BuckFly Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 9 hours ago, Firewithin said: he picked the guy who said a sitting president cant be indicted? This is the hysterically part that goes under the radar. forget about everything else you know about the nominee...THIS was the reason he got picked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 The whole article is good, so read more than just the picture, which shows how much more liberal/conservative the justices are compared to the court (not how liberal/conservative they are in general). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSoxFan9 Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 libtards stepping up their game 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 1 minute ago, RedSoxFan9 said: libtards stepping up their game Hard to name anyone else with such strong judicial credentials? Merrick Garland maybe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted July 10, 2018 Author Share Posted July 10, 2018 2 hours ago, SaysWho? said: The whole article is good, so read more than just the picture, which shows how much more liberal/conservative the justices are compared to the court (not how liberal/conservative they are in general). Kennedy might be a little far to the left there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 1 minute ago, SFLUFAN said: Kennedy might be a little far to the left there. It comes from the Journal of Law, Economics and Organization and actually seems pretty accurate. I think it's not how left or right the judge is but how left or right they are compared to the current court in 2016 (and how Kavanaugh fits in). For example, in terms of actual scores, Kennedy is to the right: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSoxFan9 Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 Chairman Daou speaking the truth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewhyteboar Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSpreader Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 All the media has been like "the greatest show on Earth!!! Taratatatan taratatatan" about this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 9 minutes ago, thewhyteboar said: Oh man if I were one of the other candidates, I would be pissed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 9 minutes ago, thewhyteboar said: So just like with all reality shows, it was scripted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 23 minutes ago, thewhyteboar said: This is a totally normal thing. Well, now it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firewithin Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 24 minutes ago, thewhyteboar said: this country is so amazingly fucked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CayceG Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 26 minutes ago, thewhyteboar said: Isn't it completely normal for justices to indicate a preference for their successor? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSoxFan9 Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 Kennedy is the perfect “moderate” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elbobo Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 5 minutes ago, CayceG said: Isn't it completely normal for justices to indicate a preference for their successor? I think it is not uncommon but just because it has been done in the past doesn't mean it should be considered ok Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 24 minutes ago, CayceG said: Isn't it completely normal for justices to indicate a preference for their successor? Yes. But not so normal to hand pick the successor and choose when to retire based on the assurance that your guy gets the job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ort Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 Such a classy and dignified family. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 Trump’s Supreme Court pick: ISPs have 1st Amendment right to block websites Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeneticBlueprint Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 1 minute ago, Jason said: Trump’s Supreme Court pick: ISPs have 1st Amendment right to block websites Maybe some of the second amendment people have a solution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firewithin Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 14 minutes ago, Jason said: Trump’s Supreme Court pick: ISPs have 1st Amendment right to block websites Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 18 minutes ago, Jason said: Trump’s Supreme Court pick: ISPs have 1st Amendment right to block websites So would this mean that isps are responsible for data over their network? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 12 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: So would this mean that isps are responsible for data over their network? It would seem to suggest so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 4 minutes ago, sblfilms said: It would seem to suggest so. In reality though, folks like kavanaugh would no doubt give them a "good faith" exception to things like CP and copyright infringement so they really wouldn't be responsible if they 'try' to get rid of such things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boyle5150 Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 14 hours ago, SilentWorld said: Lol you didn’t understand my point at all. My point is this: You think I don’t want a white SCOTUS because I’m racist against whites (lol). You’re wrong. That’s not the reason I’m against another old white dude being SCOTUS. The reason I don’t want a white SCOTUS because I think society is better off when the people in power come from diverse backgrounds. Which you already agreed is ok to think sooooo.... edit: or did you agree on that? I'm not sure. You were being pretty evasive. Either way, lol @ the notion that I'm racist against white people. Yes diversity is a good thing, and the more diverse we are the better, (at least emotionally, but I don't have any empirical metrics to back up if diversity is better for everyone in different societies?), but excluding someone based on the color of their skin is racist. It's as simple as that. The only difference between you and me is that I don't give two shits what the color/age/gender the SCJ is, it is only you who want to discriminate based on these things, and at the end of the day, that's being racist. Having said that, we all know that this Administration wouldn't nominate anyone other than a white dude as a SCJ, and that is equally as racist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 10, 2018 Share Posted July 10, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSoxFan9 Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 11 hours ago, Jason said: The ruling class Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwinIon Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 23 hours ago, Jason said: Trump’s Supreme Court pick: ISPs have 1st Amendment right to block websites That's a rather extreme position that I've never even seen considered before. I've seen plenty of arguments that the FCC overstepped its authority or that it's a good/bad idea in general, but never that net neutrality is straight up unconstitutional. That would be a very dangerous precedent to set. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 49 minutes ago, Jason said: It's to burnish her 'moderate' reputation, not to avoid the ire of Trump. She hopes that she can peel off the ~60k voters who voted for Trump in 16 that voted for her in '12. If the Republicans can get the votes without her, there is literally 0 harm in her voting to confirm. So it kinda comes down to Collins and murkowski again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 8 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: If the Republicans can get the votes without her, there is literally 0 harm in her voting to confirm. So it kinda comes down to Collins and murkowski again If people like Heitkamp are going to vote yes regardless then it takes all the pressure off Collins and Murkowski. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSoxFan9 Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 It’s going to be a real shame when these moderate idiots lose in November. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted July 11, 2018 Share Posted July 11, 2018 24 minutes ago, Jason said: If people like Heitkamp are going to vote yes regardless then it takes all the pressure off Collins and Murkowski. I don't think she (or others) vote yes no matter what. I think they will follow the lead of Collins, so they can say there is bipartisan concern about his appointment to the court, and the balance of the court. They won't vote no unless there is some bipartisan cover. That is unless they are anti abortion Dems in which case Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.