Author Topic: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet  (Read 3262 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DragonAttack

  • Posts: 1116
The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« on: March 29, 2016, 03:36:22 PM »
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/us/politics/friedrichs-v-california-teachers-association-union-fees-supreme-court-ruling.html

One will never know what the current nominee would have voted.

I really don't understand why people who complain about 'free rides'.....want a free ride.  The simple thing to do is to fill in the box where the union asks if you want any of your dues to go for political contributions.  I had 210 union members when I was a local president....only two opted out of that.  We gave them that right, and that was their choice.  So be it.

If you want someone to negotiate a contract, try to even out the costs of health insurance, push for safety issues, fight all the way up to arbitration regarding grievances, suspensions, dismissals, etc., .......and do this all for free......something is wrong.

Not sure if I will be so pleased at future stalemates. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9450
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #1 on: March 30, 2016, 08:02:45 AM »
Well, when you think it's your RIGHT, it's doesn't seem "free".  There's the disconnect.  We've gotten so numb from the legitimate civil rights fights of the 60's and 70's that everything seems like a "right" these days.

I'm not joking or being disrespectful when I say, there's a part of me that believes that Martin Luther King, Jr. would look at some of the arguments today and say, "Mofo, please.  We didn't die on a bridge in baking sun in Alabama so you could have the "right" to boner medicine.   Mofo, please.".

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18863
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #2 on: March 30, 2016, 08:15:07 AM »
Well, when you think it's your RIGHT, it's doesn't seem "free".  There's the disconnect.  We've gotten so numb from the legitimate civil rights fights of the 60's and 70's that everything seems like a "right" these days.

I'm not joking or being disrespectful when I say, there's a part of me that believes that Martin Luther King, Jr. would look at some of the arguments today and say, "Mofo, please.  We didn't die on a bridge in baking sun in Alabama so you could have the "right" to boner medicine.   Mofo, please.".
No argument concerning the philosophical aspect of "rights." However your example isn't really germane. I think he'd be referring to the right to medical care, which I'm pretty sure the man would have approved of. The argument is simply a matter of whether or not good wood counts as a medical related expense (which is a pretty interesting aspect in its own right).
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline DragonAttack

  • Posts: 1116
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #3 on: March 30, 2016, 01:31:52 PM »
I have been non management for almost ten years.  I have benefitted from what unions negotiated since then, as did management when I was a union member.

When I took my union jobs, I was informed that I would become a member, and have to pay dues.  Just as those who filed the lawsuit.  I think it is totally unfair to reap the benefits of what unions have obtained, but not want to pay their fair share.  Generally, it is two hours gross wages a month (which can be deductible).  If these individuals did not want to pay dues......well, then, don't take the job! 

In those two unions, we ALL paid the same for health insurance, regardless of being single or having x amount of dependents.  Was that fair?  I always thought so.  It was easier to pay my bills on my wages as a 'single' compared to those who had a spouse and kids on their wages. 

As to the current Supreme Court setup.......I am leery regarding any appeal due to rulings made by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The one that has had 25 of their last 26 rulings overtuned, with no idea of how Scalia ruled on these.

Offline DragonAttack

  • Posts: 1116
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #4 on: April 14, 2016, 10:39:10 PM »
Still not quite sure of where this was meant to go.  All I know, is that I've been in two different unions at two different companies.  I could always have refused the jobs if I didn't want to be in a union (which, of course, wouldn't have made any sense).  If I am reading you right as to training:  for maintaining skill sets, or advancing, educational reimbursements were made by the companies.  One could also take, and be reimbursed for, college courses that could be used for promotion into an exempt or management position (accounting and computer science for example).  Those benefits weren't freely handed out, they were negotiated by the unions.

Here's something 'similar' to union dues:  HOA fees.  They are clearly stated in your home agreement.  You can choose not to purchase a home if you find them to be excessive.  But once the purchase is made, and one agrees to the terms, one cannot opt out and refuse to pay.  It's part of the contract.  Also unfair to those who do pay for the yards to be mowed and snow removed.

There's also x amount of organizations that charge dues or a fee.  I'm sure that if you don't pay your dues, you don't get their mailings, gain admittance to their meetings, eat at their banquets, etc.

....still wish I could out find how Scalia voted on all of those overturned 6th Circuit rulings. 

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18863
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #5 on: April 15, 2016, 09:21:09 AM »
They did make a sane ruling last week in a case that scared the shit out of me.  The case (Luis v. United States) revolved around the state seizing all assets of the accused, which prevented her from hiring council. As a rule the state can seize tainted assets (drug money, for example), but in this case they seized everything down to the family jewels (literally) on the basis that they might have a claim to it down the road once damages are assessed. This really had some terrifying implications beyond the sixth amendment right to council. If it takes six months for you to get to court, then that's time The Man can prevent you from paying bills, resulting in foreclosure and repossession of your stuff.

It was also interesting because of the bizarre ideological lines the decision took. It's quite rare for Thomas and Alito to disagree on something, and in this case they each sided with the most liberal justices.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline DragonAttack

  • Posts: 1116
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #6 on: April 16, 2016, 01:08:53 PM »
What if the HOA came after your purchase?

'The only absolute in the world, is that there are no absolutes...'

I'm sure there would have been discussions and a vote.  The same I assume could be said if taxes are raised to cover road construction and maintenance.  I guess you basically suck it up and pay, even if you don't drive a car or enjoy the benefits.

If the local pool or XYZ club you are a member of  begins charging or increases rates after a vote, and one refuses to pay the changes, there goes your membership.  Same goes with a newsletter or magazine.  Or a Dream Theater forum ;)  Maybe a grandfather clause will be written in.  Maybe there won't be. 


Luis v. United States.....indeed, an odd split up of votes by SCOTUS


Offline DragonAttack

  • Posts: 1116
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #7 on: April 16, 2016, 08:56:48 PM »
I don't know what that has to do with the Friedrichs vs. California.  No one I've worked with has had paid training from another company.  No company I've worked for has paid training for nonemployees.  I think I'll just go back to watching my limited cable subscription, due to the fact I don't pay the full price for all the benefits.

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4940
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #8 on: April 17, 2016, 11:04:30 AM »
What if the HOA came after your purchase?

Someone can correct me, but I think the creation of the HOA and its CC&Rs has to be done as part of the development of the housing community. You can't just arbitrarily set up an HOA. 
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18863
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #9 on: June 28, 2016, 02:45:43 PM »
The conservatives got burned pretty hard today, even if they were fighting for the wrong case.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/28/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-religious-liberty-case.html
Quote
The Supreme Court on Tuesday narrowly rejected an appeal over whether a private pharmacy can be forced by the state to dispense the so-called "morning after" pill, in effect refusing to expand its look into a religious liberty fight and certain reproductive health services.
At issue is a 2005 Washington state order that a family-owned pharmacy in Olympia provide so-called emergency Plan B contraception -- including morning-after and week-after pills -- that the business owners equate to abortion, in violation of their closely-held religious beliefs.
While the official vote total was not released, at least three justices dissented on the decision not to intervene. Justice Samuel Alito strongly dissented, saying the signal from the court was clear: “Violate your sincerely held religious beliefs or get out of the pharmacy business.”
“If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern,” he wrote. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas would also have granted the case for review.

Personally, I don't see why religious liberty means dick here. Why should a privately owned pharmacy have to sell anything? It's a shame that this had to be couched in silly arguments about God and abortion. In any event, Scalia certainly would have voted for cert, and it's quite possible that Garland would have, as well.

On the bright side, maybe Thomas will finally become so disgusted that he quits. His dissent yesterday in Hellerstedt really pissed me off, and we all know it's only a matter of time anyway.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18863
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #10 on: January 30, 2017, 03:56:53 PM »
So the speculation has begun and the two likely candidates are Pryor and Gorsuch. Since the latter is viewed as somewhat mainstream and the former a far more ostentatious pick, I think it's a no-brainer that Grabby goes with Pryor, based on his first week in office. So far he's been all about the size of the "fuck yous," and Prior would be a pretty big one to the democrats. In my very limited reading up I've found a couple of things that are unsettling as hell, albeit right in line with Grabby's way of doing things. Pryor wrote an amicus brief for Alabama for Lawrence.

Quote
The position of the gay men challenging the law, Mr. Pryor wrote, “must logically extend to activities like prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia.”
Not unreasonable, though I'm not sure I agree with his analysis. But then:

Quote
The states should not be required to accept, as a matter of constitutional doctrine, that homosexual activity is harmless and does not expose both the individual and the public to deleterious spiritual and physical consequence
While I disagree with his conclusion, that doesn't concern me. What does is why he thinks that it's the state's place to concern itself with the spiritual consequences of its citizens.

Commenting on RvW:
Quote
I believe that not only is the case unsupported by the text and structure of the Constitution, but it had led to a morally wrong result
Again, what does morality have to do with a judicial ruling?

