LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Right; concur. And the Us v. Them thing alienates them further and more, leaving the Red20% v. Blue20% to slug it out...and so on and so on.

Yes! It's why most of us here at the Water Cooler are so frustrated and annoyed about the last 20 years or so of governance. The inmates are running the asylum, and the reasonable folks have left the building.

See this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/us/p ... sContainer

TANATS. The right is just a dirty, perverting thing.

seacoaster wrote:See this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/us/p ... sContainer

TANATS. The right is just a dirty, perverting thing.

“Generous donors,” the application materials said, were making “a significant financial investment in each and every attendee.” In exchange, the future law clerks would be required to promise to keep the program’s teaching materials secret and pledge not to use what they learned “for any purpose contrary to the mission or interest of the Heritage Foundation.”

Man this is really f'ed up.

This comment on the NYTimes story hit the ball out of the park...

In case you wondered how the alt right neocon Heritage and Federalist societies have hijacked the Supreme Court and lower federal courts....

Ever wonder how free speech became Citizens United

Or how these organizations are at the forefront how the 1 percent owns congress and how they write the laws?

These aren't neoconservatives....they are the foot soldiers of the 1 percent....


Again, "conservatives" in the 99% are kidding themselves. Rush is the 1%. Hillary is the 1%. Hannity is the 1%. These judges will serve them. You're a fool if you think otherwise. Left/right. Conservative/liberal has nothing to do with their rulings. Wake up.

Bandito wrote:
....What is really impressive is Kav was able to drink some beers and party in college (gasp) and still be ranked #1 in his class....

"And in the case especially of Justice Kavanaugh, the lies that were made up..." DJT

Like this one - "Justice Kavanaugh, number one in his class at Yale" DJT

1. Yale doesn't calculate class rank or standing
2. Same with the law school
3. Keg K wasn't even close to top in his class...he graduated cum laude...putting him somewhere between top 16% - 30%.

General Honors
The bachelor’s degree cum laude, magna cum laude, or summa cum laude is awarded at graduation on the basis of a student’s general performance in courses taken at Yale. At Commencement, General Honors are awarded to no more than 30 percent of the class. The bachelor’s degree is awarded summa cum laude to no more than the top 5 percent of the graduating class, magna cum laude to no more than the next 10 percent of the graduating class, cum laude to no more than the next 15 percent of the graduating class. Eligibility for General Honors is based on the grade point average (GPA) earned in courses taken only at Yale, with letter grades carrying the following values:

Interesting article about the loos of the center that needed to hold:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... us/572416/

"One party made the Supreme Court a partisan issue. First Richard Nixon and then Ronald Reagan made attacks on the Court part of Republican Party dogma. Some will see the rejection of Judge Robert Bork by the Democratic-controlled Senate in 1987 as a product of partisanship; others may see it as one of its causes. But I think no fair-minded person could deny that a major barrier was crossed in 1991 when a Republican president, for political reasons, appointed a justice who was manifestly unqualified for the office, and who faced numerous, credible claims of sexual misbehavior as a government official. It was hard to watch the nominee testify in October 1991 without concluding that Anita Hill had told the truth and that Thomas had lied. But the administration pushed ahead regardless. This was the first major step over a dangerous threshold.

The next step came in 2000, when five Republican appointees on the Court extended its authority to decide a national election, in defiance of federal statutes, the Constitution’s text, and their own frequently expressed pieties about “our federalism.” The Court has aggressively made itself part of partisan politics, but even then, some of the justices who dissented were Republican appointees.

Partisanship sputtered for the next decade and a half. John Roberts was confirmed as chief justice with the votes of 22 Democrats––half of the party’s Senate caucus. Samuel Alito was the object of an attempted filibuster by Democrats, but was still confirmed with four Democratic votes. Sonia Sotomayor won nine Republican votes; Elena Kagan got five Republican votes and lost one Democratic vote. Justice Anthony Kennedy continued to move back and forth within the Court across partisan lines.

As the new Court settled in, people began to wonder whether the wounds of 2000 might be closing.

Then, in 2016, Justice Antonin Scalia died."

According the the Senate Judiciary, Swetnick, Avenatti have been referred for Criminal Investigation for: Providing false statements, obstrucing congressoinal investigations and conspiracy, which all violate federal law.

