Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend
Lobby General Discussion topic #13407822

Subject: "barrett confirmation hearing..." Previous topic | Next topic
Trinity444
Charter member
41193 posts
Mon Oct-12-20 08:46 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
"barrett confirmation hearing..."


  

          

y’all watching?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top


Topic Outline
Subject Author Message Date ID
no.. I’ll read/watch the cliff notes
Oct 12th 2020
1
^^^
Oct 12th 2020
2
Trump's New Court is Coming for the Next Dozen Elections (swipe)
Oct 12th 2020
3
Thank the Democrats and Harry Reid for this.....
Oct 12th 2020
9
      this is stupid and anyone who says it has no idea about politics.
Oct 12th 2020
18
           They have no spine man.....
Oct 13th 2020
35
Don't have the stomach
Oct 12th 2020
4
I want to hear what she has to say...
Oct 12th 2020
5
      First off - she going to syas LIES
Oct 12th 2020
7
      RE: First off - she going to syas LIES
Oct 12th 2020
13
      thank you...
Oct 12th 2020
22
      repugs have BEEN packing courts, there is no need for that to be a Biden
Oct 12th 2020
8
      Here's how court packing works
Oct 12th 2020
10
just turned in, already some bullshit
Oct 12th 2020
6
She's getting confirmred.....
Oct 12th 2020
11
Isn't the repugs plea cop about her being a catholic a self own
Oct 12th 2020
12
people dont know it because dems dont keep hammering it.
Oct 12th 2020
15
      Guess Momala is going last?
Oct 12th 2020
17
Nothing to watch. It's just going to be grandstanding
Oct 12th 2020
14
Democrats even discussing her merit as a nominee is already a loss
Oct 12th 2020
16
      yup. Same with the court packing questions
Oct 12th 2020
19
i give dems credit for remaining more disciplined than usual
Oct 12th 2020
20
yup...
Oct 12th 2020
21
they're scared to go after her on Roe
Oct 12th 2020
23
ALL the democrats talked about today was ACA
Oct 12th 2020
24
Yes, for the election
Oct 12th 2020
25
They’re coming for you - Kamala
Oct 12th 2020
26
I administer ACA, via Medi-Cal (Medicaid) for a living.
Oct 12th 2020
27
They're taking healthcare away in the midst of a pandemic
Oct 12th 2020
28
graham look sick...
Oct 13th 2020
29
Durbin questioning is good...
Oct 13th 2020
30
nothing about this is by the book
Oct 13th 2020
31
      yeah, you misunderstood me...
Oct 13th 2020
33
           I understood you perfectly
Oct 13th 2020
36
                ^^^^^
Oct 13th 2020
38
this fly has been trying to tell us something.
Oct 13th 2020
32
damn, lol
Oct 13th 2020
34
does Lee have a question or making statements?
Oct 13th 2020
37
This is all just ceremonious; 3 SCOTUS appointments in 1 term
Oct 13th 2020
39
Old, rich, and powerful white people have more in common w/each other
Oct 13th 2020
41
This bitch won't answer the question: Can Trump Delay the election?
Oct 13th 2020
40
did anyone follow up and force easy off the cuff answers?
Oct 13th 2020
43
if she’s using RBG’s words...
Oct 13th 2020
46
      unfortunately the "exposing hypocrisy" card
Oct 14th 2020
52
why didn't Dems spend at least a day or two
Oct 13th 2020
42
Whitehouse tried
Oct 13th 2020
45
      thanks for the info
Oct 13th 2020
47
If you're "by the book" you can answer questions about voter i...
Oct 13th 2020
44
well done, Booker...
Oct 13th 2020
48
beautiful...
Oct 13th 2020
49
that’s how you close the show, baby...
Oct 13th 2020
50
I can see why she was nominated
Oct 14th 2020
51
I don't know why Trump didn't go with her before Kavanaugh
Oct 14th 2020
54
      she was actually ahead of kavanaugh on the federalist societys list
Oct 14th 2020
55
just heard her speak today for the first time. sounds kinda Valley-ish.
Oct 14th 2020
53
feinstein gotta fucking go.
Oct 15th 2020
56
btw she just indirectly boosted graham in a close senate race too.
Oct 15th 2020
57
She had to owe him a favor, right?
Oct 15th 2020
58
more simply - she's a rich white 87 year old lady and give no fucks
Oct 15th 2020
59
      I guess that makes some sense...
Oct 16th 2020
62
she is objectively awful. Imagine how much better things would be
Oct 15th 2020
60
fuck her, the kids, and the environment!
Oct 15th 2020
61
It’s over...
Oct 26th 2020
63
our kids, grandkids, great grandkids will feel the repercussions of this...
Oct 26th 2020
64
      But it does matter who lives in that house because they appoint
Oct 27th 2020
65
           RBG should've gracefully bowed out during Obama's time
Oct 27th 2020
66
           yup we cant continue with these fuckups on our side.
Oct 27th 2020
68
           Big Donor Money flows to Strong Republicans and weak Dems
Oct 27th 2020
70
                worst political advice ever in hindsight.
Oct 27th 2020
71
                They complicit
Oct 27th 2020
73
           That’s kinda the point genius most people including a lot of these...
Oct 27th 2020
67
ugh.
Oct 27th 2020
69
Queen of the rat faces
Oct 27th 2020
74
      fam is the 'rat face' shit a reference to something? lol
Oct 27th 2020
75
           Level headed twitter uses it I notice
Oct 27th 2020
76
                oh is it in response to bros calling mayor pete that?
Oct 27th 2020
77
                I missed that somehow
Oct 27th 2020
79
                Are you helping or hurting ?
Oct 27th 2020
78
                     With my grand total of 2,000 followers
Oct 27th 2020
80
https://twitter.com/mcjesse/status/1320921762385702912?s=21
Oct 27th 2020
72
fucking rbg man.
Oct 27th 2020
81
in her defense she probably thought Hillary would be picking her...
Oct 27th 2020
82
this was years before hillary.
Oct 27th 2020
83
      Most of the Dem establishment had penciled in Hillary as Obama’s...
Oct 27th 2020
86
           she wasnt thinking about the next president.
Oct 27th 2020
88
                again I’m not really defending a 90y/o woman’s thinking but she was....
Oct 27th 2020
92
we just have to have a better system
Oct 27th 2020
84
we have the system that we have. thats our reality.
Oct 27th 2020
85
      are you that dense? it's not working.
Oct 27th 2020
87
           one side has been hyperfocused on amassing power
Oct 27th 2020
89
                I'm speaking more to your first point
Oct 27th 2020
91
                     huh? what are you trying to say here?
Oct 27th 2020
94
                          and...the fact so much rides on that
Oct 27th 2020
95
No one wants to point this out.
Oct 27th 2020
90
      A lot of shit is happening in 2020 that people didn’t foresee
Oct 27th 2020
93

legsdiamond
Member since May 05th 2011
67653 posts
Mon Oct-12-20 08:57 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
1. "no.. I’ll read/watch the cliff notes"
In response to Reply # 0


          

****************
TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Ashy Achilles
Member since Sep 22nd 2005
3973 posts
Mon Oct-12-20 08:58 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
2. "^^^"
In response to Reply # 1


          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

navajo joe
Member since Apr 13th 2005
6211 posts
Mon Oct-12-20 09:08 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
3. "Trump's New Court is Coming for the Next Dozen Elections (swipe)"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

I'm not subjecting myself to it. She's getting confirmed. The hearing is just spectacle and itself an attack. Democrats are going to justify the farce and play themselves and all of us by adhering to norms of a the thoroughly abnormal.


https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/10/trumps-new-supreme-court-is-coming-for-the-next-elections.html

By Richard L. Hasen

When Judge Amy Coney Barrett sits for questions before the Senate Judiciary Committee in mid-October, no doubt Democrats will pepper her with questions about whether she would recuse herself in any Trump v. Biden election lawsuit to come before the Supreme Court. Although that’s an important question to ask, perhaps the bigger question is what it would mean in the long run for voting and election cases to have a sixth conservative justice on the Supreme Court.

In short, a Barrett confirmation would make it more likely we will see a significant undermining of the already weakened Voting Rights Act — the Court said on Friday it will hear a case involving the law. A 6-3 conservative Court might allow unlimited undisclosed money in political campaigns; give more latitude to states to suppress votes, especially those of minorities; protect partisan gerrymandering from reform efforts; and strengthen the representation of rural white areas, which would favor Republicans.

Let’s first clear away issues to the upcoming election: Of course Barrett should recuse herself from deciding any cases involving the 2020 presidential election. Trump’s repeated inappropriate comments that he wants her confirmed for the Court in time to “decide” the 2020 election are already causing reasonable people to worry about Barrett’s impartiality in resolving such disputes. A pledge to recuse would take this issue away from those who oppose her confirmation.

Barrett so far has resisted calls for her recusal, but for better or worse her confirmation probably wouldn’t have any effect on the outcome of the 2020 election — even in the unlikely event it came down to a Supreme Court decision. The Court has already heard a number of emergency motions concerning COVID-related election changes. In the most important of these so far, RNC v. DNC, the Court’s five conservatives ruled against extending the deadline for absentee ballots during Wisconsin’s April primary. With Justice Ginsburg gone, the Court is currently divided 5-3 on electoral issues, and a sixth justice will hardly matter in any post-election case that divides along partisan and ideological lines.

Some believe that Chief Justice Roberts would side with the liberals in a Trump v. Biden case in an attempt to preserve the legitimacy of the Court by avoiding a party-line vote for Trump. But if Roberts is concerned about legitimacy, he is unlikely to want to put Barrett in the position of being the swing vote. A Barrett vote in favor of Trump — the person who rushed her onto the Court for this very purpose — would look like payback. Roberts likely would prefer siding with conservatives in a 6-3 vote so Barrett is not the fifth, decisive vote handing the election to Trump. (If Barrett were not on the Court, a 4-4 split would leave standing whatever lower-court opinion was in place.)

The real concern about Barrett and elections requires looking ahead to the next five to ten years. When the Court was split 5-4 on ideological lines, the liberal justices could always try to pick off one of the conservatives in a voting case, like when Justice Anthony Kennedy sided with them in a 2015 case upholding the use of Arizona’s nonpartisan redistricting commissions to draw congressional districts and reduce partisan gerrymandering. Another time, Chief Justice Roberts sided with the liberals in a 2015 case upholding rules barring candidates for judgeships from personally soliciting campaign contributions, which was an important step in recognizing that judicial candidates can be subject to more restrictions on their campaign activities than other candidates to preserve public confidence in their impartiality on the bench.

The task for liberals becomes so much harder with a conservative 6-3 Court. Keep in mind that even on a more closely divided Court, conservatives prevailed in major voting cases: the 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC holding that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited sums supporting or opposing candidates for office; the 2013 Shelby County v. Holder case striking down a part of the Voting Rights Act requiring jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination in voting to get federal approval before making voting changes; the 2008 decision in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board upholding Indiana’s strict voter-identification law, despite any proof that such laws prevent voter fraud.

We don’t know much yet about Barrett’s views in voting cases since she joined the bench in 2017. Her writings in this area are scant. She wrote an unremarkable opinion in a ballot-access case (joined by a Democratic colleague) rejecting a minor-party candidate’s attempt to get on the ballot. She has not weighed in as a judge in a campaign-finance case. In a law-review article, she pointed to Justice Scalia’s willingness to abide by some precedent he thought was wrong giving Congress stronger power to combat racial discrimination in the Voting Rights Act. By all indications, Barrett is a judge who would approach such questions openly and honestly. But she’s also a deeply conservative judge who is, like Scalia, committed to principles of originalism and textualism, so she’s likely to side with other conservatives as these issues come to the Court — on everything from gerrymandering to restrictive voting laws to money in politics. I made the same point about Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh being reliable conservative votes in these cases before they joined the Court, and the predictions turned out to be correct.

The Court could perhaps soon reverse its decision in the 2015 Arizona case, which would reempower politicians to draw their own congressional districts even if voters want nonpartisan redistricting commissions to do it. Roberts wrote a bitter dissent for conservative justices in this case, and if the Court is willing to revisit recent precedent, he almost certainly would have a majority on this issue.

On Friday, the Court said that next year it would take up another case from Arizona that concerns the Voting Rights Act. An appeals court held that the state engaged in intentionally discriminatory conduct against minority voters by limiting the ability to collect absentee ballots, which were a tool, especially on Native American reservations, to get out the vote. A finding of intentional discrimination would open up Arizona to further federal oversight of its elections under the Voting Rights Act, and my sense is that the Court took the case to reverse the appeals court’s holding.

Looking further down the road, the Court could strike down as unconstitutional, or severely limit, the reach of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which has been used nationally to require the creation of majority-minority legislative districts and strike down or weaken strict voter-ID laws that especially burden minority voters. Some conservative justices on the Court have already suggested the act could be at least partially unconstitutional or that it should be read as not applicable to redistricting cases at all. This would be devastating to the cause of voting rights and the protection of minority voters.

Minority voting rights could be harmed in other ways by the Court. Over the next few years, the Court could resolve a question left open in its 2016 Evenwel v. Abbott decision and allow states and localities to draw districts with even numbers of eligible voters in them rather than people — a standard that would benefit Republicans, as fewer children and non-citizens live in rural whiter areas that tend to be represented by Republicans.

The Court could also make things much worse when it comes to campaign financing. Senator Mitch McConnell and others have already been pushing cases that would allow individuals and corporations to make unlimited campaign contributions directly to candidates. And some justices believe that those making contributions or expenditures in campaigns have a constitutional right to total anonymity from the public. This would make our political system much more prone to corruption, deprive voters of valuable information, and let the rich have even greater influence over election officials than they do now.

And as Republican legislatures continue to pass laws — in the name of preventing phantom voter fraud — that have the practical effect of making it harder to register and vote, some courts have pushed back. The pushback has come in the form of holding these laws unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause or other parts of the Constitution. A 6-3 conservative Court is likely to see it differently and uphold more of these laws, perhaps even draconian laws allowing states to require people to produce a birth certificate or naturalization certificate before registering to vote.

There’s going to be a lot of attention paid in the next few weeks on how a Justice Barrett in theory could decide the 2020 election. We should be far more worried about the rules that would apply in dozens of elections after 2020.

"Regardless if you listen to me, in the end we'll see."
-Cee-Lo

"You’ve had 4 years of Trump University and are still failing the final exam smh"
-Bree Newsome Bass

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
blueeclipse
Member since Apr 12th 2009
1500 posts
Mon Oct-12-20 10:35 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
9. "Thank the Democrats and Harry Reid for this....."
In response to Reply # 3


  

          

As usual they were playing checkers and not chess.

That filibuster decision is going to haunt them for YEARS.....

Their threatening to stack the court now.....again.....checkers and not chess.

We need to worry about giving as much access to voters as possible now.

Make election day a national holiday and work on making the popular vote more integral in national elections.

Dream with your eyes open.....

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Reeq
Member since Mar 11th 2013
11051 posts
Mon Oct-12-20 11:46 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
18. "this is stupid and anyone who says it has no idea about politics."
In response to Reply # 9


  

          

repubs were filibustering every single dem court and administration nominee. something unprecedented in american history.

if reid didnt nuke that filibuster then *hundreds* of judicial vacancies wouldnt have been filled by obama.

and anyone who thinks that mitch mcconnell wouldnt have just nuked it as soon as repubs won in 2016 and filled those seats is an idiot.

reid nuking that filibuster prevented mcconnell from having enough open seats to fill damn near the entire judiciary instead of just the dozens that were left open after repubs took the senate majority in 2014.

------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
blueeclipse
Member since Apr 12th 2009
1500 posts
Tue Oct-13-20 10:58 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
35. "They have no spine man....."
In response to Reply # 18
Tue Oct-13-20 10:59 AM by blueeclipse

  

          

You stand up and you go to the people and make them understand that this obstruction is bullshit. Tell them that these assholes are keeping you from doing your job.

You don't go nuclear and blow up protections.

Reid tried to remove it just for executive and federal appointments.

Then the Republicans get to turn around and do it and say you started it.

McConnell took it a step further for Supreme Court appointments.

Now we are about to have the most partisan judge EVER appointed to the court.

If you're Reid and you're going to do this you better make sure you don't lose the Senate.

Democrats want to take it one step further now and gt rid of the legislative filibuster.

IF they do this they better get shit done and not have ANY infighting. Otherwise this is just a fucking waste of time and setting up Republicans to come in and continue to destroy this country.


Dream with your eyes open.....

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

handle
Charter member
16834 posts
Mon Oct-12-20 09:29 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
4. "Don't have the stomach"
In response to Reply # 0


          

She'll be placed on the court and EVERY WORST CASE SCENARIO will happen.

This "originalist" bullshit is transparent.

------------


Gone: My Discogs collection for The Roots:
http://www.discogs.com/user/tomhayes-roots/collection

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Trinity444
Charter member
41193 posts
Mon Oct-12-20 09:36 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
5. "I want to hear what she has to say..."
In response to Reply # 4


  

          

what do you know about this “packing the court” situation? Not sure I understand it...

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
handle
Charter member
16834 posts
Mon Oct-12-20 10:12 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
7. "First off - she going to syas LIES"
In response to Reply # 5


          

She's taking the same approach the other cynical republicans have by lying.

" More than the style of his writing, though, it was the content of Justice Scalia’s reasoning that shaped me. His judicial philosophy was straightforward: A judge must apply the law as written, not as the judge wishes it were. Sometimes that approach meant reaching results that he did not like. But as he put it in one of his best known opinions, that is what it means to say we have a government of laws, not of men."

Scalia was a fucking liar that twisted the law to support whatever he personally felt - don't believe this.


>what do you know about this “packing the court”
>situation? Not sure I understand it...

"Packing the court" simply means increasing the number of justices on the court. Since the Republicans have installed 6 ideological crazies out of a total of 9 justices then only ways to balance it would be to impeach some of them and replace them (not possible unless Democrats get 67 seats in the Senate) or by increasing the number of justices on the court from 9 to 13 or more.

We've had 10 judges in the past - and FDR was proposing to get 15.

But make NO MISTAKE, the Republican judges on the court were trained to be placed there. They all came out of The Federalist Society which was established to institute the most INSANE and right wing ideology possible.

These aren't "right leaning" people with sincere beliefs - ala a Tim Allen character on a TV show. These are zealots.

The supreme court is a lost institution and over the next 10 years you'll see that they will systemically roll back any progress made since the early 1900s.

The only way it cna be saved is to increase the size and balance out the very far right wing judges installed there.


------------


Gone: My Discogs collection for The Roots:
http://www.discogs.com/user/tomhayes-roots/collection

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
MEAT
Member since Feb 08th 2008
20059 posts
Mon Oct-12-20 11:10 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
13. "RE: First off - she going to syas LIES"
In response to Reply # 7


  

          

lol

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Trinity444
Charter member
41193 posts
Mon Oct-12-20 12:29 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
22. "thank you..."
In response to Reply # 7


  

          

I understand the meaning just not how it can be done.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
CherNic
Member since Aug 18th 2005
36921 posts
Mon Oct-12-20 10:18 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
8. "repugs have BEEN packing courts, there is no need for that to be a Biden"
In response to Reply # 5
Mon Oct-12-20 10:20 AM by CherNic

  

          

talking point. I cannot believe this is even a fucking story.

edit to say no I'm not watching. I watched that Kavanaugh hearing and never want to see something so vile again.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
navajo joe
Member since Apr 13th 2005
6211 posts
Mon Oct-12-20 10:35 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
10. "Here's how court packing works"
In response to Reply # 5


  

          

Say you have a judge, let's just call her "Amy Coney Barrett" for the sake of argument.

When a Black, democratic president named say, "Barack Obama", tries to fill a vacant seat on the 7th circuit you block his nominee and then have her installed by a Republican president.

THEN you block that very same "Barack Obama" Supreme Court nominee, get old Anthony Kennedy to resign for a favor, slide a monster in Kavanaugh in and when a Ruth Bader Ginsberg dies, you push in that same "Amy Coney Barrett" from the 7th circuit you packed to replace the late Justice and you do it DURING an election.

That but one example of court packing

"Regardless if you listen to me, in the end we'll see."
-Cee-Lo

"You’ve had 4 years of Trump University and are still failing the final exam smh"
-Bree Newsome Bass

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

shygurl
Member since Oct 08th 2002
12762 posts
Mon Oct-12-20 10:06 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
6. "just turned in, already some bullshit"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Some republican asshole is monologuing about how her religion has no bearing on this hearing, which would be true if her judicial rulings didn't directly reflect her religious beliefs. Turned it off.

Now I'm annoyed cause this Wendy's has totally run through the bag, and now I have a giant grease stain on my passenger seat 😠.

__________________________________________

I hope you live a life you’re proud of. If you find that you’re not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again.

— F. Scott Fitzgerald

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

blueeclipse
Member since Apr 12th 2009
1500 posts
Mon Oct-12-20 10:45 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
11. "She's getting confirmred....."
In response to Reply # 0
Mon Oct-12-20 10:50 AM by blueeclipse

  

          

The real question when she is integral in rolling back over 100 years of progress in this country will the people stand up to this shit finally.

We are so stuck in a partisan divide in this country that a presidential election like this one which should be a fucking LANDSLIDE loss for Trump won't be because people are so brainwashed by their bias and bullshit that they will vote for a literal pile of shit if it's along party lines.

This needs to stop.

I was talking to my Mom about this. Her neighbor is a Trump supporter. She's the typical old white woman who's pastor tells her what to do. My Mom kicks it at her house and eats dinner with her and shit. We got in a HUGE argument about it. My Mom was saying how shes a nice woman and voting is private and they just don't talk politics and blaa blaa blaa. FUCK THAT.

These people need to be shamed relentlessly and shown that there is no place for them to enjoy being treated with respect. Why would you respect her privacy. They OPENLY disregard our lives and our rights and try to pass it off as part of some noble cause. They need to be given that scarlet letter and people need to stop being accepting of this shit.

Dream with your eyes open.....

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

bentagain
Member since Mar 19th 2008
15102 posts
Mon Oct-12-20 10:58 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
12. "Isn't the repugs plea cop about her being a catholic a self own"
In response to Reply # 0
Mon Oct-12-20 10:59 AM by bentagain

  

          

Watched some of the morning session

...people know Biden is catholic...right...?

Anyway, it struck me as strange that the repugs are trying to frame the criticisms of this nomination as an attack on her religion

Aren't they admitting that her rulings will be influenced by her extreme religious beliefs?

Another self own for the Rs.

Every D should just be like...we can do this...but not COVID relief = R Senate

Still feels like the Ds are trying to shame the Rs with high moral ground and ethics

They clearly don't get it

Or are complicit

There should be outrage in that chamber.

---------------------------------------------------------------

If you can't understand it without an explanation

you can't understand it with an explanation

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Reeq
Member since Mar 11th 2013
11051 posts
Mon Oct-12-20 11:30 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
15. "people dont know it because dems dont keep hammering it."
In response to Reply # 12


  

          

>...people know Biden is catholic...right...?

or that vp nom tim kaine was catholic, or p nom john kerry was catholic, or 2 out of every 3 catholics in congress are democrats.

dems should have had this talking point ready to go and feinstein should have stated it in her opening remarks to get out in front of the 'anti-catholic' attacks from repugs. it would have completely disarmed them for the rest of the hearings.

i swear dems still dont understand information/media in the 21st century. congressional hearings are nothing more than a stage to shape a narrative and sway public perception. repubs figured that out decades ago.

------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
bentagain
Member since Mar 19th 2008
15102 posts
Mon Oct-12-20 11:45 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
17. "Guess Momala is going last?"
In response to Reply # 15


  

          

Somebody drop the f'n hammer

It's been almost exclusively ACA from the Ds

We're not going to talk about the court deciding the election?

WTF

+1, Feinstein is 87YO, are you surprised she's not an effective communicator in 2020?

---------------------------------------------------------------

If you can't understand it without an explanation

you can't understand it with an explanation

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

PimpTrickGangstaClik
Member since Oct 06th 2005
14936 posts
Mon Oct-12-20 11:24 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
14. "Nothing to watch. It's just going to be grandstanding"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Everybody in Congress already knows the outcome.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
GOMEZ
Member since Feb 13th 2003
5240 posts
Mon Oct-12-20 11:44 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
16. "Democrats even discussing her merit as a nominee is already a loss"
In response to Reply # 14
Mon Oct-12-20 11:46 AM by GOMEZ

  

          

The process is not legitimate. GOP literally set the standard 4 years ago, and reversing it during the very next election cycle. Interrogating her record may have some slight value in terms of exposing the types of maniacs the GOP nominates, but really the focus should be on what bullshit this all is. It's absolute 3rd world fuckery.


*edit* I also don't have the stomach to watch. It'd be like watching the Globetrotters vs. the Generals, if instead of playing basketball the Globetrotters just went out and kicked the Generals in the nuts every play. It all feels like such a farce.





https://www.instagram.com/sbmission365/

In a generation of swine, the one-eyed pig is king.
-Hunter S. Thompson

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Stadiq
Member since Dec 21st 2005
3968 posts
Mon Oct-12-20 11:52 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
19. "yup. Same with the court packing questions"
In response to Reply # 16


          


"Are you in favor of court packing?"

No, and I think it is disgusting that the GOP has gotten away with it for years. This seat should be filled after inauguration day.

etc etc


Every

single

time


  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Reeq
Member since Mar 11th 2013
11051 posts
Mon Oct-12-20 11:54 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
20. "i give dems credit for remaining more disciplined than usual"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

and making this about aca/obamacare/healthcare.

thats already proven to be an obvious winner for them. and this is really about getting voters out in november since they cant stop the confirmation.

and its obviously such a weak spot for repubs that they have to blatantly lie and act like they wanna protect pre-existing conditions (while they are fighting to have obamacare struck down by the supreme court).

this is the right approach given the options available imo.

------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Trinity444
Charter member
41193 posts
Mon Oct-12-20 12:26 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
21. "yup..."
In response to Reply # 20


  

          

admittedly, I don’t totally understand the “packing the court” thing, but I like that they’re not addressing it.


  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
fontgangsta
Member since Sep 04th 2005
5311 posts
Mon Oct-12-20 01:45 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
23. "they're scared to go after her on Roe"
In response to Reply # 20


  

          

bc they think it will be seen as an attack on her religion or whatever
but fuck that
from the D side, this entire hearing should be about abortion
but they're feckless dolts, so its not

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

fontgangsta
Member since Sep 04th 2005
5311 posts
Mon Oct-12-20 03:30 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
24. "ALL the democrats talked about today was ACA"
In response to Reply # 0
Mon Oct-12-20 03:32 PM by fontgangsta

  

          

thats literally it.
is obamacare that popular? like THAT popular?

because 77% think roe should be upheld.
67% believe in gay marraige.

obamacare favorability is like 49%

and lets be clear about what is ACTUALLY HAPPENING HERE:
In her opening statement, ACB said Scalia’s approach to law shaped her and that policy choices should be left to the American people's representatives in her view.

Jeffrey Toobin:

“Justice Scalia felt like if a state wants to ban marriage between two men or two women, that's a policy choice that a state should be allowed to make. Justice Scalia thought that if a state wants to ban abortion, that's a policy choice that a state should be allowed to make. What Justice Ginsburg thought was that the Constitution trumps those policy choices, that the Constitution forbids states from engaging in acts that are discriminatory, violating the 14th amendment or the first amendment. So the language of deferring to the policy choices of the states has real political content and it’s conservative political content, and it's what Justice Scalia believed.
But people should understand, that's what it means in the real world. It is not just boilerplate. It has real political content."


im infuriated at this "strategy". so i hope everyone is ready for states with legit, on-the-books, unchallengeable abortion bans. And states that refuse to recognize people's marriages. Because that's happening STAT.

the only real option to combat this is going to be passing federal laws, which we'll be able to do if we get joe and the senate and kill the filibuster - but even if they do all those things, they'll probly waste their time passing some other bullshit.

hope im wrong. about all of this.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
handle
Charter member
16834 posts
Mon Oct-12-20 03:54 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
25. "Yes, for the election"
In response to Reply # 24


          

When ACB kills ObamaCare in the next few MONTHS people can maybe remember it.

It'll take her time to kill gay marriage and abortion - probably a year.

So focus on what people need now.

There's no way she won't be confirmed. Even if they have a video of her saying "Fuck the law - I do what my political party wants." They have a guy who had COVID 10 days ago in there not wearing a mask. Like not even a courtesy.

To recap you thoughts: Democrats should use the small amount of time they have to talk about multiple things and not just 1.


------------


Gone: My Discogs collection for The Roots:
http://www.discogs.com/user/tomhayes-roots/collection

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Trinity444
Charter member
41193 posts
Mon Oct-12-20 04:11 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
26. "They’re coming for you - Kamala "
In response to Reply # 24


  

          

Plus it reminds folks that we’re still in a pandemic. catch covid and don’t have healthcare...

I’m sure Roe will come up when they question her...

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Cold Truth
Member since Jan 28th 2004
41349 posts
Mon Oct-12-20 06:08 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
27. "I administer ACA, via Medi-Cal (Medicaid) for a living."
In response to Reply # 24


  

          

I administer both Medi-Cal and insurance through Covered California, as well as food stamps.

When I started this job a decade ago, pre-ACA, coverage was extremely limited.

We have seen a massive expansion of eligibility since the ACA, with some changes beginning about a year prior to it taking effect.

Previously, as an adult, you had to have a dependent minor, be disabled, or aged. Undocumented immigrants were eligible only to emergency services. If you break your arm, you can see a doctor. But if you need a primary care physician for preventative care? Good luck.

This left countless adults without children or disabilities without coverage.

We got ACA, and suddenly there was an explosion in eligibility.

Single and married adults without dependent minors suddenly became eligible to full scope benefits en masse. Undocumented minors gained full scope coverage.

We also expanded eligibility linkage from indigent children meeting deprivation criteria such as an absent or unemployed parent, to tax dependent status.

This means, if your adult parent lives with you, and you claim them as a tax dependent, you can add them to your tax household for the purposes of your own coverage, even if they themselves are ineligible, or even aided on their own.

This is significant, because expands the household size, which increases the income limit.

I've seen that make the difference between free, full scope coverage for a family of 5, and a $350 a month premium for the two parents, while the children retain their free coverage.

It also expanded the restoration period from 30 days to 90 days, meaning a much longer period where you could simply regain compliance to restore, rather than having to apply from scratch.

