Agree Agree:  25
Likes Likes:  21
Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 5678910 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 146
  1. #121

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Niels Lesniewski
    @nielslesniewski
    Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) speaking on the Senate floor tonight:

    "I don't want to pack the court. I don't want to change the number. I don't want to have to do that, but if all of this rule-breaking is taking place, what does the majority expect? What do they expect?"
    Michael Linden
    @MichaelSLinden

    The bottom line is that even the institutionalists are coming to understand that an equilibrium in which one side does whatever they want, while the other side tries to abide by old rules is not a good equilibrium for the institution itself.
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  2. #122

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    If you are going to pack the court, do not go for 2 more, to get close. Really pack it: 6 more justices, to get a big majority.
    Or: demand the resignation of Kavanaugh and this new woman. Otherwise, time to play the same game.
    Face it. It's the apocalypse.

  3. #123

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    You could add Gorsuch to that pile but the two you mention are really, really bad choices and were shoe horned onto the court in horrible fashion.

    May I ask why six additional justices?
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  4. #124

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Some background on what is happening today.


    MikeFarb @mikefarb1
    2 years ago, 23 tweets, 7 min read

    Supreme Court Justices

    Religious Fundamentalists

    And

    Bots

    Oh My!

    What you weren’t taught in school about how your Gov’t works.

    Thread
    Who appoints our Supreme Court? The President?

    Or a Catholic fundamentalist who controls a network of right-wing groups funded by dark money?
    A few days ago our colleague @AltDIA made an interesting discovery. An apparent botnet of Twitter accounts tweeting identical messages: "As a Hoosier, I'm calling on @SenDonnelly to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court."

    You can see this botnet in action here:



    We thought this was unusual, and somewhat disturbing. A Twitter botnet lobbying for a Supreme Court nominee? Is this really what our Democracy has com to? We had a closer look at the image in these tweets. JCN? Judicial Crisis Network? Who are these people?



    A quick search of Twitter led to this interesting bit of research by @RobertMaguire_

    Robert Maguire
    @RobertMaguire_
    · Jul 9, 2018
    Within minutes of Trump's announcement of Neil Gorsuch's nomination last year, the dark money group Judicial Crisis Network launched a site called http://ConfirmGorsuch.com.

    Looks like someone has sites ready to go for tonight's announcement as well.







    confirmhardiman.com for Thomas Hardiman

    Apparently someone had already set up several websites in support of conservative judicial contenders.
    On July 9th these sites were all in "maintenance" mode:
    confirmkethledge.com for Raymond Kethledge

    As soon as Kavanaugh's nomination was announced, his site went "live". And sure enough there is a link to Judicial Crisis Network at the bottom of the page.



    Justice Kennedy announced his resignation on June 27. Did Judicial Crisis Network set up these domains and websites that quickly? How far in advance was this planned? We were curious, so we checked the dates of the domain registrations and hosting.

    Turns out this was planned LONG ago.

    The Confirm Kavanaugh domain was purchased in February 2017. The Confirm Kethledge and Confirm Hardiman domains were purchased even earlier - in December 2016! Hosting was set up for those three domains in May of 2017. Confirm Barrett was purchased and hosted in November of 2017.



    Guess it always pays to be prepared. You never know when a Supreme Court vacancy might be up for grabs.

    Can seats on the Supreme Court be purchased? Can United States Senators be influenced by bot infested social media propaganda? Is this how Democracy is supposed to work?

    Who are the people behind Judicial Crisis Network? Whose money are the spending in their effort to swing our Supreme Court to the far right?

    Judicial Crisis Network spent $7 million to block the confirmation of Merrick Garland and $10 million on ads to secure Neil Gorsuch's confirmation.

    Where did they get this kind of money? Mainly from a single anonymous donor. Someone donated nearly $18 million dollars to this organization. Who was it? No one knows.


    https://maplight.org/story/dark-mone...court-nominee/



    Did a single ANONYMOUS donor buy a seat on the United States Supreme Court.

    And who is calling the shots there? Who is buying those domains? Who is creating that short list of judicial nominees for our puppet president to "nominate"?

    That man is Leonard Leo. Read this beautifully researched Daily Beast article about him. Read it and weep.

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-se...eme-court-pick

    A Catholic fundamentalist who controls a network of right-wing groups funded by dark money. Leonard Leo is on leave from the Federalist Society to personally assist Trump in picking a replacement for Justice Kennedy.



    His beliefs? Human life begins at conception. Homosexuality is immoral. Food is for nourishment. Sex is for procreation. This man is working to send us back to the days of public stonings for immoral behavior. Back to the days of shame and intolerance.



    Is this the man we want to shape our future as a nation?

    And I suppose if we want a glimpse on the next four Supreme Court Nominees e only need to look here.
    confirmkethledge.com for Raymond Kethledge

    https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...191570945.html
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  5. #125

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Stacey E. Singleton
    @staceyNYCDC
    ·
    Oct 25
    Of all the things to see when you finally turn in the tv.

    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  6. #126

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    I'm not convinced this lady is any worse than a standard conservative a standard Republican president would nominate. Not that you'd want that either in the current situation...
    Roger forever

  7. #127

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    And of course none of the above matters.
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  8. #128

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Quote Originally Posted by Ti-Amie View Post
    You could add Gorsuch to that pile but the two you mention are really, really bad choices and were shoe horned onto the court in horrible fashion.

    May I ask why six additional justices?
    That gives you 15 justices, and a 9-6 majority. Already ridiculous but, if when they get back to power, they decide to play the same card, they have to nominate 4 more.
    By then, the ridiculous proposition would be so evident that at least a portion of the electorate could see it. A portion, of course.
    Face it. It's the apocalypse.

  9. #129

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    What's the solution you'd propose ponchi? Something that both liberals and conservatives can live with.
    Roger forever

  10. #130

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    1. Term limits. The idea that any person in a position of power can be there for life has gone out the window with our new life-spans and longevity. Justices should serve for a total of 18 years, staggered. Each president would get to nominate two new SC's per term.
    2. Justices can only be appointed by a qualified majority. I would say 60 votes. In the current hyper-partisan state of affairs, demanding 2/3 of the senate would be prone to a few withholding even the most qualified proposal back. 60 votes allows for a few of each party to sway one way or another.
    3. The pool of possible justices has to be defined. This would be tricky because, as I have said when I start dreaming of being king for a day, I don't think that the SCOTUS (or any court in the world) should be solely reserved for people in the legal profession. Philosophers, scientists and any person of great intelligence should and could be a good justice. But at a minimum, some guidelines should be set and, if you are indeed going to reserve those positions to lawyers, then minimum experience and acumen should be required.
    4. The process of confirmation should have a time frame, i.e., you should not be able to nominate on Monday, ask questions son Tuesday and confirm on Wednesday. Let the answers and reality sink in.

    Anyway, it is too late. We are witnessing, if not the end of the democratic experiment in the USA, at least a very profound shift of its foundations. The SCOTUS being as powerful as it is in the USA, this very young, hyper-conservative (religious) court will be setting policy for the next 30 years, regardless of the president sitting at the WH. The GOP found the Gödelian loophole in the constitution: the president can basically name the Judicial branch and therefore, install himself for life. Even if he is not really there.
    Face it. It's the apocalypse.

  11. #131

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Ponchi your #3 is very important. This woman doesn't meet any standard that would allow her to be appointed to a lifetime seat other than being an ideologue.
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  12. #132

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    1. I would love to see a term limit. But the odds of getting a constitutional amendment through? I would prefer this to expanding the court though.

    2. I think it used to be 60 votes required? Boy was that a mistake by the Democrats to let that go. I doubt they would be able to get it back up to 60, but even 55 would be nice.

    3. I agree. How anyone thought this woman qualified when she has done nothing more than teach and serve for only 2 yrs is outrageous.

  13. #133

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Quote Originally Posted by texasniteowl View Post
    1. I would love to see a term limit. But the odds of getting a constitutional amendment through? I would prefer this to expanding the court though.

    2. I think it used to be 60 votes required? Boy was that a mistake by the Democrats to let that go. I doubt they would be able to get it back up to 60, but even 55 would be nice.

    3. I agree. How anyone thought this woman qualified when she has done nothing more than teach and serve for only 2 yrs is outrageous.
    You can argue that it's the biggest mistake they've ever made.
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  14. #134

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Quote Originally Posted by texasniteowl View Post
    2. I think it used to be 60 votes required? Boy was that a mistake by the Democrats to let that go. I doubt they would be able to get it back up to 60, but even 55 would be nice.
    The funny thing is that Democrats are going to be doubling down on this rather than walking it back if they take the Senate and the Presidency by ending the filibuster.
    Go Pack Go!

  15. #135
    Director of Nothing
    Forum Moderator

    Awards Showcase

    mmmm8's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    New York, New York, United States
    Posts
    52,094

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Quote Originally Posted by suliso View Post
    I'm not convinced this lady is any worse than a standard conservative a standard Republican president would nominate. Not that you'd want that either in the current situation...
    Maybe not ideologically, but the lack of experience in itself is concerning and below that standard.


Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 5678910 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •