Jump to content
Hugo Stiglitz

Brett Kavanaugh Confirmation Thread

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

WILDCAT09 ??? !!!  A Wife ?!!  Hiiiiiiiighly doubtful.

Yeah, you're probably right. She probably got tired of his anger issues or something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Yeah, you're probably right. She probably got tired of his anger issues or something. 

Or just his basic dick issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, workswithseed said:

I bet you beat your wife. 

No you’re doing it wrong, you’re supposed to call me a beta cuck soy boy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't necessarily disagree with these takes, but the Dems are going to have to take a stand at some point if they want to actually stave off fascism. The Dems reducing everything to the optimal political tactic at a specific moment in time (or at least what they think that is) as their entire political strategy is a huge reason we are where we are now.  There is a clear moral case to be argued against the GOP's rampant corruption and complete disregard for American democracy and the rule of law and they need to fucking make it to the American people.


Dems need to focus on impeaching, dragging and defeating the orange one or we will end up with two more Kavanaughs. That scenario = irreparable lasting damage to the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, scottsins said:

 


Dems need to focus on impeaching, dragging and defeating the orange one or we will end up with two more Kavanaughs. That scenario = irreparable lasting damage to the country.

 

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but imo the Dems need to focus on winning the next god-damn election. 

Impeachment? Maybe as a moral act, but as a political act it's not going to go anywhere, imo. 

And Kavanaugh? Whining about him just hurts the Dems. 

Jesus, Dems, grow the fuck up, get a clue, and win the next election. RBG herself praised Kavanaugh. Let that one go for god's sake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2019 at 1:01 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

ThugPOS

Is that his real fucking twitter?  Should have gone whole hog for "Dear Leader."  JFC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Is that his real fucking twitter?  Should have gone whole hog for "Dear Leader."  JFC.

I bet it is.

Moscow Mitch is still extremely butt-hurt over Bork. And he has a point on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

No you’re doing it wrong, you’re supposed to call me a beta cuck soy boy.

I thought It was just already known

Edited by workswithseed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WASHINGTON — Chief Justice John Roberts publicly chastised Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer Wednesday over comments Schumer made outside the court as the justices were hearing a case on abortion rights.

Schumer, D-N.Y., suggested that President Donald Trump's court appointees, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, "won't know what hit" them if they vote to uphold abortion restrictions. He spoke during a rally on the sidewalk in front of the court building.

 

"I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price,” Schumer said.

In a highly unusual written statement issued late Wednesday, Roberts said "statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only appropriate, they are dangerous."

"All members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter," Roberts said.

The court was hearing a challenge to a Louisiana law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. It was the first major abortion case to reach the Supreme Court since the retirement of Anthony Kennedy, who voted to uphold a woman's right to choose. He was replaced by Kavanaugh, who is generally more conservative.

Schumer told the crowd that state legislatures are waging a war on women by passing tough new abortion laws. "I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."

The senator's spokesman said Schumer was referring to the political price Republicans "will pay for putting them on the court." It was a warning, the spokesman said, "that the justices will unleash major grassroots movement on the issue of reproductive rights against the decision."

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/rare-rebuke-chief-justice-roberts-slams-schumer-threatening-comments-n1150036

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Roberts needs to get something through his head, and right fast: if he fucks up this and a number of other cases, the Democrats are going to pack the fuck out of the Court next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what your point is.  Roberts voted against the similar Texas law. Are you suggesting he was out of line for responding to Schumer? I’m not a big fan of Roberts personally given his predisposition to upholding Executive branch authority (regardless of the party) but I don’t see an issue with his statement here.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Fuck him. Unless he’s criticizing #IMpotus, stfu 

Edited by tx 3 putt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, ftf82 said:

Not sure what your point is.  Roberts voted against the similar Texas law. Are you suggesting he was out of line for responding to Schumer? I’m not a big fan of Roberts personally given his predisposition to upholding Executive branch authority (regardless of the party) but I don’t see an issue with his statement here.  

I'm saying that he needs to have some appreciation just how precarious the Court's position is in the current environment.

Edited by Ghost of LL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

John Roberts needs to get something through his head, and right fast: if he fucks up this and a number of other cases, the Democrats are going to pack the fuck out of the Court next year.

What Supreme Court positions are opening up next year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'm saying that he needs to have some appreciation just how precarious the Court's position is in the current environment.

So should he have not responded to a leader in another branch of the government? I’m mean that’s a fair comment if that’s your point. Was that it? Roberts for all his faults has tried to maintain the decorum and public non partisanship of the Court. He’s not responsible for Kavanaugh or Gorsuch being appointed (or Sotomayor who was also a political appointment like Kavanaugh).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So should he have not responded to a leader in another branch of the government? I’m mean that’s a fair comment if that’s your point. Was that it? Roberts for all his faults has tried to maintain the decorum and public non partisanship of the Court. He’s not responsible for Kavanaugh or Gorsuch being appointed (or Sotomayor who was also a political appointment like Kavanaugh).  

That’s completely my point. He needs to keep his head down and ignore the political branches.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'm saying that he needs to have some appreciation just how precarious the Court's position is in the current environment.

Let's drop the pretense that if the (D)'s win they won't do this, or it will be "measured."  They will absolutely do this if they have the ablity to do it, the question is do they go to 11, 13, or 15?   Then how far beyond that does the next (R) President go?  I believe we'll get to around 57 SCOTUS justices in my lifetime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

Let's drop the pretense that if the (D)'s win they won't do this, or it will be "measured."  They will absolutely do this if they have the ablity to do it, the question is do they go to 11, 13, or 15?   Then how far beyond that does the next (R) President go?  I believe we'll get to around 57 SCOTUS justices in my lifetime.

Lol at the thought of a Biden administration pushing to expand the Court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lol at the thought of a Biden administration pushing to expand the Court.

I’m sorry—did you miss Biden’s naked exercise of power over the last week? Fucker gets shit done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:


That’s completely my point. He needs to keep his head down and ignore the political branches.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Got it.  I misunderstood your original point and thought you were questioning his position on the case in question. Lo siento. As a lawyer (not an appelate or trial lawyer, but a Con Law nerd and AmJur recipient lol) I still feel like Schumer was way out of line (as is Trump when he goes off on judges and justices). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ftf82 said:

Got it.  I misunderstood your original point and thought you were questioning his position on the case in question. Lo siento. As a lawyer (not an appelate or trial lawyer, but a Con Law nerd and AmJur recipient lol) I still feel like Schumer was way out of line (as is Trump when he goes off on judges and justices). 

I also think Schumer shouldn't have said what he said.

But Roberts needs to exercise better judgment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I also think Schumer shouldn't have said what he said.

But Roberts needs to exercise better judgment.

Now now, roberts can never pass up a chance to make the wrong choice in a case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Now now, roberts can never pass up a chance to make the wrong choice in a case

Roberts was the deciding vote in the Texas case that was more or less the same as this new case from Louisiana.  Are you saying that was the wrong choice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

That’s completely my point. He needs to keep his head down and ignore the political branches.
 

Quote:  "I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price,” Schumer said.

 

Publicly threatening Supreme Court Justices is dangerous... probably why Roberts responded.

 

Edited by LTtxfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ftf82 said:

Roberts was the deciding vote in the Texas case that was more or less the same as this new case from Louisiana.  Are you saying that was the wrong choice?

No, I was more talking about:

Shelby County v Holder, which gutted the Voting Rights Act on the basis of "there's no need for this law anymore" and now there's record long voting lines due to polling center closures

Connick v Thompson, which found that prosecutors could not be individually held accountable for willful withholding of exculpatory evidence. It makes citizens more vulnerable to overreach from bad cops or prosecutors. 

