Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sinn Fein

​ 🏛️ ​Official Supreme Court nomination thread - Amy Coney Barrett

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Ilov80s said:

Precedent is often as good as law. 

In the courts, sure.  The senate refusing to work with a POTUS of the opposite party--I'm not sure it's the sort of precedent that is as good as law.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jm192 said:

In the courts, sure.  The senate refusing to work with a POTUS of the opposite party--I'm not sure it's the sort of precedent that is as good as law.  

Sure, no law against being a snake. In fact, snakes often write the laws. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Future Champs said:

And with that, the legal system joins the media, science, facts, and reality as having a liberal bias.

I am genuinely not sure how one can with any objectivity believe the media to not be biased. I try to get different sources of news on TV but when I watch Fox I know pretty much all of it is biased (and all of the big personalities--Tucker, Hannity, Ingram, O'Reilly, etc--even they say they are biased with only exception being Chris Wallace--maybe Bret Baier) and so does pretty much every conservative.

Only on the other side are there legitimate claims that Chris Cuomo: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/10/12/cnn_cuomo_trump_looked_like_he_had_racist_thoughts_talking_to_kanye_west.html, Don Lemon: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/08/20/don_lemon_trump_supporters_need_to_be_deprogrammed_before_they_can_be_allowed_to_vote.html

and Rachel Maddow are unbiased (won't even put a link here--her defense in court was literally "I am too biased to be a real journalist")---no matter what Joy Reid has to say:

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/brad-wilmouth/2018/07/08/joy-reid-media-were-enchanted-palin-bush-found-obama-too-erudite

The actual gall to say Obama wasn't swooned over by the media

As for science/facts no there isn't a bias and I agree that demonization of these things is quite damaging. 

Academia however is completely and totally biased--as is the teaching profession. This isn't hand wringing: it's fact that anyone with experience knows

Medicine on the other hand (I should know being a resident and from my parents)--turns from left to center right once you move out of education and to actually practicing physicians. Unlike the media, Hollywood, academia and teachers though the medical profession doesn't choose to wield political power--a choice I wish the other institutions were making instead of telling 7 year olds (my brother in 2008) that John McCain wanted to deport him to the Middle East (when we aren't Middle Eastern at all) because he was brown

 

As for the legal system and SCOTUS justices the answer is obvious

 

a. Republican Presidents have appointed left wing justices. Democratic Presidents don't appoint right wing justices

and b. Right wing justices cross over to vote with the left bloc (explaining many left wing judicial victories over the past 20 years) while left justices mostly vote together as without breaking

Edited by KChusker
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

The thing is that I've already made up my mind that I'm voting for Biden precisely because of the behavior you're describing.  The one and only thing that could possibly make me reconsider my vote would be Biden coming out in favor of court-packing or some other naked power grab.  It would undercut the entire rationale behind supporting him in the first place.

From a policy standpoint, I agree with Biden on a few issues and disagree with him on others.  Same with Trump.  On balance, I'd probably prefer the policy agenda of a second Trump administration to a Biden administration.  But I've had almost four years now to think about the relative importance of "rule following" versus "getting your way," and I've come to the conclusion that I'm a rule-follower first.  Usually that's not relevant because in a normal election -- like Romney vs. Obama -- both nominees are going to follow the rules and respect well-established norms.  That's obviously not the case in 2020.

If the Democrats follow @Jackstraw's suggestion and become all Trumpy, I'm out.  Not that you need my vote of course.

Except for the bold, this is where I am as well. I'm currently a registered Democrat and plan to vote blue all the way down the ticket.

The two things I care most about (vis-a-vis affiliating with a political party) are protecting democracy and protecting capitalism. The fringes of both parties are threats to both of those things, but as a general rule, at present, Republicans are a bigger threat to democracy while Democrats are a bigger threat to capitalism. I'm a Democrat because the Republican threat to democracy is no longer just at the fringe -- it's infected nearly the whole party.

