Faceplams Faceplams:  0
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 93

Thread: The Supreme Court thread

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    7,588
    Mentioned
    423 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by elevenism View Post
    how can they get away with confirming a nominee, when they wouldn't let Garland through in an election year?

    the sheer hypocrisy of this is astounding.
    Cue the deafening sound of Mitch McConnell mocking your naivety with his shitty nails-on-chalkboard laughter.

    What keeps me going? I really DO believe people are SO FUCKING PISSED right now, and all these pollsters aren't accounting for that. They don't understand, they never really factor it in.

    I have to believe it. I am going to pay attention for the early voting returns... If Florida goes to Trump, sorry, I'm going to maybe try out some new crazy drugs and why not, maybe it's time to give DMT a shot. Fuck it. Maybe I'll wake up in a different quantum reality where Trump lost in 2016, Forest Gump says "Life is like a box of chocolates," President Hillary Clinton isn't great but things aren't that bad really, and C3P0 doesn't have a silver leg.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    12,600
    Mentioned
    848 Post(s)
    McConnell's excuse (that's all it is) in confirming a nominee this time vs. Garland is the (bullshit) "Biden Rule" - which wasn't a rule at all - which McConnell claims is a rule where a President's party differs from the Senate's majority party in an election year, so only THEN you can't confirm a SCOTUS nominee; but if the parties are the same, it's hunky dory. To recap: In 2016, the President was a Democrat and the Senate was Republican-majority. In 1992, when Biden made his speech, GHW Bush was Republican and the Senate was majority Democrat (but there was never a SCOTUS vacancy in 1992). In 2020, the President is Republican and the Senate is majority Republican.

    They cited a June 1992 speech by then-senator Joe Biden, in which Biden argued that President Bush should wait until after the election to appoint a replacement if a Supreme Court seat became vacant during the summer or should appoint a moderate acceptable to the then-Democratic Senate, as a precedent. Republicans later began to refer to this originally little-noticed idea as the "Biden rule". Biden responded that his position was and remained that the president and Congress should "work together to overcome partisan differences" regarding judicial nominations. Scholars and political analysts objected that there was such a thing as the "Biden rule". PolitiFact noted that Biden's speech was later in the election year than when the GOP blocked Garland, there was no Supreme Court vacancy, there was no nominee under consideration, the Democratic-led Senate never adopted this as a rule, and that Biden did not object to Bush nominating judicial nominees after Election Day.
    Here's Lindsey Graham's new excuses (note #1 has nothing to do with SCOTUS; McConnell changed the SCOTUS votes to nuclear, #2 ignores the victim Blasey-Ford and points solely at revenge, and Kavanaugh is now a SCOTUS justice):



    In other words: The GOP is trying to keep the plutocracy in control for the next 30-40 years, or more. And they are already succeeding. Trump was elected by the GOP for ONE primary reason: SCOTUS SEATS and Federal Court seats. All are lifetime positions. The Democrats and the left never seem to give enough shits about this as the right.

    Moral of the story: Voting (or not) has consequences.

    Re reproductive rights: Many states have already passed legislation making abortion legal in the instance that Roe is overturned (state's rights). Many states can pass constitutional amendments that protect women and LGBTQ and POC etc. An extremely conservative Federal judicial will only affect FEDERAL courts; state courts are elected, even state supreme courts. If you want true change, get local. The Federal government won't help you nearly as much as local. Get local. Demand local and state change. Grow that change until it puts pressure on Washington.
    Last edited by allegro; 09-20-2020 at 04:19 PM.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    7,588
    Mentioned
    423 Post(s)
    Yes, but Lindsey Graham ALSO said that Trump was crazy and unqualified for the office and a joke or something, then he got right to fluffing him whenever possible after a golf outing. He's probably "kompromat"

    https://gregolear.substack.com/p/lin...trumps-hostage

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    12,600
    Mentioned
    848 Post(s)
    Lindsey Graham wants more SCOTUS seats. Period. None of these GOP Senators give a shit about "ethics," they only want conservative justices agreeing with them.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    7,588
    Mentioned
    423 Post(s)
    we need to just have a law about how politicians cannot flagrantly lie. We just need to make that illegal. Hypocrisy on some blatant level should be punishable. If it was a jailable offense to completely swap your stance when politically advantageous, maybe people would consider that it's not a good thing to be a hypocritical piece of lying shit.