Citizens United, which found that corporations, which cannot be prosecuted or pursued like a person can, have the same rights as people do. And in addition to that, that spending is a form of speech, so corporations can donate unlimited funds to political campaigns without oversight or accountability. It's sure been a fucking winner if you ask me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh Okay.  That wasn’t what Schumer was protesting about or what my discussion with GOLL was about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Horn of Gabriel said:

Let's drop the pretense that if the (D)'s win they won't do this, or it will be "measured."  They will absolutely do this if they have the ablity to do it, the question is do they go to 11, 13, or 15?   Then how far beyond that does the next (R) President go?  I believe we'll get to around 57 SCOTUS justices in my lifetime.

good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ftf82 said:

Roberts was the deciding vote in the Texas case that was more or less the same as this new case from Louisiana.  Are you saying that was the wrong choice?

Wrong. He voted to uphold the restrictions in Texas that are nearly identical to the ones in Louisiana. 

He only voted to stay the Louisiana law because the majority had voted the other way in the Texas case. 

He loves him some pretext to let transparent "protecting women's health" justifications erode any meaningful access to abortion services. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote:  "I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price,” Schumer said.
 
Publicly threatening Supreme Court Justices is dangerous... probably why Roberts responded.
 

And yet crickets when Trump went after Sotomayor and RBG.

Schumer should apologize. He was way out of line. But if Roberts is going to chime in he needs to be balanced. Otherwise he looks just as political.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:


And yet crickets when Trump went after Sotomayor and RBG.

Schumer should apologize. He was way out of line. But if Roberts is going to chime in he needs to be balanced. Otherwise he looks just as political.

This is the point I'm taking from this.  Where has Roberts been when the dotard has railed on the courts multiple times since he's been elected.  I literally just saw video of Schumer and yes, that was out of line.  What dotard has done is far worse, especially considering his position, and Roberts should criticize equally if he's going to criticize.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is the point I'm taking from this.  Where has Roberts been when the dotard has railed on the courts multiple times since he's been elected.  I literally just saw video of Schumer and yes, that was out of line.  What dotard has done is far worse, especially considering his position, and Roberts should criticize equally if he's going to criticize.  

Bingo.
It’s actually much more dangerous coming from Dotus. But from Roberts, crickets.
I used to have at least a little respect for Roberts. That’s gone. He can go fuck himself. He’s going to preside over SCOTUS when it fully and finally loses credibility as an institution. Amazing fucking legacy, you shitbag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There’s not really any value left in pretending the courts are a politically neutral institution. We should have abandoned that fiction after Bush v. Gore because that was pretty clear evidence that the GOP already had, but better late than never I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ftf82 said:

Oh Okay.  That wasn’t what Schumer was protesting about or what my discussion with GOLL was about. 

Oh for sure, I was mainly defending my shitpost-level post with data since you also provided a datapoint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

And yet crickets when Trump went after Sotomayor and RBG.
Schumer should apologize. He was way out of line. But if Roberts is going to chime in he needs to be balanced. Otherwise he looks just as political.

Potus gets out of line and has been too personal with the Supreme Court Justices no doubt. Supreme Court's have been historically criticized for their decisions and that's fair game.  But Schumer severely crossed a line with his direct threats towards Gorsuch and  Kavanaugh.  

Supreme Court Justices should not be threatened...

(Quote:  "I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price,” Schumer said.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LTtxfan said:

Potus gets out of line and has been too personal with the Supreme Court Justices no doubt. Supreme Court's have been historically criticized for their decisions and that's fair game.  But Schumer severely crossed a line with his direct threats towards Gorsuch and  Kavanaugh.  

Supreme Court Justices should not be threatened...

(Quote:  "I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price,” Schumer said.)

What kind of threat do you think that is, exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DalTxHornFan said:

Keep on trying to justify this if you must, but there is no clean side of a piece of turd, it is known.

You'll get over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...