Page 2 of 29 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 705
  1. #26
    R.C. Drunkford TimDunkem's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    13,924
    When was the last time Derp logged out and got a breath of fresh air?

  2. #27
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    43,429
    When was the last time Derp logged out and got a breath of fresh air?
    It's impressive tbh.

    Guy hops off his main account and into an alt immediately. He's on the clock with just 1 hour of sleep....at the compputer.

  3. #28
    my unders, my frgn whites pgardn's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    38,143
    Agree with the first sentence, disagree with the second.

    The sexist ability quotient lies to the advantage and disadvantage of the target, I have zero doubt a less attractive woman who was about as professional and distinguished as Judge Barrett could serve as well or better. As always, YMMV.
    Fox news anchors vs. Rachel Madcow

    She fits perfectly for the red team.

  4. #29
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    43,734
    stay classy, CC.


















    (don't ever change)
    WTF? My point was agreeing with Winehole that an unattractive woman can be an effective supreme court justice. Sotemayor proves his point.

  5. #30
    6X ST MVP
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    81,091
    Agree with the first sentence, disagree with the second.

    The sexist ability quotient lies to the advantage and disadvantage of the target, I have zero doubt a less attractive woman who was about as professional and distinguished as Judge Barrett could serve as well or better. As always, YMMV.
    Poor blakehole can only get fat uggos.

  6. #31
    6X ST MVP
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    81,091
    WTF? My point was agreeing with Winehole that an unattractive woman can be an effective supreme court justice. Sotemayor proves his point.
    Sotemayor and Kagan were godawful picks. Their only qualifications were that they are women and that they would vote to uphold Obamacare.

  7. #32
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,590
    Sotemayor and Kagan were godawful picks. Their only qualifications were that they are women and that they would vote to uphold Obamacare.
    What specifically made them "godawful picks"?

  8. #33
    6X ST MVP
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    81,091
    What specifically made them "godawful picks"?
    They're thoroughly unimpressive intellectually, and they're ideologues who have no commitment to the Cons ution.

    There's your bone. Won't be playing 20 questions. Make a point now if you have one.

  9. #34
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,014
    What specifically made them "godawful picks"?
    my issue with the kagan pick is she didnt have any judicial experience. i dont doubt that she was incredibly knowledgeable on the law, but i think having served as an appellate judge should be a pre-requisite.

    the only other justice in recent history who didnt have any experience on the bench was Rehnquist

    dont see how anybody could realistically object to sotomayor as being qualified... at that point its just about having purely political/partisan disagreement with her jurisprudence, and thats not really a legitimate ground to object to a nominee

  10. #35
    6X ST MVP
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    81,091
    my issue with the kagan pick is she didnt have any judicial experience. i dont doubt that she was incredibly knowledgeable on the law, but i think having served as an appellate judge should be a pre-requisite.
    Glaring. Agree.

    Sotemayor and Kagan were godawful picks. Their only qualifications were that they are women and that they would vote to uphold Obamacare.

  11. #36
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,590
    They're thoroughly unimpressive intellectually
    That's not specific.

    That's you folding, derp.


  12. #37
    6X ST MVP
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    81,091
    dont see how anybody could realistically object to sotomayor as being qualified... at that point its just about having purely political/partisan disagreement with her jurisprudence, and thats not really a legitimate ground to object to a nominee
    There's a reason she wrote a (lame) children's book and not a (valuable) law book.

  13. #38
    6X ST MVP
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    81,091
    That's not specific.

    That's you folding, derp.

    You've been BlakeBlaking with regularity lately. You're relegating yourself.

  14. #39
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    97,514
    Trump's Supreme Court front-runner already let the cat of the bag,

    says the court is
    us vs. them

    Here’s Amy Coney Barrett playing pundit and defending McConnell’s decision to block President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, after Justice Scalia’s death.

    Bad enough, but note the big tell:

    An Obama nominee would “dramatically flip the balance of power."



    So much for those “balls and strikes” of Chief Justice John Roberts, huh?

    She lays it all out there; it’s a “balance of power.”

    So much for even respecting the pretense of not prejudging cases.

    It’s all “us vs. them.”

    Even Justice Neil Gorsuch, who got that stolen seat, hasn’t played that game.

    I guess that’s why it’s likely to be Barrett.

    She’s willing to go there, on the record.

    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/202...-is-us-vs-them



  15. #40
    6X ST MVP
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    81,091
    Trump's Supreme Court front-runner already let the cat of the bag,

    says the court is
    us vs. them

    Here’s Amy Coney Barrett playing pundit and defending McConnell’s decision to block President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, after Justice Scalia’s death.

    Bad enough, but note the big tell:

    An Obama nominee would “dramatically flip the balance of power."



    So much for those “balls and strikes” of Chief Justice John Roberts, huh?

    She lays it all out there; it’s a “balance of power.”

    So much for even respecting the pretense of not prejudging cases.

    It’s all “us vs. them.”

    Even Justice Neil Gorsuch, who got that stolen seat, hasn’t played that game.

    I guess that’s why it’s likely to be Barrett.

    She’s willing to go there, on the record.

    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/202...-is-us-vs-them


    "The arguments will be"

    Desperate

  16. #41
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    43,429
    Trump's Supreme Court front-runner already let the cat of the bag,

    says the court is
    us vs. them

    Here’s Amy Coney Barrett playing pundit and defending McConnell’s decision to block President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, after Justice Scalia’s death.

    Bad enough, but note the big tell:

    An Obama nominee would “dramatically flip the balance of power."



    So much for those “balls and strikes” of Chief Justice John Roberts, huh?

    She lays it all out there; it’s a “balance of power.”

    So much for even respecting the pretense of not prejudging cases.

    It’s all “us vs. them.”

    Even Justice Neil Gorsuch, who got that stolen seat, hasn’t played that game.

    I guess that’s why it’s likely to be Barrett.

    She’s willing to go there, on the record.

    https://www.dailykos.com/stories/202...-is-us-vs-them


    Soooo I guess according to Mitt Romney's standards, she's out.

    "The Cons ution gives the President the power to nominate and the Senate the authority to provide advice and consent on Supreme Court nominees. Accordingly, I intend to follow the Cons ution and precedent in considering the President’s nominee. If the nominee reaches the Senate floor, I intend to vote based upon their qualifications," Romney wrote.
    She pretty much disqualified herself by tilting her hands in an utterly bias way.

  17. #42
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Post Count
    18,121
    Soooo I guess according to Mitt Romney's standards, she's out.



    She pretty much disqualified herself by tilting her hands in an utterly bias way.
    "The arguments will be"

    Desperate

  18. #43
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    43,429
    Snakey boy, I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy.

    I know Romney will vote for her regardless of her saying that. No desperation here. They will vote.

  19. #44
    6X ST MVP
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    81,091
    Soooo I guess according to Mitt Romney's standards, she's out.



    She pretty much disqualified herself by tilting her hands in an utterly bias way.
    Another pep talk.

    The GOP doesn't need Romney, though it would be tighter without him.

    He already sees what way the wind is blowing and is not going to blow his fleeting Repub credit on this Democrat L.

    He would especially be stupid to make this his hill to die on while representing the most socially conservative state in the union.

  20. #45
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    43,734
    Trump gets three nominations to the court.

  21. #46
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    43,734
    You guys should direct your spittle at that to RBG and her cancer riddled hubris. Trump didn't have to get #3.

  22. #47
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    When was the last time Derp logged out and got a breath of fresh air?
    Probably back when you were dying of COVID

  23. #48
    R.C. Drunkford TimDunkem's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    13,924
    Probably back when you were dying of COVID
    Was that after you doxed someone for making fun of your fat ass?

  24. #49
    6X ST MVP
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    81,091
    Probably back when you were dying of COVID

  25. #50
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,421
    WTF? My point was agreeing with Winehole that an unattractive woman can be an effective supreme court justice. Sotemayor proves his point.
    You could at least spell her name right. I guess I've had my limit of discussion about judicial ability.

    I find it inane and insulting. You?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

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