Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Good luck with that.

Yes, but it is correct.  Someone has to start the conversation.  Again.  Thanks to Mayor Pete for starting it to begin with.  

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 hour ago, Bullneck said:

Markey just introduced legislation to expand the Supreme Court to 13 total justices.

How about we leave it at nine and institute term limits?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

My grandmother was half Choctaw. She and her brother were orphaned and spent some of their childhood w Choctaw relatives on a reservation.  My grandmother hated indians her whole adult life because of the abuse she took from the neighbor adults and children and even her own relatives for being half white.  She married my grandfather, a white son of a sharecropper who finished 4th grade before his dad made him quit to work on the farm and rent out to pick cotton for others full time, when she was 18 and they got the fuck out. 
 

During residency I took care of a lot of Indians from the various reservations and one of my intern mates was a Cherokee who grew up on a reservation. He knew one other guy his age who wasn’t a full blown alcoholic, meth addict, or wetbrained from huffing paint. And several were dead or in nursing homes by mid 20’s 

 

I’m glad my ancestors made it out of that situation and if there’s a chance to save a kid from growing up in it I’m on the side of getting them the fuck out 
 

 

While I'm sure that this would be getting into crt... I'm pretty certain that we could trace these results back to certain aspects of historical abuses, like certain governmental abduction policies that we would call genocide were we examining it today (ex. Russia/Ukraine...)

Posted
8 hours ago, Bullneck said:

Markey just introduced legislation to expand the Supreme Court to 13 total justices.

Should expand it to 25, but 13 is a good start.

Posted
7 hours ago, C-Man said:

How about we leave it at nine and institute term limits?

No - each justice is supposed to be "over" a circuit court. It doesn't make sense that we stopped expanding the supreme court while we have more circuit courts than we used to, and the we had 9 justices because we had 9 appellate courts 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
8 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Good luck with that.

There used to be a justice for every federal circuit. We should do that again or impeach Thomas and Alito.  I don’t think either is politically possible but the Supreme Court is corrupt and in need of reform 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Captainant said:

No - each justice is supposed to be "over" a circuit court. It doesn't make sense that we stopped expanding the supreme court while we have more circuit courts than we used to, and the we had 9 justices because we had 9 appellate courts 

 

2 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

We should do both 

TBH, IDGAF how many SC justices there are -- but we need to do away with lifetime appointments yesterday.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
15 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

My grandmother was half Choctaw. She and her brother were orphaned and spent some of their childhood w Choctaw relatives on a reservation.  My grandmother hated indians her whole adult life because of the abuse she took from the neighbor adults and children and even her own relatives for being half white.  She married my grandfather, a white son of a sharecropper who finished 4th grade before his dad made him quit to work on the farm and rent out to pick cotton for others full time, when she was 18 and they got the fuck out. 
 

During residency I took care of a lot of Indians from the various reservations and one of my intern mates was a Cherokee who grew up on a reservation. He knew one other guy his age who wasn’t a full blown alcoholic, meth addict, or wetbrained from huffing paint. And several were dead or in nursing homes by mid 20’s 

 

I’m glad my ancestors made it out of that situation and if there’s a chance to save a kid from growing up in it I’m on the side of getting them the fuck out 
 

 

It's important to recognize these struggles, and as pointed out in another post, there are societal and systemic issues at play. But surely you aren't suggesting that the Brackeens should have won because it's better for these Native kids to be raised by white people, right? Foster and adoptive parents still have to prove themselves capable, so the decision is between a responsible Indian family or a responsible white (or other) type of family. ICWA provides a strong preference to qualified Native homes, to counter the prior policy that required Indian kids to be raised white to eradicate the notion of being indigenous. It's important in large part because of the prior policies that have contributed to the societal problems faced by many Native families.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
11 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:


no judge should be appointed for life 

Agree its absolutely absurd that they have lifetime appointments

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

I appreciate the lifetime appointment in many respects, but with people living to 100, I'm open to term limits and/or a forced retirement age. If the court had not become so political, I might think different, but potentially 40-50 years of a court looking to take away rights that have been recognized for decades is not sustainable.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted

I’m completely serious when I say this…  I honestly would have guessed that these guys would be able to offer up MUCH more reasoned and persuasive public arguments for themselves.   
 

In other words:  Samuel Alito is terrible at this job.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
16 hours ago, C-Man said:

How about we leave it at nine and institute term limits?

No thanks 

8 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

We should do both 

This guy gets it

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Paul Wesley said:

I’m completely serious when I say this…  I honestly would have guessed that these guys would be able to offer up MUCH more reasoned and persuasive public arguments for themselves.   
 

In other words:  Samuel Alito is terrible at this job.  

I think when you are guilty as sin of being bribed by billionaires for decades and clearly are compromised, it's a little harder to defend.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

As far as getting rid of lifetime appointments, good luck getting an amendment to Article III passed.....

I've never been fully down with the interpretation of "hold their office in good behavior" as granting lifetime tenure, but whatever.  236 years of interpreting that way is what it is.   

 

Posted
17 minutes ago, A-Tex Devil said:

As far as getting rid of lifetime appointments, good luck getting an amendment to Article III passed.....

I've never been fully down with the interpretation of "hold their office in good behavior" as granting lifetime tenure, but whatever.  236 years of interpreting that way is what it is.   

 


Thomas wants to throw it all out, but Im sure he wants to keep that law 

Posted
8 hours ago, 'stache said:

Foster and adoptive parents still have to prove themselves capable

I’m not sure why you thought I am making an argument for someone winning because they are “white”, but the above statement is a real head scratcher. I had up close interactions with kids placed with “capable” foster parents in Oklahoma. Kids not old enough to walk with femur fractures, toddlers with 3rd degree immersion burns, “near drownings,” closed head injury with cortical blindness. Of all races. Common denominator was shitty home situation leading to foster placement. I’m sure it’s no better in Texas 

Is the ICWA better at screening than state CPS? Were the options fostering w a native family vs actual adoption with the white family or adoption in both cases? 

 

I would be interested in seeing how these kids end up as adults 


Also the way I understand the sovereignty issue the native leaders absolutely should have authority over where the children go. I just hope they make the right decision 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
 
 
 
This is pretty much three same line of thinking as "I would have decided in his favor even if he wasn't giving me money, so why not just take the money?"
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 3
Posted

I don't really see how we come back from this.  They aren't going to be impeached.  Nothing is going to change.  The only solution I can see is to expand the court and that won't happen either.

Posted
5 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Shocked Futurama GIF
 

 

reading the whole letter - it's incredible how well conservatives are able to astroturf a single man's opinion into a multitude of opinions from a variety of """institutions"""

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
17 hours ago, Paul Wesley said:

I’m completely serious when I say this…  I honestly would have guessed that these guys would be able to offer up MUCH more reasoned and persuasive public arguments for themselves.   
 

In other words:  Samuel Alito is terrible at this job.  

Yeah, I read his piece in the WSJ. If I were his PR man, I would have said not to write it. The entire argument of "I didn't really receive a benefit because that seat would have been empty otherwise" is just dumbfounding.

Imagine a husband telling his wife that it's not cheating because he wasn't looking for any action, but the other lady offered a sexual favor for free.

Posted

I read an article today explaining that, while members of the judicial branch are not allowed to accept most gifts, there is no Ethics panel with censure power, particularly at the Federal level.  This is not true for the executive and legislative branches.

Hence, impeachment remains the only way to remove a SCOTUS justice.  Isn't that nice?

Posted
33 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I don't really see how we come back from this.  They aren't going to be impeached.  Nothing is going to change.  The only solution I can see is to expand the court and that won't happen either.

We need to Pelican Brief a few of them

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

I read an article today explaining that, while members of the judicial branch are not allowed to accept most gifts, there is no Ethics panel with censure power, particularly at the Federal level.  This is not true for the executive and legislative branches.

Hence, impeachment remains the only way to remove a SCOTUS justice.  Isn't that nice?

Hence why we need a Dem trifecta to get an ethics reform package through. We have an entire human history to prove that letting an institution police itself leads to nada 

1 minute ago, elfenix said:

Donald Glover Wow GIF by MOODMAN

Season 1 Rachel GIF

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I read an article today explaining that, while members of the judicial branch are not allowed to accept most gifts, there is no Ethics panel with censure power, particularly at the Federal level.  This is not true for the executive and legislative branches.

Hence, impeachment remains the only way to remove a SCOTUS justice.  Isn't that nice?

That technically not the only way 

  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Posted
13 minutes ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

Yeah, I read his piece in the WSJ. If I were his PR man, I would have said not to write it. The entire argument of "I didn't really receive a benefit because that seat would have been empty otherwise" is just dumbfounding.

Imagine a husband telling his wife that it's not cheating because he wasn't looking for any action, but the other lady offered a sexual favor for free.

That vagina would have been empty otherwise.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4


×
×
  • Create New...