SCOTUS thread

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Would you confirm Kavanaugh?

Yes
16
57%
No
12
43%
 
Total votes : 28

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:42 pm

Seems solid. Kagan hired him at Harvard and he helped with the ACA.

Zarni was right that he'll suck on the 4th, but strong on the 1st and 2nd.

His liberal law professor from Yale had a solid review in the NYT.

I still don't believe Roe v Wade will be repealed. But I could see restrictions added.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 13563
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 550 times
Been thanked: 589 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby NavyBuc » Tue Jul 10, 2018 7:56 am

Yeah I agree. It’s a good pick. Was hoping for Coney-Barrett but only for eye candy. Cavanaugh was prolly the “safest” pick in that it’s going to be the easiest to get confirmed. He’ll get 52 or 53 votes.
NavyBuc
 
Posts: 1263
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:07 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Jul 10, 2018 8:29 am

NavyBuc wrote:Yeah I agree. It’s a good pick. Was hoping for Coney-Barrett but only for eye candy. Cavanaugh was prolly the “safest” pick in that it’s going to be the easiest to get confirmed. He’ll get 52 or 53 votes.


Yup, Kavanaugh is straight out of central casting when it comes to potential nominees. He has experience on one of the most prestigious appeals courts in the nation and well respected in the law community. His ability to stand up to the scrutiny he's about to face is likely what gave him a slight edge here. Dems in the Senate are going to crucify Kavanaugh to their own detriment. It's easy to attack an immoral man like Trump, but trying to characterize Kavanaugh as some type of extremist jurist is going alienate reasonable people.

I like Amy Barrett also, but her inexperience in higher courts would've been tougher sell in what will be a contentious nomination process. I do think that IF (hypothetically) Trump gets another SCOTUS nomination in a potential 2nd term that Barrett would be atop the list for him.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 13563
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 550 times
Been thanked: 589 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby NavyBuc » Tue Jul 10, 2018 10:13 am

Heard a democrat this morning say this is the candidate the Democrats LEAST wanted to see nominated because it's the hardest one for them to block. I think Trump deep down wanted one of the other top court candidates but felt there was a chance they could get blocked. From everything I've heard, Kavanaugh has almost a 0% chance of getting blocked. Collins has already voted "yes" on him before so it's highly doubtful she would flip. Murkowski usually does what Collins does and Manchin and Heidkamp are almost certainly going to vote yes for their re-election efforts in red states. Manchin has a solid approval among republicans and doesn't want to ruin that.
NavyBuc
 
Posts: 1263
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:07 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:07 am

NavyBuc wrote:Heard a democrat this morning say this is the candidate the Democrats LEAST wanted to see nominated because it's the hardest one for them to block. I think Trump deep down wanted one of the other top court candidates but felt there was a chance they could get blocked. From everything I've heard, Kavanaugh has almost a 0% chance of getting blocked. Collins has already voted "yes" on him before so it's highly doubtful she would flip. Murkowski usually does what Collins does and Manchin and Heidkamp are almost certainly going to vote yes for their re-election efforts in red states. Manchin has a solid approval among republicans and doesn't want to ruin that.


Kavanaugh is the type of SCOTUS nominee that would've had 80%+ support in the Senate 10-15 years ago, but it today's hyper partisan times that isn't the case.

Dems that oppose the nomination are doing solely on principle as it has little-to-nothing to do with Kavanaugh personally. Had Garland still been just a random judge and not been nominated by Obama and subsequently blocked by the GOP senate majority I believe that Dems would still attempt to block him had Trump been the one who nominated him.

I think we trending towards a situation where no SCOTUS will be confirmed unless that party which holds the Senate majority is also the party of the POTUS. Not good.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 13563
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 550 times
Been thanked: 589 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby MJW » Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:36 pm

NavyBuc wrote:Heard a democrat this morning say this is the candidate the Democrats LEAST wanted to see nominated because it's the hardest one for them to block.


This is a silly point, though. Thanks to Harry Reid, the Democrats have absolutely no mechanism to block the nominee unless they could convince multiple Republicans to vote against him/her. If this was Trump's criteria, it should be held up as another example of the "great negotiator" folding before getting to the table.
Image
User avatar
MJW
 
Posts: 9009
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 5:17 am
Location: Nebraska
Has thanked: 211 times
Been thanked: 404 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby NavyBuc » Tue Jul 10, 2018 2:03 pm

MJW wrote:
NavyBuc wrote:Heard a democrat this morning say this is the candidate the Democrats LEAST wanted to see nominated because it's the hardest one for them to block.


This is a silly point, though. Thanks to Harry Reid, the Democrats have absolutely no mechanism to block the nominee unless they could convince multiple Republicans to vote against him/her. If this was Trump's criteria, it should be held up as another example of the "great negotiator" folding before getting to the table.


Collins and Murkowski were skeptical on a couple of the candidates, most particularly Barrett and Hardiman, so those two might not have gotten the support of the full Republican party. From what I understand, this is the candidate most likely to get full republican support, and with only 50 republicans in the Senate, they need it in case no Democrats flip, although I think a few of them will.

But to a point made above, it's sad but true that we are likely heading towards a period where no SCOTUS nominees will get nominated unless the President and the Senate majority are the same party. Partisan politics has gotten 100x times worse.
NavyBuc
 
Posts: 1263
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:07 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Buc2 » Tue Jul 10, 2018 3:58 pm

The more I read about Kavanaugh the more I like the selection.

I found this to be a very informative article as to what we can expect from Kavanaugh as a SC jurist...
https://www.heritage.org/courts/comment ... -kavanaugh

Near the end was a nice summary...

In a 2017 speech at Notre Dame Law School, Kavanaugh spoke about Scalia’s impact on the law and the late justice’s view that federal judges “should not be making policy-laden judgments.” Kavanaugh remarked, “I believe very deeply in [the] visions of the rule of law as a law of rules, and of the judge as umpire. By that, I mean a neutral, impartial judiciary that decides cases based on settled principles without regard to policy preferences or political allegiances or which party is on which side in a particular case.”

He elaborated on what Scalia stood for as a judge:

[R]ead the words of the statute as written. Read the text of the Constitution as written, mindful of history and tradition. The Constitution is a document of majestic specificity defining governmental structure, individual rights, and the role of a judge. Remember that the structural provisions of the Constitution—the separation of powers and federalism—are not mere matters of etiquette or architecture, but are essential to protecting individual liberty. … Remember that courts have a critical role, when a party has standing, in enforcing those separation of powers and federalism limits.
Though Kavanaugh was speaking about Scalia, his words could very well describe his own approach to the law and his commitment to the Constitution.


Americans undoubtedly will learn more about Brett Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court, and the important, but limited, role judges should play in our government as the confirmation process unfolds in the Senate.

While Schumer and other Senate Democrats have already announced their intention to block any nominee, they will have a hard case to make given Kavanaugh’s impressive record, fidelity to the Constitution, and respect for the rule of law.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 11996
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 983 times
Been thanked: 416 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:08 pm

I would've preferred someone more to the right, but Kavanaugh is a choir boy with all the qualifications you could expect. He'll have the easiest path to confirmation and Dems will just make themselves look bad trying to tear this guy down on a personal level.

It's important to remember the SCOTUS nominees (regardless of who nominates them) are always among the most qualified and quality individuals in this country with reputations normally beyond reproach requiring higher standards of character and behavior than any other office including the Presidency.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 13563
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 550 times
Been thanked: 589 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:17 pm

DreadNaught wrote:I would've preferred someone more to the right, but Kavanaugh is choir boy with all the qualifications you could expect. He'll have the easiest path to confirmation and Dems will just make themselves look bad trying to tear this guy down on a personal level.

It's important to remember the SCOTUS nominees (regardless of who nominates them) are always among the most qualified and quality individuals in this country with reputations normally beyond reproach requiring higher standards of character and behavior than any other office including the Presidency.

Gimmie a break. The guy is one of the Federalist Society's litigators.

He was on the Starr investigation
He was a lawyer for Jeb Bush's vouchers to religious schools initiative
He was a lawyer for a New Mexico school prayer suit
He was a lawyer in the Elian Gonzales case
He was a lawyer for the GWB campaign in 2000
White House special council under GWB
And finally became a circuit judge 12 years ago.

None of these things specifically make him a bad person, but he's gotten himself here by being a lawyer, not a judge. So I am not exactly going to concede that he's this wonderous servant of the law. For Republicans, he's just what they want. A partisan on the court.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14362
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 159 times
Been thanked: 666 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:25 pm

I’m with MB here....Rs like him a whole lot more than I do.


All of the common Libertarian websites have some good analysis on him. Reason, Cato, personal liberty, etc Mind you he is miles better than anything Hillary would have done. And about the same as past Rs have done


Haven’t changed my mind much on him as I have read more - excellent on 2A, good on 1A, poor on 4A and 10A



As far as I’m concerned there are two good judges as regards to personal liberty - Gorsuch and Thomas
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6706
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 348 times
Been thanked: 293 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby RedLeader » Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:34 pm

Within seconds of Trump's announcement in the White House Monday night, the far-left political action committee Democracy for America called Kavanaugh, 53, a "reactionary ideologue" whose confirmation would "directly lead to the deaths of countless women with the dismantling of abortion rights."

...in a statement, the Women's March said ominously: "Trump’s announcement today is a death sentence for thousands of women in the United States."

"Stripping a woman’s ability to make decisions about her own body is state violence," the group continued. "We cannot let this stand. We will raise our voices and take to the streets."





In an embarrassing blunder, though, the Women's March statement began: "In response to Donald Trump's nomination of XX to the Supreme Court" -- indicating that the group didn't expect to have to change its pre-written press release much on Monday night.







Lol
User avatar
RedLeader
 
Posts: 2923
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:27 pm
Location: G14 Classified
Has thanked: 110 times
Been thanked: 104 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:36 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:I would've preferred someone more to the right, but Kavanaugh is choir boy with all the qualifications you could expect. He'll have the easiest path to confirmation and Dems will just make themselves look bad trying to tear this guy down on a personal level.

It's important to remember the SCOTUS nominees (regardless of who nominates them) are always among the most qualified and quality individuals in this country with reputations normally beyond reproach requiring higher standards of character and behavior than any other office including the Presidency.

Gimmie a break. The guy is one of the Federalist Society's litigators.

He was on the Starr investigation
He was a lawyer for Jeb Bush's vouchers to religious schools initiative
He was a lawyer for a New Mexico school prayer suit
He was a lawyer in the Elian Gonzales case
He was a lawyer for the GWB campaign in 2000
White House special council under GWB
And finally became a circuit judge 12 years ago.

None of these things specifically make him a bad person, but he's gotten himself here by being a lawyer, not a judge. So I am not exactly going to concede that he's this wonderous servant of the law. For Republicans, he's just what they want. A partisan on the court.


He's wouldn't have been my pick and I agree he's an establishment GOP favorite. But 12 years as a judge on arguably the most prestigious appeals court in the nation (where many SCOTUS justices have been selected from) with close to 300 decisions is a big factor in why he was nominated. His DC connections certainly don't hurt and this pick doesn't really does not fit the 'drain the swamp' mantra at all.

He's well respected in the community and Justice Kagan even hired him to teach at Harvard when she was dean of the law school. Many of his decisions have been held by the SCOTUS. So he's a solid guy as most every nominee is.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 13563
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 550 times
Been thanked: 589 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:37 pm

DreadNaught wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Gimmie a break. The guy is one of the Federalist Society's litigators.

He was on the Starr investigation
He was a lawyer for Jeb Bush's vouchers to religious schools initiative
He was a lawyer for a New Mexico school prayer suit
He was a lawyer in the Elian Gonzales case
He was a lawyer for the GWB campaign in 2000
White House special council under GWB
And finally became a circuit judge 12 years ago.

None of these things specifically make him a bad person, but he's gotten himself here by being a lawyer, not a judge. So I am not exactly going to concede that he's this wonderous servant of the law. For Republicans, he's just what they want. A partisan on the court.


He's wouldn't have been my pick and I agree he's an establishment GOP favorite. But 12 years as a judge on arguably the most prestigious appeals court in the nation (where many SCOTUS justices have been selected from) with close to 300 decisions is a big factor in why he was nominated. His DC connections certainly don't hurt and this pick doesn't really does not fit the 'drain the swamp' mantra at all.

He's well respected in the community and Justice Kagan even hired him to teach at Harvard when she was dean of the law school. Many of his decisions have been held by the SCOTUS. So he's a solid guy as most every nominee is.

I'm sure you'll be quite pleased with his performance on the court. Of that, I have little doubt.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14362
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 159 times
Been thanked: 666 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:42 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:
He's wouldn't have been my pick and I agree he's an establishment GOP favorite. But 12 years as a judge on arguably the most prestigious appeals court in the nation (where many SCOTUS justices have been selected from) with close to 300 decisions is a big factor in why he was nominated. His DC connections certainly don't hurt and this pick doesn't really does not fit the 'drain the swamp' mantra at all.

He's well respected in the community and Justice Kagan even hired him to teach at Harvard when she was dean of the law school. Many of his decisions have been held by the SCOTUS. So he's a solid guy as most every nominee is.

