Chandemonium Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 2 hours ago, row_33 said: they are not going to fake that she is still alive if she has croaked incapacity is another matter, since the Dems have been stating that Trump is clearly unfit mentally or psychiatrically or physically, the bar must be pretty low by now. Part of me thinks they already are. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 1 hour ago, Foxx said: Somebody needs to hire these guys to sing outside the Supreme Court chambers.... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted January 29, 2019 Share Posted January 29, 2019 1 hour ago, Chandemonium said: Part of me thinks they already are. i can't go there.... they are going to have a private ceremony and burial at Arlington? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 43 minutes ago, /dev/null said: Somebody needs to hire these guys to sing outside the Supreme Court chambers.... On it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 5 hours ago, row_33 said: they are not going to fake that she is still alive if she has croaked Yeah, it's not like she's an investigation in to Russian collusion... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 . 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 6 hours ago, /dev/null said: Sandiego. Which, in German, of course, means a whale's *****. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 9 hours ago, Chandemonium said: Part of me thinks they already are. Nothing is out of the question anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 Say she is dead or say she's a vegetable.... 1) if she's comatose and incapacitated and no one has been informed of such status: what's precedent? Who would get punished if they just get her on life support for a year to keep another appointment being made? I really could see this as an option. 2) if she's dead and just kept in a meat locker for a short time without someone knowing, then what? Why couldn't this happen? For a month or so? Who's the one who's get in trouble? No one. And it'd be nearly impossible to attack politically Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 15 minutes ago, Boyst62 said: Say she is dead or say she's a vegetable.... 1) if she's comatose and incapacitated and no one has been informed of such status: what's precedent? Who would get punished if they just get her on life support for a year to keep another appointment being made? I really could see this as an option. 2) if she's dead and just kept in a meat locker for a short time without someone knowing, then what? Why couldn't this happen? For a month or so? Who's the one who's get in trouble? No one. And it'd be nearly impossible to attack politically get her entombed in Arlington please, the jig is up, if it deserves to be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 2 hours ago, row_33 said: get her entombed in Arlington please, the jig is up, if it deserves to be It was a cereal question. What's honestly going to keep RBG and her ilk from pulling something where she is on life support barely hanging on until they can play a game of politics and influence??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 (edited) If she can’t serve and is unlikely to in the long term, she should resign. But with the bar set so high on playing politics with the SC nomination process (Garland), don’t expect the Ds to take the high road. They will probably play as dirty as the Rs did. Edited January 30, 2019 by BeginnersMind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 Yes. Hiding the corpse of a justice to deny POTUS a replacement is the same level as playing procedural politics with Garland. He just keeps getting more and more ridiculous. And transparent. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 30, 2019 Author Share Posted January 30, 2019 Just now, BeginnersMind said: If she can’t serve and is unlikely to in the long term, she should resign. But with the bar set so high on playing politics with the SC nomination process (Garland), I don’t expect the Ds to take the high road. They will probably play as dirty as the Rs did. Horseshit. There was precedent for the Garland non vote. There's no precedent or moral necessity to keep RBG alive for political reasons. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 10 minutes ago, Boyst62 said: It was a cereal question. What's honestly going to keep RBG and her ilk from pulling something where she is on life support barely hanging on until they can play a game of politics and influence??? I don't know what the specific crime would be if they were hiding her death, or if there would even be one. Koko or others might have a better grasp on that, I'd think the biggest blowback would be political. If the public at large were to learn for a fact that RGB was dead and that was hidden from the public by politicians on the left purely to deny Trump a pick it would confirm every single bad thing uttered about the left by independents and moderates over the years. 1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said: Horseshit. There was precedent for the Garland non vote. There's no precedent or moral necessity to keep RBG alive for political reasons. Of course not. But when you're not here to be honest, and are here to push an agenda, you can make that kind of ludicrous leap in logic. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: If the public at large were to learn for a fact that RGB was dead and that was hidden from the public by politicians on the left purely to deny Trump a pick it would confirm every single bad thing uttered about the left by independents and moderates over the years. And the media would explain that while the events that transpired were bad, they weren't as bad as what the Rs did to Garland. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: I don't know what the specific crime would be if they were hiding her death, or if there would even be one. Koko or others might have a better grasp on that, I'd think the biggest blowback would be political. If the public at large were to learn for a fact that RGB was dead and that was hidden from the public by politicians on the left purely to deny Trump a pick it would confirm every single bad thing uttered about the left by independents and moderates over the years. Of course not. But when you're not here to be honest, and are here to push an agenda, you can make that kind of ludicrous leap in logic. I would have to imagine that the crime would be in "her" rendering decisions, when she wasn't the one doing so. I'm not sure what it would fall under, but I'm certain it would be criminal. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 Just now, TakeYouToTasker said: I would have to imagine that the crime would be in "her" rendering decisions, when she wasn't the one doing so. I'm not sure what it would fall under, but I'm certain it would be criminal. That's a good point and likely where the rubber would meet the road. If they're issuing opinions in her name while she's dead or not conscious it would definitely be fraud on top of a host of other crimes I image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 8 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said: If she can’t serve and is unlikely to in the long term, she should resign. But with the bar set so high on playing politics with the SC nomination process (Garland), don’t expect the Ds to take the high road. They will probably play as dirty as the Rs did. You think Garland set the bar high on politics with an SC nom? I'm guessing you were asleep during the Kavanaugh hearings. Did you miss that? Ignore it? Or are you convinced Kavanaugh is a gang rapist and the only problem is enough people didn't pay attention to Avenatti? Just now, Deranged Rhino said: That's a good point and likely where the rubber would meet the road. If they're issuing opinions in her name while she's dead or not conscious it would definitely be fraud on top of a host of other crimes I image. You know what is absolutely ridiculous? That so many people genuinely believe it to be in the realm of possibility that the Democrats would hide the death of SC justice and posthumously issue opinions in her name . My first thought was, "Okay, people, let's be serious about this." But then you think about it seriously, and you look at all the incredibly underhanded things the Dems do, and you think to yourself, "Likely? No. Possible? Yep. Pretty much." Kind blows my mind a little bit. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 (edited) 15 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said: I understand nothing of my own behavior and bias. I am a clown. Edited January 30, 2019 by Boyst62 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 4 minutes ago, LABillzFan said: You know what is absolutely ridiculous? That so many people genuinely believe it to be in the realm of possibility that the Democrats would hide the death of SC justice and posthumously issue opinions in her name . My first thought was, "Okay, people, let's be serious about this." But then you think about it seriously, and you look at all the incredibly underhanded things the Dems do, and you think to yourself, "Likely? No. Possible? Yep. Pretty much." Kind blows my mind a little bit. 100% 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 12 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Horseshit. There was precedent for the Garland non vote. There's no precedent or moral necessity to keep RBG alive for political reasons. We have had incapacitated justices on the court before. McKenna is one example but William Douglas's end on the court is notorious. There was no precedent for a 2-year non-vote. It was dirty pool by any measure, and non-Constitutional by many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 2 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said: We have had incapacitated justices on the court before. McKenna is one example but William Douglas's end on the court is notorious. There was no precedent for a 2-year non-vote. It was dirty pool by any measure, and non-Constitutional by many. Joe Biden says "hey, you don't know your history or how to count." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 3 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said: We have had incapacitated justices on the court before. McKenna is one example but William Douglas's end on the court is notorious. There was no precedent for a 2-year non-vote. It was dirty pool by any measure, and non-Constitutional by many. 2 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 (edited) 11 minutes ago, LABillzFan said: You think Garland set the bar high on politics with an SC nom? I'm guessing you were asleep during the Kavanaugh hearings. 1 That was bad too but Thomas (given that it was a new dirty tactic and how little substance there was) and Bork (totally absurd what happened) had already been done, and were much worse in context. So I see those as worse than what happened with Kavanaugh. The Kavanaugh stuff was mostly just childish losers who didn't want to accept they didn't get their way. Not trying to downplay it, but looking at it in context, I'd call it #3 of those three messes. Edited January 30, 2019 by BeginnersMind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 3 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said: We have had incapacitated justices on the court before. McKenna is one example but William Douglas's end on the court is notorious. And then, of course, there's Sotomayor... 4 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said: There was no precedent for a 2-year non-vote. It was dirty pool by any measure, and non-Constitutional by many. What 2 year non-vote? What is this new *****wittery now? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 1 minute ago, GG said: 2 years? Apologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 No way it's #3 on that list. The prevalence of social media and the internet during Kavanaugh made his 100x worse. It'll live forever in meme form, gif form, and every search result ever run on the man will pull up those false charges. He's terrible at this thinking thing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 14 minutes ago, LABillzFan said: You know what is absolutely ridiculous? That so many people genuinely believe it to be in the realm of possibility that the Democrats would hide the death of SC justice . 1 Tin foil hat people rule PPP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 No they don't. People who are honest and can think rationally "rule" PPP. You don't fit any of those. As you keep proving with post after post after post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeginnersMind Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: No way it's #3 on that list. The prevalence of social media and the internet during Kavanaugh made his 100x worse. It'll live forever in meme form, gif form, and every search result ever run on the man will pull up those false charges. He's terrible at this thinking thing. "You're bad at this" is one of the things you say that requires a drink in the DR drinking game...and this counts. Ranking the top SC screw-jobs is hardly an objective task though, Ahab. You have an opinion. I do too. Mine spans history. Yours is rooted in the yesterday you can remember. What happened to Thomas was a first, and was totally unsubstantiated and without precedent. And what happened to Bork, given his qualifications and lack of precedent, was worse. Bork started this whole thing where the Senate believes it had the right to just bounce nominees, more or less, because they didn't' like their politics, which is assinine. 3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: No they don't. People who are honest and can think rationally "rule" PPP. You don't fit any of those. As you keep proving with post after post after post. $$ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 4 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said: Tin foil hat people rule PPP. Says the person who thinks Trump got elected because of Russia. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 You know nothing of history, or context, as you prove with each and every post. The world is smaller than ever and more fractured than ever. No one under the age of 25 paid attention to Thomas or Bork - that's not so with Kavanaugh. What was done to him lives forever in the internet in a way that is just not true with Bork or Thomas. You're analysis is poor. Very poor. Because you're a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: You know nothing of history, or context, as you prove with each and every post. The world is smaller than ever and more fractured than ever. No one under the age of 25 paid attention to Thomas or Bork - that's not so with Kavanaugh. What was done to him lives forever in the internet in a way that is just not true with Bork or Thomas. You're analysis is poor. Very poor. Because you're a joke. Just give up on the clown. Please? It's bad enough you won't give up on Tiberius. For us, please???? If we ignore it we all win. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 12 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said: What happened to Thomas was a first, and was totally unsubstantiated and without precedent. And what happened to Bork, given his qualifications and lack of precedent, was worse. Bork started this whole thing where the Senate believes it had the right to just bounce nominees, more or less, because they didn't' like their politics, which is assinine. The Kavanaugh hearing was pushed into every face on this planet by means that were never available with Thomas or Bork. You couldn't look at any social media without people in your timeline calling him a gang-banger racist. People NEVER would have seen that much information on Thomas or Bork, that often and that furiously, simply by looking at a phone wherever they stood or sat. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 13 minutes ago, LABillzFan said: The Kavanaugh hearing was pushed into every face on this planet by means that were never available with Thomas or Bork. You couldn't look at any social media without people in your timeline calling him a gang-banger racist. People NEVER would have seen that much information on Thomas or Bork, that often and that furiously, simply by looking at a phone wherever they stood or sat. You mean like how Kavanaugh pushed Ford into the bedroom, then tied her to the bed and raped her repeatedly over the course of several days? How can you be so insensitive? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 52 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: I don't know what the specific crime would be if they were hiding her death, or if there would even be one. Koko or others might have a better grasp on that, I'd think the biggest blowback would be political. If the public at large were to learn for a fact that RGB was dead and that was hidden from the public by politicians on the left purely to deny Trump a pick it would confirm every single bad thing uttered about the left by independents and moderates over the years. I am not sure if there is a specific federal crime that hiding her corpse would fall under - I haven't been in federal court for about 10 years now. The real crimes, as others noted, would be fraud in someone voting/signing on her behalf. That would cause one hell of a constitutional crisis, on top of invalidating every decision since December and permanently damaging (if not outright eliminating) confidence and trust in the court system. Such a loss of trust in the courts would destroy our entire system. 57 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Horseshit. There was precedent for the Garland non vote. There's no precedent or moral necessity to keep RBG alive for political reasons. There really wasn't actual precedent. The "Biden Rule" that McConnell invoked was a hypothetical posited by Joe Biden when he was chair of the Judiciary Committee back in the early 90's, when he was asked whether Papa Bush should be able to nominate someone if there was a SC vacancy in 1992. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 3 minutes ago, DC Tom said: You mean like how Kavanaugh pushed Ford into the bedroom, then tied her to the bed and raped her repeatedly over the course of several days? How can you be so insensitive? And he laughed and laughed and laughed the whole time. True story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LB3 Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 39 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said: Tin foil hat people rule PPP. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts