What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

******Official SCOTUS Thread****** (2 Viewers)

squistion said:
Not racist at all. Clarence Thomas was one the least qualified people we have seen on SCOTUS in decades. Thomas had just barely one year of judicial experience under his belt (on the  U.S. Court of Appeals) when George H. W. Bush nominated him to the Supreme Court in 1991.
Click to expand...
So under this definition you'd agree that Kagan is completely unqualified to be on the court?

 
dkp993 said:
The problem with this line of thinking is it’s just a matter of perspective or which team you side with. Each side has a list a mile long of poor behavior and decision making. It’s easy to see both sides as bad when you don’t have a party affiliation. Equal becomes unimportant, it’s like the difference between a #### sandwich or a #### burger, the differences are in the margin and either way you’re still eating ####.   
Click to expand...
The larger problem is the intentional conflation. It happens all the time. Cant count how many times ive said both suck and the response is "youre the problem because you think they suck equally"  and TG isnt the only one who does it. 

 
Ohhhhh the double standard is alive and well!! The true "left" only want capitulation. That's it. They are the smartest people in the ro..........ever and always. It's a shock to liberals that conservatives are college educated too.

 
SoBeDad said:
There are some crazies in Congress, especially on the GOP side.

>>Murkowski, Collins, and Romney are pro-pedophile. They just voted for #KBJ.<<

https://twitter.com/RepMTG/status/1511150070367985664?s=20&t=QX-4_onlofOu1h-X2owsPg
Click to expand...
Judge Jackson is not "pro-pedophile," and neither are these congressmen who voted for her. They are GOP congressmen who didn't fall for shenanigan GOP tactics aimed at tarnishing the reputation of an excellently qualified Judge nominated for the Supreme Court. I consider them patriots for having the fortitude to look past their party's agenda to do what is right for their country.

 
The unfortunate question becomes: will we ever again see, in the foreseeable future, a senate with a majority from one party approve a Supreme Court appointee by a President from the opposing party? The answer appears to be no. 

 
Ruffrodys05 said:
Judge


Jackson


is not "pro-pedophile," and neither are these congressmen who voted for her. They are GOP congressmen who didn't fall for shenanigan GOP tactics aimed at tarnishing the reputation of an excellently qualified Judge nominated for the Supreme Court. I consider them patriots for having the fortitude to look past their party's agenda to do what is right for their country.
Click to expand...


Could've used you and your bolded spot-on analysis during the Kavanaugh hearings.  Or maybe you were there saying the same thing and I missed it?

 
BladeRunner said:
Could've used you and your bolded spot-on analysis during the Kavanaugh hearings.  Or maybe you were there saying the same thing and I missed it?
Click to expand...
I read the thread(s) at the time and stayed as informed as I could but chose not to participate. Not because of party affiliation, I'm an independent. But because myself having been wrongly accused of molestation and rape 19 years ago I presently have an inherent bias when viewing such accusations upon others. As such, I chose to withhold comment for fear my thoughts could have been clouded by my bias. I was also holding out hope that a clear truth would emerge. To this day I am unsure who is to be believed regarding Kavanaugh, his accuser or he in his denial. Thus, I didn't comment on the Democrats tactics because if I was to believe his accuser and not him I would have felt he was unfit for the SC. 

eta: I also felt that, otherwise, Kavanaughs judicial background indicated he was very qualified for the SC. My only true gripe with him was the temperament he displayed during questioning. As someone who has actually gone through the process of such accusations and questioning regarding sexual assault I found his temperament to be odd. It wasn't how I handled my situation. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
crackattack said:
Ohhhhh the double standard is alive and well!! The true "left" only want capitulation. That's it. They are the smartest people in the ro..........ever and always. It's a shock to liberals that conservatives are college educated too.
Click to expand...


