bidets are real useful if you are a long time single male and have some one nighters over who don't seem like marriage material or even worth a second night. And they can be really lovely. Edward Weston did some amazing photos of the porcelain toilet in his apartment at 48 Vera Cruz in the Condesa neighborhood in Mexico City. So don't go knocking bidets or I will highjack the thread; which is not a bad idea as it seems to have run out of gas anyway.
Gorsuch 100 Feinstein/Dems 0
- Thread starter Horn6721
- Start date
Brad Austin
2,500+ Posts
Both sides judge shop
Texas did the same when suing Obama
Details I found interesting about Texas cases against Obama
Obama's actions led to a high number of legal challenges
Yeah I really went off the reservation and you put me in my place.
Please forgive me for not strictly following Deez' posting protocol of specifically addressing your exact point the entire post the way you demand.
I couldn't give less a damn when you steer a political post into boasting about your beer fetish. I find zero worth in reading that but move on like a normal person.
Texas did the same when suing Obama
Details I found interesting about Texas cases against Obama
Obama's actions led to a high number of legal challenges
Yeah I really went off the reservation and you put me in my place.
Please forgive me for not strictly following Deez' posting protocol of specifically addressing your exact point the entire post the way you demand.
I couldn't give less a damn when you steer a political post into boasting about your beer fetish. I find zero worth in reading that but move on like a normal person.
From "The Man Who Loved Women":
Roy Carr (Barry Corbin): "Honey, what's that geiser in the toilet called?"
Louise Carr (Kim Bassinger): "The bidet."
Roy: "Oh, yeah, the boo-day. That thing will get your heart started in the morning, let me tell you."
Roy Carr (Barry Corbin): "Honey, what's that geiser in the toilet called?"
Louise Carr (Kim Bassinger): "The bidet."
Roy: "Oh, yeah, the boo-day. That thing will get your heart started in the morning, let me tell you."
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
I don't think it's a smart move either but McConnell is ready to change the rules. It's pretty short-sighted to want the rule changed but I think that's what the far right is cheerleading for. Whether they do it now or for the next nomination, does it really matter?
Statalyzer
10,000+ Posts
Ginsberg may not have a shield, but anyone in the center or right who made such a suggestion would be branded a sexist for life.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Both sides judge shop
Texas did the same when suing Obama
Details I found interesting about Texas cases against Obama
Obama's actions led to a high number of legal challenges
Yeah I really went off the reservation and you put me in my place.
Please forgive me for not strictly following Deez' posting protocol of specifically addressing your exact point the entire post the way you demand.
I couldn't give less a damn when you steer a political post into boasting about your beer fetish. I find zero worth in reading that but move on like a normal person.
Don't be a tool. You can post what you want, but it's nonsensical to reply to someone's post and then post somethingthat has nothing to do with that person's post. That's why talking about bidets in response to your post sounds silly. I thought you'd figure that out, but I suppose not.
Brad Austin
2,500+ Posts
You're getting mighty brave with the back-handed insults behind the keyboard lately. Was only a few days ago I was 'talking out of my *ss'.
Today I acknowledged agreeing with your specific topic point saying Reps also judge shopped when challenging Obama. Then in the same post transitioned into a portion (political legal challenges) of the specific topic.
Those two things are far from unrelated. Was my tangent useful in discussing your specific topic? Nope, but similar tangents happen around here often.
Last I checked we are going back and forth about your judge shopping topic on an original post discussing Gorsuch vs. Feinstein.
So you felt the need to call me out for my post not sticking to all aspects of your exact specific topic. Fine.
But now you move into smug, insulting prick territory? I'm acting like a tool, sounding silly and nonsensical, unable to grasp your apples to oranges example?
Last I checked I'm not posting on DeezFans. If you don't approve feel free to ignore. But I'd appreciate your laying off the veiled insults.
Here's why I think it matters. I don't think McConnell actually wants to change the rules. If he did, he would have done so at the beginning of the year when Senate rules were being adopted. However, he doesn't want to shift the ideological balance on the Court to the Left, so he isn't going to tolerate a filibuster on Gorsuch who presumably is going to be like Scalia.
However, let's suppose Democrats allow a floor vote on Gorsuch without a filibuster. He gets on the Court, which is going to happen anyway. Now let's suppose Ginsberg dies in six months. Democrats would at least have a chance of making a deal, because McConnell wouldn't be disrupting the Court's balance by letting a moderate get on the Court. They could go to him and Trump and promise not to filibuster if Trump appoints an Anthony Kennedy. Since McConnell could still consider that progress (since even Kennedy is a movement to the Right from Ginsberg) and since he could preserve Senate rules, he might pressure Trump to go along. However, with the filibuster being set aside with no upside on Gorsuch, they're basically guaranteeing that the next vacancy will be filled with a Scalia-type justice.
First, you were talking out your *** in that post. Instead of whining about that, you should ask why I thought you were talking your ***. There was an actual reason.
Second, you didn't just not stick to all aspects of my post, you went completely off the rails. That's why the bidet reference isn't an apples or oranges comparison. You still think I was talking about judge shopping. Re-read my post. I never said anything about judge shopping. It makes me wonder if you know what judge shopping is.
By the way, not knowing what it is wouldn't make you an idiot. Most people don't know. Now if you pretend to know when you actually don't, that's another matter.
All I can say is the Dems were pretty cocky rolling the dice on a HRC victory in terms of SCOTUS. They really didn't raise much of a ruckus when Garland was ignored. They didn't even have a hearing on the guy and the Dems didn't fight that hard. From my very limited knowledge of his leanings/rulings, it seems as if he were a pretty good and fair candidate. I don't know if Obama was trying to be smart and play the long con, and put a decent appointee up, knowing Repubs would stonewall all along. Then when Hillary won she could appoint someone with more leftist leanings and make the Republicans look foolish and stubborn.
Or, if things just happened the way they did.
If the Dems were smart RBG should have stepped down during the last few months of Obama's presidency to ensure a liberal justice. With all due respect, she is old as dirt. I read that she dozes off during hearings.
It never occurred to them that Hillary could lose. That still boggles my mind. I would think even with the polls they would have appointed a "just in case" justice in the place of Ginsburg.
I think a filibuster is more of a petty (b**ch)move than anything else in retaliation for Garland. They should have fought harder a year ago if they were serious. I think it's a dumb hill to die on if they do follow through.
Actually, the whole SCOTUS situation is confusing to me. I'm not a lawyer, but, I have always heard that lawyers love the law because it is black and white, and "makes sense". I don't understand how or why or when the Supreme Court became so politicized. Law isn't liberal or conservative, or Republican or Democrat, and I don't understand why we have let it become so. We have some of the best minds in those robes and I can't for the life of me see how things could be interpreted so differently by those big brains. I would think that most decisions should almost always be unanimous, or very close instead of an almost always predictable narrow margin of victory or loss.
Lawyers, what's the deal?? We, the non-lawyers of the US, demand answers.
Or, if things just happened the way they did.
If the Dems were smart RBG should have stepped down during the last few months of Obama's presidency to ensure a liberal justice. With all due respect, she is old as dirt. I read that she dozes off during hearings.
It never occurred to them that Hillary could lose. That still boggles my mind. I would think even with the polls they would have appointed a "just in case" justice in the place of Ginsburg.
I think a filibuster is more of a petty (b**ch)move than anything else in retaliation for Garland. They should have fought harder a year ago if they were serious. I think it's a dumb hill to die on if they do follow through.
Actually, the whole SCOTUS situation is confusing to me. I'm not a lawyer, but, I have always heard that lawyers love the law because it is black and white, and "makes sense". I don't understand how or why or when the Supreme Court became so politicized. Law isn't liberal or conservative, or Republican or Democrat, and I don't understand why we have let it become so. We have some of the best minds in those robes and I can't for the life of me see how things could be interpreted so differently by those big brains. I would think that most decisions should almost always be unanimous, or very close instead of an almost always predictable narrow margin of victory or loss.
Lawyers, what's the deal?? We, the non-lawyers of the US, demand answers.
@Hollandtx , you don't post a lot, but when you do, there are lots of layers to it and lots to discuss. I'll answer you, but it may be later in the day.
The proposed deal by the Democrats to preserve the filibuster for SCOTUS appointments is beyond laughable. The only reason Reid didn't eliminate it was because there were no SCOTUS appointments at risk. If the Democrats had the Senate in 2016 and Republicans filibustered the Garland nomination then you can be damn sure that the filibuster rule would have been changed.
I really hope the Dems filibuster the Gorsuch vote so the rule can be changed for good. It will make it easier to get more conservative judges nominated in the future. Some really huge strategic mistakes made by the Dems in the past 5 years.
I really hope the Dems filibuster the Gorsuch vote so the rule can be changed for good. It will make it easier to get more conservative judges nominated in the future. Some really huge strategic mistakes made by the Dems in the past 5 years.
Goes to show that if you give hearings to a smart, highly qualified judge, you give them a chance to shine. McConnel and company were wise not to hold hearings when they were brazenly partisan in keeping the seat open.
It's fun to see Cruz operating as a highly intelligent US Senator rather than pandering to the lowest elements of his own party.
Last edited:
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
That's the thing that's so frustrating about Cruz, because I really want to like him, and I suspect that ideologically I line up with him as much as with anyone. I do think that part of the problem is that he's a lightning rod and everything he says gets run through the media lens and comes out looking hyper-partisan, because a lot of the times he says something "controversial" it's really done in a very calm, professional, and reasonable way.
The problem is that he is a media hog, and it shows. He chases mikes, he makes grandstand speeches, and yes, he panders. And he's a "party" guy in Texas and supports party guys regardless. I have a good friend who was very involved in going after Ken Paxton, who if you believe my friend (and I do) is as dirty as the day is long. But he's a Ted Cruz guy, and so he's not going to get touched by Cruz or any other of the die-hards.
I guess you don't get powerful in politics without ignoring the bad stuff your friends do.
This explains sooooo much in the Dems today.
Cruz is very bright but is also a meglomaniacal narcissist and his fellow senators hate him. Opportunities like these hearings give him a chance to shine because of his brilliance and his overwhelmingly superior knowledge of the territory. When and if he ever comes to the realization that he will never be president I suspect he can become a great senator for our state.
I'd rather see Cruz on the Supreme Court than remain a sitting Senator. Just my preference.
Brad Austin
2,500+ Posts
After the way they went after a rather uncontroversial Gorsuch, imagine what the Cruz hearings would be like.
Dems would be foaming at the mouth and no doubt more than a few Reps would take their payback shots. I'd buy PPV to catch those.
OK, I'll take on her post.
They complained plenty, but what could they really do? They were in the minority. The minority party in the Senate can do things to stop the majority party from doing things, but there isn't much it can do to force them to affirmatively do something. If the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Majority Leader don't want hearings on something, they pretty much don't happen.
Yes, that's true. He was an example of a Democratic compromise nomination. However, it's important to know what compromise nominations look like from the respective parties. Democratic compromise nominations are usually pro-prosecution ("tough on crime") and more business friendly, but they don't compromise on social issues. That's the mold Judge Garland fit into. Republican compromise nominations are the opposite. They are pro-business but socially moderate like Anthony Kennedy or Sandra Day O'Connor. Accordingly, if Garland had gotten on the Court, he would have pleased Republican donors and prosecutors, but to your average Republican voter who cares about social issues, he would have been almost indistinguishable from Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Plenty of Democrats did call for her to step down, but ultimately it's her decision. They couldn't force her out. Furthermore, I think the calls for her to retire (which always focused on her age) offended her. She considered herself mentally sharp (like most elderly folks) and probably didn't like people anticipating her possible senility or death. And despite their philosophical differences, she and her husband were very close friends with Scalia. I think she greatly enjoyed working with him, as he enjoyed working with her, and I think she wanted to stay as long as she could.
