Supreme Court Decisions

B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Toobin: "Abortion will be illegal in a significant part of the United States in 18 months -- there is just no doubt about that... Roe v. Wade is doomed, it is gone because Donald Trump won the election."


sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

Why nominate a candidate your own party doesn't like let alone the other?
You realize Hillary Clinton had to win a primary by getting votes from Democrats, right?

I don't think it's true that Democrats (as a group) disliked Hillary. I think you can make a good argument that non-Democrats (independents and conservatives) disliked her more than the usual candidate.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

Anarchistbear said:

F$ckin Hillary Clinton- worst Presidential candidate ever.
She got more votes for President than any white man in the history of the country


Lmao.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Anarchistbear said:

Why nominate a candidate your own party doesn't like let alone the other?
You realize Hillary Clinton had to win a primary by getting votes from Democrats, right?

I don't think it's true that Democrats (as a group) disliked Hillary. I think you can make a good argument that non-Democrats (independents and conservatives) disliked her more than the usual candidate.
There were also the Russkies. Those motherfcckers and Dotard still might get caught.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Anarchistbear said:

Why nominate a candidate your own party doesn't like let alone the other?
You realize Hillary Clinton had to win a primary by getting votes from Democrats, right?

I don't think it's true that Democrats (as a group) disliked Hillary. I think you can make a good argument that non-Democrats (independents and conservatives) disliked her more than the usual candidate.


We can argue about the transparency of that process. But even aside from that, if she had turned out the Democratic base of young people, minorities and working class whites that were part of the Obama coalition, she would have won.
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Anarchistbear said:

Why nominate a candidate your own party doesn't like let alone the other?
You realize Hillary Clinton had to win a primary by getting votes from Democrats, right?

I don't think it's true that Democrats (as a group) disliked Hillary. I think you can make a good argument that non-Democrats (independents and conservatives) disliked her more than the usual candidate.

--She was such a shoe-in to win that many people who would've voted for her in swing states didn't bother.

--Her email scandal (and a few other scandals) made her more scrutinized than Trump. Sure, Trump had like 500 scandals. But they all canceled each other out, essentially.

--Her frontrunner status and her easily beatable opponent made her more scrutinized.

--She had been around too long that she had tons and tons of baggage. And that baggage had many left-leaning people voting for Jill Stein. (Hillary would've won Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania with Jill Stein's voters -- of course, Stein's voters wouldn't have voted for her.)

--Her frontrunner status and her easily beatable opponent made liberals on the fence or those too lazy to wait in a long line decide not to vote.

--16 years is a long time, and people forgot (or were too young to remember) between 2000 and 2016 that voting for the third-party candidate is a bad idea. People didn't realize that voting for Stein or that other dude only helped Trump. Many people didn't have the foresight to see that Republicans would control the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court and, yes, the White House under a Trump victory.

--Many anti-Hillary liberals also didn't get the importance of that vacant seat, or future vacant seats.

--Oh, and there's Russia -- yes, it must've had some impact, as did Hillary's gender.

--There's the media, especially the terrible New York Times. As Jimmy Fallon learned this week, even if you try to appease Trump and avoid looking anti-Trump, he'll come after you.

--Finally, there is rampant opinion (that's still on this board) that Trump is an easily beatable moron who is a moron who is easily beatable. Yet he just steamrolls his way through, breaking norms, lying, lying, lying, making of facts, blah, blah, blah. He's like a monster that you try to kill but he finds a way to turn the tables and survive. The problem is that it's hard to beat somebody who faces no consequences from lying (not from the media, anyway) or for making up facts.

Trump and the Republicans operate from what I call "amounting to zero."

They and Trump could be mean, they could be nasty, they could be raunchy, they could be immoral. But it amounts to zero because they take the "victimhood" posture. So the moment you do something, anything, then you are attacking the victim.

It sounded easy to beat Trump, but if it was so easy, something or somebody would've stopped him by now. He almost always gets his way and gets away with it.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?

okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

wifeisafurd said:

Whatever one may think about Clinton, she was slandered on several issues.
She got slagged for using personal emails like it was some big major scandal,
Let's not forget that the same people chastizing her for her use of personal emails were also using personal email (Comey and others at the FBI) or would shortly thereafter do so when they joined Trump's administration.

The email thing was a nothing burger and it did exactly what the Republicans needed it to do.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?


bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As much as I hate to say this, all of the Clintons need to pass the baton and ride with due haste into the f@cking sunset. In my book, as far as POTUS relatives go, Billy Carter was more likable than Chelsea Clinton. What I will give Chelsea, however, is that she is more likable that anything resulting from tRump's demon seed ( it is to early to tell about Barron, although he is off to a good start in the looks department, since he in no way looks like the collection of oddities)
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This thread has devolved into a microcosm for the differences between the dems and the republicans. When faced with problems and conflicts, the Republicans' loyalty to each other grows and they collectively blindly focus their outrage at the other side, while the Democrats' start fighting with each other and losing focus instead of directing the outrage to fix the structural advantages the conservatives have unconstitutionally manufactured for themselves.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

sycasey said:

Anarchistbear said:

Why nominate a candidate your own party doesn't like let alone the other?
You realize Hillary Clinton had to win a primary by getting votes from Democrats, right?

I don't think it's true that Democrats (as a group) disliked Hillary. I think you can make a good argument that non-Democrats (independents and conservatives) disliked her more than the usual candidate.


We can argue about the transparency of that process. But even aside from that, if she had turned out the Democratic base of young people, minorities and working class whites that were part of the Obama coalition, she would have won.
Not sure what you mean about "transparency." There were votes and they were counted.

That said, I agree that she did not drive turnout nearly as well as Obama did. Some of that was to be expected (Obama was a really talented politician), but the level of dropoff was disappointing.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

As much as I hate to say this, all of the Clintons need to pass the baton and ride with due haste into the f@cking sunset.

this is what I like about Obama.

Several liberal outlets have stupidly criticized him for not forcefully/publically speaking out against Trump and/or his policies.

What they fail to realize is that Trump is desperate for Obama to speak out. He wants to blame "Cheatin' Obama" for all his problems. Trump wants Obama to be part of his narrative. Obama, smartly, realizes that it's smart to let Trump be part of his own narrative.

If, for instance, Obama spoke out forcefully and passionately against the immigrant thing last week, Trump wouldn't have reversed course. He's not going to be seen as backing down to Obama!

Also, Obama's voice doesn't matter now*. Even in the final months of his presidency, nobody cared about his denunciations of Trump. (*Of course, Obama is going to campaign for dems...but he ain't getting into a feud with the president.)

Obama said before leaving office that he would step back and let new leaders emerge.


https://splinternews.com/obama-sucks-as-a-post-president-1826203067

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/barack-obamas-statement-on-child-separation-missed-the-moment.html



sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
okaydo said:

bearister said:

As much as I hate to say this, all of the Clintons need to pass the baton and ride with due haste into the f@cking sunset.

this is what I like about Obama.

Several liberal outlets have stupidly criticized him for not forcefully/publically speaking out against Trump and/or his policies.

What they fail to realize is that Trump is desperate for Obama to speak out. He wants to blame "Cheatin' Obama" for all his problems. Trump wants Obama to be part of his narrative. Obama, smartly, realizes that it's smart to let Trump be part of his own narrative.

If, for instance, Obama spoke out forcefully and passionately against the immigrant thing last week, Trump wouldn't have reversed course. He's not going to be seen as backing down to Obama!

Also, Obama's voice doesn't matter now*. Even in the final months of his presidency, nobody cared about his denunciations of Trump. (*Of course, Obama is going to campaign for dems...but he ain't getting into a feud with the president.)

Obama said before leaving office that he would step back and let new leaders emerge.


https://splinternews.com/obama-sucks-as-a-post-president-1826203067

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/barack-obamas-statement-on-child-separation-missed-the-moment.html




Obama making himself a big public presence would maybe give the party some short-term juice but would be a long-term detriment. His personal popularity papers over the underlying problems. The party now needs to learn to walk on its own. Obama might have showed them some ways to win, but he can't do it for them.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Why doesn't tRump just use the nicknames he really wants to use for Obama? Since we are on the doorstep of becoming a totalitarian state anyway, it would drive Cheeto's approval numbers up even further (perhaps 98% with Republicans).
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
One can only hope tRump's Roy Cohn Playbook works out as well for tRump as it ultimately worked out for Joe McCarthy and Cohn himself.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

Why doesn't tRump just use the nicknames he really wants to use for Obama? Since we are on the doorstep of becoming a totalitarian state anyway, it would drive Cheeto's approval numbers up even further (perhaps 98% with Republicans).
Come on Donald, quit being a ***** and just say it: "Obama Bin Laden"

Update: oops, I think Bearister meant the one big step up from that.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

One can only hope tRump's Roy Cohn Playbook works out as well for tRump as it ultimately worked out for Joe McCarthy and Cohn himself.

Somebody posted an excerpt recently about how somebody (Cohn) connected to McCarthy put out all these fake stories about communists, and the news media who followed McCarthy just uncritcally repeated it. Kind of like what the Associated Press does now.


okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Our possible next Supreme Court Justice Patrick Wyrick will be the age that Anthony Kennedy currently is in the year 2063.

I wonder if he'll attend the 100th anniversary of the JFK assassination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Wyrick



B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The first qualification of the next Supreme Court nominee should be that he or she is saw the Neil Armstrong moon landing live on tv. From their college dorm.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
golden sloth said:

This thread has devolved into a microcosm for the differences between the dems and the republicans. When faced with problems and conflicts, the Republicans' loyalty to each other grows and they collectively blindly focus their outrage at the other side, while the Democrats' start fighting with each other and losing focus instead of directing the outrage to fix the structural advantages the conservatives have unconstitutionally manufactured for themselves.
Republicans have been much better about circling the wagons and are still statists at their core. The biggest problem the democrats face is figuring out a way to get people marching in the same direction because republicans have no issue motivating to vote for people they hate if they are "better than the alternative."
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
okaydo said:

bearister said:

One can only hope tRump's Roy Cohn Playbook works out as well for tRump as it ultimately worked out for Joe McCarthy and Cohn himself.

Somebody posted an excerpt recently about how somebody (Cohn) connected to McCarthy put out all these fake stories about communists, and the news media who followed McCarthy just uncritcally repeated it. Kind of like what the Associated Press does now.





Roy Cohn on Senator Joe McCarthy:

" 'I was fully aware of McCarthy's faults, which there were neither few nor minor," Cohn recalled. 'He was impatient, overly aggressive, overly dramatic. He acted on impulse. He tended to sensationalize the evidence he had in order to draw attention to the rock bottom seriousness of the situation. He would neglect to do important homework and consequently would, on occasion, make challengeable statements.' The urge to overstate, to overdramatize, to dominate the news, could be costly, and so it proved to be for McCarthy. The Wisconsin senator, Cohn said, was essentially a salesman. 'He was selling the story of America's peril,' Cohn recalled. 'He knew that he could never hope to convince anybody by delivering a dry, general accounting office type of presentation. In consequence, he stepped up circumstances a notch or two' and in so doing he opened himself to attacks that proved fatal. He oversold, and the customers, the public, tired of the pitch, and the pitchman." Jon Meacham, The Soul of America, Ch. 6, pp.202-203
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

okaydo said:

bearister said:

One can only hope tRump's Roy Cohn Playbook works out as well for tRump as it ultimately worked out for Joe McCarthy and Cohn himself.

Somebody posted an excerpt recently about how somebody (Cohn) connected to McCarthy put out all these fake stories about communists, and the news media who followed McCarthy just uncritcally repeated it. Kind of like what the Associated Press does now.





Roy Cohn on Senator Joe McCarthy:

" 'I was fully aware of McCarthy's faults, which there were neither few nor minor," Cohn recalled. 'He was impatient, overly aggressive, overly dramatic. He acted on impulse. He tended to sensationalize the evidence he had in order to draw attention to the rock bottom seriousness of the situation. He would neglect to do important homework and consequently would, on occasion, make challengeable statements.' The urge to overstate, to overdramatize, to dominate the news, could be costly, and so it proved to be for McCarthy. The Wisconsin senator, Cohn said, was essentially a salesman. 'He was selling the story of America's peril,' Cohn recalled. 'He knew that he could never hope to convince anybody by delivering a dry, general accounting office type of presentation. In consequence, he stepped up circumstances a notch or two' and in so doing he opened himself to attacks that proved fatal. He oversold, and the customers, the public, tired of the pitch, and the pitchman." Jon Meacham, The Soul of America, Ch. 6, pp.202-203

okay, I found the tweet I was referring to:


okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?

golden sloth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Civility was tossed out of politics a decade ago stop pretending this is a competition of ideas and acknowledge it for the bar fight it is.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Obama making himself a big public presence would maybe give the party some short-term juice but would be a long-term detriment. His personal popularity papers over the underlying problems. The party now needs to learn to walk on its own. Obama might have showed them some ways to win, but he can't do it for them.

I read somewhere that Obama has intentionally not made public comments because he doesn't want to fuel the Trump dumpster fire. This make sense given Trump's racism and hate for Obama.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
golden sloth said:

Civility was tossed out of politics a decade ago stop pretending this is a competition of ideas and acknowledge it for the bar fight it is.


Which is why Obama's reach across the aisle bulls$it was so stupid and destructive.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

golden sloth said:

Civility was tossed out of politics a decade ago stop pretending this is a competition of ideas and acknowledge it for the bar fight it is.


Which is why Obama's reach across the aisle bulls$it was so stupid and destructive.
I liked him, but he was WAY too slow to recognize how scorched-earth the Republicans were going to be.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Obama was too nice and many of the GOP liked him for trying to be bipartisan...because they likely knew they could take advantage of it. I heard he's a genuinely nice person but that often doesn't work in politics. The other thing, he gave all his Ivy League pals a pass on banking. I understand he was trying to move things forward but some prison time for a few would have done wonders. Oh well, at least he believes in democracy.

The other things I heard he said was, he thinks he was likely 20 years too soon because of ther racism and the GOP hate for him. He's right. In 20 years the country will look very different and white people will not be the majority.
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We needed a Roosevelt and we got Casper the Friendly Ghost.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
okaydo said:

It's amazing how consequential the 2016 election was.

Many of the left-leaning Trump haters who disdained Hillary (and either didn't vote or voted third-party) were probably too ignorant that a Trump win would give the Republicans everything....and that's why Republicans held their nose and voted for him.


wise words. I's surprised Kennedy didn't at least stick it out past mid-terms. Having met the man, he is judicially conservative, but more moderate politically. I know he met with Turmp and provided suggestions on replacements. I wonder if there is not a gentlemen's agreement to pick somewhat more like Kennedy than Scalia, in exchange for the timing of the resignation.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
okaydo said:

Our possible next Supreme Court Justice Patrick Wyrick will be the age that Anthony Kennedy currently is in the year 2063.

I wonder if he'll attend the 100th anniversary of the JFK assassination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Wyrick




Isn't an Ivy League law degree minimum criteria?
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.