I'm sure you'll be quite pleased with his performance on the court. Of that, I have little doubt.

Well he's not a socialist so I understand your disappointment. ;)
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 13563
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 550 times
Been thanked: 589 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Jul 10, 2018 4:43 pm

DreadNaught wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:I'm sure you'll be quite pleased with his performance on the court. Of that, I have little doubt.

Well he's not a socialist so I understand your disappointment. ;)

Speaking of which......we should put Tom Morello on the supreme court.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14362
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 159 times
Been thanked: 666 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby NavyBuc » Tue Jul 10, 2018 5:31 pm

Some of you are saying “he wouldn’t be my pick”. For those of you, if your pick is Barrett, Kethledge or Hardiman, they’re probably not getting approved before midterm elections. There were a few republicans hesitant about those three and it would have been hard to get all 50 republican votes.

For Trump, I firmly believe this wasn’t the pick he wanted, but rather, the pick that would most likely get approved before midterm elections. If the pick doesn’t get 50 votes, you risk the chance of it going to a Democratic controlled congress in January. Republicans still will likely control part of Congress, but there’s that possibility they wouldn’t and there’s also that possibility that Trump deep down may know a big storm is on the horizon is terms of the investigation. I think a bombshell will drop on him soon. I am in the camp that thinks Cohen making a deal with Feds is a big, big deal.
NavyBuc
 
Posts: 1263
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:07 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Jul 10, 2018 6:18 pm

NavyBuc wrote:Some of you are saying “he wouldn’t be my pick”. For those of you, if your pick is Barrett, Kethledge or Hardiman, they’re probably not getting approved before midterm elections. There were a few republicans hesitant about those three and it would have been hard to get all 50 republican votes.

For Trump, I firmly believe this wasn’t the pick he wanted, but rather, the pick that would most likely get approved before midterm elections. If the pick doesn’t get 50 votes, you risk the chance of it going to a Democratic controlled congress in January. Republicans still will likely control part of Congress, but there’s that possibility they wouldn’t and there’s also that possibility that Trump deep down may know a big storm is on the horizon is terms of the investigation. I think a bombshell will drop on him soon. I am in the camp that thinks Cohen making a deal with Feds is a big, big deal.

I thought you guys were winning at every turn and the liberals were imploding? But I digress.

You're actually right. Trump probably didn't pick the guy he really wanted. The Federalist Society did though.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14362
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 159 times
Been thanked: 666 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby NavyBuc » Tue Jul 10, 2018 7:35 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
NavyBuc wrote:Some of you are saying “he wouldn’t be my pick”. For those of you, if your pick is Barrett, Kethledge or Hardiman, they’re probably not getting approved before midterm elections. There were a few republicans hesitant about those three and it would have been hard to get all 50 republican votes.

For Trump, I firmly believe this wasn’t the pick he wanted, but rather, the pick that would most likely get approved before midterm elections. If the pick doesn’t get 50 votes, you risk the chance of it going to a Democratic controlled congress in January. Republicans still will likely control part of Congress, but there’s that possibility they wouldn’t and there’s also that possibility that Trump deep down may know a big storm is on the horizon is terms of the investigation. I think a bombshell will drop on him soon. I am in the camp that thinks Cohen making a deal with Feds is a big, big deal.

I thought you guys were winning at every turn and the liberals were imploding? .


You guys? I think you have the wrong person. I’m not Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity.
NavyBuc
 
Posts: 1263
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:07 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Buc2 » Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:11 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:I would've preferred someone more to the right, but Kavanaugh is choir boy with all the qualifications you could expect. He'll have the easiest path to confirmation and Dems will just make themselves look bad trying to tear this guy down on a personal level.

It's important to remember the SCOTUS nominees (regardless of who nominates them) are always among the most qualified and quality individuals in this country with reputations normally beyond reproach requiring higher standards of character and behavior than any other office including the Presidency.

Gimmie a break. The guy is one of the Federalist Society's litigators.

He was on the Starr investigation
He was a lawyer for Jeb Bush's vouchers to religious schools initiative
He was a lawyer for a New Mexico school prayer suit
He was a lawyer in the Elian Gonzales case
He was a lawyer for the GWB campaign in 2000
White House special council under GWB
And finally became a circuit judge 12 years ago.

None of these things specifically make him a bad person, but he's gotten himself here by being a lawyer, not a judge. So I am not exactly going to concede that he's this wonderous servant of the law. For Republicans, he's just what they want. A partisan on the court.

