b_m_b_m_b_m Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 10 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said: All of them are Federalist Society/Heritage Foundation approved jurists so they are practically interchangable. They're all cut from the same white cloth 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 The fact that the US president can choose from whomever he wants is crazy. Man the founders were stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaladinSolo Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 The problem isn't that the president can pick whoever he wants, its that congress isn't functioning as intended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firewithin Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 he picked the guy who said a sitting president cant be indicted? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 Just now, Firewithin said: he picked the guy who said a sitting president cant be indicted? Two questions the Dems should ask during confirmation: 1. If you become a Justice, will you recuse yourself from any case that personally involves Donald trump? 2. Has the president talked to you about anything relating to the Russia investigation, pardons,nor anything else that would be considered improper to discuss between a potus and a scotus nominee? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 5 minutes ago, Firewithin said: he picked the guy who said a sitting president cant be indicted? Shit, you're not joking. https://www.rawstory.com/2018/07/trumps-supreme-court-finalist-brett-kavanaugh-insists-indicting-president-cripple-federal-government/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 47 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said: And Kavanaugh is the worst choice, correct? He said he wont overturn Roe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 Roe was a dumb decision anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 1 minute ago, Jose said: He said he wont overturn Roe. I guess a perfect choice for someone like Collins (very conservative but says he won't overturn Roe). The thing is, if given the opportunity, would he stick with that? I guess we wouldn't know until we know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 2 minutes ago, Jose said: He said he wont overturn Roe. Death by a thousand cuts it is 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 19 minutes ago, Firewithin said: he picked the guy who said a sitting president cant be indicted? That isn’t what he said. He said civil and criminal prosecution of a sitting president is bad for the ability of the president to do the job and the Congress should pass legislation deferring those cases until they are out of office, and using the impeachment process for truly “dastardly” acts by the president. I didn’t find it to be particularly compelling either way, though I understand why the POTUS might need to be treated differently than a senator or house rep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted July 10, 2018 Author Share Posted July 10, 2018 13 minutes ago, Jose said: He said he wont overturn Roe. I gotta bridge in Brooklyn dat just fell off da truck to sell ya! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 Let me cling to that small silver lining brah. I don't care if it's an illusion, I need something! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris- Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 I vomit in my mouth a little bit anytime someone thanks Trump and in the same breath praises women. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted July 10, 2018 Author Share Posted July 10, 2018 1 minute ago, Jose said: Let me cling to that small silver lining brah. I don't care if it's an illusion, I need something! Roe is D-E-D. The sooner you can accept that reality, the better to figure out how to work with what comes next. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 I don’t get any sense that Kavanaugh or Roberts would be willing to flat out overturn Roe or even Casey. But abortion access will be reduced, that is certain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSpreader Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 Investing in wires brb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 1 minute ago, sblfilms said: I don’t get any sense that Kavanaugh or Roberts would be willing to flat out overturn Roe or even Casey. But abortion access will be reduced, that is certain. Why do we even mention Roe. Casey is what set today's viewing of abortion if I am not mistaken. Roe was a terrible decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 Supreme Court Justices Neil and Brett. Real original Republicans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Littleronin Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 10 minutes ago, osxmatt said: Supreme Court Justices Neil and Brett. Real original Republicans. Frat house SCOTUS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boyle5150 Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 2 hours ago, Chairslinger said: So by my count, out of 113 Justices over 200+ years 3 have been non-white, and 4 have been women. And one of those women is also one of the non-whites.(Which, by the way small sample size because 3 of the women were nominated by Democrats, but the one female nominated by a Republican was also vital in joining Kennedy to save Roe in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey). So that makes 107 out of 113 white men. But yeah, the real problem is white men facing discrimination. Reminds me of people saying, "Well I am not going to vote for Hillary just because she's a woman!!!"" Yeah, because electing people just because they're a woman is the defining fucking struggle of our time. I swear, I am not even that big of a proponent of identity politics, but your lack of awareness on the reality of white as a "default" in this society is just staggering. It is easy to say that identity has no effect on ideology when you've never had your very right to exist be the subject of hot button political debate. I never once claimed that "the problem is white men face discrimination". The problem is not that any particular skin color faces more or less of an amount of discrimination, the problem is that any race faces discrimination. To stop discrimination towards a specific group of people does not mean that you should discriminate against the group who have been the least discriminated against. What it means is that ALL* and ANY* group of people should not be discriminated against. Why is this such a hard concept? I am fully aware that "whites" in America have been the "default". I agree that there is/are classes of people who have been under-represented. But the answer is not to exclude any specific class simply because they have been over-represented, simply so you can be "diverse". If the best person for the job is Black, then they should get the job. If the best person for the job is a woman, then they should get the job. If the best person for the job is white, then they should get the job. A persons color/age/sex should have absolutely dick to do with their qualifications. Does that mean that the "old white men" who currently occupy the position are the best candidates for that position, Hell no. But that should not be a factor moving forward. The problem has never been about "white men" facing discrimination, but rather, discrimination based on race, age, gender.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 9 minutes ago, Jose said: Why do we even mention Roe. Casey is what set today's viewing of abortion if I am not mistaken. Roe was a terrible decision. Casey is really the controlling case in regards to abortion laws because it creates the actual tests for whether a particular law is able to stand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boyle5150 Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 3 hours ago, SilentWorld said: If you cook your wife spaghetti for 8 days in a row and on the nineth day she says “I hope we don’t have spaghetti again” you would be completely unreasonable to conclude that she doesn’t like spaghetti. SCOTUS is, and always has been, dominated by white men. That’s a pretty obvious problem, IMO. That doesn’t make me racist to point that out, nor does it make me racist to hope it changes. the problem with this analogy is that the "spaghetti" doesn't equal race/age/gender, but rather spaghetti is the equivalent of an ideology. It's the "type" food that is being prepared, not the color/age/gender of the person that is preparing it. Any race/age/gender can cook spaghetti, but only a racist will object to spaghetti cooked from a race/age/gender that they think shouldn't be able to cook the spaghetti anymore, or that because they cooked more spaghetti than others, that they somehow don't deserve to cook spaghetti anymore. Your logic is flawed in many ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSoxFan9 Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 Thanks Hillary Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boyle5150 Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 Just now, RedSoxFan9 said: Thanks Hillary Bernie would have won Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spork3245 Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 13 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said: Thanks Hillary 12 minutes ago, Boyle5150 said: Bernie would have won Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentWorld Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 1 hour ago, Boyle5150 said: the problem with this analogy is that the "spaghetti" doesn't equal race/age/gender, but rather spaghetti is the equivalent of an ideology. It's the "type" food that is being prepared, not the color/age/gender of the person that is preparing it. Any race/age/gender can cook spaghetti, but only a racist will object to spaghetti cooked from a race/age/gender that they think shouldn't be able to cook the spaghetti anymore, or that because they cooked more spaghetti than others, that they somehow don't deserve to cook spaghetti anymore. Your logic is flawed in many ways. Lol you didn’t understand my point at all. My point is this: You think I don’t want a white SCOTUS because I’m racist against whites (lol). You’re wrong. That’s not the reason I’m against another old white dude being SCOTUS. The reason I don’t want a white SCOTUS because I think society is better off when the people in power come from diverse backgrounds. Which you already agreed is ok to think sooooo.... edit: or did you agree on that? I'm not sure. You were being pretty evasive. Either way, lol @ the notion that I'm racist against white people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSoxFan9 Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 Personally, I'd kick every white person off the Supreme Court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firewithin Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 3 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said: Personally, I'd kick ever white person off the Supreme Court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSpreader Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 That's a yes. Trump is gonna get everything he wants. And when the Dems get the majority he still will. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 2 hours ago, 2user1cup said: That's a yes. Trump is gonna get everything he wants. And when the Dems get the majority he still will. But the democrats don’t let trump have what he wants according to him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.