Kevin de Leon would have been a significant improvement. Boomer/petit bourgeoises vote still strong in CA, though.
edit: that's autocorrect's spelling of 'bourgeoisie', not mine. Is that... more than one leisure class?
Bougie isn’t a leisure class. It’s more like a management class. Shop owners, bankers, etc. leisure class would have been the aristocracy
But there was only one. Spelling might be different for various translation issues
At this point Karen drinking her Starbucks in her Rangd Rover while her husband is on a Zoom meeting with their Beijing and Paris clients is bougie.
Figure in rough estimates $200k - 500k annual households fall into that category adjusted for cost of living. Don't fly private jets but would never fly coach.
If you are low c-class in a small corp, regional / branch manager, a director, etc. High level managerial doctors and academics probably count too.
Kevin de Leon would have been a significant improvement. Boomer/petit bourgeoises vote still strong in CA, though.
edit: that's autocorrect's spelling of 'bourgeoisie', not mine. Is that... more than one leisure class?
I have a friend who's left of me in CA and she ended up voting for DiFi because she thought Leon sucked so much. Next time there will be a number of strong candidates and she should finally freaking retire at 91.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
The evidence behind global warming is not much different than the first 2 so by not putting it in the same category she implies she doesn’t believe in it, or that it hasn’t been established.
Like imagine if as a hypothetical she gave the same response to “does smoking cause cancer?”
The evidence behind global warming is not much different than the first 2 so by not putting it in the same category she implies she doesn’t believe in it, or that it hasn’t been established.
Like imagine if as a hypothetical she gave the same response to “does smoking cause cancer?”
Except it's not a "trap" in any political sense, because the right has politicized science to the point where 99% of the scientific community agreeing on something doesn't matter. 40% of the country thinks science is a liberal conspiracy, so they're unswayed.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
The evidence behind global warming is not much different than the first 2 so by not putting it in the same category she implies she doesn’t believe in it, or that it hasn’t been established.
Like imagine if as a hypothetical she gave the same response to “does smoking cause cancer?”
Except it's not a "trap" in any political sense, because the right has politicized science to the point where 99% of the scientific community agreeing on something doesn't matter. 40% of the country thinks science is a liberal conspiracy, so they're unswayed.
It was a pretty good trap. The 'go for the throat' option would have been.
"Does smoking cause cancer?"
"Does being around those who are smoking cause cancer?"
"Are jurisdictions breaking federal law when they ban smoking in some public places?"
"Does drinking impair your ability to operate a motor vehicle?"
"Can someone who is driving a motor vehicle create a danger to those around them?"
"Are jurisdictions breaking federal law when they require drug and alcohol testing before people operate certain motor vehicles?"
"Is the Coronavirus infectious?"
"Does being around people who are currently suffering with the Coronavirus create a risk that you will be infected?"
"Are jurisdictions or companies breaking federal law when they require virus testing for healthcare workers in order to prevent infections?"
"Do hurricanes and extreme weather events pose a risk to communities which experience them?"
"Does burning oil create carbon dioxide, a key component of maintaining earths temperature?"
"Are jurisdictions breaking federal law when they limit the production of carbon dioxide to protect themselves from Hurricanes and Extreme Weather events"
Likely she'll waffle on question "Does burning oil create carbon dioxide, a key component of maintaining earths temperature?", saying she's not an expert and blah blah blah, in which case you fucking ask her to prove that smoking causes cancer or explain the biological mechanisms by which alcohol consumption impairs reflexes and then ask her opinion on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Philip_Morris, and then ask her whether she thinks Phillip Morris thinks that it is settled business whether or not cigarettes should be banned in public places.
If you really want to trap her, get a 10 year old to put together a primer on how climate science works and have it on a series of flip charts. Ask her if she understands each one.
The bigger thing to me is the utter disgust she has when responding to Harris. She can barely hide her contempt for her.
She's an abominable racist who can't stand looking at a non white person who dares question her mastery of the universe. If a homosexual was there she might just explode.
