SCOTUS Nomination II: I Like Beer

[HoloDoc]

Coming back after a year and a half just to insult everyone. Some people are amazing.

It's literally the first time the Trumpists have had the opportunity to crow about anything.

 

[Synobun]

I guess I'm not yet convinced of the revolutionary potential of your typical liberal or all the centrist civility dickheads that make up a lot of support for the Democrats. I can absolutely see them both sidesing or, like, quoting Aaron Sorkin on Facebook in response to such a decree.

The right would likely be the first to throw a stone, IMO.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I guess I'm not yet convinced of the revolutionary potential of your typical liberal or all the centrist civility dickheads that make up a lot of support for the Democrats. I can absolutely see them both sidesing or, like, quoting Aaron Sorkin on Facebook in response to such a decree.

The key is the question I asked, because it is unavoidable. "Oh, crap, so what do we do now?" That forces a taking of sides onto even the most "civil centrist."

 

[onejayhawk]

The right would likely be the first to throw a stone, IMO.

It's much too late for that. Mueller was the first stone. I'm still wondering what Trump and Rosenstein talked about.

It's literally the first time the Trumpists have had the opportunity to crow about anything.

Be serious. It's not even the first Supreme Court Justice. There are even articles and such.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...t_done_in_the_face_of_constant_thwarting.html

J

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Mueller was the first stone.
J

If you insist on posting bald faced lies, please do it elsewhere.

 

[onejayhawk]

If you insist on posting bald faced lies, please do it elsewhere.

Show me a bald-faced lie and we can discuss it. There was none in your quote.

J

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Show me a bald-faced lie and we can discuss it. There was none in your quote.

J

So you are saying that Mueller was appointed before the GOP openly abandoned the basics of democracy in 2008? You are claiming to be ignorant instead of false?

As to your authority to determine what can be discussed, I don't recognize it. Please take your authoritarian rhetoric out into a public place and try it.

 

[metalhead]

I think this is an optimistic reading of the 2016 election to be honest. The Voting Rights Act was already dead. Florida is permanently tilted by lifetime disenfranchisement of felons, voter ID stuff heavily changes things in Wisconsin, Ohio has major roll purges.

That's even before we talk about the longer term background suppression via things like polling place density and resourcing. People are very normalised to a pretty high level of racially skewed vote suppression.

Florida is voting on a referendum to re-enfranchise felons, and it looks likely to pass.

But yes, racial minorities have been and continue to be systematically disenfranchised. Exclusively by one political party of course, but we aren't allowed to say that's bad. Because both sides.

 

[onejayhawk]

Florida is voting on a referendum to re-enfranchise felons, and it looks likely to pass.

But yes, racial minorities have been and continue to be systematically disenfranchised. Exclusively by one political party of course, but we aren't allowed to say that's bad. Because both sides.

If it actually was one party, you might have a point. Except, not.

From your own article:

"Clemency is — there's no standard. We can do whatever we want. But it's ... tied to remorse. And ... understanding that we all want to live in a law-abiding society."
...
"There's no rule, no standard, no criteria governing their decision-making. Sometimes, the governor simply says, 'I don't feel comfortable at this point.'"
​

That's the opposite of systematic, call it asystematic. Also, yes both sides.

That said, I agree that some guidelines might be helpful.

You have gone full Lexicus. Never go full Lexicus.

Don't kid yourself. Tim is the genuine article. He imitates no one.

J

 

[metalhead]

If it actually was one party, you might have a point. Except, not.

From your own article:

"Clemency is — there's no standard. We can do whatever we want. But it's ... tied to remorse. And ... understanding that we all want to live in a law-abiding society."
...
"There's no rule, no standard, no criteria governing their decision-making. Sometimes, the governor simply says, 'I don't feel comfortable at this point.'"
That's the opposite of systematic, call it asystematic. Also, yes both sides.

