Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[kiidcarter8]

Where's the GONG for Joe?

heh

[luee]

Watching town halls with interest. Trump no doubt is much more entertaining. Absolutely delusional. Conspiracy theories. The "media" is out to get him. The liberals are burning down the cities. If he loses the voting is rigged.

[Yankguy1]

Super-precedent was a political concept raised in Barrett's writings. Why shouldn't a Senator, even a Constitutional idiot, ask a possible Justice about concepts she initially raised?

But instead why don't you show us your Constitutional eclat and tell us what super-precedent means?
LOL!

[kiidcarter8]

Would  a Constitutional scholar such as yourself deign to tell us ignoramuses what "superprecedent" actually is?

Ask Amy Klochubar.  It came from her question.

Actually your co-scholar Barrett has been using the term throughout the hearings and in her writings so I was hoping you could help us out.

heh

We have testing on the forum now

Careful, YG.

[Yankguy1]

That might be my first "careful" from our favorite pea- brain. I feel proud.

[REDSTATEWARD]

Super-precedent was a political concept raised in Barrett's writings. Why shouldn't a Senator, even a Constitutional idiot, ask a possible Justice about concepts she initially raised?

But instead why don't you show us your Constitutional eclat and tell us what super-precedent means?
LOL!

Ask Amy Klocucher. She thinks( or thought) it was a big deal.
Until Barrett’s answer. 

[Yankguy1]

I have you and your scholarship here. Why do I need to ask Klobuchar?

[facilitatorn]

We all still think it’s a big deal. That’s why Barrett’s answer was disqualifying.

Go to the back of the class, Red. Face the wall and think about how to improve yourself.

Kiid’s a little crispy tonight.

Savanna Guthrie just took ACB’s seat on the court.

Trump fillets all over South Beach.

If trump is committed as he sooo clearly needs to be, he can contest the election results to his heart’s content. Very few people will actually hear him.

[barton]

I voted, by mail.

I cannot believe Proposition 16, they want to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964...

Um,  Prop 16 doesn't remove any protections against discrimination or the other things King marched for.   It just restores Affirmative Action and other programs that aid diversity and levels the playing field for disadvantaged persons.   It works against systemic racism and poverty,  Tony.  You need to read the full text of stuff you're voting on.

Prop 16 would codify systemic racism.  It is stillborn according to California polls .
With total common sense justification.

How does it codify systemic racism?   You don't get to claim "common sense"  without showing us what that sense is.  Though PoC are 60% of high school students,  they are only 28% of college students in a recent year.   Affirmative action was working to end that gross disparity,   until 1996, and the passage of 209, ended that.   It was working to correct centuries of economic and political privilege, and thus mend the harm of systemic racism.   

[kiidcarter8]

Joe stating he will hire only the best people.

[facilitatorn]

Red will do anything he can to uphold the harm of systemic racism. Red sticks with his bad argument because it works on guys like Tony.

It’s the kind of micropenis move Red hopes one day will make him famous.

[REDSTATEWARD]

I have you and your scholarship here. Why do I need to ask Klobuchar?

Amy Klobucharwas ask­ing Judge Bar­rett about the hold of prece­dent, and iden­ti­fiedBrown v. Board of Ed­u­ca­tion (1954) as “su­perpecedent” then asked if Roe v Wade is su­perprecedent?

[REDSTATEWARD]

I voted, by mail.

I cannot believe Proposition 16, they want to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964...

Um,  Prop 16 doesn't remove any protections against discrimination or the other things King marched for.   It just restores Affirmative Action and other programs that aid diversity and levels the playing field for disadvantaged persons.   It works against systemic racism and poverty,  Tony.  You need to read the full text of stuff you're voting on.

Prop 16 would codify systemic racism.  It is stillborn according to California polls .
With total common sense justification.

How does it codify systemic racism?

By establishing race as a priority.

[bankshot1]

I have you and your scholarship here. Why do I need to ask Klobuchar?

Amy Klobucharwas ask­ing Judge Bar­rett about the hold of prece­dent, and iden­ti­fiedBrown v. Board of Ed­u­ca­tion (1954) as “su­perpecedent” then asked if Roe v Wade is su­perprecedent?

IIRC, thats a misrepresentation. Klobuchar asked ACB about a law article that ACB wrote about the concept of super-precedent and why ACB felt that RvW did not fall  into that category.

And her answer seemed to be as lots of people are concerned and talking about RvW, it seemed to her that the issue of it as a super-precedent, or even a precedent was still an open question,

which means as long as the dark money ghouls fund the right wing and religious right and the right to life lawyers to talk about it and try to dismantle the law, and put milllions of women at risk, she was compelled to listen.

And perhaps grab a few speaking fees and all expenses paid boon doggles along the way.

[Yankguy1]

I have you and your scholarship here. Why do I need to ask Klobuchar?

Amy Klobucharwas ask­ing Judge Bar­rett about the hold of prece­dent, and iden­ti­fiedBrown v. Board of Ed­u­ca­tion (1954) as “su­perpecedent” then asked if Roe v Wade is su­perprecedent?

It's like fucking pulling teeth with you. Between Klobuchar and Barrett who was the first to discuss the concept of "super-precedent"? Hint: It wasn't Klobuchar. Barrett wrote about super-precedent a good time ago. Long before she was a gleam in Trump's eye. But at least you know now that she's "Judge" Barrett. Baby steps!!!