|
Post by guido2 on Apr 10, 2024 16:03:06 GMT -5
I'll say it; What the fxck? LOL LOL. And these nipple heads were worried about sharia law. I'll be honest here. My wifes longest friend, who used to be just good old fashioned Conservative has gone off the deep end. IOWs she has gone full blown MAGA. My wife has told this person that, out of respect for the friendship. That she, the friend, not bring up politics. However, this 'friend' keeps trying to inject or elicit a debate. So far my wife has been able to corral her and get her to back off. But, I strongly suspect that depending on how things go politically. I may have to step in and be the bad guy. And my words will NOT be diplomatic. I am very very tired of being required as someone with a properly located brain being expected to 'seeing the other side' or appeasement or being accused of not seeing things 'their way'. Screw that. This 'friend' is real close to being told that her reality and our reality and hers are not anywhere near close. IOWs I am getting real ready to call a 'duck a duck' and to tell her to go [the f] away.
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on Apr 10, 2024 16:11:18 GMT -5
LOL LOL. And these nipple heads were worried about sharia law. I'll be honest here. My wifes longest friend, who used to be just good old fashioned Conservative has gone off the deep end. IOWs she has gone full blown MAGA. My wife has told this person that, out of respect for the friendship. That she, the friend, not bring up politics. However, this 'friend' keeps trying to inject or elicit a debate. So far my wife has been able to corral her and get her to back off. But, I strongly suspect that depending on how things go politically. I may have to step in and be the bad guy. And my words will NOT be diplomatic. I am very very tired of being required as someone with a properly located brain being expected to 'seeing the other side' or appeasement or being accused of not seeing things 'their way'. Screw that. This 'friend' is real close to being told that her reality and our reality and hers are not anywhere near close. IOWs I am getting real ready to call a 'duck a duck' and to tell her to go [the f] away. I'm surprised you took this long. These people have a missionary complex. When you are viewed as the cannibal it's not too likely the missionaries will be won over by any theological arguments on your part. Sometimes you have to just chuck em in the stew pot with plenty of onions.
|
|
|
Post by guido2 on Apr 10, 2024 17:37:33 GMT -5
I'll be honest here. My wifes longest friend, who used to be just good old fashioned Conservative has gone off the deep end. IOWs she has gone full blown MAGA. My wife has told this person that, out of respect for the friendship. That she, the friend, not bring up politics. However, this 'friend' keeps trying to inject or elicit a debate. So far my wife has been able to corral her and get her to back off. But, I strongly suspect that depending on how things go politically. I may have to step in and be the bad guy. And my words will NOT be diplomatic. I am very very tired of being required as someone with a properly located brain being expected to 'seeing the other side' or appeasement or being accused of not seeing things 'their way'. Screw that. This 'friend' is real close to being told that her reality and our reality and hers are not anywhere near close. IOWs I am getting real ready to call a 'duck a duck' and to tell her to go [the f] away. I'm surprised you took this long. These people have a missionary complex. When you are viewed as the cannibal it's not too likely the missionaries will be won over by any theological arguments on your part. Sometimes you have to just chuck em in the stew pot with plenty of onions. I am not a hot head....or so I believe. So far, my wife is keeping that nonsense in place. But in general, I guess I was really just venting because constantly having to tell people the sun DOES rise in east, politically and factually is really damn exhausting. Sometimes 'a duck is a damn duck'!
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Apr 10, 2024 20:38:53 GMT -5
Another unforced error by republicans. I feel a split happening soon, between staunch pro-lifers and Trump/his supporters who are beginning to realize that abortion bans are a major losing issue. Could be. The ? is will it be enough to the pro-lifers stay home? I doubt it because they know that, whatever Trump may say, he's the one who appointed the jihadis to the court who took away women's rights over their own bodies. Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor could all conceivably retire between now and 2028 They also know that, whatever Trump may say, if the GOP gets the White House, Senate, and House, they'll chuck the fillibuster, pass a nationwide abortion ban, and Trump will not veto it.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Apr 10, 2024 20:44:38 GMT -5
Could be. The ? is will it be enough to the pro-lifers stay home? I doubt it because they know that, whatever Trump may say, he's the one who appointed the jihadis to the court who took away women's rights over their own bodies. Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor could all conceivably retire between now and 2028 They also know that, whatever Trump may say, if the GOP gets the White House, Senate, and House, they'll chuck the fillibuster, pass a nationwide abortion ban, and Trump will not veto it. Save this post. The Court will toss a nationwide ban.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Apr 10, 2024 21:01:08 GMT -5
I doubt it because they know that, whatever Trump may say, he's the one who appointed the jihadis to the court who took away women's rights over their own bodies. Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor could all conceivably retire between now and 2028 They also know that, whatever Trump may say, if the GOP gets the White House, Senate, and House, they'll chuck the fillibuster, pass a nationwide abortion ban, and Trump will not veto it. Save this post. The Court will toss a nationwide ban. Not this court. They just voted 6-3 in favor of this... When you're able to show us how U.S. Senators and members of Congress are NOT the people's elected representatives, you'll have a point.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Apr 10, 2024 21:20:25 GMT -5
Save this post. The Court will toss a nationwide ban. Not this court. They just voted 6-3 in favor of this... When you're able to show us how U.S. Senators and members of Congress are NOT the people's elected representatives, you'll have a point. You may well be correct. For some reason, I saw your post and began thinking "national ban" in the sense of an Executive Order. Been a long day here.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Apr 10, 2024 21:35:23 GMT -5
Not this court. They just voted 6-3 in favor of this... When you're able to show us how U.S. Senators and members of Congress are NOT the people's elected representatives, you'll have a point. You may well be correct. For some reason, I saw your post and began thinking "national ban" in the sense of an Executive Order. Been a long day here. Yeah, I mean legislation
|
|
|
Post by guido2 on Apr 11, 2024 13:31:04 GMT -5
Could be. The ? is will it be enough to the pro-lifers stay home? I doubt it because they know that, whatever Trump may say, he's the one who appointed the jihadis to the court who took away women's rights over their own bodies. Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor could all conceivably retire between now and 2028 They also know that, whatever Trump may say, if the GOP gets the White House, Senate, and House, they'll chuck the fillibuster, pass a nationwide abortion ban, and Trump will not veto it. You can bet the house on that one. I am crossing my fingers that sanity will win out and not what the damn polls say. I dunno, if I were a women, I would crawl over glass and rusty razors to vote every single MAGA/GOPer out of office. And if I were in one of the red neck states. I would make sure that when I went to vote that I would go as a group, with everybody using the video record on all cells. To record a record of what (possible) harassment might go on. Oh yeah and I would have every middle of the road to left media outlet. On speed dial to ship those images off as soon as they happened. NO MATTER HOW SLIGHT THE INTERFERANCE MIGHT BE. Including, getting a bottle of water, long lines, potty breaks, "suddenly" the polling place running out of ballots (which happened 🙄).
|
|
|
Post by guido2 on Apr 11, 2024 13:38:48 GMT -5
You may well be correct. For some reason, I saw your post and began thinking "national ban" in the sense of an Executive Order. Been a long day here. Yeah, I mean legislation And I will submit. That if somehow the MAGAottes get the right (double meaning) circumstances they will push and get a nation wide ban on the books. Which of course will end up going to the SC. And if it is the same court (or worse) you can bet the house that they will either not accept the case or in taking it, and say 'yup sounds good the law stands'. And so the Civil War 2.0 will finally start in earnest. 💥
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Apr 11, 2024 15:12:07 GMT -5
Save this post. The Court will toss a nationwide ban. Such of them as have been appointed by Republicans were selected for their political reliability, not their judicial expertise. I don't have your confidence in their impartiality about this or any other strongly-favored-by-conservatives issue.
|
|
|
Post by guido2 on Apr 11, 2024 15:16:48 GMT -5
Save this post. The Court will toss a nationwide ban. Such of them as have been appointed by Republicans were selected for their political reliability, not their judicial expertise. I don't have your confidence in their impartiality about this or any other strongly-favored-by-conservatives issue. My biggest hope and prayer (and I do every night). That eventually the Dems will have a veto proof, fillibuster proof majority. And they finally call in all the chits, and pull the Trump SC and other ahhhh judgeship clown show up for impeachment.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Apr 11, 2024 16:21:56 GMT -5
Save this post. The Court will toss a nationwide ban. Such of them as have been appointed by Republicans were selected for their political reliability, not their judicial expertise. I don't have your confidence in their impartiality about this or any other strongly-favored-by-conservatives issue. Right. Do you really believe Justices are not selected for political reliability? Kagan went from working for Clinton, back to Harvard, to working for Obama for about a year as Solicitor General to the USSC. Brown Jackson followed almost an identical route. Sotomayor? Except for her introduction to the Bench by Bush the Father, she has been straight liberal all the way. I think there is one Justice on the bench right now who might be described as somewhat of a swing vote and that's Roberts. The first thing a President looks at for nominating a Justice and that's skin color. If it's a Democrat nominating, you can bet the nominee's skin is sky blue and if it's a Republican President, bright red is the color of the day.
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on Apr 11, 2024 16:35:35 GMT -5
Such of them as have been appointed by Republicans were selected for their political reliability, not their judicial expertise. I don't have your confidence in their impartiality about this or any other strongly-favored-by-conservatives issue. Right. Do you really believe Justices are not selected for political reliability? Kagan went from working for Clinton, back to Harvard, to working for Obama for about a year as Solicitor General to the USSC. Brown Jackson followed almost an identical route. Sotomayor? Except for her introduction to the Bench by Bush the Father, she has been straight liberal all the way. I think there is one Justice on the bench right now who might be described as somewhat of a swing vote and that's Roberts. The first thing a President looks at for nominating a Justice and that's skin color. If it's a Democrat nominating, you can bet the nominee's skin is sky blue and if it's a Republican President, bright red is the color of the day. When a moderate justice leans into a democratic issue it's not because their spouse is deep into a network working to overthrow the government. Your both sides do it argument completely ignores how off the tracks SCOTUS has gone to guard their owners stuff.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Apr 11, 2024 17:57:21 GMT -5
Right. Do you really believe Justices are not selected for political reliability? Kagan went from working for Clinton, back to Harvard, to working for Obama for about a year as Solicitor General to the USSC. Brown Jackson followed almost an identical route. Sotomayor? Except for her introduction to the Bench by Bush the Father, she has been straight liberal all the way. I think there is one Justice on the bench right now who might be described as somewhat of a swing vote and that's Roberts. The first thing a President looks at for nominating a Justice and that's skin color. If it's a Democrat nominating, you can bet the nominee's skin is sky blue and if it's a Republican President, bright red is the color of the day. When a moderate justice leans into a democratic issue it's not because their spouse is deep into a network working to overthrow the government. Your both sides do it argument completely ignores how off the tracks SCOTUS has gone to guard their owners stuff. What BS. First of all, there are no moderate Justices on the Court. Your own post shows that..."democratic issue". There are only constitutional issues before the Court. You are deliberately mistaken if you think Sotomayor, Kagan or Brown-Jackson are even in the same zip code as moderate.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Apr 11, 2024 17:58:54 GMT -5
Such of them as have been appointed by Republicans were selected for their political reliability, not their judicial expertise. I don't have your confidence in their impartiality about this or any other strongly-favored-by-conservatives issue. My biggest hope and prayer (and I do every night). That eventually the Dems will have a veto proof, fillibuster proof majority. And they finally call in all the chits, and pull the Trump SC and other ahhhh judgeship clown show up for impeachment. You may want to hope harder.
|
|
|
Post by guido2 on Apr 11, 2024 18:02:10 GMT -5
My biggest hope and prayer (and I do every night). That eventually the Dems will have a veto proof, fillibuster proof majority. And they finally call in all the chits, and pull the Trump SC and other ahhhh judgeship clown show up for impeachment. You may want to hope harder. 😜🤪
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Apr 11, 2024 19:08:05 GMT -5
Such of them as have been appointed by Republicans were selected for their political reliability, not their judicial expertise. I don't have your confidence in their impartiality about this or any other strongly-favored-by-conservatives issue. Right. Do you really believe Justices are not selected for political reliability? Kagan went from working for Clinton, back to Harvard, to working for Obama for about a year as Solicitor General to the USSC. Brown Jackson followed almost an identical route. Sotomayor? Except for her introduction to the Bench by Bush the Father, she has been straight liberal all the way. I think there is one Justice on the bench right now who might be described as somewhat of a swing vote and that's Roberts. The first thing a President looks at for nominating a Justice and that's skin color. If it's a Democrat nominating, you can bet the nominee's skin is sky blue and if it's a Republican President, bright red is the color of the day. Definitely not as common as it used to be. One of the driving forces of the right wing campaign to seize the courts was dissatisfaction with the Berger Court which had many republican appointed judges who ultimately became more liberal than the Goldwater/Reagan wing of the party could tolerate.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Apr 11, 2024 19:10:58 GMT -5
When a moderate justice leans into a democratic issue it's not because their spouse is deep into a network working to overthrow the government. Your both sides do it argument completely ignores how off the tracks SCOTUS has gone to guard their owners stuff. What BS. First of all, there are no moderate Justices on the Court. Your own post shows that..."democratic issue". There are only constitutional issues before the Court. You are deliberately mistaken if you think Sotomayor, Kagan or Brown-Jackson are even in the same zip code as moderate. I would describe the current court as dominated by radical ideologues - Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, ACB - who face resistance by judicial moderates that often include Roberts. Tough to say where Gorsuch falls.
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on Apr 11, 2024 19:11:21 GMT -5
When a moderate justice leans into a democratic issue it's not because their spouse is deep into a network working to overthrow the government. Your both sides do it argument completely ignores how off the tracks SCOTUS has gone to guard their owners stuff. What BS. First of all, there are no moderate Justices on the Court. Your own post shows that..."democratic issue". There are only constitutional issues before the Court. You are deliberately mistaken if you think Sotomayor, Kagan or Brown-Jackson are even in the same zip code as moderate. A little touchy are we? When you have no reply it's best not to reply. The only thing not in the same zip code as reality is your thinking that trump's pets on SCOTUS are not out to "transform" law in their billionaire owners image.