No. You're just way off the mark here, because you tend not to understand what words mean, evidenced by the fact that you are drawing a conclusion to my claim based on an article that actually has nothing to do with it. That's why they were separate paragraphs.

 

[Berzerker]

Florida is voting on a referendum to re-enfranchise felons, and it looks likely to pass.

But yes, racial minorities have been and continue to be systematically disenfranchised. Exclusively by one political party of course, but we aren't allowed to say that's bad. Because both sides.

A large number of felons got in trouble for drugs... So who voted for the drug laws?

 

[adcarrymaokai]

As terrible as it is, it was pretty naïve to think that the Supreme Court ever protected poor people and minorities in the first place. Everyone sitting there is from Ivy League schools and has always belonged to the elites upholding the status quo. The real change comes from simple people doing grassroots organizing and driving real change.

 

[onejayhawk]

As terrible as it is, it was pretty naïve to think that the Supreme Court ever protected poor people and minorities in the first place. Everyone sitting there is from Ivy League schools and has always belonged to the elites upholding the status quo. The real change comes from simple people doing grassroots organizing and driving real change.

Welcome to humanity. If we were half-way decent we wouldn't need Judges in the first place.

J

 

[Timsup2nothin]

As terrible as it is, it was pretty naïve to think that the Supreme Court ever protected poor people and minorities in the first place. Everyone sitting there is from Ivy League schools and has always belonged to the elites upholding the status quo. The real change comes from simple people doing grassroots organizing and driving real change.

No it doesn't, because if that ever showed the least signs that it could actually work it would be ruthlessly stamped out through legislation and/or the justice system. That's if anyone in power even bothered to wait for those signs. The peaceful protests of the occupy movement encountered official head cracking responses when all they were was inconvenient. If they had ever looked like they might have been approaching effectiveness they'd have been slaughters.

 

[innonimatu]

A large number of felons got in trouble for drugs... So who voted for the drug laws?

The tough on crime president <snip>?

Moderator Action: If you mean Bill Clinton, say that, but preferably don't, because he left office 18 years ago and has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread. ~ Arakhor

Democrats will keep losing so long as they are the party owned by those types. There is no reason reason to pick them over the other ones, they practice slight variants of the same politics save for the "identity and racism" bullcrap. Which they embraced as the sole differentiator because it did not hamper their selling out to business and the security state.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The tough on crime president...

Democrats will keep losing so long as they are the party owned by those types. There is no reason reason to pick them over the other ones, they practice slight variants of the same politics save for the "identity and racism" bullcrap. Which they embraced as the sole differentiator because it did not hamper their selling out to business and the security state.[/QUOTE]

Your revisionist view of history makes you look silly. Your repetitious attempts to sell it as if you are going to get a different result make you look insane.

 

[Angst]

Spoiler for large image :

(source)

 

[onejayhawk]

If Kavanaugh's behavior 30+ years ago is relevant, then Bill Clinton's behavior is relevant.

J

Moderator Action: This is a thread about Kavanaugh, not Clinton. PDMA is also a very bad idea. ~ Arakhor
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[adcarrymaokai]

No it doesn't, because if that ever showed the least signs that it could actually work it would be ruthlessly stamped out through legislation and/or the justice system. That's if anyone in power even bothered to wait for those signs. The peaceful protests of the occupy movement encountered official head cracking responses when all they were was inconvenient. If they had ever looked like they might have been approaching effectiveness they'd have been slaughters.

So you are saying things like the civil rights, you know, MLK's march on Washington, accomplished nothing? The court has to be pressured to do the right thing because they won't do it on their own. Especially not this court we are gonna have now.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So you are saying things like the civil rights, you know, MLK's march on Washington, accomplished nothing? The court has to be pressured to do the right thing because they won't do it on their own. Especially not this court we are gonna have now.

Those things were done in an environment where they could be effective. That environment no longer exists. Without the very realistic concerns about "your cities will burn" MLK's peaceful march would have been a fart in the wind, and pretty much everyone knows it.