Larry Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 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 Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 So then is Blackburn in favor of outlawing dark money across the board? Something tells me she isn't. Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 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. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
visionary Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 6 minutes ago, NoCalMike said: So then is Blackburn in favor of outlawing dark money across the board? Something tells me she isn't. Just from liberal jews. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 Someone should ask her about funding for the stem cell research that led do the development of the treatments used to keep Trump alive. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
skinsmarydu Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 IT'S NOT A HYPOTHETICAL!! It occurs! Now, answer the ****in question!! 1 Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 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
skinsmarydu Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 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. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 (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 October 13, 2020 by NoCalMike Link to post Share on other sites
skinsmarydu Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 I had to pee & didn't pause. I'm just pissed off. Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 Hey, dummy GOP members. Maybe the answer is not tying your healthcare to your employer in the first place. Ever think of that?! 2 3 Link to post Share on other sites
visionary Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 (edited) Edited October 13, 2020 by visionary Link to post Share on other sites
visionary Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 courts just taking turns massaging Trump's backside now. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
spjunkies Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 Can Biden open a new census window after he takes office? Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 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 Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 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. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites
bearrock Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 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. Link to post Share on other sites
tshile Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 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.) 1 Link to post Share on other sites
tshile Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 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. 1 Link to post Share on other sites
NoCalMike Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 (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 October 13, 2020 by NoCalMike 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites
skinsmarydu Posted October 13, 2020 Share Posted October 13, 2020 Corey Booker can come & get it. Just like Barack...too much class to even be real. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now