We are all Slave now.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Really?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...-pushback.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/09/polit...ntv/index.html

You've got one article that has all kinds of innuendo from unnamed WH and WH circle sources and the other than just focused on Santorum. That's not a ton. TM has stuff more focused on his own views.

The folks I have contact with on the right do indeed love Comey Barrett, and it is a deep and passionate love, a love that burns with the flames of a thousand suns. She gets Mother Mary references and even gets the occasional to let out a muffled Hallelujah. But they still love Kavanaugh, especially because he has Catholic cred, something not all the Federalist Society list members have. If it's not just legal thinking but He's also clearly a Washington insider, but if you look at the Federalist Society list, there are plenty of them on it, and this crowd isn't really anti-insider, as long as the insider has sent the signals showing that he "follows the Church's teachings" on abortion and contraception.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't know who else is in the "batch" so I'm not arguing with you. I don't know who Barrett is.

Former Notre Dame Prof, now Judge. She aligns with the far right of the Catholic Church. The greatest tragedy of her lifetime was Benedict's succession by Francis.

Pretty much the entire faculty of my Jesuit law school mater hates her with a passion. But that's how we roll in ole Mass.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Jeet Heer FTW:

"I want a [Venn] diagram of people willing to argue "Give Kavanaugh a break, he was only 17" and "Trayvon Martin got what he deserved."

o o

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Jeet Heer FTW:

"I want a [Venn] diagram of people willing to argue "Give Kavanaugh a break, he was only 17" and "Trayvon Martin got what he deserved."

We have all known of people who did things like that at 17. They did not improve with age. If anything, they get worse.

ETA: I could see George Zimmerman attempting to tear off some drunk girls bathing suit. Seems right up his alley.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Former Notre Dame Prof, now Judge. She aligns with the far right of the Catholic Church. The greatest tragedy of her lifetime was Benedict's succession by Francis.

Pretty much the entire faculty of my Jesuit law school mater hates her with a passion. But that's how we roll in ole Mass.

She belongs to a radical right wing religious group. In my book, that makes you utterly unqualified and unfit to take the bench even as a local district magistrate.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

You are conveniently deleting the actual statement with which I disagreed because it has become inconvenient. That statement is: "He is the most centrist candidate of those considered."

That is not true. I showed you actual evidence that he is not centrist, but radical.

I didn't flip out. I was pointing out that this guy is not a centrist, has never been a centrist, and isn't even the most centrist judge on Trump's list (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/27/u...-nominees.html).

But the larger point is that it doesn't matter when they're all crazy and will vote the exact same way on almost every single issue. I'm not sure where all the other choices stand on whether or not a President can be investigated or indicted, but we all know that Kavanaugh was chosen specifically because of his positions when it comes to that topic. So, it would seem he's as radical as it gets.

TM

A very reasonable point. But if you’ve got 5 layers of bad, isn’t it rational to pick the least bad of them?

I know, Hank. I’m making your case on voting for Hillary.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

A very reasonable point. But if you’ve got 5 layers of bad, isn’t it rational to pick the least bad of them?

If you can't name a case which Kavanaugh would decide differently than any other choice, what difference does it make? Hell, he might be the worst possible choice because we know his decisions will be Scalia+ down the line on social issues and he doesn't think the law applies to the President.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

and he doesn't think the law applies to the President.

TM

Trump is nuts, as several of us tried to warn people before the election (hi Sebby!), so I have no doubt this could be the reason he was nominated. But are there Four more votes for that? I mean if that is the reason it’s sad.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Trump is nuts, as several of us tried to warn people before the election (hi Sebby!), so I have no doubt this could be the reason he was nominated. But are there Four more votes for that? I mean if that is the reason it’s sad.

I'm not sure what you're asking.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I'm not sure what you're asking.

TM

Does 1 vote for “Mueller can’t fuck with Trump” get him anywhere near 5? 1 dissenting vote isn’t saving him.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Does 1 vote for “Mueller can’t fuck with Trump” get him anywhere near 5? 1 dissenting vote isn’t saving him.

I think the question is ridiculous. If anyone is selected to the highest court because he's a safe vote to keep the person doing the nominating out of criminal trouble, our republic is in deep trouble no matter how the rest of the justices opine.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I think the question is ridiculous. If anyone is selected to the highest court because he's a safe vote to keep the person doing the nominating out of criminal trouble, our republic is in deep trouble no matter how the rest of the justices opine.

TM

Which is why my original question included the proviso that Trump is nuts so it’s possible. Yes the question should be ridiculous, but it isn’t because it is possible it’s 4-4 right now see in re Pelican Brief.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Which is why my original question included the proviso that Trump is nuts so it’s possible. Yes the question should be ridiculous, but it isn’t because it is possible it’s 4-4 right now see in re Pelican Brief.

Ultimately the Senate will have to protect us from Trump, not the Court.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Ultimately the Senate will have to protect us from Trump, not the Court.

Ok then what does it mean he got picked for that?

[Tyrone Slothrop]