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]

He warned, however, that the discussion surrounding by the response to the pandemic had been “governed by our two dominant political and media extremes: those who believe there is nothing to this virus and those alarmists who would continue to close down our country and not trust the common sense of the American people. Both are wrong.”




word


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/chris-christie-face-mask-wrong-white-house

[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?

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,

All scholar Red has to do is tell us what super-precedent is

[kiidcarter8]

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,



Pretty certain the good Judge was saying Roe was NOT a super precedent.  There really shouldnt be any confusion on the matter

[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?

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,

All scholar Red has to do is tell us what super-precedent is

Amy Klobuchar was ask­ing Judge Bar­rett about the hold of prece­dent, and identified Brown v. Board of Ed­u­ca­tion (1954) as “su­perpecedent” then asked if Roe v Wade is su­perprecedent?
Webster definition could not be clearer.
But thanks for playing 

[Yankguy1]

How about you Kid? Can you explain the supposed constitutional concept of super-precedent? It appears our favored scholar has taken a sabbatical.

[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,

All scholar Red has to do is tell us what super-precedent is

I think at this point, 4 years into his term and not one objection it seems pretty clear Red thinks trump is a super precedent.

[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?

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,

All scholar Red has to do is tell us what super-precedent is

Amy Klobuchar was ask­ing Judge Bar­rett about the hold of prece­dent, and identified Brown v. Board of Ed­u­ca­tion (1954) as “su­perpecedent” then asked if Roe v Wade is su­perprecedent?
Webster definition could not be clearer.
But thanks for playing

So you have no idea what super-precedent is? How did you achieve such renown? The kind of renown that allows you to boldly call a U. Of Chicago Law grad a "a constitutional idiot."

[LarryBnDC]

Best moments from the Amy Coney Barrett responses to stupid democrat questions about the Constitution:

Amy Klobuchar was ask­ing Judge Bar­rett about the hold of prece­dent, and iden­ti­fied Brown v. Board of Ed­u­ca­tion (1954) as “su­perpecedent” then asked if Roe v Wade is su­perprecedent?
Barrett’s response was a polite SAY WHAT?

 “I’m an­swer­ing a lot of ques­tions about Roe, which I think in­di­cates that Roe doesn’t fall into that cat­e­gory.”

Sen. Dick Durbin asked why Bar­rett ruled in a 2019 case that states can­not strip Sec­ond Amend­ment rights from felons who’ve com­pleted their sentences with­out proof that they are dangerous but main­tained that felons can be stripped of vot­ing rights.
Bar­rett calmly explained that these rights are found in dif­fer­ent parts of the Con­sti­tu­tion and that the vot­ing rules are left to the states.
Durban then quickly moved on.

Either the Senators are Constitutional idiots or their staffs are.

Look. It’s a done deal

You’re getting the seat.

It’s gonna exact a high price.

[LarryBnDC]

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.

You know he meant well...

[bankshot1]

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,



Pretty certain the good Judge was saying Roe was NOT a super precedent.  There really shouldnt be any confusion on the matter

Despite her 2-days of evasive non-answers, it was pretty clear where ACB stood on RvW.

[facilitatorn]

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.

Local school funding plus redlining put that ship on the outbound tide long ago, to the further shrinkage of your micropenis.

[kiidcarter8]

This is how the good Judge explains it, YG.  I admit to not having heard the term prior to the hearing Monday

.......a matter “so well settled that no political actors push further overruling.”



I think she had other (similar) wording as well.  I'd have to check my DVR.

[kiidcarter8]

Despite her 2-days of evasive non-answers, it was pretty clear where ACB stood on RvW.



Right

But she will be led by the law, not act wily-nily by the law of Amy.

[Yankguy1]

This is how the good Judge explains it, YG.  I admit to not having heard the term prior to the hearing Monday

.......a matter “so well settled that no political actors push further overruling.”



I think she had other (similar) wording as well.  I'd have to check my DVR.

Thank you. Even Kid could explain the meaning no matter how silly it is, Red. Aren't you ashamed?

[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?

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,

All scholar Red has to do is tell us what super-precedent is

Amy Klobuchar was ask­ing Judge Bar­rett about the hold of prece­dent, and identified Brown v. Board of Ed­u­ca­tion (1954) as “su­perpecedent” then asked if Roe v Wade is su­perprecedent?
Webster definition could not be clearer.
But thanks for playing

So you have no idea what super-precedent is? How did you achieve such renown? The kind of renown that allows you to boldly call a U. Of Chicago Law grad a "a constitutional idiot."

Pretty obvious as I stated  .