Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies at 87

[Guest]

1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

This is where Democrats find-out if they're as well armed as the Republicans.

I doubt it...but give it a shot.

It'll be down to the Generals. 

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, bcsapper said:

It'll be down to the Generals. 

 

In 1861...all the best Generals went with their state rather than the Union. Thus the constant stream of Union defeats from 1861-63...

But good news...after several years of fighting, Grant, Sheridan and Sherman emerged.

[Argus]

14 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Gosh...I wonder why?

It doesn't matter why. All that matters is that he does. I doubt any successful supreme court nominee in history has been as scornful of the opposition party during his hearings. And if you think none of those hearings involved people on either side of the political fence doing their best to show the candidate was unfit for office you don't know much about history.

Think about how soldiers are trained, as one example. They're not just trained in how to be soldiers. They're deliberately put in as stressful a situation as possible. As any drill sergeant will tell you, "If you're gonna break, we want to know it now, before you graduate". Kavanaugh was put under stress and he broke.

[Argus]

15 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

In 1861...all the best Generals went with their state rather than the Union. Thus the constant stream of Union defeats from 1861-63...

But good news...after several years of fighting, Grant, Sheridan and Sherman emerged.

The union won because the union had the money. And the money today is in the big cities, not out in the boonies. Still, I don't see any new civil war resembling the last one. There'll be plenty of violence, more separating between the two sides. The Republicans will become increasingly rural and the Democrats increasingly urban. The police and federal authorities will be kept busy clashing with armed terrorists who like to shoot people and blow stuff up, and whichever side which controls government will impose increasingly hostile laws and regulations against the other side, robbing them of economic and political power.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, Argus said:

... Kavanaugh was put under stress and he broke.

 

So was Clarence Thomas...so he broke it off in their Democrat asses.

[DogOnPorch]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

It doesn't matter why.

 

Ray Patterson: "You told people I lured children into my gingerbread house!"

Homer Simpson: "Heh...Yeah, that was just a lie."

 

[Argus]

4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

So was Clarence Thomas...so he broke it off in their Democrat asses.

And if there is a civil war it will be people like you who will enthusiastically start one.

[DogOnPorch]

3 minutes ago, Argus said:

The union won because the union had the money. 

 

My advice is to take the bleacher seat next to the emergency exit while watching whatever NEW & IMPROVED version of Bull Run that happens.

And Canada best beware...lest another 1865 scenario pan-out...not a lot of Indian Wars to fight. We'd make a fine addition to Manifest Destiny.

[bush_cheney2004]

8 minutes ago, Argus said:

And if there is a civil war it will be people like you who will enthusiastically start one.

 

That's right....I am not "Canadian".

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

My advice is to take the bleacher seat next to the emergency exit while watching whatever NEW & IMPROVED version of Bull Run that happens.

And Canada best beware...lest another 1865 scenario pan-out...not a lot of Indian Wars to fight. We'd make a fine addition to Manifest Destiny.

That does it!  I'm heading to Cabela's.

[DogOnPorch]

4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

That does it!  I'm heading to Cabela's.

 

We can giggle from afar...but we're naïve to think we're immune if Americans are busy shooting each other. We're meat...a prize...at that point. The Royal Navy doesn't scare the Americans like it used to.

Edited October 27, 2020 by DogOnPorch

[Argus]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

That's right....I am not "Canadian".

Not sure what you are, other than someone who doesn't much like America.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

Not sure what you are, other than someone who doesn't much like America.

 

I am very sure of what I am, and that you worry about what America will do.

Keep watching to find out.

[WestCanMan]

When Trump decided to try to get a SCJ pushed through I thought it was going to be a huge mistake, because it wouldn't get done and it was just going to be a big, botched, tire-fire which galvanized the Dems and helped them to gin up support against the big bad GOP.

In hindsight, the appointment of ACB just made Trump look like a rock star. 