Actually it isn't a shock, but carry on.   :coffee:

 
Ruffrodys05 said:
I read the thread(s) at the time and stayed as informed as I could but chose not to participate. Not because of party affiliation, I'm an independent. But because myself having been wrongly accused of molestation and rape 19 years ago I presently have an inherent bias when viewing such accusations upon others. As such, I chose to withhold comment for fear my thoughts could have been clouded by my bias. I was also holding out hope that a clear truth would emerge. To this day I am unsure who is to be believed regarding Kavanaugh, his accuser or he in his denial. Thus, I didn't comment on the Democrats tactics because if I was to believe his accuser and not him I would have felt he was unfit for the SC. 

eta: I also felt that, otherwise, Kavanaughs judicial background indicated he was very qualified for the SC. My only true gripe with him was the temperament he displayed during questioning. As someone who has actually gone through the process of such accusations and questioning regarding sexual assault I found his temperament to be odd. It wasn't how I handled my situation. 
Click to expand...


Thank-you and that is crazy you had to go thru that.  Your experience certainly has put you in a position to see this thru Kavanaugh's eyes and I appreciate your post.

As someone who has never had that happen, all I can say is that I would have felt angry and would have wanted to fight back just as much as Kavanaugh - but that's just a guess on my part.   Getting emotional is typically not the best way to fight back but I can also understand why Kavanaugh would have been as angry as he was.  We certainly give too much weight to mere allegations these days and everyone is quick to presume guilt simply because someone SAID something and the target of that allegation doesn't agree with us politically, so it's easy to condemn without knowing - or not wanting to know - all the facts.

Personally, I see nothing about KBJ that would make her unfit for the SCOTUS.  I'm typically of the persuasion that a POTUS should get his picks unless some damning evidence comes to light, and by "evidence" I mean actually hard data that cannot be disputed - not some random allegation.  Should allegations be looked into - of course - but they would have to be proven beyond any doubt.  Also, simply disagreeing with a SCOTUS nominee's philosophy is not a disqualifier, IMO, and these games of "gotcha" played by both sides provides nothing but red meat for the masses to demonize the nominee.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
On Monday, Amy Coney Barrett said Americans should "read the opinion" to decide if a Supreme Court decision sounds like law-free policymaking. 

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1511694212156346369
 

By 5-4 vote (with Chief Justice Roberts joining the progressives in dissent), #SCOTUS issues shadow docket stay of district court decision that had vacated a Clean Water Act certification rule. Per Kagan, J.: "That renders the Court’s emergency docket not for emergencies at all."

In practical terms, this reinstates a Trump administration rule re: when and how states can provide certifications that allow for discharges of pollutants into navigable waters.
Click to expand...

 
urbanhack said:
On Monday, Amy Coney Barrett said Americans should "read the opinion" to decide if a Supreme Court decision sounds like law-free policymaking. 

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1511694212156346369
Click to expand...
In my opinion, discharging of pollutants into navigable waters (or any waters for that matter) should never be permitted. Hopefully the States where these certifications are applied for use common sense in determining whether or not to grant said certifications. 

This is just one of many of DJT's administrations very poor decisions regarding the environment and corporations interaction with it. Screw the environment if it helps corporations bottom line.

 
jm192 said:
Really nice to see some Bipartisanship.

Shame the Democrats could not do the same during the most recent Republican nominated Justice.
Click to expand...
If you are referring to ACB, I can only believe it was a party line statement about forcing a SC justice through confirmation so close to a presidential election, which ran directly contrary to McConnell's previous position of refusing to have anything to do with Garland during a comparable time-frame.

If you are referring to Kavanaugh, I would think the temperament shown by him during questioning was enough to keep any Democrats from voting to confirm. Let alone their willingness to believe sexual assault claims leveled at Kavanaugh. 

I'm not saying those excuses are valid enough, I'm just pointing out the likely reasons why. So, I agree with you that it was a shame.

Additionally, I think Democrats in general have been more willing over the years to confirm SC Justices than Republicans when the opposing party is the nominating party. I may be wrong in that thought because I'm not a USSC geek but, I've had the feeling for a long time that Democrats tended to play above board while Republicans were more likely to take the low road.

 
Ruffrodys05 said:
I think Democrats in general have been more willing over the years to confirm SC Justices than Republicans when the opposing party is the nominating party.
Click to expand...
Eh... On this one both sides are to blame.  It's been a continued escalation for 20 years.  There are no incentives for the Senators to "give in" to the other side.  The 3 GOP Senators that voted for KBJ are not likely to be rewarded for their votes today.

I wish it were different and this wasn't politicized.  But I don't see a way to back off this ledge.  Only if the SC ends up with 6 justices and 3 vacant seats that cannot be filled might this insanity stop, but I'm not sure even then.

 
The Z Machine said:
I wish it were different and this wasn't politicized.  But I don't see a way to back off this ledge.  Only if the SC ends up with 6 justices and 3 vacant seats that cannot be filled might this insanity stop, but I'm not sure even then.
Click to expand...
Seems like that would just make worse.  Then both parties will be thinking that they can fill 3 seats all at once if they can just hold out and win one more election.

 
Ruffrodys05 said:
If you are referring to ACB, I can only believe it was a party line statement about forcing a SC justice through confirmation so close to a presidential election, which ran directly contrary to McConnell's previous position of refusing to have anything to do with Garland during a comparable time-frame.

If you are referring to Kavanaugh, I would think the temperament shown by him during questioning was enough to keep any Democrats from voting to confirm. Let alone their willingness to believe sexual assault claims leveled at Kavanaugh. 

I'm not saying those excuses are valid enough, I'm just pointing out the likely reasons why. So, I agree with you that it was a shame.

Additionally, I think Democrats in general have been more willing over the years to confirm SC Justices than Republicans when the opposing party is the nominating party. I may be wrong in that thought because I'm not a USSC geek but, I've had the feeling for a long time that Democrats tended to play above board while Republicans were more likely to take the low road.
Click to expand...


The biggest circuses over SC justices in my lifetime have been Bork (EDWARD KENNEDY: Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids and schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution., Thomas (CLARENCE THOMAS: This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint as a black American, as far as I'm concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks) and Kavanaugh (I am sure you remember that...especially the part about going thru his High School yearbook)...all three were nominated by a Republican and all three were attacked by the dems...I can't think of a dem appointee that received close to the amount of vitriol and innuendo as those three.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Boston said:
The biggest circuses over SC justices in my lifetime have been Bork (EDWARD KENNEDY: Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids and schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution., Thomas (CLARENCE THOMAS: This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint as a black American, as far as I'm concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks) and Kavanaugh (I am sure you remember that...especially the part about going thru his High School yearbook)...all three were nominated by a Republican and all three were attacked by the dems...I can't think of a dem appointee that received close to the amount of vitriol and innuendo as those three.
Click to expand...
@Boston I disagree with an awful lot but on this I believe you are pretty much correct. Bork and Thomas did not deserve the attacks they received. I think Thomas particularly infuriated leftists because he was a black conservative replacing the beloved Thurgood Marshall. I think he infuriates them to this day for that reason. 

Kavanaugh was a circus as well but I feel a little differently about it because I personally found Blasey Ford to be credible, and Kavanaugh’s demeanor made him unworthy IMO. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Boston said:
The biggest circuses over SC justices in my lifetime have been Bork (EDWARD KENNEDY: Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids and schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution., Thomas (CLARENCE THOMAS: This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint as a black American, as far as I'm concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks) and Kavanaugh (I am sure you remember that...especially the part about going thru his High School yearbook)...all three were nominated by a Republican and all three were attacked by the dems...I can't think of a dem appointee that received close to the amount of vitriol and innuendo as those three.
Click to expand...
Merrick Garland would trade places with Thomas or Kavanaugh.

 
timschochet said:
@Boston I disagree with an awful lot but on this I believe you are pretty much correct. Bork and Thomas did not deserve the attacks they received. I think Thomas particularly infuriated leftists because he was a black conservative replacing the beloved Thurgood Marshall. I think he infuriates them to this day for that reason. 

Kavanaugh was a circus as well but I feel a little differently about it because I personally found Blasey Ford to be credible, and Kavanaugh’s demeanor made him unworthy IMO. 
Click to expand...


He also lied to Congress at his confirmation hearing.

 
whoknew said:
He also lied to Congress at his confirmation hearing.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that seemed like a non-starter to me but, what the hell do I know? Openly lying with no repercussions seems to be all the rage in todays world. Hell, politicians get rewarded for it.

 
Ruffrodys05 said:
I've had the feeling for a long time that Democrats tended to play above board while Republicans were more likely to take the low road.
Click to expand...


Thanks. Between Republicans or Democrats, which would you say you identify more closely with?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Bryant said:
Thanks. Between Republicans or Democrats, which would you say you identify more closely with?
Click to expand...
Despite having that feeling you quoted, as an Independent my whole life, it has been mostly down the middle with a slight lean left. Lately, that same left lean is there but, in my opinion the right has veered so far from my middle that I guess I identify more with the left now than ever before. Still, I try to give Republicans a fair shake so when things happen like today, when three Republican Senators vote to confirm a Democratic nominated SC Justice, I take notice and give them their due.

I've voted for each party Presidentially in the past, as well as a write in or two, and always give each candidate an opportunity to convince me they're the best choice. Until DJT, I had never outright refused to consider anyone. Knowing exactly who he was gave me no pause in that decision. 

My Independent philosophy has always extended down through the State and Local levels also. I've always voted for who I feel would be best for the job. Pennsylvania has had some really good Republican Governors over the years as well as some good Democrats. I've supported members of each party.

Having served my local community politically I've met and worked with plenty of really good people on both sides of the isle. 

 
Boston said:
The biggest circuses over SC justices in my lifetime have been Bork (EDWARD KENNEDY: Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids and schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution., Thomas (CLARENCE THOMAS: This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint as a black American, as far as I'm concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks) and Kavanaugh (I am sure you remember that...especially the part about going thru his High School yearbook)...all three were nominated by a Republican and all three were attacked by the dems...I can't think of a dem appointee that received close to the amount of vitriol and innuendo as those three.
Click to expand...
As I said, I'm not a USSC geek, so thanks for this take. I can honestly admit that I paid way less attention to national politics and even less to SC nominations when I was younger. As I stated, just a feeling I had. I definitely have ramped up my national politics awareness the last ten or so years. I started paying a lot more attention during Obama's second term I think.

 
Ruffrodys05 said:
If you are referring to ACB, I can only believe it was a party line statement about forcing a SC justice through confirmation so close to a presidential election, which ran directly contrary to McConnell's previous position of refusing to have anything to do with Garland during a comparable time-frame.

If you are referring to Kavanaugh, I would think the temperament shown by him during questioning was enough to keep any Democrats from voting to confirm. Let alone their willingness to believe sexual assault claims leveled at Kavanaugh. 

I'm not saying those excuses are valid enough, I'm just pointing out the likely reasons why. So, I agree with you that it was a shame.

Additionally, I think Democrats in general have been more willing over the years to confirm SC Justices than Republicans when the opposing party is the nominating party. I may be wrong in that thought because I'm not a USSC geek but, I've had the feeling for a long time that Democrats tended to play above board while Republicans were more likely to take the low road.
Click to expand...
Great, honest post.  

I've only paid attention since Kavannaugh.  I'm not sure these hearings were ever "interesting" before then.  Now it's all partisan theatre.  They ask a lot of leading questions hoping to get the nominees to comment on a case that's before or might wind up before the SCOTUS.  They preach to the public.  And they try to find some "reason" to not vote for the other side's candidate.  

