MEGA MAGA

[Spracne]

you have a bizarre reverance for court justices, who are like 25% downgrades according to the stats

Not sure which stats you mean, but I do believe that everyone has an instinct for self-preservation.

The stats about them being downgrades

You're one of my favorite persons whom I've never met. I would never pretend to know more about underwriting than you. But I know more about this than you do. I happen to actually know quite a bit about what I'm saying, about the people I'm saying it about, and about how they think. I have met them, their protégées, and their protégées' protégées. I have litigated cases in that oh-so-prestigious Court (record: 2-0; once as a Good Guy, once as a Bad Guy). This is my bailiwick, my passion, and, sometimes, my practice.

And yes, Alito and Thomas suck. Don't know enough about Barrett to form an opinion yet. Sotomayor and Kagan have, of necessity, been made to kinda suck, too. But there is an invisible thread holding it all together, which is a shared understanding that they are the only Branch of government enough removed from politics to actually act as a bulwark against seismic shifts initiated by the two political Branches of government. Why? Because their power is tenuous, not defined in the Constitution, and it only exists in earnest so long as they avoid straying too far into the political realm of things. As I've written elsewhere, there is a discernible pattern of the Supreme Court waiting at least 20-30 years after the point in time in which the political Branches should have acted before making the decision that the politicians could not make for one reason or another, most often a counter-majoritarian dilemma.

The threat of "court packing" is real and well understood. Ask anybody. Article III of the Constitution does not fix the number of Justices. It reads more like an afterthought, speaking of "cases and controversies". What power exists was wrested by cunning, guile, and expediency during the early and middle 19th Century. The Judiciary Act is subject to repeal or amendment at the whim of the party in power. In short, the power of the Supreme Court depends, inexorably, on their perception as an impartial, apolitical body among those who create the laws. That is the truth, the way, and the word of me and people way smarter and more accomplished than me who have come to similar conclusions.

[steve dave]

you have a bizarre reverance for court justices, who are like 25% downgrades according to the stats

Not sure which stats you mean, but I do believe that everyone has an instinct for self-preservation.

The stats about them being downgrades

You're one of my favorite persons whom I've never met. I would never pretend to know more about underwriting than you. But I know more about this than you do. I happen to actually know quite a bit about what I'm saying, about the people I'm saying it about, and about how they think. I have met them, their protégées, and their protégées' protégées. I have litigated cases in that oh-so-prestigious Court (record: 2-0; once as a Good Guy, once as a Bad Guy). This is my bailiwick, my passion, and, sometimes, my practice.

And yes, Alito and Thomas suck. Don't know enough about Barrett to form an opinion yet. Sotomayor and Kagan have, of necessity, been made to kinda suck, too. But there is an invisible thread holding it all together, which is a shared understanding that they are the only Branch of government enough removed from politics to actually act as a bulwark against seismic shifts initiated by the two political Branches of government. Why? Because their power is tenuous, not defined in the Constitution, and it only exists in earnest so long as they avoid straying too far into the political realm of things. As I've written elsewhere, there is a discernible pattern of the Supreme Court waiting at least 20-30 years after the point in time in which the political Branches should have acted before making the decision that the politicians could not make for one reason or another, most often a counter-majoritarian dilemma.

The threat of "court packing" is real and well understood. Ask anybody. Article III of the Constitution does not fix the number of Justices. It reads more like an afterthought, speaking of "cases and controversies". What power exists was wrested by cunning, guile, and expediency during the early and middle 19th Century. The Judiciary Act is subject to repeal or amendment at the whim of the party in power. In short, the power of the Supreme Court depends, inexorably, on their perception as an impartial, apolitical body among those who create the laws. That is the truth, the way, and the word of me and people way smarter and more accomplished than me who have come to similar conclusions.

Yeah, I may have made up those stats and don’t know crap about this stuff

[Dugout DickStone]

yeah, the SC has a lot of trust from people who know crap.  I think even the nutty fuckers who get appointed sober up when they get there and realize this crap is real, it is important and it is real important.  I can't let my federal court nuttiness eff up the most powerful democracy in history.

which is why Roe isn't going anywhere no matter.

And Lindell is in on the hustle now.  He knows magas are idiots and will believe any crap he says as long as he keeps moving the goalposts.  He should focus on trump running in 24 tbh (which he soon will because he has magas to grift)

and technically, if Trump won the 20 election, isn't he ineligible to run for a third term? 

[Sandstone Outcropping]

yeah, the SC has a lot of trust from people who know crap.  I think even the nutty fuckers who get appointed sober up when they get there and realize this crap is real, it is important and it is real important.  I can't let my federal court nuttiness eff up the most powerful democracy in history.

which is why Roe isn't going anywhere no matter.

And Lindell is in on the hustle now.  He knows magas are idiots and will believe any crap he says as long as he keeps moving the goalposts.  He should focus on trump running in 24 tbh (which he soon will because he has magas to grift)

and technically, if Trump won the 20 election, isn't he ineligible to run for a third term?

n00b question: how is Lindell profiting from this? Is it just being on camera that he craves or is there a financial angle for him?

[Dugout DickStone]

yeah, the SC has a lot of trust from people who know crap.  I think even the nutty fuckers who get appointed sober up when they get there and realize this crap is real, it is important and it is real important.  I can't let my federal court nuttiness eff up the most powerful democracy in history.

which is why Roe isn't going anywhere no matter.

And Lindell is in on the hustle now.  He knows magas are idiots and will believe any crap he says as long as he keeps moving the goalposts.  He should focus on trump running in 24 tbh (which he soon will because he has magas to grift)

and technically, if Trump won the 20 election, isn't he ineligible to run for a third term?

n00b question: how is Lindell profiting from this? Is it just being on camera that he craves or is there a financial angle for him?

even poor magas can muster the dough to buy a pillow

[MadCat]

Governed by Thanksgiving dinner?

Tryptophanocracy

[Rage Against the McKee]

In short, the power of the Supreme Court depends, inexorably, on their perception as an impartial, apolitical body among those who create the laws.

Do you believe that this perception still exists? Because it clearly does not.

[Sandstone Outcropping]

Governed by Thanksgiving dinner?

Tryptophanocracy

[catastrophe]

In short, the power of the Supreme Court depends, inexorably, on their perception as an impartial, apolitical body among those who create the laws.

Do you believe that this perception still exists? Because it clearly does not.

Yeah I think the average Joe would definitely say the court is political. However, I don’t think that causes people to question its legitimacy.

It’s funny that a long running narrative is painting it as a struggle between Democrats and Republicans to “break the tie” by finally getting a majority of their appointees on the court in order to seize control and push through their agenda. Yet that’s never really come to fruition, in part because certain justices once viewed as conservative are suddenly painted as liberal or vice versa.

I’d personally be surprised if the Supreme Court going forward is ever viewed as anything more than being “divided” between liberal and conservative with 1-3 “swing” votes in between. And I think the average joe is content with that.

[Kid In the Hall]

In short, the power of the Supreme Court depends, inexorably, on their perception as an impartial, apolitical body among those who create the laws.

Do you believe that this perception still exists? Because it clearly does not.

Yeah I think the average Joe would definitely say the court is political. However, I don’t think that causes people to question its legitimacy.

It’s funny that a long running narrative is painting it as a struggle between Democrats and Republicans to “break the tie” by finally getting a majority of their appointees on the court in order to seize control and push through their agenda. Yet that’s never really come to fruition, in part because certain justices once viewed as conservative are suddenly painted as liberal or vice versa.

I’d personally be surprised if the Supreme Court going forward is ever viewed as anything more than being “divided” between liberal and conservative with 1-3 “swing” votes in between. And I think the average joe is content with that.

While I think the notion of justices "finding their way" once on the court was certainly true (Kennedy being a good example), the reality is that both parties have effectively given up trying to get bipartisan support for nominees. It's an oversimplification, but in the "old days" it was somewhat of an unwritten rule that nominees needed 60 votes to make it to the SC. It wasn't a rule/law, but, in practice, both parties would submit nominees who were highly likely to get to that threshold and, to get there, you couldn't nominate someone like Thomas or Alito.

In the past 100 years, there have been 45 SC justices who made it to the bench following a voice vote or tallied vote. Of those 45, only six didn't receive at least 60 percent of the vote (Barrett, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas, Hughes). Of those six, five have happened in the last 30 years (the other - Hughes - was in 1930). That means that five of the last seven nominations during these past 30 years didn't get to the 60 percent threshold (Kagan and Sotomayor did - despite their obvious progressive stances).

The point here is that, unless something changes, both parties will increasingly nominate justices for whom they are very confident will side with their party views (understanding that there are always exceptions) because the notion of trying to get to 60 votes (which means, in theory, a more moderate/less one-sided nominee) is essentially out the door.

For those willing to read, this Time article covers the details about the notion of 60 votes, filibuster, etc.:

https://time.com/4713796/neil-gorsuch-confirmation-democrats-filibuster/

[catastrophe]

Only time will tell if either side gets comfortable enough to nominate someone who doesn’t have a relatively unblemished record serving at an already prestigious and scrutinized position.

Even Kavanaugh had a very solid record at what many consider the second highest court in the land. There’s just no empirical evidence that a partisan senate is going to try to ram through the My Pillow guy just to support their ideology.

[Rage Against the McKee]

In short, the power of the Supreme Court depends, inexorably, on their perception as an impartial, apolitical body among those who create the laws.

Do you believe that this perception still exists? Because it clearly does not.

Yeah I think the average Joe would definitely say the court is political. However, I don’t think that causes people to question its legitimacy.

It’s funny that a long running narrative is painting it as a struggle between Democrats and Republicans to “break the tie” by finally getting a majority of their appointees on the court in order to seize control and push through their agenda. Yet that’s never really come to fruition, in part because certain justices once viewed as conservative are suddenly painted as liberal or vice versa.

I’d personally be surprised if the Supreme Court going forward is ever viewed as anything more than being “divided” between liberal and conservative with 1-3 “swing” votes in between. And I think the average joe is content with that.

While I think the notion of justices "finding their way" once on the court was certainly true (Kennedy being a good example), the reality is that both parties have effectively given up trying to get bipartisan support for nominees. It's an oversimplification, but in the "old days" it was somewhat of an unwritten rule that nominees needed 60 votes to make it to the SC. It wasn't a rule/law, but, in practice, both parties would submit nominees who were highly likely to get to that threshold and, to get there, you couldn't nominate someone like Thomas or Alito.

In the past 100 years, there have been 45 SC justices who made it to the bench following a voice vote or tallied vote. Of those 45, only six didn't receive at least 60 percent of the vote (Barrett, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas, Hughes). Of those six, five have happened in the last 30 years (the other - Hughes - was in 1930). That means that five of the last seven nominations during these past 30 years didn't get to the 60 percent threshold (Kagan and Sotomayor did - despite their obvious progressive stances).

The point here is that, unless something changes, both parties will increasingly nominate justices for whom they are very confident will side with their party views (understanding that there are always exceptions) because the notion of trying to get to 60 votes (which means, in theory, a more moderate/less one-sided nominee) is essentially out the door.

For those willing to read, this Time article covers the details about the notion of 60 votes, filibuster, etc.:

https://time.com/4713796/neil-gorsuch-confirmation-democrats-filibuster/

It no longer matters who you nominate or how liberal/conservative they are. The senate is going to vote on party lines regardless. Neither party has any incentive to find someone moderate.

[MakeItRain]

In short, the power of the Supreme Court depends, inexorably, on their perception as an impartial, apolitical body among those who create the laws.

Do you believe that this perception still exists? Because it clearly does not.

Yeah I think the average Joe would definitely say the court is political. However, I don’t think that causes people to question its legitimacy.

It’s funny that a long running narrative is painting it as a struggle between Democrats and Republicans to “break the tie” by finally getting a majority of their appointees on the court in order to seize control and push through their agenda. Yet that’s never really come to fruition, in part because certain justices once viewed as conservative are suddenly painted as liberal or vice versa.

I’d personally be surprised if the Supreme Court going forward is ever viewed as anything more than being “divided” between liberal and conservative with 1-3 “swing” votes in between. And I think the average joe is content with that.

While I think the notion of justices "finding their way" once on the court was certainly true (Kennedy being a good example), the reality is that both parties have effectively given up trying to get bipartisan support for nominees. It's an oversimplification, but in the "old days" it was somewhat of an unwritten rule that nominees needed 60 votes to make it to the SC. It wasn't a rule/law, but, in practice, both parties would submit nominees who were highly likely to get to that threshold and, to get there, you couldn't nominate someone like Thomas or Alito.

In the past 100 years, there have been 45 SC justices who made it to the bench following a voice vote or tallied vote. Of those 45, only six didn't receive at least 60 percent of the vote (Barrett, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas, Hughes). Of those six, five have happened in the last 30 years (the other - Hughes - was in 1930). That means that five of the last seven nominations during these past 30 years didn't get to the 60 percent threshold (Kagan and Sotomayor did - despite their obvious progressive stances).

The point here is that, unless something changes, both parties will increasingly nominate justices for whom they are very confident will side with their party views (understanding that there are always exceptions) because the notion of trying to get to 60 votes (which means, in theory, a more moderate/less one-sided nominee) is essentially out the door.

For those willing to read, this Time article covers the details about the notion of 60 votes, filibuster, etc.:

https://time.com/4713796/neil-gorsuch-confirmation-democrats-filibuster/

It no longer matters who you nominate or how liberal/conservative they are. The senate is going to vote on party lines regardless. Neither party has any incentive to find someone moderate.

Yet the democrats continue to do so and can't get diddly dick done.

[MakeItRain]

https://twitter.com/RightWingWatch/status/1440731375217168392

[Institutional Control]

https://twitter.com/realjamesklug/status/1441481747263229961?s=21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[steve dave]

AZ is the most cursed state by far

[Kid In the Hall]

Only time will tell if either side gets comfortable enough to nominate someone who doesn’t have a relatively unblemished record serving at an already prestigious and scrutinized position.

Even Kavanaugh had a very solid record at what many consider the second highest court in the land. There’s just no empirical evidence that a partisan senate is going to try to ram through the My Pillow guy just to support their ideology.

I think you could make a reasonably case that Alito and Thomas - and, to a lesser degree, Barrett - fall into this category (understanding that some would certainly argue it).

[Dugout DickStone]

AZ is the most cursed state by far

Or FL.  Desantis is a disaster who wants to be prez so he will sacrifice his state like Brownback did

[steve dave]

AZ is the most cursed state by far

Or FL.  Desantis is a disaster who wants to be prez so he will sacrifice his state like Brownback did

yeah, florida freak shows aren't parading around with assault rifles though. and it's acectdotal because the biggest magas that actually left Meade, KS all live in AZ.

[catastrophe]

Only time will tell if either side gets comfortable enough to nominate someone who doesn’t have a relatively unblemished record serving at an already prestigious and scrutinized position.

Even Kavanaugh had a very solid record at what many consider the second highest court in the land. There’s just no empirical evidence that a partisan senate is going to try to ram through the My Pillow guy just to support their ideology.

I think you could make a reasonably case that Alito and Thomas - and, to a lesser degree, Barrett - fall into this category (understanding that some would certainly argue it).

I’ll restrain myself from pasting these guys’ Wikipedia bios here, but suffice it to say these guys were all qualified for the job. No one is saying the Supreme Court is literally the best, brightest, most objective of the judiciary, but so far they’ve all been qualified to do what they do. The fact they have political leanings and different ideologies just means they’re human beings.

[Kid In the Hall]

Only time will tell if either side gets comfortable enough to nominate someone who doesn’t have a relatively unblemished record serving at an already prestigious and scrutinized position.

Even Kavanaugh had a very solid record at what many consider the second highest court in the land. There’s just no empirical evidence that a partisan senate is going to try to ram through the My Pillow guy just to support their ideology.

I think you could make a reasonably case that Alito and Thomas - and, to a lesser degree, Barrett - fall into this category (understanding that some would certainly argue it).

I’ll restrain myself from pasting these guys’ Wikipedia bios here, but suffice it to say these guys were all qualified for the job. No one is saying the Supreme Court is literally the best, brightest, most objective of the judiciary, but so far they’ve all been qualified to do what they do. The fact they have political leanings and different ideologies just means they’re human beings.

I didnt think you litterally meant the my pillow guy - of course that wouldnt happen and of course all of the justices are qualified. If you were being metaphorical, you'd be hard pressed to find many more qualified candidates who fit the prefered ideology of the right more than Thomas and Alito (and, everyone knew that when they were nominated, which was reflected in their confirmation hearings/votes).

[Cire]

 Welp



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cfbandyman]

Holy crap

[Cire]

Apparently the girls mom is a teacher


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[steve dave]