    How about this? "The president is ALWAYS under oath when he/she speaks to the people"
    Let's start there.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Republic of Texas
    Posts
    6,905
    Mentioned
    478 Post(s)
    @allegro , I heard talk of this "Biden Rule" on CNN, but, couldn't wrap my head around it. So, because of an ARGUMENT made by Biden in 92, or an idea he expressed, the right is trying to say that trump should get to fill the seat, due to some non existent precedent or rule? And, it's very handy that it was biden"s argument, because it falsely casts him in a hypocritical light? Am I getting all of this?

    My question is, ultimately, who is the arbiter here?

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    12,600
    Mentioned
    848 Post(s)
    There is no "rule." It's something they made up to substantiate their own bullshit. In 1992, Biden wasn't speaking in MARCH; he spoke on June 25. His speech said "It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over." Note that there was nothing happening as far as SCOTUS at the time. There was no nominee to consider. He wasn't saying that a nomination WOULDN'T be considered by the Senate; he only stated that, since it was nearly July, with only about 3 months left, the pragmatic way to handle this - should it arise - would be to delay the nomination until after the election.

    In March, no election campaign is "well under way." It's just started. There is no arbiter.

    We must look at the context of Biden's speech. There was a time when SCOTUS hearings and votes were pretty much TOTALLY bipartisan. RBG received a 98-2 vote. Justice Stevens received a 99-0 vote.

    Here are parts of that Biden speech in 1992 (Biden was the chair of the Judiciary Committee):

    Given the unusual rancor that prevailed in the (Clarence) Thomas nomination, the need for some serious reevaluation of the nomination and confirmation process, and the overall level of bitterness that sadly infects our political system and this presidential campaign already, it is my view that the prospects for anything but conflagration with respect to a Supreme Court nomination this year are remote at best.

    In my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down.

    Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

    Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."
    Now, a few political pundits representing the Republicans HAVE mentioned on TV in the last 24 hours - and with merit - that HAD Garland been considered by the Senate, and HAD quorum been reached, and HAD Senate hearings been held, and HAD there been a vote, it's HIGHLY UNLIKELY that Garland would have been confirmed. He just would not have received enough votes by the Republican majority, who'd be in lock step (particularly in an election year). Obama would have then been forced to submit another nominee, that nominee would go through a hearing process, and Senators who were campaigning to keep their own seats would be unable to do so because they'd be busy in SCOTUS confirmation hearings. So, while McConnell was claiming the "Biden Rule," the reality is that he knew that Garland would never get the votes, and the process would tie up his GOP Senators during election season and that they'd poll way better if he played hardball against Obama.
    Last edited by allegro; 09-20-2020 at 04:48 PM.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Republic of Texas
    Posts
    6,905
    Mentioned
    478 Post(s)
    My question about the arbiter: what I mean is, who will make the ultimate decision regarding the seat, as far as when the appointment occurs in this case?

    Can it be challenged in court? Is it up to the senate?

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    12,600
    Mentioned
    848 Post(s)
    Article II, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution provides that the President shall appoint officers of the United States “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.”

    This includes the SCOTUS justices.

    The arbiter as to "advise and consent of the Senate" is the Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell. HOWEVER, a "quorum" is necessary. You cannot move on to the hearings and then obtain "cloture" vote until you first have a quorum.

    https://www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/74919...2e9ae8dcb1.pdf

    No, none of this can be challenged in court.

    See Hamilton Federalist 76.


    Article II, Section II
    [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
    Last edited by allegro; 09-20-2020 at 04:56 PM.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    12,600
    Mentioned
    848 Post(s)
    I keep singing "My Shot" from Hamilton throughout all of this.

    I especially love this version at the White House, with the Obamas head-bopping


  11. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Bayonne Leave It Alone
    Posts
    4,402
    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by eachpassingphase View Post
    It's time for Democrats to stop with the propriety and hand-wringing and time for them to go scorched earth the second they have even a morsel of control back.The majority of Americans are NOT Trumpers (popular vote has proven this), but you wouldn't know it by looking at the way our election system works, and that's by Republican design.

