Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
45 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

So as far as I can tell, the Democratic playbook is to object vociferously and then let Donald Trump do whatever he wants.

That tracks.

But we strenuously object!

Posted
12 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Seriously, like what are they supposed to do, exactly? Other than sacrificing their bodies/lives/freedom to instigate a more violent confrontation. We’ve talked about it that before and I do believe that would be inflection point if that were to happen. But other than that, what are Democrats supposed to do right now?

The problem is, this is where it's going to end up, most likely... Because it'll have to. 

Maybe Obama will save us. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Seriously, like what are they supposed to do, exactly? Other than sacrificing their bodies/lives/freedom to instigate a more violent confrontation. We’ve talked about it that before and I do believe that would be inflection point if that were to happen. But other than that, what are Democrats supposed to do right now?

Technically, he needs Congress to extend the initial 30 day window of control over Metro PD, so in theory Senate Democrats can filibuster the authorization.

Posted
Seriously, like what are they supposed to do, exactly? Other than sacrificing their bodies/lives/freedom to instigate a more violent confrontation. We’ve talked about it that before and I do believe that would be inflection point if that were to happen. But other than that, what are Democrats supposed to do right now?

Keep hammering the Epstein stuff in the loudest, most basic and aggressive manner possible, all over tik tok, etc….

Constantly.
Posted
2 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Is standing no longer a thing? Or am I too dim to figure out that it is what Roberts says it is?

Not sure it's going to be standing, but in any event, this is a lousy vehicle for testing the constitutionality of anything.

Recall that she was sued in her official capacity for failure to do her legal duty, that is, issue marriage license to a same-sex couple.

She was ordered to do it, failed to do it, was found in contempt, spent a few days in jail, and was fined $100k.  Attorneys fees of $260k were awarded at the end as can happen in a civil rights civil suit.

It's a very collateral attack on Obergefell.  Not sure even this SCOTUS will take it up.

  • Haha 2
Posted
39 minutes ago, Slacks said:

The problem is, this is where it's going to end up, most likely... Because it'll have to. 

Maybe Obama will save us. 

Like Brisket said, they have chosen this path. I’m not sure there’s anything that can head it off at this point

 

Posted
16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Recall that she was sued in her official capacity for failure to do her legal duty, that is, issue marriage license to a same-sex couple.

She was ordered to do it, failed to do it, was found in contempt, spent a few days in jail, and was fined $100k.  Attorneys fees of $260k were awarded at the end as can happen in a civil rights civil suit.

Yeah.  I haven’t read the suit, so I don’t even know the basis for her blathering.   I think Kentucky has a one-year statute of limitations for anything non-auto,  and as far as I know, she has no official capacity now.  I focused on standing because I couldn’t understand why some mutt faced MAGA can object to gay marriage because she’s three Bud Lights in.    If I recall correctly, the state changed the law to hold that clerks don’t have to sign off on marriage licenses, which sort of mooted her last dumbass attempt.  So if she’s not a clerk now, and she has no official duties requiring her to be involved in gay marriage at all, it seemed to be like she was just yelling at clouds.   

And nah - I’m not interested in it enough to read about her lawsuit.   Just another many times married Christian who ignores what Jesus said about divorce and focuses instead on gay marriage… which Jesus had nothing to say about at all.  

Posted
15 minutes ago, Chopper said:

and...the rest of the story, I guess

image.thumb.png.241e30112b9c26ac576c2294b9b04bc8.png

 

Well of course he is because his dementia banana mush brain said it. So they have to now make something happen based on what he said so it will now be marked as true and covers up his dementia brain.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
20 minutes ago, safe sex said:

C'mon dude (to Twice)

The "right" way to attack Obergefell is simple enough and amply demonstrated by the attacks on Roe:  a state passes a law curtailing same-sex marriage in some way, or completely, and off you go.

Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

The "right" way to attack Obergefell is simple enough and amply demonstrated by the attacks on Roe:  a state passes a law curtailing same-sex marriage in some way, or completely, and off you go.

Yeah but it's very obvious that they don't care about the "right" way anymore and they'll take any excuse to do what they want.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, safe sex said:

Yeah but it's very obvious that they don't care about the "right" way anymore and they'll take any excuse to do what they want.

Well, one of the things about the frequent use of the emergency/shadow docket is that they don't have to explain themselves hardly at all.  There's even a theory that the emergency docket is a form of Trump appeasement that kicks the can down the road for a few months.

This is not one of those, and, for the most part, they're sticking to conventional analysis of things when they have to explain themselves.  

Posted
4 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

 image.thumb.png.432fae5a83d29125dcb310779c230fc7.png

Ahh well, nevertheless.

How does it compare to this time last year? I'm talking about forums like PBD and Candance Owens. Epstein videos still easily clearing 1M+ views.

Posted
22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, one of the things about the frequent use of the emergency/shadow docket is that they don't have to explain themselves hardly at all.  There's even a theory that the emergency docket is a form of Trump appeasement that kicks the can down the road for a few months.

This is not one of those, and, for the most part, they're sticking to conventional analysis of things when they have to explain themselves.  

Fail Charlie Brown GIF by Peanuts

Posted
1 hour ago, scottsins said:


Keep hammering the Epstein stuff in the loudest, most basic and aggressive manner possible, all over tik tok, etc….

Constantly.

If this peters out I will pretty much give up all hope. One of the Pod guys, I think Dan Pfeiffer, said this is legitimately as big of a scandal as Watergate. The Trump administration is covering up child rape. Because Trump.

Posted
2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

So as far as I can tell, the Democratic playbook is to object vociferously and then let Donald Trump do whatever he wants.

That tracks.

But they'll *strenuously* object.

Posted

Also, are we not talking about Trump taking military control of DC today?

Seems like more than just "look at this shiny thing and not at the Epstein stuff," no?

Posted
21 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Fail Charlie Brown GIF by Peanuts

They already denied cert in her case once before, where it was even more poorly presented.  Ruckus' own words:

This petition implicates important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell, but it does not cleanly present them. For that reason, I concur in the denial of certiorari.



×
×
  • Create New...