LaxPower Back-Up Stick

foreverlax wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 1:30 pm

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 11:35 am

CU88 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:33 am It always warmed my heart that RBG and Scalia were friends. I hope that she is up in heaven wondering where he is.

Fearless RBG.jpg

Given the nature of what our families went through in WW2, I always wondered how some Jewish people could be pro abortion. But to each their own.

So sure, she’s probably up in heaven looking for Scalia...

You don't get it...Israel gives abortions away and we send them billions. We''ve been down this road as well.

ggait wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 2:14 pm

Only three years on the Federal bench is about the only weak spot I see....is that enough time to see if her rulings were overturned?

Short judging paper trail helps with the confirmation process. But there's also an academic paper trail.

Not clear that Mitch has the votes to jam someone through in the lame duck session.

He's got 53. Kelly replacing McSalley in November makes 52. Murkowski and Collins (if you believe her words) say the next elected president should make the nomination. That's 50 and Pence makes 51.

Grassley says the same (49), but I expect he'd weasel. His prior statements were about what he'd do as Judiciary Chair (which position he no longer holds), so he could claim he's not bound as just a regular Senator. I don't see Gardner making a stand. He's toast regardless of what he does, so he'd probably go along with a lame duck vote as he's heading out the door and looking for a new job.

So it comes down to Mitt. He wasn't around for Garland or Kavanaugh. While he'd love to stick it to Trump one more time, is he really going to vote against a pro-choice mom with a Mormon-esque 7 kids? And Manchin could always flip to the GOP side.

If his cringe-worthy duplicity gets Lindsey booted from the Senate, I'd be just fine with Trump's nominee getting lame duck confirmed. Think I'm going to donate to Lindsey's opponent's campaign.

njbill wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:09 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 2:14 pm

Only three years on the Federal bench is about the only weak spot I see....is that enough time to see if her rulings were overturned?

Short judging paper trail helps with the confirmation process. But there's also an academic paper trail.

Not clear that Mitch has the votes to jam someone through in the lame duck session.

He's got 53. Kelly replacing McSalley in November makes 52. Murkowski and Collins (if you believe her words) say the next elected president should make the nomination. That's 50 and Pence makes 51.

Grassley says the same (49), but I expect he'd weasel. His prior statements were about what he'd do as Judiciary Chair (which position he no longer holds), so he could claim he's not bound as just a regular Senator. I don't see Gardner making a stand. He's toast regardless of what he does, so he'd probably go along with a lame duck vote as he's heading out the door and looking for a new job.

So it comes down to Mitt. He wasn't around for Garland or Kavanaugh. While he'd love to stick it to Trump one more time, is he really going to vote against a pro-choice mom with a Mormon-esque 7 kids? And Manchin could always flip to the GOP side.

If his cringe-worthy duplicity gets Lindsey booted from the Senate, I'd be just fine with Trump's nominee getting lame duck confirmed. Think I'm going to donate to Lindsey's opponent's campaign.

I still think it will be Lagoa, not Barrett. Barrett has the Roe problem. Not a problem for Cons, of course, but for many others it is. At the end of the day, Lagoa may be just as bad on the issue, but she has hidden it better so far. Plus, Trump thinks nominating Lagoa will help him in Florida. I think he is right.

Mitch wants the vote before the election. He knows he'll lose Murkowski and maybe Mitt. Yes, Collins has said the new Pres. should nominate Ginsburg's replacement, but she hasn't said she will vote ''no'' if there is a vote before Nov. 3. Collins is in an impossible position. Damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. If forced, I think she has to vote "yes.'' Otherwise, she risks losing too many of her R base. And will Mitt really vote "no" on a conservative judge, assuring a liberal if Biden wins? I suspect Mitch thinks he'll only lose Murkowski and at worst Collins and Mitt. He still wins at 50-50, however. It is balls to the wall for Mitch. Hearings in October, maybe late October? Vote at the end of October or later? So what says Mitch. The Senators who are up and in close races will not be happy at all, but Mitch is going to force the issue. Take it to the bank.

