pfife Posted February 25, 2022 Author Share Posted February 25, 2022 They don't support the notion that the Democrats are ever entitled to make nominations, let alone a specific Democratic nominee. This is the party with members on record of keeping a seat open during an entire potential Hillary administration, including the member with the power to actually do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted February 25, 2022 Share Posted February 25, 2022 4 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said: Isn't there an election this year? Can't nominate a Justice during an election year right? Seriously, I was nervous Biden would pick Michele Childs, who has a more concerning background on labor rights issues. I am very excited to see he picked Judge Brown Jackson instead. She seems like a terrific nomination to the Supreme Court. Also cool that the Repubs are forced to watch a black woman get nominated and go through with nothing they can do about it. She'll be a strong advocate for LGBTQIA rights and the marginalized, which you'd think Lindsey Graham would like. I'm old enough to remember getting hammered for even asking this as a question, but I'm still not convinced that Manchin and Sinema are rubber-stamping this. I could see them at least using their vote here as leverage to water down or kill Democratic legislation their Republican constituents (and colleagues 😏) don't like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted March 3, 2022 Share Posted March 3, 2022 LSAT score, huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted March 3, 2022 Share Posted March 3, 2022 (edited) 19 minutes ago, chasfh said: LSAT score, huh? she went to Harvard? The school that gets applications from the most qualified students in the country that they can pick and choose? Maybe Carlson knows something but nah, let's be honest, this is a racist troll playing on an affirmative action myth. But just on the probabilities, it's more likely her LSAT's were +90 percentile. By her bio she had distiniguished herself as early as HS, finished Harvard Cum Laude, and oh - just happened to impress a JOTSCOTUS enough to be tapped for a clerkship. Yeah, sounds like someone who never would have made it on her own smarts..... In fact yeah - Tucker is a grade A large asz-hole. (LOL - the fact is that the students at Harvard more likely to get a pass on admission requirements are WASP legacies....) Edited March 3, 2022 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted March 3, 2022 Share Posted March 3, 2022 I think they’re throwing stuff out to see what sticks. Who knows what outlandish claim will grow legs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted March 3, 2022 Author Share Posted March 3, 2022 LOL at asking for scores from a test used to get into law school these guys are insufferable Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Netnerd Posted March 3, 2022 Share Posted March 3, 2022 I’d like to see Tucker C’s transcript. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted March 3, 2022 Share Posted March 3, 2022 5 minutes ago, Netnerd said: I’d like to see Tucker C’s transcript. or his psych evaluation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMRivdogs Posted March 3, 2022 Share Posted March 3, 2022 Typical for someone born with an aluminum tray in his mouth 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewsieg Posted March 3, 2022 Share Posted March 3, 2022 On 2/25/2022 at 4:19 PM, chasfh said: I'm old enough to remember getting hammered for even asking this as a question, but I'm still not convinced that Manchin and Sinema are rubber-stamping this. I could see them at least using their vote here as leverage to water down or kill Democratic legislation their Republican constituents (and colleagues 😏) don't like. Unless some serious background info comes out, which i'm assuming would have already, Manchin will definitely rubber stamp. Sinema, IMO, won't have any political reason to hold out either, as i'm confident you're going to have several GOP senators, at minimum, vote for her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted March 3, 2022 Share Posted March 3, 2022 11 minutes ago, ewsieg said: Unless some serious background info comes out, which i'm assuming would have already, Manchin will definitely rubber stamp. Sinema, IMO, won't have any political reason to hold out either, as i'm confident you're going to have several GOP senators, at minimum, vote for her. Politicians typically use political leverage for political gain, is all I'm saying here. I don't know if that circumstance clear and present in this particular case, which is why I am speculating rather than declaring. But the potentially-contentious confirmation of a Supreme Court justice strikes me as a perfect opportunity to horse-trade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted March 3, 2022 Share Posted March 3, 2022 Since there's a 6-3 conservative majority and this is a 1:1 "liberal" slot it's easy for some of the GOP to present themselves as bipartisan. that way if the time comes to replace one of the others they can play hardball and claim they aren't partisan, which will be a lie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMRivdogs Posted March 3, 2022 Share Posted March 3, 2022 (edited) Has anyone seen Kavanaugh's LSAT scores. Are the higher than his BAL? Edited March 3, 2022 by CMRivdogs spellcheck, autofill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted March 3, 2022 Share Posted March 3, 2022 2 hours ago, oblong said: Since there's a 6-3 conservative majority and this is a 1:1 "liberal" slot it's easy for some of the GOP to present themselves as bipartisan. that way if the time comes to replace one of the others they can play hardball and claim they aren't partisan, which will be a lie. The wild card here, do Republicans get primaried for voting to confirm her? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewsieg Posted March 3, 2022 Share Posted March 3, 2022 4 hours ago, chasfh said: Politicians typically use political leverage for political gain, is all I'm saying here. I don't know if that circumstance clear and present in this particular case, which is why I am speculating rather than declaring. But the potentially-contentious confirmation of a Supreme Court justice strikes me as a perfect opportunity to horse-trade. I personally see Manchin as a honest player and believe he would vote for her regardless. I just think he's so right of the party, most just assume he's a DINO. I don't see that in Sinema, which is why I agree with you that if no one from the GOP was voting for Jackson, she wouldn't confirm until she got something out of it. She really seems to epitomize the sleaze that is DC. Just one GOP member votes for her and Sinema has nothing to bargain with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewsieg Posted March 3, 2022 Share Posted March 3, 2022 1 hour ago, chasfh said: The wild card here, do Republicans get primaried for voting to confirm her? Absolutely Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddha Posted March 4, 2022 Share Posted March 4, 2022 as expected, the supremes vote to uphold tsarnaev's death sentence. thomas gets the opinion because he's a big death penalty guy. always seems to write them. libs as usual in dissent with breyer writing it because he always seems to write dissents in death penalty cases. breyer writes to support the government in preventing its people from testifying in a torture case based on "state secrets." gorsuch writes a pretty good dissent joined by sotomayor. gorsuch and sotomayor???? together????? somebody tell nina totenburg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted March 5, 2022 Share Posted March 5, 2022 6 hours ago, buddha said: as expected, the supremes vote to uphold tsarnaev's death sentence. thomas gets the opinion because he's a big death penalty guy. always seems to write them. libs as usual in dissent with breyer writing it because he always seems to write dissents in death penalty cases. breyer writes to support the government in preventing its people from testifying in a torture case based on "state secrets." gorsuch writes a pretty good dissent joined by sotomayor. gorsuch and sotomayor???? together????? somebody tell nina totenburg. I'd be(will be) happy to see the death penalty go away, but I don't have an argument with the Tsaraev ruling, basically because I don't much like the base concept behind 'Svengali' defenses so I'm not troubled at the exclusion that was the basis of the appeal. Haven't read about the other one....yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted March 5, 2022 Share Posted March 5, 2022 (edited) You can cheer for the death penalty for the worst of the worst, and no one will blame you, and many will attaboy you for it. OTOH, a death penalty that can be used on one is a death penalty that can be used on any. Word to the wise. Edited March 5, 2022 by chasfh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted March 5, 2022 Share Posted March 5, 2022 (edited) 28 minutes ago, chasfh said: You can cheer for the death penalty for the worst of the worst, and no one will blame you, and many will attaboy you for it. OTOH, a death penalty that can be used on one is a death penalty that can be used on any. Word to the wise. right, but on the other hand I don't want judges to distort other rules of procedure in back door efforts to get death penalty reprieves because that reverberates through the whole trial system as well. I would guess that the admission of the kind of evidence that the defense wanted in this case would end up leading to more (possibly wrongful) convictions in other cases. Edited March 5, 2022 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted March 5, 2022 Share Posted March 5, 2022 On 3/3/2022 at 7:51 AM, gehringer_2 said: or his psych evaluation He's a genius like Trump. He can identify an elephant in a picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted March 20, 2022 Author Share Posted March 20, 2022 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted March 21, 2022 Share Posted March 21, 2022 1 hour ago, pfife said: Devastating news. Reports are he will pull through. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted March 21, 2022 Share Posted March 21, 2022 (edited) On 3/4/2022 at 3:34 PM, buddha said: as expected, the supremes vote to uphold tsarnaev's death sentence. thomas gets the opinion because he's a big death penalty guy. always seems to write them. libs as usual in dissent with breyer writing it because he always seems to write dissents in death penalty cases. breyer writes to support the government in preventing its people from testifying in a torture case based on "state secrets." gorsuch writes a pretty good dissent joined by sotomayor. gorsuch and sotomayor???? together????? somebody tell nina totenburg. I am not a fan of the death penalty, but if anyone should get it, it's tsarnaev. Edited March 21, 2022 by Tiger337 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archie Posted March 21, 2022 Share Posted March 21, 2022 The Republicans said today they won't turn the confirmation hearing into a spectacle with lies and false charges against the nominee like the democrats did to Trump nominees. Nice to see there are a few adults left in the government trying to do business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.