SCOTUS

[MDlaxfan76]

I do have an opinion on the Schumer stuff.

I blame the bulk of that on Trump, who truly knows or at least does not respect any bounds of propriety or decency.

Surprise. Suprise. Trump made Schumer do it.
You can find a way to blame everything on Trump.

Take two sentences and cut the rest and that would appear to make sense.
Of course that's not what I said in toto.

It was the "new territory" that I blame the bulk of on Trump, the zeitgeist loss of respect for the bounds of propriety and decency.

However,

But I agree with Roberts that it was highly inappropriate, definitely not the way these top officials should speak about one another, in any way translatable as such a threat by some knucklehead. Also not effective politically.

But particularly the issue of the crazies. It bothers me that Chuck, when given a chance, didn't really dial it back.

While I did not think Chuck was threatening the 2 justices, it sure could be taken as a blatant attempt at intimidating them. That is unacceptable for a US Senator that I disagree with but who normally never says such dumb things. He should have retracted and apologized asap. Trying to disavow his own words was Trumpish to say the least.

I quite agree.

Would you also agree that Trump regularly makes statements that "sure could be taken as a blatant attempt at intimidating.." ?

Should he not retract and apologize immediately, too?

Surely it's "unacceptable" for a US President, right?

I hope we agree on that, as well.

[thatsmell]

I disagree with Schumer on this one, but think the comments were blown slightly out of proportion.

I agree the rhetoric/threats have been ramped up in DC and it needs to stop.

Criticize the outcome or the decision, not the people or process.

The Supreme Court, even with its members leaning a certain way and being appointed by specific presidents is one of the few areas in DC that remain relatively neutral. We need to keep it that way. And I think criticizing it’s members should always be avoided, if possible, to accomplish that. These justices are all law nerds. They aren’t political activists.

[MDlaxfan76]

I disagree with Schumer on this one, but think the comments were blown slightly out of proportion.

I agree the rhetoric/threats have been ramped up in DC and it needs to stop.

Criticize the outcome or the decision, not the people or process.

The Supreme Court, even with its members leaning a certain way and being appointed by specific presidents is one of the few areas in DC that remain relatively neutral. We need to keep it that way. And I think criticizing it’s members should always be avoided, if possible, to accomplish that. These justices are all law nerds. They aren’t political activists.

Even if they are chosen that way by others.
Again, I feel less for Kav than Gorsuch, given the way he himself went so overtly political. Gorsuch is not to blame, personally, for the Merrick Garland debacle.

But the institution needs to remain apolitical as much as possible.
The pressure on this will lighten if a Dem Pres gets a series of nominees on board, making up for the Merrick Garland imbalance, with at least one being a replacement for a regular conservative judge. But not far left ideologues else we're back in the cycle.

[cradleandshoot]

I do have an opinion on the Schumer stuff.

I blame the bulk of that on Trump, who truly knows or at least does not respect any bounds of propriety or decency.

Surprise. Suprise. Trump made Schumer do it.
You can find a way to blame everything on Trump.

Take two sentences and cut the rest and that would appear to make sense.
Of course that's not what I said in toto.

It was the "new territory" that I blame the bulk of on Trump, the zeitgeist loss of respect for the bounds of propriety and decency.

However,

But I agree with Roberts that it was highly inappropriate, definitely not the way these top officials should speak about one another, in any way translatable as such a threat by some knucklehead. Also not effective politically.

But particularly the issue of the crazies. It bothers me that Chuck, when given a chance, didn't really dial it back.

While I did not think Chuck was threatening the 2 justices, it sure could be taken as a blatant attempt at intimidating them. That is unacceptable for a US Senator that I disagree with but who normally never says such dumb things. He should have retracted and apologized asap. Trying to disavow his own words was Trumpish to say the least.

I quite agree.

Would you also agree that Trump regularly makes statements that "sure could be taken as a blatant attempt at intimidating.." ?

Should he not retract and apologize immediately, too?

Surely it's "unacceptable" for a US President, right?

I hope we agree on that, as well.

