SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[LadySkinsFan]

Read this on FB with permission to copy.

 

 

“On next month's SCOTUS docket is Gamble vs US. No 17-646. This is what the rush is about. Yes, they want him to overturn Roe, yes they want him to drag us all back, but they need him seated for October to rule on that specific case. At stakes is the "separate sovereigns" exception to double jeopardy. If he (and the other 4 conservative judges) vote to overrule it, people given presidential pardons for federal crimes cannot be tried for that crime at the state level. Bam. Trump can pardon the lot of them and they have nothing to fear from state's attorneys.

 

We're all looking at the shiny coin and not seeing the bigger picture.”

[skinsmarydu]

My husband just did a little "victim shaming".

My response? 

"He put his hand over her mouth. Stay focused." ?

[AsburySkinsFan]

 

 

[bearrock]

20 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Read this on FB with permission to copy.

 

 

“On next month's SCOTUS docket is Gamble vs US. No 17-646. This is what the rush is about. Yes, they want him to overturn Roe, yes they want him to drag us all back, but they need him seated for October to rule on that specific case. At stakes is the "separate sovereigns" exception to double jeopardy. If he (and the other 4 conservative judges) vote to overrule it, people given presidential pardons for federal crimes cannot be tried for that crime at the state level. Bam. Trump can pardon the lot of them and they have nothing to fear from state's attorneys.

 

We're all looking at the shiny coin and not seeing the bigger picture.”

 

I do want to moderate this a bit.  Separate sovereignty doctrine has been called into question before by both Thomas and Ginsburg in 2016.  If I had to guess, I would say we see a clear majority, perhaps even unanimous court overturn it.  

 

ACLU and Cato filed a joint amicus brief to overturn as well, so there is a call to overturn across the political divide.  Also, New York, where most of Trump's state issues are already bars dual prosecution by state law (federal pardon means state prosecution is barred).  There are efforts to change the law, but it is currently the laws of the state.  And the latest SCOTUS docket for Oct 1 and Oct 29 doesn't have gamble oral arguments on it so we're not gonna see it until after midterms anyway.

[Llevron]

And I feel like Muller already has alot of the goods. Dont need the small guys as much as he used to. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

13 minutes ago, bearrock said:

 

I do want to moderate this a bit.  Separate sovereignty doctrine has been called into question before by both Thomas and Ginsburg in 2016.  If I had to guess, I would say we see a clear majority, perhaps even unanimous court overturn it.  

 

ACLU and Cato filed a joint amicus brief to overturn as well, so there is a call to overturn across the political divide.  Also, New York, where most of Trump's state issues are already bars dual prosecution by state law (federal pardon means state prosecution is barred).  There are efforts to change the law, but it is currently the laws of the state.  And the latest SCOTUS docket for Oct 1 and Oct 29 doesn't have gamble oral arguments on it so we're not gonna see it until after midterms anyway.

Thanks.

 

This is where I get so mad about "fake news" being peddled by people trying to advance their side.  (Not saying LSF was purposely doing that)

[AsburySkinsFan]

THIS is why 80% of women who have bedn sexually assaulted don’t come forward.

 

[bearrock]

13 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Thanks.

 

This is where I get so mad about "fake news" being peddled by people trying to advance their side.  (Not saying LSF was purposely doing that)

Yeah, I don't want to say anything bad about LSF at all.  I really respect her and she brings a lot of knowledge and perspective in her posts.  I do think Trump's personal interest/benefit has a big part in the nomination overall. But sometimes there can be widely shared overreaction on a given fact that can be hard to decipher without proper context.  And obviously I could be totally wrong too.  For all I know, maybe it's a close call and Gamble is behind the drive for a quick confirmation.  Just wanted to offer some additional food for thought.

[LadySkinsFan]

Okay, my personal opinion is that I am tired of being ruled by angry white men. 

 

 

[Spearfeather]

39 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Okay, my personal opinion is that I am tired of being ruled by angry white men. 

 

 

 

How would you feel about being ruled by angry Asian men ?

 

  

 

Or angry Hispanic women ?

 

[Jumbo]

definitely stick with spears 

 

 

[FanboyOf91]

He really does lie about everything.

[Llevron]

@Spearfeather you played yourself

[c slag]

2 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Okay, my personal opinion is that I am tired of being ruled by angry white men. 

 

 

The three stooges Larry, Moe and Curly

Edited September 29, 2018 by c slag

[dfitzo53]

Not that I necessarily disagree with the sentiment, but I can't help but roll my eyes at memes that take unflattering pictures of people and edit them to make them look unnaturally ghoulish.

[TheDoyler23]

2 minutes ago, dfitzo53 said:

Not that I necessarily disagree with the sentiment, but I can't help but roll my eyes at memes that take unflattering pictures of people and edit them to make them look unnaturally ghoulish.

 

I agree...except for thedonald. He looks ghoulish in his own twitter profile! 

[RedskinsFan44]

22 minutes ago, dfitzo53 said:

Not that I necessarily disagree with the sentiment, but I can't help but roll my eyes at memes that take unflattering pictures of people and edit them to make them look unnaturally ghoulish.

Well yeah, memes. A large part of the de-evolution of our society (I liked it because I thought it captured something real).

 

I think Trump paved the way for much of this, but Clarence Thomas's defense contained a lot of indignant anger too.

 

Edit: I take it back, Thomas did waaaaayyyy better at maintaining a dignified manner:
 

 

Edited September 29, 2018 by RedskinsFan44

[Jumbo]

8 minutes ago, dfitzo53 said:

Not that I necessarily disagree with the sentiment, but I can't help but roll my eyes at memes that take unflattering pictures of people and edit them to make them look unnaturally ghoulish.

 

 

it's a trend i think has very limited value, when anybody can have an isolated frame where they look awful, and then when you place the isolation in backgrounds with the kind of bizarro treatments you see more on rigthwing stuff/videos where it looks like they're going for a cross between rob zombie and fellini  for "atmosphere" (my call is a few years back they started copying their donor friend Pecker's covers of the nat'l enquirer) then you really dilute the times they might have value...

 

that said, even the split-second facial expressions people make count in analysis, but they're evaluated from specific perspectives, only to appropriate/reasonable degree, and in proper context

 

which is not how people on the intent do it

 

i'll say this---were i to have to go by a single video presentation, what i saw in kavanaugh, bottom line, was pretty negative stuff and it caught me off-guard to see him make the choices he did and emote as he did, even obviously allowing for the high tensions of the situation....but a bigger data point to his "stability" would be is that so far with what is known on the public record, it appears he has been a highly functional and professionally successful judge for many years

[Larry]

17 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

i'll say this---were i to have to go by a single video presentation, 

 

Bill Frist can. ?

Edited September 29, 2018 by Larry

[Springfield]

The American Bar Association had concerns about Kavanaugh 12 years ago. Republicans dismissed those, too.

 

Quote

History repeated itself. At least it had a spell of deja vu when the American Bar Association released an extraordinary statement at a crucial moment that raised concerns about Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh’s nomination to a powerful judicial position — just as it had done 12 years earlier.

Late Thursday evening, the ABA called for an FBI investigation into sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh before the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on his Supreme Court nomination. The warning was all the more remarkable, because just hours earlier, Kavanaugh and his Republican defenders had cited the ABA’s previously glowing endorsement of the nominee — “the gold standard,” as one leading Republican put it.

Flash back to the mid-2000s and another fight in the Senate over Kavanaugh’s nomination to a federal court:

Democrats for three years had been blocking President George W. Bush’s 2003 nomination of Kavanaugh to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. They argued he was biased, as shown by his work as a lawyer for Bush’s presidential campaign, for an independent counsel’s investigation into President Bill Clinton and for other conservative causes.

 

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Larry]

However, I have trouble with the notion of "unfit for Supreme Court because he drank a lot in college". 

[Spearfeather]

2 hours ago, Jumbo said:

definitely stick with spears 

 

 

 

I have to admit my last picture doesn't look altogether unappealing.

[Hersh]

15 minutes ago, Larry said:

However, I have trouble with the notion of "unfit for Supreme Court because he drank a lot in college". 

 

Nobody does. What makes him unfit is that he's lying about it.