2 2
ryoder

Justice Breyer to retire

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

Nor mysteriously repaid debt

She will just replace a progressive with a progressive and have ZERO impact. ACB’s replacement of RBG resulted in a major shift to the right and neutered Roberts as a potential moderate swing vote.

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is where the Republicans proved that they see governing as an exercise of power, not as how they serve the country. The completely chickenshit charade around the “too fast” confirmation of Merrick Garland vs. the much faster charade around ACB indicates that shoving “beating the opposition” is more important than the service of the people. Yes, one could say that they think they’re serving better by serving up situational judgments if when something is OK and when it isn’t (kind of like the police and driving while Black), but that’s bullshit. Laws should be followed, and enforced, consistently and blindly. As in blind to who is being judged. Judge the actions, not the person.

Decide your course of action based on the current situation, but then treat it like the precedent it is, and be open to question if you diverge  

Wendy P. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lindsey Graham made it very clear he is all for the government having the power to detain people indefinitely without trial or any access to the judicial system.

Marsha Blackburn and others (such as all three Republicans running for Michigan Attorney General) have spoken out clearly that they think Griswold vs Connecticut (the Supreme Court case that legalized birth control for married couples) was wrongly decided.

Republican Senator Mike Braun of Indiana thinks that the Supreme Court was wrong on contraception, interracial marriage, and same-sex marriage.

Ted Cruz and most Republican politicians are totally on board about censoring any expression regarding racial history or race relations.

The great majority of Republican politicians are in favor of restricting elections so that only Republicans can win.  They are also about throwing out the 2020 election and installing the loser in office.

Every time I hear or read that Republicans "love the Constitution" it makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit.

Every time I hear or read that Republicans "love America" it makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit more.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Combine that with GOP proposing laws allowing the death penalty for women who have an abortion, laws that allow a rapist to block his victim from getting an abortion, and calling for "socialists" to be detained without any constitutional rights....explain to me again how exactly they are different from the Taliban?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Combine that with GOP proposing laws allowing the death penalty for women who have an abortion, laws that allow a rapist to block his victim from getting an abortion, ...

Idaho just passed a law that mandates that a woman who becomes pregnant as a result of rape must carry the pregnancy to term, and if she does manage to have an abortion her rapist's family can sue the doctor, taxi driver who brought the woman to the clinic, or anyone else who "facilitates" the abortion for $20,000.  Family values indeed!

Edited by GeorgiaDon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GeorgiaDon said:

Lindsey Graham made it very clear he is all for the government having the power to detain people indefinitely without trial or any access to the judicial system....

Every time I hear or read that Republicans "love America" it makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit more.

Ah the Rule-of-law party!

spacer.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've listened to 6 hours of the hearings. Smart, polished, with experience. She knows she will be confirmed thus no stress, all she has to do is not make a big mistake. Some of her answers are concerning. Remember that ACO was blasted over concerns about how she would vote on Obamacare issues. When an issue arose she upheld Obamacare. We'll see how Jackson performs on the court. 

Roll on, there are bigger concerns. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time a conservative is nominated for the SC the Democrats go into hyperbolic mode.  I remember the Ds assuring us that if John Roberts were to ascend to the Chief Justice the streets would run red with the blood of women getting illegal abortions.  Rinse wash and repeat for Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billeisele said:

I've listened to 6 hours of the hearings. Smart, polished, with experience. She knows she will be confirmed thus no stress, all she has to do is not make a big mistake. Some of her answers are concerning. Remember that ACO was blasted over concerns about how she would vote on Obamacare issues. When an issue arose she upheld Obamacare. We'll see how Jackson performs on the court. 

Roll on, there are bigger concerns. 

Indeed. Of course when you have two votes to one life's a crunchy pickle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Every time a conservative is nominated for the SC the Democrats go into hyperbolic mode.  I remember the Ds assuring us that if John Roberts were to ascend to the Chief Justice the streets would run red with the blood of women getting illegal abortions.  Rinse wash and repeat for Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. 

Now in all fairness President Obama, and by extension the Democratic Party, were snaked by McConnell refusing to allow a hearing on Garland and then fast tracking Barrett. Gorsuch sits in a stolen seat. He deserved to be skewered. But he wasn't. Really he came off as a thin skinned baby. Screw him. And then, son-of-a-bitch, if they didn't nominate an actual thin skinned baby in Kavanaugh. Barrett, unless you are republican caliber giddy to make a mockery of stare decisis is a freakin' cultist nutter. Maybe you are thrilled to have a justice who believes her husband has the final word (a possible reasonable balance to team Thomas/Ginni) but it makes me uncomfortable. No matter, you currently hold court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Barrett, unless you are republican caliber giddy to make a mockery of stare decisis is a freakin' cultist nutter. 

Well, Biden says he wants the court to look more like America.   Barrett looks like a lot of American nutters I see, so there is that.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Now in all fairness President Obama, and by extension the Democratic Party, were snaked by McConnell refusing to allow a hearing on Garland and then fast tracking Barrett. Gorsuch sits in a stolen seat. He deserved to be skewered. But he wasn't. Really he came off as a thin skinned baby. Screw him. And then, son-of-a-bitch, if they didn't nominate an actual thin skinned baby in Kavanaugh. Barrett, unless you are republican caliber giddy to make a mockery of stare decisis is a freakin' cultist nutter. Maybe you are thrilled to have a justice who believes her husband has the final word (a possible reasonable balance to team Thomas/Ginni) but it makes me uncomfortable. No matter, you currently hold court.

Always a good read first thing in the morning. Luv the entertaining language - "freakin' cultist nutter" and "crunchy pickle." I thought pickles were supposed to be a little crunchy.?.

IMO What McConnel did was legal but wrong. It only served to increase the animosity between political parties. Both parties have idiots.

On Jackson. Are you concerned about her willingness (at least in one case, and this may be the only one) to ignore the law and rule in a way that she believes is correct? That's what occurred in the Make the Road NY vs. McElween (sp?), case on expedited removal. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals firmly struck down her ruling. They wrote, "There could hardly be a more definitive expression of Congressional intent ...." The issue being discussed is activism from the bench. I want judges to follow the law. In this case she choose to ignore the law. That's concerning.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Always a good read first thing in the morning..... I want judges to follow the law. In this case she choose to ignore the law. That's concerning....

The law is a horse's ass.

In the last few years there has been a flood of laws emanating from mostly republican states. Anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-gun rights, etc. All with the sole intent to throw red meat to the base.

In case after case courts have struck them down.

Thats concerning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

The law is a horse's ass.

In the last few years there has been a flood of laws emanating from mostly republican states. Anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-gun rights, etc. All with the sole intent to throw red meat to the base.

In case after case courts have struck them down.

Thats concerning.

It’s concerning you think the rule of law is concerning.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

2 2