Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sinn Fein

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

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I ignored it.  Smearing the guy with a secret, anonymous accusation is bush league stuff.

Did she say what this paper was about, or make an accusation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fatness said:

Did she say what this paper was about, or make an accusation?

Something about pigtails and ink wells.

Where is Spartacus when you really need him??  :hot:

Edited by Opie
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet here as I haven’t read every page but Phreet did an outstanding podcast on this nomination today.  Highly recommended to all.  

If you left a link someone might actually listen to it?

Share this post


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

I couldn't even imagine how desperate they can get.

I just do not understand....when did appointing a SCJ that will actually follow the US Constitution become, "making the Court lean right"?

If this is true, then you're purposely ignorant.  Hint:  all Supreme Court justices believe that they follow the Constitution.  That's their job.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, -fish- said:

Supreme Court nominations probably changed permanently with the bull#### that McConnell pulled with Garland. I don't agree that this is a positive, but I expect this to be the new normal.

You can blame Reid he started the process, McConnel only expanded what Reid started. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Qanon said:

You can blame Reid he started the process, McConnel only expanded what Reid started. 

 

Wrong again.   Reid didn't mess with SC appointments, nor did he deny a confirmation hearing based on a false claim that SC justices aren't seated in election years.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

If this is true, then you're purposely ignorant.  Hint:  all Supreme Court justices believe that they follow the Constitution.  That's their job.

 

No.

The Democrats govern from the courts.  They cannot pass legislation so they try to pack the courts with left-leaning judges that will uphold any silly-### EO that a Democrat POTUS implements.  It is the only way that the Left seems to be able to get "things done".

Edited by Opie
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just witnessed the best magic trick ever.  I am working with my 11 year old son on his homework for the last 10 minutes, come in here and see a post that sounds just like him.  How is that possible?  It wasn't my 6 year old, she's in bed and all the words were actually spelled correctly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Opie said:

No.

The Democrats govern from the courts.  The cannot pass legislation so they try to pack the courts with left-leaning judges that will uphold any silly-### EO that a Democrat POTUS implements.  It is the only way that the Left seems to be able to get "things done".

Well, except for Obamacare, right?

Flipping the script by switching up the bills and changing "left" to "right" sounds pretty familiar too.  

Edited by The Commish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Well, except for Obamacare, right?

The left-leaning courts had to rule to uphold it.

You think it would be upheld today?

If the Justices are appointed to uphold the Constitution ...why is the Left so worried about appointing another that will do the same ?

Edited by Opie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, -fish- said:

If this is true, then you're purposely ignorant.  Hint:  all Supreme Court justices believe that they follow the Constitution.  That's their job.

 

Not really, the left believe in Judicial activism far more than Conservatives in my opinion. They think it's their job to write law rather than support the Constitution.

Share this post


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

The left-leaning courts had to rule to uphold it.

Roberts screwed that up but Trump got rid of the Individual Mandate. :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Opie said:

The left-leaning courts had to rule to uphold it.

Actually, that doesn't really matter.  What matters is the bar you set.  You're essentially saying anything taken to the SC and upheld by the court is "governing by the courts".  If I go and sue for something in the tax cuts and somehow get to the SC with it and they rule that my lawsuit has no merit, this admin is "governing by the courts".

I think perhaps I have given you way more credit than you deserve.

Edited by The Commish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

Governing by the courts is when you fail to pass legislation so you implement and Executive Order and expect the SCOTUS to back you up.

Of course, those Executive Orders are easily rolled back....without approval of the SCOTUS.

 

Edited by Opie
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, -fish- said:

Wrong again.   Reid didn't mess with SC appointments, nor did he deny a confirmation hearing based on a false claim that SC justices aren't seated in election years.

I said he started, you reap what you sow. They thought she was going to win, they did not put up much of a fight. But you know what, it doesn't matter we won and the left lost. 5-4 solid for decades. rather see 6-3 or 7-2. Don't trust Roberts, although he did help the cause in the long run. Democrats still have Obamacare hanging around their necks.

Edited by Qanon
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Opie said:

No.

Governing by the courts is when you fail to pass legislation so you implement and Executive Order and expect the SCOTUS to back you up.

Of course, those Executive Orders are easily rolled back.

Like Obamacare?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Opie said:

No.

Governing by the courts is when you fail to pass legislation so you implement and Executive Order and expect the SCOTUS to back you up.

Of course, those Executive Orders are easily rolled back.

Can you list the parts of Obamacare that were done via executive order?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Opie said:

No.

Governing by the courts is when you fail to pass legislation so you implement and Executive Order and expect the SCOTUS to back you up.

Of course, those Executive Orders are easily rolled back.

Yeah but we have 6 more years almost, until Ivanka or Nikki break the glass ceiling. 

Edited by Qanon
typo

Share this post


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

Can you list the parts of Obamacare that were done via executive order?

Oh no....that disaster is ALLL yours!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Opie said:

Oh no....that disaster is ALLL yours!

Remember Pelosi, we have to pass it before we can read it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Opie said:

Oh no....that disaster is ALLL yours!

You should probably read the obamacare thread to get a clear picture of my opinions on it.  I was far from a fan.  Still don't like it...it's not the right answer and it keeps getting worse because the GOP can't get out of their own way and remove it.

None of that matters though.  You said my comment about your bar is incorrect.  It's precisely correct in the context you established because Obamacare wasn't passed via executive order just like the tax cuts weren't.  The problem is with your bar....it's inaccurately set by any measure of "truth".

Edited by The Commish
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never seen Democrat desperation telegraphed like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Opie said:

No.

The Democrats govern from the courts.  They cannot pass legislation so they try to pack the courts with left-leaning judges that will uphold any silly-### EO that a Democrat POTUS implements.  It is the only way that the Left seems to be able to get "things done".

I can point to numerous instances of conservative judicial activism, including Scalia deciding that half of the words in the Second Amendment should just be ignored.  Was that following the Constitution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Qanon said:

Remember Pelosi, we have to pass it before we can read it. 

That's a misquote, a mischaracterization of what was said and the context in which she said it.  It's not like she kept the bill literally behind closed doors and prevented others from reading it until it was time to vote on it.  You're thinking of Paul Ryan.    
By the standards you hold others to in threads you participate in, you wold be screaming for them to produce links and calling them liars over what you've done here.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I don't understand this one.  Was somebody's high school era an issue and I missed it?

A major party candidate for president spent years claiming the current person in the position wasn't born in the country and therefore wasn't lawfully in office.  During the campaign, the candidate accused the father of another candidate of participating in the JFK assassination and got a magazine publisher friend to print a fake story supporting it.  Also spent a lot of time making fun of others' appearances and mannerisms, including mocking a reporter with a disability.  Promised to put the other major party candidate in jail.  
There was a LOT more crap like this.  That was just the stuff off the top of my head.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bruce Dickinson said:

That's a misquote, a mischaracterization of what was said and the context in which she said it.  It's not like she kept the bill literally behind closed doors and prevented others from reading it until it was time to vote on it.  You're thinking of Paul Ryan.    
By the standards you hold others to in threads you participate in, you wold be screaming for them to produce links and calling them liars over what you've done here.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/03/09/pelosi-pass-health-reform-so-you-can-find-out-whats-in-it

Pelosi: Pass Health Reform So You Can Find Out What’s In It

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/11/17/david_gregory_asks_pelosi_about_pass_the_bill_so_you_can_find_out_whats_in_it_comment.html

David Gregory Asks Pelosi About "Pass The Bill So You Can Find Out What's In It" Comment

https://www.dailysignal.com/2010/03/10/video-of-the-week-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-so-you-can-find-out-what-is-in-it/

Video of the Week: “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU

Pelosi: "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, -fish- said:

I can point to numerous instances of conservative judicial activism, including Scalia deciding that half of the words in the Second Amendment should just be ignored.  Was that following the Constitution?

Let's see 'em!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

Is there a path back to normalcy for SCOTUS nominations, or are we stuck with this abomination forever?

As long as it is not a Democrat POTUS doing the appointing...THIS is the new norm.

Hell....this may be low tide if President Trump gets to appoint another one!

Share this post


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

If you left a link someone might actually listen to it?

Your google broke?   

Another option is I could create a post with a bunch of random questions, numbers and letters that you need to “decode” that leads you to the possible  podcast location (or does it?).   Your choice.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Supreme Court nominations probably changed permanently with the bull#### that McConnell pulled with Garland. I don't agree that this is a positive, but I expect this to be the new normal.

Nah, it changed when Robert Bork got blocked.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Qanon said:

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/03/09/pelosi-pass-health-reform-so-you-can-find-out-whats-in-it

Pelosi: Pass Health Reform So You Can Find Out What’s In It

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/11/17/david_gregory_asks_pelosi_about_pass_the_bill_so_you_can_find_out_whats_in_it_comment.html

David Gregory Asks Pelosi About "Pass The Bill So You Can Find Out What's In It" Comment

https://www.dailysignal.com/2010/03/10/video-of-the-week-we-have-to-pass-the-bill-so-you-can-find-out-what-is-in-it/

Video of the Week: “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU

Pelosi: "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It"

Did you say Pelosi said "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it"?  
Or did you say Pelosi said "we have to pass it before you can read it"? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

Is there a path back to normalcy for SCOTUS nominations, or are we stuck with this abomination forever?

Only thing I see potentially solving the problem is installing term limits on SCOTUS justices and staggering their terms of service so there's one new justice for each two-year session of Congress.  But GLLLL getting the two major parties as they stand now to agree on that.  

So, I'd bet on "stuck with this abomination forever".

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Nah, it changed when Robert Bork got blocked.

Absolutely...that was the beginning...and the Clarence Thomas circus was next up...

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So it was nothing.

It was nothing federal or within the statute of limitations. 

Edited by Henry Ford
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IvanKaramazov said:
2 hours ago, fatness said:

Did she say what this paper was about, or make an accusation?

Nope.  Just innuendo.  

Thanks for the reply.

This is all I can find that she said:

Quote

“I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court,” Feinstein said in a statement. “That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities.”

I don't see innuendo there, nor anything to apologize for. That's a pretty bland statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, GroveDiesel said:

Nah, it changed when Robert Bork got blocked.

Bork the guy who fired the prosecutor for Nixon? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Of course, those Executive Orders are easily rolled back....

DACA has proven to be very hard to roll back.

----

Also, just heard that the letter we've heard about was when Kavanaugh was 17 and allegedly locked a similar age girl in a room (which she subsequently left) and, in the process, made her feel uncomfortable.

If true, what an asinine fishing trip/headline troll job here.

Edited by Sand

Share this post


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

Also, just heard that the letter we've heard about was when Kavanaugh was 17 and allegedly locked a similar age girl in a room (which she subsequently left) and, in the process, made her feel uncomfortable.

Got a link?

Share this post


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

Bork the guy who fired the prosecutor for Nixon? 

I prefer "Hatchet man for the Saturday Night Massacre".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, fatness said:

Got a link?

Laura Ingraham - TV tonight.

Share this post


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

No, I meant a credible link.

The whole premise of the secret letter kept secretly but leaked out to create a last second ruckus is the very epitome of not credible.  Try to find any credibility in the whole sad situation and work your way from there.  Once you find nothing but fog and hot air you'll maybe come to the conclusion that there is no need to search for credence in anything here.   It's all a wisp of air.

Edited by Sand

Share this post


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

The whole premise of the secret letter kept secretly but leaked out to create a last second ruckus is the very epitome of not credible.  Try to find any credibility in the whole sad situation and work your way from there.  Once you find nothing but fog and hot air you'll maybe come to the conclusion that there is no need to search for credence in anything here.   It's all a wisp of air.

If I may, I think the only play with whatever this letter is, and the reason Feinstein won’t let anyone find out about it, is to be used against Trump because he knew about whatever is in it and put forth Kavanaugh anyway. 

It seems to me that’s the only reason to keep it from Democrats.  To be used when it may push a vote or two against the President. In an election or impeachment. 

Share this post


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

The whole premise of the secret letter kept secretly but leaked out to create a last second ruckus is the very epitome of not credible.  Try to find any credibility in the whole sad situation and work your way from there.  Once you find nothing but fog and hot air you'll maybe come to the conclusion that there is no need to search for credence in anything here.   It's all a wisp of air.

I actually think you may be right about this. But I have two problems with what you wrote: 

1. fatness really is correct; Laura Ingraham is not a credible source for news reporting. During the Trump years in particular she has repeated several falsehoods. 

2. I don’t always agree with Diane Feinstein but I’ve never known her to be dishonest. For me, if  I had to name a trustworthy politician, she would be first on my list. 

So those are my two caveats. But I’m sure we’ll find out one way or another. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I actually think you may be right about this. But I have two problems with what you wrote: 

1. fatness really is correct; Laura Ingraham is not a credible source for news reporting. During the Trump years in particular she has repeated several falsehoods. 

2. I don’t always agree with Diane Feinstein but I’ve never known her to be dishonest. For me, if  I had to name a trustworthy politician, she would be first on my list. 

So those are my two caveats. But I’m sure we’ll find out one way or another. 

1 - Anyone that goes against your narrative is not creditable, including most people here.

2 - https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2007/8/6/367861/-
 

Quote

 

Is Senator Dianne Feinstein a Crook?

While Feinstein was on the military appropriations committee] the two companies, URS of San Francisco and the Perini Corporation of Framingham, Mass., were controlled by Feinstein’s husband, Richard C. Blum, and were awarded a combined total of over $1.5 billion in government business thanks in large measure to her subcommittee. That’s a lot of money even here in Washington.

Interestingly, she left the subcommittee in late 2005 at about the same time her husband sold his stake in both companies. Their combined net worth increased that year with the sale of the two companies by some 25 percent, to more than $40 million.

 

 

  • Like 1

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.