People think ACA is just the insurance exchange, but it brought with it sweeping Medicaid changes as well, though that expansion doesnt hold for a states. Some states opted not to expand their Medicaid programs.

California expanded in a big way. I am not familiar with exactly how directly tied this expansion is to ACA from a legislative standpoint, so I concede my ignorance on that front.

But if repealing ACA only knocks out the exchanges, that alone would kill coverage for millions.

People already panic if they lose coverage and have to wait for open enrollment. It will be so much worse when we have to tell them they're assed out completely. Because then, it's not just a matter of waiting two months for open enrollment. It's a matter of, you better look for something else all together.

Worse still, we are nowhere near out of the woods on the COVID issue. Again, even if the only change is the removal of the exchanges, that could lead to a catastrophic domino effect from both a public health standpoint, but an economic standpoint as well.

That means increased ER visits and increased bills not being paid, creating financial burdens for people and hospitals.

It's not Bout whether it's "popular". It's vital. It could stand some tweaking, and I'm sure there are better frameworks to be had.

But to repeal this without an immediate, and similarly robust replacement is an absolutely terrible idea.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
mrhood75
Member since Dec 06th 2004
42906 posts
Mon Oct-12-20 10:35 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
28. "They're taking healthcare away in the midst of a pandemic"
In response to Reply # 24


  

          

The Democrats know that they can't stop Barrett from getting on the court, so they're pounding away on this as a way to energize and motivate their voters in the presidential and senatorial races.

Republican senators aren't even campaigning that they're against the ACA anymore because they know that the elderly and the sick need it.

The Democratic start going after her stances on abortion and same-sax marriage, it gives the Republicans another wedge issue for them to whip their increasingly skeptical electorate.

Unless they have video of Barrett in Blackface screaming the n-word, this is as good as its going to get.

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Trinity444
Charter member
41193 posts
Tue Oct-13-20 08:05 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
29. "graham look sick..."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Trinity444
Charter member
41193 posts
Tue Oct-13-20 10:34 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
30. "Durbin questioning is good..."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

so basically, she’s by the book...

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
navajo joe
Member since Apr 13th 2005
6211 posts
Tue Oct-13-20 10:38 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
31. "nothing about this is by the book"
In response to Reply # 30
Tue Oct-13-20 10:43 AM by navajo joe

  

          

but she is somehow by the book...

I can't.

"Regardless if you listen to me, in the end we'll see."
-Cee-Lo

"You’ve had 4 years of Trump University and are still failing the final exam smh"
-Bree Newsome Bass

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Trinity444
Charter member
41193 posts
Tue Oct-13-20 10:55 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
33. "yeah, you misunderstood me..."
In response to Reply # 31


  

          

I’m saying her line of reasoning is based on what’s written or at least that’s what’s coming across.

she’s explaining it now...

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
navajo joe
Member since Apr 13th 2005
6211 posts
Tue Oct-13-20 11:02 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
36. "I understood you perfectly "
In response to Reply # 33
Tue Oct-13-20 11:28 AM by navajo joe

  

          

She's just like every other originalist who cloaks their bigotry and religious fundamentalism in by-the-bookism.

It's as much of a sham as this hearing.

If she cared about by-the-book she wouldn't have answered Feinstein's question about the president's ability to delay the election the way she did.

The Constitution is quite clear on that.


"Regardless if you listen to me, in the end we'll see."
-Cee-Lo

"You’ve had 4 years of Trump University and are still failing the final exam smh"
-Bree Newsome Bass

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
Stadiq
Member since Dec 21st 2005
3968 posts
Tue Oct-13-20 12:01 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
38. "^^^^^"
In response to Reply # 36


          


"originalist" FOH

Sad part is, fairly reasonable people fall for that shit

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Reeq
Member since Mar 11th 2013
11051 posts
Tue Oct-13-20 10:41 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
32. "this fly has been trying to tell us something."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

https://twitter.com/daisydo333/status/1316005040063217667

------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Trinity444
Charter member
41193 posts
Tue Oct-13-20 10:56 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
34. "damn, lol "
In response to Reply # 32


  

          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Trinity444
Charter member
41193 posts
Tue Oct-13-20 11:04 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
37. "does Lee have a question or making statements? "
In response to Reply # 0


  

          


she just said packing isn’t unconstitutional...

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Vex_id
Charter member
64823 posts
Tue Oct-13-20 12:17 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
39. "This is all just ceremonious; 3 SCOTUS appointments in 1 term"
In response to Reply # 0


          

Not to mention the fact that Trump has appointed ~25% of all active federal judges in the country.

Dems - as usual - aren't showing much fight. Not they have much of a choice given the Republican majority - but it'd be nice if the Dems had an ounce of the fight of the GOP. As pitiful and regressive as they are, they always seem to bully the Dems at will.

-->

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
MEAT
Member since Feb 08th 2008
20059 posts
Tue Oct-13-20 12:40 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
41. "Old, rich, and powerful white people have more in common w/each other"
In response to Reply # 39


  

          

Goals included. Than they do with the demographics of the constituents and country they represent.
You don't fight people you consider colleagues.

------
“There is no fate that cannot be surmounted by scorn.” -Albert Camus

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

handle
Charter member
16834 posts
Tue Oct-13-20 12:36 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
40. "This bitch won't answer the question: Can Trump Delay the election?"
In response to Reply # 0


          

INSNAITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's a "NO" question. (Not even a YES/NO)

SWIPE:
Citing a threat that Trump made in July, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) asked Barrett plainly during the second day of hearings whether the Constitution gives the president of the United States the authority to “unilaterally delay a general election” in any scenario.

“Well, Senator, if that question ever came before me, I would need to hear arguments from the litigants, and read briefs, and consult with my law clerks and talk to my colleagues and go through the opinion-writing process,” Barrett responded.

She added: “If I give off-the-cuff answers, then I would be basically a legal pundit.”

In refusing to give an answer, Barrett followed the same pattern of response she has given throughout the hearings so far when questioned on how she might rule on specific issues, maintaining that she would need to hear arguments from both sides.

Feinstein’s question, however, has a simple answer: The president alone does not have the power to move the election.

------------


Gone: My Discogs collection for The Roots:
http://www.discogs.com/user/tomhayes-roots/collection

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Stadiq
Member since Dec 21st 2005
3968 posts
Tue Oct-13-20 12:50 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
43. "did anyone follow up and force easy off the cuff answers?"
In response to Reply # 40


          


judge, can the president murder someone?

judge, can the president declare himself king?


So you can give off-the-cuff answers? I'm confused.



Or did Feinstein hurry and jump in to compliment her parenting skills?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Trinity444
Charter member
41193 posts
Tue Oct-13-20 01:49 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
46. "if she’s using RBG’s words..."
In response to Reply # 40


  

          

“say nothing”

and if both parties agreed that nominees don’t have to be specific then hearings are moot. I don’t understand that.

They may not be able to stop this confirmation but they are exposing the hypocrisy.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
will_5198
Charter member
60921 posts
Wed Oct-14-20 12:02 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
52. "unfortunately the "exposing hypocrisy" card"
In response to Reply # 46


          

>They may not be able to stop this confirmation but they are
>exposing the hypocrisy.

is good for social media likes and little else

--------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Stadiq
Member since Dec 21st 2005
3968 posts
Tue Oct-13-20 12:43 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
42. "why didn't Dems spend at least a day or two"
In response to Reply # 0
Tue Oct-13-20 12:48 PM by Stadiq

          

focusing on this sham process?

Why not spend at least a little bit of time communicating how this is all fucked up?

Even through their questioning...

"Judge, did you hesitate at all in accepting this nomination, given that it came from an impeached president and we are less than 30 days from an election?"

etc?

Instead they jumped right into norms, as usual.

I read Feinstein practically gave her a word hug this am.


Not only is she going to get nominated, my guess is zero GOP defect. The Dems haven't- and won't- give them a good reason to.

She is going to get confirmed easier than BART.



**I'd like to think their long-term plan is to use this as a reason to expand the court...but they are feckless idiots who are ALREADY losing that argument by playing defense.

Not to mention, say Biden adds two judges (he won't)...its still 6-5 conservative majority.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Lurkmode
Member since May 07th 2011
4023 posts
Tue Oct-13-20 01:48 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
45. "Whitehouse tried"
In response to Reply # 42


  

          

>focusing on this sham process?
>
>Why not spend at least a little bit of time communicating how
>this is all fucked up?
>

https://twitter.com/keithboykin/status/1316071315611230210



>
>Instead they jumped right into norms, as usual.
>
>I read Feinstein practically gave her a word hug this am.
>

Yeah that was ridiculous.

>Not only is she going to get nominated, my guess is zero GOP
>defect. The Dems haven't- and won't- give them a good reason
>to.
>

What GOP would defect in any scenario ? Mitt is already saying both sides.

https://twitter.com/MittRomney/status/1316023618422235138?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet


>
>**I'd like to think their long-term plan is to use this as a
>reason to expand the court...but they are feckless idiots who
>are ALREADY losing that argument by playing defense.
>
>Not to mention, say Biden adds two judges (he won't)...its
>still 6-5 conservative majority.
>

Biden already caved on that.

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/13/923213582/biden-says-hes-not-a-fan-of-expanding-the-supreme-court

---------------------------
Signature

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Stadiq
Member since Dec 21st 2005
3968 posts
Tue Oct-13-20 02:33 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
47. "thanks for the info"
In response to Reply # 45


          

>>focusing on this sham process?
>>
>>Why not spend at least a little bit of time communicating
>how
>>this is all fucked up?
>>
>
>https://twitter.com/keithboykin/status/1316071315611230210
>
>

Ah okay, good to see. Still, they all should have spent at least the entire first day on this stuff imo.

>
>>
>>Instead they jumped right into norms, as usual.
>>
>>I read Feinstein practically gave her a word hug this am.
>>
>
>Yeah that was ridiculous.
>
>>Not only is she going to get nominated, my guess is zero GOP
>>defect. The Dems haven't- and won't- give them a good
>reason
>>to.
>>
>
>What GOP would defect in any scenario ? Mitt is already saying
>both sides.
>
>https://twitter.com/MittRomney/status/1316023618422235138?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

Good point. I guess in my mind if the Dems made a case about the sham process, ACA, etc...at least someone like collins might defect cuz she is in the middle of an election.



>
>
>>
>>**I'd like to think their long-term plan is to use this as a
>>reason to expand the court...but they are feckless idiots
>who
>>are ALREADY losing that argument by playing defense.
>>
>>Not to mention, say Biden adds two judges (he won't)...its
>>still 6-5 conservative majority.
>>
>
>Biden already caved on that.
>
>https://www.npr.org/2020/10/13/923213582/biden-says-hes-not-a-fan-of-expanding-the-supreme-court
>

Yeah I just wish they would all answer that question by pointing out it is the GOP who have packed the courts.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

navajo joe
Member since Apr 13th 2005
6211 posts
Tue Oct-13-20 01:35 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
44. "If you're "by the book" you can answer questions about voter i..."
In response to Reply # 0
Tue Oct-13-20 01:36 PM by navajo joe

  

          

and the President's ability to unilaterally delay the election.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1316081791862804482?s=20

"Regardless if you listen to me, in the end we'll see."
-Cee-Lo

"You’ve had 4 years of Trump University and are still failing the final exam smh"
-Bree Newsome Bass

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Trinity444
Charter member
41193 posts
Tue Oct-13-20 04:37 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
48. "well done, Booker..."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Trinity444
Charter member
41193 posts
Tue Oct-13-20 06:07 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
49. "beautiful..."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Kamala laying that sh*t out lol

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Trinity444
Charter member
41193 posts
Tue Oct-13-20 06:25 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
50. "that’s how you close the show, baby..."
In response to Reply # 49


  

          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

will_5198
Charter member
60921 posts
Wed Oct-14-20 12:00 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
51. "I can see why she was nominated"
In response to Reply # 0


          

she is very likable to most moderates and all conservatives...the type that would become a martyr easily (unlike Brett "I LIKE BEER, OK" *sobs* Kavanaugh)

--------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
PimpTrickGangstaClik
Member since Oct 06th 2005
14936 posts
Wed Oct-14-20 12:10 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
54. "I don't know why Trump didn't go with her before Kavanaugh"
In response to Reply # 51
Wed Oct-14-20 12:10 PM by PimpTrickGangstaClik

  

          

It would have saved the republicans a lot of headaches in 2018

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Reeq
Member since Mar 11th 2013
11051 posts
Wed Oct-14-20 12:25 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
55. "she was actually ahead of kavanaugh on the federalist societys list"
In response to Reply # 54


  

          

but trump picked kavanaugh because of kavs writings on presidential immunity from prosecution and congressional/judicial deference to 'executive prerogative' (basically the unitary executive theory...aka autocratic powers in a constitutional democracy).

------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

PROMO
Charter member
26097 posts
Wed Oct-14-20 12:06 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
53. "just heard her speak today for the first time. sounds kinda Valley-ish."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

not her content...her tone.

makes it hard for me to reconcile in my brain her about to be a SC Justice.

i just expect people in high positions of power to have a certain tone to their voice, man or woman.

that's my only take on this. fuck conservative judges or any person whose actual job it is to deny expanding rights to citizens.

STAND OUT HAND OUTS: http://basquiatwhenipaint.tumblr.com

TWEET ME: @PROMO206

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Reeq
Member since Mar 11th 2013
11051 posts
Thu Oct-15-20 01:39 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
56. "feinstein gotta fucking go."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1316805807753879555

this chick fucking hugged lindsey graham (with no mask)
https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1316808230278963200

i hope biden puts her in his administration so she can get the fuck up out the senate.

also somebody like adam schiff could take that seat. and you know he knows how to go head up with repubs.

------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Reeq
Member since Mar 11th 2013
11051 posts
Thu Oct-15-20 04:12 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
57. "btw she just indirectly boosted graham in a close senate race too."
In response to Reply # 56


  

          

pretty much made graham look like a sensible moderate as he is hypocritically ramming through a supreme court justice and thumbed his nose as covid protocol by not getting tested.

------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Marbles
Member since Oct 19th 2004
21625 posts
Thu Oct-15-20 04:24 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
58. "She had to owe him a favor, right?"
In response to Reply # 56


  

          


She owed him for supporting some bill or something that she was trying to get thru.

And instead of returning it in a legislative manner, he asked her for this moment to try to help boost his re-election effort.

That's the only way I can make sense of that happening right now.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
GOMEZ
Member since Feb 13th 2003
5240 posts
Thu Oct-15-20 05:04 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
59. "more simply - she's a rich white 87 year old lady and give no fucks"
In response to Reply # 58


  

          

she really has zero motivation in life at this point to give a shit about this hearing or its' repercussions. None of this shit affects her life at all. She knew this shit was a done deal from the start and decided not to get worked up over it.

https://www.instagram.com/sbmission365/

In a generation of swine, the one-eyed pig is king.
-Hunter S. Thompson

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Marbles
Member since Oct 19th 2004
21625 posts
Fri Oct-16-20 10:00 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
62. "I guess that makes some sense..."
In response to Reply # 59


  

          

>she really has zero motivation in life at this point to give
>a shit about this hearing or its' repercussions. None of this
>shit affects her life at all. She knew this shit was a done
>deal from the start and decided not to get worked up over it.

As soon as Ginsburg passed away, I knew it was a done deal. The GOP had the numbers in the Senate. Unless Barrett had something in her background that disqualified her, there was nothing the Dems could do to stop them.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Stadiq
Member since Dec 21st 2005
3968 posts
Thu Oct-15-20 05:24 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
60. "she is objectively awful. Imagine how much better things would be"
In response to Reply # 56


          


if Dems knew when to hang it up or at least step aside and let the new guard takeover.

Her
RBG
Chuck Weasel
Pelosi
Nadler
Hillary
Bernie (had Bernie played king maker for a better politician, we'd be staring at a very possible progressive white house rn imo)

etc etc


What's funny is, on paper, you would think folks on the left were more about their cause than ego...I think ego holds the left back from winning a lot more than it holds the right back from their agenda.

But Dems? Nah. Heads in the clouds. And dem voters make heroes out of these politicians and cheer them on.

On some "it isn't RBGs fault!" uh, yes it objectively is. All her fault? No. But you have to think ahead and expect the worst from the GOP.


  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
luminous
Charter member
11493 posts
Thu Oct-15-20 05:41 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
61. "fuck her, the kids, and the environment!"
In response to Reply # 56


  

          

--
Sometimes you have to look reality in the face and say 'No!'
-Ben (Reaper)

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

luminous
Charter member
11493 posts
Mon Oct-26-20 08:51 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
63. "It’s over..."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

--
Sometimes you have to look reality in the face and say 'No!'
-Ben (Reaper)

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
ThaTruth
Charter member
91325 posts
Mon Oct-26-20 09:19 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
64. "our kids, grandkids, great grandkids will feel the repercussions of this..."
In response to Reply # 63


          

for generations.

All people still think it’s about who lives in a house.

________________________________________
Watch For The Hook
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gy9Fun9CuZ4

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
calij81
Member since Jan 17th 2007
11920 posts
Tue Oct-27-20 12:55 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
65. "But it does matter who lives in that house because they appoint "
In response to Reply # 64


          

The SCOTUS judges. If Hillary is in that house she would have picked RBGs successor.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
vik
Charter member
13147 posts
Tue Oct-27-20 01:25 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
66. "RBG should've gracefully bowed out during Obama's time"
In response to Reply # 65


  

          

before the McConnell 9 month stalemate bullshit.

Wishful thinking.

They play the game better than we do..

---

But hell, what do I know?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
Reeq
Member since Mar 11th 2013
11051 posts
Tue Oct-27-20 05:58 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
68. "yup we cant continue with these fuckups on our side."
In response to Reply # 66
Tue Oct-27-20 05:59 AM by Reeq

  

          

people sitting out elections in 2010, 2014, and 2016.

rbg having TWO of the deadliest forms of cancer and not stepping down to be replaced by obama because she wanted to break the record for oldest sc justice.

bernie denying obama appointments to the usps board of governors and hollowing it out for trump to come in and appoint the entire leadership who allowed dejoy to run roughshod.

so many failings that all came together as disastrous outcomes for the long term.

we gotta be ruthlessly strategic and play as a team.

------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
Adwhizz
Member since Nov 12th 2003
40096 posts
Tue Oct-27-20 07:11 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
70. "Big Donor Money flows to Strong Republicans and weak Dems"
In response to Reply # 66


  

          

DISCLAIMER: EVERYBODY AND THEIR MOMMA NEEDS TO GO VOTE FOR JOE BIDEN IF THEY HAVEN'T ALREADY. NO BOTH PARTIES AREN'T "JUST AS BAD". I'VE ALREADY VOTED FOR THE GUY/DONATED MONEY TO DEM ELECTION CAMPAIGNS

Now that that's out the way, "our" side is consistently telling us what they can't do, that we need to be "willing to compromise" with Republicans, and when they go low, we go high yadda yadda yada...

Even when they Win, they manage to lose: Obama's pick for the supreme court and a bunch of lower court picks were blocked for close to a year

What action did our Leadership take to try to delay this woman from getting confirmed before the election? If nothing else they should care about this because it could directly lead to yet ANOTHER election that we could and DID win getting stolen.

If they're CONSISTENTLY getting out maneuvered they're either complicit or incompetent.



R.I.P. Loud But Wrong Guy
Dec 29th 2009 - Dec 17th 2017

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
Reeq
Member since Mar 11th 2013
11051 posts
Tue Oct-27-20 07:34 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
71. "worst political advice ever in hindsight."
In response to Reply # 70


  

          

>and when they go low, we go high

imagine sitting through 8 years of republican dirty politics, disregard for law/democracy, and outright nihilism then telling everyone 'hey yall lets take the high road'.

a lot of people dont know how bad republicans are because dems dont just come out and say it with no equivocation. instead they actually normalize an extreme/radical party by saying shit like 'i have faith that my republican colleagues will come to their senses...' and shit like that.

but the *real* problem is that almost half of the people who vote are completely cool with the corruption, cruelty, etc of a party that gets rewarded more by their base the more damage they do to the country.

i dont even know if theres any remedy for that.

------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
Lurkmode
Member since May 07th 2011
4023 posts
Tue Oct-27-20 07:49 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
73. "They complicit"
In response to Reply # 70


  

          


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnNMlBTkF_s&list=PLmT3OyvTSH9VaQLXbir2XKK7MPOtCKdaU&index=27

---------------------------
Signature

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
ThaTruth
Charter member
91325 posts
Tue Oct-27-20 04:09 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
67. "That’s kinda the point genius most people including a lot of these..."
In response to Reply # 65


          

dumb ass rappers trying straddle the fence or these fake anarchists that try to say it doesn’t matter for black people who the president is. It does but most don’t understand how deep the rabbit hole goes. Until the courts make a major decision that affects them or someone they’re close and they want to complain about “the justice system”

________________________________________
Watch For The Hook
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gy9Fun9CuZ4

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Reeq
Member since Mar 11th 2013
11051 posts
Tue Oct-27-20 06:51 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
69. "ugh."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ElTQTi-U0AMwye7?format=jpg&name=large

------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Amritsar
Member since Jan 18th 2008
30207 posts
Tue Oct-27-20 07:51 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
74. "Queen of the rat faces "
In response to Reply # 69


  

          

_______________________________________________
"Mindless populism embodied by Trump and Sanders are like a malignant wart on our body politic"

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Reeq
Member since Mar 11th 2013
11051 posts
Tue Oct-27-20 07:53 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
75. "fam is the 'rat face' shit a reference to something? lol"
In response to Reply # 74


  

          

i see you keep using it.

------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
Amritsar
Member since Jan 18th 2008
30207 posts
Tue Oct-27-20 08:08 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
76. "Level headed twitter uses it I notice "
In response to Reply # 75


  

          

When pushing back on the Brianna and Performative Wokeness types

_______________________________________________
"Mindless populism embodied by Trump and Sanders are like a malignant wart on our body politic"

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
Reeq
Member since Mar 11th 2013
11051 posts
Tue Oct-27-20 08:15 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
77. "oh is it in response to bros calling mayor pete that?"
In response to Reply # 76


  

          

------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
Amritsar
Member since Jan 18th 2008
30207 posts
Tue Oct-27-20 08:21 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
79. "I missed that somehow "
In response to Reply # 77


  

          

Them STILL being mad at Pete is pretty funny though

The level of butthurt

_______________________________________________
"Mindless populism embodied by Trump and Sanders are like a malignant wart on our body politic"

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
Lurkmode
Member since May 07th 2011
4023 posts
Tue Oct-27-20 08:17 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
78. "Are you helping or hurting ?"
In response to Reply # 76


  

          


https://twitter.com/sensen2011

---------------------------
Signature

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
Amritsar
Member since Jan 18th 2008
30207 posts
Tue Oct-27-20 08:22 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
80. "With my grand total of 2,000 followers "
In response to Reply # 78


  

          

I’m essentially tweeting into The wind

And it’s still fuck Briahna, Walker Bregman and all the Chapo idiots for life

_______________________________________________
"Mindless populism embodied by Trump and Sanders are like a malignant wart on our body politic"

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Amritsar
Member since Jan 18th 2008
30207 posts
Tue Oct-27-20 07:37 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
72. "https://twitter.com/mcjesse/status/1320921762385702912?s=21"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

https://twitter.com/mcjesse/status/1320921762385702912?s=21

_______________________________________________
"Mindless populism embodied by Trump and Sanders are like a malignant wart on our body politic"

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Reeq
Member since Mar 11th 2013
11051 posts
Tue Oct-27-20 04:46 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
81. "fucking rbg man."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

the worst possible timing.

barrett is set to weigh in on several big pre-election voting rights cases that could toss mad ballots in key swing states, plus a trump census non-citizen count case that could dramatically lower the population count in dem areas and supercharge repub gerrymandering for a massive shift in power to white rural areas, plus whatever fuckery happens in the aftermath of election day.

people can get mad at me for being insensitive or whatever. but we are too fucking sensitive and dont consider the disastrous ramifications of political decisions.

everybody knew the stakes and potential consequences of not replacing her when obama had the chance. and the worst possible scenario played out.

all of it was avoidable.

------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
ThaTruth
Charter member
91325 posts
Tue Oct-27-20 04:54 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
82. "in her defense she probably thought Hillary would be picking her..."
In response to Reply # 81


          

replacement

________________________________________
Watch For The Hook
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gy9Fun9CuZ4

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Reeq
Member since Mar 11th 2013
11051 posts
Tue Oct-27-20 05:10 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
83. "this was years before hillary."
In response to Reply # 82


  

          

she was diagnosed with her *2nd* form of cancer in 2009 and she was already 76. people were urging her to step down then. but she thought she could fight off multiple cancer diagnoses and vainly wanted to stay on the court to beat jps at age 90!

repubs have seated *15* of the last 19 sc justices. they routinely cycle the fuck out just to get younger justices in and increase the odds that they never cough up that majority.

anthony kennedy clocked out when there was even a hint of dems possibly regaining the senate in 2018. cuz he knew trump wouldnt be able to replace him after then and 2 years later a dem could be in the white house.

we gotta be more strategic/calculated fam. our democracy is on its last legs because we refuse to be.

------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
ThaTruth
Charter member
91325 posts
Tue Oct-27-20 05:44 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
86. "Most of the Dem establishment had penciled in Hillary as Obama’s..."
In response to Reply # 83


          

successor when it should’ve been Joe then but it was her “turn” and I’m sure RBG was looking forward to serving under the first female president.

I agree it was poor thinking but that’s what mentalities were pre-DT.

________________________________________
Watch For The Hook
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gy9Fun9CuZ4

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
Reeq
Member since Mar 11th 2013
11051 posts
Tue Oct-27-20 05:51 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
88. "she wasnt thinking about the next president."
In response to Reply # 86


  

          

she was thinking about herself.

------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
ThaTruth
Charter member
91325 posts
Tue Oct-27-20 06:36 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
92. "again I’m not really defending a 90y/o woman’s thinking but she was...."
In response to Reply # 88


          

appointed by Bill so her and Hilldawg probably go back 30+ years and I’m sure Hillary had probably told her “chill girl I got this”

________________________________________
Watch For The Hook
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gy9Fun9CuZ4

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
will_5198
Charter member
60921 posts
Tue Oct-27-20 05:36 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
84. "we just have to have a better system"
In response to Reply # 81


          

the fact Trump exists and we were waiting for a lifetime appointee to voluntarily relinquish her lifetime appointment to "save democracy" shows the system fucking sucks.

and when there are drastic outcomes, there should be drastic changes.

--------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
Reeq
Member since Mar 11th 2013
11051 posts
Tue Oct-27-20 05:43 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
85. "we have the system that we have. thats our reality."
In response to Reply # 84
Tue Oct-27-20 05:47 PM by Reeq

  

          

something that many of us on the left have yet to realize in 2020.

why do people expect to just change to a new system when they havent even learned how to amass enough power in the existing system to change it?

------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

            
will_5198
Charter member
60921 posts
Tue Oct-27-20 05:46 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
87. "are you that dense? it's not working."
In response to Reply # 85


          

one side is dismantling the system and the other side is saying "but...but...but...".

--------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                
Reeq
Member since Mar 11th 2013
11051 posts
Tue Oct-27-20 06:09 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
89. "one side has been hyperfocused on amassing power "
In response to Reply # 87


  

          

then using that power to manipulate the system to amass more power.

for decades.

the other side is expecting to change the system without focusing on the power part.

cart before the horse shit.

they are voting regularly, changing laws, tilting district lines, and sitting judges instead of bitching about the system.

we are still tryna convince ourselves that voting matters while assuming things will just change in some hypothetical new system that will never exist if you dont amass enough power through voting.

who is dense in that scenario?

------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                    
will_5198
Charter member
60921 posts
Tue Oct-27-20 06:18 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
91. "I'm speaking more to your first point"
In response to Reply # 89


          

the fact that an 80-year-old judge that was given a lifetime appointment, was supposed to give up her lifetime appointment, because all of democracy hinged on it?

that. is a fucking shitty system. there have been plenty of huge changes to the way this country governs, and it's time for another one. and I agree it takes seats and power to do so, but the way this who nomination played out -- Feinstein, Nancy Hawkeye Pelosi,, Twitter applause over "gotcha" questions during the confirmation -- was simply a pathetic display.

nobody brought up absenteeism from the system but you. I'm arguing against your belief that "norms" could've prevented this.

--------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                        
Reeq
Member since Mar 11th 2013
11051 posts
Tue Oct-27-20 06:45 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
94. "huh? what are you trying to say here?"
In response to Reply # 91


  

          

>nobody brought up absenteeism from the system but you. I'm
>arguing against your belief that "norms" could've prevented
>this.

rbg stepping down and being replaced by a younger healthier justice would have prevented *this* from happening.

literally.

thats how *the* system works. the only system we live under.

no rbg on the bench. no rbg death while on the bench. no vacancy. no acb confirmation before the election.

this is simple stuff here.

------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

                            
will_5198
Charter member
60921 posts
Tue Oct-27-20 06:51 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
95. "and...the fact so much rides on that"
In response to Reply # 94
Tue Oct-27-20 06:51 PM by will_5198

          

means the system is in need of drastic reforms. which one side is working towards (the GOP, which is warping the system to fit their goals). the other side is saying "this is the system we have and live under". big shrug!

again, if democracy depended on having A SINGLE JUSTICE give up her seat at a certain point in time, even though our democracy explicitly says YOU CAN KEEP YOUR SEAT UNTIL YOU DIE, then we need to work on changes instead of waiting for the next RBG-scenario to come up.

simple stuff.

--------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

    
Amritsar
Member since Jan 18th 2008
30207 posts
Tue Oct-27-20 06:12 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
90. "No one wants to point this out. "
In response to Reply # 81


  

          

Because she passed. RIP of course

But you’re spitting facts

_______________________________________________
"Mindless populism embodied by Trump and Sanders are like a malignant wart on our body politic"

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

        
ThaTruth
Charter member
91325 posts
Tue Oct-27-20 06:38 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
93. "A lot of shit is happening in 2020 that people didn’t foresee "
In response to Reply # 90


          

________________________________________
Watch For The Hook
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gy9Fun9CuZ4

  

Printer-friendly copy | Reply | Reply with quote | Top

Lobby General Discussion topic #13407822 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.25
Copyright © DCScripts.com