Page 8 of 59 FirstFirst ...
6
7
8
9
10
18
58
... LastLast
  1. #141
    Merely a Setback Sunseeker's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    In the state of Denial.
    Posts
    27,037
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    I actually wonder what will happen if Biden is a clear-enough winner of this election, and Trump refuses to concede, and takes a legal battle to SCOTUS and wins, and they install him as President.

    I mean, does the UN then kick the U.S. off the Security Council, and sanction the country?

    I know we've already chilled out on NATO, but do we get kicked out of NATO too?

    It's scary, but that's what SHOULD happen if the above scenario plays out. And in 4 years, Trump would've managed to make the U.S. a global pariah.

    - - - Updated - - -



    It's already happening.

    Dems have a Catholic Speaker of the House and Presidential Candidate, and Evangelicals on the Far Right usually can't stand Roman Catholics, but this Catholic happens to be in an Opus Dei-level cult of Catholicism where it's okay, so now they're pearl clutching anyone who dares criticize that as "persecuting her for her religion!"
    I'm more interested if the American people will have the will to actually revolt.
    Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.

    Just, be kind.

  2. #142
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    I actually wonder what will happen if Biden is a clear-enough winner of this election, and Trump refuses to concede, and takes a legal battle to SCOTUS and wins, and they install him as President.
    If Biden is the "clear winner" there would be nothing for Trump to challenge.

    What would the supreme court rule on? That there must be recounts? That all the ballots in Biden's favor should be thrown out?


    If there is a situation where Trump loses and yet is installed as president regardless, the response would have to come from within the US itself...not from international bodies.

  3. #143
    Quote Originally Posted by Josuke View Post
    Can't really be a "clear winner" when there is blatant cheating.
    There can easily be if, despite all the cheating, he still can't muster enough votes to take swing states.

  4. #144
    Reminds me of the church my grandparents went to for their entire lives. Women weren't allowed to have any kind of position within church or at home that could potentially give them authority over males. The only exception was if the male was a kid. Once you became a teenager then you were, by default, the decision maker in any situation where it was just you (a male) and the rest women. I had to on many occasions take the lead even though there were women present that were multiple decades older.

    I'll never forget how weird it was to be in a situation where either a prayer need to be said or something else and have all the women look at me and wait. I loved my grandparents, but that was some crazy backwards shit.

    I have to give the church credit, though, for actually following the bible. It teaches that women aren't allowed to have authority over men. That they should be silent and obey. Most christians and churches obviously ignore that.
    Last edited by Blur4stuff; 2020-09-27 at 05:19 AM.

  5. #145
    The Insane Masark's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    17,969
    Quote Originally Posted by s_bushido View Post
    If Biden is the "clear winner" there would be nothing for Trump to challenge.

    What would the supreme court rule on? That there must be recounts? That all the ballots in Biden's favor should be thrown out?
    The constitution guarantees a Republican government, therefore the Democratic party is unconstitutional.

    Warning : Above post may contain snark and/or sarcasm. Try reparsing with the /s argument before replying.
    What the world has learned is that America is never more than one election away from losing its goddamned mind
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Tayler
    Political conservatism is just atavism with extra syllables and a necktie.
    Me on Elite : Dangerous | My WoW characters

  6. #146
    Merely a Setback Adam Jensen's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sarif Industries, Detroit
    Posts
    29,063
    Can someone explain to me why an impeached clown who lost the popular vote, and only won the EC by a few 10,000 votes, should get THREE MOTHER FUCKING SUPREME COURT JUSTICES?

    /rant off

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Xyonai View Post
    Considering the current political climate, I don't doubt that she'll be in the Supreme Court by Early November.

    Sure Mitch can't spare the time too actually vote on a COVID relief bill but he'll sure as shit get his act together to ratfuck our courts for the next couple decades.
    I'm surprised she wasn't seated by an emergency session tonight.
    Putin khuliyo

  7. #147
    Old God Captain N's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    New Resident of Emerald City
    Posts
    10,933
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Jensen View Post
    Can someone explain to me why an impeached clown who lost the popular vote, and only won the EC by a few 10,000 votes, should get THREE MOTHER FUCKING SUPREME COURT JUSTICES?

