Potential SCOTUS Nomimee
- Thread starter Wildabeest
- Start date
- Status
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I'm not "the right" and I wasn't born during the times of FDR so whatever was said then about him was by somebody else - I was speaking for myself as a pragmatic centrist in 2020. But what we are experiencing with AOC et al is not FDR or Kennedy it is Hewey Long and Hugo Chavez. I have direct personal experience with what has happened in Venezuela and it is shocking - and there are parallels whether you want to see them or not. I am fine with the Bill Clinton DEMS, or the O'Neil DEMS, or 20th century Biden DEMS or the Kennedy DEMS; I was happy to vote for Amy Koubachar if she had gotten the nomination, but that is not at all parallel to what the likes of AOC want. I don't need to make up a boogyman - history gives those to us.
As for the young wanting change, the people of Venezuela wanted change too, but what they got was a nightmare right out of Animal Farm. I am all for change, but not the change the leftmost are driving. For example, the Minneapolis mayor was interviewed and asked if she wanted zero armed police and she said yes. When she was asked what would happen when someone was breaking into your house and you called 911 she said an armed officer would only escalate things - but that then next day the city would send over a safety consultant to talk to the victim about better locks and alarm systems. This is NOT made up - this is factual - the leftmost amongst us are living in a fantasy land. I am not attacking traditional liberals or traditional DEMS - it is the self proclaimed "progressives" and anarchists that I speak of.
Again, I am not happy with the right either, and I want all to move to the middle, but let's not pretend AOC is harmless or her vision of America would result in more jobs, a better environment, or a healthier population (just ask Venezuelans about jobs, health care and the environment under leftist rule)
And now (except for questions from @Randi) I am going hunting - have fun all.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
She may be too boring for an SNL skit.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,703
She has seven kids. That’s enough to mark her as a degenerate to some....
Opposition to her nomination will not take the track of she has too many sins in her past to be a good nominee. It will track along the lines of “she hasn’t sinned enough to not judge harshly those who aren’t in harmony with Papal dogma.”
R
rwc101
Guest
You only have an hour of daylight left. Shoulda quit this thread a bit earlier. Far more productive in the woods.
406dn
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 2,310
Without evidence, you again raise the boogyman that anyone including AOC intends to model Venezuela. At least you dropped Cuba,,,maybe a move to the middle.
AOC is the latest lightning rod for the right to smear. For years it was Pelosi and her San Francisco values. The melody rarely changes, the lyrics get a rewrite as needed.
I am not a big fan of AOC but she does speak to a significant segment of our society. Their and her perspectives are part of the compromise when meeting in the middle. To dismiss them out of hand really isn't meeting in the middle.
A significant segment of society is broke by choice, lazy, entitled and economically illiterate.
That ideology has nothing to offer anybody with a sense of self worth, work ethic or self esteem. Believing in it sets people up for a life of mystery. I know a bunch of them. It is unfortunate. A small change in attitude and a little belief in themselves instead of thinking they’re victims of whatever the injustice of the day is and they could be doing great for themselves.
Last edited:
BuzzH
Well-known member
A significant segment of society is broke morally, ethically, by entitled greed, inherited wealth, corruption, and the almighty dollar sign...so we'll call it even.
That ideology has nothing to offer either.
The middle ground is being steam rolled.
Agreed.
When an oligarchy controls the government, perhaps those screaming loudest to expand the influence of government even further are off track.
The vast majority of people that are doing poorly aren’t doing poorly because a handful of rich pricks on the coast are doing extremely well.
I’d much rather think about how 50 million people could do better for themselves than spend a bunch of time pretending that the government that the oligarchs own is going to bring the oligarchs down a level or two with just a bit more power.
We gave them a ton more power this year and they killed 20+% of my county’s small businesses while the Amazons of the country flourished.
Last edited:
BuzzH
Well-known member
Any more off track than the US billionaires club increasing their wealth in the first couple months of the shutdown by 500 billion? You know, while 20 million hard working Americans lost their jobs...and another 12 million lost their health insurance?
Any more off track than the wealthiest Americans screaming the loudest so that their corporate tax rates are cut to 21%?
Etc. etc. etc.
Like I said, the middle ground is toast...
Trump is a unique individual, but his brand of crazy will pass with him. The new DEM party has a huge element that is charting a new path towards the failed leftist policies of Venezuela and Cuba - they are young, they are large in numbers and they will be reshaping America for the next 40 years. And even though I am pissed at the current GOP, I have much graver concerns about the emerging left.
