Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


Burgold

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

 

There's still a glimmer of hope with Murkowski and Collins.....who always let me down.

I mean, really, you should know better by now, i don't even know why i bother. Regardless how any if us feel, GOP is not going to give up chance to lock up a conservative Supreme Court.  They've shown incapable of showing their morals matter more then their political beliefs 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

I mean, really, you should know better by now, i don't even know why i bother. Regardless how any if us feel, GOP is not going to give up chance to lock up a conservative Supreme Court.  They've shown incapable of showing their morals matter more then their political beliefs 

 

Look, it's this or be drunk at 11:27 AM on a Friday.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it really that important to GOP senators that they get someone with Kavanaugh's views on executive power? I don't understand why they wouldn't just nominate another Gorsuch clone otherwise. 

 

Confirming Kavanaugh is going to hurt them in the midterms. 

Edited by PF Chang
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, PF Chang said:

Is it really that important to GOP senators that they get someone with Kavanaugh's views on executive power? I don't understand why they wouldn't just nominate another Gorsuch clone otherwise. 

 

Confirming Kavanaugh is going to hurt them in the midterms. 

Any GOP who votes against will be primaried out.  As much as they fret about blue wave, most of the gop senators' seats are safe, so they aren't too worried about the general election fallout.  Once tea party established that biggest danger for incumbent gop is the primary, they have to toe the hard right line.

Edited by bearrock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, PF Chang said:

Is it really that important to GOP senators that they get someone with Kavanaugh's views on executive power? I don't understand why they wouldn't just nominate another Gorsuch clone otherwise. 

 

Confirming Kavanaugh is going to hurt them in the midterms. 

 

 Cause they believe not confirming would hurt them in the midterms. They also believed passing a tax cut for the rich would help them in the midterms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, PF Chang said:

Is it really that important to GOP senators that they get someone with Kavanaugh's views on executive power? I don't understand why they wouldn't just nominate another Gorsuch clone otherwise. 

 

It is important to Trump.  Trump's thinking is that Kavanaugh will protect him against any criminal cases brought against him.  He is supposed to be the only guy who has such a track record, from what I understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sidenote:

 

So my facebook feed is full of people giving high fives over the prospect of Roe V. Wade getting overturned. I am no legal scholar but would that in essence just take it back to making it a state-by-state decision not outlaw abortion?  And secondly, haven't most states hostile to abortion pretty much already gone out of their way to skirt the law anyway by passing all these crazy regulations for what a place that offers abortions need to have in order to operate? In other words they have made it so hard to get one in those states (some of them) already anyway?

 

Lastly, I am not sure if overturning Roe v. Wade is even a smart play for conservatives, based on the likely reaction it would generate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, redskins59 said:

 

It is important to Trump.  Trump's thinking is that Kavanaugh will protect him against any criminal cases brought against him.  He is supposed to be the only guy who has such a track record, from what I understand.

 

Well...except during the Clinton years.....he all of a sudden did a 180 on his opinion once a GOP President was elected.  So...you know....another example of being a partisan hack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, PF Chang said:

Is it really that important to GOP senators that they get someone with Kavanaugh's views on executive power? I don't understand why they wouldn't just nominate another Gorsuch clone otherwise. 

 

Confirming Kavanaugh is going to hurt them in the midterms. 

There are many theories as to why Brett over any other conservative nominee.

 

Maybe Kennedy demanded it as a condition of stepping down.

 

Maybe Trump wanted him because he most clearly stated support for Presidential power.

 

Maybe he is bought by creditors who own his debt and the GOP got fed up with people going moderate on the court after appointing them, so they got someone who is bought and paid for.

 

And there's also this case winding through the courts that would basically prevent states from charging people on things that they were pardoned of nationally.

 

That's a HUGE one, and they definitely want a good vote on that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NoCalMike said:

Sidenote:

 

So my facebook feed is full of people giving high fives over the prospect of Roe V. Wade getting overturned. I am no legal scholar but would that in essence just take it back to making it a state-by-state decision not outlaw abortion?  And secondly, haven't most states hostile to abortion pretty much already gone out of their way to skirt the law anyway by passing all these crazy regulations for what a place that offers abortions need to have in order to operate? In other words they have made it so hard to get one in those states (some of them) already anyway?

 

Lastly, I am not sure if overturning Roe v. Wade is even a smart play for conservatives, based on the likely reaction it would generate.

 

 

Honestly, who wants to live in a state where abortion is illegal?  Expect people migrating out of those states.  If you look at West Virginia, do they even have net immigration?    The other thing is, companies can put pressure on the state government to do the right thing (like in North Carolina where they passed the transgender law).  It's not over even if Roe v Wade gets overturned.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 Cause they believe not confirming would hurt them in the midterms. They also believed passing a tax cut for the rich would help them in the midterms.

 

At this point, agreed it would hurt them with the GOP base. But they had that list of 65 women ready, they knew something like this was coming. Just seems like you could nominate another Gorsuch in the first place and avoid this mess. Could be a combination of things from the list from the @DogofWar1 post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Sidenote:

 

So my facebook feed is full of people giving high fives over the prospect of Roe V. Wade getting overturned. I am no legal scholar but would that in essence just take it back to making it a state-by-state decision not outlaw abortion?  And secondly, haven't most states hostile to abortion pretty much already gone out of their way to skirt the law anyway by passing all these crazy regulations for what a place that offers abortions need to have in order to operate? In other words they have made it so hard to get one in those states (some of them) already anyway?

 

Lastly, I am not sure if overturning Roe v. Wade is even a smart play for conservatives, based on the likely reaction it would generate.

Roe being overturned will open the door to federal ban on abortion.  Moderate gop on this issue will want to expand state power under Casey to effectively leave it to states.  Hardcore opponents of Roe will want to explicitly overturn Roe and make federal ban the next fight.

 

Without working to solve issues that leads to people choosing abortion in the first place, abortion will still go on regardless of SCOTUS ruling.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dirty little secret is that Roe is not even the controlling authority at this point. It's Casey. I don't know if the court will ever overtly overturn Roe. I honestly think that if it ever came to that, Roberts with his weird view of stare decisis would leave it in place.

 

However, it's irrelevant. All you need to do is find your case by case restrictions reasonable under Casey.

 

In that case, Roe - by setting a federal precedent for abortion rights - could actually be turned into an albatross if Congress was ever able to pass strict federal restrictions - (nothing after the 1st trimester, parental consent, requirements for clinics that would bankrupt them).

 

I've always thought the long-term goal was to create California and New York as abortion destinations as some kind of safety valve while banning it everywhere else. Because rich Republicans need abortion providers for their mistresses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said:

I've always thought the long-term goal was to create California and New York as abortion destinations as some kind of safety valve while banning it everywhere else. Because rich Republicans need abortion providers for their mistresses.

 

OMG!  Maybe this is Trump's masterplan for draining the swamp!  Ban abortion and the rich powerful jackasses can't force their mistresses to get abortion!  Brilliant!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think Roe v Wade will be overturned ... but it will be further tweaked by states like Texas .. then the decisions will be decided by the hard right judges Trump has appointed to the Fed Dist and COA levels where they will side with the State restrictions. The Texas law requiring hospital admitting privileges which was overturned will now probably be affirmed or the SCOTUS will not decide to hear if fed co allows the law to stand.

 

Biggest impact imo will be voter laws, gerrymandering etc. .. SCOTUS will decline to hear about N Carolina or PA's gerrymandering but accept a review Md's gerrymandering. Uphold voter id laws, uphold laws that limit the number the voting stations in urban areas thereby making the lines long for dems in cities but not repubs in the countryside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clean up a weird question from B&G yesterday about whether Senator Blumenthal is gay, based on B&G's observation that he appears to have had some kind of cosmetic surgery, Senator Richard Blumenthal has been married since 1982, and he and his wife and have four children together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...