The Supremes

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

Seems like Brown-Jackson is an easy confirmation, in relative terms. In June, she was confirmed 53-44 in the Senate for her current judgeship. Murkowski, Collins and Toomey all voted yes.

I agree that giving someone an appeals role isn't the same as SCOTUS but still I don't see her not being confirmed.  And she's 51 so most likely the Dems would get 25 years out of her. 

side note:  when did justices get younger than me. I feel so unaccomplished. 

[elfenix 34168]

side note:  when did justices get younger than me. I feel so unaccomplished. 

I’ve thought Roger Federer as an old man for a long time.

Looked him up the other day to find he’s 2 years younger than me.

[South Austin 52037]

2 minutes ago, Bravo said:

BTW did you think he had a photographic memory? How did he memorize 100 names like that? He wasnt looking at a paper.

I do remember that.  I don't quite recall him mastering the seating chart on the second day, but very early on he seemed to know most everyone's name without having to look at a chart, and his classes were on the larger size. 

Random memory -- one of his favorite movies of all time was Blazing Saddles.

[TwiceHorn 31184]

12 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

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. 

The other thing is that as far as I can tell, California law is a fucking mess.  Shit's codified all over the damned place, lots of little rules and nonsense, and if you weren't trained in the peculiarities of it, it's pretty tough.  Whereas Texas is mostly common-law stuff, with an occasional spin like community property.

[JimmyJames 12271]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

The other thing is that as far as I can tell, California law is a fucking mess.  Shit's codified all over the damned place, lots of little rules and nonsense, and if you weren't trained in the peculiarities of it, it's pretty tough.  Whereas Texas is mostly common-law stuff, with an occasional spin like community property.

Yeah it’s a different world there. Never practiced there or took the bar but went to law school there and it’s way different than Texas.  The ABA accredited bar exam out of state passage rate is always lower than in state. 

It’s not just statutes and codes though. It’s also case law. In California, if you went looking for an issue you almost always found a case that discussed it. That was not the case when I moved back to Texas. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

CA first time pass rate for in state accredited schools is over 80%.  And 95% of those from Kamala's school pass the first time.

https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/JULY2021-CBX-Statistics.pdf

[JimmyJames 12271]

13 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

CA first time pass rate for in state accredited schools is over 80%.  And 95% of those from Kamala's school pass the first time.

https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/JULY2021-CBX-Statistics.pdf

In 2021. Now do the year Kamala took it. 

[jimmyjazz 45513]

Who gives a fuck that Kamala Harris failed the bar on her first try?  She's not getting nominated for SCOTUS.  What a stupid, deflective take, par for the course for our friends from the right who could not be bothered to actually argue in good faith.

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Who gives a fuck that Kamala Harris failed the bar on her first try?  She's not getting nominated for SCOTUS.  What a stupid, deflective take, par for the course for our friends from the right who could not be bothered to actually argue in good faith.

Yeah it’s just the sack trying to prove he’s smart and black women are dumb with Dr. Bravo cheering on. Never should have bothered to refute sacks misleading lies in the first place. 

[TwiceHorn 31184]

22 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

CA first time pass rate for in state accredited schools is over 80%.  And 95% of those from Kamala's school pass the first time.

https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/JULY2021-CBX-Statistics.pdf

Interesting that the "national" law schools, like UT, that probably tend not to teach California law, have much higher first-time pass rates than those in Texas.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Who gives a fuck that Kamala Harris failed the bar on her first try?  She's not getting nominated for SCOTUS.  What a stupid, deflective take, par for the course for our friends from the right who could not be bothered to actually argue in good faith.

Your friends on the left are the ones who brought her up.

 

[jimmyjazz 45513]

3 minutes ago, Bravo said:

Stupid fucking media is making it a story.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/01/26/nbc_and_fox_news_ask_jen_psaki_about_sending_vp_kamala_harris_to_the_supreme_court.html

"Media".  One FOX reporter, one NBC reporter, and Psaki refused comment on both.  Ooh!  It's a "story"!

