Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

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


Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

There's a degree for Home Ec?  Are you ****in' ****tin' me? 

I can cook, couldn't sew to save my life though. Wasn't from lack of trying, just couldn't get the hang of it. Oh my God! We're talking about Home Ec and SCOTUS hearings, look what we've been reduced too!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, skinsmarydu said:

There's a degree for Home Ec?  Are you ****in' ****tin' me? 

 

B.S. in Home Economics, Mississippi State University, 1974.

 

(Edit:    Her, not me.)

Edited by Dan T.
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest after Tuesday's questioning I thought ACB did really well and while I would never want to see her on the court, I was a little less apprehensive. Then came today (Wednesday) and all the stuff she kept dancing around and refusing to address had me doing a 180, and thinking, "Nope, she is probably going to be as bad as the alarmists are saying"

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, skinsmarydu said:

I'm glad you cleared that one point up, but she was born in '72.  

 

That was about Marsha Blackburn, not Amy Coney Barrett.

 

Barrett graduated from Rhodes College in Memphis Tennessee with a degree in English and French minor, then from Notre Dame Law School.

 

Marsha Blackburn got the home ec degree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

To be honest after Tuesday's questioning I thought ACB did really well and while I would never want to see her on the court, I was a little less apprehensive. Then came today (Wednesday) and all the stuff she kept dancing around and refusing to address had me doing a 180, and thinking, "Nope, she is probably going to be as bad as the alarmists are saying"

 

She clearly has the knowledge and the background to serve.  There is no legal or procedural way for Democrats to stop her appointment. 

 

The lesson Democrats need to learn from this is to NEVER AGAIN trust a word that comes out of the mouths of Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, and whomever else pontificated with self-righteousness about how wrong it would be to consider Merrick Garland's nomination in an election year.  They debased themselves in return for seating Amy Coney Barrett by showing their word is worthless.  Make them pay for that. Keep in mind their hypocrisy always, and remind them of it at every opportunity. Let them know as as they negotiate with them on matters that there is no trust between them. 

 

With any luck, voters will do that at the ballot box.

Edited by Dan T.
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

 

That was about Marsha Blackburn, not Amy Coney Barrett.

 

Barrett graduated from Rhodes College in Memphis Tennessee with a degree in English and French minor, then from Notre Dame Law School.

 

Marsha Blackburn got the home ec degree.

I figured that's what you meant :ols: because I knew Barrett's stuff, but I swear...if you had a degree that lofty, it would be admirable :cheers:

Now if we can just get Blackburn back home...

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, NoCalMike said:

To be honest after Tuesday's questioning I thought ACB did really well and while I would never want to see her on the court, I was a little less apprehensive. Then came today (Wednesday) and all the stuff she kept dancing around and refusing to address had me doing a 180, and thinking, "Nope, she is probably going to be as bad as the alarmists are saying"

Yeah, that's my impression as well.

 

She's obviously very intelligent and as there are no particular qualifications for Supreme Court appointments, qualified. 

 

I'm not all that bent she's conservative. She'll have very different opinions than me, but...that's politics. What I'm of two minds on is her weasel war dance around simple questions. Not sure if she's obfuscating to avoid letting on she's 101% locked on the neo-con originalism (the term makes my eyes roll) world view.

Or she's dodging because she knows she'll have to be twisting like a pretzel to support Trump & Co's absurd legal actions post-elect.

Or, she doesn't want to answer questions from people she considers her inferiors.

Or, she wants to honestly leave her options open. 

Or, she's just lying. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure it's a great look for Dems to punish Feinstein for getting along with Republicans and being nice to them.  It would feed the 'Dems are lurching to the left' storyline.  Then again it hurts Dems with left leaning voters who think both parties are the same or Dems are too cozy, to have a leading member of the judiciary committee act like this in response to recent days' events.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by visionary
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Admit I didn't watch any of this one.  Who could beat the drama of Kavanaugh?  I will say this...ACB would have been a lot more interesting if she had calendars about "boofing" with Squee and Donkey Dong Doug.

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was Jaime Harrison I would be running ads every day showing Graham saying he wouldn’t push a nominee through in the last 6 months before an election And saying “hold the tape.”   Then put up other things he’s lied about and flat out call him a liar and a hypocrite, then say to his constituents that if he can’t be trusted to keep his word he can’t be trusted to do right by the people of South Carolina.  Maybe add one with a tag saying “What else has he lied to us about?”

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There should also be age limits to serve on the Hill. 70 years old is plenty.

 

Still doesn't change a lot here. From a Dem perspective. I'd say this all depends on if the confirmation goes through as a basis on what happens next IF they win the WH and take the Senate.

 

Personally, my opinion has changed that even if they don't force her through. I'd still grow it to 11 and add 3 more. then I'd expand the next level down and pack the **** out of that too. **** it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a time and place to make nice with the republicans.  At the end of ACB's hearing where they affirmed the worst suspicions about self serving principle-less politicians is not one of them.  Maybe Feinstein thinks this is all faux outrage and just a political sideshow, but some of us in the country think it's a travesty and just another step in the direction of further politicization of the judiciary.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

There should also be age limits to serve on the Hill. 70 years old is plenty.

 

Still doesn't change a lot here. From a Dem perspective. I'd say this all depends on if the confirmation goes through as a basis on what happens next IF they win the WH and take the Senate.

 

Personally, my opinion has changed that even if they don't force her through. I'd still grow it to 11 and add 3 more. then I'd expand the next level down and pack the **** out of that too. **** it.


Disagree on age limits. Voters are electing to send people at these ages back and some are super sharp. We need to get away from thinking age matters and focus  on ideas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly think that Feinstein meant praise of Graham as a direct slap to Grassley who was the Senate Judiciary Chair for Kavvanaugh and Gorsich.

 

To be fair, the Senate has traditionally been collegial and Feinstein and Graham have worked together awhile.  If he is voted out, this would be the final major action he takes with Feinstein.  

 

We all understand that this is politics, right?  Does it have to be so scorched earthy?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Hersh said:


Disagree on age limits. Voters are electing to send people at these ages back and some are super sharp. We need to get away from thinking age matters and focus  on ideas.

 

I don't want a 75 year old as the deciding vote for a generation of people 50 years younger than them. To be in the Senate you have to be over 30. Not 18. Not 25 like the House. 30! There is nothing wrong with setting a ceiling here. McConnell is almost 80. Pelosi IS 80. Feinstein is almost 90. So is Grassley. That's unacceptable IMO.  I don't want any of them deciding on lifetime appointments of Judges who they will be long gone for most of that appointment. An 87 year old deciding who gets to be on the Supreme Court for decades? Ridiculous. 

Edited by @SkinsGoldPants
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

 

I don't want a 75 year old as the deciding vote for a generation of people 50 years younger than them. To be in the Senate you have to be over 30. Not 18. Not 25 like the House. 30! There is nothing wrong with setting a ceiling here. McConnell is almost 80. Pelosi IS 80. Feinstein is almost 90. So is Grassley. That's unacceptable IMO.  I don't want any of them deciding on lifetime appointments of Judges who they will be long gone for most of that appointment. An 87 year old deciding who gets to be on the Supreme Court for decades? Ridiculous. 

 

Were the old Democrats wrong in voting for Obama nominees? The issue isn't the age of those elected, but that these are lifetime appointments. We should definitely get rid of all lifetime appointments for judges on all levels. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Hersh said:

 

Were the old Democrats wrong in voting for Obama nominees? The issue isn't the age of those elected, but that these are lifetime appointments. We should definitely get rid of all lifetime appointments for judges on all levels. 

 

YES. I believe even if the Nominees from Obama who are higher quality.......it's not the point. I believe it's wrong that they are making those decisions. Dem, Repub, Bull-Moose, Green, whatever. 

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...