I actually wish the "Unity" thing posted a while back would work, but it won't. I miss Ted Kennedy and Bush working together; Reagan and Tip getting things done. But I fear those days have passed for a while. Maybe they will return in a decade or two.
[/QUOTE]
Mencius Moldbug and his blog
www.unqualified-reservations.org
Has many posts regarding why the "centrist" platform and strategy from the Republican side necessarily betrays the conservative base, sooner or later. He originally came up with the "Cathedral" theory, in essence saying that the political power resides in select factions of society dominated by "progressive left" ideology and the this "centrist" compromise is only allowed because it doesn't threaten the leftist goals. The Left is in control of the Overton Window and any "conservative" they allow in is only tolerated for the appearance of conflict. His idea that we as society know the dangers of a state run media, but not the risks of a media-run state also seems prescient. He also predicted a trump-like figure as one way to attack this Cathedral because they wouldn't take him seriously, and that was back in 2008. His series of Letters to Open-minded Progressives is especially good reading for these times. Such a good resource for an interesting and unique perspective.
I actually wish the "Unity" thing posted a while back would work, but it won't. I miss Ted Kennedy and Bush working together; Reagan and Tip getting things done. But I fear those days have passed for a while. Maybe they will return in a decade or two.
[/QUOTE]
Mencius Moldbug and his blog
Unqualified Reservations by Mencius Moldbug
Unqualified Reservations by Mencius Moldbug. Ebook links and full chronological archive. An introduction to neoreaction (NRx).
www.unqualified-reservations.org
Has many posts regarding why the "centrist" platform and strategy from the Republican side necessarily betrays the conservative base, sooner or later. He originally came up with the "Cathedral" theory, in essence saying that the political power resides in select factions of society dominated by "progressive left" ideology and the this "centrist" compromise is only allowed because it doesn't threaten the leftist goals. The Left is in control of the Overton Window and any "conservative" they allow in is only tolerated for the appearance of conflict. His idea that we as society know the dangers of a state run media, but not the risks of a media-run state also seems prescient. He also predicted a trump-like figure as one way to attack this Cathedral because they wouldn't take him seriously, and that was back in 2008. His series of Letters to Open-minded Progressives is especially good reading for these times. Such a good resource for an interesting and unique perspective.
As you typed, I was editing my comment to mention that too.
Weird isn’t it. That a government controlled by billionaires used a public health crisis to ignore the health crisis and orchestrate a wealth transfer from small business to big.
(While those proclaiming to be progressive cheered the loudest about it, and still want the restrictions on small businesses).
Those are the ones we need to give more power to.
it was really neat how the chain restaurants in town got millions while my neighbor closed hers, has her home in short sale and is giving up on our entire country and is moving back to Chiapas where she is ‘allowed to sell tacos’.
The left cheered for her demise and shrieked and are still shrieking when the governor said she could sell tacos at 50% occupancy.
One less semi fluent immigrant for the owners of the Mexican chain restaurants in town to have to worry about.
Last edited:
BuzzH
Well-known member
Weird? No, totally predictable, yes.
Any small business that really thinks uncle sugar is looking out for them first...well, you have it coming when you find out that isn't true.
young people want change. This has been stated a couple of times on this thread and yes the young people I know would like to see some things change But, I bet when April was in her twenties her and her friends wanted some things changed. I bet when vikings guy and noharleyyet were in their twenties they wanted some things changed. I am not so sure "we" young people are any different than the young people in the past, in many ways.
None of the young people I know in Alaska and Texas want America to be like Venezuela or Cuba. I dont know one person, young, middle, age or old that wants an "AOC" America.
Obviously, birds of a feather, flock together and we are all middle class young people. Without a doubt there are young people from other walks of life, circumstances, zip codes, that do agree with AOC and her view of what America should look like.
But not all of us !
Vikingsguy . I do understand your point (s) in post 155 in regards to police officers and hope that utopia can someday exist but until then, each of us, even a well trained police officer has the right to protect his life and actually took an oath to protect others. (innocent bystanders ). Maybe some money can go toward training these officers to be better shots and to shot the gun out of the bad guys hand. The marshals in the movies I watch with my grandfather could do that. Even Doc Holiday could do that
Good luck on your hunt . Have fun.
It sounds like those against Amy will be pushing the loss of Obamacare if she was to be confirmed. I dont think anybody will believe that at this point abortions will suddenly be against the law and the ramifications mentioned in prior posts, that they might upset Catholic voters if they go that direction. The two children of color she adopted from Haiti possibly also works for her and Roe vs Wade is settled law. I am guessing those against her will push, you will lose affordable health care.
one last point. When some complain about this nomination being pushed through, I suggest they read how Obamacare got through both houses of congress. I watched a very old movie with my grandfather last night called "Cat on a hot tin roof" and in the movie one of the actors asked."do you smell that ? The smell of mendacity " I often wonder how our representatives in Wash can say some things with a straight face.
None of the young people I know in Alaska and Texas want America to be like Venezuela or Cuba. I dont know one person, young, middle, age or old that wants an "AOC" America.
Obviously, birds of a feather, flock together and we are all middle class young people. Without a doubt there are young people from other walks of life, circumstances, zip codes, that do agree with AOC and her view of what America should look like.
But not all of us !
Vikingsguy . I do understand your point (s) in post 155 in regards to police officers and hope that utopia can someday exist but until then, each of us, even a well trained police officer has the right to protect his life and actually took an oath to protect others. (innocent bystanders ). Maybe some money can go toward training these officers to be better shots and to shot the gun out of the bad guys hand. The marshals in the movies I watch with my grandfather could do that. Even Doc Holiday could do that
Good luck on your hunt . Have fun.
It sounds like those against Amy will be pushing the loss of Obamacare if she was to be confirmed. I dont think anybody will believe that at this point abortions will suddenly be against the law and the ramifications mentioned in prior posts, that they might upset Catholic voters if they go that direction. The two children of color she adopted from Haiti possibly also works for her and Roe vs Wade is settled law. I am guessing those against her will push, you will lose affordable health care.
one last point. When some complain about this nomination being pushed through, I suggest they read how Obamacare got through both houses of congress. I watched a very old movie with my grandfather last night called "Cat on a hot tin roof" and in the movie one of the actors asked."do you smell that ? The smell of mendacity " I often wonder how our representatives in Wash can say some things with a straight face.
Last edited:
Regarding RvW, it's way too juicy of a soundbite for these politicians to pass up. That's what these hearings are about, they clearly aren't a good faith attempt to vett the credentials of the nominee, they are used as an opportunity to get a soundbite that helps their re-election campaign. Since the current Overton Window we're provided demands viewing abortion as women's "healthcare" it's a useful tactic for them to fixate on it. It's a twofer, the soundbite can be used as both pro-woman and pro-healthcare. The fact that even if RvW was struck down just means it becomes a state by state issue will be ignored like you said.young people want change. This has been stated a couple of times on this thread and yes the young people I know would like to see some things change But, I bet when April was in her twenties her and her friends wanted some things changed. I bet when vikings guy and noharleyyet were in their twenties they wanted some things changed. I am not so sure "we" young people are any different than the young people in the past, in many ways.
None of the young people I know in Alaska and Texas want America to be like Venezuela or Cuba. I dont know one person, young, middle, age or old that wants an "AOC" America.
Obviously, birds of a feather, flock together and we are all middle class young people. Without a doubt there are young people from other walks of life, circumstances, zip codes, that do agree with AOC and her view of what America should look like.
But not all of us !
Vikingsguy . I do understand your point (s) in post 155 in regards to police officers and hope that utopia can someday exist but until then, each of us, even a well trained police officer has the right to protect his life and actually took an oath to protect others. (innocent bystanders ). Maybe some money can go toward training these officers to be better shots and to shot the gun out of the bad guys hand. The marshals in the movies I watch with my grandfather could do that. Even Doc Holiday could do that
Good luck on your hunt . Have fun.
It sounds like those against Amy will be pushing the loss of Obamacare if she was to be confirmed. I dont think anybody will believe that at this point abortions will suddenly be against the law and the ramifications mentioned in prior posts, that they might upset Catholic voters if they go that direction. The two children of color she adopted from Haiti possibly also works for her and Roe vs Wade is settled law. I am guessing those against her will push, you will lose affordable health care.
one last point. When some complain about this nomination being pushed through, I suggest they read how Obamacare got through both houses of congress. I watched a very old movie with my grandfather last night called "Cat on a hot tin roof" and in the movie one of the actors asked."do you smell that ? The smell of mendacity " I often wonder how our representatives in Wash can say some things with a straight face.