LOL!!!! It has been a bad few weeks for Avenatti. Now he might be going away for a loooong time.

Trump wins again. Dems lose again. Man what a day I am having!

Bandito wrote:According the the Senate Judiciary, Swetnick, Avenatti have been referred for Criminal Investigation for: Providing false statements, obstrucing congressoinal investigations and conspiracy, which all violate federal law.

LOL!!!! It has been a bad few weeks for Avenatti. Now he might be going away for a loooong time.

Trump wins again. Dems lose again. Man what a day I am having!

A _referral_ for investigation - sounds more like an announcement to make Fox/Breitbart/Daily Caller/etc salivate for a week of stories two weeks before the midterm elections. No actual evidence presented as far as I can see other than the feeling they must be lying because Judge and Kavanaugh say they weren't there...

RedFromMI wrote:

Bandito wrote:According the the Senate Judiciary, Swetnick, Avenatti have been referred for Criminal Investigation for: Providing false statements, obstrucing congressoinal investigations and conspiracy, which all violate federal law.

LOL!!!! It has been a bad few weeks for Avenatti. Now he might be going away for a loooong time.

Trump wins again. Dems lose again. Man what a day I am having!

A _referral_ for investigation - sounds more like an announcement to make Fox/Breitbart/Daily Caller/etc salivate for a week of stories two weeks before the midterm elections. No actual evidence presented as far as I can see other than the feeling they must be lying because Judge and Kavanaugh say they weren't there...

Yeah, basically the news is that Grassley wrote a letter suggesting someone look into it.

The irony being if they do get investigated and it supports them in any way and the Dem's somehow win on election day, this could easily be fodder for Kavanaugh impeachment.

holmes435 wrote:

RedFromMI wrote:

Bandito wrote:According the the Senate Judiciary, Swetnick, Avenatti have been referred for Criminal Investigation for: Providing false statements, obstrucing congressoinal investigations and conspiracy, which all violate federal law.

LOL!!!! It has been a bad few weeks for Avenatti. Now he might be going away for a loooong time.

Trump wins again. Dems lose again. Man what a day I am having!

A _referral_ for investigation - sounds more like an announcement to make Fox/Breitbart/Daily Caller/etc salivate for a week of stories two weeks before the midterm elections. No actual evidence presented as far as I can see other than the feeling they must be lying because Judge and Kavanaugh say they weren't there...

Yeah, basically the news is that Grassley wrote a letter suggesting someone look into it.

The irony being if they do get investigated and it supports them in any way and the Dem's somehow win on election day, this could easily be fodder for Kavanaugh impeachment.

Kavanaugh isn't going to be impeached for lies the Democrats made up. If impeached, he definitely won't be removed. You need 2/3 Senators to vote to remove him. That isn't happening. Maybe in your wet dreams, but I deal with reality, not fantasy. The Dems screwed the pooch. They made up lies about Kav and now the chickens are coming home to roost. Plus the Republicans aren't going to lose the House nor the Senate. You obviously haven't been paying close attention to anything but MSM lies and spin.

RedFromMI wrote:

Bandito wrote:According the the Senate Judiciary, Swetnick, Avenatti have been referred for Criminal Investigation for: Providing false statements, obstrucing congressoinal investigations and conspiracy, which all violate federal law.

LOL!!!! It has been a bad few weeks for Avenatti. Now he might be going away for a loooong time.

Trump wins again. Dems lose again. Man what a day I am having!

A _referral_ for investigation - sounds more like an announcement to make Fox/Breitbart/Daily Caller/etc salivate for a week of stories two weeks before the midterm elections. No actual evidence presented as far as I can see other than the feeling they must be lying because Judge and Kavanaugh say they weren't there...

No actual evidence??? You mean like during the Kavanaugh hearings? You are such a loser. It is laughable. And a hypocrite and a doofus. You lose, We won. Get over it sucker.

Bandito wrote:

RedFromMI wrote:

Bandito wrote:According the the Senate Judiciary, Swetnick, Avenatti have been referred for Criminal Investigation for: Providing false statements, obstrucing congressoinal investigations and conspiracy, which all violate federal law.

LOL!!!! It has been a bad few weeks for Avenatti. Now he might be going away for a loooong time.

Trump wins again. Dems lose again. Man what a day I am having!

A _referral_ for investigation - sounds more like an announcement to make Fox/Breitbart/Daily Caller/etc salivate for a week of stories two weeks before the midterm elections. No actual evidence presented as far as I can see other than the feeling they must be lying because Judge and Kavanaugh say they weren't there...

No actual evidence??? You mean like during the Kavanaugh hearings? You are such a loser. It is laughable. And a hypocrite and a doofus. You lose, We won. Get over it sucker.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks...

The last person on the planet who wants more investigation is Bret Kavanaugh.

njbill wrote:The last person on the planet who wants more investigation is Bret Kavanaugh.

Nope, make that the recusing supremes collectively. Who paid for Ginsberg European trip and why?

The Supreme Court just added this racial gerrymandering case to its term:

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/ca ... hune-hill/

A description from Amy Howe (at http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/11/court ... ts-docket/):

"The justices will once again return to the subject of racial gerrymandering, in a case from Virginia challenging the districting plan drawn in 2011 for the state’s House of Delegates. In 2017, the Supreme Court ruled that a three-judge district court had applied the wrong legal standard when it upheld 12 districts against claims that they were the product of racial gerrymandering. The justices sent the case back to the lower court, ordering it to take another look at 11 of those districts – and, in particular, whether race was the primary factor used to draw the districts. (The justices upheld the 12th district.)

Applying the standard outlined by the Supreme Court, the lower court concluded that race was indeed the primary factor driving the district boundaries. Because the legislature also had not shown that it needed to use the same population targets in each of the “vastly dissimilar” districts at issue to comply with federal voting rights laws, the lower court continued, the districts violate the Constitution.

The Virginia House of Delegates and Kirkland Cox, the speaker of the House of Delegates, appealed to the Supreme Court, which announced today that it would review their appeal. (Redistricting cases are among a narrow set of cases with an automatic right to appeal to the Supreme Court.)

The Virginia board of elections and department of elections and several state officials filed a separate brief, represented by Virginia’s solicitor general, Toby Heytens. Heytens urged the justices to dismiss the legislature’s appeal, telling them that the House of Delegates and Cox lack a legal right to appeal because Virginia’s attorney general is responsible for representing the state in cases like this one. The fact that Mark Herring, Virginia’s attorney general, has declined to appeal the lower court’s decision to the Supreme Court does not, Heytens contended, allow the legislators to do so instead.

This morning the justices announced that they would review the district court’s decision, but they also ordered the parties to address the question broached by Heytens — whether the legislature and Cox have a legal right to bring their appeal — in their briefs."

Man coaster.... you better hope that rib transplant from those millennials keeps buzzy in the game for awhile. If buzzy checks out of the game any time soon the hysteria and insanity from the far left will be off the charts. A common sense suggestion for all Americans will be avoid tall buildings do to a plethora of FLP folks hurling themselves off from the very top probably, if at all possible aiming for any FRC person they can take out in the swan dive.

I assume "buzzy" is a clever name for Justice Ginsburg, who nursed her husband through Harvard Law School while he had cancer and they had a baby; who then devoted herself to equal rights for women and others in the workplace and American life; who argued five cases before the Supreme Court; who became a distinguished judge of the United States Court of Appeals; and who has served on the SCOTUS with distinction now for many years. Calling her "buzzy" and making light of her recent injuries is about as small, artless and tone-deaf as one can get. There may be a job for you in Matt Whitacker's DOJ.

Your post also doesn't appear to respond to mine, which was about a recent gerrymandering case accepted by the Court. For a guy who rails about the fact that politicians don't care about "regular guys like you," you'd think legislators' efforts to fix the vote by choosing the voters would interest you and engage a competent comment. Alas....

seacoaster wrote:The Supreme Court just added this racial gerrymandering case to its term:

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/ca ... hune-hill/

A description from Amy Howe (at http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/11/court ... ts-docket/):

"The justices will once again return to the subject of racial gerrymandering, in a case from Virginia challenging the districting plan drawn in 2011 for the state’s House of Delegates. In 2017, the Supreme Court ruled that a three-judge district court had applied the wrong legal standard when it upheld 12 districts against claims that they were the product of racial gerrymandering. The justices sent the case back to the lower court, ordering it to take another look at 11 of those districts – and, in particular, whether race was the primary factor used to draw the districts. (The justices upheld the 12th district.)

