Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Retiring

[pgardn]

pgardn grandstanding again, but no one knows what he's talking about :lol

I’m not talking.

Its simple.

You and others are using an arbitrary stage in development to define a human life.
Its that simple. And because you don’t even begin to think about what life even is you and others are clueless. You use science to make moral arguments. Good luck.

[pgardn]

Chris...

What is your moral stance on the vasectomy (that like a science thingy Chris) an unnecessary medical procedure?

[Chris]

Chris...

What is your moral stance on the vasectomy (that like a science thingy Chris) an unnecessary medical procedure?

"No one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD."
-Deuteronomy 23:1

[pgardn]

"No one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD."
-Deuteronomy 23:1



So is this the taking of a potential human life?

[Chris]

So is this the taking of a potential human life?

Most experts agree life begins at conception so no.

[pgardn]

Most experts agree life begins at conception so no.



Experts in what?

Is using a condom a form of emasculation?

[SnakeBoy]

You think biology teachers should just teach human biology or what? What is your viewing the following?

Science teachers MUST teach viruses, are they alive? Tell the board?
Science teachers must teach about bacteria and The dormant spores that form in critical stiuations, are they alive?
Some molecules can self replicate, is this life? Are these molecules alive?

You think this is some sort of game? It’s not. You must define what you talk about in science.


lol we aren't talking about aborting viruses or prions

[SnakeBoy]

I was raised Catholic and felt the same way until my ex wife got pregnant 6 months after we had my daughter. She was adamant that she did not want to have another child then, and there was no way I could force her to. I was against it, and we talked about it, but it ended up being for the best. Two years later we were divorced. Until you've been in that situation I think it's impossible to understand what can go into making that decision, and how hard it is. Yes, there are people who treat it as birth control after the fact, but it is not a clear cut black and white issue that people try and make it out to be. The people that go through it have to deal with what they did.

Best for you and her. Not so much for the aborted kid.

Been there done that so I get where you're trying to come from but it is a clear cut black and white issue. Abortion is what it is, best to just admit it and come to grips with what was done.

[pgardn]

lol we aren't talking about aborting viruses or prions

But You can define human life beginning at a single cell stage.

Yeah.

Thats rich.

[SnakeBoy]

But You can define human life beginning at a single cell stage.

Yeah.

Thats rich.

Your DNA is you according to science. Unless you want to argue there is something else that makes you human.

It's funny to me the mental gymnastics people go through to convince themselves that abortion is something other than the ending of a life.

[pgardn]

Your DNA is you according to science. Unless you want to argue there is something else that makes you human.

It's funny to me the mental gymnastics people go through to convince themselves that abortion is something other than the ending of a life.

Oh it is?

So identical twins are the same?

And a single human skin cell also has human dna and it just fell off in my bed. What shall we do?
I can grow them in a Petri dish.

You still don’t get it. You are using a specific stage in a human manufactured thought process to define a human LIFE...
You are using science to define a human life... You have got to be kidding... A life? A human life? You have to have some moral compass. And this is ... well a chemical. Just DNA...

Yeah. Sure.

And YOU of course have nothing to do with all the chemicals and all the life experiences that YOU went through... Sure. No environmental influences. Yes.

[pgardn]

Your DNA is YOU.

Got it...

[SnakeBoy]

Oh it is?

So identical twins are the same?

And a single human skin cell also has human dna and it just fell off in my bed. What shall we do?
I can grow them in a Petri dish.

You still don’t get it. You are using a specific stage in a human manufactured thought process to define a human LIFE...
You are using science to define a human life... You have got to be kidding... A life? A human life? You have to have some moral compass. And this is ... well a chemical. Just DNA...

Yeah. Sure.

And YOU of course have nothing to do with all the chemicals and all the life experiences that YOU went through... Sure. No environmental influences. Yes.

https://media.giphy.com/media/yT2JhlC13gCMU/giphy.gif

[pgardn]

https://media.giphy.com/media/yT2JhlC13gCMU/giphy.gif


Yep.

Thats what happens when SCIENCE TELLS US:
Your DNA is YOU...

Snakeboy proclaims human life begins at conception.
Done.
Easy.

You will want to stop this with a gif.
Its best if you do.

[SnakeBoy]

Yep.

Thats what happens when SCIENCE TELLS US:
Your DNA is YOU...

Snakeboy proclaims human life begins at conception.
Done.
Easy.

You will want to stop this with a gif.
Its best if you do.

Well it's not so much that I want to stop it. It's just boring to go around in circles with you because of your proven inability to remain within the context of the topic, so you just end up rambling. It's tedious.

[SnakeBoy]

i was shorta shocked at myself at how quickly i came to that conclusion without any internal struggle. luckily it never came to that, as i got the "you're not a baby daddy" text the next day... but it would have been the right decision. i probably wouldn't have been able to go to law school, she'd have to have given up her med school hopes, etc. and the kid would have had a pretty shitty upbringing all things considered.

would've been better off dead for sure

[pgardn]

Well it's not so much that I want to stop it. It's just boring to go around in circles with you because of your proven inability to remain within the context of the topic, so you just end up rambling. It's tedious.

Oh sure.
No problem.

Your DNA is YOU. “Science says so”

And a human life begins at conception. Snakeboy says so.

Thats good.
End of story.
*Dusts off hands*

Sleep well.

[SnakeBoy]

What? Maybe not to you. I think the argument can be made, and i think on this very forum I’ve taken that position as well. But not gonna pretend it’s some settled truth.

https://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/amp
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2017/04/when_does_life_begin_outside_the_christian_right_t he_answer_is_over_time.html

Anyhoo, you did a good job avoiding talking about when one becomes endowed with inalienable rights. As the forum lawyer I figured you would have some thoughts on that.

[SnakeBoy]

Oh sure.
No problem.

Your DNA is YOU. “Science says so”

And a human life begins at conception. Snakeboy says so.

Thats good.
End of story.
*Dusts off hands*

Sleep well.

Okay you want to participate. Let's try to keep you on topic.

If you really want say your life began at sometime other than conception I'm all ears. Be specific.

However, the topic is abortion and when life begins isn't the question as I stated earlier. The question is, when does one become endowed with inalienable rights....Go pgardn.

Start another thread if you want to discuss whether or not a prion qualifies as life.

[spurraider21]

would've been better off dead for sure
Or just never being born.

What’s next, gonna criticize a couple for not having a kid every 9 months?

Anyhoo, you did a good job avoiding talking about when one becomes endowed with inalienable rights. As the forum lawyer I figured you would have some thoughts on that.
Pretty sure they’re only recognized at birth here in the states. I don’t think unborn can receive inheritances, etc

[SnakeBoy]

Or just never being born.


potato potato



What’s next, gonna criticize a couple for not having a kid every 9 months?

Why would I do that?



Pretty sure they’re only recognized at birth here in the states. I don’t think unborn can receive inheritances, etc

lazy lawyer

[pgardn]

Okay you want to participate. Let's try to keep you on topic.

If you really want say your life began at sometime other than conception I'm all ears. Be specific.

However, the topic is abortion and when life begins isn't the question as I stated earlier. The question is, when does one become endowed with inalienable rights....Go pgardn.

Start another thread if you want to discuss whether or not a prion qualifies as life.

Give me a break...

What is abortion?

When are we a granted unalienable rights? ( could be or already are a perfectly beautiful human being with all the special qualities that make us different from other animals...)

I have no fckn clue.
And either do you.

[pgardn]

Okay you want to participate. Let's try to keep you on topic.

If you really want say your life began at sometime other than conception I'm all ears. Be specific.

However, the topic is abortion and when life begins isn't the question as I stated earlier. The question is, when does one become endowed with inalienable rights....Go pgardn.

Start another thread if you want to discuss whether or not a prion qualifies as life.

And now you want to pin ME down when LIFE begins. And then you get irritated when I attempt to try and define what a HUMAN LIFE actually is? Really?

I have no fckn clue. Define a human life(yes people actually discuss this)
And you have no fckn clue either.

And there are ways to hash my stance out and yours.
But you don’t want that. This is not as easy as you want it to be.

[SnakeBoy]

When are we a granted unalienable rights? ( could be or already are a perfectly beautiful human being with all the special qualities that make us different from other animals...)

I have no fckn clue.
And either do you.

Which is exactly the point I was making in the post that got you all riled up. I gave my completely arbitrary point in time. You're not willing to do the same. Why?

Well that point and the fact that most pro choice people twist themselves into knots to pretend abortion isn't the taking of a life. You're still doing it.

[monosylab1k]

"No one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD."
-Deuteronomy 23:1
“For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it“
-Matthew 19:12

[boutons_deux]

Read an interesting comment why the oligarchy, Repugs, Federalist Soc, Heritage, etc want to dominate, pollute, taint, queer SCOTUS and the Federal judiciary with right wing politicians in robes.

Federal judges are unelected, so beyond the reach of citizens at the polls, adding to the total disenfranchisement of Americans.

Voting is a fucking charade.

The oligarchy's judges will approve every disenfranchisement tactic,

so citizens can have their little amusements, deflections electing Congress and the Pres, maybe even both Dem, but the real, untouchable power is the Federal judiciary.

It's a beautiful, highly informed, intelligent, limitlessly financed strategy to fuck America and Americans into total unfuckability.

[boutons_deux]

"Over eight years, Reagan remade the federal judiciary from top to bottom by appointing 383 judges, more than any other president."

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/06/29/anthony-kennedy-and-the-court-of-lost-resort/

St Ronnie the Diseased was a Useful Idiot, while The Power Behind The Throne was the oligarchy.

[pgardn]

Which is exactly the point I was making in the post that got you all riled up. I gave my completely arbitrary point in time. You're not willing to do the same. Why?

Well that point and the fact that most pro choice people twist themselves into knots to pretend abortion isn't the taking of a life. You're still doing it.

Uhhh... because it’s arbitrary...
Why did you choose it?

And so you give what sort of rights to a single cell?
Explain unalienable rights?

And Bull fckn shit to the bolded.
You say life like you know what it is. Like it’s just an obvious definition and it’s NOT.
Which is exactly why I started with viruses, etc.. which of course means nothing to you because you already know what life is... except you don’t. But it can be discussed, but you don’t want that.

[pgardn]

I could go right into why I think this is such a tough topic.
Except I can’t Snakeboy.

Because you will have no idea why I think this way because it’s easy to say I do circles when in fact I have thought about this quite a bit. And have discussed this with philosophy types who know how science might help with definitions but still have the flexibility to deal with morals and where our laws arise out of moral code. Basically Because it disturbs them as well, just like you and I. Then you throw in the philosophy-religion types who actually dissect their religious beliefs and you gain even further insight which can confuse or lead to further questions. This is not easy.

As a very perfunctory statement I will say I am much more willing to listen to thoughtful people who have their own Biological children AND have adopted.

Because they will admit they are not sure about when humanity begins but are totally unwilling to take any chances. If a women is pregnant, she is responsible for a life. If she wants to terminate that possible life, they step up.

[SnakeBoy]

Uhhh... because it’s arbitrary...
Why did you choose it?

And so you give what sort of rights to a single cell?
Explain unalienable rights?

And Bull fckn shit to the bolded.
You say life like you know what it is. Like it’s just an obvious definition and it’s NOT.
Which is exactly why I started with viruses, etc.. which of course means nothing to you because you already know what life is... except you don’t. But it can be discussed, but you don’t want that.

So far you...
don't know what life is
don't know what human is
don't know what abortion is
don't know what unalienable rights are

but you want to have a discussion about something (who the fuck knows what) that I won't have

and you're back to viruses

like I said...tedious

Fuck dude :lol

[spurraider21]

So far you...
don't know what life is
don't know what human is
don't know what abortion is
don't know what unalienable rights are

but you want to have a discussion about something (who the fuck knows what) that I won't have

and you're back to viruses

like I said...tedious

Fuck dude :lol
you're just unwilling to have a conversation that goes beyond tried and true talking points...

[pgardn]

So far you...
don't know what life is
don't know what human is
don't know what abortion is
don't know what unalienable rights are

but you want to have a discussion about something (who the fuck knows what) that I won't have

and you're back to viruses

like I said...tedious

Fuck dude :lol

Tedious, difficult, hell yes it is.
Do you want to go into it or not?
Back in this thread I said you are stepping in it, but it's easy for you because you know what life is, know what a human life is, know what unalienable rights are... Except you don't. I have some conjectures, thoughts on what I need to examine further But I won't bore you.

Where have the true conservatives gone? The ones who will actually take something rigorous on...

And step up with those adoptions. Take on other life like people starving in other countries...oops MAGA...
Disingenous cowards. Ohh those people who are in a quandary love abortion. Uhhhh No. Many of them understand your passion. And then see it's fake... Which is disappointing.

[pgardn]

you're just unwilling to have a conversation that goes beyond tried and true talking points...

Pretty much and I basically stated so at an earlier point.

Same shit over and over.
But I'm circling...

[dbestpro]

“For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it“
-Matthew 19:12

This was Jesus responding to who should not marry. Just saying.

[boutons_deux]

The real answer to Supreme Court power politics that no one acknowledges (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/6/29/1776484/-The-real-answer-to-Supreme-Court-power-politics-that-no-one-acknowledges)

The simple fact is that

in the modern era Republicans have never confirmed a Supreme Court justice nominated by a Democratic President.

Contrary to popular belief, there has never been a bipartisan “norm” that Presidents get deference in appointing Supreme Court justices —

that has been a Democratic “norm” under Republican Presidents,

but that has never been reciprocated by Republicans.

The last time a Republican Senate confirmed a Democratic President’s Supreme Court nomination was 1895 —

which was 123 years ago (and involved a Republican party with little connection to today’s party).

All of the 13 Supreme Court nominations since 1945 that were eventually approved by an opposing party [the Democrats] in the Senate were made by Republican presidents.

everything you have been told about Supreme Court confirmation politics is utterly nuts and wrong.

The reality is:

For Democrats, the President — of either party — largely gets to appoint Supreme Court justices.

For Republicans, the Senate gets to pick Supreme Court justices, and if a Democrat is President, the seat can go unfilled as long as Republicans control the Senate.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/6/29/1776484/-The-real-answer-to-Supreme-Court-power-politics-that-no-one-acknowledges?detail=emaildkre

[monosylab1k]

This was Jesus responding to who should not marry. Just saying.

Does a eunuch have functional testicles or not? Thanks.

The apostle Philip baptized an Ethiopian eunuch. According to Chris, he was wrong to do that.

[Chris]

mono trying to plug and play Bible verses :lol

[monosylab1k]

mono trying to plug and play Bible verses :lol

:lmao Chris doing that exact thing and not realizing it because he’s a shitty Christian.

[boutons_deux]

Trump asked for extensive files on Supreme Court candidates which advisors admit he ‘does not care to read’


https://www.rawstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/donald-trump-1-800x430.jpg

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/07/trump-asked-extensive-files-supreme-court-candidates-advisors-admit-not-care-read-report/

[boutons_deux]

Collins: I Would Not Support A Nominee Who Demonstrated Hostility To Roe V. Wade

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/collins-i-would-not-support-a-nominee-who-demonstrated-hostility-to-roe-v-wade?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20tpm-news%20%28TPMNews%29

Actually, Collins and maybe Murkowski voting in solidarity women is no problem for any misogynistic nominee.

Just LIE to the Senate, like "balls and strikes" Roberts did on "judicial activism", about your real position on Roe.

[baseline bum]

John Oliver right on the nose here :lol


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNFBRZ2phKE

[Trainwreck2100]

John Oliver right on the nose here :lol


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNFBRZ2phKE

that roe v wade guy was hilarious, but seriously eat shit roe v wade

[boutons_deux]

Hilarious

Trash and mafiya convinced Kennedy to retire, with bullshit that his legacy, rulings would be respected :lol

How Trump’s Supreme Court Pick Could Undo Kennedy’s Legacy

he departed from their orthodoxy on some key issues in addition to gay rights, among them affirmative action, the death penalty, and, most notably, abortion rights. In the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Kennedy voted to uphold Roe v. Wade, and he remained a reluctant but steady advocate for maintaining the precedent.

The whole purpose of Trump’s Supreme Court selection process has been to eliminate the possibility of nominating someone who might commit Kennedy’s perfidies of moderation.

The activists from the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation who supplied the President’s list of twenty-five prospective nominees

are determined to tear down the monuments, on select issues, that Kennedy has built. :lol

It will overrule Roe v. Wade, allowing states to ban abortions and to criminally prosecute any physicians and nurses who perform them.

It will allow shopkeepers, restaurateurs, and hotel owners to refuse service to gay customers on religious grounds.

It will guarantee that fewer African-American and Latino students attend élite universities.

It will approve laws designed to hinder voting rights.

It will sanction execution by grotesque means.

It will invoke the Second Amendment to prohibit states from engaging in gun control, including the regulation of
machine guns and bump stocks.

Kennedy’s words at the conclusion of the Obergefell opinion deserve to be his judicial epitaph.

“It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage,” he wrote.

“Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves.

Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions.

They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law.

The Constitution grants them that right.”

But the Constitution grants only those rights that the Supreme Court says it grants, and

a new majority can and will bestow those rights, and

take them away, in chilling new ways. ♦

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/07/09/how-trumps-supreme-court-pick-could-undo-kennedys-legacy?mbid=nl_Daily%20070218&CNDID=43758549&spMailingID=13799847&spUserID=MTQzNTk4NzA3ODYzS0&spJobID=1440153983&spReportId=MTQ0MDE1Mzk4MwS2

Oligarclhy/Christian Taliban SCOTUS gonna FUCK OVER all of Kennedy's "progressive, tolerant" rulings.

Trash and his mafiya PRANKED Kennedy into retiring. :lol

AmeriKKKa is so fucked and unfuckable.

[Chucho]

More meltdown from racist, intolerant Leftist Nazis...

[ElNono]

although if something truly nutty happens and not only does SCOTUS overturn Roe but then also establishes that abortions themselves are unconstitutional... i'd think you'd see a revolution tbh :lol

Overturning Roe would probably be enough to fill Congress with liberals though, and they could pass a law establishing federal hard timelines for the state vs personal rights issue, possibly worse (looking at it from a pro-life viewpoint) than Roe, so that's unlikely going to be a wise move long term.

Since we would be reaching amateur-hour, don't forget that Congress can also expand the SCOTUS... see Roosevelt's failed "court-packing plan" back in 1937...

[ElNono]

yeah back in my day, scientists would more boldly proclaim stuff that they weren't sure about!

those were the days

"If you don't know, it must be God"... worked for a bunch of centuries, tbh...

[ElNono]

What Mr King SnakeBoy is missing and apparently nobody pointed out yet, is that, even if we were to argue that science finds out tomorrow that life starts when that sperm hits the egg, such form of life is entirely parasitical, up until a certain point where it can be extracted and can live on it's own.

That means, that 'life' needs a 'host' for a certain period of time, and it just so happens that the 'host' has as many constitutional rights as this alleged 'life'.

This is about the point where the moral police alarms start sounding, and we get the erroneous 'but the right to life should trump any other right'. Wrong.

Now that we got that out of the way, and the fact that science has documented pretty well the physical and emotional rollercoaster of pregnancy, we have then established the two competing rights: The privacy right of the host not to have to go through the hosting process, and the 'state interest in life' (which in a way is hilarious, because what would be the state interest outside of the religious/moral motive? The only justification left is 'another taxpayer!', hahaha... erm).

So we don't even need science to get to the 'viability' argument, and the competing interests, etc, etc etc.

The science angle is also interesting, but much more arguable, because science has this third state outside of true or false: we don't know. It's a perfectly reasonable state, but it's a state where you're encouraged to throw all sorts of theories at it and then required to prove them.

So we can argue that DNA = human, or we can argue that DNA is a map of how to build what ultimately will become a human (through the aforementioned hosting process). But unless you can test it and can reproduce the results (prove it, basically), it really has no scientific value, and it's just conjecture.

[boutons_deux]

How about oligarchy/Christian supremacist SCOTUS banning abortion as murder, rather than punting it to "states rights"?

.. murder to include "medication abortion"

[spurraider21]

What Mr King SnakeBoy is missing and apparently nobody pointed out yet, is that, even if we were to argue that science finds out tomorrow that life starts when that sperm hits the egg, such form of life is entirely parasitical, up until a certain point where it can be extracted and can live on it's own.

That means, that 'life' needs a 'host' for a certain period of time, and it just so happens that the 'host' has as many constitutional rights as this alleged 'life'.

This is about the point where the moral police alarms start sounding, and we get the erroneous 'but the right to life should trump any other right'. Wrong.

Now that we got that out of the way, and the fact that science has documented pretty well the physical and emotional rollercoaster of pregnancy, we have then established the two competing rights: The privacy right of the host not to have to go through the hosting process, and the 'state interest in life' (which in a way is hilarious, because what would be the state interest outside of the religious/moral motive? The only justification left is 'another taxpayer!', hahaha... erm).

So we don't even need science to get to the 'viability' argument, and the competing interests, etc, etc etc.

The science angle is also interesting, but much more arguable, because science has this third state outside of true or false: we don't know. It's a perfectly reasonable state, but it's a state where you're encouraged to throw all sorts of theories at it and then required to prove them.

So we can argue that DNA = human, or we can argue that DNA is a map of how to build what ultimately will become a human (through the aforementioned hosting process). But unless you can test it and can reproduce the results (prove it, basically), it really has no scientific value, and it's just conjecture.
Heathen

[pgardn]

What Mr King SnakeBoy is missing and apparently nobody pointed out yet, is that, even if we were to argue that science finds out tomorrow that life starts when that sperm hits the egg, such form of life is entirely parasitical, up until a certain point where it can be extracted and can live on it's own.

That means, that 'life' needs a 'host' for a certain period of time, and it just so happens that the 'host' has as many constitutional rights as this alleged 'life'.

This is about the point where the moral police alarms start sounding, and we get the erroneous 'but the right to life should trump any other right'. Wrong.

Now that we got that out of the way, and the fact that science has documented pretty well the physical and emotional rollercoaster of pregnancy, we have then established the two competing rights: The privacy right of the host not to have to go through the hosting process, and the 'state interest in life' (which in a way is hilarious, because what would be the state interest outside of the religious/moral motive? The only justification left is 'another taxpayer!', hahaha... erm).

So we don't even need science to get to the 'viability' argument, and the competing interests, etc, etc etc.

The science angle is also interesting, but much more arguable, because science has this third state outside of true or false: we don't know. It's a perfectly reasonable state, but it's a state where you're encouraged to throw all sorts of theories at it and then required to prove them.

So we can argue that DNA = human, or we can argue that DNA is a map of how to build what ultimately will become a human (through the aforementioned hosting process). But unless you can test it and can reproduce the results (prove it, basically), it really has no scientific value, and it's just conjecture.

We were going to get into implantation in the uterine lining. It was coming.
The discussion stopped well short of that.
I try to tell people what they are stepping into before we get into it.

You did need science to get into the viability argument. In fact, because we have such a demand from peeps that can afford it, we have figured out all sorts of ways to muddy the viability issue with frozen embryos etc... viability in vitro... And much more to really confuse.

Your point is well taken though and leads to a very simple perfunctory test of real interest in the subject:

Most in this thread think the taking of a human life is wrong. Once one has decided what a human life is, and we all have our definitions... then I can understand the passion involved. So it comes down to this simple first step for me in testing one’s passion and will:

Will one be willing to demand personally that a pregnant woman take a “child” to term, and then adopt the child? No? You will just give the government the power to attempt to force a woman to take a possible human life to term,and then...who knows after that?

Just hide behind a law with all its known ramifications of crossing state borders to get abortions, etc...

Then this person is NOT serious about the whole subject. I personally know too many couples who have adopted and still are not sure about the law. They step to the plate. Yet You get males pontificating on how wrong it is... they are not serious. Let the government take care of it... I immediately call BS.

BTW... the DNA= human issue continues long after the womb. If one asks why we consider ourselves so special “human” contemplation of one’s own existence, empathy, etc... then many people on this board still are not fully human. And never will be.

[ducks]

That doesn't mean, however, that picking Coney Barrett would be without some strategic side benefits. The largest of those is the fact that she was confirmed by the Senate to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in October 2017. She received 55 votes, including from Democrats Joe Manchin (West Virginia), Joe Donnelly (Indiana) and Tim Kaine (Virginia) as well as several moderate Republicans like Shelley Moore Capito (West Virginia), Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska).https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/02/politics/scotus-amy-coney-barrett-donald-trump/index.html

[ElNono]

We were going to get into implantation in the uterine lining. It was coming.
The discussion stopped well short of that.
I try to tell people what they are stepping into before we get into it.

You did need science to get into the viability argument. In fact, because we have such a demand from peeps that can afford it, we have figured out all sorts of ways to muddy the viability issue with frozen embryos etc... viability in vitro... And much more to really confuse.

Your point is well taken though and leads to a very simple perfunctory test of real interest in the subject:

Most in this thread think the taking of a human life is wrong. Once one has decided what a human life is, and we all have our definitions... then I can understand the passion involved. So it comes down to this simple first step for me in testing one’s passion and will:

Will one be willing to demand personally that a pregnant woman take a “child” to term, and then adopt the child? No? You will just give the government the power to attempt to force a woman to take a possible human life to term,and then...who knows after that?

Just hide behind a law with all its known ramifications of crossing state borders to get abortions, etc...

Then this person is NOT serious about the whole subject. I personally know too many couples who have adopted and still are not sure about the law. They step to the plate. Yet You get males pontificating on how wrong it is... they are not serious. Let the government take care of it... I immediately call BS.

BTW... the DNA= human issue continues long after the womb. If one asks why we consider ourselves so special “human” contemplation of one’s own existence, empathy, etc... then many people on this board still are not fully human. And never will be.

What's actually pretty ironic about the disregard/mockery of science ITT is that science is the one that will eventually be responsible for ultimately solving the challenges that will lead to the technology that does away with this issue entirely. I think we're all in agreement that if there would be a way to transplant the fetus without damage to another host, with minimal/no risk to the original host and the state would pay for it (it's their interest after all), this would no longer be an issue?

[pgardn]

What's actually pretty ironic about the disregard/mockery of science ITT is that science is the one that will eventually be responsible for ultimately solving the challenges that will lead to the technology that does away with this issue entirely. I think we're all in agreement that if there would be a way to transplant the fetus without damage to another host, with minimal/no risk to the original host and the state would pay for it (it's their interest after all), this would no longer be an issue?

Yep.
I think so.

[SnakeBoy]

What Mr King SnakeBoy is missing and apparently nobody pointed out yet, is that, even if we were to argue that science finds out tomorrow that life starts when that sperm hits the egg, such form of life is entirely parasitical, up until a certain point where it can be extracted and can live on it's own.

That means, that 'life' needs a 'host' for a certain period of time, and it just so happens that the 'host' has as many constitutional rights as this alleged 'life'.

This is about the point where the moral police alarms start sounding, and we get the erroneous 'but the right to life should trump any other right'. Wrong.

Now that we got that out of the way, and the fact that science has documented pretty well the physical and emotional rollercoaster of pregnancy, we have then established the two competing rights: The privacy right of the host not to have to go through the hosting process, and the 'state interest in life' (which in a way is hilarious, because what would be the state interest outside of the religious/moral motive? The only justification left is 'another taxpayer!', hahaha... erm).

So we don't even need science to get to the 'viability' argument, and the competing interests, etc, etc etc.

The science angle is also interesting, but much more arguable, because science has this third state outside of true or false: we don't know. It's a perfectly reasonable state, but it's a state where you're encouraged to throw all sorts of theories at it and then required to prove them.

So we can argue that DNA = human, or we can argue that DNA is a map of how to build what ultimately will become a human (through the aforementioned hosting process). But unless you can test it and can reproduce the results (prove it, basically), it really has no scientific value, and it's just conjecture.

What you have apparently missed is that I said it doesn't matter because the question of when life begins isn't what the abortion issue is about. Odd that you missed that and then go on to make the same case.

Is there any point of a pregnancy that you believe the parasite has a right to life (unalienable rights)?

[ElNono]

What you have apparently missed is that I said it doesn't matter because the question of when life begins isn't what the abortion issue is about. Odd that you missed that and then go on to make the same case.

Is there any point of a pregnancy that you believe the parasite has a right to life (unalienable rights)?

You were discussing the merits of science determining when life starts, that's why I brought it up.

As far as your question, as I already explained, 'when' doesn't really matter. Even if we were to argue that at *any* given point through pregnancy the parasite has a right to life, the mother also has a right to her body and what she does with it, which is also a constitutionally protected right. There's no one right better than the other. When you encounter competing rights, the judiciary normally has to strike a balance.

This is where the whole 'viability' construction comes from. It's a Solomonic solution that basically establishes the right of the mother will last until the parasite could conceivably stop being one and if brought out it could conceivably live by it's own means (even if machine-assisted).

Generally speaking, I understand that it's difficult to talk about this subject without entering into either the emotional or tribal realms (ie: human life > any other organic life).

Personally, I'm not against the King of USA 3 month workaround, but the real solution will come from being able to just move the fetus unharmed into a willing host or a device that can complete the process, IMO.

[SnakeBoy]

You were discussing the merits of science determining when life starts, that's why I brought it up.


The intent was just to point out that only extreme Pro Lifers have a concrete thing to point to in regards to abortion the rest of us are picking arbitrary points in time where we are deciding it's is ok or wrong to terminate the life of the child. Along with the point that most pro choice people feel the need to dehumanize the unborn in order to justify their view. It isn't necessary but I understand why they do it.

[ElNono]

The intent was just to point out that only extreme Pro Lifers have a concrete thing to point to in regards to abortion the rest of us are picking arbitrary points in time where we are deciding it's is ok or wrong to terminate the life of the child. Along with the point that most pro choice people feel the need to dehumanize the unborn in order to justify their view. It isn't necessary but I understand why they do it.

fair enough

[Chris]

1014631874038239238

[pgardn]

You were discussing the merits of science determining when life starts, that's why I brought it up.

As far as your question, as I already explained, 'when' doesn't really matter. Even if we were to argue that at *any* given point through pregnancy the parasite has a right to life, the mother also has a right to her body and what she does with it, which is also a constitutionally protected right. There's no one right better than the other. When you encounter competing rights, the judiciary normally has to strike a balance.

This is where the whole 'viability' construction comes from. It's a Solomonic solution that basically establishes the right of the mother will last until the parasite could conceivably stop being one and if brought out it could conceivably live by it's own means (even if machine-assisted).

Generally speaking, I understand that it's difficult to talk about this subject without entering into either the emotional or tribal realms (ie: human life > any other organic life).

Personally, I'm not against the King of USA 3 month workaround, but the real solution will come from being able to just move the fetus unharmed into a willing host or a device that can complete the process, IMO.

The bolded is why I started with discussion of life v. human life.
Your bolded is much better. I hesitate to start with a broad statement and go right into details. Your way is probably much more efficient. I make the mistake of thinking people who are so adamant about a subject have actually thought deeply about it.

[pgardn]

The intent was just to point out that only extreme Pro Lifers have a concrete thing to point to in regards to abortion the rest of us are picking arbitrary points in time where we are deciding it's is ok or wrong to terminate the life of the child. Along with the point that most pro choice people feel the need to dehumanize the unborn in order to justify their view. It isn't necessary but I understand why they do it.

For me I feel the passion. It’s obvious why abortion is such an incredibly difficult heartfelt subject. Because I rationalize,like everyone else to extricate oneself from very difficult moral topics, I fall back on “step to the plate.”

Adopt, and I will be “shamed” as I have not stepped up.

When you talk to someone who has lived a very fulfilling life and has found out they were to be aborted.... and their mom cries and hugs them every time a glass of wine releases emotional inhibitions... That’s raw.

[pgardn]

Switzerland has one of the lowest abortion rates at 5 per 1000 women 2016.

This is touted as being an ideal western situation where free birth control etc.. has played a significant role. The child birth rate in Switzerland is 10 in 1000 women. So both numbers are low as one might expect. But this also means with birth control, 33% of pregnancies are terminated aborted. (Approximate due to other factors)

This “seems” excessive. You will not read the stats seen side by side in most pro choice articles. We need to get thorough discussion. It’s not happening. As usual we get a “side” leaving out a significant stat. Like they are arguing before a Judge defending a client no matter. This is not what a democracy needs. This board is full of this pull-a-stat. And if you don’t like the aforementioned math or data, give me the straight dope. This is not a courtroom. (This place actually mimics the so called visual talking head MSM, FOX & CNN)

With, Put up a random Twitter. Which sucks. But can be humorous.

[Chris]

1015673151118823425

[pgardn]

1015673151118823425

And here we go.... rely on Twitter when you got nothing.


Do these lives lost count miscarriages? abortions(lives lost)
The unique DNA was most certainly known. WRONG. Not known through DNA sequencing, but very well known.

Old Charlie Kirk... FACT...

[Chris]

And here we go.... rely on Twitter when you got nothing.


Do these lives lost count miscarriages? abortions(lives lost)
The unique DNA was most certainly known. WRONG. Not known through DNA sequencing, but very well known.

Old Charlie Kirk... FACT...

Those are all facts jack. Sorry if they got you upset tbh

[pgardn]

Those are all facts jack. Sorry if they got you upset tbh

Im not upset.

Its just flat wrong.
Sorry.
Change who you follow.

[ducks]

On eve of Trump's Supreme Court pick, top Dem suggests sacrificing Senate seats to stop nomination

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/08/on-eve-trumps-supreme-court-pick-top-dem-suggests-sacrificing-senate-seats-to-stop-nomination.html

[Chris]

Im not upset.

Its just flat wrong.
Sorry.
Change who you follow.

Nah, you're still wrong.

[Chris]

1016081728971198465

[ducks]

That doesn't mean, however, that picking Coney Barrett would be without some strategic side benefits. The largest of those is the fact that she was confirmed by the Senate to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in October 2017. She received 55 votes, including from Democrats Joe Manchin (West Virginia), Joe Donnelly (Indiana) and Tim Kaine (Virginia) as well as several moderate Republicans like Shelley Moore Capito (West Virginia), Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska).https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/02/politics/scotus-amy-coney-barrett-donald-trump/index.html

[ducks]

NYT: A Liberal Law Professor Makes Case for Kavanaugh

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/07/09/opinion/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-trump.html

[SnakeBoy]

Trump picks the best justices

[boutons_deux]

Abortion criminalized

EPA, DoEd, DoLabor, HUD, destroyed

another fucking Catholic ideologue extremist

[Pelicans78]

Hillary really screwed her party over.

[ducks]

ABC's Nightline Blasts 'Controversial' Nominee Before He’s Even Announced!

[ducks]

Former president picked a cathlotic

[hater]

Hillary really screwed her country over.

Fify

[spurraider21]

NYT: A Liberal Law Professor Makes Case for Kavanaughhttps://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/07/09/opinion/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-trump.htmlakhil amar is cool. he would adjunct at pepperdine law every now and again. when i took the Con Law seminar, we used his book as our text, but he wasn't around during that semester.

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/books/review/americas-constitution-a-liberal-originalist.html

[SnakeBoy]

akhil amar is cool. he would adjunct at pepperdine law every now and again. when i took the Con Law seminar, we used his book as our text, but he wasn't around during that semester.

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/books/review/americas-constitution-a-liberal-originalist.html

His article is pretty silly though. There's probably no need for a compromise to get Democrat votes.

[spurraider21]

His article is pretty silly though. There's probably no need for a compromise to get Democrat votes.
i doubt it. i think they'll continue to be petty and not give a single vote, force mcconnel to yet again go nuclear for a supreme court nominee

keep in mind there was no doug jones last time

[SnakeBoy]

There was some question if the right would be on board with Kavanaugh but after much deliberation Sean Hannity has decided to support Donald Trumps nominee. So that ends the suspense.

[SnakeBoy]

One trick pony


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFc01p24sYg

[boutons_deux]

If the Supreme Court is Nakedly Political, Can It Be Just?

By Lee Epstein and Eric Posner
Ms. Epstein is a political scientist and law professor at Washington University.
Mr. Posner is a professor at the University of Chicago Law School.


The court has recently entered a new era of partisan division.

If you look at close cases — 5 to 4 or 5 to 3 — going back to the 1950s to illustrate this division, you will see that the percentage of votes cast in the liberal direction by justices who were appointed by Democratic presidents has skyrocketed.

And the same trajectory applies on the other side: The percentage of votes cast in the conservative direction by justices who were appointed by Republican presidents has also shot up.


The trend is extreme — and alarming.

In the 1950s and 1960s, the ideological biases of Republican appointees and Democratic appointees were relatively modest.

The gap between them has steadily grown, but even as late as the early 1990s,

it was possible for justices to vote in ideologically unpredictable ways.

In the closely divided cases in the 1991 term, for example, the single Democratic appointee on the court, Byron White, voted more conservatively (http://supremecourtdatabase.org/) than all but two of the Republican appointees, Antonin Scalia and William Rehnquist.

This was a time when many Republican appointees — like Sandra Day O’Connor, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens and David Souter — frequently cast liberal votes.

In the past 10 years, however,

justices have hardly ever voted against the ideology of the president who appointed them.

Only Justice Kennedy, named to the court by Ronald Reagan, did so with any regularity. That is why with

his replacement on the court an ideologically committed Republican justice,

it will become impossible to regard the court as anything but a partisan institution.

For the first time in living memory,

the court will be seen by the public as a party-dominated institution,

one whose votes on controversial issues are essentially determined by the party affiliation of recent presidents.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/09/opinion/supreme-court-nominee-trump.html?partner=rss&emc=rss (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/09/opinion/supreme-court-nominee-trump.html?partner=rss&emc=rss)

Another institution fucked up, in fucked up America in decline.

iow, partisan politics is Above The Law

[boutons_deux]

Collusion

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy agreed to retire if Trump promised to replace him with Brett Kavanaugh
A source who was told of the discussions said Kennedy felt comfortable retiring after the Trump team assured him Kavanaugh would be the pick.

The Trump administration has been negotiating Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's retirement for months, according to a new report.

Kennedy agreed to retire at the end of the term that concluded last month once he received assurances that President Donald Trump would replace him with a former law clerk, reported NBC News.

On Monday, the president held up his end of the bargain by nominating Brett Kavanaugh, the conservative former Kennedy clerk.

https://www.alternet.org/bombshell-supreme-court-justice-anthony-kennedy-agreed-retire-if-trump-promised-replace-him-brett

Is Kennedy so stupid not to know that Kavanaugh's 100% 5th vote will destroy ALL of Kennedy's "progressive" votes ASAP?

[boutons_deux]

CNN’s Berman Grills Raj Shah:

Did Trump Know Kavanaugh Argued Against Investigating Presidents?

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-berman-grills-raj-shah-did-trump-know-kavanaugh-argued-against-investigating-presidents/

[boutons_deux]

White House doesn’t deny report Trump made secret deal with Kennedy over retirement, replacement

It's not supposed to work like this.


During an CNN interview on Tuesday morning,

White House deputy press secretary Raj Shah did not deny an NBC report that

outgoing Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy “received assurances” from President Trump that if he retired,

Judge Brett Kavanaugh (https://thinkprogress.org/who-is-brett-kavanaugh-trumps-pick-to-replace-anthony-kennedy-de6ec8847027/) — one of Kennedy’s former clerks — would be nominated to be his replacement.

If NBC’s report is true, it means

Kennedy would effectively have been given control over a SCOTUS seat for 60 years — the 30 years he served,

and the 30 or so the 53-year-old Kavanaugh will likely serve on the court if confirmed.

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-anthony-kennedy-brett-kavanaugh-corrupt-secret-deal-13fd59473ecf/

[ducks]

just wainting for ruth to retire!

[ducks]

White House doesn’t deny report Trump made secret deal with Kennedy over retirement, replacement

It's not supposed to work like this.


During an CNN interview on Tuesday morning,

White House deputy press secretary Raj Shah did not deny an NBC report that

outgoing Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy “received assurances” from President Trump that if he retired,

Judge Brett Kavanaugh (https://thinkprogress.org/who-is-brett-kavanaugh-trumps-pick-to-replace-anthony-kennedy-de6ec8847027/) — one of Kennedy’s former clerks — would be nominated to be his replacement.

If NBC’s report is true, it means

Kennedy would effectively have been given control over a SCOTUS seat for 60 years — the 30 years he served,

and the 30 or so the 53-year-old Kavanaugh will likely serve on the court if confirmed.

https://thinkprogress.org/trump-anthony-kennedy-brett-kavanaugh-corrupt-secret-deal-13fd59473ecf/



LOL no proof
trump did talk to kennedy and about a replacement but do you really think trump promised who he would pick

[spurraider21]

btw the whole "we must reject this judge because of abortion views" is a really shitty argument, imo, on behalf of the democrat lawmakers.

i mean, imagine if every time a democrat nominated a justice, republicans said "we must reject this judge because of abortion views."

that's not the measure by which we decide if somebody is qualified to be a supreme court justice. now if democrats just want to play hardball because of the merrick garland bullshit, then just say that.

[pgardn]

btw the whole "we must reject this judge because of abortion views" is a really shitty argument, imo, on behalf of the democrat lawmakers.

i mean, imagine if every time a democrat nominated a justice, republicans said "we must reject this judge because of abortion views."

that's not the measure by which we decide if somebody is qualified to be a supreme court justice. now if democrats just want to play hardball because of the merrick garland bullshit, then just say that.

They are playing the Roe v. Wade precedence card.

If if the Democrats come out with a win on this ANd the November elections I would be shocked. The Republicans have shoved them a corner.

[spurraider21]

They are playing the Roe v. Wade precedence card.

If if the Democrats come out with a win on this ANd the November elections I would be shocked. The Republicans have shoved them a corner.
yeah and i'm saying it's a shitty and unpersuasive card for anybody but their base

[boutons_deux]

If this Catholic asshole is rejected, Leonard Leo has 20+ other anti-abortion politicians in the queue

[ducks]

If this Catholic asshole is rejected, Leonard Leo has 20+ other anti-abortion politicians in the queue

last president got a Catholic in

[ducks]

Sen. Mazie Horono, D-Hawaii, said Tuesday she would be open to voting for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
"The burden of proof is on him, which means that I am leaning no but maybe he can convince me to vote for him. This is a big burden on him to show me he can be fair and objective," Hirono said on CNN’s "New Day."

“The president has a power to nominate, but we have the power and responsibility to confirm this person. But with that responsibility comes, as far as I am concerned, the Senate hearing, the one-on-one meeting that I will have with him, and because of his record and the fact that he has been vetted by two highly conservative groups who want to overturn Roe v. Wade and repeal the Affordable Care Act, among other things, he bears the burden of proof," Hirono said.

The two conservative groups Hirono referred to are the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation. In May 2016, Trump released a list of possible Supreme Court choices that those groups had vetted. Kavanaugh’s name was added later to that initial list, The New York Times editorial board noted.


Other Senate Democrats have been more critical of Kavanaugh. “I will oppose him with everything I’ve got,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Tuesday.

[spurraider21]

i do realize that democrat leaders are somewhat boxed in, though.

like sure, obstructing at every step doesn't reflect well... but after the shit mcconell put them through re: garland/gorsuch, its really hard to offer any goodwill to republicans at that point.

[ducks]

it is funny trump said he would pick from the 25 list and he got elected
not sure what the hell problem is people wanted his picks to get confirmed
the people spoke

[baseline bum]

it is funny trump said he would pick from the 25 list and he got elected
not sure what the hell problem is people wanted his picks to get confirmed
the people spoke

The people voted for Clinton by almost 3 million votes. The people were silenced.

[boutons_deux]

yeah and i'm saying it's a shitty and unpersuasive card for anybody but their base

abortion has divided USA since Roe. Along with racism, it's fundamental to the Repug base.

Completely logical to reject a SCOTUS anti-abortionist.

[spurraider21]

abortion has divided USA since Roe. Along with racism, it's fundamental to the Repug base.

Completely logical to reject a SCOTUS anti-abortionist.
yeah and by your shitty logic, as abortion has divided USA since Roe, it would be completely logical for conservatives to reject a SCOTUS pro-abortion nominee on those grounds alone

[ducks]

The people voted for Clinton by almost 3 million votes. The people were silenced.

trump won the states needed
he would have spent time in cal and got more votes but popular vote does not count in the usa

[spurraider21]

trump won the states needed
he would have spent time in cal and got more votes but popular vote does not count in the usa
266038556504494082

[boutons_deux]

yeah and by your shitty logic, as abortion has divided USA since Roe, it would be completely logical for conservatives to reject a SCOTUS pro-abortion nominee on those grounds alone

yep, that's the fatally polarized shit hole that USA has become

[ducks]

266038556504494082
he thought it was then
does not mean I agree with him on that
I would have preferred amy over his pick
I hope he picks amy when ruth retires

[baseline bum]

trump won the states needed


Hence the people being silenced since only Florida, Ohio, and a few other states mattered. The people did not vote for that piece of shit.

[AaronY]

This Kavanaugh guy is not bad at all from what I have read

[ducks]

yep, that's the fatally polarized shit hole that USA has become
do you like it better then other countries?

[ducks]

This Kavanaugh guy is not bad at all from what I have read
he does not want to make laws
he looks at past rulings

he is not some right extermenist people think he is

[ducks]

Hence the people being silenced since only Florida, Ohio, and a few other states mattered. The people did not vote for that piece of shit.

no all states mattered
not just big cities with a lot of people

[SnakeBoy]

1016521188779020288

[baseline bum]

no all states mattered
not just big cities with a lot of people

Bullshit at the people selecting Trump. They didn't. He won the election but stop with this bullshit about him being the people's choice.

[SnakeBoy]

1016500112804073472

C'mon now...Everybody say NO! NO!

[SnakeBoy]

Bullshit at the people selecting Trump. They didn't. He won the election but stop with this bullshit about him being the people's choice.

:cry still with her :cry

[baseline bum]

:cry still with her :cry

Fuck off, ducks posting this bullshit about Trump being the peoples' choice is dishonest as hell.

[ducks]

Fuck off, ducks posting this bullshit about Trump being the peoples' choice is dishonest as hell.

aliens got trump elected?

[baseline bum]

aliens got trump elected?

The ridiculous electoral college got him elected. The people voted almost 3 million in the other direction.

[ducks]

The ridiculous electoral college got him elected. The people voted almost 3 million in the other direction.

3 million of those were from cal

[Chris]

1016500112804073472

C'mon now...Everybody say NO! NO!

He got roasted by Shapiro :lol

[Chris]

bum just catching up to talking points hashed out in 2016 :lol

[Chris]

1016788251213025280

[monosylab1k]

:lmao still trying to make #walkaway a thing.

[ducks]

He was on the president's list he.said he would use. Picking SCOTUS nominees from that list was a campaign promise. Sounds like.he is keeping a campaign promise. I know its unusual once someone gains office to actually do this but he did.

[Chris]

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pewpewtactical.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F04%2FEverythingIsFineMe me-e1492979423206.jpeg&f=1

[spurraider21]

3 million of those were from cal
any? why shouldn't peoples' votes count just because they're from california?

[Chris]

any? why shouldn't peoples' votes count just because they're from california?

Really?

[spurraider21]

Really?
really. a voter from california is just as american as a voter from ohio

[Chris]

really. a voter from california is just as american as a voter from ohio

So you're comfortable with California and New York deciding the election because: voters have equal rights? OK.

[spurraider21]

So you're comfortable with California and New York deciding the election because: voters have equal rights? OK.
i'm comfortable with the american people deciding the election because each american voter should have equal say

its ludicrous that the democrats have gotten more votes from american citizens in 4 of the last 5 elections but the republicans have won the presidency in 3 of those 5

if they didnt want to go full popular vote, at least take away the winner take all bullshit and have the state electors assigned based on proportional voting, like many states do in primaries.

[SnakeBoy]

i'm comfortable with the american people deciding the election because each american voter should have equal say

its ludicrous that the democrats have gotten more votes from american citizens in 4 of the last 5 elections but the republicans have won the presidency in 3 of those 5

if they didnt want to go full popular vote, at least take away the winner take all bullshit and have the state electors assigned based on proportional voting, like many states do in primaries.

Or the dumb fuck Democrats could stop catering exclusively to the far left base. We need to change the rules because Democrats have abandoned their traditional working class base is a really stupid excuse.

[baseline bum]

Or the dumb fuck Democrats could stop catering exclusively to the far left base.

Because that's what they did picking Clinton over Sanders?

[spurraider21]

Or the dumb fuck Democrats could stop catering exclusively to the far left base. We need to change the rules because Democrats have abandoned their traditional working class base is a really stupid excuse.
yeah trump really catered to moderates

the rules are broken when the will of the american people is set aside because of electoral system making their votes meaningless

[ducks]

Maybe if Obama wouldn't have been such a treasonous President, republicans might not have blocked his Supreme Court nomination.

But the reality is that any lame duck President who sends $150 Billion to Iran has no business nominating a Supreme Court Justice.

[ducks]

any? why shouldn't peoples' votes count just because they're from california?

Why should cal decide the election and not all the states

[spurraider21]

Why should cal decide the election and not all the states
i dont

i think the american people should decide the election, and their votes shouldn't be more or less significant based on where they live

[Chris]

the rules are broken when the will of the american people is set aside because of electoral system making their votes meaningless

You're going all-in with this aren't you? :lol

[ducks]

i dont

i think the american people should decide the election, and their votes shouldn't be more or less significant based on where they live

why should only big cities get to decide the election and not the small cities and towns throughout the country

[CosmicCowboy]

Watching dems lose their minds over this is fucking hilarious. No way this court overturns roe v wade.

[baseline bum]

Maybe if Obama wouldn't have been such a treasonous President, republicans might not have blocked his Supreme Court nomination.

But the reality is that any lame duck President who sends $150 Billion to Iran has no business nominating a Supreme Court Justice.

LOL Republicans were complete obstructionists from Day 1. A Trumptard calling anyone a treasonous president is hilarious.

[CosmicCowboy]

i dont

i think the american people should decide the election, and their votes shouldn't be more or less significant based on where they live

Gee. Think the guys that made the rules didnt think of this? House = popular vote, Senate = states equality. The great compromise. Its still a union of states, not a federal dictatorship.

[rmt]

We are not the United Peoples of America or United Citizens of America but the United STATES of America - each state has their own laws, taxes, etc - separate and different from other states. The electoral college votes go to the candidate who gets the most votes in a state. Aren't the rules known going into the election and isn't there a way to change the constitution (to popular vote/whatever you want)?

It reminds me of saying that the person who wins the most points should win a tennis match - that all points should be equal - when they aren't depending on WHEN (or in the case of national elections - WHERE) - you win them. Those are the rules going in - if you don't like the rules, there's a way to change them.

Regarding Trump's choice - it's the correct choice for the situation - very narrow margin in Senate and the candidate (most establishment one) that will result in that Lisa/Collins duo voting for him. That's all Trump has to do - keep the Republicans together. If the Senate ever gets more Republicans, then he can nominate Amy what's her name.

[AaronY]

he does not want to make laws
he looks at past rulings

he is not some right extermenist people think he is
Last part is true. He's not bad at all from what I read considering what I was lead to expect or feared

[spurraider21]

why should only big cities get to decide the election and not the small cities and towns throughout the country
i dont care about big cities or small cities

just american citizens. they should all vote and their votes should all count the same

[spurraider21]

Gee. Think the guys that made the rules didnt think of this? House = popular vote, Senate = states equality. The great compromise. Its still a union of states, not a federal dictatorship.
yeah, dont get me started on how bullshit the senate is. in theory, 50 senators representing only 16% of the US population can block any legislation in the senate.

there have only been 5 instances total where the winner of the election lost the popular vote. its not like they specifically wanted that to be the regular course of business

and crofl "dictatorship." nobody said it should be a dictatorship. still decided by a democratic process, with term limits, and constitutional limits on power.

[ducks]

:sleep
:sleep
:sleep
:sleep
:sleep
:sleep
:sleep
:sleep
:sleep
:sleep
:sleep
:sleep
:sleep
:sleep
:sleep

[spurraider21]

Watching dems lose their minds over this is fucking hilarious. No way this court overturns roe v wade.
i'm inclined to agree

[rmt]

i dont care about big cities or small cities

just american citizens. they should all vote and their votes should all count the same

What say you about who is counted in the census then?

[spurraider21]

You're going all-in with this aren't you? :lol
266038556504494082

trump bad now

[spurraider21]

What say you about who is counted in the census then?
permanent residents

[ducks]

266038556504494082

trump bad now

there is not a person you can agree with everyone he by far was the best choice
in 2012 he thought that does not mean he thinks that now especially not he is president

[ducks]

permanent residents

legal citizens

[rmt]

permanent residents

The foreign born
The U.S. Census Bureau uses the term foreign born to refer to anyone who is not a U.S. citizen at birth. This includes naturalized U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents (immigrants), temporary migrants (such as foreign students), humanitarian migrants (such as refugees and asylees), and unauthorized migrants.

The Census Bureau collects data from all foreign born who participate in its censuses and surveys, regardless of legal status. Thus, unauthorized migrants are implicitly included in Census Bureau estimates of the total foreign-born population, although it is not possible to tabulate separate estimates of unauthorized migrants or any other legal status category.

https://www.census.gov/topics/population/foreign-born/about.html

Frustrating, isn't it? (on both sides)

[rmt]

70,000 US citizens in WI, MI and PA vs how many millions of illegal aliens.

[Pavlov]

70,000 US citizens in WI, MI and PA vs how many millions of illegal aliens.Are you claiming the illegal aliens voted?

[ducks]

Are you claiming the illegal aliens voted?


What say you about who is counted in the census then?

[Pavlov]

I'm fine with having them counted in the census. I'm fine with deporting them too if they're such a drain. What would your scapegoat be then?

[rmt]

Are you claiming the illegal aliens voted?


Methodology

The United States Census counts total persons residing in the United States including citizens, non-citizen permanent residents, and non-citizen long-term visitors.[1] (this must be the sanitized/PC term for illegal aliens). Civilian and military federal employees serving abroad and their dependents are counted in their home state.[2]

Electoral apportionment
Based on data from the decennial census, each state is allocated a proportion of the 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives, although each state is guaranteed a minimum of one seat, regardless of population. This apportionment is based on the proportion of each state's population to that of the fifty states together (without regard to the populations of the District of Columbia, AS, GU, MP, PR, or VI). The Electoral College is the body that, every four years, elects the President and Vice President of the United States. Each state's representation in the Electoral College is equal to that state's total number of members in both houses of the United States Congress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

Every time some one whines about how each American's vote should count equally, I'm a gonna post the above about how ILLEGAL ALIENS may affect our elections.

[Pavlov]

Methodology

The United States Census counts total persons residing in the United States including citizens, non-citizen permanent residents, and non-citizen long-term visitors.[1] (this must be the sanitized/PC term for illegal aliens). Civilian and military federal employees serving abroad and their dependents are counted in their home state.[2]

Electoral apportionment
Based on data from the decennial census, each state is allocated a proportion of the 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives, although each state is guaranteed a minimum of one seat, regardless of population. This apportionment is based on the proportion of each state's population to that of the fifty states together (without regard to the populations of the District of Columbia, AS, GU, MP, PR, or VI). The Electoral College is the body that, every four years, elects the President and Vice President of the United States. Each state's representation in the Electoral College is equal to that state's total number of members in both houses of the United States Congress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_populationA nd?

[AaronY]

there is not a person you can agree with everyone he by far was the best choice
in 2012 he thought that does not mean he thinks that now especially not he is president
you took the words right out of my mouth

then i guess you shuffled them up in a bag and poured them out onto the floor or something

[pgardn]

The election was close anyway you look at it.
Trump won by the current rules.

Bottom line is it was close.
So democrats need to understand there are a bunch of people who don’t like what they are selling.
For God’s sake the Republicans won with an Orange clown. Think about this...

[rmt]

And?

Illegal aliens may affect the number of electoral votes a state like CA gets.

[CosmicCowboy]

I wonder if Ginsburg will get tired of writing minority opinions and say "fuck it" between naps and quit. Be funny as shit if Trump pushes through three SCOTUS judges.

[Pavlov]

Illegal aliens may affect the number of electoral votes a state like CA gets.And Texas.

[rmt]

And Texas.

I think TX is trying to limit them (unlike CA who welcomes them with open arms). If you live in TX, you ought to keep an eye on that ever-rising property tax which is paying for many of those illegal kids' educations.

[spurraider21]

The foreign born
The U.S. Census Bureau uses the term foreign born to refer to anyone who is not a U.S. citizen at birth. This includes naturalized U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents (immigrants), temporary migrants (such as foreign students), humanitarian migrants (such as refugees and asylees), and unauthorized migrants.

The Census Bureau collects data from all foreign born who participate in its censuses and surveys, regardless of legal status. Thus, unauthorized migrants are implicitly included in Census Bureau estimates of the total foreign-born population, although it is not possible to tabulate separate estimates of unauthorized migrants or any other legal status category.

https://www.census.gov/topics/population/foreign-born/about.html

Frustrating, isn't it? (on both sides)
census figures would be irrelevant if you just went with a popular vote where only citizens can vote.

[spurraider21]

Illegal aliens may affect the number of electoral votes a state like CA gets.


census figures would be irrelevant if you just went with a popular vote where only citizens can vote.

[Pavlov]

I think TX is trying to limit them (unlike CA who welcomes them with open arms). If you live in TX, you ought to keep an eye on that ever-rising property tax which is paying for many of those illegal kids' educations.Texas isn't trying to limit them at all. Texas needs them.

I'd rather have them educated.

[spurraider21]

and the amount of skew you have in the house of representatives due to illegal immigrants absolutely pales in comparison to the natural skew of the senate...

[Chris]

266038556504494082

trump bad now

on cue

[Pavlov]

on cueAnd you have no rebuttal.

[pgardn]

Illegal aliens may affect the number of electoral votes a state like CA gets.

3 million of them...

Sure.

Just enough for Trump to claim he would have won the popular vote.

[SnakeBoy]

I wonder if Ginsburg will get tired of writing minority opinions and say "fuck it" between naps and quit. Be funny as shit if Trump pushes through three SCOTUS judges.

Don't forget about Breyer, could easily be 4. Both are in the age range where health can just suddenly spiral downward unexpectedly.

[Chris]

And you have no rebuttal.

"but DRUMPF!" doesn't deserve a rebuttal. I know it's your ace in the hole.

[Pavlov]

"but DRUMPF!" doesn't deserve a rebuttal. I know it's your ace in the hole.:lol I accept your white flag.

[rmt]

Texas isn't trying to limit them at all. Texas needs them.

I'd rather have them educated.

I wonder why TX joins/leads immigration lawsuits.

Seven States, Led by Texas, Sue to End DACA Program
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/01/us/daca-lawsuit-texas.html

Texas ban on sanctuary city policies can stand for now, appeals court rules
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/14/politics/texas-sanctuary-cities-sb4-ruling/index.html

A Texas lawsuit killed one Obama immigration policy.
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/05/07/texas-lawsuit-daca-dapa-ken-paxton/

[rmt]

3 million of them...

Sure.

Just enough for Trump to claim he would have won the popular vote.

I'm not talking about votes. Illegals can inflate the House representatives/electoral votes that a state gets.

[Pavlov]

I wonder why TX joins/leads immigration lawsuits.

Seven States, Led by Texas, Sue to End DACA Program
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/01/us/daca-lawsuit-texas.html

Texas ban on sanctuary city policies can stand for now, appeals court rules
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/14/politics/texas-sanctuary-cities-sb4-ruling/index.html

A Texas lawsuit killed one Obama immigration policy.
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/05/07/texas-lawsuit-daca-dapa-ken-paxton/Posturing. It never leads to any reduction where they want them.

Ever.

[ducks]

Be funny if Obama’s picks had to retire
Then trump could really under Obama’s legacy

[baseline bum]

Methodology

The United States Census counts total persons residing in the United States including citizens, non-citizen permanent residents, and non-citizen long-term visitors.[1] (this must be the sanitized/PC term for illegal aliens). Civilian and military federal employees serving abroad and their dependents are counted in their home state.[2]

Electoral apportionment
Based on data from the decennial census, each state is allocated a proportion of the 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives, although each state is guaranteed a minimum of one seat, regardless of population. This apportionment is based on the proportion of each state's population to that of the fifty states together (without regard to the populations of the District of Columbia, AS, GU, MP, PR, or VI). The Electoral College is the body that, every four years, elects the President and Vice President of the United States. Each state's representation in the Electoral College is equal to that state's total number of members in both houses of the United States Congress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

Every time some one whines about how each American's vote should count equally, I'm a gonna post the above about how ILLEGAL ALIENS may affect our elections.

How about a 3/5 compromise for illegals?

[ducks]

Maine GOP Sen. Susan Collins, who has said she would not vote for a nominee who would overturn Roe v. Wade, praised Kavanaugh's "impressive credentials and extensive experience" on Monday, even as she vowed to carefully vet his nomination.

[Pavlov]

How about a 3/5 compromise for illegals?:lmao

[baseline bum]

Maine GOP Sen. Susan Collins, who has said she would not vote for a nominee who would overturn Roe v. Wade, praised Kavanaugh's "impressive credentials and extensive experience" on Monday, even as she vowed to carefully vet his nomination.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNFBRZ2phKE&t=1m45s

[rmt]

How about a 3/5 compromise for illegals?

They should not be counted as they should not be here at all.

[baseline bum]

They should not be counted as they should not be here at all.

Slaves shouldn't have been either and they couldn't vote but the south still got representation for them. The precedent is set son.

[monosylab1k]

"but DRUMPF!" doesn't deserve a rebuttal. I know it's your ace in the hole.

the “:cry BUT OBAMA DID IT TOO :cry” posterboy making this comment :lmao

[ducks]

Slaves shouldn't have been either and they couldn't vote but the south still got representation for them. The precedent is set son.

Woman could not vote at one time either

[baseline bum]

Woman could not vote at one time either

Maybe you like cock but I think women should have been there.

[Pavlov]

Woman could not vote at one time eitherAnd yet they counted for representation.


Go figure.

[boutons_deux]

oligarchy gonna get EVERYTHING they want, for decades

Trump’s Supreme Court pick: ISPs have 1st Amendment right to block websites

Net neutrality violates ISPs' right to edit the Internet, judge wrote.

President Trump's Supreme Court nominee argued last year that net neutrality rules violate the First Amendment rights of Internet service providers by preventing them from "exercising editorial control" over Internet content.

Trump's pick is Brett Kavanaugh (https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/Content/VL+-+Judges+-+BMK), a judge on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The DC Circuit twice upheld the net neutrality rules passed by the Federal Communications Commission under former Chairman Tom Wheeler,

despite Kavanaugh's dissent.

(In another tech-related case, Kavanaugh ruled (https://www.emptywheel.net/2015/11/23/guy-who-worked-at-white-house-when-it-self-authorized-dragnet-thinks-dragnets-are-cool/) that the National Security Agency's bulk collection of telephone metadata is legal.)

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/net-neutrality-rules-are-illegal-according-to-trumps-supreme-court-pick/

And what does the oligarchy want? All of the money of the non-oligarchy.

America is and will continue to be SO FUCKED and UNFUCKABLE

[pgardn]

I'm not talking about votes. Illegals can inflate the House representatives/electoral votes that a state gets.

Like they will be counted...
How?

Census... laughable.

[ElNono]

Methodology

The United States Census counts total persons residing in the United States including citizens, non-citizen permanent residents, and non-citizen long-term visitors.[1] (this must be the sanitized/PC term for illegal aliens). Civilian and military federal employees serving abroad and their dependents are counted in their home state.[2]

Electoral apportionment
Based on data from the decennial census, each state is allocated a proportion of the 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives, although each state is guaranteed a minimum of one seat, regardless of population. This apportionment is based on the proportion of each state's population to that of the fifty states together (without regard to the populations of the District of Columbia, AS, GU, MP, PR, or VI). The Electoral College is the body that, every four years, elects the President and Vice President of the United States. Each state's representation in the Electoral College is equal to that state's total number of members in both houses of the United States Congress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population

Every time some one whines about how each American's vote should count equally, I'm a gonna post the above about how ILLEGAL ALIENS may affect our elections.

There's non-citizen long-term visitors like people with work visas (H1B's et all), which are indeed not permanent residents (green card holders) nor citizens. They're absolutely legal though.

[Chucho]

abortion has divided USA since Roe. Along with racism, it's fundamental to the Repug base.

Completely logical to reject a SCOTUS anti-abortionist.

Talks about racism after making a bigoted post. Boots, you're one piece of self-contradicting shit. I know you're parents "love" you because they "have to", but I bet you're one unloved, lonely fuck. Go get some therapy, you dime-a-dozen "woke" jabrone.

[ElNono]

census figures would be irrelevant if you just went with a popular vote where only citizens can vote.

but, regardless, laws apply to everybody, whether you're a citizen, a resident, or even an illegal alien (which is merely an administrative status). There's no compelling argument why non-citizens or non-voters shouldn't have representation. Much like the District of Columbia should've had representation a long time ago.

[SnakeBoy]

I think TX is trying to limit them (unlike CA who welcomes them with open arms). If you live in TX, you ought to keep an eye on that ever-rising property tax which is paying for many of those illegal kids' educations.

We are keeping an eye on it. That's about all we can do since a state income tax is out of the question.

[rmt]

but, regardless, laws apply to everybody, whether you're a citizen, a resident, or even an illegal alien (which is merely an administrative status). There's no compelling argument why non-citizens or non-voters shouldn't have representation. Much like the District of Columbia should've had representation a long time ago.

My argument (whether you find it compelling or not) is that illegal aliens should not be here and therefore should not have representation. Do you think it would make a compelling argument for me to go to Mexico illegally and demand representation in their government?

[baseline bum]

My argument (whether you find it compelling or not) is that illegal aliens should not be here and therefore should not have representation. Do you think it would make a compelling argument for me to go to Mexico illegally and demand representation in their government?

The precedent has already been set they should count towards representation since slaves counted. Trumpland can't have it both ways.

[ducks]

As of July 9, there were 153 federal judicial vacancies, for which President Trump has made 89 nominations (not including the announcement Monday).

Further, there have been 42 Trump-nominated judges already confirmed to lifetime appointments under the current Congress. By comparison, President Obama had only seen 35 judges confirmed by July 2010.

This success in getting judicial nominees confirmed is in large part due to the leadership of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It also is an example of the way President Trump is brilliantly strategic on the issues that are really important.

[ducks]

“For the past seven years, I have coached my daughter’s basketball teams,” Kavanaugh said. “The girls on the team call me ‘Coach K.’”

[spurraider21]

As of July 9, there were 153 federal judicial vacancies, for which President Trump has made 89 nominations (not including the announcement Monday).

Further, there have been 42 Trump-nominated judges already confirmed to lifetime appointments under the current Congress. By comparison, President Obama had only seen 35 judges confirmed by July 2010.

This success in getting judicial nominees confirmed is in large part due to the leadership of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. It also is an example of the way President Trump is brilliantly strategic on the issues that are really important.
Shows who obstructs more

[ducks]

President Donald Trump's nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court once said "the earth is warming" and "humans are contributing," The Atlantic reports.


A few years before that, Kavanaugh wrote in a judicial opinion: "The task of dealing with global warming is urgent and important at the national and international level."
Kavanaugh has heard dozens of cases involving the Environmental Protection Agency, leaving legal scholars with hundreds of pages of opinions on climate change and the environment.




well that should make the left happy on that issue

[koriwhat]

well that should make the left happy on that issue

they're never happy or you haven't been paying attention. the left is the hissy fit squad.

[spurraider21]

President Donald Trump's nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court once said "the earth is warming" and "humans are contributing," The Atlantic reports.


A few years before that, Kavanaugh wrote in a judicial opinion: "The task of dealing with global warming is urgent and important at the national and international level."
Kavanaugh has heard dozens of cases involving the Environmental Protection Agency, leaving legal scholars with hundreds of pages of opinions on climate change and the environment.




well that should make the left happy on that issue
lol. climate change isn't a judicial issue. it's a scientific one.

[ducks]

Ginsburg: I wasn't '100 percent sober' at SOTU
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/ruth-bader-ginsburg-napping-alcohol-sotu-115172

[spurraider21]

february 2015 articles :lmao

[boutons_deux]

Shows who obstructs more

besides blocking Gardiner, Bitch McC slowed all of Obama's Federal judgeships for 8 years.

Now Bitch is pushing through judges in bunches.

the polluting of the Federal judiciary with political hack ideologues, and the purchasing of state supreme courts is a fundamental strategy of the oligarchy's coup d'etat

[boutons_deux]

Rosenstein Asks Prosecutors to Help With Kavanaugh Papers in Unusual Request

Mr. Rosenstein’s request was an unusual insertion of politics into federal law enforcement.

in an email sent this week to the nation’s 93 United States attorneys,

Mr. Rosenstein asked each office to provide up to three federal prosecutors

“who can make this important project a priority for the next several weeks.”

Names were to be submitted to Mr. Rosenstein’s office by the end of Wednesday.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/11/us/politics/rosenstein-kavanaugh-document-review-prosecutors.html?action=click&module=Ribbon&pgtype=Article

[ducks]

Cuomo Says He'll Sue Supreme Court if Roe v. Wade Overturned

Cuomo was not clear how he would proceed with a lawsuit against the Supreme Court, the highest judicial body in the U.S. It's also worth noting that all judges, including those who serve on the Supreme Court, have judicial immunity and cannot be sued for legal decisions they make.

[rmt]

Cuomo Says He'll Sue Supreme Court if Roe v. Wade Overturned

Cuomo was not clear how he would proceed with a lawsuit against the Supreme Court, the highest judicial body in the U.S. It's also worth noting that all judges, including those who serve on the Supreme Court, have judicial immunity and cannot be sued for legal decisions they make.


I wonder which judge he expects would preside over such a case.

[boutons_deux]

Kavanaugh has a big problem with baseball game tickets

[Chris]

lol Cuomo

1017228351466082304

[boutons_deux]

Catholic asshole extremist, anti-American, anti-Constitutional

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh lauded late Chief Justice Rehnquist for dissenting in Roe vs. Wade and supporting school prayer

Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, gave a revealing speech last fall in which

he lauded former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist for having dissented in Roe vs. Wade

and

for rejecting the notion of “a wall of separation between church and state.”


He also

praised the late chief justice’s unsuccessful effort to throw out the so-called “exclusionary rule,”

which forbids police from using illegally obtained evidence.

All three of areas of law —

abortion, religion and police searches

— are likely to be in flux if Kavanaugh is confirmed and joins the high court this fall.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-kavanaugh-rehnquist-20180711-story.html#nws=mcnewsletter

Just another huge extremist turd from the shitthole Federalist Society.

If K isn't approved, Leonard Leo has dozens more turds just like him.

[ducks]

Sen. Manchin: Kavanaugh 'Has All the Right Qualities

[boutons_deux]

Nearly 600 from Yale community sign open letter condemning school's celebration of SCOTUS pick (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/7/12/1779653/-Nearly-600-from-Yale-community-sign-open-letter-condemning-school-s-celebration-of-SCOTUS-pick)




In an open letter (https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScUrOBy5sPzw1VGusbYr2VqVqPiNmO5adNdo8mIcsry vgOfrw/viewform) to Yale Law School Dean Heather Gerken and other leaders of the school, they ask a really important question about leadership’s willingness to celebrate their own power as people’s civil liberties are at stake.

We write today as Yale Law students, alumni, and educators ashamed of our alma mater.

Within an hour of Donald Trump’s announcement that he would nominate Brett Kavanaugh, YLS ‘90, to the Supreme Court, the law school published a press release boasting of its alumnus’s accomplishment.

The school’s post included quotes from Yale Law School professors about Judge Kavanaugh’s intellect, influence and mentorship of their students.

Yet the press release's focus on the nominee's professionalism, pedigree, and service to Yale Law School obscures the true stakes of his nomination and raises a disturbing question:

Is there nothing more important to Yale Law School than its proximity to power and prestige?


The letter details

why Judge Kavanaugh is a bad choice and gives many reasons why his nomination isn’t worth celebrating.

They also urge Yale Law School to practice “moral courage”; in the final paragraph, the letter

explains what’s at cost.
“Perhaps Judge Kavanaugh will be less likely to hire your favorite students,” the letter says in the closing paragraph.

“But people will die if he is confirmed. We hope you agree your sacrifice would be worth it.”

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/1779653

[boutons_deux]

Kavanaugh's awful SeaWorld dissent shows how different having Merrick Garland on the court would be (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/7/12/1779959/-Kavanaugh-s-awful-Seaworld-dissent-shows-how-different-having-Merrick-Garland-on-Sup-Ct-would-be)

the company took the matter to the D.C. Circuit, where the lead attorney

representing SeaWorld was Eugene Scalia, son of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

In 2014, the court denied the petition to review the case on a vote of 2-1, with

Chief Judge Judith Rogers and Judge Merrick Garland holding for the majority.

Judge Kavanaugh dissented.

In a sharply pointed piece published at the website Confined Space run by Jordan Barab, the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor at OSHA from 2009 to 2017, he writes (http://jordanbarab.com/confinedspace/2018/07/10/kavanaugh-threat-to-osha-workers/):

A former OSHA assistant secretary, David Michaels, said, “In his dissent in the Sea World decision,

Judge Kavanaugh made the perverse and erroneous assertion that the law allows Sea World trainers to willingly accept the risk of violent death as part of their job.

He clearly has little regard for workers who face deadly hazards at the workplace.” [...]

Kavanaugh’s idea of making America great again apparently harkens back to a time before the Workers Compensation laws and the Occupational Safety and Health Act were passed.

Back then employers who maimed or killed workers often escaped legal responsibility by arguing that the employee had “assumed” the risk when he or she took the job and the employer, therefore, had no responsibility to make the job safer.

Maybe the worker even liked doing dangerous work.

Employers also escaped responsibility by showing that the worker was somehow negligent.

(Interestingly, Sea World originally blamed Brancheau for her own death because she hadn’t tied her hair back.)

“Perverse and erroneous.”
Kavanaugh argued that OSHA had acted “paternalistically” and

shouldn’t be deciding for workers whether a particular employment in entertainment and sports—football, boxing, car racing, etc.—is too dangerous.

Rogers and Garland pointed out, however, that the 48-year-old

Occupational Safety and Health Act requires employers to make sure the workplace is safe and not put the onus on employees

to choose whether they want to be employed safely or to risk death every time they show up for work.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/1779959

OSHA will be gutted, like CFPB, if not killed, by oligarchy's HACK5 SCOTUS so-called judges.

[spurraider21]

Kavanaugh compared it to the NFL or NASCAR. Injuries or deaths there aren’t really osha issues either

[boutons_deux]

Kavanaugh compared it to the NFL or NASCAR. Injuries or deaths there aren’t really osha issues either

both of those orgs spend $100Ms protecting the players' safety.

Seaworld essentially did nothing, while an ORCA killed a few performers.

[Chucho]

Boots should become an Orca trainer.

[CosmicCowboy]

both of those orgs spend $100Ms protecting the players' safety.

Seaworld essentially did nothing, while an ORCA killed a few performers.
Should have put those darn Orca's in time out.

[TSA]

both of those orgs spend $100Ms protecting the players' safety.

Seaworld essentially did nothing, while an ORCA killed a few performers.

when the Orca is doing it’s final laps around the pool you should take knee in protest in the splash zone

[ducks]

‘Kiss my you know what’: Schumer hamstrung in SCOTUS fight
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/13/schumer-supreme-court-fight-centrist-democrats-716654

[ducks]

And two key moderate Republicans -- Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Susan Collins, R-Maine -- reportedly did not voice any concerns about Kavanaugh in a closed-door meeting of GOP officials this week.

In public, Collins praised Kavanaugh's impressive credentials" and "extensive experience."

[rmt]

And two key moderate Republicans -- Sens. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Susan Collins, R-Maine -- reportedly did not voice any concerns about Kavanaugh in a closed-door meeting of GOP officials this week.

In public, Collins praised Kavanaugh's impressive credentials" and "extensive experience."

Kavanaugh's establishment ties and work with Bush WH probably results in duo's votes - no need for the Dems.

[Chris]

1018122028661006336

[Chris]

1018527369894727680

[spurraider21]

i dont think theres much reason to keep kavanaugh out due to his own qualifications. the only justification would be that you are simply giving him the merrick garland treatment. mcconnell really set a dogshit precedent

[Chris]

1017566564340641792

[Chris]

1019435490477473798

[Chris]

1023721939448328193

[Pavlov]

1023721939448328193Not unprecedented tbh

[boutons_deux]

Notorious RBG is smarter than all 5 of the oligarchy whores combined

[ducks]

Kavanaugh has a big problem with baseball game tickets

yeah how dare he buy them with credit card and then pay it off

[ducks]

Sen. Rand Paul Supports Trump High Court Nominee

[ducks]

Not unprecedented tbh
with her sleeping in court IT IS

[spurraider21]

with her sleeping in court IT IS
clarence thomas went over 10 years without asking a single question in court :lol

he may as well have been sleeping

[ducks]

clarence thomas went over 10 years without asking a single question in court :lol

he may as well have been sleeping

Would have been reported

[spurraider21]

Would have been reported
it was widely reported

[ducks]

it was widely reported

that he did not ask a question not that he was sleeping!

[spurraider21]

that he did not ask a question not that he was sleeping!
that he did not ask any questions for over 10 years

[ducks]

The other 9 asked questions he was thinking

[AaronY]

The other 9 asked questions he was thinking
lmao.

[ducks]

would she even pass a physical the president had to pass?

[Pavlov]

would she even pass a physical the president had to pass?What physical does the president have to pass, ducks?

[ducks]

he has to go to the doctor every year damm you are ..

[ducks]

The unhinged anti-Kavanaugh left gears up to attack a Christian family man who feeds the homeless

[boutons_deux]

Colbert interviewed Repug slander target and Clarence "pubic hair" Thomas sexual aggression target Anita Hill,

http://time.com/5352446/john-oliver-anita-hill-talk-about-the-metoo-movement-on-last-week-tonight/

Black-on-black crime

[Pavlov]

he has to go to the doctor every year damm you are ..But how would he "fail" a physical, ducks?

He's not being traded to the Bucks.

[boutons_deux]

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

Orrin Hatch: 'We didn't treat their Supreme Court candidates the way they're treating ours' (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/8/2/1785480/-Seriously-Orrin-Hatch-F-ck-you)

https://images.dailykos.com/images/509109/story_image/GettyImages-902986464.jpg?1518928974


POLITICO
✔@politico
(https://twitter.com/politico)
"I'm tired of partisanship :lol

and

frankly, we didn't treat their candidates for these positions

the way they're treating ours,"

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said of

Democrats opposing Kavanaugh's confirmation due to "dumbass" partisanship

11:34 AM - Aug 2, 2018 (https://twitter.com/politico/status/1025057330436747267)

Repug scumbag motto: "We do shit unto others but they must not do shit unto us"

[baseline bum]

:rollin

What a piece of shit

[boutons_deux]

Trump's Supreme Court nominee argued presidents should be shielded from all criminal probes — even questioning

Brett M. Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, has argued these special investigations are a mistake and may well be unconstitutional.

Though

he was a key player in the investigation of Clinton,

Kavanaugh has since concluded that

a sitting president should be accorded temporary immunity from any criminal probe while in office.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-kavanaugh-president-20180805-story.html#nws=mcnewsletter

Investigate, subpoena Dem President? Git 'er Done

Investigate, subpoena Repug President? UNCONSTITIONAL

[ducks]

GOP Senators Gush Over Kavanaugh After Private Meetings

[boutons_deux]

“If Monica Lewinsky says that

you inserted a cigar into her vagina while you were in the Oval Office area,

would she be lying?”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/brett-kavanaugh-memo-detailed-explicit-questions-for-clinton/2018/08/20/c0854616-a488-11e8-8fac-12e98c13528d_story.html?utm_term=.3b5c93de15fd&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

[boutons_deux]

Kavanaugh sure has shifted: From ejaculation questions to total deference to presidential power (https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/8/20/1789596/-Kavanaugh-sure-has-shifted-From-ejaculation-questions-to-total-deference-to-presidential-power)

https://images.dailykos.com/images/563982/story_image/GettyImages-994988364.jpg?1531186069

Kavanaugh wrote a memo (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/20/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-clinton-starr.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytpolitics) arguing that investigators should question then-President Bill Clinton in graphic, persistent detail

about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky

more or less solely to impose punishment on Clinton

that it was not Starr’s role to impose,

as Kavanaugh himself admitted in the same memo, writing that

“It may not be our job to impose sanctions on him,

but it is our job to make his pattern of revolting behavior clear—

piece by painful piece.”

“If Monica Lewinsky says that you ejaculated into her mouth on two occasions in the Oval Office area, would she be lying?”

The memo was an argument to shock and disgust Congress into impeaching and removing Clinton from office—what other tone would he have employed in that effort?

after making his bones as a partisan Republican,

Kavanaugh had a convenient change of heart for a Republican judge hoping to be nominated to the Supreme Court

by a Republican president in an era when Republican administrations tend to produce criminal indictments. He decided that

instead of presidents being questioned about sexual behavior unrelated to the original subject of an investigation,

they should be protected entirely from civil litigation or criminal investigation

—and lo and behold, the perfect president to embrace someone making that argument happened along to nominate him to the Supreme Court.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/8/20/1789596/-Kavanaugh-sure-has-shifted-From-ejaculation-questions-to-total-deference-to-presidential-power?detail=emaildkre

[boutons_deux]

Bret Kavanaugh Is A First Rate Hypocrite and Political Judge

This is clearly the voice of someone who simply hated President Clinton. That’s not terribly surprising. The Starr investigation was stocked with GOP partisans. It was a thoroughly corrupt operation.

For his entire career as a DC lawyer, Kavanaugh has stood for maximal presidential power.

For his whole career, Kavanaugh has believed in maximal presidential power.

Unless it’s a Democrat, unless it’s a president he opposes.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/bret-kavanaugh-is-a-first-rate-hypocrite-and-political-judge