Negged.

[jimmyjazz 45513]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Your friends on the left are the ones who brought her up.

So @Anastasis is now a leftie?  LMAO.  Idiot.  Negged.

[jimmyjazz 45513]

Just now, Bravo said:

OK, you act as if we made it up then neg on MSM asking Psaki about it. Clown.

I thought you blocked me?  Liar.

[jimmyjazz 45513]

1 minute ago, Bravo said:

OK, you act as if we made it up then neg on MSM asking Psaki about it. Clown.

And for clarification, I absolutely did not imply you "made it up".  I stated that she isn't a fucking candidate for the post.  Grow up.

[jimmyjazz 45513]

1 minute ago, Bravo said:

it was DDD. Take the L on this. 

He literally was quoting Annie's post.  Good lord.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

And for clarification, I absolutely did not imply you "made it up".  I stated that she isn't a fucking candidate for the post.  Grow up.

Thread policing is serious business.

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

I thought you blocked me?  Liar.

He’s got his socks to monitor. 

[jimmyjazz 45513]

Just now, Bravo said:

I blocked the other Jimmy. Not you. Believe it or not I hold you in higher regard. 

It's my recollection that you went off about my "silver spoon" comment and said you only saw it because somebody quoted it.  If not, mea culpa.

[JimmyJames 12271]

Just now, Johnny Sack said:

Thread policing is serious business.

So is thread trolling. Which you are an expert at. 
 

Can somebody raise their hand and let us know when the sack contributed anything to the CR besides trolling? 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

So @Anastasis is now a leftie?  LMAO.  Idiot.  Negged.

DDD was the one who started any discussion of Kamala on the Court in this thread.  He tagged me and I responded.  All other posts grew out of his first post.  He brought it up.  We responded.  Go bitch at him if you want to complain more.

[jimmyjazz 45513]

Once more, with gusto:  it makes not a damn bit of difference if some random person proposes Kamala Harris for SCOTUS.  Joe Biden is not going to nominate her.  That's the end of the story, but by all means, continue to prevaricate and deflect.

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's my recollection that you went off about my "silver spoon" comment and said you only saw it because somebody quoted it.  If not, mea culpa.

He’s a liar.

[jimmyjazz 45513]

1 minute ago, Bravo said:

Really because when I click on that I get this:

Can you see the image?

[fattyflattie 4636]

9 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Can somebody raise their hand and let us know when the sack contributed anything to the CR besides trolling? 

You are mistaking trolling with differing opinions. He provides plenty, particularly to legal discussions.  

[jimmyjazz 45513]

3 minutes ago, Bravo said:

OK, the media asking questions to the WH press sec doesnt make it rise to any level where it can even be discussed here. Yes, it likely isnt going to happen but the WH isnt shooting down the rumors either.

I'm sorry, is it off limits for me to suggest that this was a stupid question for both journalists to ask?  Who in their right mind thinks Joe Biden is going to nominate Kamala Harris for SCOTUS?

You act as if the question makes the possibility real.  It doesn't.

[elfenix 34168]

22 minutes ago, Bravo said:

I blocked the other Jimmy. Not you. Believe it or not I hold you in higher regard. 

we're all highly regarded here.

Edited January 27, 2022 by elfenix

[Satchel 6908]

3 hours ago, 'stache said:

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.

Judge Brown Jackson, if nominated and confirmed, would be first SC justice who actually represented poor people.

[Satchel 6908]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

CA first time pass rate for in state accredited schools is over 80%.  And 95% of those from Kamala's school pass the first time.

https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/JULY2021-CBX-Statistics.pdf

VP Harris is not going to be nominated to the SC. She has a job.

[yoladu 4065]

i always refer to Texags when i want to check how high the temperature is on the right.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3268487

Quote

Ok Joe. Let's get it over with. Impress us with the least qualified most controversial nominee ever.

short memories.

 

Quote

If you are a black woman in this country and have minimal intelligence, it must be nice to know that you can get whatever you want by literally just showing up and being a black female. Get to say or do whatever you want without repercussion.

What an amazing amount of power.

Good Lord. Please tell me this is brilliant sarcasm.

Edited January 27, 2022 by yoladu

[Jive Turkey 12562]

20 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 is also 6 years younger than Jackson.

but Kruger's husband is a partner at Jenner & Block in SF.

https://jenner.com/people/BrianHauck

Jenner & Block is a pretty robust appellate practice.  they've argued 20 times to SCOTUS in the past 5 terms.  Kruger would have to recuse herself in any future cases that Jenner argues.

[elfenix 34168]

should expand the court just to get a broader swath of lawyerly experience.  the vast majority of experience on the court is in appellate law or in an ivory tower (but i repeat myself). 

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, fattyflattie said:

You are mistaking trolling with differing opinions. He provides plenty, particularly to legal discussions.  

Misinformation, half truths, right wing propaganda and outright lies are not “differing opinions” or “discussions.” Just like the crap rush Limbaugh spewed out every day was not “differing opinions” or “discussions.”

That is what sack offers up to the board. It’s just a bunch of crap. The fact that you don’t or won’t see that is a big part of the problem. 
 

Any reasonable discussion here is immediately labeled as “leftist” by trolls like the sack. This board is chock full of former George Bush voters who are now considered “leftist” by lunatics like him and I guess you.  

['stache 21743]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm sorry, is it off limits for me to suggest that this was a stupid question for both journalists to ask?  Who in their right mind thinks Joe Biden is going to nominate Kamala Harris for SCOTUS?

You act as if the question makes the possibility real.  It doesn't.

Wait until tonight's shows latch on to a facebook post I saw today about nominating Michelle Obama and see them go all in as though the administration was seriously considering it (hint, they're not), and by tomorrow, Doocy will ask Biden or Psaki about it, and then sack and friends will be here saying it's legitimate because someone asked about it in the press room.

It just astonishes me how gullible the righties have become, and they are completely oblivious to it, just keep voting for them and watching their propaganda networks. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

4 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Wait until tonight's shows latch on to a facebook post I saw today about nominating Michelle Obama and see them go all in as though the administration was seriously considering it (hint, they're not), and by tomorrow, Doocy will ask Biden or Psaki about it, and then sack and friends will be here saying it's legitimate because someone asked about it in the press room.

It just astonishes me how gullible the righties have become, and they are completely oblivious to it, just keep voting for them and watching their propaganda networks. 

Three years of Russia collusion and you all circle jerking Hugo about it.

[Satchel 6908]

I guess I shouldn’t be , but, I’m stunned by how anxious the right is over the inevitability of a black woman being elevated to the SC. It’s not hyperbole to say that we’re living in the midst of a rebirth of an ugly, toxic jim crow.

[elfenix 34168]

31 minutes ago, Bravo said:

I agree. We need a little Bryan Wilson TX Law Hawk up in there. 

don't know who this is but i like the cut of his jib

[wildcat09 29187]

15 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Three years of Russia collusion and you all circle jerking Hugo about it.

[Captainant 27311]

2 minutes ago, Bravo said:

LOL that proves it! Forget the multi million dollar federal investigation which found squat. All started with a fake dossier created by the Russians pushed through the Clinton campaign. 

They found quite a whole shitload, despite what daddy tuck tuck told you. Fucks sake. 

[Foosters 17691]

15 minutes ago, Bravo said:

LOL that proves it! Forget the multi million dollar federal investigation which found squat. All started with a fake dossier created by the Russians pushed through the Clinton campaign. 

Negged for lying.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4965]

If we assume that for some reason Biden did nom his VP, would she be able to cast the tie breaker vote for herself?

