|
Flesh Forge posted:here it comes Yep time for the Gorsuch/Kavanaugh fuckery to pay off. 
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 04:00 |
|
|
Mahoning posted:Color me shocked. Funny, I though the regressive's would be fine with that message considering that they've been all about 'Save my planet, gently caress over the children' and that's only a step or two further.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:10
|
|
|
Where in the constitution does it say I can’t eat babies? That’s inflicting on my freedoms as an American citizen
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:14
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:Surprise, surprise, 86-year-old woman who is given a lifetime appointment and makes friends of conservative justices is not, in fact, a leftist crusader. You guys needs some better goddamn reasons to throw Ginsburg under the bus as not pure enough
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:15
|
|
|
i guess you missed her takes on black lives matter and athletes kneeling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:16
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:You guys needs some better goddamn reasons to throw Ginsburg under the bus as not pure enough ...I wasn't? I don't dislike Ginsburg; I just don't think lionizing her as some sort of leftist crusader was ever grounded in reality. She's old, and with age comes certain brain poisons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:17
|
|
|
Tired: Pack the court because of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Wired: pack the court because of RBG and Kagan.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:18
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:i guess you missed her takes on black lives matter and athletes kneeling. She's done more to make the world a better place than anyone in this thread ever will, but her opinions aren't always right, which is the endgame of morality (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:19
|
|
|
Slowpoke! posted:Yeah they expected 145,000 and no change to unemployment. 136,000 isn’t going to ease fears of recession. For the lazy, here's a link to a primer in this topic. I'm not versed in the subject so I can't vouch for the completeness of their writing or any biases in the article, but it seems like a good start. https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-real-unemployment-rate-3306198
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:She's done more to make the world a better place than anyone in this thread ever will, but her opinions aren't always right, which is the endgame of morality And she’s so sassy! Notorious RBG!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:I just don't think lionizing her as some sort of leftist crusader was ever grounded in reality. Even this is out of touch and incorrect. Her written opinions routinely spit fire at the opposition, and you are mad at her for not saying enough mean things in public about conservative justices.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
and she could've retired and ensured a younger and even better justice than her was on the court for most of the rest of our lives and didn't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
To be fair I don't think the default progressive strategy has been "well conservatives are gonna outright cheat and block any progressive court appointees so I better do THIS" although yes it should be going forward
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:23
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:and she could've retired and ensured a younger and even better justice than her was on the court for most of the rest of our lives and didn't. this was inexcusable and even if it doesn't wind up being an issue, it was a risk that should not have been run Flesh Forge posted:To be fair I don't think the default progressive strategy has been "well conservatives are gonna outright cheat and block any progressive court appointees so I better do THIS" People wanted her to retire after 2012 precisely out of fear of a Republican senate doing exactly what Mitch did with Garland (the worry was 2014-2016, or in the future). It was eminently forseeable Mitch would do that with a vacancy and she'd had health scares before.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:23
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:and she could've retired and ensured a younger and even better justice than her was on the court for most of the rest of our lives and didn't. Yeah, it was a mistake. Everything might still work out fine with that, let's see.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:24
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:and she could've retired and ensured a younger and even better justice than her was on the court for most of the rest of our lives and didn't. Why do you think Obama would have nominated a better judge rather than just a younger one?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:25
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:this was inexcusable and even if it doesn't wind up being an issue, it was a risk that should not have been run Agreed. She was in her 80s when Obama's last term started and had had two cancer scares already. Retire and write some books or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:25
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:and she could've retired and ensured a younger and even better justice than her was on the court for most of the rest of our lives and didn't. This is wishful thinking. Obama was so obsessed with pleasing Conservatives that even if she had stepped down on his inauguration day in 2009 (when Dems held both houses of Congress AND the White House), he would've nominated some milquetoast center-left justice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:25
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Even this is out of touch and incorrect. Her written opinions routinely spit fire at the opposition, and you are mad at her for not saying enough mean things in public about conservative justices. Hillary Clinton routinely spits fire at conservatives. That doesn't make her a good representative or guardian of leftist causes. Again: this isn't me saying I dislike Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I think she is, overall, very good at her job and she was an excellent choice for the Court. But her age carries with it certain prejudices and predilections for thought patterns that don't lend themselves well to modern leftist thought in a lot of ways. Mahoning posted:This is wishful thinking. Obama was so obsessed with pleasing Conservatives that even if she had stepped down on his inauguration day in 2009, he would've nominated some milquetoast center-left justice. ...except we got Sonia Sotomayor, who is really not that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:25
|
|
|
There are a lot of people who have a basically saint-like image of Ginsburg, which runs the risk of them internalizing her sometimes genuinely bad ideas. This is the case with a lot of liberal heroes! It's good to disabuse people of those images lest they adopt those poo poo opinions themselves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:25
|
|
|
"And we'd like you to continue to do the same for us by not saying anything about Hong Kong. Thanks, byyyyeeeee!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:25
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:and she could've retired and ensured a younger and even better justice than her was on the court for most of the rest of our lives and didn't. You could have said that about a lot of justices in recent times. Thurgood Marshall and Brennan come to mind. If you actually like the law, being a SCOTUS justice is a dream job. I can’t blame anyone for resisting letting go of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:26
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Why do you think Obama would have nominated a better judge rather than just a younger one? Saying "better" was probably a mistake, but the reality is that the difference between her and a likely Obama appointee (while he had a Democratic senate) would have been miniscule compared to the risk of a conservative. Mahoning posted:This is wishful thinking. Obama was so obsessed with pleasing Conservatives that even if she had stepped down on his inauguration day in 2009 (when Dems held both houses of Congress AND the White House), he would've nominated some milquetoast center-left justice. how do you come up with some idiot take like this without remembering that obama appointed two supreme court justices with a democratic senate
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:26
|
|
|
Edit: nm
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:27
|
|
|
Republicans were even musing about never confirming Hillary's judge's anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:27
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Why do you think Obama would have nominated a better judge rather than just a younger one? because he put by far the best justice on the court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor also kagan isn't right of ginsburg. Brony Car posted:You could have said that about a lot of justices in recent times. Thurgood Marshall and Brennan come to mind. marshall retired under a democratic senate it's not his fault enough voted for thomas. he also would've had to retire under carter. Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Oct 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:27
|
|
|
We shouldn’t have lifetime appointments because of weird poo poo like what we are discussing. We shouldn’t be asking judges to time their retirements based on a formula of how likely they are to die before the next conservative or liberal president is elected. That is just weird and it undermines the independence of the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:28
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1180127236957052930 hillary... is right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:29
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:Hillary Clinton routinely spits fire at conservatives. Hillary has literally never “spit fire”
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:29
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:how do you come up with some idiot take like this without remembering that obama appointed two supreme court justices with a democratic senate Neither Kagan or Sotomayer are "better" than RBG, which was the claim I had an issue with. They are both to the right of RBG.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:29
|
|
|
The real question is can AOC be a supreme court justice, Senator, and President all at the same time?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:29
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Why do you think Obama would have nominated a better judge rather than just a younger one? A) his judges pre Garland were actually both pretty solid B) literally anyone on the lib side of things who doesn't give the nation constant panic attacks when they sneeze would be 'better' with the way the court actually works
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:30
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1180127236957052930 hillary... is right? BREAKING: Hillary Clinton spotted at National Archives attempting to shred US constitution.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:30
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/1180127236957052930 hillary... is right? hmm, not a hillary quote, so no
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:31
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:Neither Kagan or Sotomayer are "better" than RBG, which was the claim I had an issue with. They are both to the right of RBG. neither Kagan or Sotomayor are "some milquetoast center-left justice" so we can toss the "durr obummer wanted to please republicans so much" in the garbage with other stupid takes that forgot the existence of observable reality. edit: you can quibble around the edges with either of them on a handful of decisions but sotomayor, in particular, is as left or more left than ginsburg. kagan is a little to the right but, in the context of the current supreme court, not enough to matter much evilweasel fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Oct 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:32
|
|
|
Gore Vidal had many bad ideas, but he often said that our country needed to engage in more constitutional reforms or amendments and I think he was right in that respect. The fact that originalist thinkers have such massive influence on the application of our laws is ridiculous. It’s a built-in limit on the adaptability of our government.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:32
|
|
|
Fallom posted:Hillary has literally never “spit fire”  the one thing Hillary Clinton was ever good at was attacking conservatives, at least when she put effort into it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:33
|
|
|
bobjr posted:Where in the constitution does it say I can’t eat babies? That’s inflicting on my freedoms as an American citizen This baby's onesie has yellow fringe, which denotes that it is subject maritime law which has no explicit restrictions on eating babies, ergo I am allowed to eat it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:34
|
|
|
Slowpoke! posted:We shouldn’t have lifetime appointments because of weird poo poo like what we are discussing. Yeah. Should be an easy thing to tweak to work better... ...wait, no, I'm being told it's literally impossible to change.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 04:00 |
|
|
Brony Car posted:Gore Vidal had many bad ideas, but he often said that our country needed to engage in more constitutional reforms or amendments and I think he was right in that respect. The fact that originalist thinkers have such massive influence on the application of our laws is ridiculous. It’s a built-in limit on the adaptability of our government. the major problem with originalism is that it isn't. it's just reactionaries wanting to give their opinions a veneer of objectively even if their decisions actually clash with original intent. look at how scalia voted on heller for a stark example of that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2019 15:34
|
|