Finding a candidate is easy. Getting a justice to retire at the right time is what's difficult, and like I said above, she wasn't willing to step down.
Not so. Some law is black and white, but much of it is not. If you look at the Constitution, you'll find all kinds of verbiage that is by no means "black and white." For example, the 14th Amendment prohibits states from denying someone of "life, liberty, or property without due process of law." There are disagreements over virtually every word of that phrase, and we've been fighting over what they mean since they became law.
It has always been politicized. The first "famous" and perhaps most consequential Supreme Court decision (Marbury v. Madison) was based on a very petty and partisan fight between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams back in 1803.
What has changed is how broad the federal court system's jurisdiction has become. Federal courts only have the final authority on points of federal law, which used to be a pretty narrow body of law, and it very seldom impacted state laws. However, two big things (and a handful of smaller things) changed all that. First, the 14th Amendment created federal jurisdiction to decide if a state law denied someone of due process of law or denied someone the equal protection of the law. Well, that created a colossal opportunity for federal courts to start reviewing state laws, which impact areas of society that are far more consequential to people than federal laws traditionally had been - areas like public education, health and welfare policy, criminal laws, small business regulation, etc. That's how social and cultural issues found their way into the federal court system.
Second, in the 1930s and with the rise of the New Deal, people started to want a much more activist federal government when it came to the economy. To accommodate their desires, the Court started giving a ridiculously broad interpretation of the commerce clause (allows Congress to regulate commerce between the states) - broad enough to regulate things that really had nothing to do with commerce or interstate transactions. That also brought the federal courts into areas of law that were previously the domain of state legislatures and state courts.
So in short, the politics were always there, but the opportunity for the politics to enter into hot-button issues that people care about has been greatly enhanced.
Because it's too tempting not to let it become that. You have a branch of government that can force its will on Congress, the White House, and the states, and nobody's going to challenge them (even though they can). I think it's terrible, but if you're a sleazy, self-serving political hack, why wouldn't you exploit that opportunity if you could?
More are unanimous or nearly unanimous than you might think. However, it's the high-profile cases that attract the public's attention that are decided by the same predictable margins.
They complained plenty, but what could they really do? They were in the minority. The minority party in the Senate can do things to stop the majority party from doing things, but there isn't much it can do to force them to affirmatively do something. If the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Majority Leader don't want hearings on something, they pretty much don't happen.
Yes, that's true. He was an example of a Democratic compromise nomination. However, it's important to know what compromise nominations look like from the respective parties. Democratic compromise nominations are usually pro-prosecution ("tough on crime") and more business friendly, but they don't compromise on social issues. That's the mold Judge Garland fit into. Republican compromise nominations are the opposite. They are pro-business but socially moderate like Anthony Kennedy or Sandra Day O'Connor. Accordingly, if Garland had gotten on the Court, he would have pleased Republican donors and prosecutors, but to your average Republican voter who cares about social issues, he would have been almost indistinguishable from Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Plenty of Democrats did call for her to step down, but ultimately it's her decision. They couldn't force her out. Furthermore, I think the calls for her to retire (which always focused on her age) offended her. She considered herself mentally sharp (like most elderly folks) and probably didn't like people anticipating her possible senility or death. And despite their philosophical differences, she and her husband were very close friends with Scalia. I think she greatly enjoyed working with him, as he enjoyed working with her, and I think she wanted to stay as long as she could.
Finding a candidate is easy. Getting a justice to retire at the right time is what's difficult, and like I said above, she wasn't willing to step down.
