Page 23 of 37 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast
Results 661 to 690 of 1084

Thread: The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

  1. #661
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    19,556

    Default

    LOL... dumb Dems are freaking out because Lindsey Graham gives a rape victim some good advice that someone should have given Dr. Ford 30+ years ago: "I'm sorry, tell a cop."

    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  2. #662
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    19,556

    Default

    Looks like the vote is going ahead... and some dems are breaking ranks:

    BREAKING: We Have The Votes

    With the Senate Judiciary Committee holding a vote at 9:30 A.M. tomorrow, a Senate insider has told Townhall that Kavanaugh has the votes to make it out of committee and the votes to be confirmed on the floor for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Sens. Flake (R-AZ), Collins (R-ME), Murkowski (R-AK), and Manchin (D-WV) are expected to vote in favor of Kavanaugh. All the Republicans are voting yes. Also, in the rumor mill, several Democrats may break ranks and back Kavanaugh. That’s the ball game, folks.
    [...]
    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...votes-n2523402

    Your liberal friends may need a hug today... but don't hug them in private because they may accuse you of rape or something 30+ years later.

    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  3. #663

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by creekster View Post
    Then he lied at the least about never being too inebriated to remember events.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    As a person more than familiar with the doors of AA, who has heard the stories and collected the chips, I can assure you that BK is a man who is not being square about his former dependency.
    "In heaven, all the interesting people are missing." - Friedrich Nietzsche

  4. #664
    One man.....one pie Moliere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    The Republic of Tejas
    Posts
    20,973

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ted View Post
    Looks like the vote is going ahead... and some dems are breaking ranks:
    Good, and he should be confirmed. I probably feel this way more out of disgust for how Feinstein handled all of this. I’d feel differently if someone, anyone could lend an ounce of corroboration to Fords story, but even her lifelong friend torpedoed that with her written testimony.

    I winder how much longer RBG will last. She obviously won’t retire with Trump as president but if he gets four more years will she kick the bucket by then? Would be funny to see Mike Lee nominated to take her spot.
    "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

  5. #665
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    19,556

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SeattleUte View Post
    Yes, this is 100% politics. Democrats want to stall until after the mid-terms and the polls will determine the outcome. But Republican complaints about that ring hollow, after they held Scalia’s seat open for what, 10 months.

    I’m disgusted with everybody.
    Yeah, the GOP'ers should have held a nice, long hearing on Merrick Garland and then voted to reject him... they were being way too nice.
    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  6. #666
    Senior Member dabrockster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    8,695

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Non Sequitur View Post
    As a person more than familiar with the doors of AA, who has heard the stories and collected the chips, I can assure you that BK is a man who is not being square about his former dependency.
    I find your statement interesting as it only objects to his drinking problem and not the issue of sexual assault..




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #667

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dabrockster View Post
    I find your statement interesting as it only objects to his drinking problem and not the issue of sexual assault..

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Many people set out to drink because it lowers inhibitions. It plays out at closing time in millions of bars every night throughout the world. People hook up, men and women alike, and unfortunately sometimes guys confuse lowered inhibitions with license. When people are drunk, they don't ask permission and it only seems like sexual assault in the light of sobriety. I don't mean to trivialize sexual assault, but alcohol is a bastard and it brings out our most base thoughts and actions. So when I speak of people with drinking problems who regularly attend alcohol fueled parties I naturally assume there is an accompanying sexual component. Promiscuity goes hand in hand with alcohol abuse.
    "In heaven, all the interesting people are missing." - Friedrich Nietzsche

  8. #668

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ted View Post
    Your liberal friends may need a hug today... but don't hug them in private because they may accuse you of rape or something 30+ years later.
    If you have an account, this is Twitter gold.

    "Outlined against a blue, gray
    October sky the Four Horsemen rode again"
    Grantland Rice, 1924

  9. #669

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Non Sequitur View Post
    Many people set out to drink because it lowers inhibitions. It plays out at closing time in millions of bars every night throughout the world. People hook up, men and women alike, and unfortunately sometimes guys confuse lowered inhibitions with license. When people are drunk, they don't ask permission and it only seems like sexual assault in the light of sobriety. I don't mean to trivialize sexual assault, but alcohol is a bastard and it brings out our most base thoughts and actions. So when I speak of people with drinking problems who regularly attend alcohol fueled parties I naturally assume there is an accompanying sexual component. Promiscuity goes hand in hand with alcohol abuse.
    I'm honestly alarmed people don't know that. It's one of the most nefarious things about alcohol.
    "Just watched the speech. He lit up both sides. I loved it." -Shaka

  10. #670

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cowboy View Post
    If you have an account, this is Twitter gold.