There's probably a certain amount, also, of "look, you all know this is useless and inevitable, just give up and stop wasting time and let me have that seat before it gets cold."
Commander Zoom on
+8
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
There's probably a certain amount, also, of "look, you all know this is useless and inevitable, just give up and stop wasting time and let me have that seat before it gets cold."
That’s the real arrogance of it all. At least Kabanagh came prepared. With her, there is such an attitude of I don’t give a shit about these hearings, I have the votes in the bag.
The thing is, she’s absolutely right. Regardless of whatever stupid things she says like not knowing the first amendment, not knowing when Election day is, etc, she’ll get her seat, no one can really do anything about it, and even if the dems pack the courts and the court goes back liberal she personally will have a supreme court seat and be set the rest of her life.
She may have an ozymandias attitude of “Do you really think I would allow you to interfere with my plan if there was a chance you could stop it? I was confirmed to my seat five minutes ago”, but she’s absolutely right in a practical sense to have that attitude.
Jealous Deva on
+11
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
The bigger thing to me is the utter disgust she has when responding to Harris. She can barely hide her contempt for her.
She's an abominable racist who can't stand looking at a non white person who dares question her mastery of the universe. If a homosexual was there she might just explode.
The bigger thing to me is the utter disgust she has when responding to Harris. She can barely hide her contempt for her.
Harris is not her friend, and is asking a series of odd questions that's obviously intended to catch her in something and is insisting, prosecutorially, that she answer in yes-or-no terms. No shit Barrett looks uncomfortable.
She's a federalist society judge who learned at the feet of Scalia; her politics are bad and it would be much better to not have her on the court. But the amount people are reading into her character here is unreal. It reads like whackadoodle conservative forums gnashing their teeth about Obama's tan suits or "hating America" because he, like, did routine culturally appropriate respectful greetings with foreign leaders. No thanks!
The bigger thing to me is the utter disgust she has when responding to Harris. She can barely hide her contempt for her.
She's an abominable racist who can't stand looking at a non white person who dares question her mastery of the universe. If a homosexual was there she might just explode.
The bigger thing to me is the utter disgust she has when responding to Harris. She can barely hide her contempt for her.
Harris is not her friend, and is asking a series of odd questions that's obviously intended to catch her in something and is insisting, prosecutorially, that she answer in yes-or-no terms. No shit Barrett looks uncomfortable.
She's a federalist society judge who learned at the feet of Scalia; her politics are bad and it would be much better to not have her on the court. But the amount people are reading into her character here is unreal. It reads like whackadoodle conservative forums gnashing their teeth about Obama's tan suits or "hating America" because he, like, did routine culturally appropriate respectful greetings with foreign leaders. No thanks!
I'm not reading into the content of her character based on one video of her being disdainful towards an accomplished minority woman. I'm telling you that she is a racist because her teacher Scalia was a racist and she belongs to the federalist society of judges, a fundamentally racist group in their beliefs and actions, and she has been selected as the Supreme avatar of the Republican parties illegitimate seizure of the court one of the primary purposes of which is to ensure that racism remains alive and well in the USA.
She is the embodiment of sin, she stands atop a tower of racial hatred built to harm and oppress everyone unlike her. And her too, because she is a woman.
Here's the thing, she's not in a trap here. The penalty for wrong answers is that maybe you don't get to be a Supreme Court Justice for 35 years. Shes not some panicked shoplifter or drunk driver facing 25 to life. The answers to those three questions?
Yes
Yes
Yes
So you believe climate change is real and poses a danger?
Yes, clearly. However my role as a judge is to interpret the law, not to act on my opinions to create it. That's your job as a congressperson.
She is telling lies because she is afraid of her own backers. Her discomfort is because she is being made to look a fool, espescially by a minority woman who dares challenge her own narrative of glory.
Honestly, from what I've seen, she seems like one of those people that were able to do ace work in college and then got out and have gained no effective experience since, and never learned anything practical. At least to me, she looks like she's been sheltered in a closed fish tank of "conservative" judges waiting for her turn to get high level posts.
Dark_Side on
+2
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
[It's a C-SPAN clip from 2017 where Barrett mentions her kids, including the two adopted from Haiti.]
Here's the thing about Haitian kids adopted by Evangelicals - there's been a lot of child trafficking by those Christian adoption groups. They grab kids, often ones who aren't even orphans, just with extremely poor parents, basically to sell them to white rich people who want a couple black trophy kids to use as props. Bethany Christian, the group through which she adopted those kids, has been accused of this (and has glomped onto recent anti-child trafficking things recently to try to whitewash it), has strong links to Betty DeVos and has been making money through "fostering" kids that had been separated from their parents in the concentration camps and taking teen pregnancy prevention funds and pushing it towards right-wing bullshit like "abortion reversal". Also of course not working with LGBT parents who want to adopt.
I'm not saying Barrett has trafficked kids, but I am saying that she's very much steeped in a movement that traffics children and has provided tacit support to it.
But it doesn't really matter since the Republicans are probably going to seat her before the month is up, even if they have to kill some of themselves to do it.
[It's a C-SPAN clip from 2017 where Barrett mentions her kids, including the two adopted from Haiti.]
Here's the thing about Haitian kids adopted by Evangelicals - there's been a lot of child trafficking by those Christian adoption groups. They grab kids, often ones who aren't even orphans, just with extremely poor parents, basically to sell them to white rich people who want a couple black trophy kids to use as props. Bethany Christian, the group through which she adopted those kids, has been accused of this (and has glomped onto recent anti-child trafficking things recently to try to whitewash it), has strong links to Betty DeVos and has been making money through "fostering" kids that had been separated from their parents in the concentration camps and taking teen pregnancy prevention funds and pushing it towards right-wing bullshit like "abortion reversal". Also of course not working with LGBT parents who want to adopt.
I'm not saying Barrett has trafficked kids, but I am saying that she's very much steeped in a movement that traffics children and has provided tacit support to it.
But it doesn't really matter since the Republicans are probably going to seat her before the month is up, even if they have to kill some of themselves to do it.
And to be clear, I'm not saying whe hates her adopted children, I'm sure she loves them a great deal. But it is perfectly possible to have a deep and loving relationship with someone who is not white, and still be a racist. Because while there is an iteration of racism which means you hate all people of different ethnicities, the most common modern iteration which rises to the top is best described as hating people of different ethnicities who do not know "their place". Which means you can love your children and want them to succeed, that you can be friends with a powerful non white lawyer or something and not despise their success, but that you assume any minority you dont know must remain in their lane of appropriate subservience because you assume they are less capable and worthy since they have not 'proven' otherwise to you.
At this point, with her confirmation a fait accompli, I'd like to know what, if anything, is gonna be done if Democrats have three 3 branches next year. Yes, she's a horrible jurist who will stand in opposition to all progress, and will in fact set us back in many areas, and because of that [???].
Tweeter is Nancy Pelosi's daughter, and the video show Harris laying the most obvious of traps for Barret to obliviously wander into.
Unless I missed some subtext here, she didn't walk into the trap?
She is willing to accept scientific consensus, except where it rubs against right wing political positions. It reveals the false framework that factual matters are factual or not depending on whether or not FoxNews admits it. She also leaned on whether or not she thought it was real was irrelevant to being a judge but was perfectly willing to take a position on other factual/scientific matters of public concern.
Whitehouse to his Republican colleagues: "Don't think that when you have established the rule of 'because we can,' that should the shoe be on the other foot, you will have any credibility."
I did not see Sheldon Whitehouse being the guy to all but scream "Try us motherfuckers!" to the GOP
At this point, with her confirmation a fait accompli, I'd like to know what, if anything, is gonna be done if Democrats have three 3 branches next year. Yes, she's a horrible jurist who will stand in opposition to all progress, and will in fact set us back in many areas, and because of that [???].
You mean 2 branches, right? Congress is just one branch.
To get the 3rd, the Dems will need to seat four more judges.
No one is going to be impeaching any SC judges. You can only try and drown out their voices.
They established that rules years ago and no one did shit so Whitehouse can miss me with the "well youll get eveything you want, but you have no idea how bad you look bro"
At this point, with her confirmation a fait accompli, I'd like to know what, if anything, is gonna be done if Democrats have three 3 branches next year. Yes, she's a horrible jurist who will stand in opposition to all progress, and will in fact set us back in many areas, and because of that [???].
You mean 2 branches, right? Congress is just one branch.
To get the 3rd, the Dems will need to seat four more judges.
No one is going to be impeaching any SC judges. You can only try and drown out their voices.
Yes, 2. I shouldn't have said branches, I meant the trifecta required for expanding the courts.
At this point, with her confirmation a fait accompli, I'd like to know what, if anything, is gonna be done if Democrats have three 3 branches next year. Yes, she's a horrible jurist who will stand in opposition to all progress, and will in fact set us back in many areas, and because of that [???].
You mean 2 branches, right? Congress is just one branch.
To get the 3rd, the Dems will need to seat four more judges.
No one is going to be impeaching any SC judges. You can only try and drown out their voices.
Yes, 2. I shouldn't have said branches, I meant the trifecta required for expanding the courts.
In the event Biden wins and the Dems take the Senate, there's going to be some *very* loud voices asking for more judges.
I assume Biden will consult with real legal experts and weigh the pros/cons and then make a decision on that front.
They established that rules years ago and no one did shit so Whitehouse can miss me with the "well youll get eveything you want, but you have no idea how bad you look bro"
This is the part of the groundwork for adding more justices.
+12
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
They established that rules years ago and no one did shit so Whitehouse can miss me with the "well youll get eveything you want, but you have no idea how bad you look bro"
So, let me get this straight. A Democrat finally stood side by side with what you have been wanting them to say for, like, a bajillion threads and now its not good enough and he can fuck off.
Like, why should you ever be a demographic that a politician should seek to back? Nothing will satisfy you.
They established that rules years ago and no one did shit so Whitehouse can miss me with the "well youll get eveything you want, but you have no idea how bad you look bro"
So, let me get this straight. A Democrat finally stood side by side with what you have been wanting them to say for, like, a bajillion threads and now its not good enough and he can fuck off.
Like, why should you ever be a demographic that a politician should seek to back? Nothing will satisfy you.
Whitehouse made a threat based on GOP actions that theyve already taken before with zero real response on the part of the Democrats in the past.
What I want is a clear and unified dedication to expanding the judiciary at the soonest possible moment.
What Whitehouse gives us here is just another "wow by your logic,"
The main question is whether they pack immediately or wait for some really obviously crappy decision to act as a casus belli.
I kind of feel like the smart play - and what I'm half expecting - is that Trump takes the election to SCOTUS as a long-shot naked power grab last resort and they rule against him 5-4 with Barrett, Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh dissenting.
Then Roberts says 'see, we aren't political and can make good impartial decisions' which undercuts traction Biden would have rebalancing the court.
We know pretty much everyone hates Trump, and it's an easy out that lets them keep their 6-3 majority and papers over some of the holes in Robert's legacy.
They established that rules years ago and no one did shit so Whitehouse can miss me with the "well youll get eveything you want, but you have no idea how bad you look bro"
So, let me get this straight. A Democrat finally stood side by side with what you have been wanting them to say for, like, a bajillion threads and now its not good enough and he can fuck off.
Like, why should you ever be a demographic that a politician should seek to back? Nothing will satisfy you.
Being frustrated by the current situation constantly is the only way to progress incrementally.
They established that rules years ago and no one did shit so Whitehouse can miss me with the "well youll get eveything you want, but you have no idea how bad you look bro"
So, let me get this straight. A Democrat finally stood side by side with what you have been wanting them to say for, like, a bajillion threads and now its not good enough and he can fuck off.
Like, why should you ever be a demographic that a politician should seek to back? Nothing will satisfy you.
Whitehouse made a threat based on GOP actions that theyve already taken before with zero real response on the part of the Democrats in the past.
What I want is a clear and unified dedication to expanding the judiciary at the soonest possible moment.
What Whitehouse gives us here is just another "wow by your logic,"
No, he's going "What goes around comes around, don't bitch when we fix this fuckery."
The base problem with going hard is Dem voters by and large don't care about the SCOTUS and in fact get bitchy if you try to make it an issue. Lots of people went "Hey, 2016 is important because it's going to swing a lot of SCOTUS seats" and lots of people got told "LOL fearmongering" or "Stop trying to shame me!"
It's only now when the problem is very in your face and it's too late to actually stop the current fuckery that people pay attention.
The main question is whether they pack immediately or wait for some really obviously crappy decision to act as a casus belli.
well the dems are setting up the ACA repealing to be that causus belli so the answer would be both as that supreme court hearing and decision would be made prior to seating our new senators
They established that rules years ago and no one did shit so Whitehouse can miss me with the "well youll get eveything you want, but you have no idea how bad you look bro"
So, let me get this straight. A Democrat finally stood side by side with what you have been wanting them to say for, like, a bajillion threads and now its not good enough and he can fuck off.
Like, why should you ever be a demographic that a politician should seek to back? Nothing will satisfy you.
Being frustrated by the current situation constantly is the only way to progress incrementally.
Is it? That does not seem to be what's moving the needle here. McConnell and the GOP's constant shitty behaviour is what's building support for things like court expansion and killing the filibuster.
Yelling at people doing the thing you want just generally seems silly.
At this point, with her confirmation a fait accompli, I'd like to know what, if anything, is gonna be done if Democrats have three 3 branches next year. Yes, she's a horrible jurist who will stand in opposition to all progress, and will in fact set us back in many areas, and because of that [???].
You mean 2 branches, right? Congress is just one branch.
To get the 3rd, the Dems will need to seat four more judges.
No one is going to be impeaching any SC judges. You can only try and drown out their voices.
Yes, 2. I shouldn't have said branches, I meant the trifecta required for expanding the courts.
What happens when Republicans sue against whatever law that the Dems pass to expand the courts and it goes to the courts for ruling?
Feinstein is past her time. But she won't leave, she's been given power and prestige and she refuses to let go. It happens to everyone. They all end up that way, even the ones that start good.
Insert "rbg should have fucking retired a decade ago" here.
Posts
edit: that's autocorrect's spelling of 'bourgeoisie', not mine. Is that... more than one leisure class?
Until somebody that knows what they are doing sets them up to look like an idiot.
Tweeter is Nancy Pelosi's daughter, and the video show Harris laying the most obvious of traps for Barret to obliviously wander into.
Bougie isn’t a leisure class. It’s more like a management class. Shop owners, bankers, etc. leisure class would have been the aristocracy
But there was only one. Spelling might be different for various translation issues
At this point Karen drinking her Starbucks in her Rangd Rover while her husband is on a Zoom meeting with their Beijing and Paris clients is bougie.
Figure in rough estimates $200k - 500k annual households fall into that category adjusted for cost of living. Don't fly private jets but would never fly coach.
If you are low c-class in a small corp, regional / branch manager, a director, etc. High level managerial doctors and academics probably count too.
I have a friend who's left of me in CA and she ended up voting for DiFi because she thought Leon sucked so much. Next time there will be a number of strong candidates and she should finally freaking retire at 91.
Unless I missed some subtext here, she didn't walk into the trap?
Like imagine if as a hypothetical she gave the same response to “does smoking cause cancer?”
Except it's not a "trap" in any political sense, because the right has politicized science to the point where 99% of the scientific community agreeing on something doesn't matter. 40% of the country thinks science is a liberal conspiracy, so they're unswayed.
It was a pretty good trap. The 'go for the throat' option would have been.
"Does smoking cause cancer?"
"Does being around those who are smoking cause cancer?"
"Are jurisdictions breaking federal law when they ban smoking in some public places?"
"Does drinking impair your ability to operate a motor vehicle?"
"Can someone who is driving a motor vehicle create a danger to those around them?"
"Are jurisdictions breaking federal law when they require drug and alcohol testing before people operate certain motor vehicles?"
"Is the Coronavirus infectious?"
"Does being around people who are currently suffering with the Coronavirus create a risk that you will be infected?"
"Are jurisdictions or companies breaking federal law when they require virus testing for healthcare workers in order to prevent infections?"
"Do hurricanes and extreme weather events pose a risk to communities which experience them?"
"Does burning oil create carbon dioxide, a key component of maintaining earths temperature?"
"Are jurisdictions breaking federal law when they limit the production of carbon dioxide to protect themselves from Hurricanes and Extreme Weather events"
Likely she'll waffle on question "Does burning oil create carbon dioxide, a key component of maintaining earths temperature?", saying she's not an expert and blah blah blah, in which case you fucking ask her to prove that smoking causes cancer or explain the biological mechanisms by which alcohol consumption impairs reflexes and then ask her opinion on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Philip_Morris, and then ask her whether she thinks Phillip Morris thinks that it is settled business whether or not cigarettes should be banned in public places.
If you really want to trap her, get a 10 year old to put together a primer on how climate science works and have it on a series of flip charts. Ask her if she understands each one.
pleasepaypreacher.net
She's an abominable racist who can't stand looking at a non white person who dares question her mastery of the universe. If a homosexual was there she might just explode.
She may have an ozymandias attitude of “Do you really think I would allow you to interfere with my plan if there was a chance you could stop it? I was confirmed to my seat five minutes ago”, but she’s absolutely right in a practical sense to have that attitude.
Harris is not her friend, and is asking a series of odd questions that's obviously intended to catch her in something and is insisting, prosecutorially, that she answer in yes-or-no terms. No shit Barrett looks uncomfortable.
She's a federalist society judge who learned at the feet of Scalia; her politics are bad and it would be much better to not have her on the court. But the amount people are reading into her character here is unreal. It reads like whackadoodle conservative forums gnashing their teeth about Obama's tan suits or "hating America" because he, like, did routine culturally appropriate respectful greetings with foreign leaders. No thanks!
I'm not reading into the content of her character based on one video of her being disdainful towards an accomplished minority woman. I'm telling you that she is a racist because her teacher Scalia was a racist and she belongs to the federalist society of judges, a fundamentally racist group in their beliefs and actions, and she has been selected as the Supreme avatar of the Republican parties illegitimate seizure of the court one of the primary purposes of which is to ensure that racism remains alive and well in the USA.
She is the embodiment of sin, she stands atop a tower of racial hatred built to harm and oppress everyone unlike her. And her too, because she is a woman.
Here's the thing, she's not in a trap here. The penalty for wrong answers is that maybe you don't get to be a Supreme Court Justice for 35 years. Shes not some panicked shoplifter or drunk driver facing 25 to life. The answers to those three questions?
Yes
Yes
Yes
So you believe climate change is real and poses a danger?
Yes, clearly. However my role as a judge is to interpret the law, not to act on my opinions to create it. That's your job as a congressperson.
She is telling lies because she is afraid of her own backers. Her discomfort is because she is being made to look a fool, espescially by a minority woman who dares challenge her own narrative of glory.
[It's a C-SPAN clip from 2017 where Barrett mentions her kids, including the two adopted from Haiti.]
Here's the thing about Haitian kids adopted by Evangelicals - there's been a lot of child trafficking by those Christian adoption groups. They grab kids, often ones who aren't even orphans, just with extremely poor parents, basically to sell them to white rich people who want a couple black trophy kids to use as props. Bethany Christian, the group through which she adopted those kids, has been accused of this (and has glomped onto recent anti-child trafficking things recently to try to whitewash it), has strong links to Betty DeVos and has been making money through "fostering" kids that had been separated from their parents in the concentration camps and taking teen pregnancy prevention funds and pushing it towards right-wing bullshit like "abortion reversal". Also of course not working with LGBT parents who want to adopt.
I'm not saying Barrett has trafficked kids, but I am saying that she's very much steeped in a movement that traffics children and has provided tacit support to it.
But it doesn't really matter since the Republicans are probably going to seat her before the month is up, even if they have to kill some of themselves to do it.
And to be clear, I'm not saying whe hates her adopted children, I'm sure she loves them a great deal. But it is perfectly possible to have a deep and loving relationship with someone who is not white, and still be a racist. Because while there is an iteration of racism which means you hate all people of different ethnicities, the most common modern iteration which rises to the top is best described as hating people of different ethnicities who do not know "their place". Which means you can love your children and want them to succeed, that you can be friends with a powerful non white lawyer or something and not despise their success, but that you assume any minority you dont know must remain in their lane of appropriate subservience because you assume they are less capable and worthy since they have not 'proven' otherwise to you.
She is willing to accept scientific consensus, except where it rubs against right wing political positions. It reveals the false framework that factual matters are factual or not depending on whether or not FoxNews admits it. She also leaned on whether or not she thought it was real was irrelevant to being a judge but was perfectly willing to take a position on other factual/scientific matters of public concern.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Vox journo
I did not see Sheldon Whitehouse being the guy to all but scream "Try us motherfuckers!" to the GOP
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
You mean 2 branches, right? Congress is just one branch.
To get the 3rd, the Dems will need to seat four more judges.
No one is going to be impeaching any SC judges. You can only try and drown out their voices.
Yes, 2. I shouldn't have said branches, I meant the trifecta required for expanding the courts.
In the event Biden wins and the Dems take the Senate, there's going to be some *very* loud voices asking for more judges.
I assume Biden will consult with real legal experts and weigh the pros/cons and then make a decision on that front.
This is the part of the groundwork for adding more justices.
So, let me get this straight. A Democrat finally stood side by side with what you have been wanting them to say for, like, a bajillion threads and now its not good enough and he can fuck off.
Like, why should you ever be a demographic that a politician should seek to back? Nothing will satisfy you.
Whitehouse made a threat based on GOP actions that theyve already taken before with zero real response on the part of the Democrats in the past.
What I want is a clear and unified dedication to expanding the judiciary at the soonest possible moment.
What Whitehouse gives us here is just another "wow by your logic,"
I kind of feel like the smart play - and what I'm half expecting - is that Trump takes the election to SCOTUS as a long-shot naked power grab last resort and they rule against him 5-4 with Barrett, Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh dissenting.
Then Roberts says 'see, we aren't political and can make good impartial decisions' which undercuts traction Biden would have rebalancing the court.
We know pretty much everyone hates Trump, and it's an easy out that lets them keep their 6-3 majority and papers over some of the holes in Robert's legacy.
Being frustrated by the current situation constantly is the only way to progress incrementally.
No, he's going "What goes around comes around, don't bitch when we fix this fuckery."
The base problem with going hard is Dem voters by and large don't care about the SCOTUS and in fact get bitchy if you try to make it an issue. Lots of people went "Hey, 2016 is important because it's going to swing a lot of SCOTUS seats" and lots of people got told "LOL fearmongering" or "Stop trying to shame me!"
It's only now when the problem is very in your face and it's too late to actually stop the current fuckery that people pay attention.
well the dems are setting up the ACA repealing to be that causus belli so the answer would be both as that supreme court hearing and decision would be made prior to seating our new senators
Is it? That does not seem to be what's moving the needle here. McConnell and the GOP's constant shitty behaviour is what's building support for things like court expansion and killing the filibuster.
Yelling at people doing the thing you want just generally seems silly.
What happens when Republicans sue against whatever law that the Dems pass to expand the courts and it goes to the courts for ruling?
Feinstein out there playing 5d Stratego
Insert "rbg should have fucking retired a decade ago" here.
Steam - Talon Valdez :Blizz - Talonious#1860 : Xbox Live & LoL - Talonious Monk @TaloniousMonk Hail Satan