This is what integrity looks like.

[Perknose]

I only have it happen on mobile, on desktop Chrome it works properly, but haven't updated windows or chrome for over a month.
Mobile on my work tablet is S3 tab on Chrome. Updated.

You guys are on a fucking tech forum, figure out the issue yourselves or use the proper sub forum to complain about it and stop derailing this thread!

^^^ What ivwshane said. No more on this sub-topic will be allowed, please.

Perknose
Forum Director and Thread Purity Overseer

 

[Perknose]

Political resignation from a fellow at the end of his career. A big statement at little or no personal cost. This is the very definition of an armchair hero.

It's posts like this, in all their arrogant ignorance, that make me want to punch you in the mouth . . . metaphorically.

 

[Viper1j]

It's posts like this, in all their arrogant ignorance, that make me want to punch you in the mouth . . . metaphorically.

I guess some people just don't love their work. I'm betting that with law school, clerking, working as an attorney before finally making it to the bench, he spent more time with the law than he did his wife.

 

[Commodus]

I applaud him. Maybe he would have stayed and fought the current nature of the court if this had happened 20 years ago, who knows.

Either way, I heard someone speaking a few days ago about folks running for political office and how for many of them their main focus is "protecting the trillions." Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, there are folks making trillions on both sides and any reform we are hoping for is unlikely to ever be realized if it jeopardizes those trillions.

That's why it's important to put your vote in context. Everyone with a moral backbone will support the Democrats in November, but that's mainly because the party will restore such radical concepts as "basic human compassion" and "telling the truth most of the time." While they are exponentially better than Trump and the Republicans, we shouldn't expect the Democrats in their current form to fix some deep-seated issues no matter how much control they get of the White House and Congress. Maybe if and when reps like AOC are the norm.

 

[cytg111]

It's posts like this, in all their arrogant ignorance, that make me want to punch you in the mouth . . . metaphorically.

It is that whatever courage and backbone someone else presents no matter how little or how much, must be put down and belittled by some people. We all had this friend or family member that will tell you, no matter what you dream of or what you set out to do, will say : You cant do it, you will fail. Same psychology I believe..

 

[TheVrolok]

It's a protest that few will note and fewer will care about. It's an action without loss or consequence. If this triggers a landslide of resignations in a show of solidarity, I'll have a different opinion.

One resigned...yawn.

Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out

Still no comment in discussion of the actual content? Yawn indeed.

 

[Greenman]

It's posts like this, in all their arrogant ignorance, that make me want to punch you in the mouth . . . metaphorically.

You're welcome to go on thinking that the fellow is a hero who sacrificed everything for what he believes in, I don't. He quit a semi exclusive club (estimated 75,000 members), and did it publicly as an expression of his political beliefs. It wasn't a paid position, it wasn't an honor bestowed on a few exemplary individuals, it's an online application.
You support him because he stands against the conservative court, and that's a valid position, but it's a political position.
What I find more interesting than the story is your vitriolic response because I won't worship your hero. Clearly that makes me an enemy, or in your words, arrogant and ignorant. I've stated an opinion and given reasons for it, you've responded with a personal attack because you feel your belief structure is threatened. I thought better of you, apparently I was mistaken.

 

[TheVrolok]

You're welcome to go on thinking that the fellow is a hero who sacrificed everything for what he believes in, I don't. He quit a semi exclusive club (estimated 75,000 members), and did it publicly as an expression of his political beliefs. It wasn't a paid position, it wasn't an honor bestowed on a few exemplary individuals, it's an online application.
You support him because he stands against the conservative court, and that's a valid position, but it's a political position.
What I find more interesting than the story is your vitriolic response because I won't worship your hero. Clearly that makes me an enemy, or in your words, arrogant and ignorant. I've stated an opinion and given reasons for it, you've responded with a personal attack because you feel your belief structure is threatened. I thought better of you, apparently I was mistaken.

The court is supposed to be apolitical, or at least as apolitical as possible. I'm sure he would be just as frustrated with a liberal activist court. He's not standing against the "conservative court" he's standing against corruption of the court by politcs. Not surprised you can't see the difference.

 

[Greenman]

Still not comment in discussion of the actual content? Yawn indeed.

The content is the fellows dissenting opinion of several supreme court rulings. That's an entirely different discussion, and a valid one.

 

[Greenman]

The court is supposed to be apolitical, or at least as apolitical as possible. I'm sure he would be just as frustrated with a liberal activist court. He's not standing against the "conservative court" he's standing against corruption of the court by politcs. Not surprised you can't see the difference.

Not only do I see it but completely agree that the SC has been politicized.

 

[Viper1j]

The court is supposed to be apolitical, or at least as apolitical as possible. I'm sure he would be just as frustrated with a liberal activist court. He's not standing against the "conservative court" he's standing against corruption of the court by politcs. Not surprised you can't see the difference.

In United States vs Amistad,

The ambassador to Spain was said to have remarked "I don't understand how you can call yourself a great country, if you can't even control your courts."

Former Pres. John Quincy Adams stated "it is the very independence of our courts, that makes us a great country."

Those were the days...

 

[compuwiz1]

Not only do I see it but completely agree that the SC has been politicized.

I get a good sense that those bitching about the way the SC has been stacked, would be applauding it being stacked the opposite, if their party were in power and the opportunity to seat Justices were there. Many people I know voted for Trump on one single issue; the SCOTUS. He may be gone next election, or he may get two terms, but those with different ideology than liberals saw it as an opportunity to effect results for generations. Some see it positively, some see it as damage done. We've become two countries occupying the North American continent, some would say.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

You're welcome to go on thinking that the fellow is a hero who sacrificed everything for what he believes in, I don't. He quit a semi exclusive club (estimated 75,000 members), and did it publicly as an expression of his political beliefs. It wasn't a paid position, it wasn't an honor bestowed on a few exemplary individuals, it's an online application.
You support him because he stands against the conservative court, and that's a valid position, but it's a political position.
What I find more interesting than the story is your vitriolic response because I won't worship your hero. Clearly that makes me an enemy, or in your words, arrogant and ignorant. I've stated an opinion and given reasons for it, you've responded with a personal attack because you feel your belief structure is threatened. I thought better of you, apparently I was mistaken.

Frothing at the mouth duly noted.

 

[Greenman]

I get a good sense that those bitching about the way the SC has been stacked, would be applauding it being stacked the opposite, if their party were in power and the opportunity to seat Justices were there. Many people I know voted for Trump on one single issue; the SCOTUS. He may be gone next election, or he may get two terms, but those with different ideology than liberals saw it as an opportunity to effect results for generations. Some see it positively, some see it as damage done. We've become two countries occupying the North American continent, some would say.

Elections have consequences.
I wouldn't mind seeing the next SC appointees be morerates. Maybe even go hog wild and stick with the constitution.

 

[TheVrolok]

I get a good sense that those bitching about the way the SC has been stacked, would be applauding it being stacked the opposite, if their party were in power and the opportunity to seat Justices were there. Many people I know voted for Trump on one single issue; the SCOTUS. He may be gone next election, or he may get two terms, but those with different ideology than liberals saw it as an opportunity to effect results for generations. Some see it positively, some see it as damage done. We've become two countries occupying the North American continent, some would say.

Stop projecting.

 

[compuwiz1]

Stop projecting.

Simply telling the truth; deal with it.

 

[Commodus]

Simply telling the truth; deal with it.

No, it's false. You're trying to "both sides" this.

Would we be happier if the court was politicized in the other direction? Yes. But is that the court we want? No. What we want is a court that's there to serve the people, not companies or a particular leader. One that respects women and minorities. One where candidates are appointed based on their ability to make informed, nuanced rulings, rather than their ability to parrot what the current ruling party wants to hear.

Consider this: Obama's court appointee, Merrick Garland, was a moderate with relevant, extensive experience. I think I can safely speak for others here by saying that we'd have been happy with him; he might not have been staunchly liberal, but he would likely have delivered fair, measured rulings. But the Republicans couldn't stand that. They wanted an explicitly biased court, and blocked Garland while rushing though candidates who had serious problems (especially the overgrown frat boy Kavanaugh) in hopes they'd one day rule against women or for corporations.

There's a certain irony to your claim: in acknowledging that the court is politicized, you're admitting that there's a deep flaw in Trump and current Republicans, and that you're morally obligated to oppose them if you're internally consistent.

 

[TheVrolok]

No, it's false. You're trying to "both sides" this.

Would we be happier if the court was politicized in the other direction? Yes. But is that the court we want? No. What we want is a court that's there to serve the people, not companies or a particular leader. One that respects women and minorities. One where candidates are appointed based on their ability to make informed, nuanced rulings, rather than their ability to parrot what the current ruling party wants to hear.

Consider this: Obama's court appointee, Merrick Garland, was a moderate with relevant, extensive experience. I think I can safely speak for others here by saying that we'd have been happy with him; he might not have been staunchly liberal, but he would likely have delivered fair, measured rulings. But the Republicans couldn't stand that. They wanted an explicitly biased court, and blocked Garland while rushing though candidates who had serious problems (especially the overgrown frat boy Kavanaugh) in hopes they'd one day rule against women or for corporations.

There's a certain irony to your claim: in acknowledging that the court is politicized, you're admitting that there's a deep flaw in Trump and current Republicans, and that you're morally obligated to oppose them if you're internally consistent.

Exactly this.

 

[eelw]

When the Dems take over the senate in November, here’s hoping they restore nominations back to super majority votes. Yes good candidates will get blocked more, but at least the clowns that are getting picked currently will stop.

And also investigate Kavanaugh for lying during his nomination.

 

[Brainonska511]

When the Dems take over the senate in November, here’s hoping they restore nominations back to super majority votes. Yes good candidates will get blocked more, but at least the clowns that are getting picked currently will stop.

And also investigate Kavanaugh for lying during his nomination.

No. This idea of needing a super majority is stupid and undemocratic. I say they toss the filibuster in the trash heap of history.

 

[eelw]

While yes, some GOP stood up to many to the totally unqualified picks, all others have been voted on by party lines. Democratic is when the majority can actually nominate one where the minority is willing to cross the line and give a 96-3 RGB vote

 

[Viper1j]

When the Dems take over the senate in November, here’s hoping they restore nominations back to super majority votes. Yes good candidates will get blocked more, but at least the clowns that are getting picked currently will stop.

And also investigate Kavanaugh for lying during his nomination.

Speaking of Kavanaugh...

 

[ivwshane]

While yes, some GOP stood up to many to the totally unqualified picks, all others have been voted on by party lines. Democratic is when the majority can actually nominate one where the minority is willing to cross the line and give a 96-3 RGB vote

Quick question: have you been asleep for the last 12 years? Because if you haven’t then you’d know that it doesn’t matter who the democrats nominate, republicans will obstruct and delay in order to slow down the process and allow the next republican administration to appoint more judges.