    It's not
    "Just watched the speech. He lit up both sides. I loved it." -Shaka

  11. #671
    Senior Member dabrockster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    8,695

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Non Sequitur View Post
    Many people set out to drink because it lowers inhibitions. It plays out at closing time in millions of bars every night throughout the world. People hook up, men and women alike, and unfortunately sometimes guys confuse lowered inhibitions with license. When people are drunk, they don't ask permission and it only seems like sexual assault in the light of sobriety. I don't mean to trivialize sexual assault, but alcohol is a bastard and it brings out our most base thoughts and actions. So when I speak of people with drinking problems who regularly attend alcohol fueled parties I naturally assume there is an accompanying sexual component. Promiscuity goes hand in hand with alcohol abuse.
    Thanks for the additional information. This brings to light a issue that hides in the darkness.

    As they say.. “Liquid Courage”... Sadly, this can and does turn an individual as you state.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  12. #672

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ted View Post
    Yeah, the GOP'ers should have held a nice, long hearing on Merrick Garland and then voted to reject him... they were being way too nice.
    They held out for 10 months because they knew their was on way in hell they could reject him without looking like hypocritical assholes, especially Hatch. Of course, they still ended up looking like hypocritical assholes, especially Hatch.

    Merrick Garland would have made a fantastic justice on the Supreme Court. It is a real shame he isn't on the court.

    Both sides have acted despicably with Supreme Court nominees the GOP has just been the one winning the battles.
    The crux of what has traumatized us about CUF/CG is that we thought they were our friends. And their identity as BYU fans turned out to be the most important thing to them. What empty lives! What a damning indictment of the LDS Church!
    --SeattleUte

    He who drinks beer sleeps well. He who sleeps well cannot sin. He who does not sin goes to heaven. The logic is impeccable.
    --Charles W. Bamforth, Ph.D.

  13. #673
    Senior Member dabrockster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    8,695

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frank ryan View Post
    I'm honestly alarmed people don't know that. It's one of the most nefarious things about alcohol.
    In my opinion, its not that people don’t know about it but is looked upon differently. It is minimized and empathized as a action the person would never do if they had not drank..

    I think the charade yesterday missed the mark on this very subject and determining if he is an alcoholic would have been a valid discussion relating to the revaluation that he likes to drink.

    A follow-up question for Non-Sequistor. Can a person of his mental fortitude and high profession be such a high functioning drunk? Or is it your opinion this was something in his past?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  14. #674

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ted View Post
    Yeah, the GOP'ers should have held a nice, long hearing on Merrick Garland and then voted to reject him... they were being way too nice.
    At least they would have been following the Constitution doing it that way.

  15. #675

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueK View Post
    At least they would have been following the Constitution doing it that way.
    The GOP loves the constitution and believes it must be interpreted literally, well, except when it doesn't benefit them then we can throw it out.
    The crux of what has traumatized us about CUF/CG is that we thought they were our friends. And their identity as BYU fans turned out to be the most important thing to them. What empty lives! What a damning indictment of the LDS Church!
    --SeattleUte

    He who drinks beer sleeps well. He who sleeps well cannot sin. He who does not sin goes to heaven. The logic is impeccable.
    --Charles W. Bamforth, Ph.D.

  16. #676
    Striving for mediocrity Art Vandelay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    9,085

    Default

    Garland wasn’t confirmed because of the GOP AND because the Dems were willing to wait for president Hilary.

  17. #677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MartyFunkhouser View Post
    The GOP loves the constitution and believes it must be interpreted literally, well, except when it doesn't benefit them then we can throw it out.
    Absolutely agree. That's how they've pushed me to to libertarianism.

  18. #678

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Art Vandelay View Post
    Garland wasn’t confirmed because of the GOP AND because the Dems were willing to wait for president Hilary.
    What could the dems have done about it? The way the Senate works, there wasn't much, was there? They were the minority.

  19. #679

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Donuthole View Post
    Well go ahead and continue to not remember where you heard that, because that idea is ridiculously stupid.
    More stupid than what we have currently? Do tell.

  20. #680
    Striving for mediocrity Art Vandelay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    9,085

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueK View Post
    What could the dems have done about it? The way the Senate works, there wasn't much, was there? They were the minority.
    Good point. Perhaps it more public perception (mine included) that it was a mere formality, Hilary was going to get someone through, who likely was even more liberal leaning

  21. #681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Art Vandelay View Post
    Good point. Perhaps it more public perception (mine included) that it was a mere formality, Hilary was going to get someone through, who likely was even more liberal leaning
    They could have complained and screamed louder than they were, I guess, but that probably wouldn't have changed anything unless it would have moved public opinion to the point it would have scared the GOP into allowing hearings, which is highly doubtful. The GOP seemed pretty dug in on the extra-Constitutional and absurd idea that somehow the president didn't have a right to nominate someone in that situation.

