SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)
Comments
-
tbergs said:
Uh, if any one them didn't have a problem with 3 white Christians being appointed during Trump, yeah, I have a problem with them as well, but that wasn't the question they were asked or whether they had an issue with the last 3 appointees. You can be upset about all of them, none of them or some of them. I understand the fact that some people wanted Biden not to say the quiet part out loud, but he did. He specifically named the race and gender he intended to put on the bench based on the qualifications. I guess if Trump spoke the quiet part out loud (aka I want 3 bible bangers who will possibly overturn Roe v. Wade and at least 1 partisan beer swilling frat boy) that wouldn't have been a good look so he pretended the position was open for all qualified candidates. Bullshit. I thought the Trump humpers loved to tout his "No More Bullshit" mentality, but that's hogwash.JB16057 said:
What the fuck ever. You don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. How about address the other 76% of Americans or 54% of Democrats feel the same way I do? Are you going to say the same thing about their "silence" as well?tbergs said:
Yes, but your silence on his 3 white appointees and non-stop grievances about a specific race/gender being named by Biden to the court speaks volumes about what you care about, or don't care about.JB16057 said:
Trump did not promise the position to 1 race. That's the difference. Had Trump done that, I wouldn't have agreed with him either.gimmesometruth27 said:
why are you so concerned about racial equality all of the sudden?JB16057 said:gimmesometruth27 said:
we cannot have that with 9 justices.JB16057 said:
Yes, I totally agree. I don't even have an issue if he had said, "I will not be nominating a person that is white." I agree that there needs to be racial diversity on the SCOTUS but it isn't true racial equality to pledge it to 1 ethnic group that is represented when other ethnic groups are not.gimmesometruth27 said:"god please let it be another young, conservative, bible thumping, white guy."
sounds like an unpopular position. as it should be.
and even if we did have one justice from every ethnicity, even that one person would not represent everyone in that ethnicity.
what about all of the uncle ruckuses of the world?
wait i guess clarence thomas could represent uncle ruckus, but not many of the rest of the african american community.Yeah but the sky is blue!See, I too can argue points that you aren't trying to make like what you are doing to me. You are trying to deflect from the fact that this administration promised racial equity but didn't bother giving under represented ethnic groups a chance at a seat on the SCOTUS. That is not racial equity.
you were posting here a year ago. where were you with this message during the coney-barrett nomination?
i am sorry but it is difficult for me to believe your sincerity about this this time around.Making a campaign promise to nominate someone based on race and gender is wrong, whether or not Bidens predecessor was horrific. Blacks will now be over represented on the Court, and Biden is now adding to the Trump trend of replacing Jews on the court, but unlike Biden, I am not judging based on demographics. Ironic, considering what happened a few years ago in Charlottesville.0 -
Lerxst1992 said:
Why?tbergs said:
Uh, if any one them didn't have a problem with 3 white Christians being appointed during Trump, yeah, I have a problem with them as well, but that wasn't the question they were asked or whether they had an issue with the last 3 appointees. You can be upset about all of them, none of them or some of them. I understand the fact that some people wanted Biden not to say the quiet part out loud, but he did. He specifically named the race and gender he intended to put on the bench based on the qualifications. I guess if Trump spoke the quiet part out loud (aka I want 3 bible bangers who will possibly overturn Roe v. Wade and at least 1 partisan beer swilling frat boy) that wouldn't have been a good look so he pretended the position was open for all qualified candidates. Bullshit. I thought the Trump humpers loved to tout his "No More Bullshit" mentality, but that's hogwash.JB16057 said:
What the fuck ever. You don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. How about address the other 76% of Americans or 54% of Democrats feel the same way I do? Are you going to say the same thing about their "silence" as well?tbergs said:
Yes, but your silence on his 3 white appointees and non-stop grievances about a specific race/gender being named by Biden to the court speaks volumes about what you care about, or don't care about.JB16057 said:
Trump did not promise the position to 1 race. That's the difference. Had Trump done that, I wouldn't have agreed with him either.gimmesometruth27 said:
why are you so concerned about racial equality all of the sudden?JB16057 said:gimmesometruth27 said:
we cannot have that with 9 justices.JB16057 said:
Yes, I totally agree. I don't even have an issue if he had said, "I will not be nominating a person that is white." I agree that there needs to be racial diversity on the SCOTUS but it isn't true racial equality to pledge it to 1 ethnic group that is represented when other ethnic groups are not.gimmesometruth27 said:"god please let it be another young, conservative, bible thumping, white guy."