    /rant off
    Can't say much for Gorsuch but Kavanaugh is definitely on there to because someone mysteriously paid all of his debts who may need a favor at some point. Coney Barrett is something for Trump to point at and say "See I do respect women" that his Cult will gobble up even though she's just there to push for discrimination under the guise of Religious Freedom.
    “You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.”― Malcolm X

    I watch them fight and die in the name of freedom. They speak of liberty and justice, but for whom? -Ratonhnhaké:ton (Connor Kenway)

  8. #148
    Merely a Setback Adam Jensen's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sarif Industries, Detroit
    Posts
    29,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeth Hawkins View Post
    I do not believe that being religious should disqualify anyone from a job.

    I am atheistic, if it matters.
    Being religious? No.

    Using that religion to tell other people what to do? Yes.

    Barack Obama was religious, went to church . . . and never brought it into politics.

    Joe Biden is a Catholic, goes to church, hasn't brought it into politics

    Don't push your religious values on me, unless there's an equal secular equivalence to it (thou shalt not kill is a pretty good ethics rule after all.) If your position cannot be argued without invoking some deity or superstition, then stfu and sit down.
    Putin khuliyo

  9. #149
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Jensen View Post
    Being religious? No.

    Using that religion to tell other people what to do? Yes.
    You're talking about people who convinced themselves that enforcing their beliefs on others is part and parcel of "being religious." It's why they lost their minds over the gay rights stuff...because they simply couldn't comprehend that someone else doing something that supposedly goes against their beliefs has no effect on their lives whatsoever.

  10. #150
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,523
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeth Hawkins View Post
    I do not believe that being religious should disqualify anyone from a job.

    I am atheistic, if it matters.
    The issue isn't whether a nominee is religious or not - it's the effect that religion has on their lives and professional career. Some of the quotes from Barrett and the covenants of People of Praise are worth further investigation.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Jensen View Post
    Can someone explain to me why an impeached clown who lost the popular vote, and only won the EC by a few 10,000 votes, should get THREE MOTHER FUCKING SUPREME COURT JUSTICES?

    /rant off
    Another important point for the justification of expanding the court. I noticed that the Dems were discussing it "being on the table" when McTrump first announced they would replace Justice Ginsberg, and now that talk has disappeared. I hope that's because the Dems are serious about it, and don't want that particular topic to distract from the Barrett confirmation.

  11. #151
    Merely a Setback Adam Jensen's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sarif Industries, Detroit
    Posts
    29,063
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    The issue isn't whether a nominee is religious or not - it's the effect that religion has on their lives and professional career. Some of the quotes from Barrett and the covenants of People of Praise are worth further investigation.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Another important point for the justification of expanding the court. I noticed that the Dems were discussing it "being on the table" when McTrump first announced they would replace Justice Ginsberg, and now that talk has disappeared. I hope that's because the Dems are serious about it, and don't want that particular topic to distract from the Barrett confirmation.
    I read one strategy of 15 judges, where 9 get randomly picked to hear a case. I don't necessarily agree or disagree, it's just one thing I read. I can't find that article, but I found another one by Brookings filled with different proposals.

    https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020...supreme-court/

    I do agree with term limits. 10 years. Then they're done. No more SCOTUS. Maybe go back to lower courts, but no longer eligible to serve on SCOTUS.

    It does need to change because Brookings is right. There shouldn't be an apocalyptic ideological fight every time a SCOTUS judge retires/dies.
    Putin khuliyo

  12. #152
    The Undying
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    34,523
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Jensen View Post
    I read one strategy of 15 judges, where 9 get randomly picked to hear a case. I don't necessarily agree or disagree, it's just one thing I read. I can't find that article, but I found another one by Brookings filled with different proposals.

    https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020...supreme-court/

    I do agree with term limits. 10 years. Then they're done. No more SCOTUS. Maybe go back to lower courts, but no longer eligible to serve on SCOTUS.

    It does need to change because Brookings is right. There shouldn't be an apocalyptic ideological fight every time a SCOTUS judge retires/dies.
    I'm not sure about the randomly picked judges to hear a case...but I like the 15 judge number. After reading the article offering proposals that reflect the growing population, a larger increase has been part of my ideal situation.

    Term limits would be interesting - it would certainly change the aptly named apocalyptic ideological fight that happens each time.

    Interestingly - increasing the size of SCOTUS just takes House/Senate majority vote and the President to sign. Changing judges to term limits takes a Constitutional Amendment.

    If the Democrats get the opportunity to increase SCOTUS, they could make it 15+, making the balance 11-6 slanting liberal. And choose those judges in the same age and ideology as Barrett/Kavanaugh, it would force the GOP to the table in negotiating that Amendment.

  13. #153
    Merely a Setback PACOX's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    26,247
    Quote Originally Posted by Thelxi View Post
    My impression of her is that she is both ambitious and slightly crazy. Showing up multiple times to be vetted by Trump in person at the WH days after RBG died, shows you how committed and motivated she is politically. Then you look at her endorsements and previous statements, and that's all you really need to understand her.

    But it's clearly and directly a pander to single issue religious voters, locking in a vote that might've started to loosen up a bit lately. It's another short-term political gain for Trump that might very well backfire, especially if Barrett lives up to her reputation and we basically have a Michelle Bachman on the court.
    There's no such thing as an unambitious judge. She is the embodiment of right-wing memes.

    Can someone explain to someone who isn't happy with either party why expanding the courts would be a good thing. Anyone who knows a thing or two about polisci and sociology knows it will only make judges more prone to partisanship, reducing the integrity of the court. It's one thing for a judge to lean to the left or the right, it's a whole different ball game when they become partisan. That's dangerous, see the mess we call Congress and how party is placed before country, even personal professional opinions.
    Last edited by PACOX; 2020-09-27 at 07:19 AM.

    Resident Cosplay Progressive

  14. #154
    Quote Originally Posted by Zan15 View Post
    but but they get to keep their gunz and get bigger gunz with more bigger loud noises....who needs all those other rights when you got big gunz!

    - - - Updated - - -

    sad part is Trump does not even support the anti-abortion stance.
    He most likley does not even give a shit one way or another since it has no personal impact on him.
    he just needs to say that to get elected.

    he also has enough money to send his daughter and granddaughter to another country to get an abortion if they need one. unlike most of the country who will have no choice.
    Did you know that even if Roe vs Wade was repealed tomorrow, that doesn't actually make abortion illegal right? The issue just goes back to the individual states. Blue states can still have as many abortions as they want, and red states would still have some restrictions. If you live in a blue state essentially nothing changes, if you live in a red state and want an abortion then I have some good news. You can use this magical device that can transport you across another state in a matter of hours, its called a car.

    Did you know Antonin Scalia was a roman catholic? A man of the faith. He was able to keep his personal faith separate from the bench, especially whenever there was a death penalty case in front of him. As you may or may not be aware, Catholics generally oppose the death penalty. https://www.usccb.org/resources/chur...nalty-position

  15. #155
    The Insane Masark's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    17,969
    Quote Originally Posted by announced View Post
    Did you know that even if Roe vs Wade was repealed tomorrow, that doesn't actually make abortion illegal right? The issue just goes back to the individual states. Blue states can still have as many abortions as they want, and red states would still have some restrictions. If you live in a blue state essentially nothing changes, if you live in a red state and want an abortion then I have some good news. You can use this magical device that can transport you across another state in a matter of hours, its called a car.
    1. That depends on how they make their ruling. They could easily make a "fetus is people, so abortion is murder" ruling if they have enough wackadoodle judges to form a majority.

    2. You seem to have a completely inadequate knowledge of geography, state politics, and travel speeds. Additionally, it presumes that the woman in question owns a car and can also take the multiple days off that such a trip would require.

    Warning : Above post may contain snark and/or sarcasm. Try reparsing with the /s argument before replying.
    What the world has learned is that America is never more than one election away from losing its goddamned mind
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Tayler
    Political conservatism is just atavism with extra syllables and a necktie.
    Me on Elite : Dangerous | My WoW characters

  16. #156
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,305
    Quote Originally Posted by announced View Post
    Did you know that even if Roe vs Wade was repealed tomorrow, that doesn't actually make abortion illegal right? The issue just goes back to the individual states. Blue states can still have as many abortions as they want, and red states would still have some restrictions. If you live in a blue state essentially nothing changes, if you live in a red state and want an abortion then I have some good news. You can use this magical device that can transport you across another state in a matter of hours, its called a car.
    Why can’t the same apply to gun sales, by that metric?

    Did you know Antonin Scalia was a roman catholic? A man of the faith. He was able to keep his personal faith separate from the bench, especially whenever there was a death penalty case in front of him. As you may or may not be aware, Catholics generally oppose the death penalty. https://www.usccb.org/resources/chur...nalty-position
    He was also a shitty justice that constantly invented principles to justify his biases, him being Catholic is not a defense of Justice Serena Joy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  17. #157
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Barrett is going to get confirmed. And she will be unremovable (fed judges must be impeached - i.e. 2/3's vote of Senate).
    She will wind back the law in almost every category of social justice, in some cases all the to the 1930's.

    Barrett is walking through almost every door Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg opened, and when Barrett arrives at her final destination, she will close them all.

    If was are lucky enough to have a Biden administration with a Blue Senate, we must pack the court - significantly. 19-27 at least.
    Look, I get that this sucks, but imagine this country in 100 years if packing the court becomes the norm. Will we have a supreme court with 500 justices? Win elections, impeach judges. Stop changing the rules if you keep losing the game.

    By the way. RBG was a fantastic woman, and one of my role models. The world needs a million more women just like her. But she wasn't alone in opening doors. And, she wasn't the first. Sandra Day O'Connor was the first woman in the supreme court. A republican opened that door first. Although, O'Connor is nothing like Barrett. I only wish it was someone like O'Connor being nominated, and not a nutjob. I'm tired of these freedoms for me but not for thee politicians.
    Quote Originally Posted by blobbydan View Post
    We're all doomed. Let these retards shuffle the chairs on the titanic. They can die in a safe space if they want to... Whatever. What a miserable joke this life is. I can't wait until it's all finally over and I can return to the sweet oblivion of the void.

  18. #158
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Aelia Capitolina
    Posts
    59,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Fincayra View Post
    Look, I get that this sucks, but imagine this country in 100 years if packing the court becomes the norm. Will we have a supreme court with 500 justices? Win elections, impeach judges. Stop changing the rules if you keep losing the game.
    Man it's almost as if a system of government invented by white slaveowners more than two centuries ago might need revision.

    That's the point. If the judicial system as it stands cannot function equitably without ridiculous amounts of packing then that's a surefire sign said system is not a good one.
    Quote Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
    The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk and understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you. And our governments are very much the same.

  19. #159
    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    There's no such thing as an unambitious judge. She is the embodiment of right-wing memes.

    Can someone explain to someone who isn't happy with either party why expanding the courts would be a good thing. Anyone who knows a thing or two about polisci and sociology knows it will only make judges more prone to partisanship, reducing the integrity of the court. It's one thing for a judge to lean to the left or the right, it's a whole different ball game when they become partisan. That's dangerous, see the mess we call Congress and how party is placed before country, even personal professional opinions.
    There have been some ideas floating around of expanding the court in order to depoliticize it. Buttigieg for example proposed to split the court into three parts: two partisan and one bipartisan. So by adding four bipartisan justices, you'd have 12. Ideas like these will become more attractive soon when the court is forced to rear its political head. Up until now it's mostly functioned on good faith and covert politics, but there is no escaping the apocalypse with Barrett on the court and the election ahead.

    Of course Trump and McConnell have now given Democrats free reign to expand their own power in response to the GOP's greed, instead of trying to depoliticize it, so for now the best thing that will come out of an expansion is liberal rulings, which are in most people's interests anyway. At least abortion rights will be secured, LGBT rights will be secured if not expanded, and likely some racial issues that make it up there will see liberal resolutions. It will also make it much easier for democrats to install some serious guardrails that prevent another populist fiasco like the one we are living in now.

  20. #160
    Quote Originally Posted by postman1782 View Post
    She is batshit insane, and NO ONE should pick this spot. Until after the inauguration of Biden or if Trump wins the election.
    She even said that herself during the Garland fiasco.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •