Jump to content

The Supremes

tx 3 putt

By tx 3 putt
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Balcones

Balcones 290

Posted
Posted
On 4/23/2021 at 9:04 PM, Chewbacca said:
On 4/23/2021 at 8:53 PM, RPM said:
To be fair to RBG, nobody in their right fucking mind thought Trump would win the nomination, much less the election. She expected Hillary to name her replacement.

She was the worst candidate in my lifetime. Literally the only person Trump could have beaten.

What are his chances against someone like Harris?

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 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

Balcones

Balcones 290

Posted
Posted
On 7/1/2024 at 10:57 PM, troph said:

This decision has me in full support of a pack the court strategy. Take it to 15. Hell appoint moderates that’s fine. This court is rogue, overturning precedent left and right. This isn’t all about Trump, I don’t want a stronger executive. It’s time to reign the judicial branch back in. 

I assume we are still in favor of doing this? Now that Trump has the House and Senate he could get this done for both R and Ds? 
 

Are you still thinking 15?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
troph

troph 25127

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Balcones said:

I assume we are still in favor of doing this? Now that Trump has the House and Senate he could get this done for both R and Ds? 
 

Are you still thinking 15?

You won, glad you’re having fun. Go asshole on someone else, I’m not interested. 

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

Balcones 290

Posted
Posted
Just now, troph said:

You won, glad you’re having fun. Go asshole on someone else, I’m not interested. 

Fair enough. 
 

The treasure trove of pack the court ideas from a few years ago may have me up for a while. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Balcones

Balcones 290

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

You're such a pussy coming in to talk shit after the election.  Where were you the past several months?

I read your post below and felt like there was literally no reason chime in....  Seriously, though, could you have been more wrong?

 

Quote

To be fair to RBG, nobody in their right fucking mind thought Trump would win the nomination, much less the election. She expected Hillary to name her replacement.

She was the worst candidate in my lifetime. Literally the only person Trump could have beaten.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bateshorn

Bateshorn 9989

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Republicans couldn't block her replacement. Democrats could.

But it doesn't matter. 

 

Yes.  Very frustrating.  If the Democrats wanted to come back into session, vow to work throught T-giving, and Biden nominated some very young progressive, they could have it done very quickly.  McConnell has a few roadblocks he could throw up, but they are temporary.  This is just a lack of desire to retire on her part and the Dems being very Democrat: Playing Checkers while the GOP plays Football. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bateshorn

Bateshorn 9989

Posted
Posted
On 11/7/2024 at 3:32 PM, Frank Drebin said:

Have we ever had a SCOTUS justice who failed the bar exam on their first try?

Well, I'm going to really blow your mind: 7 Justices didn't go to law school. Although most were from the wayback.  Lots were nothing more than non-practicing attorney's who were appointed according to political connections. The current supreme court of nothing but Yale/Havard judges who graduated at the top of their class and served as lower court judges is actually atypical in US history. 

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

David Dennison 19446

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Well, I'm going to really blow your mind: 7 Justices didn't go to law school. Although most were from the wayback.  Lots were nothing more than non-practicing attorney's who were appointed according to political connections. The current supreme court of nothing but Yale/Havard judges who graduated at the top of their class and served as lower court judges is actually atypical in US history. 

Technically, do you even have to be a lawyer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bateshorn

Bateshorn 9989

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Technically, do you even have to be a lawyer?

I don't believe technically, but I do believe everyone has been an attorney of some variety, but many states either didn't have a bar exam, or it was very informal.  So attaching a "lawyer" title to a Supreme Court justice before the 1930s is a pretty damn loose term.  It pretty much meant you either graduated from law school and/or possibly took a relatively simple oral or written test.   

A lot of lawyers in the Colonial/Revelutionary times just read a bunch of books & did some indepth discussions/study with a local judge/attroney, and were declared fellow lawyers. 

Edited by Bateshorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gap03

Gap03 3386

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Republicans couldn't block her replacement. Democrats could.

But it doesn't matter. 

I'd be careful counting Manchin as a Democrat, especially on a vote to appoint a liberal SC justice, and we all know Sinema is not to be trusted (especially as an "Independent" with a future at Fox News), which is why I referred the Dems senate majority as fragile. 

I suspect that Sotomayor is assuming the Dems wouldn't be able to get any successor "worthy of replacing her" through the Senate, which is why she's not stepping down.  The liberal justices unfortunately don't seem to be good at objectively assessing their own mortality in connection with these sorts of calculations - to the country's unfortunate peril.  I mean, what could go wrong?

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

Bateshorn 9989

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Gap03 said:

I'd be careful counting Manchin as a Democrat, especially on a vote to appoint a liberal SC justice, and we all know Sinema is not to be trusted (especially as an "Independent" with a future at Fox News), which is why I referred the Dems senate majority as fragile. 

I suspect that Sotomayor is assuming the Dems wouldn't be able to get any successor "worthy of replacing her" through the Senate, which is why she's not stepping down.  The liberal justices unfortunately don't seem to be good at objectively assessing their own mortality in connection with these sorts of calculations - to the country's unfortunate peril.  I mean, what could go wrong?

This is probably the best reason, tbh.  If you aren't 100% sure that you have a rock solid 50 are going to be with you, it makes the ability of McConnell to draw everything out much more powerful.  You need that 50+Harris standing around basically ready to take votes. 

Edited by Bateshorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13723

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, C-Man said:

New SCOTUS Leak Reveals Who Didn’t Want Ethics Rules Enforced

It was Clarence, Gorsuch and Alito.

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise: https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-scotus-leak-reveals-who-didnt-want-ethics-rules-enforced/

 

so 3-6 against the rule enforcement. Why isn't that enough to move forward with the recommendations? They have to be unanimous when it comes to rules against themselves? They only need a majority to rule over us.

  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Disco Strangler

Disco Strangler 1911

Posted
Posted

He wants to end the 14th to cancel birthright citizenship.  It’s the 22nd that keeps him from running again

Twenty-Second Amendment

 

 

Section 1

 

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

 

Section 2

 

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tx 3 putt

tx 3 putt 78603

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, Disco Strangler said:

He wants to end the 14th to cancel birthright citizenship.  It’s the 22nd that keeps him from running again

Twenty-Second Amendment

 

 

Section 1

 

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

 

Section 2

 

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

 

once the SC throw out one amendment, others will follow 

  • Rage+1 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...