Recommended Posts

So they confirmed Aunt Lydia in a party line vote (except Collins, who got the fake vote for her campaign).

Fuck. Them. All.

The SCOTUS needs to be expanded to at least 11, preferably more, if all houses turn blue.

50+ million people have voted, eight days before an election. And Merrick Garland was "too close" to an election to give a hearing.

Fuck them, and any anti-American, un-democratic twatbucket who supports this bullshit.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Need the senate first

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Need the senate first

If the dems don't win outright,  I'll take Kamala sticking it up their ass with the tiebreaker over and over and over.  A VP with a purpose would be "refreshing". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

So they confirmed Aunt Lydia in a party line vote (except Collins, who got the fake vote for her campaign).

Fuck. Them. All.

The SCOTUS needs to be expanded to at least 11, preferably more, if all houses turn blue.

50+ million people have voted, eight days before an election. And Merrick Garland was "too close" to an election to give a hearing.

Fuck them, and any anti-American, un-democratic twatbucket who supports this bullshit.

Garland deserved a hearing, but this was was correct and within the guidelines for nominating and confirming a SCOTUS Appointment. They followed the constitution to the letter.    So now because the court might lean right you want to pack the court by allowing one party to pick a bunch of SCOTUS judges to swing it solidly to your ideology and you dare to call others anti American? 

  What a pathetic twit you are. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Joker said:

Garland deserved a hearing, but this was was correct and within the guidelines for nominating and confirming a SCOTUS Appointment. They followed the constitution to the letter.    So now because the court might lean right.   you want to pack the court by allowing one party to pick a bunch of SCOTUS judges to swing it solidly to your ideology and you dare to call others anti American? 

  What a pathetic twit you are. 

Yes, because Republican twats like you need to be fucked in the ass for awhile.  Fuck you and your snowflake pathetic faux outrage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Garland deserved a hearing, but this was was correct and within the guidelines for nominating and confirming a SCOTUS Appointment. They followed the constitution to the letter.    So now because the court might lean right you want to pack the court by allowing one party to pick a bunch of SCOTUS judges to swing it solidly to your ideology and you dare to call others anti American? 

  What a pathetic twit you are. 

I’m sure you’ll love giving away your rights. Like the right to vote safely in Wisconsin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

I’m sure you’ll love giving away your rights. Like the right to vote safely in Wisconsin.

Huh?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Joker said:

Huh?  

Pay attention

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Garland deserved a hearing, but this was was correct and within the guidelines for nominating and confirming a SCOTUS Appointment. They followed the constitution to the letter.    So now because the court might lean right you want to pack the court by allowing one party to pick a bunch of SCOTUS judges to swing it solidly to your ideology and you dare to call others anti American? 

  What a pathetic twit you are. 

Do you know how pathetic you are?  If the Dems get all three houses they can "follow the constitution to the letter" right into raising the number of justices.  You are so transparent and such a fuckwit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Pay attention

To what,  I don’t live in Wi is there some pending case that would make it unsafe to vote there?  A case that would be decided by SCOTUS?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Joker said:

To what,  I don’t live in Wi is there some pending case that would make it unsafe to vote there?  A case that would be decided by SCOTUS?  

They just did

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Replying to 
@mjs_DC 
The headline news here is that, by a 5–3 vote, SCOTUS made it harder for Wisconsin residents to cast a ballot and make sure it's counted. 

But arguably the bigger news is that Brett Kavanaugh endorsed a theory so radical that the court refused to adopt it in Bush v. Gore. My God. 

This is VERY BAD NEWS for voting rights. Appallingly bad. Brett Kavanaugh used a footnote to throw his support behind an extreme theory that would severely limit state courts' ability to protect voting rights. It's the revenge of Bush. v. Gore. Actually, it's much worse. 

How radical is Kavanaugh's theory? John Roberts felt compelled to reject it in a separate opinion, correctly noting that federal courts should keep their noses out of a state court's interpretation of its own state's election laws. 

Roberts is now the moderate on voting rights. 

Gorsuch also endorsed Rehnquist's position in Bush v. Gore. And Kavanaugh joined his opinion. Both want to prevent governors, state courts, and state agencies from expanding voting rights—and have federal courts decide what how the legislature *really* wanted elections to be run. 

We should be extremely worried that Kavanaugh would use this Trumpian rhetoric to describe counting ballots that arrive after Election Day. 18 states a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Garland deserved a hearing, but this was was correct and within the guidelines for nominating and confirming a SCOTUS Appointment. They followed the constitution to the letter.    So now because the court might lean right you want to pack the court by allowing one party to pick a bunch of SCOTUS judges to swing it solidly to your ideology and you dare to call others anti American? 

  What a pathetic twit you are. 

You're right.  Garland deserved a hearing.  At a hearing, the Senate is expected to examine the nominee with regard to suitability, experience, and temperament for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.  The charade that occurred with Justice Coney Barrett proves the GOP is not interested in that aspect of "advice and consent".  They are nothing more than a fucking rubber stamp for President Trump.

By the characteristics I just described, Justice Coney Barrett is the wrong person for the job.  But, she is the right person for the GOP, in that she will be counted on to rule on at least two major issues in a way they will approve.  Abortion and Healthcare.  You can act surprised when that happens.  Doesn't mean those of us speaking up weren't correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

They just did

I’ll give it one more try.  Care to provide a cite?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bus Driver said:

You're right.  Garland deserved a hearing.  At a hearing, the Senate is expected to examine the nominee with regard to suitability, experience, and temperament for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.  The charade that occurred with Justice Coney Barrett proves the GOP is not interested in that aspect of "advice and consent".  They are nothing more than a fucking rubber stamp for President Trump.

By the characteristics I just described, Justice Coney Barrett is the wrong person for the job.  But, she is the right person for the GOP, in that she will be counted on to rule on at least two major issues in a way they will approve.  Abortion and Healthcare.  You can act surprised when that happens.  Doesn't mean those of us speaking up weren't correct.

How is she not qualified?  Did you listen to the professionals who endorsed her. Not the blow hard politicians.  The legal experts that testified that she was one of the smartest legal minds they had ever worked with.  Taken for example the head of Notre Dam law school who also endorsed Elana Kagan. You know the liberal justice appointed by Obama.  
 

The first of the outside witnesses were from the American Bar Association’s nonpartisan standing committee. They determined that Barrett was fit to serve on the US Supreme Court. Randall Noel, the chairman of the standing committee said: “The standing committee concluded that Judge Barrett’s integrity, judicial temperament, professional competence met the very high standards for appointment to our Supreme Court.”

Professor Saikrishna Prakash of the University of Virginia’s School of Law said that referring to Barrett as simply “qualifed” was an understatement. Prakash said that Barrett was an incredible selection with the utmost character and academic prestige who would be a fantastic Supreme Court Justice.

Laura Wolk was a student of Judge Barrett’s at Notre Dame. Wolk is known for being the first blind woman to serve as a law clerk on the Supreme Court. She testified that Barrett was what allowed her to excel at Notre Dame’s Law School. She attributed Barrett’s warmth and kindness to her own success.

https://www.jurist.org/news/2020/10/senate-judiciary-committee-hears-witness-testimony-on-final-day-of-barrett-confirmation-hearing/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

News is a thing.

So are words.
 Please explain how that ruling would make it less SAFE to vote 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

News is a thing.

I’ll let him stew on it, although BadLat posted it.

she’s just in time to Crown the new King.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raz'r said:

I’ll let him stew on it, although BadLat posted it.

she’s just in time to Crown the new King.

Well I’d love to hear how you decided that ruling would make it UNSAFE to vote   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

 

she’s just in time to Crown the new King.

Hopefully it won’t come down to that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, B.J. Porter said:

So they confirmed Aunt Lydia in a party line vote (except Collins, who got the fake vote for her campaign).

Fuck. Them. All.

The SCOTUS needs to be expanded to at least 11, preferably more, if all houses turn blue.

50+ million people have voted, eight days before an election. And Merrick Garland was "too close" to an election to give a hearing.

Fuck them, and any anti-American, un-democratic twatbucket who supports this bullshit.

Yep, I agree.  It's complete hypocritical BS.  

But I'm curious Beej......  How is this "packing the courts"?  I thought the term was reserved for what y'all want Joe to do if he wins.  i.e. add more SCJ's to the bench beyond the current (about to be) 9.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

You're right.  Garland deserved a hearing.  At a hearing, the Senate is expected to examine the nominee with regard to suitability, experience, and temperament for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.  The charade that occurred with Justice Coney Barrett proves the GOP is not interested in that aspect of "advice and consent".  They are nothing more than a fucking rubber stamp for President Trump.

By the characteristics I just described, Justice Coney Barrett is the wrong person for the job.  But, she is the right person for the GOP, in that she will be counted on to rule on at least two major issues in a way they will approve.  Abortion and Healthcare.  You can act surprised when that happens.  Doesn't mean those of us speaking up weren't correct.

As far as I am concerned, Aunt Lydia's willingness to accept the tainted nomination was a disqualifier.

She will never be legitimate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

News is a thing.

He’s just here to waste peoples time and spew the stupid, not an actual person interested n fact. No different than doggie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, B.J. Porter said:

As far as I am concerned, Aunt Lydia's willingness to accept the tainted nomination was a disqualifier.

She will never be legitimate.

The photo op tonight was the fuck you. It’s stupid, but sos the GOP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barrett deserves no admiration from me. In the circumstances, she should have refused. But they aren't going to have the Kingdom of God if she hangs back.

Fuck her and the god she rode in on.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, roundthebuoys said:

Yes, because Republican twats like you need to be fucked in the ass for awhile.  Fuck you and your snowflake pathetic faux outrage.

Triggered.  Delicious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Garland deserved a hearing, but this was was correct and within the guidelines for nominating and confirming a SCOTUS Appointment. They followed the constitution to the letter.    So now because the court might lean right you want to pack the court by allowing one party to pick a bunch of SCOTUS judges to swing it solidly to your ideology and you dare to call others anti American? 

  What a pathetic twit you are. 

How is changing the number of judges anti American?

Is it not totally legal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ease the sheet. said:

How is changing the number of judges anti American?

Is it not totally legal?

Only if the Right does it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ease the sheet. said:

How is changing the number of judges anti American?

Is it not totally legal?

It’s totally legal, been done multiple times. The joker is just a lying bullshitter.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Triggered.  Delicious.

You don't even vote and you're a bankrupt Saudi asset with no humility from your past life or any morals.  But Ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

How is changing the number of judges anti American?

Is it not totally legal?

That was my point if following the constitution to appoint a justice that shifts the ideology is anti American so should  stacking the court,  to shift its ideology be considered anti American. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Joker said:

That was my point if following the constitution is suddenly anti American so would stacking the court,  to shift its ideology be considered anti American. 

For a minute I thought you were trying to make a valid point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ease the sheet. said:

For a minute I thought you were trying to make a valid point.

You obviously forgot who you were talking with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Joker said:

That was my point if following the constitution is suddenly anti American so would stacking the court,  to shift its ideology be considered anti American. 

Merrick Garland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

By the characteristics I just described, Justice Coney Barrett is the wrong person for the job. 

I don't have a dog in the fight, but why is she the wrong person?  Because you don't agree with her judicial beliefs?  Or because you despise the person that appointed her?  Whether or not the current senate is a fucking hypocritical bunch of cunts - it doesn't mean that ACB is not qualified for the job.  By all accounts I've read - she is considered a very respectable legal scholar and judge with excellent credentials.  

How is her personal beliefs any more DSQ'ing than RBG's outspoken and unabashed views on women's rights and gender?  Or her outspoken jewishness?  Or any other strongly held personal and religious beliefs?  She very strongly said at one point that the SCOTUS will never have enough women until there are 9.  That could be easily construed as blatant gender bias.  So what makes her any different than ACB?  Many people on the right did not like RGB for the very reasons you don't like ACB.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, roundthebuoys said:

You don't even vote and you're a bankrupt Saudi asset with no humility from your past life or any morals.  But Ok.

I was in Saudi once for ~100 days back in 1996.  And I was stuck on an USAF base the entire time (other than flying combat missions over Iraq).  How does that make me a "saudi asset"??? 

And I'm far from bankrupt.  Just saying ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

I don't have a dog in the fight, but why is she the wrong person?  Because you don't agree with her judicial beliefs?  Or because you despise the person that appointed her?  Whether or not the current senate is a fucking hypocritical bunch of cunts - it doesn't mean that ACB is not qualified for the job.  By all accounts I've read - she is considered a very respectable legal scholar and judge with excellent credentials.  

How is her personal beliefs any more DSQ'ing than RBG's outspoken and unabashed views on women's rights and gender?  Or her outspoken jewishness?  Or any other strongly held personal and religious beliefs?  She very strongly said at one point that the SCOTUS will never have enough women until there are 9.  That could be easily construed as blatant gender bias.  So what makes her any different than ACB?  Many people on the right did not like RGB for the very reasons you don't like ACB.  

RGB didn't hide her beliefs under a blanket of lies. Barrett did. And call her Barrett, because she doesn't deserve an acronym.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

As far as I am concerned, Aunt Lydia's willingness to accept the tainted nomination was a disqualifier.

She will never be legitimate.

Just like GWB was never legitimate to you after the hanging chad fiasco, right?  You seem to have a trend going.  Maybe it's you.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

I don't have a dog in the fight, but why is she the wrong person?  Because you don't agree with her judicial beliefs?  Or because you despise the person that appointed her?  Whether or not the current senate is a fucking hypocritical bunch of cunts - it doesn't mean that ACB is not qualified for the job.  By all accounts I've read - she is considered a very respectable legal scholar and judge with excellent credentials.  

How is her personal beliefs any more DSQ'ing than RBG's outspoken and unabashed views on women's rights and gender?  Or her outspoken jewishness?  Or any other strongly held personal and religious beliefs?  She very strongly said at one point that the SCOTUS will never have enough women until there are 9.  That could be easily construed as blatant gender bias.  So what makes her any different than ACB?  Many people on the right did not like RGB for the very reasons you don't like ACB.  

PA's preeminent Keren calling Justice Karen ACB is so Karen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

I was in Saudi once for ~100 days back in 1996.  And I was stuck on an USAF base the entire time (other than flying combat missions over Iraq).  How does that make me a "saudi asset"??? 

And I'm far from bankrupt.  Just saying ;)

You were.  And you have no humility.  Just sayin'.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

I was in Saudi once for ~100 days back in 1996.  And I was stuck on an USAF base the entire time (other than flying combat missions over Iraq).  How does that make me a "saudi asset"??? 

And I'm far from bankrupt.  Just saying ;)

If you think you've been helping the US and not the Saudis for the past 25 years, then I've got a bridge for sale...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

I don't have a dog in the fight, but why is she the wrong person?  Because you don't agree with her judicial beliefs?  Or because you despise the person that appointed her?  Whether or not the current senate is a fucking hypocritical bunch of cunts - it doesn't mean that ACB is not qualified for the job.  By all accounts I've read - she is considered a very respectable legal scholar and judge with excellent credentials.  

If you want a partisan cunt that makes up the law from the bench, she’s your gal. That’s who Republicans now pick for the courts. There is nothing conservative about this judicial project, and it explicitly turns its back on the bullshit they sell it as.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ease the sheet. said:

If you think you've been helping the US and not the Saudis for the past 25 years, then I've got a bridge for sale...

Yep.  A Saudi Asset posing as an American Patriot who doesn't vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much teeth-grinding from the Beast.

Quote
 

With Democrats powerless and Republicans shameless, the foregone conclusion of Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation as a Supreme Court justice is, at last, concluded.

Justice Barrett was confirmed 52-48 by the Senate, and fittingly, given her shotgun-wedding of a confirmation, may begin deciding cases tomorrow, including two high-profile challenges to election rules.

Before the travesty fades from memory, however, we thought it would be useful to put all of the terribleness of her confirmation into one convenient top-ten list, summarizing everything that was wrong with this process from its beginning—all of one month ago—to now. Shall we?

1. Hypocrisy: President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland on March 16, 2016. Republicans said that was too close to an election to confirm a new justice. Some even promised not to do so in 2020. Justice Barrett was nominated on September 29.

2. Disrespect: The actual, for-real dying wish of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was that she not be replaced until after the election. Barrett’s nomination was announced three days after Ginsburg died, before she had even been buried.

3. Haste: In order to ram through their nominee before the election—it was the fastest nomination process since 1975—Republicans cut corners everywhere, with little investigation, a perfunctory and incomplete questionnaire, and a bogus process.

4. Magical Thinking: Because of the Covid-19 pandemic having spread to the Senate floor, the Senate was actually not in session while the Barrett confirmation hearings took place. How were Senators both in session and not in session at the same time? Magic, I guess.

5. Anti-Life: Speaking of the pandemic, two members of the Judiciary Committee had Covid-19 during the confirmation process. One attended a hearing in person. Barrett’s nomination party was a super-spreader event. So much for “pro-life.” Meanwhile, the Senate did nothing to pass additional Coronavirus relief, because Majority Leader Mitch McConnell worried that however it went, the vote might hurt Republicans’ reelection chances.

6. Evasion: More than any other nominee in history, Justice Barrett dodged every question of any substance. She said nothing about Obamacare, abortion, even the peaceful transition of power.

7. Denial: Despite Trump and the Republican Platform explicitly promising that he would appoint judges to overturn Obamacare and Roe v. Wade, Republican Senators, and Justice Barrett, clutched their pearls in astonishment that anyone would ever suggest such a thing.

8. Puppet Theater: Except for a brilliant half-hour lecture by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, hardly anyone mentioned the dark-money-funded networks, staffed by religious extremists, that have now placed three justices on the Supreme Court (and dozens on other courts) and that often bring the conservative-activist cases that their handpicked justices then decide.

9. Anti-Democracy: Republican presidents have now placed 15 of the last 19 justices on the court, despite losing the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 presidential elections. The Republican majority in the Senate represents 15 million fewer people than the Democrat minority. Our system, designed in the 18th century, never anticipated this.

And most importantly:

10. Delegitimization: Despite the best efforts of Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court has again lost legitimacy in the eyes of the American public. All three Trump justices are under a cloud: the first is in a seat stolen from President Obama; the second was pushed through despite serious rape allegations, which have only been further corroborated since his confirmation; and the third was appointed to the Court with all the seriousness and deliberation of a Las Vegas wedding.

And the reasons are transparently anti-democratic: to end abortion, same-sex marriage, Obamacare, civil rights laws, voting rights laws, environmental regulations, gun control, campaign finance regulations, compassionate immigration laws, labor laws, and all the other things that large majorities of Americans support and the Republican party opposes.

Make no mistake: all of these are on the Court’s docket, either now or in the immediate future, and if this 6-3 majority is allowed to stand, they will indeed end.

In the short term, Justice Barrett may rule on two pending election challenges from Republicans, who are trying to stop as many people from voting as they can. Just as the Senate was voting on her confirmation, Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored an opinion on a third one, throwing out an extended deadline for mail-in ballots in Wisconsin.

For good measure, Justice Kavanaugh cited Bush v. Gore, which he helped to litigate in 2000, for the principle that the Supreme Court can overturn state courts’ election-law decisions if need be. Because look how well that turned out the last time.

A similar case is pending from Pennsylvania after an earlier 4-4 deadlock, which Justice Barrett may now break. That’s right, Justice Barrett’s first act may be to make it harder for people to vote.

The Supreme Court’s ultra-conservative supermajority doesn’t think like America, doesn’t look like America (racially, religiously, or in countless other ways) and doesn’t interpret the constitution in a way that makes sense in America. (“Originalism” is preposterously selective – to take but one example, there’s no right to corporate personhood, or even corporations existing, in the Constitution, because the Founders generally hated corporations and thought they shouldn’t exist. But try telling that to the “Originalists” on the Court.)

But then again, neither do Republicans. The Grand Old Party is looking especially Old these days, is likely to lose big in next week’s election, and if Republicans don’t find a way to broaden their appeal beyond Trump’s rabid base of non-college-educated, mostly-older white men, together with their wives and assorted religious extremists, they’re going to lose even bigger in elections to come.

That’s true even if their hand-picked Court allows them to gerrymander, suppress the vote, and allow unlimited dark money to manipulate our elections. Which it has already been doing. It just might take a little longer.

Fortunately, even moderate Democrats are now out for blood. After Garland/Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and now Barrett, there is growing support for increasing the size of the Court, imposing term limits on justices, or both. (My own proposal: immediate term limits for all justices, which would create two immediate vacancies.)

No doubt, Republicans will cry that Democrats are threatening the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. They’re exactly wrong. In fact, structural change is the only way to restore it.

Fuck the Repugnicans. They deserve to die, as a party, and as old white men with no morals. Their Supreme Court is a sham.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

How is her personal beliefs any more DSQ'ing than RBG's outspoken and unabashed views on women's rights and gender? 

Well, you see, anyone in a position with that much power, should act according to the law of the land, not according to the Sky Fairy.

Anyone who blindly 'believes' in something not verifiable, should be immediately banned from holding a position like that.

Where I live people are locked up and or medicated if they claim to hear voices in their heads.  In America they make them Supreme Court Judges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, roundthebuoys said:

Yep.  A Saudi Asset posing as an American Patriot who doesn't vote.

It's not like it's not obvious to anyone with at least half a brain....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

RGB didn't hide her beliefs under a blanket of lies. Barrett did. And call her Barrett, because she doesn't deserve an acronym.

I prefer "Aunt Lydia."

image.thumb.png.2df4b934e4c4995e211776b831ddca20.png

image.png.61731972a0670ad20ee7716634fff1fb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

 

And I'm far from bankrupt.  Just saying ;)

Morally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Pay attention

Well aren't you the cockeyed optimist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Bill E Goat said:

ImageImage

Jeff will be along shortly to point that he is personally in favor of a woman's right to choose. He is, according to himself, quite the moderate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully the complete exoneration of Donnie in the eyes of SCOTUS is a bridge too far.

But hey stranger things have happened, however if that happens the SCOTUS will have lost any shred of  credibility that currently remains, hopefully Kavanagh  steps on his dick very shortly and an out of depth newbee seeks the guidance of some of the more experienced navigators of the political pitfalls that face one who should remain objective and fair.

It is my hope they both witness the very public downfall of Moscow Mitch the man that moved heaven and earth  (irony intended) to place them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Joker said:

How is she not qualified?  .....

 

There is no "qualification" to be appointed Supreme Court Justice, other than being appointed and confirmed.

They could have have appointed a totally worthless dumbass.... like you  for example... but you aren't going to make them any money.

They wants somebody young, to sit on the Court for the longest possible time. They want somebody to overturn Roe V. Wade, so all the evangelical dumbasses will go back to sleep and stop voting GOP religiously (this makes sense to somebody, somewhere).

This was purely a power play by the Trumpublicans. It's a FUCK YOU!! to Democrats, and to America. The people who did it, and the people who think it's fine, deserve such a beat-down that even if they were to somehow regain power, they would not be tempted to do it again

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Joker said:

How is she not qualified?  Did you listen to the professionals who endorsed her. Not the blow hard politicians.  The legal experts that testified that she was one of the smartest legal minds they had ever worked with.  Taken for example the head of Notre Dam law school who also endorsed Elana Kagan. You know the liberal justice appointed by Obama.  
 

The first of the outside witnesses were from the American Bar Association’s nonpartisan standing committee. They determined that Barrett was fit to serve on the US Supreme Court. Randall Noel, the chairman of the standing committee said: “The standing committee concluded that Judge Barrett’s integrity, judicial temperament, professional competence met the very high standards for appointment to our Supreme Court.”

Professor Saikrishna Prakash of the University of Virginia’s School of Law said that referring to Barrett as simply “qualifed” was an understatement. Prakash said that Barrett was an incredible selection with the utmost character and academic prestige who would be a fantastic Supreme Court Justice.

Laura Wolk was a student of Judge Barrett’s at Notre Dame. Wolk is known for being the first blind woman to serve as a law clerk on the Supreme Court. She testified that Barrett was what allowed her to excel at Notre Dame’s Law School. She attributed Barrett’s warmth and kindness to her own success.

https://www.jurist.org/news/2020/10/senate-judiciary-committee-hears-witness-testimony-on-final-day-of-barrett-confirmation-hearing/

That is certainly one opinion.  But, it is not the ONLY opinion.

New York City Bar Association Finds Judge Amy Coney Barrett “Qualified to Serve as a Supreme Court Justice, with Reservations”

While the New York City Bar Association finds that Judge Amy Coney Barrett meets several of its evaluation criteria, due to “unique concerns” the City Bar has found Judge Barrett to be “qualified to serve as a Supreme Court Justice, with reservations.”

The City Bar finds Judge Barrett to be “an extremely talented lawyer and judicial writer” who “unquestionably” meets the first three of the City Bar’s evaluation criteria: (1) exceptional legal ability; (2) extensive experience and knowledge of the law; and (3) outstanding intellectual and analytical talents.

However, “we have significant concerns over the remaining evaluative criteria,” the City Bar states in its report on Judge Barrett. Those criteria are (4) maturity of judgment; (5) unquestionable integrity and independence; (6) a temperament reflecting a willingness to search for a fair resolution of each case before the court; (7) a sympathetic understanding of the Court’s role under the Constitution in the protection of the personal rights of individuals; and (8) an appreciation for the historic role of the Supreme Court as the final arbiter of the meaning of the United States Constitution, including a sensitivity to the respective powers and reciprocal responsibilities of the Congress and Executive.

Interesting that in this entire fucking country, we couldn't find someone with more experience and none of the reservations expressed above.

She was chosen for her gender and her politics.  In either order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The Joker said:

Garland deserved a hearing, but this was was correct and within the guidelines for nominating and confirming a SCOTUS Appointment. They followed the constitution to the letter.    So now because the court might lean right you want to pack the court by allowing one party to pick a bunch of SCOTUS judges to swing it solidly to your ideology and you dare to call others anti American? 

  What a pathetic twit you are. 

I would like to see votes matter.  Perhaps 15 Supremes will guarantee our civil rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, roundthebuoys said:

Yep.  A Saudi Asset posing as an American Patriot who doesn't vote.

So triggered.  Love it! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, astro said:

Well, you see, anyone in a position with that much power, should act according to the law of the land, not according to the Sky Fairy.

Anyone who blindly 'believes' in something not verifiable, should be immediately banned from holding a position like that.

 

Joe Biden is a devout catholic, RBG was a devout jew.  Ilhan omar is a devout muslim.  They all blindly believe in the same sky fairy.  I guess none of them are qualified to hold office, eh?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Olsonist said:
8 hours ago, Bill E Goat said:

Jeff will be along shortly to point that he is personally in favor of a woman's right to choose. He is, according to himself, quite the moderate.

I'm absolutely in favor of a woman's right choose to have an abortion.  Their body, their choice.  I have been unequivocal about it here.  I also think RvW was a poor decision contorted to "fit" the constitution.   I liked the end result, but the ruling is crap.  It should be Congress's job to pass legislation making abortion legal.  When the Dem's own both houses of congress and have the WH - then maybe y'all should look into that.  Sounds like there is a decent chance of that happening in a few days, so sit back and relax. 

And every single one of those questions are troll bait, knowing that a candidate cannot answer them.  Any nominee.  It's called the "Ginsberg Principle".  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Has anyone seen Jeff and Jack in the same room?

I find it quite amusing that when something doesn't go your elk's way and y'all get all butthurt and triggered - then you pick someone to personally lash out at.  Hey, if I can be your brickwall to bash your heads against as a kind of healing, then I'm here for you.  :lol:  Hugs and kisses.  Kiss, kiss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ishmael said:

Much teeth-grinding from the Beast.

Fuck the Repugnicans. They deserve to die, as a party, and as old white men with no morals. Their Supreme Court is a sham.

I'm glad I have yet another convert to the BTBD bandwagon.  Welcome aboard, ish.  Did you bring some canuckian beer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

  I guess none of them are qualified to hold office, eh?  

Should not be IMO.  Belief in clear fantasy should be grounds for commitment to a psych ward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ishmael said:

And call her Justice Barrett

FTFY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

FTFY.

Jeffreaux showing that oath to the Connie doesn’t include angst about Republicans wiping their ass on it, or knowledge of what they have planned, because triggering the libs is all that matters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, The Joker said:

  What a pathetic twit you are. 

Try not looking in the mirror, it is easier on the eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, hasher said:

Try not looking in the mirror, it is easier on the eyes.

I’m not the one calling people anti American for following the appointment guidelines as spelled out in the constitution.  
As Obama famously said “elections have consequences”.   And before you point out the obvious, that will absolutely apply in January 2021 with the new Congress and President are in place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Burning Man said:
12 hours ago, Ishmael said:

And call her Justice Barrett

FTFY.

I prefer "Handmaid Barrett".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, The Joker said:

I’m not the one calling people anti American for following the appointment guidelines as spelled out in the constitution.  
As Obama famously said “elections have consequences”.   And before you point out the obvious, that will absolutely apply in January 2021 with the new Congress and President are in place. 

The Senate was once a deliberative body.  I expect that will come back with good people in charge.

The racist, sexist authoritarians can go into the waste bin of history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, The Joker said:

Clarence Thomas is giving her the oath tonight.  

<insert Phil Collins drum fill>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bitch Barrett has a better sound to it. Jeff will be along shortly to tell me I shouldn't use the B word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Bitch Barrett has a better sound to it. Jeff will be along shortly to tell me I shouldn't use the B word.

Barrett certainly is a bad word now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ishmael said:

I prefer "Handmaid Barrett".

I'll probably keep calling her "Aunt Lydia" for the forseeable future.

She really was put in there to help men keep women down, in a lot of ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This take will probably get some manties in a bunch.

Quote

The goal of feminism is to destroy patriarchy. 

It is not to stand at a podium on a White House lawn flanked by President Grab Them By the Pussy on one side and Supreme Court Justice Sexual Harasser on the other as they anoint you Five-Star General of the Footsoldiers of the Patriarchy.

Amy Coney Barrett is no feminist.

Feminism is a daily revolution which looks patriarchy in the eye and vows “I will fucking destroy you.” Feminism does not take dictation from the patriarchy, interjecting only to ask “How high?” when it hears “Jump!”

It does not giggle when a misogynist shit of a senator asks “Who does the laundry in your house?” during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing into your nomination for the Supreme Court, for which your most stellar credential, we are told again and again, is that you are the first “mother of school-aged children.” 

 

Quote

Amy Coney Barrett is a mediocre judge who was elevated because she’s a white mother of school-aged children who will do white supremacist patriarchy’s bidding in a country that hates mothers and children who are not white.

How richly hypocritical that in the middle of a pandemic, the administration that has done so little for mothers of school-aged children around the country, especially Black and women of colour, who are being pumelled by triple work loads, demands that we celebrate a privileged white mother of school-aged children. 

How cruel - because that is the ultimate adjective of the Trump era - that the administration that insists we celebrate that Barrett is a mother of school-aged children is the same administration that has ripped apart migrant mothers from their school-aged children in concentration camps at the border.

Motherhood is to Amy Coney Barrett what self-effacement was to Gina Haspel when Trump nominated the latter to be the first woman to head the CIA: an attribute that allows patriarchy to safely elevate a woman to an unprecedented position with the understanding that she will not threaten patriarchy but instead do its bidding. What could be less threatening than a mother of school-aged children?!

Quote

Feminism must work to dismantle patriarchy and its violence--whether it is sanctioned by the state, as torture is, or by the judiciary, as racist and bigoted rulings are, or practiced at home, in the form of intimate partner or domestic violence.

And feminism is not about supporting a woman merely because she is a woman, especially when she is a dangerous extremist like Amy Coney Barrett. I do not support a woman who has benefited from feminism only to now work to cut feminism at its knees.

To demand I support a woman simply because she is a woman, with no regard to whether she upholds or works to destroy patriarchy, is to reduce feminism to a Sorority of Pinky Swears - a hollow and toothless mockery of the goals of feminism, a mockery that benefits only those who benefit from patriarchy: white women like Amy Coney Barrett. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Joe Biden is a devout catholic, RBG was a devout jew.  Ilhan omar is a devout muslim.  They all blindly believe in the same sky fairy.  I guess none of them are qualified to hold office, eh?  

From experience, many Americans are Christians in name only, they have to conform and know how to do that.

But those who are genuine Sky Fairy believers in any country, I have no time for them and have grave concerns about having them in positions of authority.  Christians do not seem to have better business and life morals than anyone else, but a significantly bigger dose of hypocrisy by not adhering to Christian values.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ishmael said:

I prefer "Handmaid Barrett".

Justice Lydia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Barrett certainly is a bad word now

Only to melting snowflakes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Only to melting snowflakes.  

Burning down the (court) house.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Should not be IMO.  Belief in clear fantasy should be grounds for commitment to a psych ward.

It looks then, like all but about 18 members of congress should get the boot