Applying the standard outlined by the Supreme Court, the lower court concluded that race was indeed the primary factor driving the district boundaries. Because the legislature also had not shown that it needed to use the same population targets in each of the “vastly dissimilar” districts at issue to comply with federal voting rights laws, the lower court continued, the districts violate the Constitution.

The Virginia House of Delegates and Kirkland Cox, the speaker of the House of Delegates, appealed to the Supreme Court, which announced today that it would review their appeal. (Redistricting cases are among a narrow set of cases with an automatic right to appeal to the Supreme Court.)

The Virginia board of elections and department of elections and several state officials filed a separate brief, represented by Virginia’s solicitor general, Toby Heytens. Heytens urged the justices to dismiss the legislature’s appeal, telling them that the House of Delegates and Cox lack a legal right to appeal because Virginia’s attorney general is responsible for representing the state in cases like this one. The fact that Mark Herring, Virginia’s attorney general, has declined to appeal the lower court’s decision to the Supreme Court does not, Heytens contended, allow the legislators to do so instead.

This morning the justices announced that they would review the district court’s decision, but they also ordered the parties to address the question broached by Heytens — whether the legislature and Cox have a legal right to bring their appeal — in their briefs."

I apologize to you profusely here coaster that I did not address your main point. Here is my response to you directly... the SCOTUS took the case, they will decide it and that is kinda what they do... does that work for you? As for your comments that I was disrespectful to Buzzi. What rock did you just crawl out of? Since Buzzi earned her spot on the court the observation on her resemblance to Ruth Buzzi has been noted by many people. I can't believe you can be so obtuse to not understand where the nickname came and not understand how many years it has been in circulation. To inform you even more, because you are so oblivious of some things Ruth was given the nickname for her tenacious nature in defending far left social issues as NOTORIOUS RBG. From all reports, when explained to her by her clerks, Buzzi was very pleased with the nickname derived from a person of very dubious reputation.


Since you and I can now debate Buzzi on a level playing field I don't hold her in the same high esteem that you do. IMO she is at best a mediocre judge who was the ying to judge Scalias yang. Both were very vocal in their opinions on different beliefs of how the US Constitution should be interpreted. Oddly enough Judge Scalia and Judge Ginsberg were the closest of friends. They understood their roles and were more aware of where each other were coming from than any of us here on this forum can understand. I don't hate Ruth Bader Ginsburg or mean to in any way ridicule her. She had a freaking nickname that 99.9 % of America was aware of for many years. Sorry Coaster that I was unaware of the fact that under your rock that you reside that you were unaware of this. At this stage of the game... if you have not been paying attention Judge Ginsberg is very frail and looks like sheet when she appears on TV. I admire her tenacity and the drive to carry on but I would question her ability to do so. She should have stepped aside when the opportunity was there. A like minded judge philosophically could have won the nomination, buzzi is stubborn enough to want to keep her job. I get that.

My very last point that damn near stroked you out... if something happens to buzzi and she can no longer serve on the SCOTUS that buddy of yours Trump will get another candidate to nominate. If and when that happens... and I wish no ill will on buzzi… the democrat party of the United States of America will go out of their minds while trying to wrap their arm around the fact that another FRC justice will be nominated to the SCOTUS. This is not the kind of event that FLP can ever allow to happen without conducting a nationwide sheetstorm of protest in the process.

cradleandshoot wrote:

seacoaster wrote:The Supreme Court just added this racial gerrymandering case to its term:

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/ca ... hune-hill/

A description from Amy Howe (at http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/11/court ... ts-docket/):

"The justices will once again return to the subject of racial gerrymandering, in a case from Virginia challenging the districting plan drawn in 2011 for the state’s House of Delegates. In 2017, the Supreme Court ruled that a three-judge district court had applied the wrong legal standard when it upheld 12 districts against claims that they were the product of racial gerrymandering. The justices sent the case back to the lower court, ordering it to take another look at 11 of those districts – and, in particular, whether race was the primary factor used to draw the districts. (The justices upheld the 12th district.)

