Nice article on Judge Amy Coney Barrett
- Thread starter Noodle
- Start date
[/QUOTE]
Man, woman, person, camera, tv. I don't know if I favor mandatory retirement age, but I would demand testing of cognitive skills.
Man, woman, person, camera, tv. I don't know if I favor mandatory retirement age, but I would demand testing of cognitive skills.
[/QUOTE]
without giving it much thought was thinking of ways to rotate the court without expansion. depending on affiliation it could have the reverse impact though. disregard
[/QUOTE]
without giving it much thought was thinking of ways to rotate the court without expansion. depending on affiliation it could have the reverse impact though. disregard
Oh yeah forgot about 2004. That's the one where Bush lied and got us into the afhan war (that we're still in) to go after....Hussain???!! Unemployment was climbing up to double digits, the markets had lost over 60% of their value (and we haven't even hit the third crash in 2008), homeland security was invading our privacy and the war powers act (because again remember, it was activated under Bush) gave him unlimited military power that's still in place today.
Good times man. You republicans did the country well.
However to rebute your post, Bush should have never been the incumbent so it nullified 2004. Hail to the thief.
But congratulations brother, you got one win in 30 years so completely ignore that your party is melting away like the wicked witch of the west.
Most of the current party will be dead in 20 years but you'll control the courts now so...mission accomplished.
Yes, but that isn't the point. I'm not trying to think of political revenge, I am thinking what this court needs going forward. We shouldn't have people who have cognitive issues with a lifetime appointment.
Again, your hypocrisy comes with an actual, massive price tag.
You have absolutely no ground to stand and lecture anyone on silly things like integrity, honor etc.
I don't give a f how you want to say you feel about something when you go all 'I thought McConnell was wrong in 2016 so I have no discord when it comes to this. I'm an honorable man with unwavering principles.'
You (and I) don't mean s@#t. The party you defend represents who you are so f off. It's no different than your ilk saying "I not a Trump supporter but....." in that it let's you try to alleviate the cognitive dissonance you have with him.
Put another way, you can't buy players and win championships and then try to shame Duke when they play your game and beat you. Bob Knight still thinks you are a cheating POS.
But Jamie this has actual consequences. The hypocrisy is not equal.
For example I can't shoot you in the face and then go to court with a defense of 'Jamie would do the same to me if he had a gun' and have the court go 'yeah, you're right'.
In the bigger picture I believe this is going to just make us more divided with more resolve to pwn each other so....that will good for political fundraising I guess.
You realize that your justification is as relevant as whether it was sunny or cloudy on the day of their confirmation.
It's an irrelevant argument invented after the fact to justify blatent hypocrisy of a rule the hypocrite put in for a short term issue.
Put another way. Say we're playing hoops and you are beating my ass 10-0. I hit a shot and declare it is worth 10 points so we are tied. You are like 'what, you're just changing the rules of the game'. Nope, it's worth 10 points now.
You then immediately go and sink a ten point shot on me and say 'okay TC, I'm up 20-10!'
I say no, it only counts for ten points if you are behind in points.
Instead of a simple game, this will effect the next 30 to 50 years of your life.
I would think you'd call me out on my snake level dishonesty.
So you believe McConnell was right in 2016. Well I don't.
This is pure B.S. But I am not surprised this is how you think. Liberals think people are identified by groups instead of individuality. Time for you to post about critical race theory.
Bill Clinton didn’t win a majority of votes in either of his elections. Just sayin’.
“Gloves are off” = “my party & the people I vote for are ethically no better than DJT or MM”
Barrett seems better than Kavanaugh for sure and might surprise people outside of the wedge social issues. Certainly seems to be highly-thought of and I don't think Notre Dame is full of kooks to where she could win "distinguished professor" from her students 3x if she was a total nutter.
Focus ought to be on McTurtle/Graham/whole GOP's hypocrisy, them ramming things through at the end (and the Senate doing @#$% for COVID recovery) and that Pence said this was a sure vote against ACA & Roe v.s. Wade.
Focus ought to be on McTurtle/Graham/whole GOP's hypocrisy, them ramming things through at the end (and the Senate doing @#$% for COVID recovery) and that Pence said this was a sure vote against ACA & Roe v.s. Wade.
No, I don't have any trust that you felt that way in 2016.
I'd like to be able to see some actual discussion on it in 2016 to confirm but in my experience you tend be a passionate defender of the group you represent which leads me to believe that in 2016 you were passionately defending it like you do.
Regardless that doesn't change what is currently happening. McConnell set a new precedent and now is trying to go against that precedent.
And you, like you tend to do, are defending it. Like I'm sure you did in 2016.
This has real impacts on our lives. No matter how much you want to deflect and divert with hypotheticals and whatnot, your party is going to benefit twice from your hypocrisy.
That's going to piss off the majority and set another, very dangerous precedent going forward while making it much more difficult to work together.
That will be on you.
Just don't go all bitch like you did over cancel culture.
lol ... now you're just making crap up.
I can do that too. The core of conservatism is based on social/sexual dysfunction and anxiety. fwiw - My statement has more truth to it than yours.
