• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Trump's US Supreme Court Nominee Thread

Page 24 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
16,306
5,322
136
ACB is going to require more justices, no doubt. Her choice of words wrt LGBTQ rights, even if she apologized, spoke volumes. Her history regarding precedent is worrisome indeed. Her non-answer on recusal was as much a waste as it was the expected nope. She could have given America a much needed sigh of relief, used it to prop up her claim of independence from the powerful men on the wrong side of history who helped get her here. I still say any judge willing to go to the bench under these circumstances isn't fit to be confirmed, but then we're dealing with the Boof Kavanaugh crowd here.

It's funny how deeply held religious beliefs and related writings involving law don't mean a person's choices will reflect that religion, but it's been decided that religious people deserve extra accommodation in their treatment of others precisely because they say their faith requires it. Not tolerating their intolerance is religious persecution. Harm caused by religion influencing policy isn't bad, what's bad is religious people having their feels hurt.

I guess part of me is still a little amused, not pleasantly, by an "originalist" who happens to be a woman. Lady, in the original system you couldn't even vote, let alone hold this kind of office. That you sometimes appear more RWNJ than Scalia is something you need to explain a little. Oh if only republicans had a shred of integrity, instead of being fucking hypocrites with their "Biden rule" or acting like they didn't think of changing the number of justices themselves. I suppose I should be happy this one is at least qualified, given who these clowns are prone to put in long or lifetime positions. It's a shame we're here.

I really hope I see Lady G get washed away by the coming blue tsunami, what a spineless sack of excrement. The whining about the ACA was a nice touch I thought. Can something heavy please land on Tillis?
 
Last edited:

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
19,919
578
126
ACB is going to require more justices, no doubt. Her choice of words wrt LGBTQ rights, even if she apologized, spoke volumes. Her history regarding precedent is worrisome indeed. Her non-answer on recusal was as much a waste as it was the expected nope. She could have given America a much needed sigh of relief, used it to prop up her claim of independence from the powerful men on the wrong side of history who helped get her here. I still say any judge willing to go to the bench under these circumstances isn't fit to be confirmed, but then we're dealing with the Boof Kavanaugh crowd here.

It's funny how deeply held religious beliefs and related writings involving law don't mean a person's choices will reflect that religion, but it's been decided that religious people deserve extra accommodation in their treatment of others precisely because they say their faith requires it. Not tolerating their intolerance is religious persecution. Harm caused by religion influencing policy isn't bad, what's bad is religious people having their feels hurt.

I guess part of me is still a little amused, not pleasantly, by an "originalist" who happens to be a woman. Lady, in the original system you couldn't even vote, let alone hold this kind of office. That you sometimes appear more RWNJ than Scalia is something you need to explain a little. Oh if only republicans had a shred of integrity, instead of being fucking hypocrites with their "Biden rule" or acting like they didn't think of changing the number of justices themselves. I suppose I should be happy this one is at least qualified, given who these clowns are prone to put in long or lifetime positions. It's a shame we're here.

I really hope I see Lady G get washed away by the coming blue tsunami, what a spineless sack of excrement. The whining about the ACA was a nice touch I thought. Can something heavy please land on Tillis?
Does Biden's outspoken scripture and Catholic views worry you also?
 

Grey_Beard

Golden Member
Sep 23, 2014
1,217
1,246
136
Can something heavy please land on Tillis?
It looks like he is in real trouble in his re-election effort. He is trailing in the polls even when Cunningham had a sex scandal. Latest poll has him 4 points behind. 538 has Cunningham with a 66% chance to Tillis’ 34% chance to win. Tight but leaning heavily against Tillis.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
24,773
9,657
136
Its an interesting view, although it doesnt make sense. Many (here at least) say the Republicans want nothing more than to cater to wealthy CEO's and such. And yet, who did Obamacare benefit the most? Thats right. Drug companies and their wealthy cronies.
If Republicans are so interesting in improving healthcare why have they failed for almost 8 years coming up with a plan to replace the ACA and why would anyone trust they would after killing off the ACA??
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
24,773
9,657
136
ACB appears to have perjured herself. Could this be used to impeach her after getting on the court assuming Democrats take over the Senate?
 

Zorba

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 1999
7,574
1,490
126
ACB appears to have perjured herself. Could this be used to impeach her after getting on the court assuming Democrats take over the Senate?
Still takes 2/3 of the senate to convict, so never going to happen.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
24,773
9,657
136
Still takes 2/3 of the senate to convict, so never going to happen.
If that is a Senate rule, like Mitch just change it to 50% + 1

P.S. I looked it up. It's A Senate rule so do like Mitch did for SCOTUS and change it.
 

ksosx86

Member
Sep 27, 2012
105
41
101
5 of the already sitting Supreme Court Justices are Catholic - just sayin'; I am myself Agnostic. Making an observation here regarding what I see. If people are "afraid" well lol. They are a little late. Like 20+ years late.
Still takes 2/3 of the senate to convict, so never going to happen.
If it takes a village I doubt it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
16,306
5,322
136
ACB appears to have perjured herself. Could this be used to impeach her after getting on the court assuming Democrats take over the Senate?

Boom!

Yet another republican caught, on tape, lying to Congress. Perjury def sounds appropriate here.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
12,977
2,509
126
Those checks and balances exist for a reason, but it also assumes that all actors approach the negotiating table with the intent of finding a resolution. The House has always been rancorous, but it is the fault of both Republicans and Democrats that the Senate has become dysfunctional. I don’t expect Democrats to acknowledge this, they seem incapable of doing so.
Even if we accept your argument, someone has to be the first to bring back the norms. Lets pretend, just for a moment, that you are right (narrator voice: He is not) and that Democrats started all this. The Republicans then got their chance to set things right, and so the Garland fiasco. But, then instead of saying 'Okay, we got our revenge, can everyone agree that this is no way to run a government? lets return to normalcy' they spent 5 years kicking the Democrats while they were down. Even now as they are facing the possibility of losing the majority they are not relenting. Instead of saying 'lets return to normalcy and all agree to be civil once again' they are just complaining that the Democrats are going to punch them back when they get to their feet, all the while they go about kicking them.

You stop the fight by stopping throwing punches. As long as the Republicans insist on throwing punches the Democrats have to respond in kind.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
24,773
9,657
136
Even if we accept your argument, someone has to be the first to bring back the norms. Lets pretend, just for a moment, that you are right (narrator voice: He is not) and that Democrats started all this. The Republicans then got their chance to set things right, and so the Garland fiasco. But, then instead of saying 'Okay, we got our revenge, can everyone agree that this is no way to run a government? lets return to normalcy' they spent 5 years kicking the Democrats while they were down. Even now as they are facing the possibility of losing the majority they are not relenting. Instead of saying 'lets return to normalcy and all agree to be civil once again' they are just complaining that the Democrats are going to punch them back when they get to their feet, all the while they go about kicking them.

You stop the fight by stopping throwing punches. As long as the Republicans insist on throwing punches the Democrats have to respond in kind.
If Republicans had ANY interest in healing after getting back at Dems for starting this with Bork, once they stole Obamas pick they could have put Garland back up to replace Ginsburg. That would have been smart long term and stifled Dems attempt at payback. Too late now fuckfaces
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,122
1,717
126
Even if we accept your argument, someone has to be the first to bring back the norms. Lets pretend, just for a moment, that you are right (narrator voice: He is not) and that Democrats started all this. The Republicans then got their chance to set things right, and so the Garland fiasco. But, then instead of saying 'Okay, we got our revenge, can everyone agree that this is no way to run a government? lets return to normalcy' they spent 5 years kicking the Democrats while they were down. Even now as they are facing the possibility of losing the majority they are not relenting. Instead of saying 'lets return to normalcy and all agree to be civil once again' they are just complaining that the Democrats are going to punch them back when they get to their feet, all the while they go about kicking them.

You stop the fight by stopping throwing punches. As long as the Republicans insist on throwing punches the Democrats have to respond in kind.
Norms only work when tribes adhere to them even when not politically convenient. I can’t recall a time when either party has truly taken an admirable and principled stance when there was risk of an adverse political outcome.

As for your fight analogy, it only works if you can agree who threw the first punch, and from where I am sitting, both parties like to throw sucker punches and then draw lines in the sand.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: hal2kilo

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
24,773
9,657
136
Norms only work when tribes adhere to them even when not politically convenient. I can’t recall a time when either party has truly taken an admirable and principled stance when there was risk of an adverse political outcome.

As for your fight analogy, it only works if you can agree who threw the first punch, and from where I am sitting, both parties like to throw sucker punches and then draw lines in the sand.
I can. When Obama discovered the Russian meddling in the summer of 2016 he wanted to make a joint announcement with Republicans so to avoid the impression of influencing the election. Asshole Mitch McConnel refused so he never told the public before the election.

One side does have better motives.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
12,977
2,509
126
Norms only work when tribes adhere to them even when not politically convenient. I can’t recall a time when either party has truly taken an admirable and principled stance when there was risk of an adverse political outcome.
That is just flat out wrong, and you have to know that. They would not have existed at all if what you say is true, yet we have had many of these norms for a hundred years. It is just in the last decade or so that our politics has become so uncivil.

As for your fight analogy, it only works if you can agree who threw the first punch, and from where I am sitting, both parties like to throw sucker punches and then draw lines in the sand.
Now that is just flat out silly. You don't have to figure out who threw the first punch to stop a fight. All you have to do is stop punching.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,122
1,717
126
That is just flat out wrong, and you have to know that. They would not have existed at all if what you say is true, yet we have had many of these norms for a hundred years. It is just in the last decade or so that our politics has become so uncivil.
Things were pretty uncivil at the nation’s inception, we literally had a Founding Father killed in a duel. We fought a civil war. WW2 had a unifying effect on a nation that was starting to diverge, and things got pretty uncivil in the 60s and 90s. If we actually governed by the norms we claim, most of these issues would go away.

Now that is just flat out silly. You don't have to figure out who threw the first punch to stop a fight. All you have to do is stop punching.
That assumes both parties are willing to stop, yet from where I’m standing, both sides would love to stop the fight so long as they get in the last punch. Biden has an opportunity to stop the fight by not stacking the courts. Doing so would just be one more escalation in a long string of them.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,122
1,717
126
I can. When Obama discovered the Russian meddling in the summer of 2016 he wanted to make a joint announcement with Republicans so to avoid the impression of influencing the election. Asshole Mitch McConnel refused so he never told the public before the election.

One side does have better motives.
What was the political risk to Obama in that scenario?
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
24,773
9,657
136
What was the political risk to Obama in that scenario?
Obama could have sealed the election for Hillary by announcing it himself and rat out Mitch. The results clearly show the risk.

Did I really have to explain that to you??
 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,059
917
126
Biden has an opportunity to stop the fight by not stacking the courts.
BS...as if Repubs wouldn't backtrack on any agreement in order to "win". The fact that only ONE GOP senator had the integrity to hold Trump accountable in his impeachment shows what the "law and order" party are all about. Biden should definitely do it. SCOTUS shouldn't be politicized but it's too late for that...the constant 5-4 partisan judgments lays that bare for everyone to see. And the more partisan in favour of Repubs it gets, the less and less it reflects the will of the people (ie. the most universally popular policies are the Democrat ones). So Biden should ABSOLUTELY stack the courts (this is assuming Dems also have the Senate at some point).
 
  • Love
Reactions: iRONic

ASK THE COMMUNITY