|
Nice.
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 02:46 |
|
|
euphronius posted:Nice. "During her confirmation hearing, she received support from Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, who is related to her by marriage." Trollbama strikes again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
A 45 year old, liberal black female District Judge? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:A 45 year old, liberal black female District Judge? Also a former public defender. And one of Paul Ryan's in-laws.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:DOW Chemical settles $800 million lawsuit because Scalia won't slob their knob if it goes to SCOTUS. I wonder how long it will be until we stop getting these weekly reminders that Scalia being dead is a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Also a former public defender. And one of Paul Ryan's in-laws. Thanksgiving Dinner's gonna be awkward this year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:Yes, they play the same role for the left wing that Soros and Bloomberg play for the right wing. you, uh, you said that the same power broker controls both parties, this is manifestly untrue
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
From that article - “Can't give much detail about the list, but I can tell you that we are still in a position where the list is not closed at this point, that there are still people being considered for inclusion on the list of people that the president may consider for filling the Supreme Court vacancy,” Josh Earnest, a White House spokesman, told reporters Friday morning. Surely such a list already existed, though? I mean it can't have never crossed anyone in the administration's minds that they might have to nominate a Supreme Court judge at some point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
i mean i got no great love for the man but george soros is, and i dont think this is a controversial statement, not a koch brother
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
showbiz_liz posted:From that article - I can imagine that they had a list, but the insane political context that has sprung up around this nomination probably means that they have had to search for candidates with different political connotations then what was on the default list.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:I can imagine that they had a list, but the insane political context that has sprung up around this nomination probably means that they have had to search for candidates with different political connotations then what was on the default list. Makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
Radish posted:I wonder how long it will be until we stop getting these weekly reminders that Scalia being dead is a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
A car crashed and lit on fire on the arterial I take home from work. Spent an hour parked on the road, catching more-than-occasional whiffs of burning vehicle, while the mass of shitheads trying to draw data from every tower within range meant I had to listen to loving commercials while a god drat subhuman piece of rural trash idled his loving farm truck with its lack of a muffler next to my loving car. My backseat passenger door actually had soot on it from that loving cockroach's heap. On the other hand, Scalia dropped dead earlier this month.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Kalman posted:"During her confirmation hearing, she received support from Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, who is related to her by marriage." no way I wanna watch Ryan squirm when put on the spot
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 03:37
|
|
|
Kalman posted:"During her confirmation hearing, she received support from Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, who is related to her by marriage." Oh, to have seen his face when he heard the news. Edit: vvv  
mdemone fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Feb 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Oh, to have seen his face when he heard the news. "I've made a huge mistake."
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:A car crashed and lit on fire on the arterial I take home from work. Spent an hour parked on the road, catching more-than-occasional whiffs of burning vehicle, while the mass of shitheads trying to draw data from every tower within range meant I had to listen to loving commercials while a god drat subhuman piece of rural trash idled his loving farm truck with its lack of a muffler next to my loving car. My backseat passenger door actually had soot on it from that loving cockroach's heap. I was once stuck in an hour long traffic jam that Scalia caused. An hour of my life that I'll never get back, but hey, Scalia's dead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:I can imagine that they had a list, but the insane political context that has sprung up around this nomination probably means that they have had to search for candidates with different political connotations then what was on the default list. Plus they probably have to find several acceptable nominees for whatever insane situation they end up in now instead of a single nominee. One for when if the Senate cracks and actually holds hearings, Several for if they need to leave a trail of failed nominations at the Republicans' feet, at least one liberal judicial messiah for the election/leverage, and at least a handful of names whose consideration can be leaked to gently caress with the Senate while not loving it up for the White House. That's a whole lot of judges you've got to have ready and willing to put up with various levels of congressional dickery at the drop of a hat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
Kalman posted:"During her confirmation hearing, she received support from Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, who is related to her by marriage." Are you kidding that's unbelievable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Plus they probably have to find several acceptable nominees for whatever insane situation they end up in now instead of a single nominee. One for when if the Senate cracks and actually holds hearings, Several for if they need to leave a trail of failed nominations at the Republicans' feet, at least one liberal judicial messiah for the election/leverage, and at least a handful of names whose consideration can be leaked to gently caress with the Senate while not loving it up for the White House. That's a whole lot of judges you've got to have ready and willing to put up with various levels of congressional dickery at the drop of a hat. So what you're saying is that, given Democratic demographics, the Obama administration's vetting team almost certainly has binders full of women.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
I do love it when Obama goes all Machiavellian like he is with this slew of judicial candidates. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Also a former public defender. And one of Paul Ryan's in-laws. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
Kalman posted:"During her confirmation hearing, she received support from Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, who is related to her by marriage." hahahahahaha That is utterly fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
Kalman posted:"During her confirmation hearing, she received support from Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, who is related to her by marriage." Just chiming in to say that this is incredible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
Please provide more details of Ryan's relation to Jackson. Is she his wife's brother's wife or what's the deal? Also, regardless of politics, Scalia being replaced by a (relatively) young black woman is about the most wonderful thing I could think. Only thing better would be if she weren't part of the incestuous ivy-league "meritocracy" of DC. edit: Some quick googling provided this: ABC News posted:One of names being floated as a possible pick is someone who Ryan calls family: D.C. District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. Connected by marriage, Jackson’s husband, Patrick Jackson, is the twin brother of Ryan’s brother-in-law William Jackson. How could someone be the twin brother of Ryan's brother-in-law and not also his brother-in-law? The Puppy Bowl fucked around with this message at 11:17 on Feb 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 11:14
|
|
|
The Puppy Bowl posted:edit: Some quick googling provided this:
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 11:23
|
|
|
My brother is brother-in-law to his wife's siblings, but I am not. I think that's how it works. It's one step removed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
At what point does Speaker Ryan become his own grandpa?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Brother/sister in law is between the person who did the marrying and all their spouse's siblings. If his twin brother married someone Ryan would be brother in law only to his brother's wife.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Brother/sister in law is between the person who did the marrying and all their spouse's siblings. If his twin brother married someone Ryan would be brother in law only to his brother's wife. What if the twin brother stood in during the ceremony due to wacky bachelor party hijinks?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
So I gotta ask, with the abortion cases coming up, does the death of the most evil guy there really have any chance of basically preventing the complete destruction of reproductive rights in this country? Sorry, I've lived a lifetime of watching my rights vanish year after year, so this case probably worries me the most.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 09:00
|
|
|
Rebochan posted:So I gotta ask, with the abortion cases coming up, does the death of the most evil guy there really have any chance of basically preventing the complete destruction of reproductive rights in this country? I think this election about wraps it up for the total banning of abortion, but the curtailing of abortion rights in individual states poses the greater threat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 09:04
|
|
|
Aliquid posted:I think this election about wraps it up for the total banning of abortion, but the curtailing of abortion rights in individual states poses the greater threat. The states are what I was referring to. Specifically the South successfully eradicating it assuming the next round of cases split 4-4. I hate hoping Kennedy won't be a complete poo poo, basically.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 09:12
|
|
|
Rebochan posted:The states are what I was referring to. Specifically the South successfully eradicating it assuming the next round of cases split 4-4. I hate hoping Kennedy won't be a complete poo poo, basically. Kennedy IIRC has always been kind of a prick around abortion. Whether that means he's for a path for state-made bans is different. Roberts might side pro-choice on this particular level as well because he seems to be keen on some kind of legacy and not in the "I was instrumental in greenlighting the deaths of millions of women and children" sort of way. Might manage to see a 6-2 split with a very pissy Alito being Kylo Ren levels of angry-whiny.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 11:22
|
|
|
Rebochan posted:So I gotta ask, with the abortion cases coming up, does the death of the most evil guy there really have any chance of basically preventing the complete destruction of reproductive rights in this country? It means that even if the regulations are upheld, its without setting a precedent so once a new nominee is appointed, assuming it's an Obama or Clinton nominee, they can very quickly undo it. Other circuits also don't have to follow it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 14:15
|
|
|
A D victory means a revived Roe, btw, and the end to all these dumb state laws
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Kennedy IIRC has always been kind of a prick around abortion. Whether that means he's for a path for state-made bans is different. Roberts might side pro-choice on this particular level as well because he seems to be keen on some kind of legacy and not in the "I was instrumental in greenlighting the deaths of millions of women and children" sort of way. Might manage to see a 6-2 split with a very pissy Alito being Kylo Ren levels of angry-whiny.
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
CannonFodder posted:So the 2 would be Alito and Thomas. What is Thomas's reasoning for banning abortion? He wouldn't agree with the due process cause of the 14th amendment granting a right to privacy. Thomas and Scalia's concurrence in the partial birth abortion ban case (Gonzales v Carhart) quote:I join the Court's opinion because it accurately applies current jurisprudence, including Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992). I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court's abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), has no basis in the Constitution. See Casey, supra, at 979 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part); Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U. S. 914, 980-983 (2000) (THOMAS, J., dissenting). I also note that whether the Act constitutes a permissible exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause is not before the Court. The parties did not raise or brief that issue; it is outside the question presented; and the lower courts did not address it. See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 727, n. 2 (2005) (THOMAS, J., concurring). hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 16:25 on Feb 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
He's alive! https://twitter.com/BreakingNews/status/704338712147140610
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 02:46 |
|
|
You had me worried for a second there. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 29, 2016 17:16
|
|