(06-28-2018 05:39 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 05:27 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Could she handle the pressure? Demons are pretty vile at anyone not of their ilk, and I'm not just talking about the "womens movement". They're so demonic they only think of their rights and not a bit about a baby in their bodies.

Whoever is the nominee better be mentally-prepared because the dims are going to dig dirt like a mole. No-holds-barred.

Yea, this will be the Summer of OJ or Natalie Holloway writ large.

Wall to wall, floor to ceiling and the gloves are def gonna come off.

Maybe they can even get Ito to come referee!

(06-28-2018 06:10 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 06:07 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 04:27 PM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  R V. W isn't getting overturned.

If anything, more illegal things like pot, prostitution, and gambling will become legal.

Two of those three are basically already a done deal.

Seems a bit odd for some of it. Just a generation ago the push was all about BIG TOBACCO and doing near anything to try and push ass many as possible out of business. Now? Lets let em all smoke pot, instead.

Uhhhh, ok(?).

We're gonna make BIG SODA illegal, but legalize gambling...

Seems the activist pols are meddling around with the piddly schit and just mailing it in on the larger issues. Who possibly benefited from criminalizing a Big Gulp?

How many lives, families, marriages have been destroyed by gambling? But, lets make that easier? How many of our young girls, daughters, nieces, kid next door do we want to see sell their lives for sex trafficking?

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm no saint here, no prude, no innocent.

I've engaged, at times abundantly and enthusiastically, in two of the three above. Or four of five if you include the two now being attacked. I'll let you decide which one not...

You've done the cigar in the twat thing too? Who knew? My man.

Uhhh, is that now illegal?

/Looks askance

(06-28-2018 06:01 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 05:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 05:10 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  I predict the issue of abortion will soon be handed back to the States, where it belongs.

I don't see it. Roberts and Alito both value precedent.

They may trim it, but they aren't going to overturn it.

How is handing back to the States breaking precedent? That's the way it was before, no?

or the back alley Rx surgeon....

pick ze poison on the matter.....

(06-28-2018 05:24 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

Nice.

(06-28-2018 06:22 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 06:01 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 05:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 05:10 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  I predict the issue of abortion will soon be handed back to the States, where it belongs.

I don't see it. Roberts and Alito both value precedent.

They may trim it, but they aren't going to overturn it.

How is handing back to the States breaking precedent? That's the way it was before, no?

or the back alley Rx surgeon....

pick ze poison on the matter.....

Here's my view on the subject.

First, let the states decide. Some may eliminate it all together, but most will likely restrict the timeframe during which one can be sought.

But what about those poor women who want an abortion and live in a state that doesn't offer it? They can't pay to travel to another state.

To that I say bullshyte. The forces that push abortions on women all over the country via Planned Parenthood can most certainly fund programs that allow women to access abortion in another state if theirs doesn't offer it or they're outside the alloted timeframe.

But what about those who are young and don't want their parents to know? They can't disappear for a few days to go to another state to have an abortion.

IMHO, then they're too young to be making such a decision on their own. They probably had sex without their parent's consent or knowledge, see what that got 'em.

(06-28-2018 06:09 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 05:22 PM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  46 years old. Not a bad looking woman either. That alone would be worth it. Ugly liberal women hate attractive women.

Can you imagine the cloakroom cat fights? Be a sight to behold...

Don't know what words were passed in chambers, but Ginsburg and O’Connor crossed swords a couple of times during oral argument. This was mid-’90s and maybe they eventually became friends, I don’t know.

As for Roe v. Wade: if it is ever overturned, it will be AT LEAST on a 6-3 basis and probably 7-2 or more. There will be AT LEAST one female Justice voting to overturn, and probably two or three, maybe more.

I don't think women should be making these decisions.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(06-28-2018 06:30 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 06:22 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 06:01 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 05:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 05:10 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  I predict the issue of abortion will soon be handed back to the States, where it belongs.

I don't see it. Roberts and Alito both value precedent.

They may trim it, but they aren't going to overturn it.

How is handing back to the States breaking precedent? That's the way it was before, no?

or the back alley Rx surgeon....

pick ze poison on the matter.....

Here's my view on the subject.

First, let the states decide. Some may eliminate it all together, but most will likely restrict the timeframe during which one can be sought.

But what about those poor women who want an abortion and live in a state that doesn't offer it? They can't pay to travel to another state.

To that I say bullshyte. The forces that push abortions on women all over the country via Planned Parenthood can most certainly fund programs that allow women to access abortion in another state if theirs doesn't offer it or they're outside the alloted timeframe.

But what about those who are young and don't want their parents to know? They can't disappear for a few days to go to another state to have an abortion.

IMHO, then they're too young to be making such a decision on their own. They probably had sex without their parent's consent or knowledge, see what that got 'em.

you just nailed my point.....it's why I'm pro-choice up to a point.....

it's obvious that education and funding contraception is the more humane move.....

in no way do I think aborting is a good thing....

however, I can only take the position of pro-choice relative to the whole.....

(06-28-2018 06:07 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 04:27 PM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  R V. W isn't getting overturned.

If anything, more illegal things like pot, prostitution, and gambling will become legal.

Two of those three are basically already a done deal.

Seems a bit odd for some of it. Just a generation ago the push was all about BIG TOBACCO and doing near anything to try and push as many as possible out of business. Now? Lets let em all smoke pot, instead.

Uhhhh, ok(?).

We're gonna make BIG SODA illegal, but legalize gambling...

Seems the activist pols are meddling around with the piddly schit and just mailing it in on the larger issues. Who possibly benefited from criminalizing a Big Gulp?

How many lives, families, marriages have been destroyed by gambling? But, lets make that easier? How many of our young girls, daughters, nieces, kid next door do we want to see sell their lives for sex trafficking?

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm no saint here, no prude, no innocent.

I've engaged, at times abundantly and enthusiastically, in two of the three above. Or four of five if you include the two now being attacked. I'll let you decide which one not...

Progressives want the illegal stuff they do to be legal and the legal stuff you do they don't like to be illegal. Its really pretty simple. They want to tell you what to do.

Race, sex, ethnic group is unimportant.

Most important is judicial philosophy. Close behind is education, then geography. A little religious diversity would be nice.

Every single justice went to Harvard or Yale Law school (Ginsburg transferred out and finished at Princeton).

Virtually all of them spent their professional life in the NY-DC corridor. Many spent their whole lives in that corridor.

All of the 8 remaining justices are (or were in the case of Gorsuch) Catholic or Jewish.

If you want diverse experiences, the last group you would have is the one they have put together.

If you really want a woman nominated, you should find a Baptist female from Indiana who went to IU law school.

Or a Baptist female from Colorado who went to CU law school.

(06-28-2018 08:11 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 06:07 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 04:27 PM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  R V. W isn't getting overturned.

If anything, more illegal things like pot, prostitution, and gambling will become legal.

Two of those three are basically already a done deal.

Seems a bit odd for some of it. Just a generation ago the push was all about BIG TOBACCO and doing near anything to try and push as many as possible out of business. Now? Lets let em all smoke pot, instead.

Uhhhh, ok(?).

We're gonna make BIG SODA illegal, but legalize gambling...

Seems the activist pols are meddling around with the piddly schit and just mailing it in on the larger issues. Who possibly benefited from criminalizing a Big Gulp?

How many lives, families, marriages have been destroyed by gambling? But, lets make that easier? How many of our young girls, daughters, nieces, kid next door do we want to see sell their lives for sex trafficking?

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm no saint here, no prude, no innocent.

I've engaged, at times abundantly and enthusiastically, in two of the three above. Or four of five if you include the two now being attacked. I'll let you decide which one not...

Progressives want the illegal stuff they do to be legal and the legal stuff you do they don't like to be illegal. Its really pretty simple. They want to tell you what to do.

I'm still trying to figure out how long it takes those 'chips and soda' britches to get on yoga pants in the morning.....

it's almost become impossible to not laugh out loud in a public place these days.....

#celluliteheaven

(06-28-2018 08:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  Race, sex, ethnic group is unimportant.
Most important is judicial philosophy. Close behind is education, then geography. A little religious diversity would be nice.
Every single justice went to Harvard or Yale Law school (Ginsburg transferred out and finished at Princeton).
Virtually all of them spent their professional life in the NY-DC corridor. Many spent their whole lives in that corridor.
All of the 8 remaining justices are (or were in the case of Gorsuch) Catholic or Jewish.
If you want diverse experiences, the last group you would have is the one they have put together.

What I'd like to see is a requirement that one justice comes from each judicial district. There are 11 of those, so you would have to increase the size of the court by 2. You'd need some transitional rules. Let each side appoint one. Then as people roll off, you'd have to replace them with someone from an unrepresented district. Then when you had all 11 represented, each new one would have to come from the district of the one who rolled off.

Its kind of ironic that for 150 years or so, all of our justices were protestant. Come August 1, none of them will be.

(06-28-2018 08:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 08:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  Race, sex, ethnic group is unimportant.
Most important is judicial philosophy. Close behind is education, then geography. A little religious diversity would be nice.
Every single justice went to Harvard or Yale Law school (Ginsburg transferred out and finished at Princeton).
Virtually all of them spent their professional life in the NY-DC corridor. Many spent their whole lives in that corridor.
All of the 8 remaining justices are (or were in the case of Gorsuch) Catholic or Jewish.
If you want diverse experiences, the last group you would have is the one they have put together.

What I'd like to see is a requirement that one justice comes from each judicial district. There are 11 of those, so you would have to increase the size of the court by 2. You'd need some transitional rules. Let each side appoint one. Then as people roll off, you'd have to replace them with someone from an unrepresented district. Then when you had all 11 represented, each new one would have to come from the district of the one who rolled off.

that's a interesting concept....

I don't know enough how the 11 are either elected or appointed.....that one would take me time in research to give a yea or nay......

(06-28-2018 08:21 PM)bullet Wrote:  Its kind of ironic that for 150 years or so, all of our justices were protestant. Come August 1, none of them will be.

bullet are you sure?

I think the first Catholic appointed to Supreme Court was in 1836. First Jew appointed in 1916.

Gorsuch goes to an Episcopal church or at least he does when he’s in Denver. Last Protestant on the SC before him was Stevens who stepped down in 2010.

(06-28-2018 08:40 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 08:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 08:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  Race, sex, ethnic group is unimportant.
Most important is judicial philosophy. Close behind is education, then geography. A little religious diversity would be nice.
Every single justice went to Harvard or Yale Law school (Ginsburg transferred out and finished at Princeton).
Virtually all of them spent their professional life in the NY-DC corridor. Many spent their whole lives in that corridor.
All of the 8 remaining justices are (or were in the case of Gorsuch) Catholic or Jewish.
If you want diverse experiences, the last group you would have is the one they have put together.

What I'd like to see is a requirement that one justice comes from each judicial district. There are 11 of those, so you would have to increase the size of the court by 2. You'd need some transitional rules. Let each side appoint one. Then as people roll off, you'd have to replace them with someone from an unrepresented district. Then when you had all 11 represented, each new one would have to come from the district of the one who rolled off.

that's a interesting concept....
I don't know enough how the 11 are either elected or appointed.....that one would take me time in research to give a yea or nay......

I would say just like now, president nominates and senate confirms. For the transition, I'd let each side pick one. They would have to come from unrepresented judicial circuits. I don't think that would be hard, right now I think there's only like three or maybe four represented. Some have never been represented. Would be some strategic games during transition. Let's say I'm a republican and unrepresented circuits include 5th (conservative) and 9th (liberal). Do I go with a tried and true conservative out of the 5th, or if I have a really conservative judge on the 9th, do I appoint him to cut off a source of liberal judges?

(06-28-2018 05:24 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

Ben Shapiro gave a rapid-fire break down of the key finalists and she was his top pick for multiple reasons, including her being one of the "safest" possible candidates. In other words, she is clearly not a stealth liberal.

It would be nice to have an originalist/conservative woman on the court, and one that can give us 40 years.

(06-28-2018 11:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 08:40 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 08:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 08:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  Race, sex, ethnic group is unimportant.
Most important is judicial philosophy. Close behind is education, then geography. A little religious diversity would be nice.
Every single justice went to Harvard or Yale Law school (Ginsburg transferred out and finished at Princeton).
Virtually all of them spent their professional life in the NY-DC corridor. Many spent their whole lives in that corridor.
All of the 8 remaining justices are (or were in the case of Gorsuch) Catholic or Jewish.
If you want diverse experiences, the last group you would have is the one they have put together.

What I'd like to see is a requirement that one justice comes from each judicial district. There are 11 of those, so you would have to increase the size of the court by 2. You'd need some transitional rules. Let each side appoint one. Then as people roll off, you'd have to replace them with someone from an unrepresented district. Then when you had all 11 represented, each new one would have to come from the district of the one who rolled off.

that's a interesting concept....
I don't know enough how the 11 are either elected or appointed.....that one would take me time in research to give a yea or nay......

I would say just like now, president nominates and senate confirms. For the transition, I'd let each side pick one. They would have to come from unrepresented judicial circuits. I don't think that would be hard, right now I think there's only like three or maybe four represented. Some have never been represented. Would be some strategic games during transition. Let's say I'm a republican and unrepresented circuits include 5th (conservative) and 9th (liberal). Do I go with a tried and true conservative out of the 5th, or if I have a really conservative judge on the 9th, do I appoint him to cut off a source of liberal judges?

I am all about the balance aspect......

I'm basically a social lib.....probably more so than any con poster on this board......

regardless, I'm willing to investigate that proposition.....I simply need to do more due to fully understand the 'ins and outs'.....you guys are more adept in detail than myself......

the issue that remains is neither side is willing to give ground relative to confirmation.....

think about it.....the religious right is dead.....the left has become full blown socialists.....

therefore, I have zero tolerance for anything that resembles today's left.......

you're a pragmatic guy.....the center is where she has to fall in the legislative and judicial....

this is what too many whiffed with "do not underestimate the Donald".......it was always (to me) a means to driving these conversations.......they wouldn't be happening if ANYONE FROM EITHER SIDE WOULD'VE WON......

at least now they are.....

to finish, we are a country based on law.......as such, you either enforce or change said law(s).....in the world of SCOTUS, interpretation is simply their game how well they sleep at night....

and to be frank and brutally honest.......their power has been diminished over time.....I don't see how that changes unless the dems regain today's bench.....it could then become crazy land 9th circuit style.....that would be a monster of a problem.....

(06-28-2018 11:42 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(06-28-2018 05:24 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

Ben Shapiro gave a rapid-fire break down of the key finalists and she was his top pick for multiple reasons, including her being one of the "safest" possible candidates. In other words, she is clearly not a stealth liberal.

It would be nice to have an originalist/conservative woman on the court, and one that can give us 40 years.

that fact whether X or Y chomo argument is fk'n retarded......

if she's competent, then great.....if only due to the X chromo, then fockall....