  22. #682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Non Sequitur View Post
    Many people set out to drink because it lowers inhibitions. It plays out at closing time in millions of bars every night throughout the world. People hook up, men and women alike, and unfortunately sometimes guys confuse lowered inhibitions with license. When people are drunk, they don't ask permission and it only seems like sexual assault in the light of sobriety. I don't mean to trivialize sexual assault, but alcohol is a bastard and it brings out our most base thoughts and actions. So when I speak of people with drinking problems who regularly attend alcohol fueled parties I naturally assume there is an accompanying sexual component. Promiscuity goes hand in hand with alcohol abuse.
    JS was indeed inspired. Praise to the Man!
    I'm like LeBron James.
    -mpfunk

  23. #683

    Default The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwestcoug View Post
    More stupid than what we have currently? Do tell.
    If you really think allowing the president to unilaterally replace a SC justice each presidential term would create less of a judicial shit show, you probably need to think about that some more. Sure the nomination process would be smooth sailing, but I don't think I really have to spell out how volatile that would make pretty much every SC decision.

    This nomination process is ugly. But you want a real shit show? Create a SC that flips-flops on issues every 4-8 years, depending on which party occupies the Oval Office.
    Prepare to put mustard on those words, for you will soon be consuming them, along with this slice of humble pie that comes direct from the oven of shame set at gas mark “egg on your face”! -- Moss

    There are three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city; and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Now you stick to that, and everything else is cream cheese. --Coach Finstock

  24. #684

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Donuthole View Post
    If you really think allowing the president to unilaterally replace a SC justice each presidential term would create less of a judicial shit show, you probably need to think about that some more. Sure the nomination process would be smooth sailing, but I don't think I really have to spell out how volatile that would make pretty much every SC decision.

    This nomination process is ugly. But you want a real shit show? Create a SC that flips-flops on issues every 4-8 years, depending on which party occupies the Oval Office.
    I'm not just talking about the nomination process, but about the perception of what a life nomination does to the court in general. Diehards on both sides elevate picking a SC judge as the main reason to vote for immoral people for president, above all else. Making a SC justice decision less important takes some of the hysteria out of it. A single nomination shouldn't be perceived as being able to alter the course of the court for decades. A young judge will influence the court's decisions long past the political influence that brought him/her there. If there is a limited term, the influence on the court of 1 judge is limited.

    If the court has staggered ~12-16 year appointments, and every president gets to nominate one, I fail to see how that would create a court that flip flops that suddenly. A conservative judge might replace a liberal one, and vice versa. But the next president can just as easily reverse that trend with the next pick.

  25. #685

    Default

    Politics are the absolute worst. People are attacking Flake on an elevator because of his vote.

  26. #686
    It is NOT a monkey! creekster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The Creek
    Posts
    21,626

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwestcoug View Post
    I'm not just talking about the nomination process, but about the perception of what a life nomination does to the court in general. Diehards on both sides elevate picking a SC judge as the main reason to vote for immoral people for president, above all else. Making a SC justice decision less important takes some of the hysteria out of it. A single nomination shouldn't be perceived as being able to alter the course of the court for decades. A young judge will influence the court's decisions long past the political influence that brought him/her there. If there is a limited term, the influence on the court of 1 judge is limited.

    If the court has staggered ~12-16 year appointments, and every president gets to nominate one, I fail to see how that would create a court that flip flops that suddenly. A conservative judge might replace a liberal one, and vice versa. But the next president can just as easily reverse that trend with the next pick.
    Your proposal would not only increase, rather than diminish, the politicization of the process, but it would likely play havoc with the processes of the Court and the stability of our jurisprudence.
    PLesa excuse the tpyos.

  27. #687
    The dude abides Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    47,768

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Donuthole View Post
    If you really think allowing the president to unilaterally replace a SC justice each presidential term would create less of a judicial shit show, you probably need to think about that some more. Sure the nomination process would be smooth sailing, but I don't think I really have to spell out how volatile that would make pretty much every SC decision.

    This nomination process is ugly. But you want a real shit show? Create a SC that flips-flops on issues every 4-8 years, depending on which party occupies the Oval Office.
    Yeah. That would be a disaster.
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

  28. #688

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by creekster View Post
    Your proposal would not only increase, rather than diminish, the politicization of the process, but it would likely play havoc with the processes of the Court and the stability of our jurisprudence.
    I’m not sure if it’s evident yet, but I’m arguing out of my element here. Still, I don’t see how nominating a term limited judge would be more political than nominating a lifetime appointment. By definition, the influence a term limited judge has on the court is less than what they have currently. If you decrease the potential influence a single judge pick has on the court, the politics surrounding that pick decrease.

    I’ll take your word about the stability of jurisprudence. I have no idea about that.

  29. #689

    Default

    In 12 years of ballet I never saw this much posturing.

  30. #690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northwestcoug View Post
    I’m not sure if it’s evident yet, but I’m arguing out of my element here. Still, I don’t see how nominating a term limited judge would be more political than nominating a lifetime appointment. By definition, the influence a term limited judge has on the court is less than what they have currently. If you decrease the potential influence a single judge pick has on the court, the politics surrounding that pick decrease.

    I’ll take your word about the stability of jurisprudence. I have no idea about that.
    Think of it this way. You're increasing the number of political appointments. Also, what happens when two or more vacancies come up due to early retirement or death?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •