RIP: Ruth Bader Ginsberg Dead!

Topics without replies are pruned every 365 days. Not moderated.

Moderator: Dux

User avatar
nafod
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 12384
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Looking in your window

Re: RIP: Ruth Bader Ginsberg Dead!

Post by nafod » Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:02 am

There should be term limits.
Don’t believe everything you think.

User avatar
Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 21101
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: RIP: Ruth Bader Ginsberg Dead!

Post by Turdacious » Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:28 am

Fat Cat wrote:
Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:57 pm
RBG was egotistical in this regard. Obama was sniffing around for her to step down way back in 2014, but she wouldn't have it. Then again, nobody likes being told they're too old and in the way.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... V020140801
Not egotistical, but pragmatic:
Referring to the political polarization in Washington and the unlikelihood that another liberal in her mold could be confirmed by the Senate, Ginsburg, the senior liberal on the nine-member bench, asked rhetorically, “So tell me who the president could have nominated this spring that you would rather see on the court than me?”
The time for Obama to ask would have been in 2009.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule

User avatar
Fat Cat
Jesus Christ®
Posts: 39978
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Location: 鬼ヶ島

Re: RIP: Ruth Bader Ginsberg Dead!

Post by Fat Cat » Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:50 am

"We've got the votes to confirm Justice Ginsburg's replacement before the election. That's what's coming." -Sen. Lindsay Graham

Seems like Grassley and Garnder have both committed to a vote for, which means they have the support required to confirm. Will be interesting to see what they do.
Image
"You can’t talk with communists, you have to kill them." -Józef Mackiewicz

User avatar
Fat Cat
Jesus Christ®
Posts: 39978
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Location: 鬼ヶ島

Re: RIP: Ruth Bader Ginsberg Dead!

Post by Fat Cat » Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:53 am

Turdacious wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:28 am
Fat Cat wrote:
Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:57 pm
RBG was egotistical in this regard. Obama was sniffing around for her to step down way back in 2014, but she wouldn't have it. Then again, nobody likes being told they're too old and in the way.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... V020140801
Not egotistical, but pragmatic:
Referring to the political polarization in Washington and the unlikelihood that another liberal in her mold could be confirmed by the Senate, Ginsburg, the senior liberal on the nine-member bench, asked rhetorically, “So tell me who the president could have nominated this spring that you would rather see on the court than me?”
The time for Obama to ask would have been in 2009.
As usual, wrong. Both Kagan and Sotomayor were confirmed after 2009 with minimal resistance, certainly way less BS than either Gorsuch or Kavanaugh faced. If she had retired then, Merrick Garland or some similar nominee would be sitting on the SCOTUS.
Image
"You can’t talk with communists, you have to kill them." -Józef Mackiewicz

User avatar
Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 21101
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: RIP: Ruth Bader Ginsberg Dead!

Post by Turdacious » Tue Sep 22, 2020 2:22 am

Fat Cat wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:53 am
Turdacious wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:28 am
Fat Cat wrote:
Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:57 pm
RBG was egotistical in this regard. Obama was sniffing around for her to step down way back in 2014, but she wouldn't have it. Then again, nobody likes being told they're too old and in the way.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... V020140801
Not egotistical, but pragmatic:
Referring to the political polarization in Washington and the unlikelihood that another liberal in her mold could be confirmed by the Senate, Ginsburg, the senior liberal on the nine-member bench, asked rhetorically, “So tell me who the president could have nominated this spring that you would rather see on the court than me?”
The time for Obama to ask would have been in 2009.
As usual, wrong. Both Kagan and Sotomayor were confirmed after 2009 with minimal resistance, certainly way less BS than either Gorsuch or Kavanaugh faced. If she had retired then, Merrick Garland or some similar nominee would be sitting on the SCOTUS.
If you wanted a strong liberal Justice, the best time to confirm would have been 2008-2010, or after the 2020 election. The only thing RBG got wrong (timeline-wise) was her prediction about her own mortality.

Trump was able to convince Kennedy to retire. Obama was able to convince nobody to retire. And 2014 was very different than 2009-2010 (when Kagen and Sotomayor were confirmed). The closest comparison was 2016-- Garland was a centrist and got nowhere.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule

User avatar
nafod
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 12384
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Looking in your window

Re: RIP: Ruth Bader Ginsberg Dead!

Post by nafod » Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:41 am

Fat Cat wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:53 am
Turdacious wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:28 am
Fat Cat wrote:
Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:57 pm
RBG was egotistical in this regard. Obama was sniffing around for her to step down way back in 2014, but she wouldn't have it. Then again, nobody likes being told they're too old and in the way.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... V020140801
Not egotistical, but pragmatic:
Referring to the political polarization in Washington and the unlikelihood that another liberal in her mold could be confirmed by the Senate, Ginsburg, the senior liberal on the nine-member bench, asked rhetorically, “So tell me who the president could have nominated this spring that you would rather see on the court than me?”
The time for Obama to ask would have been in 2009.
As usual, wrong. Both Kagan and Sotomayor were confirmed after 2009 with minimal resistance, certainly way less BS than either Gorsuch or Kavanaugh faced. If she had retired then, Merrick Garland or some similar nominee would be sitting on the SCOTUS.
Gorsuch didn't face much. Kavanaugh faced a lot because of his actions as a Chad frat dude and his lying about it
Don’t believe everything you think.

User avatar
Fat Cat
Jesus Christ®
Posts: 39978
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Location: 鬼ヶ島

Re: RIP: Ruth Bader Ginsberg Dead!

Post by Fat Cat » Tue Sep 22, 2020 6:52 am

Be sure to let them know how you feel.
Image
"You can’t talk with communists, you have to kill them." -Józef Mackiewicz

User avatar
nafod
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 12384
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Looking in your window

Re: RIP: Ruth Bader Ginsberg Dead!

Post by nafod » Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:52 pm

Didn't you find it even a little hypocritical that mister drain the swamp picked two judges that attended the same Swampington DC prep school, where swampers send their children to get swamp indoctrinated?

That Swampy Prep School has sent more folks to SCOTUS than probably half the states.

Not a single home-spun backwoods lawyer from the far state of Montana or Idaho that can talk some sense into the rest of the eight? An actual red stater?
Don’t believe everything you think.

User avatar
Turdacious
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 21101
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 6:54 am
Location: Upon the eternal throne of the great Republic of Turdistan

Re: RIP: Ruth Bader Ginsberg Dead!

Post by Turdacious » Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:28 pm

< insert rose mcgowan gif of your choice here >
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule

User avatar
Grandpa's Spells
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 11265
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:08 pm

Re: RIP: Ruth Bader Ginsberg Dead!

Post by Grandpa's Spells » Tue Sep 22, 2020 5:20 pm

They can certainly confirm. It seems like the Dem response if they take the WH/Senate is a question do they add two or four justices to SCOTUS, or two plus "are you sure you don't want term limits."
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.

User avatar
Fat Cat
Jesus Christ®
Posts: 39978
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Location: 鬼ヶ島

Re: RIP: Ruth Bader Ginsberg Dead!

Post by Fat Cat » Tue Sep 22, 2020 5:22 pm

nafod wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:52 pm
Didn't you find it even a little hypocritical that mister drain the swamp picked two judges that attended the same Swampington DC prep school, where swampers send their children to get swamp indoctrinated?

That Swampy Prep School has sent more folks to SCOTUS than probably half the states.

Not a single home-spun backwoods lawyer from the far state of Montana or Idaho that can talk some sense into the rest of the eight? An actual red stater?
It's a fair criticism. The one thing you WON'T find on the SCOTUS is a white Protestant male like the ones that created this country. Calvinist lives matter.
Image
"You can’t talk with communists, you have to kill them." -Józef Mackiewicz

User avatar
Fat Cat
Jesus Christ®
Posts: 39978
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Location: 鬼ヶ島

Re: RIP: Ruth Bader Ginsberg Dead!