After the election, all bets are off if Biden wins (which Mitch thinks will happen). Some R Senators could flip, saying the people's choice should appoint the next justice. Certainly that will be the majority view in the country. Collins could still go either way, but a defeated Collins would be freed up to vote ''no'' on a Roe killer. I think Murkowski would stick to her guns and vote ''no.'' Still think at the end of the day Mitt is a ''yes.'' Not convinced the Kelly gambit works for the Dems. I think the Nov. 30 date that has been bandied about is squishy. But more importantly, Mitch could easily force the vote to be held before Nov. 30. I think Manchin stays home. He did with impeachment. Not sure he is running again. But most importantly, it is easy to hold to the righteous position that the person elected president on Nov. 3 should nominate the next justice. So the big unknown would be if enough other Rs get a conscience and do the right thing. I suspect Mitch knows some will. So, to Mitch, post Nov. 3 is more of a roll of the dice than pre.

A favorable vote before the election probably hurts Trump. First of all, no decided voter is going to change his or her mind. Will a vote to confirm the nominee make a difference in the outcome of the election? Only two categories of voter are in play here, undecideds who were going to vote anyway and people who wouldn't have voted who now go out and vote solely due to the Supreme Court issue. Are there really many in this latter category? I don't think so. To the extent there are, I think more would be energized to vote for Biden than for Trump. Why get off your couch to vote for Trump if he just made you fat and happy by putting in a new, conservative justice? As to the undecideds who always were going to vote, there aren't that many of them to begin with. Hard to say if the SC issue will have an impact. Modest, perhaps. Who does it favor? Hard to say?

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:42 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:09 pm

ggait wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 2:14 pm

Only three years on the Federal bench is about the only weak spot I see....is that enough time to see if her rulings were overturned?

Short judging paper trail helps with the confirmation process. But there's also an academic paper trail.

Not clear that Mitch has the votes to jam someone through in the lame duck session.

He's got 53. Kelly replacing McSalley in November makes 52. Murkowski and Collins (if you believe her words) say the next elected president should make the nomination. That's 50 and Pence makes 51.

Grassley says the same (49), but I expect he'd weasel. His prior statements were about what he'd do as Judiciary Chair (which position he no longer holds), so he could claim he's not bound as just a regular Senator. I don't see Gardner making a stand. He's toast regardless of what he does, so he'd probably go along with a lame duck vote as he's heading out the door and looking for a new job.

So it comes down to Mitt. He wasn't around for Garland or Kavanaugh. While he'd love to stick it to Trump one more time, is he really going to vote against a pro-choice mom with a Mormon-esque 7 kids? And Manchin could always flip to the GOP side.

If his cringe-worthy duplicity gets Lindsey booted from the Senate, I'd be just fine with Trump's nominee getting lame duck confirmed. Think I'm going to donate to Lindsey's opponent's campaign.

I still think it will be Lagoa, not Barrett. Barrett has the Roe problem. Not a problem for Cons, of course, but for many others it is. At the end of the day, Lagoa may be just as bad on the issue, but she has hidden it better so far. Plus, Trump thinks nominating Lagoa will help him in Florida. I think he is right.

Mitch wants the vote before the election. He knows he'll lose Murkowski and maybe Mitt. Yes, Collins has said the new Pres. should nominate Ginsburg's replacement, but she hasn't said she will vote ''no'' if there is a vote before Nov. 3. Collins is in an impossible position. Damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. If forced, I think she has to vote "yes.'' Otherwise, she risks losing too many of her R base. And will Mitt really vote "no" on a conservative judge, assuring a liberal if Biden wins? I suspect Mitch thinks he'll only lose Murkowski and at worst Collins and Mitt. He still wins at 50-50, however. It is balls to the wall for Mitch. Hearings in October, maybe late October? Vote at the end of October or later? So what says Mitch. The Senators who are up and in close races will not be happy at all, but Mitch is going to force the issue. Take it to the bank.

After the election, all bets are off if Biden wins (which Mitch thinks will happen). Some R Senators could flip, saying the people's choice should appoint the next justice. Certainly that will be the majority view in the country. Collins could still go either way, but a defeated Collins would be freed up to vote ''no'' on a Roe killer. I think Murkowski would stick to her guns and vote ''no.'' Still think at the end of the day Mitt is a ''yes.'' Not convinced the Kelly gambit works for the Dems. I think the Nov. 30 date that has been bandied about is squishy. But more importantly, Mitch could easily force the vote to be held before Nov. 30. I think Manchin stays home. He did with impeachment. Not sure he is running again. But most importantly, it is easy to hold to the righteous position that the person elected president on Nov. 3 should nominate the next justice. So the big unknown would be if enough other Rs get a conscience and do the right thing. I suspect Mitch knows some will. So, to Mitch, post Nov. 3 is more of a roll of the dice than pre.

