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

[LarryBnDC]

As far as I can tell these "hearings" are Kabuki Theater anyway. Why shouldn't Booker do a little grandstanding, something he's really good at, to get the info out?

Booker was just bufoonish.
Kamala Harris, however, was just plain mean trying to play to her party base.
Guess she is trying to behave like Trump.

Sen. Booker bitch slapped John Cornyn for having the nerve to bring up rules and decorum - Merrick Garland, motherfuckers.

Sen. Harris asked questions for which she knew the answers and HE KNEW she had the answers and tried to split the difference between lying and answering truthfully. She made him look like Ralph Cramden stammering out some bullshit to Perry Mason, “Hominah hominah!”

You saw some damn fine lawyering on display by Senator Harris and a confident Senator Booker telling the GOP to have a seat.

You’re just mad you got mic dropped TWICE.

Harris and Booker were only preaching to democrats and the media.
(  sorry for the pleonastic formulation)
What they can’t get around is the scorecard for losing an election. 
President Trump has nominated two Supreme Court justices, 36 court of appeals judges and 99 district judges.
That’s 137 judges in roughly 19 months on the job. If he maintains this pace, Trump could replace more than 30 percent of all active judges by the end of his first term.

You ignore the GOP blocking judicial nominations in the minority. Why do think there are so many vacancies to fill after eight years of Obama? When the Senate blocked Merrick Garland you hollered about the Biden rule that doesn’t exist.

The GOP is full of shit.

The democrats only have themselves to blame.

For McConnell holding up a nomination for a year but expect Dems to roll over for this guy?
You act as if our national politics is a season of WWE.

You are a terrible American.

[REDSTATEWARD]

As far as I can tell these "hearings" are Kabuki Theater anyway. Why shouldn't Booker do a little grandstanding, something he's really good at, to get the info out?

Booker was just bufoonish.
Kamala Harris, however, was just plain mean trying to play to her party base.
Guess she is trying to behave like Trump.

Sen. Booker bitch slapped John Cornyn for having the nerve to bring up rules and decorum - Merrick Garland, motherfuckers.

Sen. Harris asked questions for which she knew the answers and HE KNEW she had the answers and tried to split the difference between lying and answering truthfully. She made him look like Ralph Cramden stammering out some bullshit to Perry Mason, “Hominah hominah!”

You saw some damn fine lawyering on display by Senator Harris and a confident Senator Booker telling the GOP to have a seat.

You’re just mad you got mic dropped TWICE.

Harris and Booker were only preaching to democrats and the media.
(  sorry for the pleonastic formulation)
What they can’t get around is the scorecard for losing an election. 
President Trump has nominated two Supreme Court justices, 36 court of appeals judges and 99 district judges.
That’s 137 judges in roughly 19 months on the job. If he maintains this pace, Trump could replace more than 30 percent of all active judges by the end of his first term.

You ignore the GOP blocking judicial nominations in the minority. Why do think there are so many vacancies to fill after eight years of Obama? When the Senate blocked Merrick Garland you hollered about the Biden rule that doesn’t exist.

The GOP is full of shit.

The democrats only have themselves to blame.

For McConnell holding up a nomination for a year but expect Dems to roll over for this guy?
You act as if our national politics is a season of WWE.

You are a terrible American.

Still using the failed Hillary strategy?

[oilcan]

Harris and Booker were only preaching to democrats and the media.
(sorry for the pleonastic formulation)

You mean "democrats and the media" ?  Heh.  Cute.

Here are some relevant facts....

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/19/572046189/three-trump-judicial-nominees-withdraw-raising-some-questions-about-vetting

This week Trump judicial nominee Matthew Petersen withdrew his name, amid controversy. It was the third such withdrawal in 10 days. Even so, President Trump's record on filling judicial vacancies has far outdistanced his predecessors.

Trump, aided by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has won confirmation of 12 appeals court nominees. That's more than any president in his first year, and indeed, more than Presidents Obama and George W. Bush combined.

Part of that success is due to the huge number of judicial vacancies that existed when Trump took office — 122. That staggering number is due to the fact that Republicans, who controlled the Senate in the last two years of the Obama presidency, confirmed only two appeals court judges — a record that dates back to the 1800s.

(....from same article)While the Obama administration sent all its potential nominees to the American Bar Association for rating as to qualifications, the Trump administration has refused to do that prior to nomination. And at the Senate Judiciary Committee, where traditionally appeals court nominees were considered on their own at a hearing, they now are routinely considered with several other judicial nominees, and senators have to pick and choose who they will question in the five or ten minutes allotted.

The result is that the vetting process at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue has become, as one Senate aide put it, an accident waiting to happen.

[REDSTATEWARD]

Harris and Booker were only preaching to democrats and the media.
(sorry for the pleonastic formulation)

You mean "democrats and the media" ?  Heh.  Cute.

Here are some relevant facts....

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/19/572046189/three-trump-judicial-nominees-withdraw-raising-some-questions-about-vetting

This week Trump judicial nominee Matthew Petersen withdrew his name, amid controversy. It was the third such withdrawal in 10 days. Even so, President Trump's record on filling judicial vacancies has far outdistanced his predecessors.

Trump, aided by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has won confirmation of 12 appeals court nominees. That's more than any president in his first year, and indeed, more than Presidents Obama and George W. Bush combined.

Part of that success is due to the huge number of judicial vacancies that existed when Trump took office — 122. That staggering number is due to the fact that Republicans, who controlled the Senate in the last two years of the Obama presidency, confirmed only two appeals court judges — a record that dates back to the 1800s.

(....from same article)While the Obama administration sent all its potential nominees to the American Bar Association for rating as to qualifications, the Trump administration has refused to do that prior to nomination. And at the Senate Judiciary Committee, where traditionally appeals court nominees were considered on their own at a hearing, they now are routinely considered with several other judicial nominees, and senators have to pick and choose who they will question in the five or ten minutes allotted.

The result is that the vetting process at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue has become, as one Senate aide put it, an accident waiting to happen.

Speaking of the ABA, it gave its highest endorsement, wiell-qualified, to Kavanaugh.
It is more meaningful in this case since the ABA has a well documented bias against judicial nominees of GOP presidents.

[LarryBnDC]

As far as I can tell these "hearings" are Kabuki Theater anyway. Why shouldn't Booker do a little grandstanding, something he's really good at, to get the info out?

Booker was just bufoonish.
Kamala Harris, however, was just plain mean trying to play to her party base.
Guess she is trying to behave like Trump.

Sen. Booker bitch slapped John Cornyn for having the nerve to bring up rules and decorum - Merrick Garland, motherfuckers.

Sen. Harris asked questions for which she knew the answers and HE KNEW she had the answers and tried to split the difference between lying and answering truthfully. She made him look like Ralph Cramden stammering out some bullshit to Perry Mason, “Hominah hominah!”

You saw some damn fine lawyering on display by Senator Harris and a confident Senator Booker telling the GOP to have a seat.

You’re just mad you got mic dropped TWICE.

Harris and Booker were only preaching to democrats and the media.
(  sorry for the pleonastic formulation)
What they can’t get around is the scorecard for losing an election. 
President Trump has nominated two Supreme Court justices, 36 court of appeals judges and 99 district judges.
That’s 137 judges in roughly 19 months on the job. If he maintains this pace, Trump could replace more than 30 percent of all active judges by the end of his first term.

You ignore the GOP blocking judicial nominations in the minority. Why do think there are so many vacancies to fill after eight years of Obama? When the Senate blocked Merrick Garland you hollered about the Biden rule that doesn’t exist.

The GOP is full of shit.

The democrats only have themselves to blame.

For McConnell holding up a nomination for a year but expect Dems to roll over for this guy?
You act as if our national politics is a season of WWE.

You are a terrible American.

Still using the failed Hillary strategy?

Still depending on gerrymandering, voter suppression and Russian agents?

[barton]

It's impossible to predict how the aging process is going to go for anyone.  Or how that will impact judgment, overall mental acuity, and mood.  Or openness to change and new ideas.  Some people grow petrified in their thoughts, others keep learning and upgrading their understanding.  I did not know Warren was 69 - she is certainly taking good care of herself.  As an American woman, she would have, statistically speaking, about 6 years greater longevity than a male candidate.  (In the UK, the advantage is about 5 years)  Given the unique rigors of the presidency, I would feel some concern for a candidate who started their term of office at age 80 or later, no matter how competent and capable a statesman they might be.

Reagan, W.H. Harrison, Buchanan, George HW Bush, and Taylor were our oldest presidents.  Trump now stands as the oldest president, being a few months older than Reagan, the previous recordholder, at inauguration.   Not the most compelling lineup if you want to argue the virtues of older presidents.  :-)

[barton]

Harris and Booker were only preaching to democrats and the media.
(sorry for the pleonastic formulation)

You mean "democrats and the media" ?  Heh.  Cute.

Here are some relevant facts....

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/19/572046189/three-trump-judicial-nominees-withdraw-raising-some-questions-about-vetting

This week Trump judicial nominee Matthew Petersen withdrew his name, amid controversy. It was the third such withdrawal in 10 days. Even so, President Trump's record on filling judicial vacancies has far outdistanced his predecessors.

Trump, aided by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has won confirmation of 12 appeals court nominees. That's more than any president in his first year, and indeed, more than Presidents Obama and George W. Bush combined.

Part of that success is due to the huge number of judicial vacancies that existed when Trump took office — 122. That staggering number is due to the fact that Republicans, who controlled the Senate in the last two years of the Obama presidency, confirmed only two appeals court judges — a record that dates back to the 1800s.

(....from same article)While the Obama administration sent all its potential nominees to the American Bar Association for rating as to qualifications, the Trump administration has refused to do that prior to nomination. And at the Senate Judiciary Committee, where traditionally appeals court nominees were considered on their own at a hearing, they now are routinely considered with several other judicial nominees, and senators have to pick and choose who they will question in the five or ten minutes allotted.

The result is that the vetting process at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue has become, as one Senate aide put it, an accident waiting to happen.

Speaking of the ABA, it gave its highest endorsement, wiell-qualified, to Kavanaugh.
It is more meaningful in this case since the ABA has a well documented bias against judicial nominees of GOP presidents.

You are evading Oil's point. 

As for "well documented" bias, kindly document it for us.  If you can.  And making sure you remove other factors, e.g. do GOP presidents tend to, on average, nominate less qualified persons? 

[LarryBnDC]

Trump’s head gonna explode when he sees this speech.

[REDSTATEWARD]

Harris and Booker were only preaching to democrats and the media.
(sorry for the pleonastic formulation)

You mean "democrats and the media" ?  Heh.  Cute.

Here are some relevant facts....

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/19/572046189/three-trump-judicial-nominees-withdraw-raising-some-questions-about-vetting

This week Trump judicial nominee Matthew Petersen withdrew his name, amid controversy. It was the third such withdrawal in 10 days. Even so, President Trump's record on filling judicial vacancies has far outdistanced his predecessors.

Trump, aided by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has won confirmation of 12 appeals court nominees. That's more than any president in his first year, and indeed, more than Presidents Obama and George W. Bush combined.

Part of that success is due to the huge number of judicial vacancies that existed when Trump took office — 122. That staggering number is due to the fact that Republicans, who controlled the Senate in the last two years of the Obama presidency, confirmed only two appeals court judges — a record that dates back to the 1800s.

(....from same article)While the Obama administration sent all its potential nominees to the American Bar Association for rating as to qualifications, the Trump administration has refused to do that prior to nomination. And at the Senate Judiciary Committee, where traditionally appeals court nominees were considered on their own at a hearing, they now are routinely considered with several other judicial nominees, and senators have to pick and choose who they will question in the five or ten minutes allotted.

The result is that the vetting process at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue has become, as one Senate aide put it, an accident waiting to happen.

Speaking of the ABA, it gave its highest endorsement, wiell-qualified, to Kavanaugh.
It is more meaningful in this case since the ABA has a well documented bias against judicial nominees of GOP presidents.

You are evading Oil's point. 

As for "well documented" bias, kindly document it for us.  If you can.  And making sure you remove other factors, e.g. do GOP presidents tend to, on average, nominate less qualified persons?

In 2001, Professor James Lindgren at Northwestern University Law School examined ABA ratings for nominees to the U.S. Court of Appeals by Presidents George H. W. Bush and Clinton. Controlling for several objective credentials, Lindgren found that, for nominees without prior judicial experience, Clinton nominees were nearly ten times more likely than Bush nominees to be rated as well qualified.


Also in 2001, the Journal of Law & Politics published a study of this subject by John Lott of the American Enterprise Institute. Lott supplemented Lindgren’s measures of professional competence and also found that “being a Clinton nominee significantly raises the probability that someone will be given a ‘well-qualified’ recommendation from the ABA.”

In 2009, three political scientists addressed this issue, publishing their findings in Political Research Quarterly. These scholars used two different models; each showed bias in favor of Democratic judicial nominees. Moreover, they found, this bias was especially pronounced in the likelihood that a nominee would be rated well qualified.


John Lott, now with the University of Maryland, revisited this subject in 2013. Using a larger data set, he again found that the ABA “systematically giv[es] lower ratings to Republican circuit court nominees.”
This history of controversy over the ABA’s ratings, validated by studies showing systematic and even dramatic bias against Republican nominees, might counsel dismissing anything the ABA has to say. But, in a somewhat unusual way, it actually makes the ABA’s rating of Kavanaugh even more meaningful.


The ABA unanimously gave Kavanaugh its highest well qualified rating. Its published criteria explain what this means for a Supreme Court nominee:

A Supreme Court nominee should possess an especially high degree of legal scholarship, academic talent, analytical and writing abilities, and overall excellence. The ability to write clearly and persuasively, to harmonize a body of law, and to give meaningful guidance to trial courts, circuit courts and the bar for future cases are particularly important skills for a Supreme Court nominee. . . . To merit the Committee’s rating of “Well Qualified,” a Supreme Court nominee must be a preeminent member of the legal profession, have outstanding legal ability and exceptional breadth of experience, and meet the very highest standards of integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament. The rating of “Well Qualified” is reserved for those found to merit the Committee’s strongest affirmative endorsement.


If Kavanaugh, nominated by a Republican president, can get such applause from an organization known for documented bias against judicial nominees of Republican presidents, he must be a good choice.

[kiidcarter8]

https://twitter.com/GOPPollAnalyst/status/1038103905320816641

[bankshot1]

I'm sure like the vast majority of nominees to the SC with deep judicial experience, Kav checks the ABAs boxes for being well qualified.

The issue isn't whether he is smart or a good writer or has a brilliant legal mind, its whether his political biases render him as a tainted puppet.

There is a deep and reasonable concern that Trump nominated Kav primarily due to his long-standing political biases and his demonstrated leanings that he will be a willing accomplice in the ongoing the obstruction of justice that Trump has been engaged in. His feeling about Roe also are known, no matter how much he tries to hide and evade the matter.

He is however a fine girl's hoops coach.

I hope none of them ever face the choice of an unwanted pregnancy and turn to coach K for advice.

Your laissez faire attitude toward the poisoning of American democracy is noted.

[kiidcarter8]

 Why? Do unwanted (unplanned) pregnancies never end well?

[bankshot1]

Why? Do unwanted (unplanned) pregnancies never end well?

I'm sure many unwanted pregnancies end well.

But clearly some do not.

And what right do I have to tell a young girl, or a woman of any age what she should do regarding a very private matter?


But i'd love to hear what Coach K would tell his 13 YO point guard, who confided in him as the only person she could turn to, and told him she did not want to see this pregnancy to term.

Would he bench her?

 

[kiidcarter8]

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1038093117927247872

very sad

Credit the current administration for the attention it has given in beginning the fight of combating opiate addiction.

Maybe between jokes today the Amateur (44) could tell us what he did to help this cause....

nah - never mind

[LarryBnDC]

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1038093117927247872

very sad

Credit the current administration for the attention it has given in beginning the fight of combating opiate addiction.

Maybe between jokes today the Amateur (44) could tell us what he did to help this cause....

nah - never mind

Amateur as opposed to the Professional Ringling Bros. clown in the Oval today?