|
Mr. Fowl posted:Bloomberg is like the worst of both parties. He's a republican when it comes to loving over the poor and he a democrat when it comes to condescending to the poor about what they can and cannot have. That's why I laugh at the notion of him appealing to any substantial block of "moderates" outside of wall street and rich people more generally.
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 22:57 |
|
|
Mr. Fowl posted:Bloomberg is like the worst of both parties. He's a republican when it comes to loving over the poor and he a democrat when it comes to condescending to the poor about what they can and cannot have. To be fair, Republicans are pretty bad about telling poor people what they can and cannot have too. I get what you're trying to say though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:It works because if a R is in WH when this happens... It really won't matter to me, Scalia and Thomas have been party to some of the most harmful legal majorities in the modern era and have tried their hardest to show the depth of their insane incompetency and bias in the minorities. Whoever gets nominated in their stead would have a lot of lovely decisionmaking to do to even approach Scalia and Thomas's malfeasance. They shouldn't be justices, they shouldn't even be holding public office. They should never have been nominated, much less confirmed. Is Reagan's corpse accessible? What kind of a crime would it be to dig it up, open the corpse's mouth and take a poo poo in it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Dropping like flies today. There's whole percents of the base up for grabs now!
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
SumYungGui posted:Dropping like flies today. There's whole percents of the base up for grabs now! And all of them did better than Carson.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:Is Reagan's corpse accessible? What kind of a crime would it be to dig it up, open the corpse's mouth and take a poo poo in it? That shouldn't be a crime, that should be the american Hajj.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Thomas isn't incompetent, he just has extremely unusual legal theories such as "the federal government went off the rails the moment the commerce clause was used". He explicitly gives no shits about the effects of his jurisprudence but he is the most consistent justice on the court.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
I dunno, I consider not asking a single question from the bench since 2006 to be the sign of an incompetent Justice
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:I dunno, I consider not asking a single question from the bench since 2006 to be the sign of an incompetent Justice It's not like Scalia asks questions expecting to change his mind based on the answer
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
I posted this briefly on her campaign statement: "I'm glad you're gone. Your political campaign ads were terribly obnoxious and bespoke to a fabulous egoism, the sort one would expect a business CEO with an inflated opinion of their own ability to have." I then deleted it because I don't want people harrassing me on facebook. Ah well. Her ads were TERRIBLE.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
That poor campaign, it's heart, beating, and someone somewhere says "harvest the brain".
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Yeah, I personally think that Thomas's legal interpretation is hosed in the head but at least he's consistent about it which is why he's ruled in favor on the side of individual liberties when it comes to drug use and such. The true bastards on the court or Scalia and Alito. Those are the two that will go out of their way to side on "their" sides behalf and then try to reason it out in their rulings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:I posted this briefly on her campaign statement: "I'm glad you're gone. Your political campaign ads were terribly obnoxious and bespoke to a fabulous egoism, the sort one would expect a business CEO with an inflated opinion of their own ability to have." Still an improvement over demon sheep
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:It's not like Scalia asks questions expecting to change his mind based on the answer Do any of them? SCOTUS hearings always kind of struck me as political theater with the matter well decided beforehand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
SumYungGui posted:Dropping like flies today. There's whole percents of the base up for grabs now! It actually will be interesting to see how the new 5% distributes itself. I'm guessing most of it will end up in Trump's hands?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Combed Thunderclap posted:It actually will be interesting to see how the new 5% distributes itself. I'm guessing most of it will end up in Trump's hands? Gilmomentum! He is surging up in the ranks, and is increasing his support tenfold in every state so far!