    No forgiveness, no compromise. Republicans have been fucking Dems for ages, and it's time for them to fuck back.
    Dem leadership could go scorched earth right now, but have already indicated they won't. Pelosi has taken refusing to pass a budget/raise the debt ceiling off the table (meaning she refuses to work on either in the House unless the nomination is delayed), Biden said Saturday he's against packing the court, Feinstein said she is against removing the filibuster. No mention of bringing new impeachment charges against Trump, which would take precedence over confirmation hearings and delay the whole confirmation process by months in both houses. No riling up the base to get in the streets/perform civil disobedience against this move by McConnell, etc. Yes some of these things are dirty tricks, but thats what is needed to combat these monster reactionaries that are all that's left in the Republican party. All they understand is power. Fight fire with fire. But no...we just get more hand wringing, empty threats and spineless bullshit from these absolute ZEROS:



    WAKE UP ASSHOLE. GET IN THE FUCKING GAME. THERE IS NO ONE ON THE OTHER SIDE THAT YOU CAN MOVE ON THIS WITH YOUR WORDS.

    Democrats....paid to lose. #rEsIsTaNcE...spare me.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    5,790
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    186
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by bobbie solo View Post
    (extremely accurate rant)
    I wish this wasn't so on point. But it really is.

    Protests aren't going to stop the Republicans from rushing this through in a matter of weeks. The only people who have any ability at all to jam up the process and slow their charge through bureaucratic shenanigans are our elected officials, and yet they seem content to do the whole "you're better than this, Republicans" shuffle and not get serious about using every inch they have. "Because, well, if we packed the courts and added new states, why, Republicans would never forget us playing dirty and never give us a break again!" Except they never give us breaks. They never do. Compromise in this country as long as I have lived means "stepping to the right" and honoring the horseshit gentleman's agreement style niceties of political bureaucracy, that Republicans have never been anything less than eager to stomp on, has won our side no meaningful political victories.

    All the "WE CAN'T RUN TOO LEFT OR WE'LL ALIENATE CENTRISTS AND RIGHT WINGERS" rhetoric is pointless, a trap designed by centrist Democrats to disguise the reality of their timidity - namely, that they are Republican-lite assholes who have no interest in anything other than superficial reform. Their commitment to their self-interest - and the Trojan horse "we'll lose if we got too far left" vehicle they hide it within - has had devastating results for the party. They have alienated and turned away such a large portion of what could have been an unstoppable political coalition, all while making their easily exploited weakness against the right obvious to Republicans. I mean Obama had a majority early on and could have forced some things (and he should have), but instead he spent basically his entire presidency genuflecting to Republicans and trying to include them and demonstrate how very adult and non-partisan he was, to the extent that it handicapped the effectiveness and worthiness of his accomplishments like the ACA (once billed as the first step toward universal healthcare, now used as an excuse for NOT pursuing universal healthcare). And it gained him nothing with Republicans. They still billed his very status quo friendly presidency an un-American, totalitarian nightmare and cosplayed as rag-tag resistance fighting back against...something. And they always will, no matter how far people (wrongly) go trying to meet them halfway. For the love of God, our Democratic candidate is fucking Joe Biden, one of the more Republican-adjacent Democrats you are likely to find, and even still, in the eyes of Republicans and Republican media? "Too far left." "Socialist." They say this about JOE BIDEN - they'll say it about anyone we run.

    High time people (especially Democrats) accepted that Republicans have no ideology, they only have rhetoric as a means to an end. Demonstrating their hypocrisy means nothing to them. There's no point playing nice with them, ever - they will never, ever give us an inch, no matter how "nice" we are to them.



    Fat chance though. One of the responses I've seen Pelosi give to the question of "what are you going to do (about the Supreme Court)" was essentially "you all need to get out and vote." Always our responsibility to vote for them, never their responsibility to fight for us.

    Sorry to be so doom and gloom but I mean...this is where we are, and we're pretty much fucked. When I think of the Democrats, I think of the scene in Alien where Ash asks Ripley what he can do, and she hisses back, "Just what you've been doing, Ash - nothing."

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,216
    Mentioned
    66 Post(s)

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    84
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Well I thought Romney would be the only republican holdout when all was said and done. Not because he's a good person but because Trump absolutely embarrassed him in 2016. I was wrong. It turns out he's a shit eating knob gobbler like the rest of them.

    I really don't think the dems do have any recourse for action here sadly. Corporate republican controlled theocracy for the rest of my lifetime incoming. The supreme court is such a big deal because of the lifetime appointment situation. I've been saying stacking the court won't happen, but the more I think about it the more I think they should. It will backfire eventually for sure because dems never hold the senate for long, but at this point what is there to lose? How many lifetimes are going to be ruined by appointees of presidents who lost the election but won the electoral college?

