Jump to content

Coronavirus: Already In a Neighborhood Near You


chasfh

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, gehringer_2 said:

no doubt, I'm just positing that Robert' denial is no more credible than Totenberg's avowal. I'm sure that whatever tensions exist on the court, which human nature being what it is surely exist, the only thing any of them probably dislike more than they may dislike each other would be having their dirty laundry aired in public.

i dont think they dislike each other as much as we think they do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, buddha said:

i dont think they dislike each other as much as we think they do. 

I really haven't ever heard much about any court not getting along until Gorsuch. The reporting about Gorsuch  - at least in terms of his general unhappiness with his lot, has been so consistent over the years that I'd rate the probability pretty fair that he's no-one on the court's bosom buddy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sotomayor's best friend on the court was Anthony Scali up until he died.  Talk about the odd couple as they were as different as night and day.  You never know who is friends and who isn't based on their politics.  I wouldn't think much about the false report last week that Sotomayor and Gorsuch are fighting.  They both said differently so I would think that's true instead of the report from someone trying to stir the pot for their political agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I really haven't ever heard much about any court not getting along until Gorsuch. The reporting about Gorsuch  - at least in terms of his general unhappiness with his lot, has been so consistent over the years that I'd rate the probability pretty fair that he's no-one on the court's bosom buddy.

the one thing i know is that you dont like gorsuch.  lol.  

social media creates rumors.  plenty of justices didnt get along before this and you never heard about it because there was no industry dedicated to create bullshit rumors every day in order to get clicks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, buddha said:

the one thing i know is that you dont like gorsuch.  lol.  

social media creates rumors.  plenty of justices didnt get along before this and you never heard about it because there was no industry dedicated to create bullshit rumors every day in order to get clicks.

At it's most simple, they are coworkers!

We all have coworkers who we may disagree with things on but get along with or are friends with. Maybe it's magnified to an extent when you are a Supreme Court Justice, but they still need to show up and coexist with their coworkers.

When you add in the privilege that comes with reaching that level of the profession, It's not hard to figure out.

Edited by mtutiger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Archie said:

Sotomayor's best friend on the court was Anthony Scali up until he died.  Talk about the odd couple as they were as different as night and day.  You never know who is friends and who isn't based on their politics.  I wouldn't think much about the false report last week that Sotomayor and Gorsuch are fighting.  They both said differently so I would think that's true instead of the report from someone trying to stir the pot for their political agenda.

I think you are thinking of RBG and Scalia.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jim Cowan said:

Since when did Trump get rid of NAFTA?  NAFTA 2.0 is 99% the same as the original.  Still has a dispute resolution mechanism, still has protected dairy markets - those were Trump's 2 hot issues and he caved on both of them, as usual. There are some conditions associated with Mexican auto manufacturing now (a Canadian demand).  People who think NAFTA 2.0 is a new deal have no idea what was in the original.

Trump caves on everything.  All that matters is that he presentyys himself as a tough guy who gets things done.  It doesn't matter whether it's true.  It only matters whether his cult belierves it is true.  It's like when he could achieve peace in the middle east and then he worked an arms deal with some obscure middle east countries and called it an historic "peace" agreement.  

Edited by Tiger337
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Archie said:

NAFTA is 100% the responsibility of President Clinton who signed it into law.  If it was such a bad bill, Clinton shouldn't have signed it.  I think its funny how so many people try to deflect this from the dems and Clinton.  When everyone thought it was such a great thing the dems were all about taking credit for it.  When it proved to be hurting the US and the workers then NAFTA was the fault of Bush.  Getting rid of NAFTA was another good thing  President Trump did in office.

This is what a clueless Archie Bunker says, addled by partisan hackery...

 

3 hours ago, Jim Cowan said:

Since when did Trump get rid of NAFTA?  NAFTA 2.0 is 99% the same as the original.  Still has a dispute resolution mechanism, still has protected dairy markets - those were Trump's 2 hot issues and he caved on both of them, as usual. There are some conditions associated with Mexican auto manufacturing now (a Canadian demand).  People who think NAFTA 2.0 is a new deal have no idea what was in the original.

This is what someone says when they actually know what they are talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, buddha said:

the one thing i know is that you dont like gorsuch.  lol.  

social media creates rumors.  plenty of justices didnt get along before this and you never heard about it because there was no industry dedicated to create bullshit rumors every day in order to get clicks.

I think his ideas about takings are in basic conflict with the reality of a crowded world where we have the ability to affect each other in ways that require that we go along to get along in ways that make 18th century ideas about the primacy of property interests quaintly obsolete. It's sort of another form of libertarian windmill tilt. The fun thing is that it does sometimes lead him off the conservative reservation to results like OK vs McGirt. 

As to him personally, I think his language can be unsuitably intemperate in his dissents, though he is certainly not the only one guilty of that anymore.

Edited by gehringer_2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Archie said:

Sotomayor's best friend on the court was Anthony Scali up until he died.  Talk about the odd couple as they were as different as night and day.  You never know who is friends and who isn't based on their politics.  I wouldn't think much about the false report last week that Sotomayor and Gorsuch are fighting.  They both said differently so I would think that's true instead of the report from someone trying to stir the pot for their political agenda.

I guess you just get to declare that Nina Totenberg was trying to stir the pot for her political agenda. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:

Neither do politicians.  

i think the professional politicians all realize its part of the game and dont take it personal.

its when you get folks like trump who took everything personal.  amd things are getting pretty personal here in chicago but we have a non politician for a mayor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the anti-vax stuff and all the deliberate misinformaton is stupid, but I am not really behind mandates.  Vaccines are safe and they work to an extent, but we are still getting changing reports on how well the vaccines work as the virus evolves.  It's hard to force to scared people to do stuff when the information keeps changing.  

Edited by Tiger337
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

I think the anti-vax stuff and all the deliberate misinformaton is stupid, but I am not really behind mandates.  Vaccines are safe and they work to an extent, but we are still getting changing reports on how well the vaccines work as the virus evolves.  It's hard to force to scared people to do stuff when the information keeps changing.  

Employers, hospitals, etc should be able to mandate. Government mandates are a bridge too far. What is going on in Florida and other states where employers can't mandate is just as oppressive as a mandate.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Edman85 said:

Employers, hospitals, etc should be able to mandate. Government mandates are a bridge too far. What is going on in Florida and other states where employers can't mandate is just as oppressive as a mandate.

Schools? It's maybe less an issue with Covid given the combination that kids are already at low risk and covid vaccine effectiveness in young children had been questionable but taking the more general question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...