Not so. Some law is black and white, but much of it is not. If you look at the Constitution, you'll find all kinds of verbiage that is by no means "black and white." For example, the 14th Amendment prohibits states from denying someone of "life, liberty, or property without due process of law." There are disagreements over virtually every word of that phrase, and we've been fighting over what they mean since they became law.
It has always been politicized. The first "famous" and perhaps most consequential Supreme Court decision (Marbury v. Madison) was based on a very petty and partisan fight between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams back in 1803.
What has changed is how broad the federal court system's jurisdiction has become. Federal courts only have the final authority on points of federal law, which used to be a pretty narrow body of law, and it very seldom impacted state laws. However, two big things (and a handful of smaller things) changed all that. First, the 14th Amendment created federal jurisdiction to decide if a state law denied someone of due process of law or denied someone the equal protection of the law. Well, that created a colossal opportunity for federal courts to start reviewing state laws, which impact areas of society that are far more consequential to people than federal laws traditionally had been - areas like public education, health and welfare policy, criminal laws, small business regulation, etc. That's how social and cultural issues found their way into the federal court system.
Second, in the 1930s and with the rise of the New Deal, people started to want a much more activist federal government when it came to the economy. To accommodate their desires, the Court started giving a ridiculously broad interpretation of the commerce clause (allows Congress to regulate commerce between the states) - broad enough to regulate things that really had nothing to do with commerce or interstate transactions. That also brought the federal courts into areas of law that were previously the domain of state legislatures and state courts.
So in short, the politics were always there, but the opportunity for the politics to enter into hot-button issues that people care about has been greatly enhanced.
Because it's too tempting not to let it become that. You have a branch of government that can force its will on Congress, the White House, and the states, and nobody's going to challenge them (even though they can). I think it's terrible, but if you're a sleazy, self-serving political hack, why wouldn't you exploit that opportunity if you could?
More are unanimous or nearly unanimous than you might think. However, it's the high-profile cases that attract the public's attention that are decided by the same predictable margins.
Thank you Mr. Deez for a very informative post. I know it took lots of time, maybe burned a few brain cells too!
I guess I am being exposed to just how sleazy parts and the people of our government are, and how very partisan the USA is, or has become. It seems like a great big sporting event where the focus is more on winning than on what is the best for the people. I can't even keep up with the daily scandals anymore. I keep hoping things will settle down.
My attorney friends are the ones who tell me how they love the law since it is black and white, and logical. I have never thought it was, but there are shades of grey that I feel should not be crossed. Pros that pick juries, money buying the best attorneys come to mind.
I guess I want to believe in Atticus Finch and that most politicians will do what is correct. That we the people won't be cheering for or against things that fit only our narrative, but try to understand the other side and perhaps have some empathy.
Pretty stupid, I know. Thanks again for taking the time to enlighten me on some things that I have wondered about for a while, especially SCOTUS politics.
I guess I am being exposed to just how sleazy parts and the people of our government are, and how very partisan the USA is, or has become. It seems like a great big sporting event where the focus is more on winning than on what is the best for the people. I can't even keep up with the daily scandals anymore. I keep hoping things will settle down.
My attorney friends are the ones who tell me how they love the law since it is black and white, and logical. I have never thought it was, but there are shades of grey that I feel should not be crossed. Pros that pick juries, money buying the best attorneys come to mind.
I guess I want to believe in Atticus Finch and that most politicians will do what is correct. That we the people won't be cheering for or against things that fit only our narrative, but try to understand the other side and perhaps have some empathy.
Pretty stupid, I know. Thanks again for taking the time to enlighten me on some things that I have wondered about for a while, especially SCOTUS politics.
You're very welcome, Hollandtx. I'm potty training a toddler right now, and though it takes mental toughness and tenacity to read all his bodily cues and to remind him every five minutes to "Make sure to tell Daddy when you have to potty," it doesn't require much intellect. I welcome opportunities to think like a professional again. Lol.
I would agree with your attorney friends that the law is usually logical if you know the logic of the people who write the laws. Some of it is black and white, but if the purpose of laws is to do justice, there will almost always be room to look at things on a case by case basis. That requires at least some degree of gray.
You brought up picking juries and buying top attorneys as points of concern. Keep in mind that we don't actually "pick juries." We pick who we want to exclude (and that's limited) and get stuck with what's left. To the extent that is abused, the best check on it is clear rules and conscientious trial court judges who will enforce them consistently.
Having a lot of money can definitely give wealthy people big advantages in the courtroom. One of those is the ability to hire top attorneys. However, I don't really see a way to stop that. You can mitigate it though by making sure the indigent have decent counsel. However, by far the biggest travesties of justice don't happen because someone hired a top lawyer. They happen because someone hired the top lawmakers and judges to write the laws to ensure that they virtually can't lose and can often deny the wronged person his day in court altogether.
That's on us. There are Atticus Finches in politics. We don't elect them, because they don't tell us what we want to hear.
I would agree with your attorney friends that the law is usually logical if you know the logic of the people who write the laws. Some of it is black and white, but if the purpose of laws is to do justice, there will almost always be room to look at things on a case by case basis. That requires at least some degree of gray.
You brought up picking juries and buying top attorneys as points of concern. Keep in mind that we don't actually "pick juries." We pick who we want to exclude (and that's limited) and get stuck with what's left. To the extent that is abused, the best check on it is clear rules and conscientious trial court judges who will enforce them consistently.
Having a lot of money can definitely give wealthy people big advantages in the courtroom. One of those is the ability to hire top attorneys. However, I don't really see a way to stop that. You can mitigate it though by making sure the indigent have decent counsel. However, by far the biggest travesties of justice don't happen because someone hired a top lawyer. They happen because someone hired the top lawmakers and judges to write the laws to ensure that they virtually can't lose and can often deny the wronged person his day in court altogether.
That's on us. There are Atticus Finches in politics. We don't elect them, because they don't tell us what we want to hear.
Brad Austin
2,500+ Posts
As expected, the nuclear showdown is imminent. Dems reach total needed to filibuster Gorsuch.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
I'm surprised we aren't hearing more of the "Merick Garland was denied a vote thus this is a protest". Not sure they have any other grounds for filibuster.
The cloture rules were going to change either this vote of the next. McConnell has made that clear.
Last edited:
Brad Austin
2,500+ Posts
I've also been struggling to find a sliver of sound logic behind this move.
Not to mention rumblings are beginning for Reps to consider ending the filibuster in all forms, including legislative as well. Apparently some Reps openly support this.
It's being suggested the Gorsuch filibuster may signal it's time to accept Congress is politicized beyond its intent and can't function properly with abuse of the filibuster.
Last edited:
I've heard Garland's name brought up many times. They're not saying it's a protest, because they know how petty that would sound, but they're exploiting it to the extent that they can. I think the rationale is pretty clear though from the circumstances. Any Democrat who plays ball with Trump is going to get torched by the base and risk primary opposition. By fighting Gorsuch, they keep their cred.
I just don't think that's necessarily true. McConnell's not an idiot. He knows the shoe will be on the other foot one day. I don't think he'd change the rules if he had a choice.
Brad Austin
2,500+ Posts
I definitely think the Reps dread being forced to do this on principle.
However, we all know deep down going nuclear or not won't influence Dem behavior once they reclaim the simple majority.
Even if Reps concede and back off now, Dems wouldn't return the favor if their nominee was filibustered years from now. They'd go nuclear in a heartbeat.
However, we all know deep down going nuclear or not won't influence Dem behavior once they reclaim the simple majority.
Even if Reps concede and back off now, Dems wouldn't return the favor if their nominee was filibustered years from now. They'd go nuclear in a heartbeat.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
