Fighting dirty on behalf of the right to kill human life indiscriminately.
We've been headed to rock bottom for a very long time. When judges became partisan weapons. It's true of both sides. Judges were intended to interpret the constitution AS IT IS WRITTEN not read their rulings into it. Just try finding a right abortion in the constitution, it's not there despite what so many people think. It's a perfect example of judicial overreach and that's why the justices matter so much to both sides. If it were truly the "law of the land" then there would be AN ACTUAL LAW that upheld it. The legislative branch has failed in its mission and that has cause/forced judges to legislate from the bench. It is wrong and was never the intent of our checks and balances system but because it is the case, the executive branch will attempt to stack the courts so that the legislation that comes from the bench will favor their party's platform.Jinx 2 said:Trying to impeach Kavanaugh or otherwise unseat him is a bad idea, and it won't work. I'm not in favor of it, not because I like Brett Kavanaugh, but because he's seated already, however he was railroaded through by Republicans on the Senate JudiciaryDoc Holliday said:
How in the hell can these people even pretend that they support Democracy?
But I had that same question when Mitch McConnell wouldn't even meet with Merrick Garland or consider his nomination. I think you and every other conservative posting on this board underestimate exactly how wrong, undemocratic and partisan that was.
I attended a lunch meeting yesterday of the Federalist society that featured a prominent conservative judge and a conservative legal scholar. The judge, a BYU graduate, decried the treatment of Kavanaugh. How could we go much lower? he asked.
The scholar mentioned what happened with Merrick Garland. He pointed out that Republicans AND Democrats had been engaged in a race to the bottom over judicial appointments for 2 decades--really, ever since David Suter disappointed conservatives. He agreed that the treatment of Kavanaugh was unjust, but he also said the way the Republicans treated Merrick Garland and dissed Obama was terrible--and that he thought the tit for tat over judicial appointments would continue until we hit rock bottom. His question was, whether this is rock bottom. I'm afraid it isn't.
I support a woman's right to choose, but have long since given up on both abortion and guns as rights that will be left up to women, since their bodies are involved (abortion) or restricted enough to keep nuts from buying weapons of mass destruction (guns). Climate change is my issue. Neither Gorsuch or Kavanaugh is like to help with that, although Gorsuch is probably smart enough that he's cognizant of the science. (His mother was one o the most environmental administrators we've ever had, so there's that.)ATL Bear said:
Fighting dirty on behalf of the right to kill human life indiscriminately.
We have the same disagreement about the reading of the constitution as we do about the bible. And even among conservatives, there's textualism versus originalism. A court that includes a mix of perspectives is more likely to be just. McConnell made it clear that balance is not his goal when he refused to talk with Garland.MoneyBear said:We've been headed to rock bottom for a very long time. When judges became partisan weapons. It's true of both sides. Judges were intended to interpret the constitution AS IT IS WRITTEN not read their rulings into it. Just try finding a right abortion in the constitution, it's not there despite what so many people think. It's a perfect example of judicial overreach and that's why the justices matter so much to both sides. If it were truly the "law of the land" then there would be AN ACTUAL LAW that upheld it. The legislative branch has failed in its mission and that has cause/forced judges to legislate from the bench. It is wrong and was never the intent of our checks and balances system but because it is the case, the executive branch will attempt to stack the courts so that the legislation that comes from the bench will favor their party's platform.Jinx 2 said:Trying to impeach Kavanaugh or otherwise unseat him is a bad idea, and it won't work. I'm not in favor of it, not because I like Brett Kavanaugh, but because he's seated already, however he was railroaded through by Republicans on the Senate JudiciaryDoc Holliday said:
How in the hell can these people even pretend that they support Democracy?
But I had that same question when Mitch McConnell wouldn't even meet with Merrick Garland or consider his nomination. I think you and every other conservative posting on this board underestimate exactly how wrong, undemocratic and partisan that was.
I attended a lunch meeting yesterday of the Federalist society that featured a prominent conservative judge and a conservative legal scholar. The judge, a BYU graduate, decried the treatment of Kavanaugh. How could we go much lower? he asked.
The scholar mentioned what happened with Merrick Garland. He pointed out that Republicans AND Democrats had been engaged in a race to the bottom over judicial appointments for 2 decades--really, ever since David Suter disappointed conservatives. He agreed that the treatment of Kavanaugh was unjust, but he also said the way the Republicans treated Merrick Garland and dissed Obama was terrible--and that he thought the tit for tat over judicial appointments would continue until we hit rock bottom. His question was, whether this is rock bottom. I'm afraid it isn't.