Now the Dems are suddenly going to try to implement a bunch of laws called "Amy Coney Barrett sucks and now we have to reform the whole Supreme Court" lol.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOserrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrs.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

When Trump decided to try to get a SCJ pushed through I thought it was going to be a huge mistake, because it wouldn't get done and it was just going to be a big, botched, tire-fire which galvanized the Dems and helped them to gin up support against the big bad GOP.

In hindsight, the appointment of ACB just made Trump look like a rock star. 

Now the Dems are suddenly going to try to implement a bunch of laws called "Amy Coney Barrett sucks and now we have to reform the whole Supreme Court" lol.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOserrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrs.

How could it not get done?  It would have taken some integrity on the part of the GOP.

It makes Trump look like a slimeball, just like Mitch and Lindsay, to name a couple. Probably not been noticed.

From what I understand, as a somewhat perplexed onlooker, it now behooves any political party to use whatever power they have to ensure that the Supreme Court is biased in their favour.  I don't see any reason why the Democrats wouldn't do that if they do get the opportunity.  Impartiality certainly seems to be a thing of the past.  Maybe they should stop calling them Justices.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

How could it not get done?  It would have taken some integrity on the part of the GOP.

It makes Trump look like a slimeball, just like Mitch and Lindsay, to name a couple. Probably not been noticed.

 

Actually, it has been noticed for over 10 years, as the GOP made a coordinated effort to load federal bench seats with conservative judges, long before Trump.   Because of this strategy, Trump has now appointed over 200 judges and 3 Supreme Court justices.   RBG screwed the Democrats by not retiring during Obama's term when they controlled the Senate.

 

Quote

From what I understand, as a somewhat perplexed onlooker, it now behooves any political party to use whatever power they have to ensure that the Supreme Court is biased in their favour.  I don't see any reason why the Democrats wouldn't do that if they do get the opportunity.  Impartiality certainly seems to be a thing of the past.  Maybe they should stop calling them Justices.

 

The Democrats already tried to do this with FDR...they failed.

[WestCanMan]

4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

How could it not get done?  It would have taken some integrity on the part of the GOP.

You clearly have no idea of what goes on in the US Senate in 2020 if you're calling out the GOP members for their integrity in the Senate.

Did you miss the whole Kavanaugh incident?

Quote

It makes Trump look like a slimeball, just like Mitch and Lindsay, to name a couple. Probably not been noticed.

Trump looks like a rock star. Getting a person like ACB on the SC was perfect.

Quote

From what I understand, as a somewhat perplexed onlooker, it now behooves any political party to use whatever power they have to ensure that the Supreme Court is biased in their favour.  I don't see any reason why the Democrats wouldn't do that if they do get the opportunity.  Impartiality certainly seems to be a thing of the past.  Maybe they should stop calling them Justices.

No, the SC isn't supposed to be biased at all. They're supposed to be the weakest branch of gov't. 

The SC is supposed to follow the letter of the law in the constitution, regardless of whether they like those laws or not. 

If the GOP or the Dems want to get their way then they can't use the control of the SC as a shortcut. They have to win some elections, change some laws, and then the SC has to enforce them. 

What's the point of elections, and making laws in the Senate/Congress, if SC judges with lifetime appointments just run the country as they please? 

[ironstone]

Nobody would be having this discussion at all if RBG had retired while Obama was still President. She wanted to stay on in her position until the bitter end. Kind of like the Queen and Nancy Pelosi.

After the hearings for ACB I think most Americans that watched now realize that she is not the monster that the Democrats have made her out to be.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2020/10/12/poll-support-for-amy-coney-barrett-confirmation-as-supreme-court-hearings-start/#54c097d234f2

[Guest]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

You clearly have no idea of what goes on in the US Senate in 2020 if you're calling out the GOP members for their integrity in the Senate.

Did you miss the whole Kavanaugh incident?

Trump looks like a rock star. Getting a person like ACB on the SC was perfect.

No, the SC isn't supposed to be biased at all. They're supposed to be the weakest branch of gov't. 

The SC is supposed to follow the letter of the law in the constitution, regardless of whether they like those laws or not. 

If the GOP or the Dems want to get their way then they can't use the control of the SC as a shortcut. They have to win some elections, change some laws, and then the SC has to enforce them. 

What's the point of elections, and making laws in the Senate/Congress, if SC judges with lifetime appointments just run the country as they please? 

GOP integrity.  (I know, I use the quote by Douglas Adams, bless him, far too much, but it's perfect) 

"Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word 'integrity' that I wasn't previously aware of."

Honestly, the idea that the GOP has any integrity left is risible.  (Maybe Mitt Romney.  At least he admits the truth about Trump, even if he does couch it in genteel language)

As for the SC, yes, we know what they are supposed to do.  The point I was making was that it seems unlikely, for the foreseeable future anyway, that such is what they are going to do.  The glee with which the Republicans embodied the very definition of the word hypocrisy in order to get a pro-life justice on the SC in the final twitches of an election campaign should give the lie to any claim that the court is unbiased and non-political.

I see no reason why the Democrats should not join in the debacle if they come out of November with the power. 

Unless they have integrity.  I guess we'll see.

Edited October 28, 2020 by bcsapper

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I see no reason why the Democrats should not join in the debacle if they come out of November with the power. 

Unless they have integrity.  I guess we'll see.

 

The Democrats are not worried about integrity...they are worried about recovering from their biggest political ass kicking in almost 100 years that started with Obama and the 2010 midterms, when they were crushed and ceded power to the Republicans at the federal and state level.   Trump's presidency is a direct result of their collapse.

Nobody would seriously mention Hillary Clinton and integrity in the same sentence.   Obama didn't care about integrity when he told Americans they could keep their health insurance policies as-is.

 

[Shady]

38 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

GOP integrity.  (I know, I use the quote by Douglas Adams, bless him, far too much, but it's perfect) 

"Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word 'integrity' that I wasn't previously aware of."

Honestly, the idea that the GOP has any integrity left is risible.  (Maybe Mitt Romney.  At least he admits the truth about Trump, even if he does couch it in genteel language)

As for the SC, yes, we know what they are supposed to do.  The point I was making was that it seems unlikely, for the foreseeable future anyway, that such is what they are going to do.  The glee with which the Republicans embodied the very definition of the word hypocrisy in order to get a pro-life justice on the SC in the final twitches of an election campaign should give the lie to any claim that the court is unbiased and non-political.

I see no reason why the Democrats should not join in the debacle if they come out of November with the power. 

Unless they have integrity.  I guess we'll see.

But they’re the ones that started the debacle.  They’re the ones that invented the so-called Biden rule, holding up previous judicial appointments, notably during the Reagan administration.  Then, in 2016, they cast aside their own Biden rule and insisted that a Republican controlled senate confirm their nominee.  Republicans correctly pointed out their hypocrisy and cited the so-called Biden rule Democrats used for so many years.  It’s funny that Democrats can be as hypocritical and lacking in any integrity as much as they want and it never seems to matter.  It’s only when Republicans follow their lead that integrity and hypocrisy is noticed.  Odd huh?  And the reason why Trump has gotten so many judges appointed, particularly in lower courts, but also the Supreme Court, is because DEMOCRATS ENDED THE JUDICIAL FILIBUSTER when Obama was president.  But that was ok, because it was Democrats doing it.  You see no reason why Democrats shouldn’t join in the debacle because you have no idea what you’re talking about, no history, no context, no nothing when it comes to the political history of the court.

[WestCanMan]

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

GOP integrity.  (I know, I use the quote by Douglas Adams, bless him, far too much, but it's perfect) 

"Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word 'integrity' that I wasn't previously aware of."

Humour. Ar ar. 

Just because you cited something funny doesn't mean you made a point.

Quote

Honestly, the idea that the GOP has any integrity left is risible.  (Maybe Mitt Romney.  At least he admits the truth about Trump, even if he does couch it in genteel language)

What's the truth about Trump sapper? Are you suddenly going to show an interest in it?

Quote

As for the SC, yes, we know what they are supposed to do. 

That's just words, because you clearly aren't in favour of judges with a long history of making accurate rulings. 

Quote

The point I was making was that it seems unlikely, for the foreseeable future anyway, that such is what they are going to do. 

They all have a long history of doing exactly that. It's ridiculous to assume that people will change for the worse, just like it's ridiculous to assume that Dem Senators will suddenly start doing the right things. 

 

Quote

The glee with which the Republicans embodied the very definition of the word hypocrisy in order to get a pro-life justice on the SC in the final twitches of an election campaign should give the lie to any claim that the court is unbiased and non-political.

The glee is about getting judges who don't go against the constitution just to make Pelosi and the idiots happy.

Quote

I see no reason why the Democrats should not join in the debacle if they come out of November with the power. 

Unless they have integrity.  I guess we'll see.

The Dems are a complete debacle and they've never shown any sign of integrity at any point in the past.

Can you name one area where the Dems have shown some integrity in the last 8 years? One time?

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Shady said:

But they’re the ones that started the debacle.  They’re the ones that invented the so-called Biden rule, holding up previous judicial appointments, notably during the Reagan administration.  Then, in 2016, they cast aside their own Biden rule and insisted that a Republican controlled senate confirm their nominee.  Republicans correctly pointed out their hypocrisy and cited the so-called Biden rule Democrats used for so many years.  It’s funny that Democrats can be as hypocritical and lacking in any integrity as much as they want and it never seems to matter.  It’s only when Republicans follow their lead that integrity and hypocrisy is noticed.  Odd huh?  And the reason why Trump has gotten so many judges appointed, particularly in lower courts, but also the Supreme Court, is because DEMOCRATS ENDED THE JUDICIAL FILIBUSTER when Obama was president.  But that was ok, because it was Democrats doing it.  You see no reason why Democrats shouldn’t join in the debacle because you have no idea what you’re talking about, no history, no context, no nothing when it comes to the political history of the court.

I see no reason why the Democrats shouldn’t join in because there isn't one.  You seemed to be perfectly happy justifying GOP hypocrisy there.  I bow to your knowledge of the build up to it, because I don't have the same interests (I bet someone does, though...) but why should it stop there?  The Republicans decide the "Biden Rule" meant something, and then they decided it didn't.  You were okay with that.

[bush_cheney2004]

The Democrats had no integrity after Robert Bork's character assassination, followed by the high tech "lynching" of Clarence Thomas.   So they can't start whining now...but their surrogates can do it for them.

Poor Democrats...the party of so much "integrity".

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Humour. Ar ar. 

Just because you cited something funny doesn't mean you made a point.

What's the truth about Trump sapper? Are you suddenly going to show an interest in it?

That's just words, because you clearly aren't in favour of judges with a long history of making accurate rulings. 

They all have a long history of doing exactly that. It's ridiculous to assume that people will change for the worse, just like it's ridiculous to assume that Dem Senators will suddenly start doing the right things. 

 

The glee is about getting judges who don't go against the constitution just to make Pelosi and the idiots happy.

The Dems are a complete debacle and they've never shown any sign of integrity at any point in the past.

Can you name one area where the Dems have shown some integrity in the last 8 years? One time?

 

I did both, it's not that hard.

No.  Like I said before, it's a sea lioning thing. 

I'm in favour of judges who are unbiased, and unburdened by religious beliefs. Especially the latter.  If all things were equal, there would be no rush to jam another in just before the election.

As to your last question, not off the top of my head, no.  That doesn't mean anything.  It's not something I pay particular attention to, and not something I would file away for future use.  I'm sure it has happened.  That said, I can't think of one area where the GOP has shown some integrity in the last 8 years, either.  I have seen them defend Trump, though.  That kind of rules out any chance of finding one.