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on Apr 11, 2024 19:12:55 GMT -5
What BS. First of all, there are no moderate Justices on the Court. Your own post shows that..."democratic issue". There are only constitutional issues before the Court. You are deliberately mistaken if you think Sotomayor, Kagan or Brown-Jackson are even in the same zip code as moderate. I would describe the current court as dominated by radical ideologues - Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, ACB - who face resistance by judicial moderates that often include Roberts. Tough to say where Gorsuch falls. All you need as evidence is which cases they choose to fast track which ones they don't.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Apr 11, 2024 19:17:09 GMT -5
What BS. First of all, there are no moderate Justices on the Court. Your own post shows that..."democratic issue". There are only constitutional issues before the Court. You are deliberately mistaken if you think Sotomayor, Kagan or Brown-Jackson are even in the same zip code as moderate. I would describe the current court as dominated by radical ideologues - Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, ACB - who face resistance by judicial moderates that often include Roberts. Tough to say where Gorsuch falls. Of course you would.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Apr 11, 2024 20:00:09 GMT -5
I would describe the current court as dominated by radical ideologues - Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, ACB - who face resistance by judicial moderates that often include Roberts. Tough to say where Gorsuch falls. Of course you would. I read their decisions and I read the dissents. Alito and Thomas in particular just make crap up and use twisted logic in the service of their political objectives. I recall their decision on requiring Covid vaccines in the workplace in which they somehow managed to argue that preventing the spread of a pathogen in the workplace was outside the mandate of the OCCUPATIONAL Safety and HEALTH Administration even though the law creating OSHA (signed by Nixon FWIW) specifically said " To assure safe and healthful working conditions for working men and women; by authorizing enforcement of the standards developed under the Act; by assisting and encouraging the States in their efforts to assure safe and healthful working conditions; by providing for research, information, education, and training in the field of occupational safety and health; and for other purposes." www.osha.gov/laws-regs/oshact/completeoshact
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Apr 11, 2024 20:17:50 GMT -5
Save this post. The Court will toss a nationwide ban. Not this court. They just voted 6-3 in favor of this... When you're able to show us how U.S. Senators and members of Congress are NOT the people's elected representatives, you'll have a point. I'll tell you what they are NOT, they are not Doctors and they shouldn't practice medicine without a license. And that is what I think they are doing when they put time limits on a medical procedure.
|
|
|
Post by augustwest on Apr 11, 2024 20:24:56 GMT -5
www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/4/11/2234630/-You-ll-Be-Shocked-to-Learn-Author-of-1964-Arizona-Law-Banning-Abortion-Was-Pedophile?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=latest_community&pm_medium=webThe time has come to reflect on the life and times — especially the times — of William Claude Jones. Jones was a “prevaricator, a poet, a politician and the pursuer of nubile young females,” according to a 1990 article published in the Journal of Arizona History, which appears to be the most comprehensive biographical report published on the life of the 19th-century rogue. His next wife was a girl whose name was believed to be Maria v. del Refugio, writes L. Boyd Finch, the author of the journal article. New Mexico’s delegate to Washington, Miguel Otero, was bothered by the union. He “declared that the bride was twelve years old,” Finch writes, “and that Jones had ‘abducted’ her.” Otero petitioned President James Buchanan to fire Jones for the moral failing, but Jones resigned instead.
|
|
|
Post by michiganjoe on Apr 12, 2024 6:46:17 GMT -5
Biden campaign out with a very simple and effective message in Arizona: "Trump did this."
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Apr 12, 2024 10:26:50 GMT -5
Right. Do you really believe Justices are not selected for political reliability? I believe they are and always have been selected for both jurisprudential expertise and political bias, until the Republicans all but discarded the former. I am sure you and other conservatives believe precisely the opposite. In the face of evidence like... Clarence Thomas. Samuel Alito. And the late Antonin Scalia.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Apr 12, 2024 11:43:16 GMT -5
Right. Do you really believe Justices are not selected for political reliability? I believe they are and always have been selected for both jurisprudential expertise and political bias, until the Republicans all but discarded the former. I am sure you and other conservatives believe precisely the opposite. In the face of evidence like... Clarence Thomas. Samuel Alito. And the late Antonin Scalia. And I bet you believe in the tooth fairy as well.
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on Apr 12, 2024 11:55:24 GMT -5
I would describe the current court as dominated by radical ideologues - Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, ACB - who face resistance by judicial moderates that often include Roberts. Tough to say where Gorsuch falls. Of course you would. Of course you wouldn't. Gee this is easy. Maybe I should become a republican.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Apr 12, 2024 11:59:42 GMT -5
Of course you wouldn't. Gee this is easy. Maybe I should become a republican. You would fit right in. You and MTG have the same level of civility.
|
|