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****** (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter squistion
- Start date
PhillipPhoto
Footballguy
Are we sure it's the first woman, how do we tell?Jackstraw said:
The Commish
Footballguy
What BB is referring too wasn't an exchange with anyone. It was in his opening statement, without provocation.BladeRunner said:
squistion
Footballguy
Ruffrodys05
IBL Representative
Completely uncalled for.
(I removed your words because they don't need to be reposted, again.)
(I removed your words because they don't need to be reposted, again.)
PhillipPhoto
Footballguy
She couldn't even answer that question. And I don't think we should necessarily worry about the private lives of justices, but if they are going to make that claim shouldn't we check with Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas first?
Ruffrodys05
IBL Representative
Incorrect. She respectfully chose not to answer that disrespectful question. Rightfully so. Big difference between not being able to answer and respectfully choosing not to. It is not a difficult task to acknowledge that fact.
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
One of our own lawyers here explicitly explained why it was a stupid question.
PhillipPhoto
Footballguy
Please. The party that gave us an infinite number of gender pronouns and advocates for children to change gender shouts from the rooftop that they nominated the first black "woman" and then gets outrage when asked if they are sure. I'm assuming she's confirmed her gender, have you checked with Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas? I mean you made it so gender isn't black and white anymore. It's a fair question.
Ruffrodys05
IBL Representative
Seems to be of little consequence as a point was made and quite a few people (congressmen included) are still running with it, facts be damned.
PhillipPhoto
Footballguy
PhillipPhoto
Footballguy
Or does biology suddenly count when it comes to glass ceilings?
PhillipPhoto
Footballguy
Yet they're definitive in saying she's the first black "woman" justice.
Ruffrodys05
IBL Representative
Again, facts be damned. I wouldn't have answered a similar gender question if I was in her position. It's completely irrelevant as to her qualifications. I applaud her for remaining composed and respectful during that line of questioning. It was demeaning, disrespectful and uncalled for and yet folks just continue to parrot such nonsense.
Quite frankly it's over, it's done. Folks should probably move on. There is now the issue of what to do about those three Republican Senators who voted to approve her confirmation. I'm thinking that's next on the agenda.
Quite frankly it's over, it's done. Folks should probably move on. There is now the issue of what to do about those three Republican Senators who voted to approve her confirmation. I'm thinking that's next on the agenda.
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
Like Obama, I never thought I would have lived to see what happened today. 
Amused to Death
Footballguy
I got 2 1/2 months during the height of the J6 attacks for calling the rioters lunatics. The crap that's let go now that Trump's out of office is astounding.
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
Mitt Romney is a great man.
jm192 said:
You have to go back a ways, but the Clarence Thomas hearings were "interesting" (i.e., salacious) in the same way that the Kavanaugh hearings were. The Robert Bork hearings were genuinely interesting to law nerds because the questions and answers were actually about jurisprudential philosophy. Bork was disconfirmed because of his controversial answers, and since then nominees have decided not to answer substantive legal questions. Accordingly, without much substance to go on, Senators have had to make up ridiculous reasons to oppose nominees (hence the pedophilia nonsense and ... whatever Ted Cruz was doing).
squistion
Footballguy
In part, but I think for Bork the real issue was his participation as Solicitor General in the so called "Saturday Night Massacre" after he complied with Nixon’s request and dismissed Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. This was after Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus had both refused to fire Cox and resigned.
squistion
Footballguy
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1512481775162957830
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson:
"In my family, it took just one generation to go from segregation to the Supreme Court of the United States."
"It has taken 232 years and 115 prior appointments for a Black woman to be selected to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States — but we've made it. We've made it, all of us."
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson:
"In my family, it took just one generation to go from segregation to the Supreme Court of the United States."
"It has taken 232 years and 115 prior appointments for a Black woman to be selected to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States — but we've made it. We've made it, all of us."
She refers to herself as a woman, so you (and everyone else) can refer to her as a woman. You don't need the quotes.
PhillipPhoto
Footballguy
Look, I'm positive that she is the first black women appointment. It's the people that have conflated gender that begged the question. Have we checked in with Clarence Thomas and Thurgood Marshall to make sure they don't want to claim being the first black female?
Sounds silly doesn't it. But it's the exact argument you get from the he/him/she/her/they/them/binary/other pronoun crowd. In the LGBTQ thread you have posts of people making mistakes in their workplace with gender and how we refer to people. You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's either a fair question or not.
Let me rephrase, I don't want to pick on Ketanji anymore. Wiki lists the fact that 110 out of 115 justices have been men. How sure are we about that? Not a single one trans or binary or whatever?
Ruffrodys05
IBL Representative
I don't see how the answer to this is relevant or why it even matters. Even if five or ten of them were something other than men the disparity remains.
Mister CIA
Footballguy
And then?
PhillipPhoto
Footballguy
If it's an issue with disparity that you want to resolve, at some point you are going to need an accurate count.
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion
Footballguy
Philo Beddoe
Footballguy
She received more votes than Clarence Thomas the greatest SCJ ever.
squistion
Footballguy
Good thing she didn't receive less votes, one can only imagine your comments then.
Gopher State
Footballguy
Wow, surprised by your comments, this is one of the highlights of the Biden administration, why try to put a negative spin to it. Please try to be more positive In the future TIA.
Good thing she didn't receive less votes, one can only imagine your comments then.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sand
Footballguy
We hear so much FUD on the state of race, systematic discrimination, etc. This is a wonderful statement on the state of opportunity all citizens have in this great country.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
:(
I thought Puerto Ricans are US Citizens...yet they will not get SSI benefits?
https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1517144249262780418
The Supreme Court rules 8-1 that the government does not violate the equal protection clause by excluding Puerto Rico residents from Supplemental Security Income, a safety-net program for people who are blind, disabled, or at least 65. Sonia Sotomayor is the lone dissent.
I thought Puerto Ricans are US Citizens...yet they will not get SSI benefits?
https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1517144249262780418
The Supreme Court rules 8-1 that the government does not violate the equal protection clause by excluding Puerto Rico residents from Supplemental Security Income, a safety-net program for people who are blind, disabled, or at least 65. Sonia Sotomayor is the lone dissent.
The Z Machine
Footballguy
crackattack
Footballguy
I think they do, not positive, but I always thought the old saying " Taxation without representation" applies to Puerto Ricans.The Z Machine said:
Bogeys
Footballguy
Puerto Ricans can fix that easily by becoming a State or leave completely. Any benefits they don't get are directly related to their own decisions. I realize it is much more complicated, but it seems they always kind of wanted their cake...
the moops
Footballguy
Yes, it is much more complicated. Even if Puerto Rico votes in favor of becoming a state it requires the president and congress to approve
Desert_Power
Footballguy
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Exactly. I believe Statehood has been on the table for them for at least 4 times in recent history and they rejected it EVERY....SINGLE.....TIME.
The fake outrage over this is just that - fake outrage. Must've been a slow day.
Last edited by a moderator:
the moops
Footballguy
There have been 6 referendums. Twice they have voted for statehood. The most recent "yes" vote was in 2020.
On May 16, 2020, Governor Wanda Vázquez Garced announced that a referendum on Puerto Rico's statehood would be held in November of that year. For the first time in the territory's history, only one direct question was asked: "Should Puerto Rico be admitted immediately into the Union as a State?" Previous referendums presented multiple options such as independence or maintaining the current territorial status.
The referendum was held on November 3, 2020. There were 655,505 voted yes to statehood (52.52%) and 592,671 voted no to statehood (47.48%)
The Z Machine
Footballguy
Yeah, but it was only a slight majority, not overwhelming. Joining or leaving a union like that should when the vast majority favors it.
#Brexit
Sand
Footballguy
Much like Kelo, this was likely the correct legal decision, but something that Congress can step in and take care of.
Yeah - not so much. What we've seen is this insane push for DC to become a state, but the PR statehood push has gone silent. The difference is that DC is wildly Democratic and PR would likely be purple. Puerto Ricans tend to be much more religious/conservative and current congress figured it out. Instead they're pushing for DC statehood, despite the fact that the remedy there, like Virginia retrocession in 1847, is for the land to be given back to Maryland.
So what we see is a fanatical push for DC statehood despite a different logical solution and PR being ignored, though their statehood request should the one taken seriously. That's the current Congress for you - they don't want PR as a state.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
What fantastic push? I haven't heard a word about it since Biden became president. If they really wanted to make it happen, wouldn't now be the time?
rockaction
Footballguy
Kelo was not the correct legal decision. It was a total redefinition of the words "public use." That is what Kelo hinged on, and it was Justice Stevens and the liberals that redefined it. Sticking to stare decisis, four conservative members of the Court voted against the new definition.Sand said:
Bad decision. All-time bad activism.
Last edited by a moderator:
