My life is ruined

RaceBannon said:

RBG sucked my dick without permission

I am still ruined by it

Check out my Go Fund Me page

What denomination of Roman coins can we pay in?

2001400ex said:

Swaye said:

creepycoug said:

Swaye said:

dflea said:

Swaye said:

dflea said:

RaceBannon said:

dflea said:

People's reputations typically suffer at their own hands. They might blame someone else, but the fault is usually theirs.

You know I'm right, Race.

It's his fault they made this shit up out of thin air?

Sure

The attempted rape part, or the lying motherfucker part?

If he was man enough to just say, "Sure, I got wasted quite a bit in college - but I never raped that woman, or even attempted to.", then it would be water under the bridge already. But he's a fucking liar who had to make up some bullshit story about being an angel in college.

Nope, he isn't man enough. He's a fucking chump. If he wasn't a fucking liar, his reputation would be intact, other than with a small percentage a people who would believe anything said if it was negative.

Right? Of course I am.

Come on, you know better than this. I'll even concede he did lie. But no matter what he said you and I both know nothing would have stopped this. Nothing. The Dems were always going scorched Earth on this one.

Of course they were - but that dumbfuck made sure to give them all the ammunition they needed to actually have a chance to derail his nomination.

Otherwise the Democrats had no chance of holding it up. None.

Don't lean into a fucking punch.

I totally get what you are saying...I just think that Kav was put into God's little acre here, east of a rock, and west of a hard place. The Dems did not want the 5th vote moving right, and so I think no matter what Kavs did anywhere in this process they were going to pull out all the stops to stop him. Kavs probably does have some misteps along the way, but he held his shit better than I would have. As soon as Blumenthal lectured him with "we need honesty" I would have been over that table and skull fucked him.

Without question, the only truly germane issue here is the timing of the appointment. Anyone who denies that is just fs.

And, of course, I don't blame the democrats for fighting that fight. McConnell does not have clean hands.

That said, notwithstanding some of his writings about natural law and related topics, many people who are actually familiar with SCOTUS goings on are scoring Gorsuch as a potential moderate who may not be the Scalia clone people thought he'd be. Sample size is small though. So it remains to be seen if the Republicans will really be in a position to stack the court.

How come only conservative appointments switch sides after they get there? Whenever a lib Pres puts a lib on a court, they stay reliably liberal for life...they usually move further left, but half the time a GOP Pres puts a conservative up they swerve left within a couple years.

Got any examples of that happening? I'd like to learn more about that.

We've just begun to plumb the depths of Hondo's ignorance.

The number of Republican appointees who ended up being flaming libs and "moderates" is easily in the double figures in the last 60 years. I can only think of one Rat nominee who moved toward the right.

2001400ex said:

Swaye said:

creepycoug said:

Swaye said:

dflea said:

Swaye said:

dflea said:

RaceBannon said:

dflea said:

People's reputations typically suffer at their own hands. They might blame someone else, but the fault is usually theirs.

You know I'm right, Race.

It's his fault they made this shit up out of thin air?

Sure

The attempted rape part, or the lying motherfucker part?

If he was man enough to just say, "Sure, I got wasted quite a bit in college - but I never raped that woman, or even attempted to.", then it would be water under the bridge already. But he's a fucking liar who had to make up some bullshit story about being an angel in college.

Nope, he isn't man enough. He's a fucking chump. If he wasn't a fucking liar, his reputation would be intact, other than with a small percentage a people who would believe anything said if it was negative.

Right? Of course I am.

Come on, you know better than this. I'll even concede he did lie. But no matter what he said you and I both know nothing would have stopped this. Nothing. The Dems were always going scorched Earth on this one.

Of course they were - but that dumbfuck made sure to give them all the ammunition they needed to actually have a chance to derail his nomination.

Otherwise the Democrats had no chance of holding it up. None.

Don't lean into a fucking punch.

I totally get what you are saying...I just think that Kav was put into God's little acre here, east of a rock, and west of a hard place. The Dems did not want the 5th vote moving right, and so I think no matter what Kavs did anywhere in this process they were going to pull out all the stops to stop him. Kavs probably does have some misteps along the way, but he held his shit better than I would have. As soon as Blumenthal lectured him with "we need honesty" I would have been over that table and skull fucked him.

Without question, the only truly germane issue here is the timing of the appointment. Anyone who denies that is just fs.

And, of course, I don't blame the democrats for fighting that fight. McConnell does not have clean hands.

That said, notwithstanding some of his writings about natural law and related topics, many people who are actually familiar with SCOTUS goings on are scoring Gorsuch as a potential moderate who may not be the Scalia clone people thought he'd be. Sample size is small though. So it remains to be seen if the Republicans will really be in a position to stack the court.

How come only conservative appointments switch sides after they get there? Whenever a lib Pres puts a lib on a court, they stay reliably liberal for life...they usually move further left, but half the time a GOP Pres puts a conservative up they swerve left within a couple years.

Got any examples of that happening? I'd like to learn more about that.

Earl Warren and William Brennan were Eisenhower appointees. That's what you'd call a bait and switch any day, but then again, Eisenhower's Republican party bears little resemblance to today's BobSled Tea Party cackle of maniacs. Blackmun was a Nixon appointee. Doesn't get much more bait & switch than that. And Burger, also Nixon, supported Roe, though it's harder to call him a liberal justice across the board. He's been viewed as a moderate on balance in hindsight, but the guy who appointed him probably had more conservative expectations.

On the other side, you have White, a Kennedy appointee, who joined Rehnquist in the Roe dissent, but wasn't an across-the-board conservative. That's true for a lot of them, even Scalia. Thomas, he of never asking a question in oral argument, is considered by many among the most consistently conservative justices.

Herbert Walker picked Souter, a supposed plain meaning, strict constructionist "look up the word in the dictionary" jurist like Scalia, and he of course has turned out to be a consistently liberal justice.

So it's basically true was @Swaye said, though if you go back further in history there are a lot of examples of the other swing. That said, most of these guys can't be jammed into one box super neatly, which indicates that the institution has worked over time.

2001400ex said:

creepycoug said:

2001400ex said:

Swaye said:

creepycoug said:

Swaye said:

dflea said:

Swaye said:

dflea said:

RaceBannon said:

dflea said:

People's reputations typically suffer at their own hands. They might blame someone else, but the fault is usually theirs.

You know I'm right, Race.

It's his fault they made this shit up out of thin air?

Sure

The attempted rape part, or the lying motherfucker part?

If he was man enough to just say, "Sure, I got wasted quite a bit in college - but I never raped that woman, or even attempted to.", then it would be water under the bridge already. But he's a fucking liar who had to make up some bullshit story about being an angel in college.

Nope, he isn't man enough. He's a fucking chump. If he wasn't a fucking liar, his reputation would be intact, other than with a small percentage a people who would believe anything said if it was negative.

Right? Of course I am.

Come on, you know better than this. I'll even concede he did lie. But no matter what he said you and I both know nothing would have stopped this. Nothing. The Dems were always going scorched Earth on this one.

Of course they were - but that dumbfuck made sure to give them all the ammunition they needed to actually have a chance to derail his nomination.

Otherwise the Democrats had no chance of holding it up. None.

Don't lean into a fucking punch.

I totally get what you are saying...I just think that Kav was put into God's little acre here, east of a rock, and west of a hard place. The Dems did not want the 5th vote moving right, and so I think no matter what Kavs did anywhere in this process they were going to pull out all the stops to stop him. Kavs probably does have some misteps along the way, but he held his shit better than I would have. As soon as Blumenthal lectured him with "we need honesty" I would have been over that table and skull fucked him.

Without question, the only truly germane issue here is the timing of the appointment. Anyone who denies that is just fs.

And, of course, I don't blame the democrats for fighting that fight. McConnell does not have clean hands.

That said, notwithstanding some of his writings about natural law and related topics, many people who are actually familiar with SCOTUS goings on are scoring Gorsuch as a potential moderate who may not be the Scalia clone people thought he'd be. Sample size is small though. So it remains to be seen if the Republicans will really be in a position to stack the court.

How come only conservative appointments switch sides after they get there? Whenever a lib Pres puts a lib on a court, they stay reliably liberal for life...they usually move further left, but half the time a GOP Pres puts a conservative up they swerve left within a couple years.

Got any examples of that happening? I'd like to learn more about that.

Earl Warren and William Brennan were Eisenhower appointees. That's what you'd call a bait and switch any day, but then again, Eisenhower's Republican party bears little resemblance to today's BobSled Tea Party cackle of maniacs. Blackmun was a Nixon appointee. Doesn't get much more bait & switch than that. And Burger, also Nixon, supported Roe, though it's harder to call him a liberal justice across the board. He's been viewed as a moderate on balance in hindsight, but the guy who appointed him probably had more conservative expectations.

On the other side, you have White, a Kennedy appointee, who joined Rehnquist in the Roe dissent, but wasn't an across-the-board conservative. That's true for a lot of them, even Scalia. Thomas, he of never asking a question in oral argument, is considered by many among the most consistently conservative justices.

Herbert Walker picked Souter, a supposed plain meaning, strict constructionist "look up the word in the dictionary" jurist like Scalia, and he of course has turned out to be a consistently liberal justice.

So it's basically true was @Swaye said, though if you go back further in history there are a lot of examples of the other swing. That said, most of these guys can't be jammed into one box super neatly, which indicates that the institution has worked over time.

Chinteresting. I'm going to have to research that more. But the overreaching theme seems to be that justices get more liberal as they read more into the Constitution.

Where do you get the “read more into the Constitution” other than your ignorant ass?

The get more liberal the longer they are in the spotlight in DC

After all that ass tonguing you did for Coug good to see him give you a reach around.