If Democrats ever match Republicans in attacking democracy while remaining a bit worse on capitalism, I'll start voting red. I hate thinking about that.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

Precedent is often as good as law. 

Extralegal norms are not as good as law. That's one of the big takeaways from the Trump administration.

Even within the law, bad precedent should be overturned rather than perpetuated. As every honest person who isn't a partisan hack would have told you in 2016, McConnell's decision not to schedule hearings or a vote for Merrick Garland was bad.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bigbottom said:

Yeah, but there’s plenty of time to confirm before the inauguration. 

Yes, but I believe there’s actual merit in not allowing people who have already been removed from office vote on things that can’t be changed by the people coming in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jackstraw said:

But hey y’all won. No argument. Spike the ball. Party on. It’s a done deal. I freely admit it. There’s not much really to talk about at this point. Horse is out of the barn. 
 

But no crybabies when WE do stuff eh? 

You took away your own ability to defend yourself. Thank Harry Reid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ilov80s said:

The idea this was argued out and we came to decision 4 years ago and now 4 years later the people who won the argument are now trying to change the process again is insane and not healthy at all for the country. It’s bananas.

The process hasn't changed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God I wish Phyllis Schaftley, Falwell and co hadn't gained a major voice in the 1980s and the GOP just accepted first term abortion fine, 2nd term to the states, no third term and let Democrats make the case (and fail) for abortion to the day of birth if they chose to.

 

Without abortion as a wedge issue I really do wonder if the Court is as politicized as today:

 

Does Robert Bork still get smeared with that flaming lies Ted Kennedy speech (there were other valid issues with Bork but that speech was brutally dishonest)?

Or the Clarence Thomas hearings?

Or McConnell refusing to hear a nominee in 2016?

Or Kavanaugh's fake assault claims?

Or this reversal of the 2016 precedent?

 

I am pro choice but I don't give a damn about it when I vote. Quite frankly the GOP doesn't care about abortion and it's funny how well they have convinced people into believing they do. I know plenty of people who lean left or are moderate swing voters mostly but are horrified enough by abortion to vote Republican. Don't know ANYONE who leans right but believes strongly enough in abortion to vote Democrat

The GOP knows how it loses voters and emboldens the Dem base if Roe is ever touched, and quite frankly none of these nominees will ever do so: ACB (20% chance), Lagoa or any other mainstream option I have seen (1%), Gorsuch/Kavanaugh (<1%), Alito (10%), Thomas (15%), Roberts (0%).

It's a settled issue with the exception of taxpayer funding for it and the Hyde Amendment--something I expect Dems to reverse if they win

 

Shame for the rest of us. I want a conservative justice because I don't want to be made inferior because of my race and my 2nd Amendment right preserved. Without abortion hyperpoliticizing the SCOTUS, this would be much more tangible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely disgusting move by Trump to his candidate pool to only women. How weak can you be.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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

Extralegal norms are not as good as law. That's one of the big takeaways from the Trump administration.

Even within the law, bad precedent should be overturned rather than perpetuated. As every honest person who isn't a partisan hack would have told you in 2016, McConnell's decision not to schedule hearings or a vote for Merrick Garland was bad.

The takeaway from Trump is that law and precedent are meaninglessness. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The process hasn't changed. 

Sure, people just do whatever and justify it all in any way that’s convenient. It’s a big show.

Share this post


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

Medicine on the other hand (I should know being a resident and from my parents)--turns from left to center right once you move out of education and to actually practicing physicians. Unlike the media, Hollywood, academia and teachers though the medical profession doesn't choose to wield political power--a choice I wish the other institutions were making instead of telling 7 year olds (my brother in 2008) that John McCain wanted to deport him to the Middle East (when we aren't Middle Eastern at all) because he was brown

Physicians lean slightly Democrat overall, while higher paying specialties tend to be more Republican. And the medical profession certainly wields political power, lest you think the AMA is impotent.

Share this post


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

Except for the bold, this is where I am as well. I'm currently a registered Democrat and plan to vote blue all the way down the ticket.

The two things I care most about (vis-a-vis affiliating with a political party) are protecting democracy and protecting capitalism. The fringes of both parties are threats to both of those things, but as a general rule, at present, Republicans are a bigger threat to democracy while Democrats are a bigger threat to capitalism. I'm a Democrat because the Republican threat to democracy is no longer just at the fringe -- it's infected nearly the whole party.

If Democrats ever match Republicans in attacking democracy while remaining a bit worse on capitalism, I'll start voting red. I hate thinking about that.

I see this a lot, but it confuses me some. There's ample and overwhelming evidence that trickle down economics has NOT been good for us. That real wages today are going far far less far then they were in 1980. That virtually all new wealth created in the last 40 years has gone to the upper 1%. Health care, housing and education consume a far larger portion of the middle class' income and we have startling inequality. The solutions to some of these things have bene found and implemented all over the world yet are fought tooth and nail here in the name of "capitalism". 

The OVERWHELMING majority of Democrats and left leaning population do NOT want to ditch capitalism, but we do openly recognize that Capitalism has its limits...it is not without some real warts. Republicans (mostly, Democrats are far from innocent on this part) over the last 40 years have gone too far in allowing Corporations to buy our government, set policies too friendly to those corporations, and while it has enriched the pockets of wall street investors, it's done NOTHING for the average man. Meanwhile, our for profit health care system is an unmitigated disaster which this pandemic has just further exposed. Capitalism can NOT fix health care. Open markets don't work fairly for life necessities...we accepted this a long time ago for areas such as infrastructure, water, sewage and power...why is so difficult to see this with health care??????

Socially, I'm very moderate. I've even voted blue multiple times in my younger life. But this fear of socialism so common in the right is blinding many.

Edited by renesauz
  • Like 6

Share this post


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

Yes, but I believe there’s actual merit in not allowing people who have already been removed from office vote on things that can’t be changed by the people coming in. 

This is not what happens in an election. There’s a separate process for removal. Elections are for full terms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, renesauz said:

There's ample and overwhelming evidence that trickle down economics has NOT been good for us.

Yeah, this has nothing to do with capitalism. Trickle down is a tax policy.

15 minutes ago, renesauz said:

That real wages today are going far far less far then they were in 1980. That virtually all new wealth created in the last 40 years has gone to the upper 1%. Health care, housing and education consume a far larger portion of the middle class' income and we have startling inequality. The solutions to some of these things have bene found and implemented all over the world yet are fought tooth and nail here in the name of "capitalism".

To me, "bad stuff is happening with real wages and affordability, therefore we need more socialism instead of capitalism" is like "bad stuff is happening to the environment, therefore we need to burn more fossil fuels." The premise is true, but the conclusion doesn't seem exactly right.

I intend to start a thread on capitalism at some point where we can hash this out further.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Yeah, this has nothing to do with capitalism. Trickle down is a tax policy.

To me, "bad stuff is happening with real wages and affordability, therefore we need more socialism instead of capitalism" is like "bad stuff is happening to the environment, therefore we need to burn more fossil fuels." The premise is true, but the conclusion doesn't seem exactly right.

I intend to start a thread on capitalism at some point where we can hash this out further.

Fair enough....But it's a misnomer that liberals want socialism I think. There's been a tendency to equate a demand for UHC with full blown socialism, and thats frustrating to me. Wanting UHC doesn't make me a socialist, or a communist, or Un-American...and in the eyes of most conservatives...IT DOES. Similarly in education. I'm not necessarily in favor of free college, but we do have a major problem that needs addressing, and making it free <> socialism. far from IMHO.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, NightStalkers said:

Actually right now i am not.  When i said i hadn't heard of anyone  who had  included a bunch of people i worked with in the White House.

sorry to hear that.    Lots of great opportunities outside the Beltway out there.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jerseydevil20 said:

This is not what happens in an election. There’s a separate process for removal. Elections are for full terms. 

I’m not going to argue with you. If you don’t understand where I’m coming from with that statement, feel free to feel superior and brilliant for my obviously foolish beliefs. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Source familiar with WH vetting process tells me WH would like to announce #SCOTUS nomination in the next ten days, before 1st Presidential debate & these 3 judges are getting serious consideration:

Judge Amy Coney Barrett

Judge Barbara Lagoa

Judge Amul Thapar

***********

- CBS

- No idea who Lagoa is but I guarantee she is a ringer for Trump and right now there is likely just an internal struggle to keep DJT's fingers off the button from selecting her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Source familiar with WH vetting process tells me WH would like to announce #SCOTUS nomination in the next ten days, before 1st Presidential debate & these 3 judges are getting serious consideration:

Judge Amy Coney Barrett

Judge Barbara Lagoa

Judge Amul Thapar

***********

- CBS

- No idea who Lagoa is but I guarantee she is a ringer for Trump and right now there is likely just an internal struggle to keep DJT's fingers off the button from selecting her.

The WSJ has a very brief bio for each of the above.  If Trump means to pick a woman for the position, then you can probably scratch off Amul Thapar.  

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-supreme-court-list-potential-candidates-for-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburgs-seat-11600536830?st=c7qjmwe0ucplewe

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, johnnycakes said:

The WSJ has a very brief bio for each of the above.  If Trump means to pick a woman for the position, then you can probably scratch off Amul Thapar.  

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-supreme-court-list-potential-candidates-for-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburgs-seat-11600536830?st=c7qjmwe0ucplewe

Thanks, here are the bios for the women in the event any can't access. Amy Barrett is well known in my parts as having gone to NO area schools and being from here.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, 48 years old, was nominated by Mr. Trump to the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in May 2017 and confirmed by the Senate that October in a 55-43 vote. A graduate of Notre Dame Law School, Judge Barrett clerked from 1998 to 1999 for Justice Antonin Scalia, then practiced law at a Washington, D.C., law firm before returning in 2002 to Notre Dame as a professor of constitutional law and federal courts.

Judge Barrett’s Roman Catholic faith was a flashpoint in her appellate court confirmation proceedings, as Democratic senators questioned whether her beliefs would improperly influence her. “The dogma lives loudly within you,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) told Judge Barrett, in an exchange that prompted outrage from religious conservatives.

The senators asked Judge Barrett about a law review article she co-wrote in 1998 that argued that Catholic judges are “morally precluded” from enforcing the death penalty. At the hearing, Judge Barrett said she believed judges shouldn’t put their personal views above the law.

Since taking the bench as an appeals-court judge, Judge Barrett has written opinions on issues including sentencing for drug-overdose death convictions, the right to criminal counsel and federal jurisdiction over arbitration proceedings.

***

Barbara Lagoa

A Trump appointee, Judge Barbara Lagoa, 52, has served on the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals since December, after being confirmed by the Senate in a mostly bipartisan 80-15 vote.

A Cuban-American and Miami native, Judge Lagoa served briefly on the Florida Supreme Court as the first Hispanic woman on the state’s high court. She also spent more than a dozen years as an intermediate appellate judge in Florida before being elevated by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis. From 2003 to 2006, she worked as an assistant U.S. attorney in Miami.

Judge Lagoa earned her bachelor’s degree from Florida International University and her law degree from Columbia University.

***

Allison Rushing

Judge Allison Rushing, 38, sits on the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Trump nominated her to the court in August 2018, and she was confirmed by the Senate the following March. Born in 1982, the North Carolina native was the youngest federal judge in the nation at the time of her confirmation. She holds a B.A. degree from Wake Forest University and a law degree from Duke University School of Law.

At the time of her nomination, a coalition of civil-rights organizations criticized her as a “young, ideological extremist.” In a 2018 letter, they noted that she clerked for three conservative judges—Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Gorsuch and U.S. Circuit Judge David Sentelle—and had interned at the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian nonprofit. The White House called Judge Rushing “one of the best young appellate lawyers in the country.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Source familiar with WH vetting process tells me WH would like to announce #SCOTUS nomination in the next ten days, before 1st Presidential debate & these 3 judges are getting serious consideration:

Judge Amy Coney Barrett

Judge Barbara Lagoa

Judge Amul Thapar

***********

- CBS

- No idea who Lagoa is but I guarantee she is a ringer for Trump and right now there is likely just an internal struggle to keep DJT's fingers off the button from selecting her.

Apparently Lagoa was in my law school class.  Had no idea and don’t remember her at all, which is strange.  Reaction from my classmates who do remember her has not been favorable.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, krista4 said:

Apparently Lagoa was in my law school class.  Had no idea and don’t remember her at all, which is strange.  Reaction from my classmates who do remember her has not been favorable.

Vote: Krista

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


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

Fair enough....But it's a misnomer that liberals want socialism I think. There's been a tendency to equate a demand for UHC with full blown socialism, and thats frustrating to me. Wanting UHC doesn't make me a socialist, or a communist, or Un-American...and in the eyes of most conservatives...IT DOES. Similarly in education. I'm not necessarily in favor of free college, but we do have a major problem that needs addressing, and making it free <> socialism. far from IMHO.

I agree with the bolded.  I would have hardily agreed with the last point on free college prior to Trump.  I think he has proved the education crisis in America very real.  Not to mention that education, generally, favors everyone.

The word  "socialism" is also very strong.   It conjures up a vision of the governement police evicting you from your home and taking everything you have.  Yes, I know, that's not an accurate definition of true socialism but the people I talk to that favor Trump are scared of this happening. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, krista4 said:

Apparently Lagoa was in my law school class.  Had no idea and don’t remember her at all, which is strange.  Reaction from my classmates who do remember her has not been favorable.

look at me I went to Columbia Law!

:)

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

look at me I went to Columbia Law!

:)

 

As far as lawyers go around these parts, Krista’s stats are elite upper tier. 

  • Like 3
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bigbottom said:
15 minutes ago, dawgtrails said:

look at me I went to Columbia Law!

:)

 

As far as lawyers go around these parts, Krista’s stats are elite upper tier. 

Your humility, and those of your peers, is what makes me admire you all so.  Personally, I drank beer and partied all night long.

Edited by 2Squirrels1Nut
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Thanks, here are the bios for the women in the event any can't access. Amy Barrett is well known in my parts as having gone to NO area schools and being from here.

Well, at least there is a bit of diversity to come out of this if one of these ends up on the Court.  All current justices are Harvard or Yale graduates.  These would break that trend.

I, for one, am tired of the law school inequality evident on the Court.  They should quietly dismiss the girl from Duke, though.  Duke sucks.

Edited by Sand
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sand said:

 

I, for one, am tired of the law school inequality evident on the Court.  I suggest riots to protest this. 

This is sure weird 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 2Squirrels1Nut said:

You laugh, but you are more than capable. @krista4  There are a number of people here that I would trust.  Which is why I just can't  quit this place.

You are very kind.

I'm trying to gather more information about her from trusted sources.  She was on Law Review, and I wasn't since I did spend a lot more time drinking and partying then, too.  :lol:  My best friend was on it, so I put out the batsignal to her.  Others I know who were on Law Review have weighed in, as I mentioned, unfavorably.  But that was all a long time ago, and she could be very different now.  Here she was in our yearbook.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, krista4 said:

You are very kind.

I'm trying to gather more information about her from trusted sources.  She was on Law Review, and I wasn't since I did spend a lot more time drinking and partying then, too.  :lol:  My best friend was on it, so I put out the batsignal to her.  Others I know who were on Law Review have weighed in, as I mentioned, unfavorably.  But that was all a long time ago, and she could be very different now.  Here she was in our yearbook.

I wanna hang with Susan. Looks like she too was partying too much to have time for any extracurriculars.  

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Sand said:

Well, at least there is a bit of diversity to come out of this if one of these ends up on the Court.  All current justices are Harvard or Yale graduates.  These would break that trend.

I, for one, am tired of the law school inequality evident on the Court.  They should quietly dismiss the girl from Duke, though.  Duke sucks.

Allison Jones Rushing? I just googled her. Class of 2007? Man, do I feel old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

I’m not going to argue with you. If you don’t understand where I’m coming from with that statement, feel free to feel superior and brilliant for my obviously foolish beliefs. 

I understand, I don’t agree. Arbitrary term limitations without basis to advantage one group over another would be chaos. Let’s just stick to the Constitution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

I wanna hang with Susan. Looks like she too was partying too much to have time for any extracurriculars.  

:lmao: 

Geez, the early 90s were not kind to our hairstyles.  One huge detriment to this for me is that I was forced to see my yearbook photo, too.

Heard back from my BFF, without much info.  Barbara must have been a bit of a cipher.  "I do remember her but only in the most vague way. I can’t remember a single interaction, which is weird because I did know pretty well most people on Law Review even if we weren’t besties."  At least she didn't have anything negative to say!

My law school roommate clerked for RBG (while on DC Circuit) and was on Law Review (obviously).  I need to track down her thoughts on Barbara.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jerseydevil20 said:

I understand, I don’t agree. Arbitrary term limitations without basis to advantage one group over another would be chaos. Let’s just stick to the Constitution. 

Good point. You should find someone arguing with you that we shouldn’t stick to the Constitution and bring that up with him. 

Edited by Henry Ford
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sand said:

Well, at least there is a bit of diversity to come out of this if one of these ends up on the Court.  All current justices are Harvard or Yale graduates.  These would break that trend.

I, for one, am tired of the law school inequality evident on the Court.  They should quietly dismiss the girl from Duke, though.  Duke sucks.

Yaknow... much respect to Ivy Leaguers but I’m not exactly sure picking a Columbia LS grad is breaking out. Maybe Notre Dame fits that, maybe Duke. Lot of great schools out there though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jerseydevil20 said:

I understand, I don’t agree. Arbitrary term limitations without basis to advantage one group over another would be chaos. Let’s just stick to the Constitution. 

This matters now?  Guess it's better late than never for some

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, krista4 said:

Apparently Lagoa was in my law school class.  Had no idea and don’t remember her at all, which is strange.  Reaction from my classmates who do remember her has not been favorable.

Not sure if this has been raised, but I'm interested in your thoughts: Given RBGs "fervent wish," would a woman accept a nomination and allow herself to be put on a fast-track push?  Wouldn't that gnaw at her?  Wouldn't that mark her with an undesirable reputation that would always follow her?  I just wonder how a woman would balance the incredible professional opportunity with the personal challenge of flaunting RBG's wish.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, tri-man 47 said:

Not sure if this has been raised, but I'm interested in your thoughts: Given RBGs "fervent wish," would a woman accept a nomination and allow herself to be put on a fast-track push?  Wouldn't that gnaw at her?  Wouldn't that mark her with an undesirable reputation that would always follow her?  I just wonder how a woman would balance the incredible professional opportunity with the personal challenge of flaunting RBG's wish.

We got actual video of this wish?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

We got actual video of this wish?

Well, there's footage of her blowing out the candles, but everyone knows if you say your wish out loud, it won't come true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2020 at 9:35 PM, Ramblin Wreck said:

I'm not triggered by the left's threat of violence.  

I’m not intimidated by the bullies on the left or am I sick of it. It just means more votes for President Trump. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

If you want a link I'll dig it up but apparently it's straight from the USSC press office, stating that it was given to them by Ginsurg's granddaughter. 

It seriously doesn’t matter. If there were video they’d just move on to “she doesn’t get to decide that.”  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

It seriously doesn’t matter. If there were video they’d just move on to “she doesn’t get to decide that.”  

No need to move on to that because it's already a fact.  While one can certainly respect her life and service, her opinion on her replacement is totally meaningless

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

 While one can certainly respect her life and service, her opinion on her replacement is totally meaningless

Yes, everyone should agree with this.

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.