The Republican Utopia

[ZRod]

36 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Your surprised politicians take money from companies that do business in the US?  Is the tobacco industry my favorite?  No, but let’s carry this forward.   How many politicians have taken money from the banking and credit card industry who have totally crushed and ruined people for years upon years.  Or private equity firms who put public companies into play when they have no business to be put into position causing un-needed mergers costing hundreds of thousands of jobs over the past decade.   I mean, let’s not stop with tobacco if we’re gonna do this and not stop with Mitch.  Our current President has made a living taking money from the first group for decades.   

I so love how you're only principled when it fits the narrative of vilifying the party you oppose. People literally dieing from a product is quite a bit different than monetary and credit issues, but you knew that.

[BigRedBuster]

This is just f#&%ing stupid. 
 

 

[nic]

11 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

In case anyone doubted, the politicization of the Supreme Court is complete. 

 

This isn't about judicial philosophy. 

 

And no, it wasn't always this way. 

It was complete long before this nomination. It probably started with Clarence Thomas.

[BigRedBuster]

 

[Danny Bateman]

2 hours ago, nic said:

It was complete long before this nomination. It probably started with Clarence Thomas.

 

Hyperpolarization began a long time before that. Nixon had his enemies list. I think Republicans started viewing Dems as enemies more than opponents ever since...

 

 

This continued under Reagan and definitely accelerated in the 90s with Newt GIngrich spearheading that effort.

 

Trump was the culmination of that thought process.

 

Unfortunately SCOTUS has become a weapon to wield against your perceived enemies. That's why it's such a high-stakes game for conservatives and elected Republicans pretty much have their hands tied.

 

It's a shame what has become of the Supreme Court. I wish the GOP would reform itself into something healthier and less toxic but as long as they can cling to power it'll never happen.

 

Oh, and Ginni Thomas is a full-blown, Kool-Aid drinking, Q-loving true believer. The pride of Nebraska. Can you imagine the dinner table conversations there? And some people argue SCOTUS isn't political.

[ZRod]

10 hours ago, Born N Bled Red said:

 

I thought it was the Chinese shipping magnate directly tied to the commie govt???

He fought to remove sanctions on a Russian Aluminum company, and shortly after they were relaxed they announced a $200 million dollar investment in Kentucky.

[Scarlet]

 

 

 

Quote

One thing worth noting: This isn’t just coming from liberal scholars. 

 

Sreohen Gillers, a longtime professor of legal ethics at NYU, spoke to NYT’s Adam Liptak about whether Clarence Thomas violated federal recusal law by participating in cases related to Jan. 6 or the 2020 election.

 

— What the law states: “any justice, judge or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

 

“A more specific provision concerning relatives, including spouses, might also apply to his situation,” writes Liptak. “Judges should not participate, the law says, in proceedings in which their spouse has ‘an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.’”

 

— Gillers said the word “interest” was the key: “By writing to Meadows, who was chief of staff and active in the ‘Stop the Steal’ movement, she joined the team resisting the results of the election,” he said. “She made herself part of the team and so she has an interest in the decisions of the court that could affect Trump’s goal of reversing the results.”

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

3 hours ago, nic said:

It was complete long before this nomination. It probably started with Clarence Thomas.

 

Yeah, but no.

 

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was voted in 96-3. Steven Breyer 87-9. John Roberts 78-22, Samuel Alito 58-42, Sonia Sotomayor 68-31.

 

Then the Republicans refused to even hear the nomination of Merrick Garland, a respected centrist and mentor of Chief Justice John Roberts. 

 

Then Donald Trump got to nominate three Supreme Court Justices in his four years, and was handed a list of candidates who fit a very specific political agenda, some might even say a single issue agenda. Gorsuch at least fit the part. Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett weren't supreme at anything, just young enough to toe the line for a full generation. 

 

The notion that you could once oppose a candidate simply for their lack of judicial esteem can be found in the Reagan administration, where the same Democrats who sabotaged Robert Bork voted 99-0 for Sandra Day O'Connor, 98-0 for Antonin Scalia, and 97-0 for Anthony Kennedy. The same Congress that went mostly partisan lines on Clarance Thomas (52-48), voted in Bush nominee David Souter 90-9 less than a year earlier. 

[nic]

You left off the the last 3. Jackson will probably be 50/50 with a tie break. 
I can’t remember why Miers and Roberts withdrew. Note the vote tally for liberal versus conservative judges.
 

President Biden, Joseph R., Jr.
Jackson, Ketanji Brown				Feb 28, 2022
President Trump, Donald
Barrett, Amy Coney				Sep 29, 2020		52-48  No.  224		C		Oct 26, 2020
Kavanaugh, Brett				Jul 10, 2018		50-48  No.  223		C		Oct 6, 2018
Gorsuch, Neil M.				Feb 1, 2017		54-45  No.  111		C		Apr 7, 2017
President Obama, Barack
Garland, Merrick B.				Mar 16, 2016				N
Kagan, Elena				May 10, 2010		63-37  No.  229		C		Aug 5, 2010
Sotomayor, Sonia				Jun 1, 2009		68-31  No.  262		C		Aug 6, 2009
President Bush, George W.
Alito, Samuel A., Jr.				Nov 10, 2005		58-42  No.  2		C		Jan 31, 2006
Miers, Harriet				Oct 7, 2005				W		Oct 28, 2005
Roberts, John G., Jr.1				Sep 6, 2005		78-22  No.  245		C		Sep 29, 2005
Roberts, John G., Jr.				Jul 29, 2005				W		Sep 6, 2005
President Clinton, Bill
Breyer, Stephen G.				May 17, 1994		87-9  No.  242		C		Jul 29, 1994
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader				Jun 22, 1993		96-3  No.  232		C		Aug 3, 1993
President Bush, George H.W.
Thomas, Clarence				Jul 8, 1991		52-48  No.  220		C		Oct 15, 1991
Souter, David H.				Jul 25, 1990		90-9  No.  259		C		Oct 2, 1990

[Guy Chamberlin]

1 hour ago, nic said:

You left off the the last 3. Jackson will probably be 50/50 with a tie break. 
I can’t remember why Miers and Roberts withdrew. Note the vote tally for liberal versus conservative judges.
 

President Biden, Joseph R., Jr.
Jackson, Ketanji Brown				Feb 28, 2022
President Trump, Donald
Barrett, Amy Coney				Sep 29, 2020		52-48  No.  224		C		Oct 26, 2020
Kavanaugh, Brett				Jul 10, 2018		50-48  No.  223		C		Oct 6, 2018
Gorsuch, Neil M.				Feb 1, 2017		54-45  No.  111		C		Apr 7, 2017
President Obama, Barack
Garland, Merrick B.				Mar 16, 2016				N
Kagan, Elena				May 10, 2010		63-37  No.  229		C		Aug 5, 2010
Sotomayor, Sonia				Jun 1, 2009		68-31  No.  262		C		Aug 6, 2009
President Bush, George W.
Alito, Samuel A., Jr.				Nov 10, 2005		58-42  No.  2		C		Jan 31, 2006
Miers, Harriet				Oct 7, 2005				W		Oct 28, 2005
Roberts, John G., Jr.1				Sep 6, 2005		78-22  No.  245		C		Sep 29, 2005
Roberts, John G., Jr.				Jul 29, 2005				W		Sep 6, 2005
President Clinton, Bill
Breyer, Stephen G.				May 17, 1994		87-9  No.  242		C		Jul 29, 1994
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader				Jun 22, 1993		96-3  No.  232		C		Aug 3, 1993
President Bush, George H.W.
Thomas, Clarence				Jul 8, 1991		52-48  No.  220		C		Oct 15, 1991
Souter, David H.				Jul 25, 1990		90-9  No.  259		C		Oct 2, 1990

 

You drew the line at Clarance Thomas. I'm saying the more appropriate line was Merrick Garland. 

[funhusker]

4 hours ago, nic said:

You left off the the last 3. Jackson will probably be 50/50 with a tie break. 
I can’t remember why Miers and Roberts withdrew. Note the vote tally for liberal versus conservative judges.
 

President Biden, Joseph R., Jr.
Jackson, Ketanji Brown				Feb 28, 2022
President Trump, Donald
Barrett, Amy Coney				Sep 29, 2020		52-48  No.  224		C		Oct 26, 2020
Kavanaugh, Brett				Jul 10, 2018		50-48  No.  223		C		Oct 6, 2018
Gorsuch, Neil M.				Feb 1, 2017		54-45  No.  111		C		Apr 7, 2017
President Obama, Barack
Garland, Merrick B.				Mar 16, 2016				N
Kagan, Elena				May 10, 2010		63-37  No.  229		C		Aug 5, 2010
Sotomayor, Sonia				Jun 1, 2009		68-31  No.  262		C		Aug 6, 2009
President Bush, George W.
Alito, Samuel A., Jr.				Nov 10, 2005		58-42  No.  2		C		Jan 31, 2006
Miers, Harriet				Oct 7, 2005				W		Oct 28, 2005
Roberts, John G., Jr.1				Sep 6, 2005		78-22  No.  245		C		Sep 29, 2005
Roberts, John G., Jr.				Jul 29, 2005				W		Sep 6, 2005
President Clinton, Bill
Breyer, Stephen G.				May 17, 1994		87-9  No.  242		C		Jul 29, 1994
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader				Jun 22, 1993		96-3  No.  232		C		Aug 3, 1993
President Bush, George H.W.
Thomas, Clarence				Jul 8, 1991		52-48  No.  220		C		Oct 15, 1991
Souter, David H.				Jul 25, 1990		90-9  No.  259		C		Oct 2, 1990

I’m just going from memory, but didn’t Miers have some fraudulent transcript issues or something? And was Roberts during a shutdown?

 

edit:  Miers withdrew because of problems in her own party due to lack of experience, no fraud issues.

 

Roberts was withdrawn to renominate him as the Chief Justice.

[teachercd]

Call me crazy but she should get nominated with ease...

 

Also, call me crazy again but if you can't define woman or can't admit when you think life begins then you are a f#&%ing liar.  

 

Call me crazy a 3rd time, we all f#&%ing lie when we "interview" for a job, so I am cool with it.

 

I said that I "grade everything" and would be happy to coach girls basketball.  

 

I kind of wish she would have just said "Yeah, I am not answering those questions because so many people are f#&%ing insane and will lose their s#!t if they here my real answers"

[nic]

From people who watched the Kavanaugh, Barrett and Jackson hearings, I heard the Jackson hearing was the least contentious. True? I watched Kavanaugh and Barrett, but not very much of this one. 

[ZRod]

1 hour ago, nic said:

From people who watched the Kavanaugh, Barrett and Jackson hearings, I heard the Jackson hearing was the least contentious. True? I watched Kavanaugh and Barrett, but not very much of this one. 

Probably what happens when you're actually well qualified and don't have much baggage.

[nic]

1 hour ago, ZRod said:

Probably what happens when you're actually well qualified and don't have much baggage.

Why were the prior 3 unqualified? Barrett seemed liked the smartest one in the room. Her religion seemed to be the main issue for those voting not to confirm her. Was Jackson’s religion discussed this time? I don’t remember what Gorsuch’s baggage was. The Kavanaugh accusations from high school I remember.