We have been over this time and time and time and time again. McConnell used the JOE BIDEN rule from 1992. You can call him a partisan hack if he revokes the Joe Biden rule next year if an opening occurs. Until then, let it go.Jinx 2 said:I support a woman's right to choose, but have long since given up on both abortion and guns as rights that will be left up to women, since their bodies are involved (abortion) or restricted enough to keep nuts from buying weapons of mass destruction (guns). Climate change is my issue. Neither Gorsuch or Kavanaugh is like to help with that, although Gorsuch is probably smart enough that he's cognizant of the science. (His mother was one o the most environmental administrators we've ever had, so there's that.)ATL Bear said:
Fighting dirty on behalf of the right to kill human life indiscriminately.
What I want is a credible, non-partisan, impartial court. That's not Mitch McConnell's goal. May not be the Democrats' either, although Merrick Garland was a step in the right direction, and Republicans wouldn't even TALK to him. The court we have now has been discredited by McConnell and Kavanaugh.
More than 10 months (and really, a year befor ethe inauguatin) does not = "the Biden rule" if that even exists.GrowlTowel said:We have been over this time and time and time and time again. McConnell used the JOE BIDEN rule from 1992. You can call him a partisan hack if he revokes the Joe Biden rule next year if an opening occurs. Until then, let it go.Jinx 2 said:I support a woman's right to choose, but have long since given up on both abortion and guns as rights that will be left up to women, since their bodies are involved (abortion) or restricted enough to keep nuts from buying weapons of mass destruction (guns). Climate change is my issue. Neither Gorsuch or Kavanaugh is like to help with that, although Gorsuch is probably smart enough that he's cognizant of the science. (His mother was one o the most environmental administrators we've ever had, so there's that.)ATL Bear said:
Fighting dirty on behalf of the right to kill human life indiscriminately.
What I want is a credible, non-partisan, impartial court. That's not Mitch McConnell's goal. May not be the Democrats' either, although Merrick Garland was a step in the right direction, and Republicans wouldn't even TALK to him. The court we have now has been discredited by McConnell and Kavanaugh.
Elections have consequences. - BHO
And Godspeed as you go to church next Sunday brimming with self-righteousness and patriotic fervor for the Dear Leader. Make Amurica Hate Again.FormerFlash said:
I firmly stand behind Jinx in her dedication to fighting climate change. I suggest you start in India or China. They're producing far more carbon emissions than we are with no sign of slowing down. You'll probably have to move to one of those two locations to make change from the inside. Perhaps you can even find an Indian or Chinese message board focused on climate change. You'll likely need to stop spending so much time here in order to focus your efforts there.
While you're living abroad, you may even gain a new appreciation for how fairly women are treated in the US, since you seem so convinced you are disadvantaged daily here.
Godspeed, Jinx.
FormerFlash said:
I firmly stand behind Jinx in her dedication to fighting climate change. I suggest you start in India or China. They're producing far more carbon emissions than we are with no sign of slowing down. You'll probably have to move to one of those two locations to make change from the inside. Perhaps you can even find an Indian or Chinese message board focused on climate change. You'll likely need to stop spending so much time here in order to focus your efforts there.
While you're living abroad, you may even gain a new appreciation for how fairly women are treated in the US, since you seem so convinced you are disadvantaged daily here.
Godspeed, Jinx.
Trust me, you can.Florda_mike said:FormerFlash said:
I firmly stand behind Jinx in her dedication to fighting climate change. I suggest you start in India or China. They're producing far more carbon emissions than we are with no sign of slowing down. You'll probably have to move to one of those two locations to make change from the inside. Perhaps you can even find an Indian or Chinese message board focused on climate change. You'll likely need to stop spending so much time here in order to focus your efforts there.
While you're living abroad, you may even gain a new appreciation for how fairly women are treated in the US, since you seem so convinced you are disadvantaged daily here.
Godspeed, Jinx.
10 thumbs up if I could
Jinx 2 said:I had that same question--how the hell can these people claim to support democracy?-when Mitch McConnell wouldn't even meet with Merrick Garland or consider his nomination. I think you and every other conservative posting on this board underestimate exactly how wrong, undemocratic and partisan that was, and that it's viewed by most Democrats as undermining both the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and the nomination process.Doc Holliday said:
How in the hell can these people even pretend that they support Democracy?
