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

[NeedsAdjustments]

Kava said that neither Roe nor PP v Casey was consistent with the Glucksberg test.   That's pretty unambiguous opp to Roe.  If Collins really meant all those pretty statements about defending abortion rights,  then she must vote no on Kava.   If K sides with the Rehnquist dissent,  then he would likely shoot down Roe if it came Scotus...or at least chip away at abortion rights however he could.

Chipping away at abortion rights is a given with Kavanaugh on the court.  State laws restricting access and otherwise fucking with the proper administration of women's health would be onthe docket, and we know exactly how he will judge each and every one of them.

The question of whether or not Roe v. Wade would actually be under fire would be more of a question if Kavanaugh himself didn't opine on how many current justices would find against it if a straight reversal was put on their desks.    I think that reversal is only unlikely for political reasons, not because the conservatives on this court just wouldn't dare overturning the precedent.

And btw, of course Collins is full of shit on her promise to defend Roe v. Wade.  She is trying to have it both ways.  If Kavanaugh wasn't expressly antagonistic against the decision, no matter what he said in his hearing (we already know he is more than capable of lying when it suits him) then why does he have the support of the anti-abortion factions?

[REDSTATEWARD]

Kava said that neither Roe nor PP v Casey was consistent with the Glucksberg test.   That's pretty unambiguous opp to Roe.  If Collins really meant all those pretty statements about defending abortion rights,  then she must vote no on Kava.   If K sides with the Rehnquist dissent,  then he would likely shoot down Roe if it came Scotus...or at least chip away at abortion rights however he could.

Chipping away at abortion rights is a given with Kavanaugh on the court.  State laws restricting access and otherwise fucking with the proper administration of women's health would be onthe docket, and we know exactly how he will judge each and every one of them.

The question of whether or not Roe v. Wade would actually be under fire would be more of a question if Kavanaugh himself didn't opine on how many current justices would find against it if a straight reversal was put on their desks.    I think that reversal is only unlikely for political reasons, not because the conservatives on this court just wouldn't dare overturning the precedent.

And btw, of course Collins is full of shit on her promise to defend Roe v. Wade.  She is trying to have it both ways.  If Kavanaugh wasn't expressly antagonistic against the decision, no matter what he said in his hearing (we already know he is more than capable of lying when it suits him) then why does he have the support of the anti-abortion factions?

What’s your point other than to call people liars by making up statements they never made.
Kavanaugh does not agree with Roe v Wade.
Neither did Ginsburg.
But that has nothing to do with what is now what we live with. 

[Hamilton Samuels]

No. You didn't. You just think you did.

Your perception has been tainted by the assumptions you've made, and the lies and distortions you've both created and been fed.

So, run along and play your role.

Everything I need to know about you is in what you post.

Whatever you say, Larry.

Because rating anyone here by what they post is like judging a fine wine by it's label, only.

Ciao, chump.

Um, I’m supposed to “know” you by what you DON’T write?

What, I’m supposed to uncork you and let you breathe before I discover what I already know, you’re rancid vinegar?

Get the fuck out of here with that nonsense!

The point is, dim one, you don't truly know anyone here, anymore than you know George Will or Maureen Dowd or Bret Stephens.

You're delusional, if you think otherwise.

Well, I did have a nice conversation over cocktails some years back with George Will and C. Boydon Gray at Cleta Mitchell’s House... that would have been in early aughts.

If what you post is not what you truly think or believe than I am positive I know your one most important attribute, you’re totally full of shit.

Sure, Larry. You turn every conversation into a referendum on black history, no matter the case, then spin it to talking ALL ABOUT YOU, and other people are the ones who are "full of shit".

Fuck off, loser.

[Hamilton Samuels]

No. You didn't. You just think you did.

Your perception has been tainted by the assumptions you've made, and the lies and distortions you've both created and been fed.

So, run along and play your role.

Everything I need to know about you is in what you post.

Whatever you say, Larry.

Because rating anyone here by what they post is like judging a fine wine by it's label, only.

Ciao, chump.

Um, I’m supposed to “know” you by what you DON’T write?

What, I’m supposed to uncork you and let you breathe before I discover what I already know, you’re rancid vinegar?

Get the fuck out of here with that nonsense!

The point is, dim one, you don't truly know anyone here, anymore than you know George Will or Maureen Dowd or Bret Stephens.