That is a complete bs statement. He got himself here by being a judge in the most prestigious lower court in America...the D.C. Appeals Court. He got himself here by showing that his opinions were often shared by the SC if/when cases he was involved with got that far.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 11996
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 983 times
Been thanked: 416 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:50 am

Buc2 wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Gimmie a break. The guy is one of the Federalist Society's litigators.

He was on the Starr investigation
He was a lawyer for Jeb Bush's vouchers to religious schools initiative
He was a lawyer for a New Mexico school prayer suit
He was a lawyer in the Elian Gonzales case
He was a lawyer for the GWB campaign in 2000
White House special council under GWB
And finally became a circuit judge 12 years ago.

None of these things specifically make him a bad person, but he's gotten himself here by being a lawyer, not a judge. So I am not exactly going to concede that he's this wonderous servant of the law. For Republicans, he's just what they want. A partisan on the court.

That is a complete bs statement. He got himself here by being a judge in the most prestigious lower court in America...the D.C. Appeals Court. He got himself here by showing that his opinions were often shared by the SC if/when cases he was involved with got that far.

We'll just have to agree that you're wrong. ;)
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14362
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 159 times
Been thanked: 666 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Buc2 » Wed Jul 11, 2018 8:54 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Buc2 wrote:That is a complete bs statement. He got himself here by being a judge in the most prestigious lower court in America...the D.C. Appeals Court. He got himself here by showing that his opinions were often shared by the SC if/when cases he was involved with got that far.

We'll just have to agree that you're wrong. ;)

:lol:
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 11996
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 983 times
Been thanked: 416 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby NavyBuc » Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:46 pm

Ok so this is getting a little stupid. Apparently some against his nomination, including Stephen Colbert, said he shouldn’t be on the Supreme Court because his first name is “Brett”. They said it sounds too “frat boy” to be on the Court. Just when I thought I’ve heard them all.
NavyBuc
 
Posts: 1263
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:07 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby uscbucsfan » Wed Jul 11, 2018 1:57 pm

NavyBuc wrote:Ok so this is getting a little stupid. Apparently some against his nomination, including Stephen Colbert, said he shouldn’t be on the Supreme Court because his first name is “Brett”. They said it sounds too “frat boy” to be on the Court. Just when I thought I’ve heard them all.

You know Colbert is a comedian, right?
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 5204
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 115 times
Been thanked: 144 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby beardmcdoug » Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:01 pm

NavyBuc wrote:Ok so this is getting a little stupid. Apparently some against his nomination, including Stephen Colbert, said he shouldn’t be on the Supreme Court because his first name is “Brett”. They said it sounds too “frat boy” to be on the Court. Just when I thought I’ve heard them all.


Image
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 3317
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 406 times
Been thanked: 267 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby NavyBuc » Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:21 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:
NavyBuc wrote:Ok so this is getting a little stupid. Apparently some against his nomination, including Stephen Colbert, said he shouldn’t be on the Supreme Court because his first name is “Brett”. They said it sounds too “frat boy” to be on the Court. Just when I thought I’ve heard them all.

You know Colbert is a comedian, right?


Yeah not so much care about the Colbert part. Just find it funny that others that arent comedians are making a big deal of it. But Colbert is a comedian who I wish wouldn’t get so damn serious about politics so much. Same goes for Kimmel.
NavyBuc
 
Posts: 1263
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:07 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:43 pm

NavyBuc wrote:
uscbucsfan wrote:You know Colbert is a comedian, right?


Yeah not so much care about the Colbert part. Just find it funny that others that arent comedians are making a big deal of it. But Colbert is a comedian who I wish wouldn’t get so damn serious about politics so much. Same goes for Kimmel.

But would you be okay if Colbert and and Kimmel made jokes from a political viewpoint you agree with?
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 14362
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 159 times
Been thanked: 666 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby bucfanclw » Wed Jul 11, 2018 3:02 pm

The persecution complex is getting strong with the Pubs when they're complaining about late night show hosts making harmless jokes.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 4014
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 162 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Buc2 » Wed Jul 11, 2018 3:28 pm

They joked about Obama for 8 years. No one on the right bitched then.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 11996
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 983 times
Been thanked: 416 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Jul 11, 2018 3:35 pm

Noticing that all comedians are unprincipled brainless leftists is no issue...making fun of them for it is no issue. Complaining about it seems silly
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6706
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 348 times
Been thanked: 293 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests