HikerGuy83
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2021
- Messages
- 7,279
- Reaction score
- 2,934
- Location
- Arizona
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I wonder if he will bow down and worship me then?
Maybe you should be a SCOTUS judge.
I wonder if he will bow down and worship me then?
I don't even think they should be allowed in serious threads. It's an insult to thinking people.
There could be a "no memes" sub forum or something. It doesn't particularly matter. I just feel like most people who communicate in memes are Twitter types; and I despise Twitter.Since there are very few such threads, it wouldn't make much difference.
Interesting response.wow, now that clown in the video is really the sort of commentator that matters to me. he doesn't have a clue about what counts as relevant experience. and he is lying. He concedes she might have a LSAT score a "little above average"
This guy is worthless as a source of an opinion-and I have seen some of his other nonsense.
what bullshit. Most experienced supreme court nominee in history? He certainly had a long run on the court of appeals. but the most experienced in history?
Popularity is a telltale sign of an inexperienced judge. No one who's been on the bench for any length of time and left a paper trail justifying difficult decisions on hot-button issues would ever be very popular.
How so?
Found it, was a youtube video where it was claimed, and I quote "There is literally nobody, sitting on the supreme court, that has her wide range of legal experience."
I misremembered it as "more experience".
This video, to be precise:
That doesn’t begin to count the tally that goes back to the pre-internet, dial-up modem, CompuServe days.He's got 15,000 posts.
You have 2,300 posts.
If he's inexperienced, what does that make you ?
Someone who really doesn't have an answer to his post.
And those without a sense of humor.I don't even think they should be allowed in serious threads. It's an insult to thinking people.
Sour grapes.All I'm saying is that the whole experience issue rings a little hollow when the most experienced nominee in history never even got a hearing.
He didn't respond to it. He explained it. There's a big difference there.So you say they're intended for "low-IQ individuals" and you ... responded to it.
Hmmm.
Nice of you to try and help help him, but he stepped on that rake and we all saw it.He didn't respond to it. He explained it. There's a big difference there.
How so?
This is 100% correct. It was an extremely dumb question asked.“Not in this context. I’m not a biologist,” Jackson said.
She didn't take Blackburn's bait.
He's got 15,000 posts.
You have 2,300 posts.
If he's inexperienced, what does that make you ?
Someone who really doesn't have an answer to his post.
Don't let him derail the thread.
The subject of the thread is that she is the most popular in recent history.
Now, given:
Given the strong partisan divisions in the country and the lack of useful information from the MSM, it's not surprising at all.
And the question has to be.
Who really cares.
Once she's on the bench, she's on the bench.
Good grief.
We let Sotomeyer on.
Talk about setting the bar low.
Are you sure about that?She's not an originalist, for one.
She chose not to define the term in the context of Blackburn's stupid question. A very smart move for a judge who will likely have a case involving the transgendered before her. She is exceptionally bright and astute especially compared to Blackburn's stupid and blatant attempt to catch her......a swing and a miss.The woman can't define woman.
That’s one perspective. That that line will come to haunt her the rest of her time on the bench is another.She chose not to define the term in the context of Blackburn's stupid question. A very smart move for a judge who will likely have a case involving the transgendered before her. She is exceptionally bright and astute especially compared to Blackburn's stupid and blatant attempt to catch her......a swing and a miss.
I very much doubt that.That’s one perspective. That that line will come to haunt her the rest of her time on the bench is another.
WTF???At least she doesn't just make up doctrine out of thin air like...pretty much all the conservative justices on the court. I will say that I am occasionally moderately impressed with Gorsuch and Roberts, both of whom at least seem occasionally - once a year, maybe - coming up with a decision that looks as though they actually considered court doctrine and the original intent of the Constitution. Sotomayor is consistent in her positions, and she uses doctrine and other evidence to support them.
If that's the line that haunts her, will mean, that's the worse the MAGA's can come up with, sorta like 57 states "haunted Obama.That’s one perspective. That that line will come to haunt her the rest of her time on the bench is another.