Options

SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)

1252628303149

Comments

  • Options
    Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 10,709
    Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023. 
    If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset.  If you are conservative you don't think it is.

    We have another 10 years or so of this until Alito or maybe Thomas steps down?
    If you don't think Clarence Thomas is compromised, you're not paying attention. 
    I don't know why this has anything to do with what I said but yes, he seems to have excepted gifts and visits with the conservative elites.

    Now I don't know if any of the other Justices go out for Christmas hams with the powerful.  I would be interested to see what they all do though.
    it was a direct response to: 

    "If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset.  If you are conservative you don't think it is."


    If your response to everything that came out about Thomas in the last year is to assume that every other justice is equally compromised...  it brings us back to my sarcastic statement about not upsetting the sanctity and status quo of the supreme court. 

    If they're all on the take, leaving things alone doesn't seem like a good path forward. 

    In the end though, we're still answering your question about why people aren't up in arms about potentially expanding the supreme court. If it's already a corrupt institution, then the rest of the government SHOULD be discussing ways to improve it. 

    Shouldn't we WANT to have some trust in the highest court in the land? 
  • Options
    tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 39,677
    Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023. 
    If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset.  If you are conservative you don't think it is.

    We have another 10 years or so of this until Alito or maybe Thomas steps down?
    If you don't think Clarence Thomas is compromised, you're not paying attention. 
    I don't know why this has anything to do with what I said but yes, he seems to have excepted gifts and visits with the conservative elites.

    Now I don't know if any of the other Justices go out for Christmas hams with the powerful.  I would be interested to see what they all do though.
    it was a direct response to: 

    "If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset.  If you are conservative you don't think it is."


    If your response to everything that came out about Thomas in the last year is to assume that every other justice is equally compromised...  it brings us back to my sarcastic statement about not upsetting the sanctity and status quo of the supreme court. 

    If they're all on the take, leaving things alone doesn't seem like a good path forward. 

    In the end though, we're still answering your question about why people aren't up in arms about potentially expanding the supreme court. If it's already a corrupt institution, then the rest of the government SHOULD be discussing ways to improve it. 

    Shouldn't we WANT to have some trust in the highest court in the land? 
    No, i don't think anyone is compromised.  I said they all should be looked into.  That is a check and balance.

    If what Thomas has done is really a matter of ethics then why haven't anyone done anything about it?  They sure as hell went after Trump believing he did something wrong so why not go after the person whom won't be out in 4 years?

    I wonder if it's just politics and it is the status quo.

    You really do pick out some way off thoughts about what I say.  

    I still look at the SC as this.  The conservatives have the sway right now.  If you don't align that way you're looking for a way to get over to the other side to even it out.

    Not thrilled with the abortion overturn.  If they do start looking into other past cases and want to overturn those too then yeah, we have a big problem and I'd be ok with doing something to fix that.
  • Options
    mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,984
    the dems will regret this "turn the other cheek" schtick they always play when the gop adds 3 more conservative justices to the court just to make sure the dems never hold it again.

    its not against the rules, and the gop are dicks, so do not think for a second that they will not try it.
    You would need 60 senate votes to get this done.  Not going to happen even if either party wanted it to happen. 
  • Options
    mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,984
    Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023. 
    If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset.  If you are conservative you don't think it is.

    We have another 10 years or so of this until Alito or maybe Thomas steps down?
    If you don't think Clarence Thomas is compromised, you're not paying attention. 
    I don't know why this has anything to do with what I said but yes, he seems to have excepted gifts and visits with the conservative elites.

    Now I don't know if any of the other Justices go out for Christmas hams with the powerful.  I would be interested to see what they all do though.
    it was a direct response to: 

    "If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset.  If you are conservative you don't think it is."


    If your response to everything that came out about Thomas in the last year is to assume that every other justice is equally compromised...  it brings us back to my sarcastic statement about not upsetting the sanctity and status quo of the supreme court. 

    If they're all on the take, leaving things alone doesn't seem like a good path forward. 

    In the end though, we're still answering your question about why people aren't up in arms about potentially expanding the supreme court. If it's already a corrupt institution, then the rest of the government SHOULD be discussing ways to improve it. 

    Shouldn't we WANT to have some trust in the highest court in the land? 
    No, i don't think anyone is compromised.  I said they all should be looked into.  That is a check and balance.

    If what Thomas has done is really a matter of ethics then why haven't anyone done anything about it?  They sure as hell went after Trump believing he did something wrong so why not go after the person whom won't be out in 4 years?

    I wonder if it's just politics and it is the status quo.

    You really do pick out some way off thoughts about what I say.  

    I still look at the SC as this.  The conservatives have the sway right now.  If you don't align that way you're looking for a way to get over to the other side to even it out.

    Not thrilled with the abortion overturn.  If they do start looking into other past cases and want to overturn those too then yeah, we have a big problem and I'd be ok with doing something to fix that.
    Thomas has to be corrupted by his gift taking.  I can't see a scenario where that sort of patronage doesn't lead to some bias, even if unintended on his part.  
  • Options
    OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MN Posts: 4,900
    mickeyrat said:
    Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023. 
    If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset.  If you are conservative you don't think it is.

    We have another 10 years or so of this until Alito or maybe Thomas steps down?
    If you don't think Clarence Thomas is compromised, you're not paying attention. 
    I think we've answered your original question about why people aren't talking (upset?) about potentially expanding the supreme court though. 

    That branch of our government has been so ratfucked over the years, maybe expanding it doesn't seem like such a bad idea to people. 

    or reform. term limits scotus 18 yrs. oldest cycles off every 2 years. maybe 15 yrs for the appellate division. 10 for the district courts.
    Maybe a cap on how much bribe money Justices they can take.
    1995 Milwaukee     1998 Alpine, Alpine     2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston     2004 Boston, Boston     2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)     2011 Alpine, Alpine     
    2013 Wrigley     2014 St. Paul     2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley     2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley     2021 Asbury Park     2022 St Louis     2023 Austin, Austin
  • Options
    Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 10,709
    Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023. 
    If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset.  If you are conservative you don't think it is.

    We have another 10 years or so of this until Alito or maybe Thomas steps down?
    If you don't think Clarence Thomas is compromised, you're not paying attention. 
    I don't know why this has anything to do with what I said but yes, he seems to have excepted gifts and visits with the conservative elites.

    Now I don't know if any of the other Justices go out for Christmas hams with the powerful.  I would be interested to see what they all do though.
    it was a direct response to: 

    "If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset.  If you are conservative you don't think it is."


    If your response to everything that came out about Thomas in the last year is to assume that every other justice is equally compromised...  it brings us back to my sarcastic statement about not upsetting the sanctity and status quo of the supreme court. 

    If they're all on the take, leaving things alone doesn't seem like a good path forward. 

    In the end though, we're still answering your question about why people aren't up in arms about potentially expanding the supreme court. If it's already a corrupt institution, then the rest of the government SHOULD be discussing ways to improve it. 

    Shouldn't we WANT to have some trust in the highest court in the land? 
    No, i don't think anyone is compromised.  I said they all should be looked into.  That is a check and balance.

    If what Thomas has done is really a matter of ethics then why haven't anyone done anything about it?  They sure as hell went after Trump believing he did something wrong so why not go after the person whom won't be out in 4 years?

    I wonder if it's just politics and it is the status quo.

    You really do pick out some way off thoughts about what I say.  

    I still look at the SC as this.  The conservatives have the sway right now.  If you don't align that way you're looking for a way to get over to the other side to even it out.

    Not thrilled with the abortion overturn.  If they do start looking into other past cases and want to overturn those too then yeah, we have a big problem and I'd be ok with doing something to fix that.
    I'm responding to things you say.... if you don't want to have the conversation, maybe don't ask the question? 

    I also don't think what I'm saying is really that way off.. Your original question was why aren't people talking about the democrats wanting to expand the court, and I'm giving reasons why. 

    Confidence in the Supreme Court is at a 50 year low. That's not hyperbole. 
    https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-poll-abortion-confidence-declining-0ff738589bd7815bf0eab804baa5f3d1


    You're chalking things like Clarence Thomas and the GOP fuckery around the 3 nominations during trump's term up to politics as usual and normal partisan bullshit, and there's nothing normal or common or cyclical about it. 
  • Options
    mickeyratmickeyrat up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,683
    Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023. 
    If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset.  If you are conservative you don't think it is.

    We have another 10 years or so of this until Alito or maybe Thomas steps down?
    If you don't think Clarence Thomas is compromised, you're not paying attention. 
    I don't know why this has anything to do with what I said but yes, he seems to have excepted gifts and visits with the conservative elites.

    Now I don't know if any of the other Justices go out for Christmas hams with the powerful.  I would be interested to see what they all do though.

    its never the act. its the cover up. he's failed to disclose for over 20 years. THAT'S the problem.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Options
    tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 39,677
    mrussel1 said:
    Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023. 
    If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset.  If you are conservative you don't think it is.

    We have another 10 years or so of this until Alito or maybe Thomas steps down?
    If you don't think Clarence Thomas is compromised, you're not paying attention. 
    I don't know why this has anything to do with what I said but yes, he seems to have excepted gifts and visits with the conservative elites.

    Now I don't know if any of the other Justices go out for Christmas hams with the powerful.  I would be interested to see what they all do though.
    it was a direct response to: 

    "If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset.  If you are conservative you don't think it is."


    If your response to everything that came out about Thomas in the last year is to assume that every other justice is equally compromised...  it brings us back to my sarcastic statement about not upsetting the sanctity and status quo of the supreme court. 

    If they're all on the take, leaving things alone doesn't seem like a good path forward. 

    In the end though, we're still answering your question about why people aren't up in arms about potentially expanding the supreme court. If it's already a corrupt institution, then the rest of the government SHOULD be discussing ways to improve it. 

    Shouldn't we WANT to have some trust in the highest court in the land? 
    No, i don't think anyone is compromised.  I said they all should be looked into.  That is a check and balance.

    If what Thomas has done is really a matter of ethics then why haven't anyone done anything about it?  They sure as hell went after Trump believing he did something wrong so why not go after the person whom won't be out in 4 years?

    I wonder if it's just politics and it is the status quo.

    You really do pick out some way off thoughts about what I say.  

    I still look at the SC as this.  The conservatives have the sway right now.  If you don't align that way you're looking for a way to get over to the other side to even it out.

    Not thrilled with the abortion overturn.  If they do start looking into other past cases and want to overturn those too then yeah, we have a big problem and I'd be ok with doing something to fix that.
    Thomas has to be corrupted by his gift taking.  I can't see a scenario where that sort of patronage doesn't lead to some bias, even if unintended on his part.  
    Every justice has at one time or another worked for someone high up.  The Kavanaugh guy was one I didn't understand how he gets through.  The vetting process is a joke.  

    I Like Beer GIFs  Tenor
  • Options
    mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,984
    mrussel1 said:
    Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023. 
    If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset.  If you are conservative you don't think it is.

    We have another 10 years or so of this until Alito or maybe Thomas steps down?
    If you don't think Clarence Thomas is compromised, you're not paying attention. 
    I don't know why this has anything to do with what I said but yes, he seems to have excepted gifts and visits with the conservative elites.

    Now I don't know if any of the other Justices go out for Christmas hams with the powerful.  I would be interested to see what they all do though.
    it was a direct response to: 

    "If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset.  If you are conservative you don't think it is."


    If your response to everything that came out about Thomas in the last year is to assume that every other justice is equally compromised...  it brings us back to my sarcastic statement about not upsetting the sanctity and status quo of the supreme court. 

    If they're all on the take, leaving things alone doesn't seem like a good path forward. 

    In the end though, we're still answering your question about why people aren't up in arms about potentially expanding the supreme court. If it's already a corrupt institution, then the rest of the government SHOULD be discussing ways to improve it. 

    Shouldn't we WANT to have some trust in the highest court in the land? 
    No, i don't think anyone is compromised.  I said they all should be looked into.  That is a check and balance.

    If what Thomas has done is really a matter of ethics then why haven't anyone done anything about it?  They sure as hell went after Trump believing he did something wrong so why not go after the person whom won't be out in 4 years?

    I wonder if it's just politics and it is the status quo.

    You really do pick out some way off thoughts about what I say.  

    I still look at the SC as this.  The conservatives have the sway right now.  If you don't align that way you're looking for a way to get over to the other side to even it out.

    Not thrilled with the abortion overturn.  If they do start looking into other past cases and want to overturn those too then yeah, we have a big problem and I'd be ok with doing something to fix that.
    Thomas has to be corrupted by his gift taking.  I can't see a scenario where that sort of patronage doesn't lead to some bias, even if unintended on his part.  
    Every justice has at one time or another worked for someone high up.  The Kavanaugh guy was one I didn't understand how he gets through.  The vetting process is a joke.  

    I Like Beer GIFs  Tenor
    Sure, but not while they are a Justice.  Thomas has taken extensive gifts from people who have business before the court.  That's quite different than having worked for someone else high up at one point. 
  • Options
    tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 39,677
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023. 
    If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset.  If you are conservative you don't think it is.

    We have another 10 years or so of this until Alito or maybe Thomas steps down?
    If you don't think Clarence Thomas is compromised, you're not paying attention. 
    I don't know why this has anything to do with what I said but yes, he seems to have excepted gifts and visits with the conservative elites.

    Now I don't know if any of the other Justices go out for Christmas hams with the powerful.  I would be interested to see what they all do though.
    it was a direct response to: 

    "If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset.  If you are conservative you don't think it is."


    If your response to everything that came out about Thomas in the last year is to assume that every other justice is equally compromised...  it brings us back to my sarcastic statement about not upsetting the sanctity and status quo of the supreme court. 

    If they're all on the take, leaving things alone doesn't seem like a good path forward. 

    In the end though, we're still answering your question about why people aren't up in arms about potentially expanding the supreme court. If it's already a corrupt institution, then the rest of the government SHOULD be discussing ways to improve it. 

    Shouldn't we WANT to have some trust in the highest court in the land? 
    No, i don't think anyone is compromised.  I said they all should be looked into.  That is a check and balance.

    If what Thomas has done is really a matter of ethics then why haven't anyone done anything about it?  They sure as hell went after Trump believing he did something wrong so why not go after the person whom won't be out in 4 years?

    I wonder if it's just politics and it is the status quo.

    You really do pick out some way off thoughts about what I say.  

    I still look at the SC as this.  The conservatives have the sway right now.  If you don't align that way you're looking for a way to get over to the other side to even it out.

    Not thrilled with the abortion overturn.  If they do start looking into other past cases and want to overturn those too then yeah, we have a big problem and I'd be ok with doing something to fix that.
    Thomas has to be corrupted by his gift taking.  I can't see a scenario where that sort of patronage doesn't lead to some bias, even if unintended on his part.  
    Every justice has at one time or another worked for someone high up.  The Kavanaugh guy was one I didn't understand how he gets through.  The vetting process is a joke.  

    I Like Beer GIFs  Tenor
    Sure, but not while they are a Justice.  Thomas has taken extensive gifts from people who have business before the court.  That's quite different than having worked for someone else high up at one point. 
    Kavanaugh I thought was a wee bit too much nepotism.  Yes, you meet people or work for them.  Him?  His resume was glowing with things you should take exception to.

    Maybe that's just me.
  • Options
    Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 10,709
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023. 
    If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset.  If you are conservative you don't think it is.

    We have another 10 years or so of this until Alito or maybe Thomas steps down?
    If you don't think Clarence Thomas is compromised, you're not paying attention. 
    I don't know why this has anything to do with what I said but yes, he seems to have excepted gifts and visits with the conservative elites.

    Now I don't know if any of the other Justices go out for Christmas hams with the powerful.  I would be interested to see what they all do though.
    it was a direct response to: 

    "If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset.  If you are conservative you don't think it is."


    If your response to everything that came out about Thomas in the last year is to assume that every other justice is equally compromised...  it brings us back to my sarcastic statement about not upsetting the sanctity and status quo of the supreme court. 

    If they're all on the take, leaving things alone doesn't seem like a good path forward. 

    In the end though, we're still answering your question about why people aren't up in arms about potentially expanding the supreme court. If it's already a corrupt institution, then the rest of the government SHOULD be discussing ways to improve it. 

    Shouldn't we WANT to have some trust in the highest court in the land? 
    No, i don't think anyone is compromised.  I said they all should be looked into.  That is a check and balance.

    If what Thomas has done is really a matter of ethics then why haven't anyone done anything about it?  They sure as hell went after Trump believing he did something wrong so why not go after the person whom won't be out in 4 years?

    I wonder if it's just politics and it is the status quo.

    You really do pick out some way off thoughts about what I say.  

    I still look at the SC as this.  The conservatives have the sway right now.  If you don't align that way you're looking for a way to get over to the other side to even it out.

    Not thrilled with the abortion overturn.  If they do start looking into other past cases and want to overturn those too then yeah, we have a big problem and I'd be ok with doing something to fix that.
    Thomas has to be corrupted by his gift taking.  I can't see a scenario where that sort of patronage doesn't lead to some bias, even if unintended on his part.  
    Every justice has at one time or another worked for someone high up.  The Kavanaugh guy was one I didn't understand how he gets through.  The vetting process is a joke.  

    I Like Beer GIFs  Tenor
    Sure, but not while they are a Justice.  Thomas has taken extensive gifts from people who have business before the court.  That's quite different than having worked for someone else high up at one point. 
    Kavanaugh I thought was a wee bit too much nepotism.  Yes, you meet people or work for them.  Him?  His resume was glowing with things you should take exception to.

    Maybe that's just me.
    It's not just you, you're on to something. 

    As I recall, there was something about a 6 figure debt he had that was paid off by a undisclosed party in advance of his nomination... that was never followed up on. (or if it was, it wasn't disclosed publically) 

    There's also been a lot of reports out there over the last couple of years about how much the FBI DIDN'T investigate him or follow up on leads in advance of his nomination. 
  • Options
    Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 6,302
    Nobody is talking about the dems wanting to expand the Supreme courts to 9?

    They want to move the goal posts.  Stop.  It will screw up in the end anyways.

    They’ll scream to change it for their favor then cry again when it backfires.

    ..
    So? That’s better than the current system. Let them keep increasing the justice count until it forces them to reach a compromise for amending the constitution. That will improve the court by lessening the impact one extremist president can havoc onto our laws. The constitution has no limit on justice appointments for this exact reason, and it’s the only real remedy that currently exists politically 

    The current court is a joke, but since it has the customary nine justices, enough believe it’s a reasonable court. Let’s hope not too many women needing mifepristone for managed miscarriages don’t die as a potential result of this extremist court. Already the appeals court seems inclined to support the potential ban.

    It's like pouting when you don't get your way.

    There was another rule the dems changed a while back that backfired on them too.

    Leave it alone.  Things are cyclical.
    Scotus appointments are anything but cyclical. They are literal lifetime appointments. 

    I get what you're saying about moving the goal posts, but the GOP ratfucking of the court in Obama's last year & trump's term was bullshit. 
    & like Mickey said, it's not like expanding the court would be unprecedented. Why this is a line that can't be crossed while the GOP is in the process of ratfucking our elections doesn't make sense to me.

    If only one party is following the rules, what's the point of having them? 
    Heres it to me in a nutshell.  The dems are upset because the repubs are having their way with things.  That's how a majority works.  It's not ideal but that is how the system is set up right now.

    I don't thinks adding more justices to the bench is a good idea.  It could actually get worse.  Then what do you do?  Add even more if they can?

    The GOP ratfucked that court, but dem's shouldn't respond, because.... the GOP may respond with more ratfucking?

    You're complaining about potential chicanery from democrats while ignoring existing chicanery by the GOP. You recognize that, right? 

    I ask again: If only one party is following the rules, what's the point of having them? Why should one party be held back by rules when the other party clearly isn't?
    What rules are the republican court breaking?  Do I agree with what they are doing, no but I don't see them not playing by the rules.

    The senate is constitutionally required to advise and consent on President Court nominations. So technically,  the senate did not follow the rules provided by the constitution on the Garland nom

    Also, the gop removed the filibuster for SCOTUS appointments, which has directly led to extremist justices on the court. That supports the "gop making up the rules" assertion 
  • Options
    Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom's Posts: 18,467
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023. 
    If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset.  If you are conservative you don't think it is.

    We have another 10 years or so of this until Alito or maybe Thomas steps down?
    If you don't think Clarence Thomas is compromised, you're not paying attention. 
    I don't know why this has anything to do with what I said but yes, he seems to have excepted gifts and visits with the conservative elites.

    Now I don't know if any of the other Justices go out for Christmas hams with the powerful.  I would be interested to see what they all do though.
    it was a direct response to: 

    "If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset.  If you are conservative you don't think it is."


    If your response to everything that came out about Thomas in the last year is to assume that every other justice is equally compromised...  it brings us back to my sarcastic statement about not upsetting the sanctity and status quo of the supreme court. 

    If they're all on the take, leaving things alone doesn't seem like a good path forward. 

    In the end though, we're still answering your question about why people aren't up in arms about potentially expanding the supreme court. If it's already a corrupt institution, then the rest of the government SHOULD be discussing ways to improve it. 

    Shouldn't we WANT to have some trust in the highest court in the land? 
    No, i don't think anyone is compromised.  I said they all should be looked into.  That is a check and balance.

    If what Thomas has done is really a matter of ethics then why haven't anyone done anything about it?  They sure as hell went after Trump believing he did something wrong so why not go after the person whom won't be out in 4 years?

    I wonder if it's just politics and it is the status quo.

    You really do pick out some way off thoughts about what I say.  

    I still look at the SC as this.  The conservatives have the sway right now.  If you don't align that way you're looking for a way to get over to the other side to even it out.

    Not thrilled with the abortion overturn.  If they do start looking into other past cases and want to overturn those too then yeah, we have a big problem and I'd be ok with doing something to fix that.
    Thomas has to be corrupted by his gift taking.  I can't see a scenario where that sort of patronage doesn't lead to some bias, even if unintended on his part.  
    Every justice has at one time or another worked for someone high up.  The Kavanaugh guy was one I didn't understand how he gets through.  The vetting process is a joke.  

    I Like Beer GIFs  Tenor
    Sure, but not while they are a Justice.  Thomas has taken extensive gifts from people who have business before the court.  That's quite different than having worked for someone else high up at one point. 
    Kavanaugh I thought was a wee bit too much nepotism.  Yes, you meet people or work for them.  Him?  His resume was glowing with things you should take exception to.

    Maybe that's just me.
    It's not just you, you're on to something. 

    As I recall, there was something about a 6 figure debt he had that was paid off by a undisclosed party in advance of his nomination... that was never followed up on. (or if it was, it wasn't disclosed publically) 

    There's also been a lot of reports out there over the last couple of years about how much the FBI DIDN'T investigate him or follow up on leads in advance of his nomination. 
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaugh-piled-up-credit-card-debt-by-purchasing-nationals-tickets-white-house-says/2018/07/11/8e3ad7d6-8460-11e8-9e80-403a221946a7_story.html

    yeah he said he racked up debt buying baseball tickets
    Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
    2020: Oakland, Oakland:  2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
    2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
    2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
  • Options
    mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,984
    Nobody is talking about the dems wanting to expand the Supreme courts to 9?

    They want to move the goal posts.  Stop.  It will screw up in the end anyways.

    They’ll scream to change it for their favor then cry again when it backfires.

    ..
    So? That’s better than the current system. Let them keep increasing the justice count until it forces them to reach a compromise for amending the constitution. That will improve the court by lessening the impact one extremist president can havoc onto our laws. The constitution has no limit on justice appointments for this exact reason, and it’s the only real remedy that currently exists politically 

    The current court is a joke, but since it has the customary nine justices, enough believe it’s a reasonable court. Let’s hope not too many women needing mifepristone for managed miscarriages don’t die as a potential result of this extremist court. Already the appeals court seems inclined to support the potential ban.

    It's like pouting when you don't get your way.

    There was another rule the dems changed a while back that backfired on them too.

    Leave it alone.  Things are cyclical.
    Scotus appointments are anything but cyclical. They are literal lifetime appointments. 

    I get what you're saying about moving the goal posts, but the GOP ratfucking of the court in Obama's last year & trump's term was bullshit. 
    & like Mickey said, it's not like expanding the court would be unprecedented. Why this is a line that can't be crossed while the GOP is in the process of ratfucking our elections doesn't make sense to me.

    If only one party is following the rules, what's the point of having them? 
    Heres it to me in a nutshell.  The dems are upset because the repubs are having their way with things.  That's how a majority works.  It's not ideal but that is how the system is set up right now.

    I don't thinks adding more justices to the bench is a good idea.  It could actually get worse.  Then what do you do?  Add even more if they can?

    The GOP ratfucked that court, but dem's shouldn't respond, because.... the GOP may respond with more ratfucking?

    You're complaining about potential chicanery from democrats while ignoring existing chicanery by the GOP. You recognize that, right? 

    I ask again: If only one party is following the rules, what's the point of having them? Why should one party be held back by rules when the other party clearly isn't?
    What rules are the republican court breaking?  Do I agree with what they are doing, no but I don't see them not playing by the rules.

    The senate is constitutionally required to advise and consent on President Court nominations. So technically,  the senate did not follow the rules provided by the constitution on the Garland nom

    Also, the gop removed the filibuster for SCOTUS appointments, which has directly led to extremist justices on the court. That supports the "gop making up the rules" assertion 
    Yes, and I don't think you should have the filibuster there.  But adding seats to the court would take 60.  
  • Options
    mickeyratmickeyrat up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,683
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Options
    Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 37,259
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Options
    HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 36,246
    "you can hire me, but you can't fire me". sounds about right. 
    Flight Risk out NOW!

    www.headstonesband.com




  • Options
    Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 10,709
  • Options
    tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 39,677
    mickeyrat said:
    I'll be damned.  The founding Fathers forgot the checks and balance on the Supreme Court.

