https://www.yahoo.com/news/justice-...ts-2nd-supreme-court-180417906--politics.html Yep, bad news for America.
@Paladin is overjoyed. Well, overjoyed is too strong. Kennedy hasn't always ruled in ways I favor, but he was reliable on some of my top concerns. For all of you who who question why I was overjoyed Hillary lost, you're looking at the reason. Had Hillary won, the liberals would now have a solid lock on the Supreme Court.
*Sigh* yeah, who needs the California to New York bullet train funded by legal and weed and gay wedding cakes? Stuck in traffic sucking fumes behind an oil truck behind a pavement truck I sure feel "free".
I'm sure the grandchildren of yours that survive our impending doom will take solace in the fact that you were so happy. They might even burn your jizz-soaked pants to keep warm in the nuclear winter.
I live in a place absolutely dominated by the left (no statewide offices are held by Republicans) and, lemme tell you, utopia it ain't. Traffic here suuuuuuuucks. And we're getting a bullet train, only it's not very bullet-y, and it's going to cost $100 billion and go very few places. Yes, weed's legal--but probably soon will be everywhere. And there are plenty of places that will make you a same-sex wedding cake, but there shouldn't be any place forced to make them in order to do business.
I was responding to Diacanu's post, which pertained to traffic. Like everyone else, I've got a right to hold and express an opinion. Your notions of privilege don't change that.
He's gone full Sith, folks. Another so-called "decent right-winger" down the route of OKing the stripping of protections for minorities, rollback of safety nets for the most vulnerable in society, the rape of the environment and let's not forget massive governmental corruption (and likely proxyism for Russian) for a taste of power and a Supreme Court that absolutely won't take his guns. Oh, and a chance to troll "liberals". Remember this when people tell you there are reasonable folk on both sides.
So realistically, getting an anti-abortion nominee through is going to be impractical for two reasons. 1) The Senate is 51 Republicans and 49 Democrats. One of those Republicans, John McCain, has not been in the Senate chambers in nearly 8 months. Article 1 of the Constitution requires a quorum of the Senate to conduct business, and if the Democrats simply sit out, there will only be 50 Senators present which is not enough for a quorum. This is risky because the Republicans could always fly McCain out to DC and get a sufficient number for a quorum (though, McCain might not be as capable of travelling). 2) Even if the Senate has a quorum, it would still be an uphill battle to get an anti-abortion justice through. At least three Republican Senators have expressed dissent with Trump and have voted against or threatened to vote against Trump nominees in the past: Collins, Murkowski, and Flake. Collins and Murkowski are decidedly pro-abortion and would be extremely unlikely to vote for an anti-abortion nominee. They have also voted against at least one of Trump's nominees, Betsy Devos. Flake is anti-abortion, but has threatened to vote against all Trump judicial nominees until the Trump tariffs are repealed. It is more likely that Collins and Murkowski would vote against a Trump nominee, especially because Flake was instrumental in both preventing a vote on Garland and in eliminating the possibility of filibuster on Gorsuch. As a result, we may actually see a more moderate conservative nominee who won't be too ideologically distant from Kennedy.
I doubt it would be possible anyway to find any Supreme Court nominee who was willing to vote for a full on repeal of Roe V. Wade. Overriding 41 years of established law about union dues is one thing. "Taking back" something that has been a right that Americans have taken for granted for 45 years (abortion) is another thing entirely. Judges have to live in this country. Conservative judges know full well that if they voted to repeal Roe v. Wade that there would be howling mobs outside their homes from then on. That's a tough thing to disregard.
Yes, yes, yes. We think you're (well-intentioned perhaps but) wrong, you think we're evil. Rinse, repeat.
I don't think you're evil. I think you DO evil things out of being dupes to a doctrinaire view of the world.
It won't happen, merely more of the democrats scare mongering like the 'ripping breast-feeding babies from mother' level of exaggeration. They're not stuffing the SCOTUS-invented "Privacy Right" back into the bottle. If there's a DNC memo about it, you can be sure one of the kids (or at times even a thinking grown up) here will post it or start a thread about it, like the recent 'electoral college is broken' or any other topic du jour. Doesn't mean they're not valid issues or concerns, but nor does it mean it ain't the mirror of garbage-Trumpian demagoguing.
I've pointed out to you the many times the right has condemned the left as evil. Hell, I've had to remind one of you today who was bitching about Maxine Waters about the Sarah Palin "let's put crosshairs on Democrats!!" stuff right before Gabby Giffords got shot. And yet, y'know, for all this I have yet to hear an actual example of Democrat policies being evil. It's all "wah mah taxes" or "wah mah guns!" when the stuff the GOP is doing is literally killing folk, putting them out of work or stripping them of rights. You don't like being called evil. Stop supporting evil stuff. You think WE'RE evil? Explain how. We do, though fuck knows it should be self-evident.
^ I don't mind it from *you.* That would be like caring that dayton or dinner disapproved of me or anna called me a racist or something. Merely a comment about the times, and the far left progressives' self destructive streak. The demonizing is probably not going to win over any more passionate lefties to your pov, since it requires such a torturous interpretation of the world to agree with it.
So, confirming my point, you'll put me in a box. But, unlike me, you won't explain WHY I'm in the box.
Because you've said things on this board that represent nutjob thinking, repeatedly. Not a conveniently grabbed box or label, a considered judgment formed over a long period of time. Like your Canadian counterpart 14 doc.
Examples, muthafucka. DO. YOU. HAVE. THEM? Some of my posts might be unrealistic. Some, possibly naive. Evil? Nope. You show me one example. One thing I've said that wants human beings hurt or will result in human beings getting hurt - except to stop them hurting others. Or kicking Dayton or Dinner in the nuts because we all get a pass there. One thing. Go on.
Actually, fuck it, Imma going Hulk on this shit - you show me one example of Democratic policy that aims to hurt people, beyond "wah taxes" or "wah guns" or "wah I can't be mean to niggers etc in public no more". And don't give me that Plumber Joe "small business holder" shit because the GOP ain't any fucking better for the middle class.