Post by Fat Cat » Tue Sep 22, 2020 5:23 pm

Grandpa's Spells wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 5:20 pm
They can certainly confirm. It seems like the Dem response if they take the WH/Senate is a question do they add two or four justices to SCOTUS, or two plus "are you sure you don't want term limits."
You're writing lacks clarity and elegance. Can you please explain what your second sentence means to those of us who aren't from the hinterlands of Chicongo?
Image
"You can’t talk with communists, you have to kill them." -Józef Mackiewicz

User avatar
Grandpa's Spells
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 11265
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 10:08 pm

Re: RIP: Ruth Bader Ginsberg Dead!

Post by Grandpa's Spells » Tue Sep 22, 2020 6:46 pm

Current incentives are such that presidents want to nominate particularly young judges who serve for 40+ years and for Senators to permit/deny a given president what constitution says is his job. There's no reason for this. Term limits for justices staggered such that a president's four year term yields a given number of nominations might disincentive shenanigans.
One of the downsides of the Internet is that it allows like-minded people to form communities, and sometimes those communities are stupid.

User avatar
newguy
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2528
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:32 am

Re: RIP: Ruth Bader Ginsberg Dead!

Post by newguy » Tue Sep 22, 2020 6:56 pm

Fat Cat wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 5:23 pm
Grandpa's Spells wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 5:20 pm
They can certainly confirm. It seems like the Dem response if they take the WH/Senate is a question do they add two or four justices to SCOTUS, or two plus "are you sure you don't want term limits."
You're writing lacks clarity and elegance. Can you please explain what your second sentence means to those of us who aren't from the hinterlands of Chicongo?
I don't know if this will happen or not, but it feels like we are moving into complete political warfare. I am not as well versed as all of you, but it feels like we have moved beyond a time when the two parties served as a balance to each other and this is going to effectively end the ability to govern.
1. Obama faces unprecedented resistance from a republican controlled congress.
2. Obama overreaches with the use of executive decisions.
3. Republican controlled congress and president (vomit in mouth) run amock and destroy democracy.

Which leads to GSpells statement.

When democrats control congress and presidency, it will be war, with one of the first battles to undo the overarching power of the supreme court by packing it with more justices.

Whatever ends up happening, my personal belief is that for democracy and government to work, you have to have belief and buy in for the idea of government and democracy. There has to be an ideal that is higher than either democrat or republican and it feels like we have lost that. (Or it has been manipulated out of us.)

I was not a fan of George W Bush. But I never had the idea that he cared MORE about a party than America. Or more about himself than America.

I was in a HOR hearing (hearing, session???) a several years back (observing, not "IN" the hearing) and I can't remember who, but one of the democrat reps was lambasting one of the republican reps over their handling of the tax bill and essentially it came down to "this isn't how we do business. We used to try to work together."

Those days seem to be gone.

User avatar
Fat Cat
Jesus Christ®
Posts: 39978
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Location: 鬼ヶ島

Re: RIP: Ruth Bader Ginsberg Dead!

Post by Fat Cat » Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:28 pm

Grandpa's Spells wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 6:46 pm
Current incentives are such that presidents want to nominate particularly young judges who serve for 40+ years and for Senators to permit/deny a given president what constitution says is his job. There's no reason for this. Term limits for justices staggered such that a president's four year term yields a given number of nominations might disincentive shenanigans.
There, there, dry your tears. Do you really think that Senators who won't vote for term limits for themselves will vote for term limits for justices?
Image
"You can’t talk with communists, you have to kill them." -Józef Mackiewicz

User avatar
Fat Cat
Jesus Christ®
Posts: 39978
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Location: 鬼ヶ島

Re: RIP: Ruth Bader Ginsberg Dead!

Post by Fat Cat » Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:32 pm

newguy wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 6:56 pm
Fat Cat wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 5:23 pm
Grandpa's Spells wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 5:20 pm
They can certainly confirm. It seems like the Dem response if they take the WH/Senate is a question do they add two or four justices to SCOTUS, or two plus "are you sure you don't want term limits."
You're writing lacks clarity and elegance. Can you please explain what your second sentence means to those of us who aren't from the hinterlands of Chicongo?
I don't know if this will happen or not, but it feels like we are moving into complete political warfare. I am not as well versed as all of you, but it feels like we have moved beyond a time when the two parties served as a balance to each other and this is going to effectively end the ability to govern.
1. Obama faces unprecedented resistance from a republican controlled congress.
2. Obama overreaches with the use of executive decisions.
3. Republican controlled congress and president (vomit in mouth) run amock and destroy democracy.

Which leads to GSpells statement.

When democrats control congress and presidency, it will be war, with one of the first battles to undo the overarching power of the supreme court by packing it with more justices.

Whatever ends up happening, my personal belief is that for democracy and government to work, you have to have belief and buy in for the idea of government and democracy. There has to be an ideal that is higher than either democrat or republican and it feels like we have lost that. (Or it has been manipulated out of us.)

I was not a fan of George W Bush. But I never had the idea that he cared MORE about a party than America. Or more about himself than America.

I was in a HOR hearing (hearing, session???) a several years back (observing, not "IN" the hearing) and I can't remember who, but one of the democrat reps was lambasting one of the republican reps over their handling of the tax bill and essentially it came down to "this isn't how we do business. We used to try to work together."

Those days seem to be gone.
There's still plenty of bipartisanship, but SCOTUS nominees have always been a venue for political hardball. Go look back at the Clarence Thomas or Robert Bork. Also, your estrogen-fueled hysterics about republicans running amok and destroying democracy is sad. And gay. And fake.
Image
"You can’t talk with communists, you have to kill them." -Józef Mackiewicz

User avatar
newguy
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2528
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:32 am

Re: RIP: Ruth Bader Ginsberg Dead!

Post by newguy » Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:52 pm

Fat Cat wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:32 pm
newguy wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 6:56 pm
Fat Cat wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 5:23 pm
Grandpa's Spells wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 5:20 pm
They can certainly confirm. It seems like the Dem response if they take the WH/Senate is a question do they add two or four justices to SCOTUS, or two plus "are you sure you don't want term limits."
You're writing lacks clarity and elegance. Can you please explain what your second sentence means to those of us who aren't from the hinterlands of Chicongo?
I don't know if this will happen or not, but it feels like we are moving into complete political warfare. I am not as well versed as all of you, but it feels like we have moved beyond a time when the two parties served as a balance to each other and this is going to effectively end the ability to govern.
1. Obama faces unprecedented resistance from a republican controlled congress.
2. Obama overreaches with the use of executive decisions.
3. Republican controlled congress and president (vomit in mouth) run amock and destroy democracy.

Which leads to GSpells statement.

When democrats control congress and presidency, it will be war, with one of the first battles to undo the overarching power of the supreme court by packing it with more justices.

Whatever ends up happening, my personal belief is that for democracy and government to work, you have to have belief and buy in for the idea of government and democracy. There has to be an ideal that is higher than either democrat or republican and it feels like we have lost that. (Or it has been manipulated out of us.)

I was not a fan of George W Bush. But I never had the idea that he cared MORE about a party than America. Or more about himself than America.

I was in a HOR hearing (hearing, session???) a several years back (observing, not "IN" the hearing) and I can't remember who, but one of the democrat reps was lambasting one of the republican reps over their handling of the tax bill and essentially it came down to "this isn't how we do business. We used to try to work together."

Those days seem to be gone.
There's still plenty of bipartisanship, but SCOTUS nominees have always been a venue for political hardball. Go look back at the Clarence Thomas or Robert Bork. Also, your estrogen-fueled hysterics about republicans running amok and destroying democracy is sad. And gay. And fake.
I don't consider it to be republicans are destroying democracy. I feel it is entrenchment on both sides and an increasingly polarized narrative that is less about governing people and more about securing power. It's not republicans bad/democrats good. But currently one party is in total power and the optics of even trying to work together are not there. This has ramifications. Perception matters.

In quickly researching the issue of court packing, I saw that FDR threatened it as political power play and the court itself quickly started being a bit more flexible in how it was voting.

But perception and precedent matters. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should because the next group along takes what you did and runs with it.

In the same article, Biden was quoted as saying he didn't like the idea of packing the court because once you do that, what stops the next group from doing the same?

Tradition and precedent matter.

Republicans set a precedent with the obama supreme court thing.

The more you break precedent, the more you walk away from even the optics of conciliatory gestures in governing, then the more it bites you later.

I do not want a situation in which either party has total power and is willing to use it unchecked. I do not think that is good for any of us.

DrDonkeyLove...
Sarge
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2019 10:29 pm

Re: RIP: Ruth Bader Ginsberg Dead!

Post by DrDonkeyLove... » Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:06 pm

Fat Cat wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:32 pm
newguy wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 6:56 pm
Fat Cat wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 5:23 pm
Grandpa's Spells wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 5:20 pm
They can certainly confirm. It seems like the Dem response if they take the WH/Senate is a question do they add two or four justices to SCOTUS, or two plus "are you sure you don't want term limits."
You're writing lacks clarity and elegance. Can you please explain what your second sentence means to those of us who aren't from the hinterlands of Chicongo?
I don't know if this will happen or not, but it feels like we are moving into complete political warfare. I am not as well versed as all of you, but it feels like we have moved beyond a time when the two parties served as a balance to each other and this is going to effectively end the ability to govern.
1. Obama faces unprecedented resistance from a republican controlled congress.
2. Obama overreaches with the use of executive decisions.
3. Republican controlled congress and president (vomit in mouth) run amock and destroy democracy.

Which leads to GSpells statement.

When democrats control congress and presidency, it will be war, with one of the first battles to undo the overarching power of the supreme court by packing it with more justices.

Whatever ends up happening, my personal belief is that for democracy and government to work, you have to have belief and buy in for the idea of government and democracy. There has to be an ideal that is higher than either democrat or republican and it feels like we have lost that. (Or it has been manipulated out of us.)

I was not a fan of George W Bush. But I never had the idea that he cared MORE about a party than America. Or more about himself than America.

I was in a HOR hearing (hearing, session???) a several years back (observing, not "IN" the hearing) and I can't remember who, but one of the democrat reps was lambasting one of the republican reps over their handling of the tax bill and essentially it came down to "this isn't how we do business. We used to try to work together."

Those days seem to be gone.
There's still plenty of bipartisanship, but SCOTUS nominees have always been a venue for political hardball. Go look back at the Clarence Thomas or Robert Bork. Also, your estrogen-fueled hysterics about republicans running amok and destroying democracy is sad. And gay. And fake.
Maybe it's just when I started paying attention, but I mark the modern beginning of Hunger Games SC nominees to the Bork nomination and the vile attacks on his person from the ever evil Teddy Kennedy and his partner in character assassination, Joe Biden.

User avatar
newguy
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2528
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:32 am

Re: RIP: Ruth Bader Ginsberg Dead!

Post by newguy » Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:01 pm

DrDonkeyLove... wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:06 pm
Fat Cat wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:32 pm
newguy wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 6:56 pm
Fat Cat wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 5:23 pm
Grandpa's Spells wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 5:20 pm
They can certainly confirm. It seems like the Dem response if they take the WH/Senate is a question do they add two or four justices to SCOTUS, or two plus "are you sure you don't want term limits."
You're writing lacks clarity and elegance. Can you please explain what your second sentence means to those of us who aren't from the hinterlands of Chicongo?
I don't know if this will happen or not, but it feels like we are moving into complete political warfare. I am not as well versed as all of you, but it feels like we have moved beyond a time when the two parties served as a balance to each other and this is going to effectively end the ability to govern.
1. Obama faces unprecedented resistance from a republican controlled congress.
2. Obama overreaches with the use of executive decisions.
3. Republican controlled congress and president (vomit in mouth) run amock and destroy democracy.

Which leads to GSpells statement.

When democrats control congress and presidency, it will be war, with one of the first battles to undo the overarching power of the supreme court by packing it with more justices.

Whatever ends up happening, my personal belief is that for democracy and government to work, you have to have belief and buy in for the idea of government and democracy. There has to be an ideal that is higher than either democrat or republican and it feels like we have lost that. (Or it has been manipulated out of us.)

I was not a fan of George W Bush. But I never had the idea that he cared MORE about a party than America. Or more about himself than America.

I was in a HOR hearing (hearing, session???) a several years back (observing, not "IN" the hearing) and I can't remember who, but one of the democrat reps was lambasting one of the republican reps over their handling of the tax bill and essentially it came down to "this isn't how we do business. We used to try to work together."

Those days seem to be gone.
There's still plenty of bipartisanship, but SCOTUS nominees have always been a venue for political hardball. Go look back at the Clarence Thomas or Robert Bork. Also, your estrogen-fueled hysterics about republicans running amok and destroying democracy is sad. And gay. And fake.
Maybe it's just when I started paying attention, but I mark the modern beginning of Hunger Games SC nominees to the Bork nomination and the vile attacks on his person from the ever evil Teddy Kennedy and his partner in character assassination, Joe Biden.
I absolutely acknowledge that this could all have always been a cluster fuck and nothing has ever changed.

User avatar
nafod
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 12384
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Looking in your window

Re: RIP: Ruth Bader Ginsberg Dead!

Post by nafod » Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:16 pm

Fat Cat wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 5:22 pm
nafod wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:52 pm
Didn't you find it even a little hypocritical that mister drain the swamp picked two judges that attended the same Swampington DC prep school, where swampers send their children to get swamp indoctrinated?

That Swampy Prep School has sent more folks to SCOTUS than probably half the states.

Not a single home-spun backwoods lawyer from the far state of Montana or Idaho that can talk some sense into the rest of the eight? An actual red stater?
It's a fair criticism.
Why not pick a state supreme court judge? It'd be liking having a governor win the presidency. They bring a fresh perspective

We could do a lot better than kavanaugh. He was Swampy McSwampFace.
Don’t believe everything you think.

User avatar
Fat Cat
Jesus Christ®
Posts: 39978
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Location: 鬼ヶ島

Re: RIP: Ruth Bader Ginsberg Dead!

Post by Fat Cat » Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:35 pm

nafod wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:16 pm
Fat Cat wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 5:22 pm
nafod wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 12:52 pm
Didn't you find it even a little hypocritical that mister drain the swamp picked two judges that attended the same Swampington DC prep school, where swampers send their children to get swamp indoctrinated?

That Swampy Prep School has sent more folks to SCOTUS than probably half the states.

Not a single home-spun backwoods lawyer from the far state of Montana or Idaho that can talk some sense into the rest of the eight? An actual red stater?
It's a fair criticism.
Why not pick a state supreme court judge? It'd be liking having a governor win the presidency. They bring a fresh perspective

We could do a lot better than kavanaugh. He was Swampy McSwampFace.
Provided it's a WASP male with red blooded American values, sure. Give me that patrician shit.
Image
"You can’t talk with communists, you have to kill them." -Józef Mackiewicz

User avatar
nafod
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 12384
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Looking in your window

Re: RIP: Ruth Bader Ginsberg Dead!

Post by nafod » Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:00 pm

No Sharia?
Don’t believe everything you think.

User avatar
Fat Cat
Jesus Christ®
Posts: 39978
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Location: 鬼ヶ島

Re: RIP: Ruth Bader Ginsberg Dead!

Post by Fat Cat » Wed Sep 23, 2020 12:45 am

nafod wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:00 pm
No Sharia?
Absolutely fucking not.
Image
"You can’t talk with communists, you have to kill them." -Józef Mackiewicz

User avatar
nafod
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 12384
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 5:01 pm
Location: Looking in your window

Re: RIP: Ruth Bader Ginsberg Dead!

Post by nafod » Wed Sep 23, 2020 1:03 am

Some things never change.
.
Heh
.
Capture.PNG
Capture.PNG (151.02 KiB) Viewed 176 times
This should definitely be argued before SCOTUS
Don’t believe everything you think.

User avatar
Fat Cat
Jesus Christ®
Posts: 39978
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Location: 鬼ヶ島

Re: RIP: Ruth Bader Ginsberg Dead!

Post by Fat Cat » Sat Sep 26, 2020 12:48 am

NYT is reporting Amy Coney Barrett as the nominee to fill RBG's spot:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/us/p ... e=Homepage

I'm sure we're all united in wishing her great success.
Image
"You can’t talk with communists, you have to kill them." -Józef Mackiewicz

Post Reply