|
It looks like Mcconnel and Grasserly agreed to meet Obama at the WH. I did not think they would. Possible signal of a thaw.
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 13:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Jun 1, 2024 19:57 |
|
|
That's always been the most reasonable lab for everyone !!  They need to hire me I will arbitrate this impass
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Obama's black and the people who elect McConnell and his ilk love it when their white Senators put him in his place. One of the main reasons Obama's seen so much obstructionism is that the GOP base gets a racist vicarious thrill seeing Obama thwarted at every turn. The nyt is the only msm organ that calls them on this
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
Patty judge taking one for the team. That's a good Democrat.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Kro-Bar posted:https://twitter.com/bridgetbhc/status/710133812483780608 So isn't that an admission that Obama is not now a lame duck president.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
I said when this first started obamas best move and the GOPs best result is old moderate. And here we are.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Condiv posted:you guys are forgetting the nightmare scenario They are Justices not judges. But I do think he would do that yes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I do love the position Obama has put McConnell in. I know right. That was ridiculously stupid. I guess he is using his angle to fund raise now but it seems short sighted.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Scalia believed in habeas corpus so that made him solidly left wing in modern context.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
cheese posted:Would it be fair to say that most likely scenario now is a lame duck confirmation of Garland once Hillary wins? Surely Republicans won't get a more palpable candidate from Hillary than the already-kinda-old and super centrist white guy Garland? That's like 8 months from now.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
I don't feel enough has been made about the circumstances of Scalias death.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:The strange circumstances kind of got lost in the political scuffle afterwards, and the general jubilation that the old bastard finally croaked I mean he obviously did not die the way he was found and the coroner did a cause of death by phone conference so.. What the gently caress.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:The medical mystery of why a fat old man who smokes all day died in his sleep. That's not what happened.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:I'll bite. Scalias last words 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
mdemone posted:If it's ever revealed that he was loving those other guys in the hunting club, that's the sort of thing that would really turn my whole outlook on life right around. It was Valentine's Day weekend.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
He may have been the only one who agreed to do it, guys.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
gohmak posted:Said liberal pundents since 2001 There probably will never be another republican president.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:You could have said the same after Clinton's high on the hog 90s He won?? Also, no, totally different eras.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Not really since the demographics weren't as absolutely stacked against republicans in presidential elections as they are now. And their primary process appears to be broken.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
He won but whatever it's not relevant to today. For the foreseeable future it is extremely unlikely the GOP wins the White House in its present form . This point I only made to support the idea that the GOP is loving itself nationally.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
I still don't comprehend that Roberts ACA opinion.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
Remember how the voters punished W for 911.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
If Texas goes blue it's over.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
colonel_korn posted:Apologies if this is a naive question, but could the Obama administration actually ask the (8-member) Supreme Court to rule on whether the constitution requires the Senate to give a hearing to their nominee? And if so, would the court be likely to rule in their favour? No.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
It's all speculation because we don't know who would have accepted a nomination. We'll have to wait for a leak or a biography to know for sure. But let's fight about it for pages and pages.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2016 11:59
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Nice to know the GOP kowtows to the NRA. Voice of the people, you say??? It's funny in a bad way how consistently McConnell contradicts himself. I guess he's saying Garland wouldn't get a hearing even if hrc appoints him.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
But traveling to a non regular place of work is work.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:Yeah can't wait to get those sweet coupons for $1 off X company's product while the class action lawyers get a cool $20 mil Hahahah yah those loving lawyers screwing people over.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
If it took a team of 5 plaintiff attorneys five years to get that 20,000,000 that is only 800,000 attorney/year which - considering the risk they get nothing - is reasonable. Bear in mind they are fronting the cost of doing business for five years. Most likely they had 4 losing cases to go with that one winner.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
Oh yeah. No doubt a functional gov would be better.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:
That's not net income to the attorney.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Yeah one would assume they just get their billable with the firm keeping the rest, right? Class action plaintiff firms are usually small partnerships (3-10 partners and maybe another 1-5 associates on staff). The partners would split the end of year profit and the associates get a salary and usually a bonus. The partners front the cost of doing business when no fees are coming in (most of the time).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
Just to be clear the small fee paid by non numbers usually only funds CBA work and not political activity. I am pretty sure.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Corporations are people, my friend. Persons. They are persons. Of all threads lets get it right in this one.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:"Corporations are people, my friends" is a direct Romney quote. Oh. Well he is dumb. Rygar201 posted:Is this a grammar issue or a legal terms issue? Is 'persons' defined differently than 'people'? People have full rights including political rights. Persons can include people and other legal bodies which have limited rights such as the right to own property and sue. Corporation just means fictional person. This is more clearly seen in things like cities and counties which are municipal corporations. The us code defines corporations as persons but not people.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
"Corporation are made up of people" is basically Citizens United so that is less dumb.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Large publicly held corps aren't the only form. Many probably the vast majority of corps are privately held family businesses or businesses where the officers are the shareholders.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
It's all people in the end and the take away is wealth I guess deserved privileged expression. Seems dumb but thats the sc for you. Bear in mind this also was a huge boon for organized labor.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
Fell Fire posted:You joke, but I remember when reading the oral arguments for Safford Unified School District v. Redding (school strip search of a thirteen year old) that all the old men on the court were reminiscing about dumb locker room antics. It really seemed like the case was going to rule the searches as constitutional and I think Justice Ginsburg must have spoken to them privately. This is one reason diversity is so important .
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Jun 1, 2024 19:57 |
|
|
Rygar201 posted:That Muslim inmate from a term or two ago was pro se right up until the SCOTUS granted his petition. I think someone argued for him before the SCOTUS though. I read his briefs there were at least 1l quality.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2016 23:28
|
|