Personally I hope they bog down on that issue and overlook her 2A case history, where she dissented in a case by stating that blanket bans on felons possessing firearms was unconstitutional. It doesn't get much more pro 2A than that.
Also forgot to mention the two adoptions will probably be used to insinuate she's racist, with a "colonial" spin on it. That angle is already coming from people on Twitter, so they'll poll the idea internally and if it polls well they'll run with it.
Last edited:
Politics... The cartoonist need only quote for the humor within.
Feinstein:
Yes. “Today, President Obama fulfilled his constitutional duty by nominating Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Now it’s time for the Senate to do its own job and fully and fairly consider this nominee.” Official statement March 16, 2016
Rubio:
No. “I don’t think we should be moving forward on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term. I would say that if this was a Republlcian president.” Rubio also opposed Garland on merit, he said. March 17, 2016
Durbin:
Yes. “The president has fulfilled his constitutional responsibility and now the U.S. Senate must do the same. No Senate has ever denied a hearing to a presidential nominee to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.” Official statement March 16, 2016
Crapo:
No. “As part of its role in this process, the Senate may, at its discretion, withhold consent. The next Supreme Court justice will make decisions that affect every American and shape our nation’s legal landscape for decades. Therefore, the current Supreme Court vacancy should be filled by an individual nominated by the next president of the United States.” March 16, 2016
Tester:
Yes. “The American people should have an opportunity to vet Judge Garland through a public hearing. Unfortunately, Senate obstructionists are once again refusing to do their jobs. If Congress operated like a business, the employees would have been fired weeks ago.” Official statement, May 12, 2016.
Daines:
No. “The replacement of Justice Scalia will have far-reaching impacts on our country for a generation. The American people have already begun voting on who the next president will be and their voice should continue to be reflected in a process that will have lasting implications on our nation. The U.S. Senate should exercise its constitutional powers by not confirming a new Supreme Court justice until the American people elect a new president and have their voices heard.” March 16, 2016
Udall:
Yes. “The Constitution is clear. The Senate shall offer its advice and consent. It doesn’t say ‘except when the nomination is made in the last year of a president’s term.’ This obstruction is unprecedented. The majority needs to do its job: hold hearings and a vote.” Official statement, May 18, 2016
McConnell:
No. “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” Feb. 13. 2016
“Rarely does a Supreme Court vacancy occur in the final year of a presidential term … Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in.” Feb. 18, 2016
Schumer:
Yes. “We hope the saner heads in the Republican Party will prevail on Chuck Grassley and Mitch McConnell to do their job and hold hearings so America can make its own judgement as to whether Merrick Garland belongs on the court.” Comments reported by the Washington Examiner, March 16, 2016
Grassley:
No. “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice. Do we want a court that interprets the law, or do we want a court that acts as an unelected super legislature? This year is a tremendous opportunity for our country to have a sincere and honest debate about the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system of government.” March 16, 2016
Sanders:
Yes. “Refusing to hold hearings on the president’s nominee would be unprecedented. President Obama has done his job. It’s time for Republicans to do theirs. I call on Sen. Grassley to hold confirmation hearings immediately and for Leader McConnell to bring the nomination to [the] floor of the Senate if Judge Garland is approved by the Judiciary Committee.” Official statement, March 16, 2016
Graham:
No. “I strongly support giving the American people a voice in choosing the next Supreme Court nominee by electing a new president. I hope all Americans understand how important their vote is when it comes to picking a new Supreme Court justice. The American people should choose wisely this November.” March 16, 2016
www.pbs.org
www.pbs.org
Feinstein:
Yes. “Today, President Obama fulfilled his constitutional duty by nominating Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Now it’s time for the Senate to do its own job and fully and fairly consider this nominee.” Official statement March 16, 2016
Rubio:
No. “I don’t think we should be moving forward on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term. I would say that if this was a Republlcian president.” Rubio also opposed Garland on merit, he said. March 17, 2016
Durbin:
Yes. “The president has fulfilled his constitutional responsibility and now the U.S. Senate must do the same. No Senate has ever denied a hearing to a presidential nominee to fill a Supreme Court vacancy.” Official statement March 16, 2016
Crapo:
No. “As part of its role in this process, the Senate may, at its discretion, withhold consent. The next Supreme Court justice will make decisions that affect every American and shape our nation’s legal landscape for decades. Therefore, the current Supreme Court vacancy should be filled by an individual nominated by the next president of the United States.” March 16, 2016
Tester:
Yes. “The American people should have an opportunity to vet Judge Garland through a public hearing. Unfortunately, Senate obstructionists are once again refusing to do their jobs. If Congress operated like a business, the employees would have been fired weeks ago.” Official statement, May 12, 2016.
Daines:
No. “The replacement of Justice Scalia will have far-reaching impacts on our country for a generation. The American people have already begun voting on who the next president will be and their voice should continue to be reflected in a process that will have lasting implications on our nation. The U.S. Senate should exercise its constitutional powers by not confirming a new Supreme Court justice until the American people elect a new president and have their voices heard.” March 16, 2016
Udall:
Yes. “The Constitution is clear. The Senate shall offer its advice and consent. It doesn’t say ‘except when the nomination is made in the last year of a president’s term.’ This obstruction is unprecedented. The majority needs to do its job: hold hearings and a vote.” Official statement, May 18, 2016
McConnell:
No. “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” Feb. 13. 2016
“Rarely does a Supreme Court vacancy occur in the final year of a presidential term … Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in.” Feb. 18, 2016
Schumer:
Yes. “We hope the saner heads in the Republican Party will prevail on Chuck Grassley and Mitch McConnell to do their job and hold hearings so America can make its own judgement as to whether Merrick Garland belongs on the court.” Comments reported by the Washington Examiner, March 16, 2016
Grassley:
No. “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice. Do we want a court that interprets the law, or do we want a court that acts as an unelected super legislature? This year is a tremendous opportunity for our country to have a sincere and honest debate about the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system of government.” March 16, 2016
Sanders:
Yes. “Refusing to hold hearings on the president’s nominee would be unprecedented. President Obama has done his job. It’s time for Republicans to do theirs. I call on Sen. Grassley to hold confirmation hearings immediately and for Leader McConnell to bring the nomination to [the] floor of the Senate if Judge Garland is approved by the Judiciary Committee.” Official statement, March 16, 2016
Graham:
No. “I strongly support giving the American people a voice in choosing the next Supreme Court nominee by electing a new president. I hope all Americans understand how important their vote is when it comes to picking a new Supreme Court justice. The American people should choose wisely this November.” March 16, 2016
What every Republican senator has said about filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year
Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death leaves a vacancy on the Supreme Court just before the presidential election, as Justice Antonin Scalia's did in 2016, when Barack Obama was president. Here’s what Senate Republicans said in 2016, and what they’ve said publicly now.
www.pbs.org
What every Democratic senator has said about filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year
With less than six weeks until the presidential election, the White House is preparing to nominate a new Supreme Court justice, following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has insisted that the nominee will get a vote. Democrats...
www.pbs.org
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Not to derail, but 9 pages and there seems to be a consensus that the parties are drifting away from one another, that the country is divided as ever, and that a correction to the middle where most Americans live is not gonna happen.
The duopoly has failed us and the internet has broken the American brain. How does this end well? That’s rhetorical, but it’s why extreme changes to the way we do things, like Unity 2020 are worth considering, if not endorsing, IMO. I’m not saying this in particular is the answer, but we’ve gotta come up with something quick, and I’d prefer it not be that age old historical realignment tool - War.
The “pendulum swing” is a feedback loop. At some point, the correction one party performs will force us to lose lift, and we will stall, and spin towards earth fast enough to kill those inside the plane. It doesn’t seem out of the realm of possibility that the last discussions they will hear on the cockpit voice recorder will be arguments over supreme court justices.
articlesofunity.org
The duopoly has failed us and the internet has broken the American brain. How does this end well? That’s rhetorical, but it’s why extreme changes to the way we do things, like Unity 2020 are worth considering, if not endorsing, IMO. I’m not saying this in particular is the answer, but we’ve gotta come up with something quick, and I’d prefer it not be that age old historical realignment tool - War.
The “pendulum swing” is a feedback loop. At some point, the correction one party performs will force us to lose lift, and we will stall, and spin towards earth fast enough to kill those inside the plane. It doesn’t seem out of the realm of possibility that the last discussions they will hear on the cockpit voice recorder will be arguments over supreme court justices.
Articles Of Unity – Inspiring minds
articlesofunity.org
Last edited:
Lol, really buzz you are going to pretend you care about the less fortunate. You’re the same buzz from rokslide correct?
Cheesehead
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2017
- Messages
- 1,046
- Status
Similar threads
