SCOTUS thread

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

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby DreadNaught » Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:42 am

It's just partisan bickering. The Dems have zero capacity to block the nomination outside of finding some type of scathing dirt on Kavanaugh, which seems highly unlikely based on who this guy seems to be (a big reason he was selected imo). But everyone has skeletons, so we'll see.

Short of that there will be a hearing and Kavanaugh will get the votes, he doesn't need a single Dem to vote in support but will get a few to do so anyways since it will help them in their home state Senate races.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 12027
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 501 times
Been thanked: 521 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:58 am

DreadNaught wrote:It's just partisan bickering. The Dems have zero capacity to block the nomination outside of finding some type of scathing dirt on Kavanaugh, which seems highly unlikely based on who this guy seems to be (a big reason he was selected imo). But everyone has skeletons, so we'll see.

Short of that there will be a hearing and Kavanaugh will get the votes, he doesn't need a single Dem to vote in support but will get a few to do so anyways since it will help them in their home state Senate races.

Exactly. So why all the whining by republicans? Did they expect Democrats to stand and applaud for this selfless steward of jurisprudence?
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 12587
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 130 times
Been thanked: 607 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Ken Carson » Fri Jul 13, 2018 9:23 am

uscbucsfan wrote:
NavyBuc wrote:
If you listen to Chuck Schumer and Cory Booker, there's plenty of pushback. But the pushback isn't going to be enough. Manchin-D is already hinting he's going to vote yes on the pick. I think the media is making too big a deal out of this being "a battle." Unless there's some secret skeleton hiding in his closet, like a nickname that is worse than his frat boy name, then this is going to be a very boring hearing in a few weeks.

You seem to be overly bothered by this nickname thing.

Someone is obviously named Brett...
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3082
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 172 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Fri Jul 13, 2018 9:30 am

Ken Carson wrote:
uscbucsfan wrote:You seem to be overly bothered by this nickname thing.

Someone is obviously named Brett...




Lol
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5434
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 247 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby RedLeader » Fri Jul 13, 2018 9:52 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:It's just partisan bickering. The Dems have zero capacity to block the nomination outside of finding some type of scathing dirt on Kavanaugh, which seems highly unlikely based on who this guy seems to be (a big reason he was selected imo). But everyone has skeletons, so we'll see.

Short of that there will be a hearing and Kavanaugh will get the votes, he doesn't need a single Dem to vote in support but will get a few to do so anyways since it will help them in their home state Senate races.

Exactly. So why all the whining by republicans? Did they expect Democrats to stand and applaud for this selfless steward of jurisprudence?


Actually, dems probably would've served themselves better by applauding the pick, and moving on...


It’s fun to see them desperately grasping at straws over it, though. That’s always a good look.. lol
User avatar
RedLeader
 
Posts: 2602
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 3:27 pm
Location: G14 Classified
Has thanked: 99 times
Been thanked: 94 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby bucfanclw » Fri Jul 13, 2018 10:35 am

RedLeader wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:Exactly. So why all the whining by republicans? Did they expect Democrats to stand and applaud for this selfless steward of jurisprudence?


Actually, dems probably would've served themselves better by applauding the pick, and moving on...


It’s fun to see them desperately grasping at straws over it, though. That’s always a good look.. lol

Like the Republicans did with Merrick Garland?
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 156 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Ken Carson » Fri Jul 13, 2018 11:05 am

bucfanclw wrote:
RedLeader wrote:
Actually, dems probably would've served themselves better by applauding the pick, and moving on...


It’s fun to see them desperately grasping at straws over it, though. That’s always a good look.. lol

Like the Republicans did with Merrick Garland?

So are you for or against whataboutism? I feel like you criticized people for it in the past, but I could be confused...
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3082
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 172 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby bucfanclw » Fri Jul 13, 2018 11:34 am

Ken Carson wrote:
bucfanclw wrote:Like the Republicans did with Merrick Garland?

So are you for or against whataboutism? I feel like you criticized people for it in the past, but I could be confused...

If one side is trying to take some morally superior stance like RL is doing here, it is not whataboutism to point out that both sides are guilty of it. I'm not excusing the behavior of those few far left that want to complain about the pick without any merit. Personally, I see nothing disqualifying from Kavanaugh so if I had a vote, it would be a yes and move on with my business.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3655
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 156 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Ken Carson » Fri Jul 13, 2018 12:18 pm

bucfanclw wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:So are you for or against whataboutism? I feel like you criticized people for it in the past, but I could be confused...

If one side is trying to take some morally superior stance like RL is doing here, it is not whataboutism to point out that both sides are guilty of it.

One side is always taking a morally superior stance. It's the nature of politics.

If you consider yourself a liberal, we'll find much more success by removing the flaws from our own party than by making sure the Pubs know what we think about theirs. The Democratic message since Obama left office is that 'we're not Republicans.' That's not a narrative.

Are you not racist? Great. How are you going to address immigration? Nothing? OK, so I guess we have the 'build a wall' plan, and the 'don't be a racist' plan. Those options suck.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 3082
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 172 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby uscbucsfan » Fri Jul 13, 2018 12:22 pm

bucfanclw wrote:
RedLeader wrote:
Actually, dems probably would've served themselves better by applauding the pick, and moving on...


It’s fun to see them desperately grasping at straws over it, though. That’s always a good look.. lol

Like the Republicans did with Merrick Garland?

You gotta admit, it was a heady play, right?
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 4373
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Selmon Rules » Fri Jul 13, 2018 3:59 pm

Mildly amused that people who like to throw around the term "snowflake" are getting their panties in a wad over the criticisms of this pick by late night comedians....

Being a centrist is fun....
Sig currently being held hostage by Photobucket, will return next fall
User avatar
Selmon Rules
 
Posts: 725
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:27 pm
Has thanked: 69 times
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Jul 23, 2018 11:30 am

Why couldn't Trump pick this guy?

My libertarian friends...here's a good 20 min interview with someone who is quickly becoming one of the select politicians I actually like


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fpSvhbAjqo&t=46s



(won't embed for some reason)
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5434
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 247 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Buc2 » Mon Jul 23, 2018 12:23 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:Why couldn't Trump pick this guy?

My libertarian friends...here's a good 20 min interview with someone who is quickly becoming one of the select politicians I actually like






(won't embed for some reason)
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 10415
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Buc2 » Wed Jul 25, 2018 8:45 am

Not SCOTUS, but I'll put it here anyway.

LOS ANGELES >> A federal appeals court ruled today that the Second Amendment protects the right to openly carry a gun in public for self-defense.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that Hawaii officials had violated George Young’s rights when he was denied a permit to openly carry a loaded gun in public to protect himself.

The decision reversed a lower court ruling that sided with officials who said the amendment only applied to guns kept in homes.

“We do not take lightly the problem of gun violence, which the State of Hawaii ‘has understandably sought to fight,’” Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote. “But, for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense.”

Gun rights is one of the most hotly debated issues in U.S. political and legal circles with any loosening or restriction of access to guns often leading to a court battle.

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down gun ownership bans in the District of Columbia and Chicago in 2008 and 2010, but has been reluctant in recent years to take on such cases, turning away challenges to gun restrictions.

Judge Richard Clifton noted in his dissent that several appeals courts have come down on different sides of whether guns can be openly carried in public, saying: “There is no single voice on this question.” He suggested the Supreme Court will inevitably have to weigh in.

Clifton, who like the other judges was appointed by a Republican president, criticized the majority for going “astray in several respects” and disregarding that states such as Hawaii have long regulated and limited the public carrying of guns, which he said did not undermine the core of the Second Amendment.

Today’s ruling comes two years after a full panel of the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit ruled that there’s no right to carry concealed guns in public. That June 2016 ruling struck down a 2-1 panel opinion that was also written by O’Scannlain.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 10415
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:04 am

That court must be tired of having such a high overturn rate in the SCOTUS.


Two good decisions in a row!!
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5434
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 247 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Buc2 » Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:24 am

Zarniwoop wrote:That court must be tired of having such a high overturn rate in the SCOTUS.


Two good decisions in a row!!


I was going to add that but thought it wouldn't be taken very well. Although, I'm not sure why I let that stop me. :lol:
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 10415
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 359 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:27 am

That’s not like you!!!


The stats are easy to find
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 5434
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 247 times
Been thanked: 259 times

Previous

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 16 guests