Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I hope Nike donates another $200 million to BLM.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

more peace:



live by the sword...

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Expected to see someone wielding a sword.

Post did not deliver.

Would not click again.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

this is 2021; word definitions are fluid and self-identifying.

metaphors are literal.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

no race baiting here:

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Is everyone too distracted by race and gender issues to notice that the Congress does in fact seem to be moving forward with their plan to change the rules by adding four seats to the US Supreme Court?

Remember back when Courts were, at least in theory, supposed to be impartial, and functionally separate from partisanship?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

This assumes we care about those sorts of principles. We all knew they wanted to do it, and why they deflected this question the entire campaign (along with every other position on every topic).

Going to be hard with the 2020 red wave. house is only a 2-seat majority at this point.

DNMakinson

iTrader: (3)

It is heavy on my radar and strongly pisses me off.

Indicates fear or impatience on the part of the Democratic Party.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

I still don't understand these references to a "red wave" in 2020. The Democrat party retained majority control over the House and took majority control of the Senate and the Presidency from the Republicans.

While no outcome would surprise me, I would be most unsurprised by everyone voting straight along party lines, as has become the norm in most situations.

Bajingo

I'm buying more guns, bought another Ghost and ar this morning. That's going to be the first thing this new court goes after. I hope our current court sets some useful precedent before they're gone.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Impatience, indeed. This is a decision which will have long-lasting ramifications, and it seems that it's being done very impulsively, and with a short-term perspective.

Essentially "We think that the Republicans cheated by confirming a new Justice after RBG died, so we're going to change the rules."

What I really don't have a firm understand of is whether the Democrat party genuinely believes that having a majority-conservative Court genuinely poses a danger to the American people, or merely that they recognize this to be a popular sentiment amongst a significant portion of their fanbase, and are stoking that fear deliberately.

Bajingo

Having a court that is capable of reading the Constitution is counter productive to their plans for this country.

DNMakinson

iTrader: (3)

Joe, I can pretty much tell you that they care squat about the American people.

dieselmiata

iTrader: (3)

Think? Merrick Garland would like a word with you.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Scalia... Garland... RBG... It was one of those. Somebody died, somebody else got chosen to replace them, and this was cheating, according to those who don't like the person who got chosen.


I just can't help from thinking about how nice it would be if the government worked for the people. A crazy idea, I know.

dieselmiata

iTrader: (3)

Republicans decided they wouldn't allow a supreme court justice to be nominated because it was an election year.

Then they rammed one through a week before the election.

You can't operate in bad faith and not expect consequences.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

No, no. It's only bad when the evil other party does it. When our good, benevolant party does the thing, it's because we're trying to right a previous wrong, and / or prevent the evil other party from doing evil in the immediate future.

dieselmiata

iTrader: (3)

How many times do you let Lucy pull the ball away before you kick her instead?