[wildcat09 29187]

27 minutes ago, Bravo said:

LOL that proves it! Forget the multi million dollar federal investigation which found squat. All started with a fake dossier created by the Russians pushed through the Clinton campaign. 

It started with a Trump campaign staffer getting drunk and blabbing to an Australian diplomat that Russia had dirt on Hillary. 

[DDD Dad 14167]

6 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Your friends on the left are the ones who brought her up.

 

 

6 hours ago, Bravo said:

it was DDD. Take the L on this. 

LOL that I'm a leftie.  How far perspective has shifted.

 

I founded the fucking Federalist Society at my law school.

 

This fucking simulation.

[JimmyJames 12271]

19 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

 

LOL that I'm a leftie.  How far perspective has shifted.

 

I founded the fucking Federalist Society at my law school.

 

This fucking simulation.

Everyone knows the federalist society is a lefty commie front specifically designed to stack the Supreme Court with libtards who failed to recognize that Trump actually won.

I mean think about it. How insane and stupid are guys like sack and the fellow right wing lunatics who agree with guys like him. It’s just beyond nuts how far gone they are and it’s the majority of the Republican Party. A party which should be outlawed before they have the opportunity to destroy the country like the nazis did to Germany. It’s obvious that’s what they want to do. 

Edited January 28, 2022 by JimmyJames

[JimmyJames 12271]

3 minutes ago, Bravo said:

My brother is a PhD molecular biologist. Scripps trained. Now doing research at a very large public institution in NW state. One of the smartest people I know. Also, a UT product. Hook em. He was more conservative than me. WAS. Now he his slightly left of Bernie. It was a radical change very fast. You know what did it? He dated then married a near communist. Seriously. I have had lively fun thanksgiving discussions with her and she said Russia and China just did it wrong. Anyway, within 1 yr my conservative bro went so hard left I thought something was mentally wrong with him. P undefeated. Holidays are very fun. lul Here is the good thing though. We don't hate each other for our politics. We separate it like normal people. People are not defined by who they vote for. 

Did you marry a liberal? ha

Damn that would suck to be your brother. 
 

Also this story sounds like complete bullshit. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

5 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Three years of Russia collusion and you all circle jerking Hugo about it.

I guess fattyflattie would put this in his category of “reasonable discussion” or “differing opinions.”

[Anastasis 23375]

32 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

I founded the fucking Federalist Society at my law school.

So being a self flagellating hall monitor is not something that is new to you?

[Anastasis 23375]

13 minutes ago, Bravo said:

My brother is a PhD molecular biologist. Scripps trained. Now doing research at a very large public institution in NW state. One of the smartest people I know. Also, a UT product. Hook em. He was more conservative than me. WAS. Now he his slightly left of Bernie. It was a radical change very fast. You know what did it? He dated then married a near communist. Seriously. I have had lively fun thanksgiving discussions with her and she said Russia and China just did it wrong. Anyway, within 1 yr my conservative bro went so hard left I thought something was mentally wrong with him. P undefeated. Holidays are very fun. lul Here is the good thing though. We don't hate each other for our politics. We separate it like normal people. People are not defined by who they vote for. 

Did you marry a liberal? ha

Family over everything, and especially politics. 

 

But that message does not resonate with many here. 

[workswithseed 2033]

6 hours ago, yoladu said:

i always refer to Texags when i want to check how high the temperature is on the right.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3268487

short memories.

 

Good Lord. Please tell me this is brilliant sarcasm.

Aggies and brilliant aren't two words you put together, unless they happen to be next to bonfires.

[fattyflattie 4636]

21 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

I guess fattyflattie would put this in his category of “reasonable discussion” or “differing opinions.”

That was Hugo’s schtick. A bot from “LSU” with 50k posts, all political. 
 

Johnnys biggest troll jobs were drunk posting his rats fucking campaign donations to Cruz. No different than the hundreds of folks here fellating each other while donating to Act Blue/Beto/Bernie. Same same, different $$ amounts.