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Yeah, I personally think that Thomas's legal interpretation is hosed in the head but at least he's consistent about it which is why he's ruled in favor on the side of individual liberties when it comes to drug use and such. But he's explicitly not consistent when it comes to individual liberties e.g. Obergefell. Thomas is as much of a lovely conservative hypocrite as any of them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
I would consider myself to be an extremely high information voter who spends tons of time following politics at all levels and I still have no idea who the gently caress Jim Gilmore is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:But he's explicitly not consistent when it comes to individual liberties e.g. Obergefell. Thomas is as much of a lovely conservative hypocrite as any of them. Thomas is one of the most consistent justices. He just happens to adhere to a judicial philosophy that virtually no other human on earth does.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
I think that there might be enough sympathy in the electorate to give Fiorina a boost on any VP spot. I mean, I can think of at least 28,000 former HP employees who know exactly what she is going through today
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:I think that there might be enough sympathy in the electorate to give Fiorina a boost on any VP spot. I mean, I can think of at least 28,000 former HP employees who know exactly what she is going through today hahhaa ouch
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
zoux posted:Do any of them? SCOTUS hearings always kind of struck me as political theater with the matter well decided beforehand. I think generally you're right, but that in those cases where a justice changes their mind, it tends to be one of the liberal justices that does so. If that's true, the effect of oral argument is only ever to push the ruling to the right, so that sucks. Although it might not be true and that might have fallen out of my rear end.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Mr. Fowl posted:Please. This is New Jersey. Please you mean Taylor ham. Maybe that's why Chowder is at the doctors, his heart is broken.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
zoux posted:I would consider myself to be an extremely high information voter who spends tons of time following politics at all levels and I still have no idea who the gently caress Jim Gilmore is. I only know about him because I grew up in VA. What I can't figure out is why he ran to begin with. He doesn't have a book to hawk, he doesn't really have national ambitions now (if he ever did), he doesn't have an ideological niche staked out that gives him an audience, he's just a don't-tax-and-don't-spend, old-school moron in the best tradition of the Grand Old Party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
What the gently caress has Jim Gilmore been doing for the last 13 years that it occurred to him that this was his time? Also, did you know that JIm Gilmore was the governor of VA from 1998-2001?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:
This reminds me, what ever happened to that Steven crowder guy? Or is this a question I should ask the rwm thread?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
mdemone posted:I think generally you're right, but that in those cases where a justice changes their mind, it tends to be one of the liberal justices that does so. If that's true, the effect of oral argument is only ever to push the ruling to the right, so that sucks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
zoux posted:What the gently caress has Jim Gilmore been doing for the last 13 years that it occurred to him that this was his time? I did. I grew up in Gilmore's Virginia. He referred to the Springfield Mixing Bowl as "one of the greatest achievements in human engineering" and ran on one promise - repealing the car tax - and proceeded to never do it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
zoux posted:Do any of them? SCOTUS hearings always kind of struck me as political theater with the matter well decided beforehand. Yeah all the questions and arguments at orals are just things from the amici briefs that an individual justice found interesting or funny and they like to make the arguing attorneys squirm.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Your Boy Fancy posted:I did. I grew up in Gilmore's Virginia. He referred to the Springfield Mixing Bowl as "one of the greatest achievements in human engineering" and ran on one promise - repealing the car tax - and proceeded to never do it. No, he did it. It was being phased out over a period of years. Then 9/11 happened, the economy crashed and VA had a huge car tax-shaped hole in the budget, so they halted the phase-out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
mdemone posted:I only know about him because I grew up in VA. What I can't figure out is why he ran to begin with. He doesn't have a book to hawk, he doesn't really have national ambitions now (if he ever did), he doesn't have an ideological niche staked out that gives him an audience, he's just a don't-tax-and-don't-spend, old-school moron in the best tradition of the Grand Old Party. His thought was, "'Generic Republican' is cleaning up versus the Democrats. That's me!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
zoux posted:Do any of them? SCOTUS hearings always kind of struck me as political theater with the matter well decided beforehand. I heard part of a talk Justice Sotomayor gave a few years ago that explains this. She said that the preliminary voting process just after arguements involves no debate. Just a combined statement and vote done in order of seniority. So the junior Justices especially ask questions in a way to communicate their position and reasoning to their seniors ahead of the votes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Ceiling fan posted:I heard part of a talk Justice Sotomayor gave a few years ago that explains this. She said that the preliminary voting process just after arguements involves no debate. Just a combined statement and vote done in order of seniority. So the junior Justices especially ask questions in a way to communicate their position and reasoning to their seniors ahead of the votes. I guess it's harder to fault Clarence Thomas for not participating in a charade then. Still, gently caress em.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:This reminds me, what ever happened to that Steven crowder guy? Or is this a question I should ask the rwm thread? https://www.youtube.com/user/StevenCrowder
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Is Gilmore still in?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:I dunno, I consider not asking a single question from the bench since 2006 to be the sign of an incompetent Justice He doesn't believe in oral arguments, either. It is a(n insane) principled stance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
Kro-Bar posted:Apparently Ferguson is dragging it's feet on the DoJ-imposed changes to its policing. feds: You are doing these fifteen awful things. Fix them. SPD: Some of those are hard to fix, can't we negotiate about this? feds: Sorry, I must have misheard that, what did you loving say? edit: I didn't clearly hear what happened after that though; I wasn't living in Seattle at the time. Samurai Sanders fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Feb 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Meg From Family Guy posted:Is Gilmore still in? #stillstanding
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 22:57 |
|
|
Ceiling fan posted:I heard part of a talk Justice Sotomayor gave a few years ago that explains this. She said that the preliminary voting process just after arguements involves no debate. Just a combined statement and vote done in order of seniority. So the junior Justices especially ask questions in a way to communicate their position and reasoning to their seniors ahead of the votes. On this note, if anyone hasn't read The Nine and The Oath, Jeffrey Toobin's two books on the Supreme Court, they're pretty much required reading for anyone who wants to understand how the current Court's makeup operates.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 23:28
|
|
