Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Why do they turn more liberal as they get older?

Wisdom, Life experience. The appreciation that the people are the soul of the law, not bank balances and firearms.

I have moved from hardcore libertarian to liberal as I have read more deeply and broadly, met more and different people, gained loved ones, responsibilities, and just in general have been continually humbled by life.

As you age you move up Maslow's hierarchy, and naturally move left.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I think a more apt analogy would be to think of parents versus grandparents. It's not easy being the azzhole, but sometimes it's necessary for your own good, and that's the role of parents.

Ah yes, the "I'm beating you for your own good" theory of child rearing. Beloved by conservatives everywhere. The pride of "brutal honesty."

A parent can set boundaries, instill values, and not be a martinet. In fact teaching your children (especially your sons) that the only way to be adult is to be a disciplinarian dipsh-t is a very bad lesson.

Looks good on you, though.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I think there are two very real questions that Senate Democrats have to ask themselves. One, how many bullets do they think they have, and two, how many bullets do they think they need.

Whoever replaces Scalia, it isn't likely to tilt the court more rightward than it already was. And even with a "conservative" majority on the court, progressives weren't exactly getting run over by decisions going against them. It was, at best for both sides, a mixed bag of results.

Let's say they go to the mat to defeat this guy. Can they do it again to the replacement nominee? Do they think they get a better replacement nominee? What is the effect on the mid-terms if there is a huge battle on this?

So assuming an all out war for this spot, now what happens when Kennedy or Ginsburg or someone goes down in a year or two? All appointments are important, but I'm not sure in the grand scheme that this one is more important than say Kennedy's replacement, or even more significant, Ginsburg's.

Unless the Dems want to gamble, as the Senate Republicans did, and hope that Trump just blows up and gets ousted in the next year or two.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Or compassion. Past regrets. Wisdom. You know, not being a cold and heartless conservative being their legacy. Things like that.

It's more that as people age they gradually lose their conceits, and the pompous "You NEED me on that wall!" drag act of the Brave But Alone Conservative Who Watched Too Much John Wayne is the biggest, gaudiest, most snowflakey conceit of all.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

how many bullets do they think they have

That's simple. We have none, and we know it.

We can't just destroy the government because we believe in it. The Republicans can risk destroying the government because it's in the way of their paymasters. The only parts they need to keep are the parts that keep the ever-growing poor from their throats -- the cops and the army. Everything else is overhead.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

I think there are two very real questions that Senate Democrats have to ask themselves. One, how many bullets do they think they have, and two, how many bullets do they think they need.

Whoever replaces Scalia, it isn't likely to tilt the court more rightward than it already was. And even with a "conservative" majority on the court, progressives weren't exactly getting run over by decisions going against them. It was, at best for both sides, a mixed bag of results.

Let's say they go to the mat to defeat this guy. Can they do it again to the replacement nominee? Do they think they get a better replacement nominee? What is the effect on the mid-terms if there is a huge battle on this?

So assuming an all out war for this spot, now what happens when Kennedy or Ginsburg or someone goes down in a year or two? All appointments are important, but I'm not sure in the grand scheme that this one is more important than say Kennedy's replacement, or even more significant, Ginsburg's.

Unless the Dems want to gamble, as the Senate Republicans did, and hope that Trump just blows up and gets ousted in the next year or two.

From what I read this appointment is a set up for Kennedy. Trump went with one of Kennedy's clerks who has the chops for this seat so Kennedy will retire. Then he'll put the wack job on the Court with 51 Senate votes to permanently tilt the Court.

And it will work.

That's simple. We have none, and we know it.

We can't just destroy the government because we believe in it. The Republicans can risk destroying the government because it's in the way of their paymasters. The only parts they need to keep are the parts that keep the ever-growing poor from their throats -- the cops and the army. Everything else is overhead.

And that's the big big big problem.

 

[Drew S.]

From what I read this appointment is a set up for Kennedy. Trump went with one of Kennedy's clerks who has the chops for this seat so Kennedy will retire. Then he'll put the wack job on the Court with 51 Senate votes to permanently tilt the Court.

And it will work.



And that's the big big big problem.

That theory makes sense, but for Supreme Court nominee you still need 60 votes in the senate.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

That theory makes sense, but for Supreme Court nominee you still need 60 votes in the senate.

ROTFLMAO. Do you even pay attention? McConnell can change that at any time. If it truly sets the Court up to overturn Roe vs. Wade do you think for one ****ing second he will hesitate to do so?

 

[joecct]

It's more that as people age they gradually lose their conceits, and the pompous "You NEED me on that wall!" drag act of the Brave But Alone Conservative Who Watched Too Much John Wayne is the biggest, gaudiest, more snowflakey conceit of all.

Never mess with John Wayne. He was more American than the bald eagle!

Going to an extreme here, but if Hill won and the Senate flipped, you'd be all over yourselves congratulating a left tilting jurist appointment. This thread would be a giant orgasm of hooray for Hollywood!

Politics is ugly. That's why, I guess, the population of the cesspool that is Congress rarely changes.

Scooby - if RvW is sent back to the states, how much actually changes? There is a majority of support for abortion, but a majority of support for restrictions. That's the likely outcome.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Ah yes, the "I'm beating you for your own good" theory of child rearing. Beloved by conservatives everywhere. The pride of "brutal honesty."

A parent can set boundaries, instill values, and not be a martinet. In fact teaching your children (especially your sons) that the only way to be adult is to be a disciplinarian dipsh-t is a very bad lesson.

