The Supremes

[Satchel 6,908]

2 hours ago, yoladu said:

Do you think McConnell cares about precedent or how it might look?

Not one whit.

[Willfully Horn 7,913]

8 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Would that be similar to using the filibuster 300+ times in the Trump era but now claiming the filibuster is Jim Crow 2.0?

Or is that different?

It is different in the case of voting rights. Why? Because this is going on:

“Proposed law would allow Arizona Legislature to overturn presidential election results”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/tucson.com/news/state-and-regional/proposed-law-would-allow-arizona-legislature-to-overturn-presidential-election-results/article_c2a70681-59c0-512f-ba86-2bf23128f9ee.amp.html

 

I’m sure you’ve heard of the Big Lie. Maybe you believe it. Regardless, it is different, and odious, and un-American.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

4 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

It is different in the case of voting rights. Why? Because this is going on:

“Proposed law would allow Arizona Legislature to overturn presidential election results”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/tucson.com/news/state-and-regional/proposed-law-would-allow-arizona-legislature-to-overturn-presidential-election-results/article_c2a70681-59c0-512f-ba86-2bf23128f9ee.amp.html

 

I’m sure you’ve heard of the Big Lie. Maybe you believe it. Regardless, it is different, and odious, and un-American.

He supports the big lie whether he believes it or not.

[Willfully Horn 7,913]

5 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

He supports the big lie whether he believes it or not.

Are you saying @Johnny Sack hates the good ol’ USA? Because it sounds like you are saying Sack hates the USA.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

5 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Are you saying @Johnny Sack hates the good ol’ USA? Because it sounds like you are saying Sack hates the USA.

He likes the good ole USA for rich white people. His own posts make that perfectly obvious. Everyone else is just a bunch of poors who made bad decisions.

I’ve noticed he has now started denying he inherited wealth. I’m a fellow lawyer so I know exactly what those words actually mean. Since I can’t cross examine him though it’s pointless to engage in that sophistry. 

[Willfully Horn 7,913]

On 1/28/2022 at 6:08 PM, JimmyJames said:

He likes the good ole USA for rich white people. His own posts make that perfectly obvious. Everyone else is just a bunch of poors who made bad decisions.

I’ve noticed he has now started denying he inherited wealth. I’m a fellow lawyer so I know exactly what those words actually mean. Since I can’t cross examine him though it’s pointless to engage in that sophistry. 

I posit that giving legislators the power to overturn the will of the people is not just un-American, it is anti-American.

Edited January 31, 2022 by Willfully Horn
Edit

[JimmyJames 12,271]

1 minute ago, Willfully Horn said:

I posit that giving legislators the power to overturn the will of the people is not just un-American, bit is anti-American.

It’s fascism. We saw this play out in Germany in the 30s. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

Party over country. 
 

It wasn’t heil Germany. It was heil Hitler. We’re actually lucky so far Trump is an old dumbass. So far. 

[Anastasis 23,375]

1 minute ago, Willfully Horn said:

I posit that giving legislators the power to overturn the will of the people is not just un-American, bit is anti-American.

All house votes should be converted to straight up true democracy and voted on by the american populace. We can figure out the tech.  Basically we should have a 1 hour power online voting session every month where we go thumbs up/down. Still need a senate style back stop and the veto.  But basically abolish the house of representatives. 

[Willfully Horn 7,913]

5 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

It’s fascism. We saw this play out in Germany in the 30s. 

Also anti-American.

 

Of course, I agree that fascism is the threat. And those who know what’s up , but nevertheless support that end, don’t merit the American label.

[Willfully Horn 7,913]

20 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

All house votes should be converted to straight up true democracy and voted on by the american populace. We can figure out the tech.  Basically we should have a 1 hour power online voting session every month where we go thumbs up/down. Still need a senate style back stop and the veto.  But basically abolish the house of representatives. 

What I like best about your suggestion is the online voting. It’d work for House members equally well. Treble (more so, even) the number of Representatives. Require they vote from their home districts, keep them out of DC, keep the Senate, and the veto.

But presidential elections absolutely should be done as you describe.
 

Edited to add that Citizen’s United ought be overturned. No more dark money in politics. Require a name for each donation in the political sphere.

Edited January 29, 2022 by Willfully Horn

[tx 3 putt 76,159]

3 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

 

It wasn’t heil Germany. It was heil Hitler.

you just hit the nail on the fiucking head !

maga and trumpers aren’t about the country, they’re about Trump. And trump is 110% about trump. He was ready to wipe his ass with the constitution to stay in power 

Edited January 29, 2022 by tx 3 putt

[tx 3 putt 76,159]

Fuck him, fuck his cult followers 

[Neonmoon 38,127]

 

Quote

“The irony is that the Supreme Court is at the very time hearing cases about this sort of affirmative racial discrimination while adding someone who is the beneficiary of this sort of quota,” Wicker told host Paul Gallo on SuperTalk Mississippi Radio today, referring to a pending U.S. Supreme Court case challenging affirmative action in college admissions. 

“The majority of the court may be saying writ large that it’s unconstitutional. We’ll see how that irony works out.”

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,825]

3 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

 

[David Dennison 18,608]

White men have been the beneficiaries of affirmative action for centuries and no one said a word.

Weird.

[tx 3 putt 76,159]

6 hours ago, David Dennison said:

White men have been the beneficiaries of affirmative action for centuries and no one said a word.

Weird.

 

CRT !!!!!!

[JimmyJames 12,271]

19 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

I mean he is from Mississippi.  Voting a black woman on to the Supreme Court would get you shot in that state. 

[Bateshorn 9,882]

I don’t think a lot of people understand how diversity efforts in education work these days, and how what the Supreme Court is about to do is not going to work out the way MAGA heads, pre really most conservatives think it will. 

“Affirmative Action” these days really means that being in a preferred category will get you extra points, if you will, in the application process.  It’s often referred to as “a hook” or “hooked”.

A first generation college applicant is “hooked” as are most (but not all, and I’m going to circle back on this) minority applicants.  The strength of a hook is somewhat dependent on the school.  For example: I doubt being Hispanic is much of a hook at UTSA or Brownsville. But at Wisconsin it would be a huge deal.   Being a Native American is a hook on another level. 
 

A hook may add to your application overall, or it may make up for a weakness in another area, like need or low test scores. Occasionally grades, but most admissions offices want to see you did the work in High School.  Letting you in to fail out is not good for the school or it’s rankings.  Retention is important. 
 

Weathy schools, like USC or Wake Forest may actively view lower income applicants as a bonus and hook them.  Because men are increasingly not going to college, and especially liberal arts colleges, most men are at least preferred, if  not outright hooked at a place like Bates. 

Removing race won’t eliminate preference in college applications.  It will just complicate it even further and force admissions office to use murkier secondary factors to try and devein an applicants race. 
 

The reverse of this is the “Asian Tax”. Simply put, it’s pretty well accepted in parent circles that Asian students have to score higher on tests and grades than literally everyone else with an equivalent application. Otherwise, many campuses fear their college bodies will become over balanced with Asian students relative to the population as a whole, particularly high end schools. This is why the Harvard case is about Asian students, instead of banal and under qualified applicants like Abby Fisher. 
 

Which is the irony of the Conservative belief undeserving students are taking seats away from White students.  If affirmative action is struck: it’s not white students that will benefit, it’s Asian students.  You don’t believe that?  Look at what’s happened at Berkeley and UCLA since Fisher.

[Cement 314]

 

[tx 3 putt 76,159]

The two female candidates mentioned earlier seem very qualified. both are much more qualified then kavanaugh will ever be 

 

 

 

 

 

[deac_tracy 513]

 

[Cacti 191]

2 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

Being a Native American is a hook on another level.

So you’re saying that my granddaughter would stand a good chance of getting into U.T. if she legally changed her name to Fatima Gomez Thunderhawk?

[F250 28,659]

On 1/28/2022 at 6:38 PM, Willfully Horn said:

What I like best about your suggestion is the online voting. It’d work for House members equally well. Treble (more so, even) the number of Representatives. Require they vote from their home districts, keep them out of DC, keep the Senate, and the veto.

But presidential elections absolutely should be done as you describe.
 

Edited to add that Citizen’s United ought be overturned. No more dark money in politics. Require a name for each donation in the political sphere.

Presidential online elections would be a fucking nightmare. The attack surface would be too big to to ever properly secure. Access would essentially be granted to the entire world. No way anyone is keeping foreign malicious actors out. The DoS targets during the election would be like a turkey shoot. You don't even have to target the election system, just take out DNS and internet providers to prevent people from voting while simultaneously releasing zero day exploits. Just fuck shit up long enough to prevent people from voting and release malware that implies votes sent were tampered and the integrity of the election will be compromised.

Every year Christmas is a pain in the ass because that is when the attacks get turned up to 11. I imagine an online election period would make the Christmas attacks seem like a walk in the park.

[Willfully Horn 7,913]

5 minutes ago, F250 said:

Presidential online elections would be a fucking nightmare. The attack surface would be too big to to ever properly secure. Access would essentially be granted to the entire world. No way anyone is keeping foreign malicious actors out. The DoS targets during the election would be like a turkey shoot. You don't even have to target the election system, just take out DNS and internet providers to prevent people from voting while simultaneously releasing zero day exploits. Just fuck shit up long enough to prevent people from voting and release malware that implies votes sent were tampered and the integrity of the election will be compromised.

Every year Christmas is a pain in the ass because that is when the attacks get turned up to 11. I imagine an online election period would make the Christmas attacks seem like a walk in the park.

Thanks.

[Satchel 6,908]

16 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

CRT !!!!!!

Can’t say that anymore. If you do, I’ll report you on the can’t talk race anymore hotline. It’s gonna be an interesting can’t say black anymore history month

[David Dennison 18,608]

4 hours ago, Cement said:

 

I don't remember Republicans getting so bothered by Reagan promising to appoint a woman to the Court. Or Trump, for that matter.

[Willfully Horn 7,913]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I don't remember Republicans getting so bothered by Reagan promising to appoint a woman to the Court. Or Trump, for that matter.

That’s not what galls cons.

Edited January 30, 2022 by Willfully Horn
Dammit

[David Dennison 18,608]

1 minute ago, Willfully Horn said:

That’s not what galls cons.

Are you saying it's not really about limiting the field of potential candidates?

Would Republicans be that disingenuous?

[Harrison Bergeron 1,798]

[Willfully Horn 7,913]

10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Are you saying it's not really about limiting the field of potential candidates?

Would Republicans be that disingenuous?

I don’t have to say it.  @Harrison Bergeron  and Matt Walsh already did.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

7 hours ago, Cement said:

 

Idiotic worthless poll gets posted. 

[David Dennison 18,608]

4 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Idiotic worthless poll gets posted. 

I'll just leave this here.

"Dennard, who is black, is one of 58 Pepperdine students receiving as much as $1,000 annually from a small scholarship program for minority students -- a program branded as illegal by anti-affirmative action activists because it is not open to all races and ethnicities."

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-jan-22-me-pepper22-story.html

[David Dennison 18,608]

But wait! There's more: “There are people who are on the right, and there are people on the extreme right,” said Dennard, a fourth-year student working on a double major in political science and public relations. “And this is a part of political correctness on the extreme right to take race totally out of anything” related to education or government.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

The questions in that poll are shit ass shit.

[deac_tracy 513]

22 hours ago, Cement said:

 

Biden should state he's now considering all possible nominees then release a list of a bunch of Black women and one token white guy just to watch the Fox News crowd heads explode.

[Jive Turkey 12,562]

 

[F250 28,659]

If the nominee doesn't talk about chugging beers with his buddy Squee followed by having an emotional breakdown in front of Congress I will be disappointed.

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,825]

26 minutes ago, F250 said:

If the nominee doesn't talk about chugging beers with his buddy Squee followed by having an emotional breakdown in front of Congress I will be disappointed.

 

if she doesn't show up to her confirmation hearing like this I will be disappointed:

 

[Chuckie Finster 22,583]

1 hour ago, Jive Turkey said:

 

For anyone paying attention, the Republicans have already telegraphed their attack strategy here.  They won't attack the nominee's resume (because they won't be able to) so they'll just say they cannot approve a nomination where Biden based the decision on race.  It will give those that previously voted to approve these women to other positions the out that they need to vote no this time.

[David Dennison 18,608]

1 hour ago, Chuckie Finster said:

For anyone paying attention, the Republicans have already telegraphed their attack strategy here.  They won't attack the nominee's resume (because they won't be able to) so they'll just say they cannot approve a nomination where Biden based the decision on race.  It will give those that previously voted to approve these women to other positions the out that they need to vote no this time.

The affirmative action angle is especially galling coming from *checks notes* Rafael Edward Cruz, Princeton '92.

[Satchel 6,908]

1 hour ago, Chuckie Finster said:

For anyone paying attention, the Republicans have already telegraphed their attack strategy here.  They won't attack the nominee's resume (because they won't be able to) so they'll just say they cannot approve a nomination where Biden based the decision on race.  It will give those that previously voted to approve these women to other positions the out that they need to vote no this time.

This poon had the gall to misuse Merrick Garland in his argument.

[TwiceHorn 31,184]

I always thought it curious that there were "Catholic seats" and "Jewish seats" and a "woman's seat" on the Court.  But those notions have kind of vanished these days now that we have six catlicks and three broads on the Court.  Kinda short on heebs, though, and about to be shorter, still./no religionist, sexism, or antisemitism intended, except for teh lulz

I certainly applaud most any effort at diversity on the Court, but I'm not a huge fan of declaring in advance that it will be a black woman.

And, actually, I think I prefer more professional diversity than "cultural."  That is, more representation of "little guys" than corporations and government, which probably goes a longer way to addressing "cultural" issues than actually being part of that culture.

All that said, KBJ checks most of my boxes.

Edited January 31, 2022 by TwiceHorn

[Satchel 6,908]

14 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I always thought it curious that there were "Catholic seats" and "Jewish seats" and a "woman's seat" on the Court.  But those notions have kind of vanished these days now that we have six catlicks and three broads on the Court.  Kinda short on heebs, though, and about to be shorter, still./no religionist, sexism, or antisemitism intended, except for teh lulz

I certainly applaud most any effort at diversity on the Court, but I'm not a huge fan of declaring in advance that it will be a black woman.

This is not an uncommon view among dominants and one I just don’t get. Would you have preferred Biden go with the typically cynical view of race? Talk around it? Speak indirectly about it. Pretend it doesn’t matter when it clearly does?
Trump’s list of 46 potential SC candidates contained the name of one nominally black person. To suggest that his picks were inadvertently but overwhelmingly white is to make short shrift of how people in the dominant culture use race to their advantage while pretending to be oblivious to it. Clarence didn’t backfill Thurgood Marshall because he was the most competent jurist available. Bush chose him to be the black anti Thurgood Marshall. Everybody knows that. 

[jimmyjazz 45,513]

The United States is comprised of approximately 50.8% women, 49.2% men.  I don't recall Ted Cruz worrying about the 6-3 male-female bias on the current Supreme Court.

If his argument is to be believed, we should have had 5 female and 4 male justices in place already.  Hmmm.  Ted, are you a sniveling hypocrite?  Golly, I don't know.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,118]

5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I always thought it curious that there were "Catholic seats" and "Jewish seats" and a "woman's seat" on the Court.  But those notions have kind of vanished these days now that we have six catlicks and three broads on the Court.  Kinda short on heebs, though, and about to be shorter, still./no religionist, sexism, or antisemitism intended, except for teh lulz

 

[henrygandorf 29,174]

9 hours ago, Jive Turkey said:

 

11% of biden voters were black women.  11% of the supreme court is about to be filled by one.

elections have consequences.

 

 

 

Edited February 1, 2022 by henrygandorf

[henrygandorf 29,174]

8 hours ago, Chuckie Finster said:

For anyone paying attention, the Republicans have already telegraphed their attack strategy here.  They won't attack the nominee's resume (because they won't be able to) so they'll just say they cannot approve a nomination where Biden based the decision on race.  It will give those that previously voted to approve these women to other positions the out that they need to vote no this time.

they'll make sure they all vote no.  otherwise they won't be able to squawk that "the democrats rammed this through with no bipartisan support". 

they love that shit.

[Scheiss Meister 8,398]

If a list of potential nominees that includes Anita Hill were to be leaked, the melting brains among Republicans would be entertaining.  I am not advocating this, just commenting on the potential.  Filling Supreme Court openings is far too serious to use it to troll like that.  Of course, trump would do it, but I don't want anyone in a position of power to stoop to his juvenile level.

[TwiceHorn 31,184]

7 hours ago, Satchel said:

This is not an uncommon view among dominants and one I just don’t get. Would you have preferred Biden go with the typically cynical view of race? Talk around it? Speak indirectly about it. Pretend it doesn’t matter when it clearly does?
Trump’s list of 46 potential SC candidates contained the name of one nominally black person. To suggest that his picks were inadvertently but overwhelmingly white is to make short shrift of how people in the dominant culture use race to their advantage while pretending to be oblivious to it. Clarence didn’t backfill Thurgood Marshall because he was the most competent jurist available. Bush chose him to be the black anti Thurgood Marshall. Everybody knows that. 

Fair point.

I have zero problem with Biden nominating a black woman, or assembling a slate of all black women.

I find it troubling that he announces it in advance.  I would find it also troubling if he said he was going to nominate a Hindu, or a Muslim, or an _______________________ before actually doing so.  

I would be untroubled if he announced KBJ as an eminently qualified jurist, listing her bona fides, and concluded by saying, "and, being the first female African-American nominated to the Court, brings a vitally needed perspective to an important American institution."

It's not "talking about race" that I object to.  It's just announcing it in advance of doing it.  Among other things, it's pandering.

At the very least, it opens him to a lot of flak from the usual suspects.  Just shut the fuck up and do it, Joe.

Edited February 1, 2022 by TwiceHorn