Gorsuch is illegitimate because he's occupying a stolen seat, although he's certainly qualified to sit on SCOTUS; Kavanaugh because he's a jerk and doesn't belong there for reasons of character--not so much because he was a mean drunk in high school and college, but because of that tantrum. If a female nominee had thrown such a tantrum during what amounts to a very high-profile job interview, she's have been dismissed as too emotional to sit on a Court that's supposed to dispense impartial justice. Kavanaugh was viewed as rightly defending himself by Trump/hard-right-wingers. The double standard working overtime.
But trying to impeach Kavanaugh or otherwise unseat him is a bad idea, IMO, and it won't work. I'm not in favor of it, not because I like Brett Kavanaugh, but because he's seated already, however he was railroaded through by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who clearly weren't interested in investigating Kavanaugh's past, nor a concern of Trump and his supporters.
Trump--and following his lead, most people posting here-- have painted Blasey Ford (who had no compelling reason whatsoever to come forward other than her personal sense that Kavanaugh shouldn't sit on SCOTUS), Debbie Ramirez and others, as liars, dupes and tool of some calculated "leftist" campaign to smear the otherwise sterling character of Brett Kavanaugh.
But here's the thing: since these allegation arose at the time of the "Me, too" movement (which I realize those of you posting on this thread scorn either because you think women lie or because you don't think sexual harassment rises to the level of disqualifying anyone for office), Democrats felt that they had to respond, even at the great political cost that resulted. Kirstin Gillebrand had insisted Al Franken resign from HIS seat over lesser allegations. Lots of women were watching to see what would happen. Everybody remembered Clarence Thomas, and it's since become clear to everyone but hard-core "party-faithful-inerrancy" Republicans that Anita Hill's allegations were true and Clarence Thomas didn't belong on SCOTUS. He certainly lacks the intellectual heft of most of his colleagues, with the exception of Alito.
And it wasn't lost on anyone that the older, white, male Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee didn't want to do any meaningful investigation. The FBI investigation they finally grudgingly consented to was superficial and incomplete and omitted key figures like Mark Judge (who probably doesn't remember much about high school, anyway, thanks to his lifelong alcoholism). And they--strategically rightly and morally wrongly--trashed the character allegations against Kavanaugh and the woman/woman who brought them.
I attended a lunch meeting yesterday of the Federalist society that featured a prominent conservative judge and a conservative legal scholar. The judge, a BYU graduate, decried the treatment of Kavanaugh. How could we go much lower? he asked.
The scholar mentioned what happened with Merrick Garland. He pointed out that Republicans AND Democrats had been engaged in a race to the bottom over judicial appointments for 2 decades--really, ever since David Suter disappointed conservatives. He agreed that the treatment of Kavanaugh was unjust, but he also said the way the Republicans treated Merrick Garland and dissed Obama was terrible--and that he thought the tit for tat over judicial appointments would continue until we hit rock bottom. His question was, whether this is rock bottom. I'm afraid it isn't. He didn't think it was, either.
I know. All you good Christians are really eager to say f--k you, as often and as loud as you can, to anyone who doesn't fall in line behind your narrow, pointy version of Christianity and its vision for the country's future marching along behind Trump's church-o-god preacher hair and his mean agenda.curtpenn said:
Don't care. Not Hillary (or any other Dem). Good times.
That's reassuring.curtpenn said:
I don't claim to be a good Christian or an evangelical. So, yeah, f you.
Obama was smart. Garland would have been MUCH harder for a Senate working properly, honorably and in a bipartisan manner to oppose.JXL said:Jinx 2 said:I had that same question--how the hell can these people claim to support democracy?-when Mitch McConnell wouldn't even meet with Merrick Garland or consider his nomination. I think you and every other conservative posting on this board underestimate exactly how wrong, undemocratic and partisan that was, and that it's viewed by most Democrats as undermining both the legitimacy of the Supreme Court and the nomination process.Doc Holliday said:
How in the hell can these people even pretend that they support Democracy?
Gorsuch is illegitimate because he's occupying a stolen seat, although he's certainly qualified to sit on SCOTUS; Kavanaugh because he's a jerk and doesn't belong there for reasons of character--not so much because he was a mean drunk in high school and college, but because of that tantrum. If a female nominee had thrown such a tantrum during what amounts to a very high-profile job interview, she's have been dismissed as too emotional to sit on a Court that's supposed to dispense impartial justice. Kavanaugh was viewed as rightly defending himself by Trump/hard-right-wingers. The double standard working overtime.
But trying to impeach Kavanaugh or otherwise unseat him is a bad idea, IMO, and it won't work. I'm not in favor of it, not because I like Brett Kavanaugh, but because he's seated already, however he was railroaded through by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who clearly weren't interested in investigating Kavanaugh's past, nor a concern of Trump and his supporters.
Trump--and following his lead, most people posting here-- have painted Blasey Ford (who had no compelling reason whatsoever to come forward other than her personal sense that Kavanaugh shouldn't sit on SCOTUS), Debbie Ramirez and others, as liars, dupes and tool of some calculated "leftist" campaign to smear the otherwise sterling character of Brett Kavanaugh.
But here's the thing: since these allegation arose at the time of the "Me, too" movement (which I realize those of you posting on this thread scorn either because you think women lie or because you don't think sexual harassment rises to the level of disqualifying anyone for office), Democrats felt that they had to respond, even at the great political cost that resulted. Kirstin Gillebrand had insisted Al Franken resign from HIS seat over lesser allegations. Lots of women were watching to see what would happen. Everybody remembered Clarence Thomas, and it's since become clear to everyone but hard-core "party-faithful-inerrancy" Republicans that Anita Hill's allegations were true and Clarence Thomas didn't belong on SCOTUS. He certainly lacks the intellectual heft of most of his colleagues, with the exception of Alito.
And it wasn't lost on anyone that the older, white, male Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee didn't want to do any meaningful investigation. The FBI investigation they finally grudgingly consented to was superficial and incomplete and omitted key figures like Mark Judge (who probably doesn't remember much about high school, anyway, thanks to his lifelong alcoholism). And they--strategically rightly and morally wrongly--trashed the character allegations against Kavanaugh and the woman/woman who brought them.
I attended a lunch meeting yesterday of the Federalist society that featured a prominent conservative judge and a conservative legal scholar. The judge, a BYU graduate, decried the treatment of Kavanaugh. How could we go much lower? he asked.
The scholar mentioned what happened with Merrick Garland. He pointed out that Republicans AND Democrats had been engaged in a race to the bottom over judicial appointments for 2 decades--really, ever since David Suter disappointed conservatives. He agreed that the treatment of Kavanaugh was unjust, but he also said the way the Republicans treated Merrick Garland and dissed Obama was terrible--and that he thought the tit for tat over judicial appointments would continue until we hit rock bottom. His question was, whether this is rock bottom. I'm afraid it isn't. He didn't think it was, either.
Interesting argument about Gorsuch and the "stolen seat." You're saying the seat belonged to Garland by right before the Senate acted? That's the only way it could have been "stolen."
And the judicial nomination process has been a race to the bottom - at least as far as Republican nominees go - ever since an unprecedented smear campaign was launched against Robert Bork.
FTW, here's a guy who really needs your prayers.curtpenn said:
Glad to help.
curtpenn said:
I welcome any and all intercessory prayers. Thanks for your Christ-like concern. Oh, I forgot...
What Christians?Oldbear83 said:
Jinx shows an awful lot of hate to be judging Christians here.
Only the hypocrites.Oldbear83 said:
Jinx shows an awful lot of hate to be judging Christians here.
OK, there's one thing we agree on.curtpenn said:
Thanks so much for sharing. Linda is my all time favorite singer. If I could only listen to the works of one contemporary artist for the rest of my life, she'd be the one.
Jinx 2 said:
Nepotism.
....
Bobby Kennedy was actually smart. Would anyone want Eric or Don Jr. (or even Jared, who looks like an adroid) as attorney general?Malbec said:Jinx 2 said:
Nepotism.
....
Nope. Bought all of her albums in the '70s-'80s (as well as Emmy Lou Harris') and then CDs of most of them, as well. Everything from country rock to big band standards plus pop, new wave, and Canciones (reminds me of growing up in San Antonio). Saw her in concert at SMU's McFarlin Auditorium in the late '70s. Breaks my heart Parkinson's has stilled her voice. FWIW, I'm very partial to smart, talented, and independent women such as my mother, my wife, and our daughter.Jinx 2 said:OK, there's one thing we agree on.curtpenn said:
Thanks so much for sharing. Linda is my all time favorite singer. If I could only listen to the works of one contemporary artist for the rest of my life, she'd be the one.
But Linda's a liberal. Dated Jerry Brown, hardly a conservative, seriously. Not a Trumpet. Disgusted by guys like him. And...she's female, smart, talented and independent. These deficits don't matter to you?