Looks good on you, though.

No one needs to be beaten. Sometimes it's just a matter of saying "no" when something is demanded. Don't need to raise a bunch of narcissists now, do we? Who knows. They might grow up to become President.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Never mess with John Wayne. He was more American than the bald eagle!

Going to an extreme here, but if Hill won and the Senate flipped, you'd be all over yourselves congratulating a left tilting jurist appointment. This thread would be a giant orgasm of hooray for Hollywood!

Politics is ugly. That's why, I guess, the population of the cesspool that is Congress rarely changes.

As I've said a hundred times, I'm fine with the politics. We lost and you guys get your political choices because elections have consequences. You had to live with us for 8 years, now we have to live with you. Sucks but OK.

But the process violations and the dictatorial personality, style and actions of Hair Fuhrer are a different story. That's something we should all be opposed to. The rules and the law are there to protect us all. You may laugh now because you have the ax, but do you trust us with it? America is more important than politics. Your side is losing sight of that because of temporary convenience and that is a huge mistake.

John Wayne is great in Stagecoach and True Grit and Quiet Man and Liberty Valence. In most things he just mails it in like most actors. I'm OK with watching him for fun, but several generations of reactionary dingbats built their personalities around aping his characters because they superficially fit in with the reactionary mindset. That's as dumb as being an Elvis impersonator.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Scooby - if RvW is sent back to the states, how much actually changes? There is a majority of support for abortion, but a majority of support for restrictions. That's the likely outcome.

I guess you haven't read the stories from Texas on this topic that have occurred just in the last few years with it being legal in all 50 States. I guess your empathy for humanity and what those women have had to go through isn't on the same level as mine.

But, hey, no harm no foul right? It'll just go to the States. The 13 year old girl that had to go to term with her rapists child doesn't need our protection.

 

[joecct]

As I've said a hundred times, I'm fine with the politics. We lost and you guys get your political choices because elections have consequences. You had to live with us for 8 years, now we have to live with you. Sucks but OK.

But the process violations and the dictatorial personality, style and actions of Hair Fuhrer is a different story. That's something we should all be opposed to. The rules and the law are there to protect us all. You may laugh now because you have the ax, but do you trust us with it? America is more important than politics. Your side is losing sight of that and that is a huge mistake.

If POTUD goes off the statutes, he needs to be corrected/stopped. If you disagree on moral grounds, sorry. Tried that for 45 years - doesn't work.

 

[Drew S.]

ROTFLMAO. Do you even pay attention? McConnell can change that at any time. If it truly sets the Court up to overturn Roe vs. Wade do you think for one ****ing second he will hesitate to do so?

It's obviously your right to fear the worst, but I don't think it will happen. Even if it did come to pass you're still not in that bad of shape. I don't think Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, Ginaburg, Roberts will let anything very extreme get through. I wouldn't be surprised if Gorsuch is more along the lines of Roberts than Scalia.

 

[joecct]

It's obviously your right to fear the worst, but I don't think it will happen. Even if it did come to pass you're still not in that bad of shape. I don't think Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, Ginaburg, Roberts will let anything very extreme get through. I wouldn't be surprised if Gorsuch is more along the lines of Roberts than Scalia.

If the legislature passes a law that is bad but meets constitutional muster, it should be left alone. Roberts called PPACA a bad law but left it to the Congress to fix it. If Gorsuch subscribes to that, we're fine.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

No one needs to be beaten. Sometimes it's just a matter of saying "no" when something is demanded. Don't need to raise a bunch of narcissists now, do we? Who knows. They might grow up to become President.

The self-image of the Strong Man Standing Against The Wind is quite narcissistic.

All good parents say no to their kids; all good parents are selectively dictatorial and not friends. The difference which the martinet builds his entire self-image around does not exist. It's just a lack of imagination to take the shortcut of dull-witted adamance instead of the much more difficult path of balancing a hundred different considerations.

There are plenty of ways of saying "this hurts me more than it does you" short of assault, and they all add up to a lazy parent passing that practice down to the next generation.

 

[burd]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

If the legislature passes a law that is bad but meets constitutional muster, it should be left alone. Roberts called PPACA a bad law but left it to the Congress to fix it. If Gorsuch subscribes to that, we're fine.

Since Roe v. Wade has already been subjected to the constitutional test, honor stare decisis and leave it alone?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

It's obviously your right to fear the worst, but I don't think it will happen. Even if it did come to pass you're still not in that bad of shape. I don't think Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, Ginaburg, Roberts will let anything very extreme get through. I wouldn't be surprised if Gorsuch is more along the lines of Roberts than Scalia.

Both Roberts and Scalia were consummate politicians, so I hope Gorsuch has some of those instincts but will use them for good as so far Roberts has and Scalia never did. Gorsuch appears to be principled, which is good as far as it goes (Stanley Fish wrote an excellent book about how limited principle is). I look forward to him disappointing conservatives when they go nuts and not being a rubber stamp like Thomas and Alito.

 

[Drew S.]

Since Roe v. Wade has already been subjected to the constitutional test, honor stare decisis and leave it alone?

Absolutely. I'd be surprised if Roberts voted to overturn it. Alito and Thomas definitely would.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day

Since Roe v. Wade has already been subjected to the constitutional test, honor stare decisis and leave it alone?

I'm pretty sure the actual precedent now is Casey, which is how the rights have been gutted wherever the orcs could get away with it.