Based on these two things, I've got a bad feeling about this. It's bad enough having a president who can't comprehend the importance of staying within the lines. Having a supreme court justice with the same failing would be much worse, I think.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9450
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #11 on: January 30, 2017, 03:59:40 PM »
Since I've been criticized for, well, not criticizing enough, let me say that I'm with el Barto on that last point a 100%.  Though that's about the extent of my knowledge on Pryor at this point.

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18863
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #12 on: January 31, 2017, 07:20:30 PM »
Looks like I got this one wrong. Seems Pryor was too much even for the senate. (The same senate preparing to confirm DeVos.) Guess I'll do some reading up on Gorsuch now. Here's hoping he's more of a Roberts than an Alito. A Souter would be too much to ask for.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online mikeyd23

  • Posts: 3962
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #13 on: February 01, 2017, 07:42:26 AM »
Looks like I got this one wrong. Seems Pryor was too much even for the senate. (The same senate preparing to confirm DeVos.) Guess I'll do some reading up on Gorsuch now. Here's hoping he's more of a Roberts than an Alito. A Souter would be too much to ask for.

From what I am reading, Gorsuch seems to be most like Scalia.

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18863
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #14 on: February 01, 2017, 08:10:47 AM »
Looks like I got this one wrong. Seems Pryor was too much even for the senate. (The same senate preparing to confirm DeVos.) Guess I'll do some reading up on Gorsuch now. Here's hoping he's more of a Roberts than an Alito. A Souter would be too much to ask for.

From what I am reading, Gorsuch seems to be most like Scalia.
And whether or not that's a good thing depends on which side of Scalia we're talking about.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online mikeyd23

  • Posts: 3962
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #15 on: February 01, 2017, 08:30:32 AM »
Looks like I got this one wrong. Seems Pryor was too much even for the senate. (The same senate preparing to confirm DeVos.) Guess I'll do some reading up on Gorsuch now. Here's hoping he's more of a Roberts than an Alito. A Souter would be too much to ask for.

From what I am reading, Gorsuch seems to be most like Scalia.
And whether or not that's a good thing depends on which side of Scalia we're talking about.

Care to elaborate? I don't know as much about the topic as you...

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40263
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #16 on: February 01, 2017, 08:34:48 AM »
Looks like I got this one wrong. Seems Pryor was too much even for the senate. (The same senate preparing to confirm DeVos.) Guess I'll do some reading up on Gorsuch now. Here's hoping he's more of a Roberts than an Alito. A Souter would be too much to ask for.

From what I am reading, Gorsuch seems to be most like Scalia.
And whether or not that's a good thing depends on which side of Scalia we're talking about.

Care to elaborate? I don't know as much about the topic as you...
For one thing, while certainly having a keen and brilliant legal mind, Scalia was also a raging asshole, who was apt to write dissents that read more like temper tantrums than merely a differing legal opinion.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline chknptpie

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2948
  • Gender: Female
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #17 on: February 01, 2017, 09:06:40 AM »
Scalia seemed to be off his rocker the last few years to me.

Online mikeyd23

  • Posts: 3962
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #18 on: February 01, 2017, 09:18:00 AM »
For one thing, while certainly having a keen and brilliant legal mind, Scalia was also a raging asshole, who was apt to write dissents that read more like temper tantrums than merely a differing legal opinion.

 :lol Gotcha

Gorsuch seems pretty sound to me, the type that will uphold the laws as written and not try to change laws to pass an agenda. His statement from yesterday everyone is talking about is a good one: “A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge".

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18863
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #19 on: February 01, 2017, 09:45:28 AM »
Looks like I got this one wrong. Seems Pryor was too much even for the senate. (The same senate preparing to confirm DeVos.) Guess I'll do some reading up on Gorsuch now. Here's hoping he's more of a Roberts than an Alito. A Souter would be too much to ask for.

From what I am reading, Gorsuch seems to be most like Scalia.
And whether or not that's a good thing depends on which side of Scalia we're talking about.

Care to elaborate? I don't know as much about the topic as you...
For one thing, while certainly having a keen and brilliant legal mind, Scalia was also a raging asshole, who was apt to write dissents that read more like temper tantrums than merely a differing legal opinion.
Yeah. I didn't mind him bitching in his dissents when it was about the logic or merits of the matter at hand. As he got older he directed more and more of his contempt for the court itself and people on it. That's where he turned into an asshole in my book.


Looks like I got this one wrong. Seems Pryor was too much even for the senate. (The same senate preparing to confirm DeVos.) Guess I'll do some reading up on Gorsuch now. Here's hoping he's more of a Roberts than an Alito. A Souter would be too much to ask for.

From what I am reading, Gorsuch seems to be most like Scalia.
And whether or not that's a good thing depends on which side of Scalia we're talking about.

Care to elaborate? I don't know as much about the topic as you...
The bad:  Scalia was just as prone to incorporating his own morality into his decisions as the rest. He was just better at writing cogent justifications. If you listen to him announce his dissent in Lawrence the man was absolutely seething that allowing gays to fuck would lead to allowing gays to marry. This concerned me a great deal. And even though it's more his ideological position on law rather than his personal preclusions, he really didn't care for procedural due process at all. There are some very important rules that I don't think would exist if he had been on the bench when they came to be. I seriously doubt he would have concurred with Mapp, for example. There's no way he would have sided with Ernesto Miranda, either.

The good: It didn't bother me so much because aside from a handful of social matters his opinions were generally sound. He was a stalwart for the 4th amendment, when other conservatives tended to give deference to LEA, which pleased me quite a bit. While he would have let LEA use unlawfully obtained evidence, he was generally a hardass about applying the law to searches.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9450
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #20 on: February 01, 2017, 10:13:42 AM »
Looks like I got this one wrong. Seems Pryor was too much even for the senate. (The same senate preparing to confirm DeVos.) Guess I'll do some reading up on Gorsuch now. Here's hoping he's more of a Roberts than an Alito. A Souter would be too much to ask for.

From what I am reading, Gorsuch seems to be most like Scalia.
And whether or not that's a good thing depends on which side of Scalia we're talking about.

Care to elaborate? I don't know as much about the topic as you...

Let me step in, if I may.   He's like Scalia in that he is a strict constructionalist.  He will read the Constitution for what it says, and not try to find a ton of things in there that aren't there.   He will  be very much to the letter of the law, and not be an activist judge.   I won't speak for el Barto, as I know he will chime in, but I think the "other side" is that Scalia would on occasion - not often, but enough - step over that and make the law fit (EDIT:  el Barto cited the best and most egregious example above me:  Lawrence.) 

Personally, I LOVE this pick.  It's a great move ideologically, politically, and from a public relations perspective.   It's ideologically sound, in that it sticks to constitutional values, without egregiously touching on the hot point issues of "abortion" (I don't see Gorsuch fighting to overturn Roe v. Wade any time soon, and if there is a case to this effect, I see him pulling a Kennedy and sticking to the established law in contravention to the more conservative justices that might see an opportunity to pull the rug out on abortion law as we know it).   It's politically sound in that it appeases conservatives - Ted Cruz had a mini-boner in the interview I saw with him after the nomination; he was positively GLOWING - but it very much says to Dems, "Ok, here's a conservative - you knew that was coming - but one YOU supported for nomination to the Federal bench, and hasn't said ANY of the "bad things" that you have carped about through the election".   Even Dick Blumenthal, my state's senior Senator, seemed like he was really reaching to find ways to stand with his Democratic brethren in opposing this.  He even had to concede that he "had to do his homework to see if Gorsuch passes muster".   And from the PR perspective, it's probably the sanest, most traditional, dare I say, "Presidential", thing that Trump has done in his 12 days in office.   You could still see when he went off script in his speech, but he's at least TRYING. 

The one thing Gorsuch is NOT, and it's the one thing I like best about him, is that he is NOT an activist judge.   That's a trend that can't end fast enough for me.  That's NOT the role of a judge.  If you want to pass new laws, run for office. 

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40263
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #21 on: February 01, 2017, 10:34:51 AM »
For what it's worth, I haven't heard anyone from the left in the Senate say anything about obstructing the pick.  Schumer did say that he should have to pass 60 votes, just like the justices nominated by Obama, but that's all, and doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

But if they WERE inclined to make a stink over it, I wouldn't want to hear one peep out of Mitch McConnell's facehole after that crap over Garland.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18863
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #22 on: February 01, 2017, 10:39:42 AM »
Well, according to the headline from a certain fair and balanced news organization, "dems go balistic," there must be an uprising in the works.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline pogoowner

  • Pancake Bunny
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2813
  • Gender: Male
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #23 on: February 01, 2017, 10:40:13 AM »
For what it's worth, I haven't heard anyone from the left in the Senate say anything about obstructing the pick.  Schumer did say that he should have to pass 60 votes, just like the justices nominated by Obama, but that's all, and doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

But if they WERE inclined to make a stink over it, I wouldn't want to hear one peep out of Mitch McConnell's facehole after that crap over Garland.
Elizabeth Warren has come out in opposition already. Not sure about anyone else.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2414
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #24 on: February 01, 2017, 10:45:22 AM »
Schumer, Brown, Markey, and Wyden have openly said they oppose as well.  Typical (and I am not being sarcastic, I just mean that Court nominations are so often "typically" supported or opposed strictly along party lines, so this is not atypical in that regard). 

And not that it matters, but I know plenty in the House oppose him as well.  Pelosi has been pretty vocal.  I don't know much about him, but if Pelosi hates him that much, he must be great.  :lol
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40263
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #25 on: February 01, 2017, 11:39:57 AM »
Sure, they may oppose the particular pick, as is their right.

That's not the same as doing anything to necessarily prevent him being voted in.  Like I said, they will require the 60-vote minimum, but I don't see anything wrong with that.  Although the Republicans probably will.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline antigoon

  • Not Elvis
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 10245
  • Gender: Male
  • This was a triumph.
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #26 on: February 01, 2017, 12:56:57 PM »
Ted Cruz is already going on about "unprecedented obstruction"

Offline Scorpion

  • Unreal Heir
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9782
  • Gender: Male
  • Ragnarök around the Clöck!
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #27 on: February 01, 2017, 12:58:50 PM »
So unprecedented.

Oh well, did anybody expect Ted Cruz to not be a raging hypocrite?
scorpion is my favorite deathcore lobster
Hey, the length is fine :azn: Thanks!

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2414
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #28 on: February 01, 2017, 01:03:03 PM »
Sure, they may oppose the particular pick, as is their right.

That's not the same as doing anything to necessarily prevent him being voted in.  Like I said, they will require the 60-vote minimum, but I don't see anything wrong with that.  Although the Republicans probably will.

I'm not saying or implying that there is anything wrong with it.  I even said the opposition is pretty typical.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Online cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15868
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #29 on: February 01, 2017, 01:48:24 PM »
Following.

I don't know much so not going to add anything but want to read what others have to say. 

However, last night when I got into bed I turned on the news and saw Trump had named the appointee.  I figured let's see what the dems think because I put on fox news and Hannity was drooling over it as expected so I put on CNN and Don Lemon and myself were both surprised to see his panel was almost completely agreeing that this was a good pick.  Lemon even mentioned something along the lines of "wow and Trump would never expect CNN to be on his side for this"  :lol

If everyone (or most really, never going to please everyone) is happy then I am happy with the pick.

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40263
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #30 on: February 01, 2017, 01:53:21 PM »
Judge Gorsuch’s dissent in the case of a 13-year-old arrested for making fake burps in class

Gotta say, I agree with his dissent in this case, and I also like his writing style.

We'll see what happens.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18863
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #31 on: February 01, 2017, 02:01:09 PM »
Following.

I don't know much so not going to add anything but want to read what others have to say. 

However, last night when I got into bed I turned on the news and saw Trump had named the appointee.  I figured let's see what the dems think because I put on fox news and Hannity was drooling over it as expected so I put on CNN and Don Lemon and myself were both surprised to see his panel was almost completely agreeing that this was a good pick.  Lemon even mentioned something along the lines of "wow and Trump would never expect CNN to be on his side for this"  :lol

If everyone (or most really, never going to please everyone) is happy then I am happy with the pick.
I think the surprise, certainly for me, at least, was that it wasn't a deliberate Fuck You to the democrats. Based on the last two weeks I was expecting the most far right justice he could dig up from somewhere. The smooth thing would have been to re-nominate Garland, but mending fences isn't really Grabby's style, after all. .
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline TAC

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 24139
  • Gender: Male
  • Just a decent, normal metal-head fellow
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #32 on: February 01, 2017, 02:04:40 PM »
But didn't Pelosi refer to it as a "hostile pick"?
would have thought the same thing but seeing the OP was TAC i immediately thought Maiden or DT related
Winger Theater Forums................or WTF.  ;D

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2414
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #33 on: February 01, 2017, 02:06:33 PM »
Pelosi is insane.  Since when does anyone care what she says?
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18863
  • Bad Craziness
Re: The 8 member Supreme Court tally sheet
« Reply #34 on: February 01, 2017, 02:13:15 PM »
Pelosi's just doing her job, in the modern political sense. Passing reasonable laws is secondary to their roles as representatives. Obstruction, fealty, bitching and cheerleading are what they're there for nowadays.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson