What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

I'm feeling OK about Kavanaugh after readjusting the way I look at these things: He got through the President's vetting process, which has to be pretty tough. He is not related by blood to either Kim Jong-un or V Putin. He's not a member if ISIS, as far as we know.

It could be worse.

I half expected him to pick his sister, but I suppose someone explained that she'd get the Harriet Miers treatment.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

It's amazing how some of these people get put into a swing category. Not only that but she and Murkowski are supposed to be worried about Health Care and it has been reported that the nominee will destroy Health Care.

Not her Health Care...
 
The far left and the far right, they're both equally as dangerous to a company, only in different ways. It makes sense for them to boost the rates for those sites, should the ISPs desire.

No, no it doesn't. Because once you go down that route, you get this:

<img src="https://i.huffpost.com/gen/1567010/original.jpg" width="200"></img>

ISPs are in the business of moving packets of information from one computer to the next. They shouldn't get to charge more or otherwise degrade service based on where those bits of data come from. Just like your Verizon phone can't discriminate against calls from Sprint customers.

There's no danger to the ISP for simply routing traffic in a non-discriminatory manner. And it sure as shiat doesn't involve the first amendment.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

No, no it doesn't. Because once you go down that route, you get this:

<img src="https://i.huffpost.com/gen/1567010/original.jpg" width="200"></img>

ISPs are in the business of moving packets of information from one computer to the next. They shouldn't get to charge more or otherwise degrade service based on where those bits of data come from. Just like your Verizon phone can't discriminate against calls from Sprint customers.

There's no danger to the ISP for simply routing traffic in a non-discriminatory manner. And it sure as shiat doesn't involve the first amendment.

+1
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

There's no danger to the ISP for simply routing traffic in a non-discriminatory manner.

No, there isn't. But it does affect their ability to confiscate profits for shareholders. And that's all anyone cares about.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Why this nominee is dangerous and not a balls and strikes judge.

http://www.startribune.com/u-s-supr...uncommonly-partisan-research-shows/487825491/

Judges, particularly those on the Supreme Court, are expected to sit above the partisan fray. But Brett Kavanaugh, whom President Donald Trump nominated to succeed Justice Anthony Kennedy on Monday night, is much like the man who selected him — highly divisive in his decisions and rhetoric. According to a deep, data-driven survey of his writings from the bench, he is an uncommonly partisan judge, even compared with other federal appeals court judges.

On the circuit court, Kavanaugh tended to dissent more often along partisan lines than his peers, according to our research. He justified his decisions with conservative doctrines far more than his colleagues, citing politicized precedents consistent with other Republican-appointed judges, invoking the original Articles of the Constitution (consistent with the originalist jurisprudence favored by conservative jurists) and using the language of economics and free markets. What’s more, Kavanaugh’s divisiveness ramped up during campaign season: He disagreed with his colleagues more often before elections, suggesting that he feels personally invested in national politics.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

I keep seeing articles about how the Dems are in such a difficult spot with Kavanaugh's confirmation vote. I don't get it. It all seems based on the assumption that there's some chance that one or more of the Republicans breaks ranks. Does anyone honestly believe that would happen? Even if it did and the Dems manage to whip all their vulnerable members this cycle into voting no, all they've accomplished is to delay the inevitable. Whatever small chance that exists that the Dems can retake the Senate pretty much disappears if all those red state Dems vote no.
 
Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

I keep seeing articles about how the Dems are in such a difficult spot with Kavanaugh's confirmation vote. I don't get it. It all seems based on the assumption that there's some chance that one or more of the Republicans breaks ranks. Does anyone honestly believe that would happen? Even if it did and the Dems manage to whip all their vulnerable members this cycle into voting no, all they've accomplished is to delay the inevitable. Whatever small chance that exists that the Dems can retake the Senate pretty much disappears if all those red state Dems vote no.

There's 3 Democrats that will vote to confirm. Indiana, North Dakota, and West Virginia Senators. That means all Democrats will suffer because the leadership didn't hold all their members together as a block.
 
There's 3 Democrats that will vote to confirm. Indiana, North Dakota, and West Virginia Senators. That means all Democrats will suffer because the leadership didn't hold all their members together as a block.

Is it really that big a deal to lose 53-46 instead of 50-49?
 
Yes. It is. If he's only voted in completely partisan that will make a huge difference politically.

And while I'd doubt it would happen, in theory it could provide cover for Collins or Murkowski to vote no. That's even worse politically.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top