Applying the standard outlined by the Supreme Court, the lower court concluded that race was indeed the primary factor driving the district boundaries. Because the legislature also had not shown that it needed to use the same population targets in each of the “vastly dissimilar” districts at issue to comply with federal voting rights laws, the lower court continued, the districts violate the Constitution.

The Virginia House of Delegates and Kirkland Cox, the speaker of the House of Delegates, appealed to the Supreme Court, which announced today that it would review their appeal. (Redistricting cases are among a narrow set of cases with an automatic right to appeal to the Supreme Court.)

The Virginia board of elections and department of elections and several state officials filed a separate brief, represented by Virginia’s solicitor general, Toby Heytens. Heytens urged the justices to dismiss the legislature’s appeal, telling them that the House of Delegates and Cox lack a legal right to appeal because Virginia’s attorney general is responsible for representing the state in cases like this one. The fact that Mark Herring, Virginia’s attorney general, has declined to appeal the lower court’s decision to the Supreme Court does not, Heytens contended, allow the legislators to do so instead.

This morning the justices announced that they would review the district court’s decision, but they also ordered the parties to address the question broached by Heytens — whether the legislature and Cox have a legal right to bring their appeal — in their briefs."

I apologize to you profusely here coaster that I did not address your main point. Here is my response to you directly... the SCOTUS took the case, they will decide it and that is kinda what they do... does that work for you? As for your comments that I was disrespectful to Buzzi. What rock did you just crawl out of? Since Buzzi earned her spot on the court the observation on her resemblance to Ruth Buzzi has been noted by many people. I can't believe you can be so obtuse to not understand where the nickname came and not understand how many years it has been in circulation. To inform you even more, because you are so oblivious of some things Ruth was given the nickname for her tenacious nature in defending far left social issues as NOTORIOUS RBG. From all reports, when explained to her by her clerks, Buzzi was very pleased with the nickname derived from a person of very dubious reputation.


Since you and I can now debate Buzzi on a level playing field I don't hold her in the same high esteem that you do. IMO she is at best a mediocre judge who was the ying to judge Scalias yang. Both were very vocal in their opinions on different beliefs of how the US Constitution should be interpreted. Oddly enough Judge Scalia and Judge Ginsberg were the closest of friends. They understood their roles and were more aware of where each other were coming from than any of us here on this forum can understand. I don't hate Ruth Bader Ginsburg or mean to in any way ridicule her. She had a freaking nickname that 99.9 % of America was aware of for many years. Sorry Coaster that I was unaware of the fact that under your rock that you reside that you were unaware of this. At this stage of the game... if you have not been paying attention Judge Ginsberg is very frail and looks like sheet when she appears on TV. I admire her tenacity and the drive to carry on but I would question her ability to do so. She should have stepped aside when the opportunity was there. A like minded judge philosophically could have won the nomination, buzzi is stubborn enough to want to keep her job. I get that.

My very last point that damn near stroked you out... if something happens to buzzi and she can no longer serve on the SCOTUS that buddy of yours Trump will get another candidate to nominate. If and when that happens... and I wish no ill will on buzzi… the democrat party of the United States of America will go out of their minds while trying to wrap their arm around the fact that another FRC justice will be nominated to the SCOTUS. This is not the kind of event that FLP can ever allow to happen without conducting a nationwide sheetstorm of protest in the process.

I confess that I too was quite unaware of this 'joke'. So, I googled Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg.

Man, that's a lot of hateful right wing crappola that comes up, Rush Limbaugh, Chuck Woolery, bunch of far right screeds.
Explains why I missed the 'joke'.

As to Ginsberg and Scalia, I happen to know from friends of theirs that it actually wasn't "odd" that they were such close friends, they had enormous respect for each other's intellect and good will. They were kind to one another. It wasn't about 'roles'.

Ginsberg is/was far from a radical, but she was indeed dogged in her building of the legal platform for women's rights in our society. Absolute top of the heap as a practicing attorney and judge. But no radical.

BTW, she was a quite beautiful woman in her youth, more formidable than 'beautiful' now, but still striking for her age.