RGB could have retired during the Obama presidency.
The difference between a right wing conspiracy and the truth is about 20 months.
BearForce2 said:
RGB could have retired during the Obama presidency.
concordtom said:I'd venture an easy and reasonable guess.bearister said:
Why did Scalia's family decline an autopsy when the Right claimed foul play?
1) Families often don't want to cut up their loved one. They are gone. They are satisfied with how it happened. No need to sully their death.
2) Meanwhile, others' interests are far less personal, and if they can twist a story one way or another, they will.
I'm not aware of what her voice sounds like, as I did my best to avoid the hearings. However, I would be reticent to appoint any judge to any court that I thought might put a religious text ahead of a strictly legal interpretation of the law and IMO, she has that bias. And that would go for any religion.calbear93 said:
Interesting that an eminently qualified jurist who has accomplished so much more than any one posting here (including myself) is judged based on her eyes and voice (or desirability) by the liberal crowd just because she is a female candidate. What, you originally liked another eminently qualified jurist like RBG because you liked her eyes and her voice and would date her?
r u ok?bearister said:
" I have very particular set of skills. Skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. I will look for you, I will find you... and I will kill you."
You know ANTIFA is getting dressed up, the protests give them an excuse to try out new gear bought over the hiatus using Amazon prime.Anarchistbear said:
It's on! Thousands of raging protesting Karens in the streets with pumpkin scented candles!
helltopay1 said:
Dear Go Bears: Please google all the videos regarding Obamas' teenage years in Hawaii and his formative years in Chicago. Yes-----yes--he was/is...and Michelle????you do know what Joan Rivers said about Michelle, right????And, you know what she said about Obama, right?????One month later, she wound up dead...not that there's anything wrong with that. .
Quote:
Nothing threatens the progressive project more than the existence of a Supreme Court that adheres to the Constitution. It's really that simple.
That's what the tantrum over Justice Amy Coney Barrett's confirmation is all about. The notion that the same Democrats who shelved the judicial filibuster and now threaten to destroy the separation of powers with a Court-packing revenge scheme the same people, incidentally, so fond of smear-drenched confirmation hearings are sticklers for process or decorum is simply ludicrous.
bearlyamazing said:
All this hypocritical, self-righteous democratic and leftist caterwauling is classic.
Does anyone with a shred of objectivity think for a millisecond the dems wouldn't have added their own nominee to replace both justices, just like the republicans did?
BearForce2 said:
Hey, a female justice, some Democrats must be secretly happy, I think.
LOL.dimitrig said:BearForce2 said:
Hey, a female justice, some Democrats must be secretly happy, I think.
Yeah, just like we were happy about a black justice named Clarence Thomas.
To me that isn't the issue. The issue is the Supreme Court has now been constructed by minority governance to impose their will on the American people for the next 30 years. Tyranny of the minority. The Constitution has checks and balances and one of the checks against the Supreme Court is that Congress gets to "ordain and establish" it.bearlyamazing said:
All this hypocritical, self-righteous democratic and leftist caterwauling is classic.
Does anyone with a shred of objectivity think for a millisecond the dems wouldn't have added their own nominee to replace both justices, just like the republicans did?
dajo9 said:To me that isn't the issue. The issue is the Supreme Court has now been constructed by minority governance to impose their will on the American people for the next 30 years. Tyranny of the minority. The Constitution has checks and balances and one of the checks against the Supreme Court is that Congress gets to "ordain and establish" it.bearlyamazing said:
All this hypocritical, self-righteous democratic and leftist caterwauling is classic.
Does anyone with a shred of objectivity think for a millisecond the dems wouldn't have added their own nominee to replace both justices, just like the republicans did?
Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Part of the issue there is that the definitions of "right/left" change over time. And for a lifetime appointment that could be an issue.82gradDLSdad said:dajo9 said:To me that isn't the issue. The issue is the Supreme Court has now been constructed by minority governance to impose their will on the American people for the next 30 years. Tyranny of the minority. The Constitution has checks and balances and one of the checks against the Supreme Court is that Congress gets to "ordain and establish" it.bearlyamazing said:
All this hypocritical, self-righteous democratic and leftist caterwauling is classic.
Does anyone with a shred of objectivity think for a millisecond the dems wouldn't have added their own nominee to replace both justices, just like the republicans did?
Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
But the Supreme Court is for a lifetime and the makeup of the Congress changes over time. Seems like a big flaw in the "by the people, for the people" rule. Why not just have an equal number of right/left judges and one libertarian/centrist continually?
I think the best solution would be 9 Judges with 18 year terms. A President picks a new Justice every 2 years. We also need to add states like Puerto Rico and Washington D.C. to eliminate the Senate imbalance with the people. Would be good to break California in two also - dare to dream.sycasey said:Part of the issue there is that the definitions of "right/left" change over time. And for a lifetime appointment that could be an issue.82gradDLSdad said:dajo9 said:To me that isn't the issue. The issue is the Supreme Court has now been constructed by minority governance to impose their will on the American people for the next 30 years. Tyranny of the minority. The Constitution has checks and balances and one of the checks against the Supreme Court is that Congress gets to "ordain and establish" it.bearlyamazing said:
All this hypocritical, self-righteous democratic and leftist caterwauling is classic.
Does anyone with a shred of objectivity think for a millisecond the dems wouldn't have added their own nominee to replace both justices, just like the republicans did?
Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
But the Supreme Court is for a lifetime and the makeup of the Congress changes over time. Seems like a big flaw in the "by the people, for the people" rule. Why not just have an equal number of right/left judges and one libertarian/centrist continually?
But I think there is a good argument for term limits on SCOTUS. Lifetime appointments clearly can become political deathmatches, but if you know you're getting regular turnover on the court then it's not so much.