sounds like an unpopular position. as it should be.
and even if we did have one justice from every ethnicity, even that one person would not represent everyone in that ethnicity.
what about all of the uncle ruckuses of the world?
wait i guess clarence thomas could represent uncle ruckus, but not many of the rest of the african american community.Yeah but the sky is blue!See, I too can argue points that you aren't trying to make like what you are doing to me. You are trying to deflect from the fact that this administration promised racial equity but didn't bother giving under represented ethnic groups a chance at a seat on the SCOTUS. That is not racial equity.
you were posting here a year ago. where were you with this message during the coney-barrett nomination?
i am sorry but it is difficult for me to believe your sincerity about this this time around.Making a campaign promise to nominate someone based on race and gender is wrong, whether or not Bidens predecessor was horrific. Blacks will now be over represented on the Court, and Biden is now adding to the Trump trend of replacing Jews on the court, but unlike Biden, I am not judging based on demographics. Ironic, considering what happened a few years ago in Charlottesville.Of the 113 Supreme Court justices in US history, all but 6 have been white men
There have been 113 Supreme Court justices in history. Only 6 have been minorities - CNNPolitics
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©0 -
I can't tell if you're serious about "blacks will now be over represented on the Court".Lerxst1992 said:tbergs said:
Uh, if any one them didn't have a problem with 3 white Christians being appointed during Trump, yeah, I have a problem with them as well, but that wasn't the question they were asked or whether they had an issue with the last 3 appointees. You can be upset about all of them, none of them or some of them. I understand the fact that some people wanted Biden not to say the quiet part out loud, but he did. He specifically named the race and gender he intended to put on the bench based on the qualifications. I guess if Trump spoke the quiet part out loud (aka I want 3 bible bangers who will possibly overturn Roe v. Wade and at least 1 partisan beer swilling frat boy) that wouldn't have been a good look so he pretended the position was open for all qualified candidates. Bullshit. I thought the Trump humpers loved to tout his "No More Bullshit" mentality, but that's hogwash.JB16057 said:
What the fuck ever. You don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. How about address the other 76% of Americans or 54% of Democrats feel the same way I do? Are you going to say the same thing about their "silence" as well?tbergs said:
Yes, but your silence on his 3 white appointees and non-stop grievances about a specific race/gender being named by Biden to the court speaks volumes about what you care about, or don't care about.JB16057 said:
Trump did not promise the position to 1 race. That's the difference. Had Trump done that, I wouldn't have agreed with him either.gimmesometruth27 said:
why are you so concerned about racial equality all of the sudden?JB16057 said:gimmesometruth27 said:
we cannot have that with 9 justices.JB16057 said:
Yes, I totally agree. I don't even have an issue if he had said, "I will not be nominating a person that is white." I agree that there needs to be racial diversity on the SCOTUS but it isn't true racial equality to pledge it to 1 ethnic group that is represented when other ethnic groups are not.gimmesometruth27 said:"god please let it be another young, conservative, bible thumping, white guy."
sounds like an unpopular position. as it should be.
and even if we did have one justice from every ethnicity, even that one person would not represent everyone in that ethnicity.
what about all of the uncle ruckuses of the world?
wait i guess clarence thomas could represent uncle ruckus, but not many of the rest of the african american community.Yeah but the sky is blue!See, I too can argue points that you aren't trying to make like what you are doing to me. You are trying to deflect from the fact that this administration promised racial equity but didn't bother giving under represented ethnic groups a chance at a seat on the SCOTUS. That is not racial equity.
you were posting here a year ago. where were you with this message during the coney-barrett nomination?
i am sorry but it is difficult for me to believe your sincerity about this this time around.Making a campaign promise to nominate someone based on race and gender is wrong, whether or not Bidens predecessor was horrific. Blacks will now be over represented on the Court, and Biden is now adding to the Trump trend of replacing Jews on the court, but unlike Biden, I am not judging based on demographics. Ironic, considering what happened a few years ago in Charlottesville.It's a hopeless situation...0 -
Kind of funny that folks are upset that President Biden announced on the campaign trail and as POTUS that he would name a yet to be announced qualified black woman to SCOTUS but didn’t bat an eye and nary a peep when POOTWH released a list of specific names of candidates, inclusive of sitting Senators. But hey, Biden is POTUS now and we’re not allowed to compare and contrast the current with the past. That said, I don’t see too many Asians on POOTWH’s list. Damn you Brandon!
https://ballotpedia.org/Complete_list_of_Donald_Trump%27s_potential_nominees_to_the_U.S._Supreme_Court
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©0 -
Trump's list is more racially diverse than Biden's list.Halifax2TheMax said:Kind of funny that folks are upset that President Biden announced on the campaign trail and as POTUS that he would name a yet to be announced qualified black woman to SCOTUS but didn’t bat an eye and nary a peep when POOTWH released a list of specific names of candidates, inclusive of sitting Senators. But hey, Biden is POTUS now and we’re not allowed to compare and contrast the current with the past. That said, I don’t see too many Asians on POOTWH’s list. Damn you Brandon!
https://ballotpedia.org/Complete_list_of_Donald_Trump%27s_potential_nominees_to_the_U.S._Supreme_Court
0 -
But what about all the other qualified candidates not on the list? POOTWH discriminated against the qualified. Ted Crud made the list. Why??? What were his qualifications? I’d fathom he’s not. What a mockery of the SC as an institution, particularly when you include Tom “I’m a Warrior, Hear Me Roar” Cotton and Josh Hee Hawley. But heaven forbid a qualified Black woman be honestly considered. Oh the horror.JB16057 said:
Trump's list is more racially diverse than Biden's list.Halifax2TheMax said:Kind of funny that folks are upset that President Biden announced on the campaign trail and as POTUS that he would name a yet to be announced qualified black woman to SCOTUS but didn’t bat an eye and nary a peep when POOTWH released a list of specific names of candidates, inclusive of sitting Senators. But hey, Biden is POTUS now and we’re not allowed to compare and contrast the current with the past. That said, I don’t see too many Asians on POOTWH’s list. Damn you Brandon!
https://ballotpedia.org/Complete_list_of_Donald_Trump%27s_potential_nominees_to_the_U.S._Supreme_Court09/15/1998 & 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©0 -
https://apnews.com/article/stephen-breyer-us-supreme-court-religion-boston-massachusetts-a872f0bfe945ca59d5077515449ec4b4
On the one had, I love seeing Boston take one on the chin; on the other hand, it's concerning to me how the US continues to weaken the separation of church and state with a bunch of careless zealots on the SCOTUS.I SAW PEARL JAM0 -
"...though nothing prevents Boston from changing its policies going forward.”dankind said:https://apnews.com/article/stephen-breyer-us-supreme-court-religion-boston-massachusetts-a872f0bfe945ca59d5077515449ec4b4
On the one had, I love seeing Boston take one on the chin; on the other hand, it's concerning to me how the US continues to weaken the separation of church and state with a bunch of careless zealots on the SCOTUS.
_____________________________________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 '140 -
Yeah, I guess they need to clearly state that since it's a government building in the US and since the US government was founded upon the idea of keeping the church and state separate, religious flags and other religious symbols are henceforth forbidden from being displayed on the premises.mickeyrat said:
"...though nothing prevents Boston from changing its policies going forward.”dankind said:https://apnews.com/article/stephen-breyer-us-supreme-court-religion-boston-massachusetts-a872f0bfe945ca59d5077515449ec4b4
On the one had, I love seeing Boston take one on the chin; on the other hand, it's concerning to me how the US continues to weaken the separation of church and state with a bunch of careless zealots on the SCOTUS.
Because the SCOTUS are bunch of careless zealots that now require a municipality to waste time and tax dollars to write such a footnote in Ye Olde Book of Duh. It's concerning that they even took their time with such a bullshit culture war case.
