the bar, even the California bar, is a bad sign.  Not the end of the world or necessarily a reflection of one's fitness to practice, but not a good sign.

While true, California has traditionally had one of the lowest passage rates even among students at ABA accredited schools that is much lower than other states. 
 

The typical test taker who fails it and later passes it only failed one section of the California bar that they are then allowed to retake. At least that’s how it used to be. 
 

I never took it. Probably should have. But had fellow classmates take it and that was the experience of 2 of them. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33825]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

Take the pain away

I prefer this:

 

[TwiceHorn 31184]

The probably single most unique and appealing thing about Ketanji Brown Jackson is that a significant part of her government employment was as a federal public defender and service on the sentencing commission.

Supreme Court justices are, as a group, woefully ignorant of the realities of criminal law,

[wildcat09 29187]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The probably single most unique and appealing thing about Ketanji Brown Jackson is that a significant part of her government employment was as a federal public defender and service on the sentencing commission.

Supreme Court justices are, as a group, woefully ignorant of the realities of criminal law,

Most have no experience as trial judges, either. She really would be a great addition to the Court.

[wildcat09 29187]

 

 

[South Austin 52037]

13 hours ago, Bravo said:

You ever take a couple Dr. Sager's classes at UT? I doubt you ever have stepped foot in a classroom on the 40? Now scurry off troll. 

BTW anyone know if he is still teaching? He'd probably be 75 by now. By far my favorite professor at UT in mid 90s. Took 2 of his pre law classes. Also, the hardest courses I ever took. Maybe was the only openly conservative professors at Texas I knew of. His office hrs used to be at Trudy's. Never missed one. He also had a parlor trick which I could never tell if was due to photographic memory. He had assigned seating. He had everyone's name memorized by the 2nd class by where you sat. He also owned all these supercuts or sportsclips. Fascinating man. 

 

11 hours ago, Planet Houston said:

Also clearly you’ve never heard of Professor Graglia.

Time for constitutional law humblebrag.

I took Alan Sager's Constitutional Law and Judicial Process and Behavior courses in undergrad.  At the time, I was the only one of his students who had ever gotten the highest final average in both courses.  Those classes -- as well as Civil Liberties with Harold Perry -- are as close to law school classes as one can find in undergrad (Socratic, heavy reading, long essay exams).  (And, I frequented his office hours at Trudy's and got to know him pretty well.  He even wrote a law school recommendation for me.  I lost touch with him after I graduated from law school, but I actually saw him across a crowd at DKR last season -- I was pretty sure it was him -- and he looked like he was showing every bit of his age, but in all fairness it had been about 20 years since I had last seen him).

And I took Lino Graglia's Constitutional Law class my first year of law school.  Didn't get the highest grade, but got an A+.

 

They're both somewhat similar in that they're far right on the political/constitutional spectrum, but they're also both hilariously funny and witty assholes, and I enjoyed the shit out of their courses.

Edit:  Harold Perry is more my cup of tea politically.  He eventually got a full-time gig at the law school, and by luck I got to sit next to him at a law school dinner at the Four Seasons a few years ago.  He vaguely remembered me (or at least pretended to), and when I told him he was one of my favorite teachers ever on any level, he was genuinely floored and so gracious. 

Edited January 27, 2022 by South Austin