I was foolishly hoping the GOP would end that with this hearing.  And while it's nice to see 3 GOP senators play ball with the other side--it's obvious these things aren't going back to playing nice anytime soon. 

 
Kinda hard to have the circus without the clowns, right?

Graham tried this time around. I dont think ive ever seen a more disrespectful 1:1 interaction in the short time Ive paid any attention to these goat rodeos. Future shows will not get my attention. They are completely pointless and beneth what democracy should tolerate IMO. 

 
BladeRunner said:
Maybe I missed something.  What did he lie about?
Click to expand...
His explanation about “Renate Alumnius” was obviously a lie. Was it a lie about something consequential?  No. Because it was a lie about something inconsequential, I can understand why folks would disregard it (or try to pretend it wasn’t a lie). But it was still a lie. Under oath. 

 
bigbottom said:
His explanation about “Renate Alumnius” was obviously a lie. Was it a lie about something consequential?  No. Because it was a lie about something inconsequential, I can understand why folks would disregard it (or try to pretend it wasn’t a lie). But it was still a lie. Under oath. 
Click to expand...


Shouldn't you guys be upset instead that they pulled something out of his HIGH SCHOOL YEARBOOK?  Have we done that for any other SCOTUS nominee?

I almost feel that if he did lie (I haven't seen the exchange myself) that he should instead get credit for the BS they were trying to get him for.  His entire time as a judge there was ZERO issues (in fact, exemplary) so they had to go back to high school to try and "get him".

Seems a bit unfair, no?

 
BladeRunner said:
Shouldn't you guys be upset instead that they pulled something out of his HIGH SCHOOL YEARBOOK?  Have we done that for any other SCOTUS nominee?

I almost feel that if he did lie (I haven't seen the exchange myself) that he should instead get credit for the BS they were trying to get him for.  His entire time as a judge there was ZERO issues (in fact, exemplary) so they had to go back to high school to try and "get him".

Seems a bit unfair, no?
Click to expand...
You asked a question and I answered it. And as ridiculous as the line of questioning was (yes, I concede that the yearbook stuff was ridiculous), he committed perjury during his opening statement at the hearing, before he was asked a single question. 

 
bigbottom said:
You asked a question and I answered it. And as ridiculous as the line of questioning was (yes, I concede that the yearbook stuff was ridiculous), he committed perjury during his opening statement at the hearing, before he was asked a single question. 
Click to expand...


You did and fair enough.

I'm going to have to think about this more and see the actual exchange.

 
BladeRunner said:
You did and fair enough.

I'm going to have to think about this more and see the actual exchange.
Click to expand...
Thanks BR.  And I’m happy to quote the offending portion from the transcript if you like. But honestly, I’m not interested in debating whether or not he lied. I will never be convinced otherwise, and all that will result is that I will lose respect for the person trying to argue otherwise. 

 
BladeRunner said:
Shouldn't you guys be upset instead that they pulled something out of his HIGH SCHOOL YEARBOOK?  Have we done that for any other SCOTUS nominee?

Seems a bit unfair, no?
Click to expand...
I didn't watch or listen to Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing but, once sexual assault accusations are made nothing, and I mean nothing, is off the the table. From what I've read of Kavanaughs experience, here in this forum, it was pretty tame. In the real world it's much, much worse. The effects caused by such an accusation are far more damaging and further reaching than to just the individual accused. "Fair" is not a word commonly found in a prosecutions dictionary. I'm speaking from real life experience here.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
How The Activist MSM Is Burying Alleged SCOTUS Kavanaugh Assassination Attempt (5/12/22 6:22 PST)
Replies
47
Views
2K
Boston
Boston
Max Power
Eric Swalwell tweets thread
2 3
Replies
132
Views
4K
Max Power
Max Power
(HULK)
Non-Partisan Funny Things in Politics
Replies
4
Views
646
dgreen
dgreen

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top