I SAW PEARL JAM0 -
It was a 9-0 ruling. I don’t think there is an agenda to weaken the separation of church and state, but they looked at the specific facts of the case and ruled appropriately. I find it hard to believe that the liberal judges would be part of this agenda.dankind said:https://apnews.com/article/stephen-breyer-us-supreme-court-religion-boston-massachusetts-a872f0bfe945ca59d5077515449ec4b4
On the one had, I love seeing Boston take one on the chin; on the other hand, it's concerning to me how the US continues to weaken the separation of church and state with a bunch of careless zealots on the SCOTUS.I am stoked that there is a 9-0 ruling. I get that the SC only sees the gray area cases, but the 5-4 votes are the ones that bother me the most. It just seems like it is less about application of the law at that point and more about personal beliefs.0 -
There's been a long-running agenda to weaken the separation of church and state, and the fact that the SCOTUS even took the time, effort, and taxpayer dollars to rule on such a ludicrous nothing of a case signals to me that they are now on board with that agenda. Unanimously, I might add.bootlegger10 said:
It was a 9-0 ruling. I don’t think there is an agenda to weaken the separation of church and state, but they looked at the specific facts of the case and ruled appropriately. I find it hard to believe that the liberal judges would be part of this agenda.dankind said:https://apnews.com/article/stephen-breyer-us-supreme-court-religion-boston-massachusetts-a872f0bfe945ca59d5077515449ec4b4
On the one had, I love seeing Boston take one on the chin; on the other hand, it's concerning to me how the US continues to weaken the separation of church and state with a bunch of careless zealots on the SCOTUS.I am stoked that there is a 9-0 ruling. I get that the SC only sees the gray area cases, but the 5-4 votes are the ones that bother me the most. It just seems like it is less about application of the law at that point and more about personal beliefs.
Make it reciprocal, and tax the fuck out of houses of worship!I SAW PEARL JAM0 -
Fuck this group of zealots.It's a hopeless situation...0
-
We were a white Christian nation then, we are a white Christian nation now and a white Christian nation we will always be!Post edited by Halifax2TheMax on09/15/1998 & 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©0 -
Funny that some are more worried that there was a leak rather than established precedence is being over turned.Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
At this point we don't know who leaked it and for what purpose (was it a conservative or a liberal). The leak, though, represents further politicization of the court and the process and that is a bad precedent. There can be outrage about both.static111 said:Funny that some are more worried that there was a leak rather than established precedence is being over turned.0 -
Wait there was a time when the court wasn't political? Or did that just start when Mcconnel didn't allow Obama an appointment and then rammed whats her name in after RBG passed?bootlegger10 said:
At this point we don't know who leaked it and for what purpose (was it a conservative or a liberal). The leak, though, represents further politicization of the court and the process and that is a bad precedent. There can be outrage about both.static111 said:Funny that some are more worried that there was a leak rather than established precedence is being over turned.Scio me nihil scire
There are no kings inside the gates of eden0 -
I said further politicization. You can be against the leak and against the proposed opinion. Obviously the leak is not as important as the opinion but still should not happen.static111 said:
Wait there was a time when the court wasn't political? Or did that just start when Mcconnel didn't allow Obama an appointment and then rammed whats her name in after RBG passed?bootlegger10 said:
At this point we don't know who leaked it and for what purpose (was it a conservative or a liberal). The leak, though, represents further politicization of the court and the process and that is a bad precedent. There can be outrage about both.static111 said:Funny that some are more worried that there was a leak rather than established precedence is being over turned.0 -
This seems to be a planned and controlled leak to help ease outrage and gauge response before it becomes the law of the land. This leak makes sense. The conservative side of the court disgusts me like never before.bootlegger10 said:
I said further politicization. You can be against the leak and against the proposed opinion. Obviously the leak is not as important as the opinion but still should not happen.static111 said:
Wait there was a time when the court wasn't political? Or did that just start when Mcconnel didn't allow Obama an appointment and then rammed whats her name in after RBG passed?bootlegger10 said:
At this point we don't know who leaked it and for what purpose (was it a conservative or a liberal). The leak, though, represents further politicization of the court and the process and that is a bad precedent. There can be outrage about both.static111 said:Funny that some are more worried that there was a leak rather than established precedence is being over turned.It's a hopeless situation...0 -
An "egregious breach of trust," indeed.
I SAW PEARL JAM0 -
I'm not supporting the leak but I'm not exactly sure why I'm supposed to be outraged either. I'm for more concerned with the decision.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
2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help