A favorable vote before the election probably hurts Trump. First of all, no decided voter is going to change his or her mind. Will a vote to confirm the nominee make a difference in the outcome of the election? Only two categories of voter are in play here, undecideds who were going to vote anyway and people who wouldn't have voted who now go out and vote solely due to the Supreme Court issue. Are there really many in this latter category? I don't think so. To the extent there are, I think more would be energized to vote for Biden than for Trump. Why get off your couch to vote for Trump if he just made you fat and happy by putting in a new, conservative justice? As to the undecideds who always were going to vote, there aren't that many of them to begin with. Hard to say if the SC issue will have an impact. Modest, perhaps. Who does it favor? Hard to say?

It's hilarious that Dems forget Manchin when they do their calculations.

dislaxxic wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 2:10 pm

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 11:35 amSo sure, she’s probably up in heaven looking for Scalia...

Yeah, that's cute, but she should be looking a little farther south to find THAT guy...speaking of being condescending to attorneys before the SCOTUS...

<<<sarcasm font on and turned up>>>

..

It's hilarious that Dems forget Manchin when they do their calculations.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:47 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:13 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 11:26 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 11:12 am You are correct, I have made fun of RBGs looks and demeanor in the past. I bet you damn near every progressive poster on this forum has said much more disparaging comments about Sarah Palin. Does that also make their comments misogynistic in nature? Maybe those insults and disparaging comments were different.? Explain to me what the rules are when it comes to misogynistic comments. I guess it matters what political party the person belongs to?

I don't think people made negative comments about Palin's looks.

We can all look up the definition of misogynistic, but I think combining nasty (your word) remarks with negative comments about her looks seems to pretty squarely qualify to me.

To look at it another way, you can criticize, or disagree with, her opinions and positions without making misogynistic comments.

Yes they did. I will say this, some of those people that made those comments still post on here today. Unless they have a bad case of CRS they can defend their own comments made back then. The comments I made about RBG were bush league to some of the vile comments made by our own fanlax members just a few years ago. If your going to hold me to this standard you have a good number of posters here who should repudiate their own hateful comments. Step forward you folks, you know who you are.

I don't recall anyone disparaging her 'looks', frankly the "misogynistic" comments about such were likely not intended as such, they were positive comments that she was attractive in that way...this from those who liked her politics. I don't recall any of our left leaning posters saying anything negative in that regard.

Which is not to say they didn't rip her for other reasons, some of which you may think were unfair, (or "hateful" or "vile") but I don't recall any being misogynistic or sexist, ie prejudiced in a way that would hold a woman to a different standard than a man.

Palin has since revealed herself to have deserved the harsh critique as remarkably uniformed and shallow for a candidate for VP, but also as a rather hateful culture warrior who loves the spotlight. There are few historical analogues to the first critique, lots of analogues to the latter. IMO, Pence gives her a good run for her money on both dimensions, albeit with a smoother demeanor.

njbill wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 4:06 pm For Romney it will come down to balancing STICK IT TO TRUMP against getting a conservative justice who likely agrees with him on the important issues. Tempting, very tempting, but he'll be a "yes," I suspect.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 4:37 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:47 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:13 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 11:26 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 11:12 am You are correct, I have made fun of RBGs looks and demeanor in the past. I bet you damn near every progressive poster on this forum has said much more disparaging comments about Sarah Palin. Does that also make their comments misogynistic in nature? Maybe those insults and disparaging comments were different.? Explain to me what the rules are when it comes to misogynistic comments. I guess it matters what political party the person belongs to?

I don't think people made negative comments about Palin's looks.

We can all look up the definition of misogynistic, but I think combining nasty (your word) remarks with negative comments about her looks seems to pretty squarely qualify to me.

To look at it another way, you can criticize, or disagree with, her opinions and positions without making misogynistic comments.

Yes they did. I will say this, some of those people that made those comments still post on here today. Unless they have a bad case of CRS they can defend their own comments made back then. The comments I made about RBG were bush league to some of the vile comments made by our own fanlax members just a few years ago. If your going to hold me to this standard you have a good number of posters here who should repudiate their own hateful comments. Step forward you folks, you know who you are.

I don't recall anyone disparaging her 'looks', frankly the "misogynistic" comments about such were likely not intended as such, they were positive comments that she was attractive in that way...this from those who liked her politics. I don't recall any of our left leaning posters saying anything negative in that regard.

Which is not to say they didn't rip her for other reasons, some of which you may think were unfair, (or "hateful" or "vile") but I don't recall any being misogynistic or sexist, ie prejudiced in a way that would hold a woman to a different standard than a man.

Palin has since revealed herself to have deserved the harsh critique as remarkably uniformed and shallow for a candidate for VP, but also as a rather hateful culture warrior who loves the spotlight. There are few historical analogues to the first critique, lots of analogues to the latter. IMO, Pence gives her a good run for her money on both dimensions, albeit with a smoother demeanor.

You don't have much recollection from the old water cooler days. The denali ditz was one of the more milder comments made on the forum. Some of those same people post here today. I would like to believe they remember some of the nasty things they said about Mrs Palin. The basic theme being how dumb and unrefined she was having lived in Alaska. They could clear the air for you if they so choose.

jhu72 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 4:53 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 4:06 pm For Romney it will come down to balancing STICK IT TO TRUMP against getting a conservative justice who likely agrees with him on the important issues. Tempting, very tempting, but he'll be a "yes," I suspect.

I think it is a useless game trying to predict what any of these snakes will do. The smart move is to hammer away at all of them with the electorate. Someone needs to put together a kitty grabbing AD, tying in Trump, the lying party time rapist, etc., showing the republican party for what it is in their attitudes towards women, "and now you lose the biggest advocate woman have ever seen on the court. It's time to fight back. Fight back on Nov 3."

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 4:58 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 4:37 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:47 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:13 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 11:26 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 11:12 am You are correct, I have made fun of RBGs looks and demeanor in the past. I bet you damn near every progressive poster on this forum has said much more disparaging comments about Sarah Palin. Does that also make their comments misogynistic in nature? Maybe those insults and disparaging comments were different.? Explain to me what the rules are when it comes to misogynistic comments. I guess it matters what political party the person belongs to?

I don't think people made negative comments about Palin's looks.

We can all look up the definition of misogynistic, but I think combining nasty (your word) remarks with negative comments about her looks seems to pretty squarely qualify to me.

To look at it another way, you can criticize, or disagree with, her opinions and positions without making misogynistic comments.

Yes they did. I will say this, some of those people that made those comments still post on here today. Unless they have a bad case of CRS they can defend their own comments made back then. The comments I made about RBG were bush league to some of the vile comments made by our own fanlax members just a few years ago. If your going to hold me to this standard you have a good number of posters here who should repudiate their own hateful comments. Step forward you folks, you know who you are.

I don't recall anyone disparaging her 'looks', frankly the "misogynistic" comments about such were likely not intended as such, they were positive comments that she was attractive in that way...this from those who liked her politics. I don't recall any of our left leaning posters saying anything negative in that regard.

Which is not to say they didn't rip her for other reasons, some of which you may think were unfair, (or "hateful" or "vile") but I don't recall any being misogynistic or sexist, ie prejudiced in a way that would hold a woman to a different standard than a man.

Palin has since revealed herself to have deserved the harsh critique as remarkably uniformed and shallow for a candidate for VP, but also as a rather hateful culture warrior who loves the spotlight. There are few historical analogues to the first critique, lots of analogues to the latter. IMO, Pence gives her a good run for her money on both dimensions, albeit with a smoother demeanor.

You don't have much recollection from the old water cooler days. The denali ditz was one of the more milder comments made on the forum. Some of those same people post here today. I would like to believe they remember some of the nasty things they said about Mrs Palin. The basic theme being how dumb and unrefined she was having lived in Alaska. They could clear the air for you if they so choose.

I have plenty of recollection, but I don't recall anyone criticizing her differently than she would have received if she was a man. "ditz" is often used pejoratively for women, but not necessarily a woman...just scatterbrained.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 5:24 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 4:58 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 4:37 pm

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:47 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:13 pm

njbill wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 11:26 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 11:12 am You are correct, I have made fun of RBGs looks and demeanor in the past. I bet you damn near every progressive poster on this forum has said much more disparaging comments about Sarah Palin. Does that also make their comments misogynistic in nature? Maybe those insults and disparaging comments were different.? Explain to me what the rules are when it comes to misogynistic comments. I guess it matters what political party the person belongs to?

I don't think people made negative comments about Palin's looks.

We can all look up the definition of misogynistic, but I think combining nasty (your word) remarks with negative comments about her looks seems to pretty squarely qualify to me.