Last edited:
Hey my Mom and her family are from the Tenn/Ky border, so I'm not just taking potshots will nilly...
The point is to point out the ludicrousy of VPM trying to equate the people of the Country choosing Obama by an overwhelming number, with the people of a specific number of RED states electing people in what amounts to local referendums to represent them. The people who voted for Dem Senators in 2014 have no more right to speak as the voice of the people than the 11 Million who voted for Dem Senators over GOP choices in 2018.
Obama was elected for a 4 yr term in 2012, and Trump was given the same sort of victory in 2016. The GOP won the 2014 midterms and the Dems did likewise in 2018. If you argue that 2014 expressed the wish of the people to have more of a voice in decisions like this, then why wouldn't the same be true of 20118? After all, it's the Senate class of 2014 that will face a reckoning in 2020...
In 2014 in the lowest turnout for a midterm since 1924, the GOP won the Senate by about 6%, around 5 1/2 million votes. In 2018 the Dems turned around and won by over 9%, around 11 Million votes more than the GOP. Why exactly does following the "will of the people" in 2016 to replace a SCOTUS justice 9 mos before the election, not apply to the will of the people in 2020 to replace a SCOTUS who died in Sept, about 6 weeks before the election?
Imo the Republicans are approaching this as a cynical power grab. I fervently hope the Dems respond in kind...
He won the popular vote, the overall majority of the candidate pool.
Dumb trivia, I was a Perot guy. That probably would have been a disaster in hindsight.
I was talking about not LOSING the popular vote totals. Bush accomplished that in 2000. Trump set the (dubious) record which I thought might stand forever. But at this point,I think the only way he wins a second term is to shatter that record. Of course, he'll have to suppress the actual vote to even be able to accomplish that...
This kind of distribution, diversity, and dilution of political power is exactly why the U.S. endures. The list of nations as diverse as ours with a mostly functioning government is very short, and it might be a list of one. Eastern Europe, the Balkans and the former Soviet Union, are just a few examples of regions that can't pull off what we manage with diverse interests. China addresses diversity with guns, concentration camps, and prisons. There are divisive tensions in U.K., Belgium, Spain, and even Canada, We don't because of the process you find objectionable.
Moreover, I think your view is incredibly elitist.
No my friend this defense doesn't work anymore.
Machiavellianism can be a real advantage when you have victims that play nice and have some moral compass.
That's how you get DJT as your president and a minority white nationalist movement with way too much power and spoils.
But be a good doggy.
I find the analogy of breaking the law vs. doing something within the confines of the law quite flawed. It might fit better with a moral or ethical dilemma, but even still, there is nothing illegal going on.
Of course this is going to divide us more as a country. We've been trending that way for decades now. This just adds fuel to the fire, as they say.
DILLIGAS?
So what? The President appoints a SCOTUS justice and the Senate provides advice and consent. Those are the rules. So yeah rules, as well as electing of those who apply the rules have consequences.
Why? Is tit for tat government normal now? I old enough to remember when people were saying Trump would be too disruptive to be POTUS. Now the Democrats promise to be disruptive and change institutions that have served us for 100's of years.
That's what the Trumpsters voted for in 2016. Tit for tat, bitch.
That's not what you all said at the time. It's not about party, you said. It's because it's an election year. Now you are changing the rationale. That's the hypocrisy.
They aren’t crazy either. Ever hear me call liberal Justices crazy?
Incidentally, HRC didn’t win the majority of the votes either. Bush (once) and Obama are the only candidates to win a majority of the vote since 1988.
Perot was a nut. Probably cost GHW Bush his re-election, but whether he did or not, he was a nut.
He did have a lot of great lines tho lolIncidentally, HRC didn’t win the majority of the votes either. Bush (once) and Obama are the only candidates to win a majority of the vote since 1988.
Perot was a nut. Probably cost GHW Bush his re-election, but whether he did or not, he was a nut.
No, I never thought you gave a s#$t but I do think you're full of it. You're the definition of a party lawyer.
As far as the rest of your post, thank you for making the point. The rules are the rules. When someone keeps changing them to suit their needs that's called corruption. Spinning it as some kind of self righteous justification is called hypocrisy.
Setting a precedent that rules can be changed on the whims of a party's desires is dangerous, which is what you just did.
So quit your bitching when someone gets into power that you don't like and pulls the same BS. You said the rules are there to be interpreted by who has the power.
Tit for tat.
As an aside I get a kick out of the projection posts. You do something immoral and then say 'umm they would do it to'. You sucker punch a guy in the face and then ask him to take the high road because you're no different than I am if you fight back.
There needs to be consequences for your recklessness, hopefully starting this election cycle but you'll probably cheat your way through that. That's kind of your brand.
He was, for me, the first self made business mind who was spewing common sense and refreshing solutions vs the status quo.
I believe in spring of 92 he was leading in the polls....and then that Uber rich, billionaire paranoia got him and he flaked out.
i remember and agree. i was a poly sci major and went to college in the south. our school hosted david duke. bizarre to think about that today. that sentiment with perot represents what got trump elected imo. guess it's a bad recipe lol
Similar threads
