b_m_b_m_b_m Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 "I can't imagine a racism happening!" She says after being appointed to her next and current job by the racist in chief Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted October 13, 2020 Author Share Posted October 13, 2020 I love it when Patrick Leahy speaks because I always think of him as the guy who stood up to The Joker and vouched for Bruce Wayne. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 Oh yeah? How about "Super-Duper Precedents", Amy? The concept of "precedent" is only but one of the myriad of reasons why common law is a laughable farce. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 cool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CayceG Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 2 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: cool 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 25 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: cool "Why do they call us racists?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted October 13, 2020 Author Share Posted October 13, 2020 30 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: cool Here's what's interesting about the article; for Kavanaugh, it was cut and dry. A possible colleague of Barrett’s took a different view on racial slurs in 2013. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, then serving as a federal appeals court judge in Washington, D.C, said one utterance was enough. “But, in my view, being called the n-word by a supervisor ... suffices by itself to establish a racially hostile work environment. That epithet has been labeled, variously, a term that ‘sums up . . . all the bitter years of insult and struggle in America,’ ‘pure anathema to African-Americans,’ and ’probably the most offensive word in English,” Kavanaugh wrote. “No other word in the English language so powerfully or instantly calls to mind our country’s long and brutal struggle to overcome racism and discrimination against African-Americans. In short, the case law demonstrates that a single, sufficiently severe incident may create a hostile work environment actionable” under federal anti-discrimination laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 4 minutes ago, Jason said: There's about half a dozen house Dems who I can think of off the top of my head that would be far better suited for this. Not because they're legal experts by any means, but because they do their homework and prepare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 2 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: There's about half a dozen house Dems who I can think of off the top of my head that would be far better suited for this. Not because they're legal experts by any means, but because they do their homework and prepare. Wasn't Franken on the judiciary committee? Things that make you go hmmm about that ratfuck. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 Just now, Jason said: Wasn't Franken on the judiciary committee? Things that make you go hmmm about that ratfuck. He was. His questioning got AG sessions to recuse himself from the russia investigation ffs. Effective questioning can work! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 Just now, b_m_b_m_b_m said: He was. His questioning got AG sessions to recuse himself from the russia investigation ffs. Effective questioning can work! Worth it to let Gillibrand become the first woman president though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSpreader Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 I'm an Originalist, except in these cases! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 Just now, SlipperySlope said: I'm an Originalist, except in these cases! I'm an Originalist, and by a weird bug total coincidence the Founders always agreed with me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSpreader Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 I mean this should be easy. Give me an example where you ruled based on the original meaning of the constitution in which you personally disagreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 1 hour ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: cool Plot twist: it was another black man who called him that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 8 minutes ago, sblfilms said: Plot twist: it was another black man who called him that "Case dismissed because the supervisor didn't use a hard 'r' " lmao 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 15 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: "Case dismissed because the supervisor didn't use a hard 'r' " lmao What I imagined when I read the tweet What it was in reality Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted October 13, 2020 Author Share Posted October 13, 2020 I'm waiting for a hair cut and I'm trying not to laugh out loud, fuck you guys 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 Mike Lee fresh off a Covid diagnosis was visibly spitting as he monologued. Totally normal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 2 minutes ago, sblfilms said: Mike Lee fresh off a Covid diagnosis was visibly spitting as he monologued. Totally normal. Mike Lee's speaking tone and cadence is insufferable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrbiggsly Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 Is Kavanaugh the new swing vote? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairslinger Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 5 minutes ago, mrbiggsly said: Is Kavanaugh the new swing vote? Him or Gorsuch. There really is no swing vote anymore. If the liberals win anything it will have to be because one one of the conservatives holds an idiosyncratic view on an issue. Like, there was a case that involved racial gerrymandering. In broad strokes, it used to be that Dems supported packing a minority district because it meant a higher chance of a minority being represented in Congress(this was at a time when it was still a significant problem that black democrats could not get nominated/elected even in Dem districts if it was a substantially white district). But the issue evolved where Republicans used this exact thing to pack districts and take away minority representation. It's a part of one of the tactics Republicans use when you hear the common story nowadays that they turned 10 competitive House seats into 2 D gimmes 5 R gimmes, and 3 comepetitve races. For example. To his credit Thomas(which is not a phrase I use often) was consistent on the issue. He has always been against that type of racial packing. As I posted above, this led to a weird alignment the 4 liberals voting with Thomas against a racial gerrymander. However, here's one reason why this new reality of 6-3 is so much worse than the already shitty 5-4 court. Roberts isn't a swing vote, let alone anything resembling a liberal. He's a staunch conservative who can very occasionally be shamed into a moderate ruling. So even though Roberts kind of acted as a swing vote the past year there's no guarantee that one conservative's idiosyncratic view is going to line up with shaming Roberts into a moderate ruling. How this works in practice is that when the lawyers for these party line cases actually plan out their arguments they often aim for the swing vote. So they look at a justice's history and literally play to an audience of one. For instance, ever since 2006(I think it was) when Kennedy made a comment in a ruling about gerrymandering that went basically, "I am signing on to uphold this gerrymander because no reasonable alternative was provided. If someone can come up with a solution that makes more sense I'll listen". And then liberals spent a decade and a half(right to to him stepping down) trying to come up with algorithms and statistics that defined and fixed gerrymandering. All because of a sentence or two Kennedy added to an old ruling. Now imagine not only having to design and make that argument to get the 5th vote. You have to make that argument to get a 4th vote and then likely make an entirely different argument that also gets Roberts on board. This is an important point, that should be beaten about the head of any anti-Hillary/Biden liberal who tries to minimize the damage their side has done by not sucking it up and voting for the lesser of two evils. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 40 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said: How Amy Coney Barrett played a role in Bush v. Gore — and helped the Republican Party defend mail ballots - The Washington Post WWW.WASHINGTONPOST.COM If she is confirmed, Barrett will join Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh in participating in litigation involving the only presidential contest to be decided by the high court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted October 13, 2020 Author Share Posted October 13, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 4 minutes ago, SaysWho? said: "Peaceful assembly within 3 feet of a voting booth is protected, law struck down lmao" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted October 13, 2020 Author Share Posted October 13, 2020 Whitehouse talks about the dark money and Federalist society, plus the Republican platform, all campaigning/funding to reverse Roe v Wade, reverse the legalization of gay marriage, and take down the Affordable Care Act. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 Again. Post-Bork confirmations are pointless. Substantively answering questions went out the window after that, and it has only gotten worse as the partisan divide has grown because they won’t even answer benign questions. So the opposition strategy becomes asking questions that make nominees look bad for not answering them. It’s all a dumb game. The senators should look at the public record of the person, then vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 The public record of bork is enough to justify keeping him from the bench tbh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 9 minutes ago, sblfilms said: Again. Post-Bork confirmations are pointless. Substantively answering questions went out the window after that, and it has only gotten worse as the partisan divide has grown because they won’t even answer benign questions. So the opposition strategy becomes asking questions that make nominees look bad for not answering them. It’s all a dumb game. The senators should look at the public record of the person, then vote. Senators shouldn't even vote. The White House shouldn't even nominate. The idea that we let political parties nominate and confirm 'non-political' lifetime appointments is a giant farce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 8 minutes ago, osxmatt said: Senators shouldn't even vote. The White House shouldn't even nominate. The idea that we let political parties nominate and confirm 'non-political' lifetime appointments is a giant farce. The entire concept for our constitution is predicted upon a lack of factionalism, a warning the founders gave to future generations, only for them to summarily ignore their own warnings less than a decade later Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 only hardcore partisans give a shit, expand that shit! 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.