SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)
Comments
-
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 can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023.0
-
If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset. If you are conservative you don't think it is.Merkin Baller said:Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023.
We have another 10 years or so of this until Alito or maybe Thomas steps down?0 -
If you don't think Clarence Thomas is compromised, you're not paying attention.tempo_n_groove said:
If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset. If you are conservative you don't think it is.Merkin Baller said:Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023.
We have another 10 years or so of this until Alito or maybe Thomas steps down?
0 -
I think we've answered your original question about why people aren't talking (upset?) about potentially expanding the supreme court though.Merkin Baller said:
If you don't think Clarence Thomas is compromised, you're not paying attention.tempo_n_groove said:
If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset. If you are conservative you don't think it is.Merkin Baller said:Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023.
We have another 10 years or so of this until Alito or maybe Thomas steps down?
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.0 -
Merkin Baller said:
I think we've answered your original question about why people aren't talking (upset?) about potentially expanding the supreme court though.Merkin Baller said:
If you don't think Clarence Thomas is compromised, you're not paying attention.tempo_n_groove said:
If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset. If you are conservative you don't think it is.Merkin Baller said:Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023.
We have another 10 years or so of this until Alito or maybe Thomas steps down?
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._____________________________________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 -
Absolutely.mickeyrat said:Merkin Baller said:
I think we've answered your original question about why people aren't talking (upset?) about potentially expanding the supreme court though.Merkin Baller said:
If you don't think Clarence Thomas is compromised, you're not paying attention.tempo_n_groove said:
If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset. If you are conservative you don't think it is.Merkin Baller said:Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023.
We have another 10 years or so of this until Alito or maybe Thomas steps down?
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.
Expanding the court doesn't need to be the path forward, but the status quo doesn't seem to be cutting it.
Clarence Thomas is clearly compromised and needs to be investigated... if only there was a court in the America that could rule on such a thing.0 -
Welcome to the third world.Merkin Baller said:
Absolutely.mickeyrat said:Merkin Baller said:
I think we've answered your original question about why people aren't talking (upset?) about potentially expanding the supreme court though.Merkin Baller said:
If you don't think Clarence Thomas is compromised, you're not paying attention.tempo_n_groove said:
If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset. If you are conservative you don't think it is.Merkin Baller said:Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023.
We have another 10 years or so of this until Alito or maybe Thomas steps down?
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.
Expanding the court doesn't need to be the path forward, but the status quo doesn't seem to be cutting it.
Clarence Thomas is clearly compromised and needs to be investigated... if only there was a court in the America that could rule on such a thing.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 don't have a problem with this.mickeyrat said:Merkin Baller said:
I think we've answered your original question about why people aren't talking (upset?) about potentially expanding the supreme court though.Merkin Baller said:
If you don't think Clarence Thomas is compromised, you're not paying attention.tempo_n_groove said:
If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset. If you are conservative you don't think it is.Merkin Baller said:Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023.
We have another 10 years or so of this until Alito or maybe Thomas steps down?
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.
Why is it only the President has a term limit? That seems ass backwards.0 -
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.Merkin Baller said:
If you don't think Clarence Thomas is compromised, you're not paying attention.tempo_n_groove said:
If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset. If you are conservative you don't think it is.Merkin Baller said:Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023.
We have another 10 years or so of this until Alito or maybe Thomas steps down?
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.0 -
it was a direct response to:tempo_n_groove said:
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.Merkin Baller said:
If you don't think Clarence Thomas is compromised, you're not paying attention.tempo_n_groove said:
If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset. If you are conservative you don't think it is.Merkin Baller said:Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023.
We have another 10 years or so of this until Alito or maybe Thomas steps down?
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.
"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?
0 -
No, i don't think anyone is compromised. I said they all should be looked into. That is a check and balance.Merkin Baller said:
it was a direct response to:tempo_n_groove said:
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.Merkin Baller said:
If you don't think Clarence Thomas is compromised, you're not paying attention.tempo_n_groove said:
If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset. If you are conservative you don't think it is.Merkin Baller said:Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023.
We have another 10 years or so of this until Alito or maybe Thomas steps down?
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.
"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?
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.0 -
You would need 60 senate votes to get this done. Not going to happen even if either party wanted it to happen.gimmesometruth27 said: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.0 -
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.tempo_n_groove said:
No, i don't think anyone is compromised. I said they all should be looked into. That is a check and balance.Merkin Baller said:
it was a direct response to:tempo_n_groove said:
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.Merkin Baller said:
If you don't think Clarence Thomas is compromised, you're not paying attention.tempo_n_groove said:
If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset. If you are conservative you don't think it is.Merkin Baller said:Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023.
We have another 10 years or so of this until Alito or maybe Thomas steps down?
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.
"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?
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.0 -
Maybe a cap on how much bribe money Justices they can take.mickeyrat said:Merkin Baller said:
I think we've answered your original question about why people aren't talking (upset?) about potentially expanding the supreme court though.Merkin Baller said:
If you don't think Clarence Thomas is compromised, you're not paying attention.tempo_n_groove said:
If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset. If you are conservative you don't think it is.Merkin Baller said:Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023.
We have another 10 years or so of this until Alito or maybe Thomas steps down?
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.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 -
I'm responding to things you say.... if you don't want to have the conversation, maybe don't ask the question?tempo_n_groove said:
No, i don't think anyone is compromised. I said they all should be looked into. That is a check and balance.Merkin Baller said:
it was a direct response to:tempo_n_groove said:
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.Merkin Baller said:
If you don't think Clarence Thomas is compromised, you're not paying attention.tempo_n_groove said:
If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset. If you are conservative you don't think it is.Merkin Baller said:Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023.
We have another 10 years or so of this until Alito or maybe Thomas steps down?
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.
"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?
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 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.
0 -
tempo_n_groove said:
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.Merkin Baller said:
If you don't think Clarence Thomas is compromised, you're not paying attention.tempo_n_groove said:
If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset. If you are conservative you don't think it is.Merkin Baller said:Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023.
We have another 10 years or so of this until Alito or maybe Thomas steps down?
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 '140 -
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.mrussel1 said:
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.tempo_n_groove said:
No, i don't think anyone is compromised. I said they all should be looked into. That is a check and balance.Merkin Baller said:
it was a direct response to:tempo_n_groove said:
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.Merkin Baller said:
If you don't think Clarence Thomas is compromised, you're not paying attention.tempo_n_groove said:
If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset. If you are conservative you don't think it is.Merkin Baller said:Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023.
We have another 10 years or so of this until Alito or maybe Thomas steps down?
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.
"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?
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.
0 -
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.tempo_n_groove said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.tempo_n_groove said:
No, i don't think anyone is compromised. I said they all should be looked into. That is a check and balance.Merkin Baller said:
it was a direct response to:tempo_n_groove said:
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.Merkin Baller said:
If you don't think Clarence Thomas is compromised, you're not paying attention.tempo_n_groove said:
If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset. If you are conservative you don't think it is.Merkin Baller said:Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023.
We have another 10 years or so of this until Alito or maybe Thomas steps down?
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.
"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?
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.0 -
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.mrussel1 said:
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.tempo_n_groove said:
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.mrussel1 said:
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.tempo_n_groove said:
No, i don't think anyone is compromised. I said they all should be looked into. That is a check and balance.Merkin Baller said:
it was a direct response to:tempo_n_groove said:
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.Merkin Baller said:
If you don't think Clarence Thomas is compromised, you're not paying attention.tempo_n_groove said:
If you are democrat then you believe it's already upset. If you are conservative you don't think it is.Merkin Baller said:Heavens forbid anyone upset the sanctity and status quo of the Supreme Court in 2023.
We have another 10 years or so of this until Alito or maybe Thomas steps down?
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.
"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?
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.
Maybe that's just me.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K 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