Not so. You have great sympathy for progressive hypocrites, and also great bitterness at honest conservatives, Jinx.Jinx 2 said:Only the hypocrites.Oldbear83 said:
Jinx shows an awful lot of hate to be judging Christians here.
Usually, I ignore you because I don't think you're rational. You accuse anyone who disagrees with you of lying.Oldbear83 said:Not so. You have great sympathy for progressive hypocrites, and also great bitterness at honest conservatives, Jinx.Jinx 2 said:Only the hypocrites.Oldbear83 said:
Jinx shows an awful lot of hate to be judging Christians here.
And we are all of us hypocrites at one time or another. Sort of why Jesus warned Peter that he would deny him three times, before it happened.
Did they vote for Trump?curtpenn said:Nope. Bought all of her albums in the '70s-'80s (as well as Emmy Lou Harris') and then CDs of most of them, as well. Everything from country rock to big band standards plus pop, new wave, and Canciones (reminds me of growing up in San Antonio). Saw her in concert at SMU's McFarlin Auditorium in the late '70s. Breaks my heart Parkinson's has stilled her voice. FWIW, I'm very partial to smart, talented, and independent women such as my mother, my wife, and our daughter.Jinx 2 said:OK, there's one thing we agree on.curtpenn said:
Thanks so much for sharing. Linda is my all time favorite singer. If I could only listen to the works of one contemporary artist for the rest of my life, she'd be the one.
But Linda's a liberal. Dated Jerry Brown, hardly a conservative, seriously. Not a Trumpet. Disgusted by guys like him. And...she's female, smart, talented and independent. These deficits don't matter to you?
Jinx 2 said:Usually, I ignore you because I don't think you're rational. You accuse anyone who disagrees with you of lying.Oldbear83 said:Not so. You have great sympathy for progressive hypocrites, and also great bitterness at honest conservatives, Jinx.Jinx 2 said:Only the hypocrites.Oldbear83 said:
Jinx shows an awful lot of hate to be judging Christians here.
And we are all of us hypocrites at one time or another. Sort of why Jesus warned Peter that he would deny him three times, before it happened.
I don't disrespect honest conservatives. I just haven't met many. And certainly none on this site.
Jinx, with all respect you see everything here through a filter of bigotry. That happens with certain people of course. Florda does that on the conservative side, as does Golem. And of course, cinque cannot say one good word about anyone who does not share his politics.Jinx 2 said:Usually, I ignore you because I don't think you're rational. You accuse anyone who disagrees with you of lying.Oldbear83 said:Not so. You have great sympathy for progressive hypocrites, and also great bitterness at honest conservatives, Jinx.Jinx 2 said:Only the hypocrites.Oldbear83 said:
Jinx shows an awful lot of hate to be judging Christians here.
And we are all of us hypocrites at one time or another. Sort of why Jesus warned Peter that he would deny him three times, before it happened.
I don't disrespect honest conservatives. I just haven't met many. And certainly none on this site.
Why, yes my wife and mother voted for Trump just as I did recognizing the clear existential threat to our republic posed by the fascists on the left as represented by Hillary. Don't think our daughter voted as she was not that interested in politics and was pretty occupied with her first child turning one near the election. I'm sorry you can't seem to grasp that one needn't care for some of the President's failings and yet approve of most of his platform. This isn't really that complicated.Jinx 2 said:Did they vote for Trump?curtpenn said:Nope. Bought all of her albums in the '70s-'80s (as well as Emmy Lou Harris') and then CDs of most of them, as well. Everything from country rock to big band standards plus pop, new wave, and Canciones (reminds me of growing up in San Antonio). Saw her in concert at SMU's McFarlin Auditorium in the late '70s. Breaks my heart Parkinson's has stilled her voice. FWIW, I'm very partial to smart, talented, and independent women such as my mother, my wife, and our daughter.Jinx 2 said:OK, there's one thing we agree on.curtpenn said:
Thanks so much for sharing. Linda is my all time favorite singer. If I could only listen to the works of one contemporary artist for the rest of my life, she'd be the one.
But Linda's a liberal. Dated Jerry Brown, hardly a conservative, seriously. Not a Trumpet. Disgusted by guys like him. And...she's female, smart, talented and independent. These deficits don't matter to you?
Do they buy into a political and religious ideology where women are second-class citizens who probably shouldn't have the vote because they're too emotional + pregnancy + menopause, and crass, crude and nasty behavior is acceptable as long as Trump did it?