    Whoda thunkit?
  • Options
    tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 39,677
    I take high and mighty Beax w a grain of salt.  He is well informed.

    2065 though for Conservative control?  There are 3 Justices in or at their 70's now that are conservative.  They aren't living for another 40 years on the court.

    So the 13 districts he brought up is a great point.  Nobody has mentioned that and I can get behind that actually.

    Other things that were brought up is that this started in 2016.  It seems Trump being elected has got a whole lot of people still hell bent for leather about that.

    So the 13 districts is the greatest marketing tool anyone could use to want to expand the courts and I would back that up.

    So.  You changed my mind.  How about that?!?
  • Options
    mickeyratmickeyrat up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,683
    edited May 2023
    I take high and mighty Beax w a grain of salt.  He is well informed.

    2065 though for Conservative control?  There are 3 Justices in or at their 70's now that are conservative.  They aren't living for another 40 years on the court.

    So the 13 districts he brought up is a great point.  Nobody has mentioned that and I can get behind that actually.

    Other things that were brought up is that this started in 2016.  It seems Trump being elected has got a whole lot of people still hell bent for leather about that.

    So the 13 districts is the greatest marketing tool anyone could use to want to expand the courts and I would back that up.

    So.  You changed my mind.  How about that?!?

    That's why McConnell didn't give a shit about Trump or what he did or didn't do or any of that shit , this was McConnell's opportunity to pack all the federal Judiciary with judges of his choosing.

    AFTER blocking Obamas choices all those years.
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Options
    tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 39,677
    mickeyrat said:
    I take high and mighty Beax w a grain of salt.  He is well informed.

    2065 though for Conservative control?  There are 3 Justices in or at their 70's now that are conservative.  They aren't living for another 40 years on the court.

    So the 13 districts he brought up is a great point.  Nobody has mentioned that and I can get behind that actually.

    Other things that were brought up is that this started in 2016.  It seems Trump being elected has got a whole lot of people still hell bent for leather about that.

    So the 13 districts is the greatest marketing tool anyone could use to want to expand the courts and I would back that up.

    So.  You changed my mind.  How about that?!?

    That's why McConnell didn't give a shit about Trump or what he did or didn't do or any of that shit , this was McConnell's opportunity to pack all the federal Judiciary with judges of his choosing.

    AFTER blocking Obamas choices all those years.
    Didn't Obama get two justices in?

    The last one when they couldn't get a replacement for Ginsberg still befuddles me.  Read on that and still don't understand how that happened and people let it happen.

    Ginsberg should have stepped down a while ago too.  She deserves some blame for where we are now.
  • Options
    Merkin BallerMerkin Baller Posts: 10,709
    edited May 2023
    I take high and mighty Beax w a grain of salt.  He is well informed.

    2065 though for Conservative control?  There are 3 Justices in or at their 70's now that are conservative.  They aren't living for another 40 years on the court.

    So the 13 districts he brought up is a great point.  Nobody has mentioned that and I can get behind that actually.

    Other things that were brought up is that this started in 2016.  It seems Trump being elected has got a whole lot of people still hell bent for leather about that.

    So the 13 districts is the greatest marketing tool anyone could use to want to expand the courts and I would back that up.

    So.  You changed my mind.  How about that?!?

    You keep mentioning trump as if this is about revenge for that, but IMO he's an afterthought here... I think a lot of people have concerns about people like Kavanaugh, Thomas and / or ACB being on the bench for the rest of their lives, and rightfully so. 

    Presidents are cyclical, these SCOTUS appointments are not, we have to wait for them to die or willingly step down, and those three people I just mentioned are definitely a big reason why 36% of Americans have little to no confidence in the court (according to that video) 

    That bit Beau said about only 12% of women having confidence in the supreme court stood out to me... man, if Democrats had any sense of forward thinking (or self preservation) they will be making the scotus roll back of reproductive rights a major talking point in 2024 and broadcasting the underhanded way the GOP rammed those appointments through. 


    RE: changing your mind, that was more Beau than me, but I'll take it.  :D 
  • Options
    mickeyratmickeyrat up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,683
    mickeyrat said:
    I take high and mighty Beax w a grain of salt.  He is well informed.

    2065 though for Conservative control?  There are 3 Justices in or at their 70's now that are conservative.  They aren't living for another 40 years on the court.

    So the 13 districts he brought up is a great point.  Nobody has mentioned that and I can get behind that actually.

    Other things that were brought up is that this started in 2016.  It seems Trump being elected has got a whole lot of people still hell bent for leather about that.

    So the 13 districts is the greatest marketing tool anyone could use to want to expand the courts and I would back that up.

    So.  You changed my mind.  How about that?!?

    That's why McConnell didn't give a shit about Trump or what he did or didn't do or any of that shit , this was McConnell's opportunity to pack all the federal Judiciary with judges of his choosing.

    AFTER blocking Obamas choices all those years.
    Didn't Obama get two justices in?

    The last one when they couldn't get a replacement for Ginsberg still befuddles me.  Read on that and still don't understand how that happened and people let it happen.

    Ginsberg should have stepped down a while ago too.  She deserves some blame for where we are now.

    yes he did. Before Harry Reid retired.......
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Options
    tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 39,677
    I take high and mighty Beax w a grain of salt.  He is well informed.

    2065 though for Conservative control?  There are 3 Justices in or at their 70's now that are conservative.  They aren't living for another 40 years on the court.

    So the 13 districts he brought up is a great point.  Nobody has mentioned that and I can get behind that actually.

    Other things that were brought up is that this started in 2016.  It seems Trump being elected has got a whole lot of people still hell bent for leather about that.

    So the 13 districts is the greatest marketing tool anyone could use to want to expand the courts and I would back that up.

    So.  You changed my mind.  How about that?!?

    You keep mentioning trump as if this is about revenge for that, but IMO he's an afterthought here... I think a lot of people have concerns about people like Kavanaugh, Thomas and / or ACB being on the bench for the rest of their lives, and rightfully so. 

    Presidents are cyclical, these SCOTUS appointments are not, we have to wait for them to die or willingly step down, and those three people I just mentioned are definitely a big reason why 36% of Americans have little to no confidence in the court (according to that video) 

    That bit Beau said about only 12% of women having confidence in the supreme court stood out to me... man, if Democrats had any sense of forward thinking (or self preservation) they will be making the scotus roll back of reproductive rights a major talking point in 2024 and broadcasting the underhanded way the GOP rammed those appointments through. 


    RE: changing your mind, that was more Beau than me, but I'll take it.  :D 
    The percentages make sense though at 36%.  You generally have 1/3 right, left and swing.  It sounds like a great talking point but I don't think it is that drastic as it seems.

    So I just looked at Polls, see attached, and the approval rating was through the roof a few years ago at 60%. I wonder about these polls sometimes too.  Who are you asking?  Demographics.

    At this point I would agree with the 36% as accurate though.

    Use it as a lightning rod to gather the troops come 2024.

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/4732/supreme-court.aspx#:~:text=Trend in U.S. Supreme Court,is the highest such reading.
  • Options
    mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,984
    I take high and mighty Beax w a grain of salt.  He is well informed.

    2065 though for Conservative control?  There are 3 Justices in or at their 70's now that are conservative.  They aren't living for another 40 years on the court.

    So the 13 districts he brought up is a great point.  Nobody has mentioned that and I can get behind that actually.

    Other things that were brought up is that this started in 2016.  It seems Trump being elected has got a whole lot of people still hell bent for leather about that.

    So the 13 districts is the greatest marketing tool anyone could use to want to expand the courts and I would back that up.

    So.  You changed my mind.  How about that?!?

    You keep mentioning trump as if this is about revenge for that, but IMO he's an afterthought here... I think a lot of people have concerns about people like Kavanaugh, Thomas and / or ACB being on the bench for the rest of their lives, and rightfully so. 

    Presidents are cyclical, these SCOTUS appointments are not, we have to wait for them to die or willingly step down, and those three people I just mentioned are definitely a big reason why 36% of Americans have little to no confidence in the court (according to that video) 

    That bit Beau said about only 12% of women having confidence in the supreme court stood out to me... man, if Democrats had any sense of forward thinking (or self preservation) they will be making the scotus roll back of reproductive rights a major talking point in 2024 and broadcasting the underhanded way the GOP rammed those appointments through. 


    RE: changing your mind, that was more Beau than me, but I'll take it.  :D 
    The percentages make sense though at 36%.  You generally have 1/3 right, left and swing.  It sounds like a great talking point but I don't think it is that drastic as it seems.

    So I just looked at Polls, see attached, and the approval rating was through the roof a few years ago at 60%. I wonder about these polls sometimes too.  Who are you asking?  Demographics.

    At this point I would agree with the 36% as accurate though.

    Use it as a lightning rod to gather the troops come 2024.

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/4732/supreme-court.aspx#:~:text=Trend in U.S. Supreme Court,is the highest such reading.
    I think it's pretty clearly Roe V Wade that changed the approval.  
  • Options
    tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 39,677
    mrussel1 said:
    I take high and mighty Beax w a grain of salt.  He is well informed.

    2065 though for Conservative control?  There are 3 Justices in or at their 70's now that are conservative.  They aren't living for another 40 years on the court.

    So the 13 districts he brought up is a great point.  Nobody has mentioned that and I can get behind that actually.

    Other things that were brought up is that this started in 2016.  It seems Trump being elected has got a whole lot of people still hell bent for leather about that.

    So the 13 districts is the greatest marketing tool anyone could use to want to expand the courts and I would back that up.

    So.  You changed my mind.  How about that?!?

    You keep mentioning trump as if this is about revenge for that, but IMO he's an afterthought here... I think a lot of people have concerns about people like Kavanaugh, Thomas and / or ACB being on the bench for the rest of their lives, and rightfully so. 

    Presidents are cyclical, these SCOTUS appointments are not, we have to wait for them to die or willingly step down, and those three people I just mentioned are definitely a big reason why 36% of Americans have little to no confidence in the court (according to that video) 

    That bit Beau said about only 12% of women having confidence in the supreme court stood out to me... man, if Democrats had any sense of forward thinking (or self preservation) they will be making the scotus roll back of reproductive rights a major talking point in 2024 and broadcasting the underhanded way the GOP rammed those appointments through. 


    RE: changing your mind, that was more Beau than me, but I'll take it.  :D 
    The percentages make sense though at 36%.  You generally have 1/3 right, left and swing.  It sounds like a great talking point but I don't think it is that drastic as it seems.

    So I just looked at Polls, see attached, and the approval rating was through the roof a few years ago at 60%. I wonder about these polls sometimes too.  Who are you asking?  Demographics.

    At this point I would agree with the 36% as accurate though.

    Use it as a lightning rod to gather the troops come 2024.

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/4732/supreme-court.aspx#:~:text=Trend in U.S. Supreme Court,is the highest such reading.
    I think it's pretty clearly Roe V Wade that changed the approval.  
    Yes, absolutely so what was it that made it so low before?  It would be interesting to see the reasons and what was going on at the time.
  • Options
    gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 22,435
    mrussel1 said:
    I take high and mighty Beax w a grain of salt.  He is well informed.

    2065 though for Conservative control?  There are 3 Justices in or at their 70's now that are conservative.  They aren't living for another 40 years on the court.

    So the 13 districts he brought up is a great point.  Nobody has mentioned that and I can get behind that actually.

    Other things that were brought up is that this started in 2016.  It seems Trump being elected has got a whole lot of people still hell bent for leather about that.

    So the 13 districts is the greatest marketing tool anyone could use to want to expand the courts and I would back that up.

    So.  You changed my mind.  How about that?!?

    You keep mentioning trump as if this is about revenge for that, but IMO he's an afterthought here... I think a lot of people have concerns about people like Kavanaugh, Thomas and / or ACB being on the bench for the rest of their lives, and rightfully so. 

    Presidents are cyclical, these SCOTUS appointments are not, we have to wait for them to die or willingly step down, and those three people I just mentioned are definitely a big reason why 36% of Americans have little to no confidence in the court (according to that video) 

    That bit Beau said about only 12% of women having confidence in the supreme court stood out to me... man, if Democrats had any sense of forward thinking (or self preservation) they will be making the scotus roll back of reproductive rights a major talking point in 2024 and broadcasting the underhanded way the GOP rammed those appointments through. 


    RE: changing your mind, that was more Beau than me, but I'll take it.  :D 
    The percentages make sense though at 36%.  You generally have 1/3 right, left and swing.  It sounds like a great talking point but I don't think it is that drastic as it seems.

    So I just looked at Polls, see attached, and the approval rating was through the roof a few years ago at 60%. I wonder about these polls sometimes too.  Who are you asking?  Demographics.

    At this point I would agree with the 36% as accurate though.

    Use it as a lightning rod to gather the troops come 2024.

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/4732/supreme-court.aspx#:~:text=Trend in U.S. Supreme Court,is the highest such reading.
    I think it's pretty clearly Roe V Wade that changed the approval.  
    Yes, absolutely so what was it that made it so low before?  It would be interesting to see the reasons and what was going on at the time.
    see citizens united
    There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Options
    gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 22,435
    mrussel1 said:
    I take high and mighty Beax w a grain of salt.  He is well informed.

    2065 though for Conservative control?  There are 3 Justices in or at their 70's now that are conservative.  They aren't living for another 40 years on the court.

    So the 13 districts he brought up is a great point.  Nobody has mentioned that and I can get behind that actually.

    Other things that were brought up is that this started in 2016.  It seems Trump being elected has got a whole lot of people still hell bent for leather about that.

    So the 13 districts is the greatest marketing tool anyone could use to want to expand the courts and I would back that up.

    So.  You changed my mind.  How about that?!?

    You keep mentioning trump as if this is about revenge for that, but IMO he's an afterthought here... I think a lot of people have concerns about people like Kavanaugh, Thomas and / or ACB being on the bench for the rest of their lives, and rightfully so. 

    Presidents are cyclical, these SCOTUS appointments are not, we have to wait for them to die or willingly step down, and those three people I just mentioned are definitely a big reason why 36% of Americans have little to no confidence in the court (according to that video) 

    That bit Beau said about only 12% of women having confidence in the supreme court stood out to me... man, if Democrats had any sense of forward thinking (or self preservation) they will be making the scotus roll back of reproductive rights a major talking point in 2024 and broadcasting the underhanded way the GOP rammed those appointments through. 


    RE: changing your mind, that was more Beau than me, but I'll take it.  :D 
    The percentages make sense though at 36%.  You generally have 1/3 right, left and swing.  It sounds like a great talking point but I don't think it is that drastic as it seems.

    So I just looked at Polls, see attached, and the approval rating was through the roof a few years ago at 60%. I wonder about these polls sometimes too.  Who are you asking?  Demographics.

    At this point I would agree with the 36% as accurate though.

    Use it as a lightning rod to gather the troops come 2024.

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/4732/supreme-court.aspx#:~:text=Trend in U.S. Supreme Court,is the highest such reading.
    I think it's pretty clearly Roe V Wade that changed the approval.  
    Yes, absolutely so what was it that made it so low before?  It would be interesting to see the reasons and what was going on at the time.
    see citizens united
    also see where they handed the presidency to w.
    There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Options
    mickeyratmickeyrat up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,683
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Sign In or Register to comment.