Jump to content

The Supremes


tx 3 putt

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, yoladu said:

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3279285

disclaimer on Texags Confirmation Hearing for Jackson thread

 

[We are going to closely monitor this thread and we are going to have a quick ban hammer for disrespectful posters and trolls. There is the warning. -Staff]

 

Hmmm, i wonder why they felt the need to add that!

i legitimately wonder which side the texags mods are warning. what would a texag mod consider disrespectful and trollish w/r/t a black female scotus nominee?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, WBT said:

Hmm, there just might have been an agenda in creating that graphic.  How many of you ever thought that we sure need more sentencing commission members on the court?  With that said, she seems well qualified.

Well, the Sentencing Commission, among other things, sets the Sentencing Guidelines, and thus heavily influences sentences handed down by federal judges in criminal cases.  

It is ostensibly an "evidence-based" body that gets empirical and decides what sentences and sentencing factors are appropriate without reference to moral outrage or moral panic.  Most federal judges and Supreme Court nominees come from a civil background, or if any criminal background, prosecution or government lawyer.  Accordingly, they have nearly zero exposure to the things that the Commission is supposed to, and does, do to at least some extent.

Given that the Court addresses criminal sentencing with some frequency, justices with a better understanding of it are, in my opinion, highly warranted.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

Of the 114 Supreme Court justices in US history, all but 6 have been White men

ai2html-graphic-desktop.47bcfde3.jpg

ACB made it 7.  KBJ will make it 8 out of 116 who are not white dudes.

was reading about #1 the other day.  Texas's own Tom Clark fell victim to the great LBJ's chess moves to get that one on the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Graham stalking out in a huff after the record of recidivist Gitmo detainees was clarified (he threw down a 31% number, though, since Obama, the number is 5%,) was funny to me.

 

heard something on the radio yesterday that graham was all butthurt because his choice from his home state wasn't the nominee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I like is the story line of "court packing..."  When the GOP has already packed the court.

When the GOP twice changed the rules to seal space on the court.  It's like playing monopoly for years and then all of a sudden one player decides that the old rules and precedents no longer apply.  Then they change the rules again the exact opposite of what was their "principled" reasoning, in the first set of changes.

So when I hear about how poorly some of the prior nominees were treated... Please...  

It's also good to remember that there was NO SEARCH FOR TRUTH regarding the allegations against Kavanaugh. The "investigation" was sort of like the one the Aggies did for the Bonfire Tragedy.  A predetermined outcome without a search for truth.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

From what little I have heard, she is remarkably gracious in her responses to dickwad questions.

 

Sure.  And in the end, it won't matter.  It will be a 50/50 vote, because (paraphrasing the GOP rationale here) "we just can't trust the Supreme Court to a radical".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, horn4life said:

What I like is the story line of "court packing..."  When the GOP has already packed the court.

When the GOP twice changed the rules to seal space on the court.  It's like playing monopoly for years and then all of a sudden one player decides that the old rules and precedents no longer apply.  Then they change the rules again the exact opposite of what was their "principled" reasoning, in the first set of changes.

So when I hear about how poorly some of the prior nominees were treated... Please...  

It's also good to remember that there was NO SEARCH FOR TRUTH regarding the allegations against Kavanaugh. The "investigation" was sort of like the one the Aggies did for the Bonfire Tragedy.  A predetermined outcome without a search for truth.

We should expand the Supreme Court. 

 

5 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

 

The court created a fundamental right that didn’t exist? Is that really his argument about gay marriage. Jesus our state sucks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you hold on your head the proposition that judges don't make law but that they should follow precedent, which is a fancy word that means "judge made law"?

I'd love for a nominee to one day explain that we have a common law system that we inherited from England that goes back 1000 years and is judge made law. And that if the senators don't like that they can switch to civil law if they want.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, hobbes2702 said:

We should expand the Supreme Court. 

 

The court created a fundamental right that didn’t exist? Is that really his argument about gay marriage. Jesus our state sucks

And Cornyn is only about 1/10 the asshole dickwad that is Ted Cruz.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, elfenix said:

How do you hold on your head the proposition that judges don't make law but that they should follow precedent, which is a fancy word that means "judge made law"?

I'd love for a nominee to one day explain that we have a common law system that we inherited from England that goes back 1000 years and is judge made law. And that if the senators don't like that they can switch to civil law if they want.

That whole line of attack is so disingenuous, but you made a great point.

Try this on someone who springs that bullshit:  Judges are supposed to follow precedent, right?  Who made the precedent?

And, of course, the "alt right" justices are creating a whole new bunch of precedent for the proposition that  . . . wait for it  . . . precedent can be ignored!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jive Turkey said:

Of the 114 Supreme Court justices in US history, all but 6 have been White men

ai2html-graphic-desktop.47bcfde3.jpg

ACB made it 7.  KBJ will make it 8 out of 116 who are not white dudes.

4 of last 6 and 6 of last 11

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listened in on NPR on my drive to a lunch meeting and they were talking about child porn. Two hours later on the drive back still talking about it. These gross fucks are obsessed. Questions about sentencing guidelines are legitimate and in bounds, but good lord, move on already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/20/2022 at 6:30 PM, jimmyjazz said:

HS voted her "Most Likely To Succeed" . . . she'll likely end up on SCOTUS . . . good call, kids.

She grew up not far from me.  That was my public high school (I went to a private school down the street).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

so going on day 5 with Thomas in the hospital. Is it normal for someone his age to be in the hospital this long for "flu-like symptoms"?

In the world we deserve:

Thomas kicks it, Biden gets to nominate someone for the "blek" seat, nominates J. Michelle Childs, Lindsey has to stew in silence, right wing stratosphere's head collectively explodes.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

Sure.  And in the end, it won't matter.  It will be a 50/50 vote, because (paraphrasing the GOP rationale here) "we just can't trust the Supreme Court to a radical".

 

 

I know it's political and all, but I think when the actual vote comes down she sails through with little trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 'stache said:

Listened in on NPR on my drive to a lunch meeting and they were talking about child porn. Two hours later on the drive back still talking about it. These gross fucks are obsessed. Questions about sentencing guidelines are legitimate and in bounds, but good lord, move on already.

Demagoguery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I knew they'd come out strong against Griswold and Obergefell, but I gotta be honest, I didn't see this coming:

 

 

MISCEGENATION!

Edited by TwiceHorn
I'd like to hear RD Canecutter work this into a sentence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

In the world we deserve:

Thomas kicks it, Biden gets to nominate someone for the "blek" seat, nominates J. Michelle Childs, Lindsey has to stew in silence, right wing stratosphere's head collectively explodes.

 

back to back black justices will start the next civil war 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...