You're delusional, if you think otherwise.

What you don't get, Utley, and never have, is that it is far simpler than you think it is.

You are either the person you present to us when you post, who likes to threaten and attack others...

Or you are a person who likes to pretend to be the person you are when you post, including all the threatening.

Oh, so much better.

Clearly you are delusional as your only black friend, josh.

[NeedsAdjustments]

Kavanaugh does not agree with Roe v Wade.
Neither did Ginsburg.

False equivalence.

Ginsberg believes Roe was decided on the wrong constitutional right, thinking its stronger on an equal protection argument than one based in privacy. 

Kavanaugh's belief that Glucksberg should guide the court on the right to abortion indicates that he thinks the constitution does not protect that right, thus no argument could be made to support Roe.

I ask again...if Kavanaugh really does not present any threat to a woman's right to choose, why does he have the support of factions that would outlaw abortion?

[NeedsAdjustments]

What’s your point other than to call people liars by making up statements they never made.

BTW, not sure what the above is supposed to mean.  What statement did I make up?

I was referencing the fact that 20 seconds into his being nominated, Kavanaugh relayed an obvious falsehood to all of America:

No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.

Outside of the fact that he would have no way of knowing this is true, its obviously bullshit.  It was a politically convenient flasehood that Kavanaugh had no problem with making public.  He didn't have to lie so blatantly, but he said it because he knew it would make Trump happy. 

[REDSTATEWARD]

Kavanaugh does not agree with Roe v Wade.
Neither did Ginsburg.

False equivalence.

Ginsberg believes Roe was decided on the wrong constitutional right, thinking its stronger on an equal protection argument than one based in privacy. 

Kavanaugh's belief that Glucksberg should guide the court on the right to abortion indicates that he thinks the constitution does not protect that right, thus no argument could be made to support Roe.

Thanks for underscoring my point. Neither Kavanaugh nor Ginsberg agree with Roe, while they have different feelings about abortion.  Both also agree that Roe is settled.

I ask again...if Kavanaugh really does not present any threat to a woman's right to choose, why does he have the support of factions that would outlaw abortion?

Probably because he opposes abortion.

[REDSTATEWARD]

What’s your point other than to call people liars by making up statements they never made.

BTW, not sure what the above is supposed to mean.  What statement did I make up?

I was referencing the fact that 20 seconds into his being nominated, Kavanaugh relayed an obvious falsehood to all of America:

No president has ever consulted more widely, or talked with more people from more backgrounds, to seek input about a Supreme Court nomination.

Outside of the fact that he would have no way of knowing this is true, its obviously bullshit.  It was a politically convenient flasehood that Kavanaugh had no problem with making public.  He didn't have to lie so blatantly, but he said it because he knew it would make Trump happy.

You say it is false? How would you know?
Kavanaugh certainly is no stranger to the workings of the White House vis a vis SCOTUS.

[NeedsAdjustments]

Thanks for underscoring my point. Neither Kavanaugh nor Ginsberg agree with Roe, while they have different feelings about abortion. 

It isn't about their view on abortion.  Its about whether their views on how Roe v. Wade was decided would effect their postions on Roe v. Wade.  Ginsberg beleives the outcome of that decision was correct.  Kavanaugh does not.

Both also agree that Roe is settled.

Ginsberg has proven through numerous decisions and descents that she would uphold Roe v. Wade.  Kavanaugh has caleld it "important precedent" during a confirmation hearing, when there are previous speeches and documentation that indicate a willingness to overturn that precedent.

Again, a false equivalence.

But lets bookmark your unquestioning contention that Kavanaugh sees Roe as untouchable law of the land, and see how long that holds up.

[NeedsAdjustments]

You say it is false? How would you know?

LOL.

How would he know?

No one has talked with more people, of more different backgrounds?  Trump?

Kavanaugh certainly is no stranger to the workings of the White House vis a vis SCOTUS.

LOL.

No president....  Kavanaugh has been privy to the workings of the White House for over 200 years? 

[REDSTATEWARD]

Thanks for underscoring my point. Neither Kavanaugh nor Ginsberg agree with Roe, while they have different feelings about abortion. 

It isn't about their view on abortion.  Its about whether their views on how Roe v. Wade was decided would effect their postions on Roe v. Wade. 

Wanna try that one again?

Ginsberg beleives the outcome of that decision was correct Kavanaugh does not.

Wrong. Ginsberg believes Roe v Wade “ short circuited” the process of making abortion legal and took the decision to have an abortion away from women and gave it to doctors.
Her only agreement with Roe is that it declared a Texas Law unconstitutional. She has argued for years that SCOTUS went too far with Roe.

Both also agree that Roe is settled.


Ginsberg has proven through numerous decisions and descents that she would uphold Roe v. Wade.  Kavanaugh has caleld it "important precedent" during a confirmation hearing, when there are previous speeches and documentation that indicate a willingness to overturn that precedent.

Again, a false equivalence.

No, an agreement that Roe v Wade cannot be overturned.

But lets bookmark your unquestioning contention that Kavanaugh sees Roe as untouchable law of the land, and see how long that holds up.

Fine by me

[oilcan]

Redward, this seems like a very literal way of looking at what SCt nominees say (or earlier opine).  The point of hearings is not to split hairs, but to find out if a nominee has a bias regarding settled law that would potentially compel them to overturn it, if the chance presented itself.  Ginsburgh clearly expresses, all through her career, that she wants to support abortion rights.  Even if Roe v Wade didn't implement this the way she wanted, she isn't going to overturn it in a situation that would send us to The Handmaid's Tale, or at least have low-income women faced with only the option of traveling to another state to get an abortion (i.e. denying abortion to those who lack funds for this).  Kavanaugh, meanwhile, expresses clearly, all through his career, his opposition to abortion, even going so far as to question the fundamental basis of Roe v Wade and stating that it doesn't meet the Glucksberg Test.  This is very far from an agreement that Roe can't be overturned.  Saying "I really liked the dissenting opinion of Justice Rehnquist" is not really an affirmation of Roe, and you can't really think you can peddle that spin here.

[REDSTATEWARD]

You say it is false? How would you know?

LOL.

How would he know?

No one has talked with more people, of more different backgrounds?  Trump?

Kavanaugh certainly is no stranger to the workings of the White House vis a vis SCOTUS.

LOL.

No president....  Kavanaugh has been privy to the workings of the White House for over 200 years?

You mean there are no law books, history books, nor other forms of research writings like the Library of Congress, the SCOTUS Library, the National Archives, Presidential Libraries, etc. that a potential Supreme Court Justice would not spend a lot of time studying the history of the Court and the Presidency?
Really?

[NeedsAdjustments]

Ginsberg believes Roe v Wade “ short circuited” the process of making abortion legal and took the decision to have an abortion away from women and gave it to doctors.
Her only agreement with Roe is that it declared a Texas Law unconstitutional. She has argued for years that SCOTUS went too far with Roe.

Each of the above sentences is false, and I have not hope of you ever admitting that here.  There is nothing in Ginsberg's history that indicates that she would overturn Roe v. Wade if given the opportunity, but is only being constrained by precedent. 

There is that indication not only in Kavanaugh's history, but in the responses he gave during his confirmation hearings re: Glucksberg.

And even then...

No, an agreement that Roe v Wade cannot be overturned.

There is no reason to assume that Ginsberg and Kavanaugh see the binding power of Roe v. Wade the same way.  Kavanaugh has, at no point, said it "cannot be overturned." 

And if he had said that, or anything close to it, there would be a war within the Republican party over his nomination.  There isn't.

[NeedsAdjustments]

You say it is false? How would you know?

LOL.

How would he know?

No one has talked with more people, of more different backgrounds?  Trump?

Kavanaugh certainly is no stranger to the workings of the White House vis a vis SCOTUS.

LOL.

No president....  Kavanaugh has been privy to the workings of the White House for over 200 years?

You mean there are no law books, history books, nor other forms of research writings like the Library of Congress, the SCOTUS Library, the National Archives, Presidential Libraries, etc. that a potential Supreme Court Justice would not spend a lot of time studying the history of the Court and the Presidency?
Really?

LOL!

Even if those "law books" compared the number of people consulted and the backgrounds of each of those people that were consulted in each and every SCOTUS nomination (and of course, they do not) Kavanaugh is certainly not as privy to that process when it came to his own nomination.

And even if you believe that somehow Kavanaugh after exhaustive research that would take years is in possession of the  information he would need to have to make that statement, if you really believe that it would be true of any process headed up by Donald Trump you are hopeless.