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    79
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    This is so fucking depressing. It's not going to happen overnight but they're going to slowly chip away at Roe v Wade until there's not much left of it. My one year old daughter is going to have her choices on how to manage her body removed by the time she's an adult. By these scumbag hypocrites who play by no rules and whose words are hollow and meaningless. The coming seismic shift in the court alignment will last a full generation and I'll be retired before it might turn around. Someone tell me something positive. Tell me there's real reason for hope somewhere. I keep telling myself that Biden will win, that the Dems will take the Senate, that they'll have the balls to kill the filibuster and pack the court, but it seems like so much has to break the right way that it'll never happen.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Monterey Bay, Ca
    Posts
    2,638
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    How many times are we going to keep electing politicians that *let themselves get played*

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    186
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    As long as the hopelessly outdated and out-of-touch gatekeepers of the Democratic party hold onto the reins with their clammy old hands.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    1,143
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    two Godflesh album titles come to mind:
    "The New Dark Ages"
    and
    "A World Lit Only by Fire"

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,489
    Mentioned
    42 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Deacon Blackfire View Post
    As long as the hopelessly outdated and out-of-touch gatekeepers of the Democratic party hold onto the reins with their clammy old hands.
    unfortunately i agree. people love to applaud pelosi but sheís been disappointing to me for months. trump has openly admitted to criminal activities, weíve had multiple whistle blowers, and plenty of evidence that heís medaling with the election and what has she done? some interviews where she doesnít make much sense and seemingly has no plan to deal with the aforementioned issues.

    iíve read several post about keeping up the fight since RGB died but itís hard to remain positive when it seems the gop and trump get away with forcing their agendas.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    777
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Lets say the democrats take back both the white house and the senate in November, and then decide to pack the court in response to what the republican have done. What does that change? It gets you a few years of decency, but the republicans would take it back again at some other point in the future, and just over-pack it back their way.

    And enough people believe and vote republican, that you can't just tell them all to go fuck themselves. But they also won't work with anyone else in any kind of constructive way. Your country works best if people can get along, and can find compromises and take care of each other, but the country isn't doing that.

    But Trump has moved the needle from the point where two candidates both said they wanted what was best for the country but just had very different views of what was best, to one of schoolyard bullying and name-calling. And he did so by personifying the worst qualities of America. And showed the republicans that they too can demonstrate the worst qualities of America, and still hold on to power.

    Trump successfully demonstrated that accountability in government isn't real. The republicans learned that from him and are no longer even trying to pretend to take a moral high ground, or to be the path of consistency. They're showing their true colours, and Trump is showing them that power grabs are fine in politics as long as you are grabbing it from people who aren't straight white men.

    Packing the court isn't going to change anything. The only thing that fixes this problem is real accountability in the government, and the only way that's going to happen is if voters give republicans swift and brutal defeat at the ballot box this year. That's the only way, because (as Trump has made abundantly clear) this is the only form of accountability that exists in government.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    12,600
    Mentioned
    848 Post(s)
    RBG should have retired during the Obama administration. She had cancer FOUR times. I loved RBG, she's meant a lot to women, a LOT. But taking the risks that she did by hanging in there for as long as she did helped nobody but the other side.

    The only possible good thing that could come out of this is that the Dems get a supermajority, and pass a lot of legislation.

    Ultimately, the Judicial branch does NOT legislate. But the Legislative - state and federal - has been using the Judicial as a Legislative branch for decades. Because the Legislative is rancorous. That needs to end. The Judicial has been used like this for many decades. The Judicial has no enforcement abilities. The Legislative MUST start doing its job.

    And, yeah, RBG should have retired in, like, 2010.

    The majority of CONGRESS are just like Pelosi; only a relatively small portion of Congress is progressive (left or right). The VOTERS put all those people in Congress where they are.

    Any of this shit you're seeing now is because of VOTERS.
    Last edited by allegro; 09-24-2020 at 02:36 PM.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Northwest Indiana
    Posts
    2,618
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    What of these ideas Iím seeing where the Democrats tie up the Senate by impeaching Barr and/or Trump again for any of the myriad of nonsense theyíve pulled? Is that a thing that would work and get us through the election?

    If itís possible, they should do it. Fuck these GOP hypocrite pieces of trash.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Kansas City, Missouri
    Posts
    2,812
    Mentioned
    61 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Swykk View Post
    What of these ideas I’m seeing where the Democrats tie up the Senate by impeaching Barr and/or Trump again for any of the myriad of nonsense they’ve pulled? Is that a thing that would work and get us through the election?

    If it’s possible, they should do it. Fuck these GOP hypocrite pieces of trash.
    It makes sense to me. They all can't attend two hearings at the same time, and one takes precedence over the other so at best, it's a move to delay the nomination until after the election, at worst it's just a another stupid thing we try to do that fails and the GOP takes it and spins the shit out of it in their favor.

    At least that's how I see it.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    12,600
    Mentioned
    848 Post(s)
    McConnell wouldn’t start the process, they wouldn’t get cloture.

    They’ll get their SCOTUS justice. Because they have a President and the Senate. That’s the way it works.

    This is THE most important part of elections.

    Not legislation.

    Not healthcare.

    Not college.

    Not minimum wage.

    But a justice who’ll be interpreting law for their LIFETIME, over GENERATIONS.

    Thomas has been there since 1991.

    Gorsuch is 53.

    Kavanaugh is 55.

    Amy Coney Barrett is 48.

    Coney Barrett is allegedly tied to a religious group that’s like The Handmaid’s Tale.

    The GOOD news is that Alito is 70.

    Thomas is 72.

    Scalia died at 79.

    But ... Kennedy retired at 82.
    Last edited by allegro; 09-24-2020 at 02:49 PM.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    186
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Because Kennedy is an enormous piece of shit. Imagine watching Trump getting elected, getting to appoint a Supreme Court justice that wasn't his to appoint, and thinking, "this seems like a good time to retire." Fuck that guy forever.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sesquipedalism View Post
    I told my very outspokenly liberal half-sister and brother-in-law that I fucking hate Pelosi, that I've never much cared for her milquetoast appeasement and white centrist shit, and they looked at me like I had just put on a balaclava and hurled a malatov cocktail into someone's hybrid SUV because it could have been an electric subcompact.

    Long way to go. And thanks to this, and what seems like a certainty that the Democrats we have on offer won't have the balls or power to do shit about it, this is the rest of my life​. I will be dead before we emerge from the dark ages.
    Unfortunately establishment Democrats have done an exceptionally good job convincing a sizable portion of comfortable liberal voters that their snail-paced, feeble political utility is somehow borne of necessity and pragmatism, that it isn't a product of their general comfort with right-leaning ideology. It doesn't need to be their way, and in fact doing things "their way" is why we can run against the worst people in the world and still lose. And yet, they remain the gatekeepers, and remain committed to their ineffectual ways, out of pigheaded ignorance or myopic self-interest.

    And I can hardly blame you for despairing, over this being the rest of your life. Just turned thirty back in June - I'm not an impressive person and I haven't done nearly as much with my life as I would like to, but I have a roof over my head and enough financial security to live without worrying about food, and for that I consider myself very fortunate. None of that stops the deep surge of dread when I think about the future. The situation our government is in and heading towards is nightmarish enough, but it's when I factor in climate change, that's when I start wondering if I'll even make it to fifty. It has never been given its due, by society, as the looming existential threat it is. Even Obama's environmental policies and commitments were woefully inadequate to successfully combat its severity, and now under Trump we've gone full tilt in the opposite direction. At this point the most devastating consequences are locked in eventualities, and the result will be a slow motion collapse that changes human life forever. We've been good at turning a blind eye to it, but when agriculture utterly collapses and entire fisheries disappear, I don't see any way that the social fabric doesn't just give way.

    The most vulnerable will be the most harmed. And the people who stand the best change to escape the climate apocalypse are the wealthy and powerful who disproportionately polluted our Earth the most, who had the greatest ability to stop this from happening.

    Sorry to divert from the topic. It's just...hard to feel like we weren't born to lose.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Kansas City, Missouri
    Posts
    2,812
    Mentioned
    61 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by allegro View Post
    Coney Barrett is allegedly tied to a religious group that’s like The Handmaid’s Tale.
    I just looked this up and yeah it sure seems like she is. It's called "People of Praise" and this tidbit is found on their Wikipedia page:

    The highest office a woman can hold in the community is "woman leader" (formerly "handmaid"). Women leaders "teach women on womanly affairs, give advice, help in troubled situations" and lead specialized women's activities. The term handmaiden was chosen in 1971 as a reference to Mary, the mother of Jesus, who in the Bible described herself as a "handmaid of the Lord" or a woman who is close to God. The community teaches that husbands are the head of the household as well as the spiritual head of their wives. While it emphasizes traditional gender roles, the organization encourages women to pursue higher education and employment.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    12,600
    Mentioned
    848 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Deacon Blackfire View Post
    Because Kennedy is an enormous piece of shit.
    Who was the only swing vote for decades.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deacon Blackfire View Post
    Establishment Democrats
    which is the vast majority of Congress, because the vast majority of voters put them there, because of a rancorous obstructionist Congress that's been there since before Reagan.

    The "Reid" action that is referenced by McConnell (minority vote for Federal judges, or nuclear) was due to the Republicans obstructing the approval of EVERY single federal court nominee for over two years. This was literally HUNDREDS of Federal justices.

    Pelosi was Speaker from 2007–2011 and from 2019-now. She was minority leader from 2011–2019. There is nothing Pelosi can do about this. Nothing. There is nothing in the Constitution that affords the House ANY remedy, here. Just attempts that won't work, and will make them look like idiots. They will move the King directly into the path of the Queen. Checkmate.

    This, here, what we are witnessing might very well be the complete breakdown of the entire system, the republic. We have an Authoritarian in the White House, we have Republicans in Congress who are fully on board with that Authoritarian being in power and remaining in power, we have those Republicans appointing Federalist jurists - over 225 of them - specifically to uphold this authoritarian system. And, without a huge tsunami of votes to rid the system of these Republicans and Trump, there is nothing to be done about it. The system will be this way for the unforeseeable future. For generations. The Democrats have been outvoted in HUGE numbers by Republicans, in the House largely by gerrymandering and in the Senate largely by racism.

    The Republicans are using stuff like "Medicare for All" and “Black Lives Matter” as commie boogie men to energize their masses behind them and they fully intend on maintaining power forever. For them, the ACA was "radical.” If they have to have an authoritarian government to get what they want, they’ll do it. The Trump voters, with "Law and Order" and "MAGA" and "America First" are fully on board with this idea.

    It's not exaggerating when this is compared to 1930s Germany.

    You don't like what you see? At this point in time, the only thing Americans citizens can do is vote. There is no Constitutional fix for this problem other than voting. Although, that won’t stop the Republicans from creating a majority-conservative SCOTUS. It’s too late to stop that.
    Last edited by allegro; 09-24-2020 at 11:34 PM.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Northwest Indiana
    Posts
    2,618
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Okay, I was just reading these suggestions and looking to see how viable they were because, yes, we should all vote and you know I’m going to for sure but I’m certain you’ve also seen where that orange diaper baby is plotting ways to stay in power even if he loses. I just thought it was worth bringing up those ideas because without a majority on the SC, it would be more difficult for him to pull off his scheme(s).

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    12,600
    Mentioned
    848 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Swykk View Post
    Okay, I was just reading these suggestions and looking to see how viable they were because, yes, we should all vote and you know I’m going to for sure but I’m certain you’ve also seen where that orange diaper baby is plotting ways to stay in power even if he loses. I just thought it was worth bringing up those ideas because without a majority on the SC, it would be more difficult for him to pull off his scheme(s).
    Yup, that’s where we are, now.

    Voting en masse is the only option, because it’s far too late for any other option. The only option was Dems winning in 2016, and that's over.

    There are no “suggestions” that are viable. No more options. These tricks that are mentioned simply aren't possible, because the Senate doesn't have to hold hearings on those impeachment tricks people think are possible. Hearings aren't required, McConnell can simply file and gavel a Motion to Dismiss.

    If voting with a MASSIVE takedown of Trump via the Electoral College plus an overwhelming Democratic takeover of Congress doesn’t occur, the whole DEMOCRACY is over. Done. It has to be massive so that a recount is beyond possible and there is no question as to legitimacy. If it’s close, it’s over.

    As far as packing the SCOTUS, The Judiciary Act of 1869 set the number of Justices at nine; Congress (House and Senate) would need an overwhelming majority to pass another Act to revise THAT Act. Democrats might not even flip the Senate in 2020.

    Typically, over 50% of eligible voters don’t bother voting in every election.

    There are reports indicating that many Democrats are so demoralized and depressed about Trump’s blatant threats to cheat and steal the election that these voters don’t feel like voting because it “won’t matter, anyway.”

    I pray that’s not the case.
    Last edited by allegro; 09-25-2020 at 05:20 PM.

Posting Permissions