I agree with you a 100%. Trump is not capable of accepting responsibility for the sewage that comes out of his mouth. Chuck Schumer is an experienced savvy politician who can rip you a new one but never loses his composure like he did in this instance. It should be unacceptable for a POTUS. The sad part is that Trump thinks that being POTUS is just another version of the apprentice. I disagree with Chuck Schumer all day long. I remember he gave the commencement speach when my youngest son graduated from SJFC. He is gifted with the art of the silver tongue. Even when you disagree with him talking to any group of people is his strong suit. I will admit that it may not be fair to compare Sen Schumers flub to the never ending bs from Trump. Chuck is a politician, Trump is an idiot who talks out of his rear end.

[a fan]

I disagree with Schumer on this one, but think the comments were blown slightly out of proportion.

I agree the rhetoric/threats have been ramped up in DC and it needs to stop.

Criticize the outcome or the decision, not the people or process.

The Supreme Court, even with its members leaning a certain way and being appointed by specific presidents is one of the few areas in DC that remain relatively neutral. We need to keep it that way. And I think criticizing it’s members should always be avoided, if possible, to accomplish that. These justices are all law nerds. They aren’t political activists.

+1

[6ftstick]

I disagree with Schumer on this one, but think the comments were blown slightly out of proportion.

I agree the rhetoric/threats have been ramped up in DC and it needs to stop.

Criticize the outcome or the decision, not the people or process.

The Supreme Court, even with its members leaning a certain way and being appointed by specific presidents is one of the few areas in DC that remain relatively neutral. We need to keep it that way. And I think criticizing it’s members should always be avoided, if possible, to accomplish that. These justices are all law nerds. They aren’t political activists.

+1

This wasn't criticism. It was a threat if they didn't adjudicate the way Shumer wanted.

The most powerful democrat in the Senate threatens you—probably with the full force of the US government. Willing to destroy you your family your wealth. Remember Cavenaugh just went through it.

[dislaxxic]

...Trump is an idiot who talks out of his rear end.

Moving rapidly towards the FLP column i see, Cradle! Welcome!

..

[cradleandshoot]

...Trump is an idiot who talks out of his rear end.

Moving rapidly towards the FLP column i see, Cradle! Welcome!

..

Yeah, I have potential commie, pinko, left winger written all over me. I'm just calling balls and strikes here dis.

[a fan]

I disagree with Schumer on this one, but think the comments were blown slightly out of proportion.

I agree the rhetoric/threats have been ramped up in DC and it needs to stop.

Criticize the outcome or the decision, not the people or process.

The Supreme Court, even with its members leaning a certain way and being appointed by specific presidents is one of the few areas in DC that remain relatively neutral. We need to keep it that way. And I think criticizing it’s members should always be avoided, if possible, to accomplish that. These justices are all law nerds. They aren’t political activists.

+1

This wasn't criticism. It was a threat if they didn't adjudicate the way Shumer wanted.

The most powerful democrat in the Senate threatens you—probably with the full force of the US government. Willing to destroy you your family your wealth. Remember Cavenaugh just went through it.

Reread thatsmell's comments, 6ft. We're all in complete agreement with you. Schumer crossed a line, and I think his comments were disgusting and wholly inappropriate, to put it mildly. Heck, I'm offended he named the Justices by name, let alone the veiled threats....

Remember, I'm the guy who was livid about the lefties who were interrupting Republicans at dinner in the DC area, and how dangerous those acts were. Be respectful to one another. We're all Americans and on the same team, FFS.

[MDlaxfan76]

...Trump is an idiot who talks out of his rear end.

Moving rapidly towards the FLP column i see, Cradle! Welcome!

..

Yeah, I have potential commie, pinko, left winger written all over me. I'm just calling balls and strikes here dis.

Welcome to Moderateland.

[MDlaxfan76]

I disagree with Schumer on this one, but think the comments were blown slightly out of proportion.

I agree the rhetoric/threats have been ramped up in DC and it needs to stop.

Criticize the outcome or the decision, not the people or process.

The Supreme Court, even with its members leaning a certain way and being appointed by specific presidents is one of the few areas in DC that remain relatively neutral. We need to keep it that way. And I think criticizing it’s members should always be avoided, if possible, to accomplish that. These justices are all law nerds. They aren’t political activists.

+1

This wasn't criticism. It was a threat if they didn't adjudicate the way Shumer wanted.

The most powerful democrat in the Senate threatens you—probably with the full force of the US government. Willing to destroy you your family your wealth. Remember Cavenaugh just went through it.

Reread thatsmell's comments, 6ft. We're all in complete agreement with you. Schumer crossed a line, and I think his comments were disgusting and wholly inappropriate, to put it mildly. Heck, I'm offended he named the Justices by name, let alone the veiled threats....

Remember, I'm the guy who was livid about the lefties who were interrupting Republicans at dinner in the DC area, and how dangerous those acts were. Be respectful to one another. We're all Americans and on the same team, FFS.

well...not all of us are "complete agreement" with everything 6ft is saying.
I don't think for a moment that Schumer was in any way actually threatening these guys personally, not with any powers he has in government (which are darn little actually) nor by inciting others to do so.

I think what he was "threatening" was that their choices, if as predicted and signaled, would cause a "whirlwind" of response, not at these guys personally, ("you, your family, your wealth SIC), but rather a political response at the notion of loss of choice protections.

Schumer sees these two guys as actual GOP political partisans. That does appear to be fair about Kav, but I think Gorsuch is just a conservative-minded jurist or at least he hasn't publicly indicated otherwise.

But we do all seem to agree that it crossed the line, was inappropriately personal, and could be mistaken by nut jobs as incitement...and so it should have been more clearly retracted. Disappointed in Schumer, but I'm not a fan of his in the first place.

[cradleandshoot]

...Trump is an idiot who talks out of his rear end.

Moving rapidly towards the FLP column i see, Cradle! Welcome!

..

Yeah, I have potential commie, pinko, left winger written all over me. I'm just calling balls and strikes here dis.

Welcome to Moderateland.

I am sure you are well aware of that old saying that when you walk in the middle of the road your likely to get run over by a truck. We all on this forum have certain core beliefs that we have a difficult time compromising on. When you separate the wheat from the chaff i think most of us here( with a few exceptions) are closer to the middle than the fringes. I am one of the old decrepit fossils that believes our nation should live within its means. It has been proven to me, for different reasons politically, that neither the Ds or the Rs believe in doing so anymore. The new normal is trillion dollar a year deficits because everybody in DC wants what they want and they want it right now. I hope that somewhere in the near future that both parties can find away to settle their differences and solve some of these issues that are tearing this country apart. Me, I am looking out into the backyard and trying to find a way to squeeze more tomato plants in where my wife wants butternut squash. I try and tell her the ROI is not worth the space. At least that is a discussion I have a very slight chance of winning.

[MDlaxfan76]

...Trump is an idiot who talks out of his rear end.

Moving rapidly towards the FLP column i see, Cradle! Welcome!

..

Yeah, I have potential commie, pinko, left winger written all over me. I'm just calling balls and strikes here dis.

Welcome to Moderateland.

I am sure you are well aware of that old saying that when you walk in the middle of the road your likely to get run over by a truck. We all on this forum have certain core beliefs that we have a difficult time compromising on. When you separate the wheat from the chaff i think most of us here( with a few exceptions) are closer to the middle than the fringes. I am one of the old decrepit fossils that believes our nation should live within its means. It has been proven to me, for different reasons politically, that neither the Ds or the Rs believe in doing so anymore. The new normal is trillion dollar a year deficits because everybody in DC wants what they want and they want it right now. I hope that somewhere in the near future that both parties can find away to settle their differences and solve some of these issues that are tearing this country apart. Me, I am looking out into the backyard and trying to find a way to squeeze more tomato plants in where my wife wants butternut squash. I try and tell her the ROI is not worth the space. At least that is a discussion I have a very slight chance of winning.

No need to walk, get in the truck and drive!

[cradleandshoot]

...Trump is an idiot who talks out of his rear end.

Moving rapidly towards the FLP column i see, Cradle! Welcome!

..

Yeah, I have potential commie, pinko, left winger written all over me. I'm just calling balls and strikes here dis.

Welcome to Moderateland.

I am sure you are well aware of that old saying that when you walk in the middle of the road your likely to get run over by a truck. We all on this forum have certain core beliefs that we have a difficult time compromising on. When you separate the wheat from the chaff i think most of us here( with a few exceptions) are closer to the middle than the fringes. I am one of the old decrepit fossils that believes our nation should live within its means. It has been proven to me, for different reasons politically, that neither the Ds or the Rs believe in doing so anymore. The new normal is trillion dollar a year deficits because everybody in DC wants what they want and they want it right now. I hope that somewhere in the near future that both parties can find away to settle their differences and solve some of these issues that are tearing this country apart. Me, I am looking out into the backyard and trying to find a way to squeeze more tomato plants in where my wife wants butternut squash. I try and tell her the ROI is not worth the space. At least that is a discussion I have a very slight chance of winning.

No need to walk, get in the truck and drive!

You just blew that metaphor all to hell. I have to add if your driving the truck, don't drive in the middle of the road. You are likely to run over alot of moderate republicans.

[MDlaxfan76]

...Trump is an idiot who talks out of his rear end.

Moving rapidly towards the FLP column i see, Cradle! Welcome!

..

Yeah, I have potential commie, pinko, left winger written all over me. I'm just calling balls and strikes here dis.

Welcome to Moderateland.

I am sure you are well aware of that old saying that when you walk in the middle of the road your likely to get run over by a truck. We all on this forum have certain core beliefs that we have a difficult time compromising on. When you separate the wheat from the chaff i think most of us here( with a few exceptions) are closer to the middle than the fringes. I am one of the old decrepit fossils that believes our nation should live within its means. It has been proven to me, for different reasons politically, that neither the Ds or the Rs believe in doing so anymore. The new normal is trillion dollar a year deficits because everybody in DC wants what they want and they want it right now. I hope that somewhere in the near future that both parties can find away to settle their differences and solve some of these issues that are tearing this country apart. Me, I am looking out into the backyard and trying to find a way to squeeze more tomato plants in where my wife wants butternut squash. I try and tell her the ROI is not worth the space. At least that is a discussion I have a very slight chance of winning.

No need to walk, get in the truck and drive!

You just blew that metaphor all to hell. I have to add if your driving the truck, don't drive in the middle of the road. You are likely to run over alot of moderate republicans.

and Dems?
Bring'em all on the bus!

[cradleandshoot]

...Trump is an idiot who talks out of his rear end.

Moving rapidly towards the FLP column i see, Cradle! Welcome!

..

Yeah, I have potential commie, pinko, left winger written all over me. I'm just calling balls and strikes here dis.

Welcome to Moderateland.

I am sure you are well aware of that old saying that when you walk in the middle of the road your likely to get run over by a truck. We all on this forum have certain core beliefs that we have a difficult time compromising on. When you separate the wheat from the chaff i think most of us here( with a few exceptions) are closer to the middle than the fringes. I am one of the old decrepit fossils that believes our nation should live within its means. It has been proven to me, for different reasons politically, that neither the Ds or the Rs believe in doing so anymore. The new normal is trillion dollar a year deficits because everybody in DC wants what they want and they want it right now. I hope that somewhere in the near future that both parties can find away to settle their differences and solve some of these issues that are tearing this country apart. Me, I am looking out into the backyard and trying to find a way to squeeze more tomato plants in where my wife wants butternut squash. I try and tell her the ROI is not worth the space. At least that is a discussion I have a very slight chance of winning.

No need to walk, get in the truck and drive!

You just blew that metaphor all to hell. I have to add if your driving the truck, don't drive in the middle of the road. You are likely to run over alot of moderate republicans.

and Dems?
Bring'em all on the bus!

A bipartisan bus ride, sounds like a plan.

[youthathletics]

+1 posting between MD and Cradle.

Reading the back and forth between you two certainly explains away 1000's of splitting hair posts between many of us. cradle does a nice job boiling it down in these two sentences.....

We all on this forum have certain core beliefs that we have a difficult time compromising on. When you separate the wheat from the chaff i think most of us here( with a few exceptions) are closer to the middle than the fringes.

Reminds me of the movie Green Book

[dislaxxic]

A Federal Judge Condemned the “Roberts Court’s Assault on Democracy.’’ It’s About Time.

"Nowhere is the problem of asymmetrical rhetorical warfare more apparent than in the federal judiciary. For the past several years, federal judges, notably those appointed by Donald J. Trump, have felt unmoored from any standard judicial conventions of circumspection and restraint, penning screeds about the evils of “big government” and rants against Planned Parenthood. Most of the judicial branch, though, has declined to engage in this kind of rhetoric. There are norms, after all, and conventions, standards, and protocols. There seems to also be an agreement that conservative judges demonstrate deeply felt passion when they delve into such issues, while everyone else just demonstrates “bias” if they decide to weigh in. So when Justice Clarence Thomas just last year used a dissent to attack the integrity of a sitting federal judge in the census case, it was mere clever wordsmithing. But when Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggests, as she did recently, that the conservative wing of the high court seems to be privileging the Trump administration’s emergency petitions, she is labeled—by the president himself—unfit to judge. It’s such a long-standing trick, and it’s so well supported by the conservative outrage machine, that it’s easy to believe that critiques of fellow judges by conservative judges are legitimate, while such critiques from liberal judges are an affront to the legitimacy of the entire federal judiciary."

[BUT]

"This dynamic is why it’s so astonishing to see progressive judges really go for broke in criticizing conservative bias in the judiciary, as U.S. District Court Judge Lynn Adelman does in criticizing the five conservative justices on the Roberts Supreme Court in an upcoming Harvard Law & Policy review article."

The brutal start of the article:

By now, it is a truism that Chief Justice John Roberts’ statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee that a Supreme Court justice’s role is the passive one of a neutral baseball “umpire who [merely] calls the balls and strikes” was a masterpiece of disingenuousness. Roberts’ misleading testimony inevitably comes to mind when one considers the course of decision-making by the Court over which he presides. This is so because the Roberts Court has been anything but passive. Rather, the Court’s hard right majority is actively participating in undermining American democracy. Indeed, the Roberts Court has contributed to insuring that the political system in the United States pays little attention to ordinary Americans and responds only to the wishes of a relatively small number of powerful corporations and individuals.

..

[Trinity]

SCOTUS: we are postponing all oral arguments because of coronavirus

SCOTUS: why would we extend absentee voting because of coronavirus? Go stand in line.

[Peter Brown]

A Federal Judge Condemned the “Roberts Court’s Assault on Democracy.’’ It’s About Time.

"Nowhere is the problem of asymmetrical rhetorical warfare more apparent than in the federal judiciary. For the past several years, federal judges, notably those appointed by Donald J. Trump, have felt unmoored from any standard judicial conventions of circumspection and restraint, penning screeds about the evils of “big government” and rants against Planned Parenthood. Most of the judicial branch, though, has declined to engage in this kind of rhetoric. There are norms, after all, and conventions, standards, and protocols. There seems to also be an agreement that conservative judges demonstrate deeply felt passion when they delve into such issues, while everyone else just demonstrates “bias” if they decide to weigh in. So when Justice Clarence Thomas just last year used a dissent to attack the integrity of a sitting federal judge in the census case, it was mere clever wordsmithing. But when Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggests, as she did recently, that the conservative wing of the high court seems to be privileging the Trump administration’s emergency petitions, she is labeled—by the president himself—unfit to judge. It’s such a long-standing trick, and it’s so well supported by the conservative outrage machine, that it’s easy to believe that critiques of fellow judges by conservative judges are legitimate, while such critiques from liberal judges are an affront to the legitimacy of the entire federal judiciary."

[BUT]

"This dynamic is why it’s so astonishing to see progressive judges really go for broke in criticizing conservative bias in the judiciary, as U.S. District Court Judge Lynn Adelman does in criticizing the five conservative justices on the Roberts Supreme Court in an upcoming Harvard Law & Policy review article."

The brutal start of the article:

By now, it is a truism that Chief Justice John Roberts’ statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee that a Supreme Court justice’s role is the passive one of a neutral baseball “umpire who [merely] calls the balls and strikes” was a masterpiece of disingenuousness. Roberts’ misleading testimony inevitably comes to mind when one considers the course of decision-making by the Court over which he presides. This is so because the Roberts Court has been anything but passive. Rather, the Court’s hard right majority is actively participating in undermining American democracy. Indeed, the Roberts Court has contributed to insuring that the political system in the United States pays little attention to ordinary Americans and responds only to the wishes of a relatively small number of powerful corporations and individuals.

..

Let me boil down this nutcase lefty jurist's thoughts to one sentence:

Those 5 who vote together are awful because they vote together, but these four who vote together are righteous.

Adelman is a lightweight hysterical partisan who failed to win 3x for a Congressional seat as a liberal Dem. Total satire. Are there any serious Democrats left?

Next.