To look at it another way, you can criticize, or disagree with, her opinions and positions without making misogynistic comments.

Yes they did. I will say this, some of those people that made those comments still post on here today. Unless they have a bad case of CRS they can defend their own comments made back then. The comments I made about RBG were bush league to some of the vile comments made by our own fanlax members just a few years ago. If your going to hold me to this standard you have a good number of posters here who should repudiate their own hateful comments. Step forward you folks, you know who you are.

I don't recall anyone disparaging her 'looks', frankly the "misogynistic" comments about such were likely not intended as such, they were positive comments that she was attractive in that way...this from those who liked her politics. I don't recall any of our left leaning posters saying anything negative in that regard.

Which is not to say they didn't rip her for other reasons, some of which you may think were unfair, (or "hateful" or "vile") but I don't recall any being misogynistic or sexist, ie prejudiced in a way that would hold a woman to a different standard than a man.

Palin has since revealed herself to have deserved the harsh critique as remarkably uniformed and shallow for a candidate for VP, but also as a rather hateful culture warrior who loves the spotlight. There are few historical analogues to the first critique, lots of analogues to the latter. IMO, Pence gives her a good run for her money on both dimensions, albeit with a smoother demeanor.

You don't have much recollection from the old water cooler days. The denali ditz was one of the more milder comments made on the forum. Some of those same people post here today. I would like to believe they remember some of the nasty things they said about Mrs Palin. The basic theme being how dumb and unrefined she was having lived in Alaska. They could clear the air for you if they so choose.

I have plenty of recollection, but I don't recall anyone criticizing her differently than she would have received if she was a man. "ditz" is often used pejoratively for women, but not necessarily a woman...just scatterbrained.

I never thought of her as a ditz. Her back ground growing up in Alaska gave her a much different outlook on the world than what life is like in the lower 48. She was not refined or eloquent but I bet I would have more fun pounding cold beers and playing poker with her than sipping Chablis and playing bridge with the HRC types. Garth Brooks said it best when he sang about having friends in low places. It is quite possible Washington DC would look more like middle America with less of the high brow elitists that reside in DC today. Maybe Mrs Palin was not presidential material. Her attitude on life more closely resembles a lot of the women i know or have known in the past. That is just me, those elitist snobs that are perched on their ivory towers in Washington DC sipping Champagne, going to those 1000 dollar a plate fund raisers, nibbling on caviar and fresh lobster from Maine while they look down at the rest of the world. You know those people I am talking about. The little people. The everyday middleclass American who probably except for New Years eve has never tasted champagne and would rather eat worms than fancy ass fish eggs. Sarah Palin sure is more grounded in reality than a bunch of other people, men and women who spend their careers kissing peoples ass. That is just the little guy in me who dislikes arrogance and elitism wherever I see it.

njbill wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:50 pm Read it again, Pete. I mentioned Manchin.

Peter Brown wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 1:24 pm

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 1:20 pm

jhu72 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:57 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:43 pm

kramerica.inc wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:32 pm Next in line?

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/se ... ourt-trump

At first blush, she sounds qualified to me. And she sounds like she was one hell of a teacher.

Only three years on the Federal bench is about the only weak spot I see....is that enough time to see if her rulings were overturned?

I can't find her dissenting opinions on a few cases cited by the press.

I have no opinion of her. Very happy Trump is going to appoint a woman. May be just a little on the young side. At least she is not one of the boys club crony types.

Like Booz Allen.....only Yale, Harvard or Columbia need apply.

She doesn't stand a chance........who knew Notre Dame had a law school What's next Suffolk nite school grads?

Her two adopted kids and husband:



ACB Fam.jpg




I can't wait to see the Fanlax Dems tell me how she's a monster.

That all said, I think it will be Barbara Lagoa, not Amy.

ggait wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 4:00 pm

It's hilarious that Dems forget Manchin when they do their calculations.

It's hilarious that Petey can't read well enough to see that Bill and I both mentioned Manchin.

The FL/Cuban angle is probably irresistible to Trump. FL is life/death for Trump; but only a nice to have for Joe.

I don't think Romney will flip in the end. He's got no Garland or Kavanaugh blood on his hands, and a religious pro-choicer is what his UT supporters (as compared to his MA supporters) want.

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 6:43 pm Notice how no one has answered my question about the last NON-ivy law grad to be a Supreme. Can't Hurray love, you know.