Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

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

Burgold

By Burgold,
in The Tailgate

 Share Followers 4

Recommended Posts

Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted

I mean, some of the things in the "originalist = BS" argument are BS themselves.  

 

No, the framers didn't want women to vote.  But we had an Amendment that fixed that.  I'm willing to pretend that even a so-called "originalist" won;t try to carry their lie far enough to invalidate constitutional amendments.  (Although I can easily see them eliminating the 14th.)  

 

But there's no CA that says women are entitled to consideration for jobs that weren't intended for women.  

 

(There was one proposed.  But it was defeated.  By guess which Party?)  

Link to post
Share on other sites
NoCalMike

NoCalMike

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Larry said:

I mean, some of the things in the "originalist = BS" argument are BS themselves.  

 

No, the framers didn't want women to vote.  But we had an Amendment that fixed that.  I'm willing to pretend that even a so-called "originalist" won;t try to carry their lie far enough to invalidate constitutional amendments.  (Although I can easily see them eliminating the 14th.)  

 

But there's no CA that says women are entitled to consideration for jobs that weren't intended for women.  

 

(There was one proposed.  But it was defeated.  By guess which Party?)  

 

Right but I think that is sort of the point.  "I am an originalist" suddenly goes out the window when the original version of the constitution doesn't work in their favor or arguments.  It is a prop argument usually used to obstruct progress and/or when the country is adapting and changing. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
NoCalMike

NoCalMike

Posted
Posted

Can someone more experienced in these hearings explain to me why she is not answering questions on past cases.  I can understand her saying that if the case was brought back to Supreme Court with new arguments being made then she would have to look into it, but why is she not even willing to discuss her opinions on how past cases were decided.  For all I know it might be normal for every nominee to do this. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
NoCalMike

NoCalMike

Posted
Posted (edited)

What the hell is Tillis ranting about and what is it's relevance to anything? When he says "behind the curtain" is he literally just pulling random tweets from nobodies and submitting them for the record as if that is any elected officials words?

6 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

AND IF YOU CAN'T VOTE AFTER HAVING A FELONY RECORD FOR SELLING SHOE INSOLES (DUMB ****), YOU CAN'T HAVE A GUN, I'M LOSING IT. 

 

Yeah I thought the double speak on that was very odd if not downright baffling. 

 

Was Tillis just trying to compare a late term abortion due to medical emergency/life of the mother being in danger to a baby being born a few weeks premature?  WTF

Edited by NoCalMike
Link to post
Share on other sites
NoCalMike

NoCalMike

Posted
Posted

I noticed when ACB apologized for possibly using an offensive term "preference" she didn't also amend her actual statement to say she meant Orientation, nor did she suggest in that moment that she agrees it is not a preference/choice.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted

Re: super precedence

I thought it was quite clear what she was saying. I enjoy the mental gymnastics everyone gets into when RvW comes up. 
 

she said her use of super precedence means it’s settled in everyone’s mind and there is no legitimate push to change it. Ie: there is no legitimate pushing for schools to be segregated again. 
 

RvW is hardly settled. Every single time a nominee is put forth by the right it’s all we ever ****ing hear about. Is how they’re going to be the person that over turns RvW. I mean god damn it’s all you people talk about every single time. 
 

im not saying it’s a good opinion. And I certainly have no idea how it rates in a legal sense. And honestly I’ve never heard of super precedent until now, and maybe that’s my fault. 
 

But following her opinion is hardly difficult. Klobuchar looked stupid there. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, bearrock said:

Oh so separate but equal is not on the table for reversal until enough white supremacists voice objection to it.  Nice to know where GOP might be heading next.

Yeah I mean attack the logic all day long. No problem there. 
 

it’s the pretending to not be able to follow it that makes her look stupid. It’s not hard to follow. So get after her for it and stop pretending to be confused. 
 

(or don’t since it doesn’t matter anyways.)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
tshile

tshile

Posted
Posted

Also I think precedence is stupid as an end all be all. 
 

yes you should absolutely factor in that the court has ruled on the subject before. 
 

it should not be a blanket statement that the previous ruling is somehow set in stone and trumps everything else. 
 

the general idea of what’s “right” for the people, with respect to the intent of our constitution/BoR/ammendments, should be the overarching guiding principal. Not some notion that because it was ruled on 40 years ago we’re always beholden to it. A lot changes over time. Give me a break.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
NoCalMike

NoCalMike

Posted
Posted (edited)

ACB still dancing around the preference vs orientation question.  She hasn't yet come out an acknowledged it as an orientation. We don't need another apology for the term preference being used.  For all we know it was just a slip of the tongue or someone using a more familiar term with no ill intent, it happens, fair enough, however she was given ample opportunity to come out and just say she sees it as an orientation, which she did not do.  Now, it may seem petty in the context of the conversation but not acknowledging it as orientation aka being born that way etc etc.....can have several ramifications when arguing future LGTBQ+ cases in front of the court.

Edited by NoCalMike
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
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
 Share
Followers 4
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...