SCOTUS

[dislaxxic]

Two of our most far right friends don't seem concerned. Interesting. Does that mean that they LIKE the administrative state doing its thing? Does it mean they really don't comprehend what is happening here? Just cause a progressive is alarmed at the possibilities, they want to slough it off as a nothing burger?

How 'bout addressing the substance of the story, boys? DO you understand the import??

..

[cradleandshoot]

Two of our most far right friends don't seem concerned. Interesting. Does that mean that they LIKE the administrative state doing its thing? Does it mean they really don't comprehend what is happening here? Just cause a progressive is alarmed at the possibilities, they want to slough it off as a nothing burger?

How 'bout addressing the substance of the story, boys? DO you understand the import??

..

You talkin to me??? You talkin to me??? Maybe if you pulled your head out of your hind end you might remember I'm far nothing on the political spectrum. I am laser focused when it comes to FLP liberal stupidty. That is a subject you excell in. FYI yellow man.

FTR.. do you actually ever read some of the chit you link to???
Your hovering just above troll territory old sod.

[dislaxxic]

Well tell us FRC Cranky, is it that you don't believe SCOTUS will DO IT, or are you just unconcerned about the ramifications of the federal government having no authority to establish administrative rules across a spectrum of nooks and crannies of our daily lives?

i know this probably seems a complicated subject to you...but, lets see if i can illustrate. Were there any regs that applied to the coolants you used in those liquid poison machines you serviced much of your life? For storage? Handling of it? Disposing of it?

You know that spending money to do any of those things costs them money, and they're tired of being told what to spend their money on...so...any little bells ringing yet?

OK, you take it from here Crankcase...

..

[jhu72]

Two of our most far right friends don't seem concerned. Interesting. Does that mean that they LIKE the administrative state doing its thing? Does it mean they really don't comprehend what is happening here? Just cause a progressive is alarmed at the possibilities, they want to slough it off as a nothing burger?

How 'bout addressing the substance of the story, boys? DO you understand the import??

..

You talkin to me??? You talkin to me??? Maybe if you pulled your head out of your hind end you might remember I'm far nothing on the political spectrum. I am laser focused when it comes to FLP liberal stupidty. That is a subject you excell in. FYI yellow man.

FTR.. do you actually ever read some of the chit you link to???
Your hovering just above troll territory old sod.

... right, so you claim.

[dislaxxic]

Lots of expected crickets from Uncle Cranky about his understanding of the SCOTUS thinking on the pending assault on the Administrative State.

You'da thunk he'd know about how refrigerator coolants are regulated. Maybe he thinks they SHOULDN'T be regulated??

..

[dislaxxic]

Supreme Court won't block new battleground state congressional maps

..

[jhu72]

This will be interesting. Attempt to dirty up the Justice before she takes her seat.

[cradleandshoot]

This will be interesting. Attempt to dirty up the Justice before she takes her seat.

Gee whiz, imagine that, a political party digging up dirt against a SCOTUS nominee.. isn't dirtying up a nominee how the game is now played?

[jhu72]

This will be interesting. Attempt to dirty up the Justice before she takes her seat.

Gee whiz, imagine that, a political party digging up dirt against a SCOTUS nominee.. isn't dirtying up a nominee how the game is now played?

... except Kellyanne promised the republiCONs are different.

[Peter Brown]

This will be interesting. Attempt to dirty up the Justice before she takes her seat.

Gee whiz, imagine that, a political party digging up dirt against a SCOTUS nominee.. isn't dirtying up a nominee how the game is now played?

... except Kellyanne promised the republiCONs are different.

It’s not even ‘dirt’. It’s basic philosophical questioning.

Hawley and Cornyn can ask her about that stuff…it seems fair, though I would likely disagree with both if they are saying even Guantanamo defendants don’t deserve a defense.

One of the fundamental bedrocks of the American judicial system is the right to a defense and a competent lawyer. Where you might want to reasonably quiz her is if she sympathized with the terrorists’ philosophy, or if she simply believed as I do in the bedrock principle of American justice….a defense. It’s highly likely the latter.

No one is concocting tales of whole cloth like Democrats did to Kavanaugh, or smearing a candidate like Democrats did to Barrett.

jhu72 reads a headline and makes assumptions, rather than reading through.

Next.

[cradleandshoot]

This will be interesting. Attempt to dirty up the Justice before she takes her seat.

Gee whiz, imagine that, a political party digging up dirt against a SCOTUS nominee.. isn't dirtying up a nominee how the game is now played?

... except Kellyanne promised the republiCONs are different.

It’s not even ‘dirt’. It’s basic philosophical questioning.

Hawley and Cornyn can ask her about that stuff…it seems fair, though I would likely disagree with both if they are saying even Guantanamo defendants don’t deserve a defense.

One of the fundamental bedrocks of the American judicial system is the right to a defense and a competent lawyer. Where you might want to reasonably quiz her is if she sympathized with the terrorists’ philosophy, or if she simply believed as I do in the bedrock principle of American justice….a defense. It’s highly likely the latter.

No one is concocting tales of whole cloth like Democrats did to Kavanaugh, or smearing a candidate like Democrats did to Barrett.

jhu72 reads a headline and makes assumptions, rather than reading through.

Next.

Doc 72 forgot all about the Kananaugh fiasco. Baseless decades old allegations from a person who could not remember where, when only who. Too bad if she hadn't been so chitfaced maybe the month or year might have been clearer to her. Maybe she could have recalled whose house it was. She sure was credible though.

[Peter Brown]

This will be interesting. Attempt to dirty up the Justice before she takes her seat.

Gee whiz, imagine that, a political party digging up dirt against a SCOTUS nominee.. isn't dirtying up a nominee how the game is now played?

... except Kellyanne promised the republiCONs are different.

It’s not even ‘dirt’. It’s basic philosophical questioning.

Hawley and Cornyn can ask her about that stuff…it seems fair, though I would likely disagree with both if they are saying even Guantanamo defendants don’t deserve a defense.

One of the fundamental bedrocks of the American judicial system is the right to a defense and a competent lawyer. Where you might want to reasonably quiz her is if she sympathized with the terrorists’ philosophy, or if she simply believed as I do in the bedrock principle of American justice….a defense. It’s highly likely the latter.

No one is concocting tales of whole cloth like Democrats did to Kavanaugh, or smearing a candidate like Democrats did to Barrett.

jhu72 reads a headline and makes assumptions, rather than reading through.

Next.

Doc 72 forgot all about the Kananaugh fiasco. Baseless decades old allegations from a person who could not remember where, when only who. Too bad if she hadn't been so chitfaced maybe the month or year might have been clearer to her. Maybe she could have recalled whose house it was. She sure was credible though.

Anyone who listened to Blasey Ford should have been highly skeptical of her stories, which grew in size and flourish each day. She was a highly unreliable witness with very questionable voice-pitch. A Democratic donor who signed letters critical of the Trump Administration. Whose own family did not support her late-in-life childhood memories she mentioned to no one.

[cradleandshoot]

This will be interesting. Attempt to dirty up the Justice before she takes her seat.

Gee whiz, imagine that, a political party digging up dirt against a SCOTUS nominee.. isn't dirtying up a nominee how the game is now played?

... except Kellyanne promised the republiCONs are different.

It’s not even ‘dirt’. It’s basic philosophical questioning.

Hawley and Cornyn can ask her about that stuff…it seems fair, though I would likely disagree with both if they are saying even Guantanamo defendants don’t deserve a defense.

One of the fundamental bedrocks of the American judicial system is the right to a defense and a competent lawyer. Where you might want to reasonably quiz her is if she sympathized with the terrorists’ philosophy, or if she simply believed as I do in the bedrock principle of American justice….a defense. It’s highly likely the latter.

No one is concocting tales of whole cloth like Democrats did to Kavanaugh, or smearing a candidate like Democrats did to Barrett.

jhu72 reads a headline and makes assumptions, rather than reading through.

Next.

Doc 72 forgot all about the Kananaugh fiasco. Baseless decades old allegations from a person who could not remember where, when only who. Too bad if she hadn't been so chitfaced maybe the month or year might have been clearer to her. Maybe she could have recalled whose house it was. She sure was credible though.

Anyone who listened to Blasey Ford should have been highly skeptical of her stories, which grew in size and flourish each day. She was a highly unreliable witness with very questionable voice-pitch. A Democratic donor who signed letters critical of the Trump Administration. Whose own family did not support her late-in-life childhood memories she mentioned to no one.

Only on this forum would Blasey Ford be 100% credible. The only thing missing from her drunken recollections is if the can of Coke had a pubic hair on it or not. There is always a can of Coke involved in these fairy tales if memory serves me correct. In my HS school days i attended one of these drunken parties. i remember making out with a young girl that involved a lot of heavy petting and myself groping under her bra. Since she was guiding me all along the way i guess i wasn't taking any liberties she did not want me to take... While i was a little bit chit faced i still remember the month... April. I remember it was a Friday night after a HS production of Our Town. I remember the house was on Black Walnut Rd right off of Maiden Lane. I remember because my good friend from HS lived there... You never forget the first time you are authorized to go under bra... if not guided and directed there... Hold on to 16 as long as you can.... changes comin round real soon make us women and men...

[Peter Brown]

This will be interesting. Attempt to dirty up the Justice before she takes her seat.

Gee whiz, imagine that, a political party digging up dirt against a SCOTUS nominee.. isn't dirtying up a nominee how the game is now played?

... except Kellyanne promised the republiCONs are different.

It’s not even ‘dirt’. It’s basic philosophical questioning.

Hawley and Cornyn can ask her about that stuff…it seems fair, though I would likely disagree with both if they are saying even Guantanamo defendants don’t deserve a defense.

One of the fundamental bedrocks of the American judicial system is the right to a defense and a competent lawyer. Where you might want to reasonably quiz her is if she sympathized with the terrorists’ philosophy, or if she simply believed as I do in the bedrock principle of American justice….a defense. It’s highly likely the latter.

No one is concocting tales of whole cloth like Democrats did to Kavanaugh, or smearing a candidate like Democrats did to Barrett.

jhu72 reads a headline and makes assumptions, rather than reading through.

Next.

Doc 72 forgot all about the Kananaugh fiasco. Baseless decades old allegations from a person who could not remember where, when only who. Too bad if she hadn't been so chitfaced maybe the month or year might have been clearer to her. Maybe she could have recalled whose house it was. She sure was credible though.

Anyone who listened to Blasey Ford should have been highly skeptical of her stories, which grew in size and flourish each day. She was a highly unreliable witness with very questionable voice-pitch. A Democratic donor who signed letters critical of the Trump Administration. Whose own family did not support her late-in-life childhood memories she mentioned to no one.

Only on this forum would Blasey Ford be 100% credible. The only thing missing from her drunken recollections is if the can of Coke had a pubic hair on it or not. There is always a can of Coke involved in these fairy tales if memory serves me correct. In my HS school days i attended one of these drunken parties. i remember making out with a young girl that involved a lot of heavy petting and myself groping under her bra. Since she was guiding me all along the way i guess i wasn't taking any liberties she did not want me to take... While i was a little bit chit faced i still remember the month... April. I remember it was a Friday night after a HS production of Our Town. I remember the house was on Black Walnut Rd right off of Maiden Lane. I remember because my good friend from HS lived there... You never forget the first time you are authorized to go under bra... if not guided and directed there... Hold on to 16 as long as you can.... changes comin round real soon make us women and men...

Did Fanlax FLP idolize Blasey Ford? If so, they should really apologize for doing so.

[Peter Brown]

5049724C-B7E6-481D-BC78-1925B9D332BB.jpeg (207.03 KiB) Viewed 604 times

[jhu72]

A significant majority of citizens think the supreme court needs to be fixed.

[a fan]

A significant majority of citizens think the supreme court needs to be fixed.

So many "duh" changes that everyone would agree to, except the 1%ers........18 year terms. All arguments televised...FFS, it's supposed to be the pinnacle of our Country's R Democracy, and citizens can't watch it? What the heck is that ?

And the code of ethics applied to them.

[AOD]

A significant majority of citizens think the supreme court needs to be fixed.

So many "duh" changes that everyone would agree to, except the 1%ers........18 year terms. All arguments televised...FFS, it's supposed to be the pinnacle of our Country's R Democracy, and citizens can't watch it? What the heck is that ?

And the code of ethics applied to them.

Well, there's a reason we don't elect our Federal judges, including Supreme Court justices. Imposing changes to the SC based on polling data makes less sense than electing judges. However, a code of ethics unfortunately needs to visit the highest court in the land. The only difference between Abe Fortas and Clarence Thomas is that Thomas is shrewd enough to interpose his wife between the big money and himself.

Live video access to arguments is long past due.

And, I wonder if the the term limit argument would be as popular as it is today if thirty two years ago the Senate didn't cower to the "high tech lynching" whine foisted upon them on LIVE TV.

Sheldon Whitehouse has a point. Too few are truly listening.

[cradleandshoot]

This will be interesting. Attempt to dirty up the Justice before she takes her seat.

Gee whiz, imagine that, a political party digging up dirt against a SCOTUS nominee.. isn't dirtying up a nominee how the game is now played?

... except Kellyanne promised the republiCONs are different.

Yet your DUMMYcrats are no different. Your party wants to save the nation from freedom and democracy. Such noble goals indeed...

[cradleandshoot]

A significant majority of citizens think the supreme court needs to be fixed.

So many "duh" changes that everyone would agree to, except the 1%ers........18 year terms. All arguments televised...FFS, it's supposed to be the pinnacle of our Country's R Democracy, and citizens can't watch it? What the heck is that ?

And the code of ethics applied to them.

Well, there's a reason we don't elect our Federal judges, including Supreme Court justices. Imposing changes to the SC based on polling data makes less sense than electing judges. However, the the code of ethics unfortunately needs to visit the highest court in the land. The only difference between Abe Fortas and Clarence Thomas is that Thomas is shrewd enough to interpose his wife between the big money and himself.

Live video access to arguments is long past due.

And, I wonder if the the term limit argument would be as popular as it is today the if thirty two years ago the Senate didn't cower to the "high tech lynching" whine foisted upon them on LIVE TV.

Sheldon Whitehouse has a point. Too few are truly listening.

"video access to arguments is long past due."

Another voice from way out in the weeds.

When i had cable i would listen to the audio feeds of SCOTUS arguments. If you were a late night TV watcher like i use to be, these discussions were a fascinating input how a SCOTUS judge reacts to comments from the lawyers arguing in front of them. Two justices who were the two nastiest on the court were Scalia and Ginsberg. They were both impatient and rude to the counsel arguing in front of them that they disagreed with. Scalia being the rudest of the two. When they browbeat you in the middle of stating your case your were either unprepared or just too extreme in your presentation to be considered credible. RBG, the saint that she is on this forum was often very mean and ornery to any counsel she disagreed with. If you were arguing in front of her it would become very clear, very quickly you better be able to convince the other 8 justices. She really was a sweetheart though...