I don't recall any SCOTUS nominee ever stating outright that Roe "...would not be overturned by me..." during their confirmation hearings. My memory says that they all refused to limit their discretion as to what their decisions would be in any new case. Citation?

Prohibition of same-sex marriage was once "settled law" - until it wasn't. "Settled law" in the end only acts as a restriction on lower courts. The fact of the matter is that the Supremes can decide any issue in any way they deem fit, regardless of precedents set in any previous Federal cases.

Good luck with your "sex strike". Maybe that will solve the population problem to which you refer.

Yes, they are talking about the leak. If you don't see how such a rare event (an entire draft SCOTUS opinion leaked to the press prior to actual release has NEVER happened before) is newsworthy, I don't know what to say.

I do imagine that it MAY also end up being a "potential massive victory", but it isn't right now. I see little point in speculating about what may happen, when there will be plenty of time to discuss the actual decision, once it has actually been released and becomes part of Federal jurisprudence.

Your video, Let's talk about Republican reaction to the SCOTUS leak...., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 2 Badge!

this should be the next big internet challenge: try to down a drink while listening to clips like these (w/o the slightest spit-take).

isn't it something, hearing the co-occurrence of mtg claim of never of having heard of the 4x polio vaccine, when the process is actually that? that's spooky dumb.

but that is a phenomenon have noticed over the years (just off the top o' head)...

- the orange scream admin's numerous typos (SOTU tickets, inaugural tickets...) selling it's self as the best ever
- blackburn quoting the declaration of independence while pontificating about the constitution, yet she is on the panel questioning a SCOTUS candidate
- w's sec of war not knowing the history of WWII when declaring adolph was elected
- the gop urging of obama to let an oil pipeline continue, yet the same co. having a major pipeline break, just days before the decision deadline

...the symmetry in their assertion of knowledge; then disproving the claim - many times in the same sentence - is surrealistic.

add this and their laws against schools...

https://youtu.be/YR5ApYxkU-U?t=204

well...don't see categorizing dung, in the crap column, as spreading the right's meadow muffins. thought it was showing the bigotry, xenophobia, phantom fears that have been an American past time. (also have these ever left the rights' playbook?)

of course, it's boogie-boogie-all-night-long for the right. just tried putting it in the context of other hairy scary nothings that have been hawked - - then and now.

[should have put in a better link for the Nebraska case. the writing of the SCOTUS' decision is enlightening. almost apologetic.]

I don't give a fuck that the chuckleheads in Texas passed this idiotic law -- it's Texas and you knew what you were getting when you rooked that shithole from Mexico. No, what terrifies and infuriates me is that SCotUS totally smiled at this bullshit like it was a cop expecting a blowjob from you for not writing a ticket.

Notice how the same assholes who yelled "ACTIVIST JUDGES!" are silent now.

Violence, class/race oppression, history suppression/revision and delusional self-aggrandizing American exceptionalism are all par for the course in US teens lit, but sex? Hell no!

Europeans are getting a good chuckle at this.

But isn't that's classic American education? With a conservative SCOTUS, the American education system gonna get even worse.

Harry Reid nuked the filibuster to approve Federal level justices. McConnell just exploited what the former Majority Leader did.

When under pressure from Republicans and Trump in the first two years of Trump's term to do away with the filibuster and allow the all-Republican government to do what the all Democratic one is hoping to do now, McConnell wisely chose not to.

Whether you care for McConnell or not, or if you care for the minority party or not, doing away with the filibuster to allow the party currently in charge to ram legislation through is only going to set precedent for the same thing to happen when the situation changes.

Democrats may think that forcing through HR1 will mean that the Republicans will never control the government again, but that is not going to happen. Americans are fickle and turn on the government in power at the drop of a hat. Case in point, Trump should have never won a term as President in a normal world. People hated Hillary so much that he did.

Turning the Senate into a smaller House of Representatives relying simply on a majority vote for everything would create situations where either side will ram through sweeping changes (or erase those of the previous side) every 4 years or so. What will we do in 2024 if somehow Trump or his lackeys get elected and he has access to a fully Republican senate, congress, and scotus, with no filibuster unlike 2016-2018?

Who's "THEY" ???

The fuck are you talking about, I do not recognize the phrase "basically erase" that's not the same as erase? "wash away" etc?

https://duckduckgo.com/
https://www.torproject.org/download/

https://ahmia.fi/ or http://msydqstlz2kzerdg.onion/ if you're already on Tor WARNING this is ACTUALLY uncensored everything. (as in regular + deep + dark web) Be sure to report anything that constitutes a crime to the FBI "Hey, I'm not associated with this, but I just came across it on the internet accidentally, https://www.fbi.gov/tips " lest you potentially can be charged with abetting would - be crimes that you are actually not responsible for.

Now you can find anything. Done.

----------------------------

BUT AS USUAL
BUT AS USUAL
BUT AS USUAL
BUT AS USUAL
BUT AS USUAL
BUT AS USUAL that's not really what you believe, just what you've been saying.


I remember the cakeshop, I thought it was okay to do that if you were a private company?

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States that dealt with whether owners of public accommodations can refuse certain services based on the First Amendment claims of free speech and free exercise of religion, and therefore be granted an exemption from laws ensuring non-discrimination in public accommodations


Remember? Good, right? A privately (non-gov) owned business can kick out and not provide service to anyone they want right? Conservative. The private businesses aka google and amazon, decided they don't like your nazi bullshit. AND you're glad they're able to kick you back to the 14th page right? It's their right to do so thanks to the new conservative SCOTUS yes? Happy? Dumbass.

IF YOU GIVE UP RIGHTS FOR ONE GROUP IT'S NOT JUST GAY WEDDING CAKES IT'S EVERYONE'S RIGHTS.


That case they argued was a free speech case. The bakery has the freedom to not display messages in the form of pixels on the screen errrrr frosting on the cake. Just like Google can choose to not display messages in the form of frosting on a cake errrrrr pixels on a screen. What do you think the rest of us were so pissed about? You're over there cheering on them taking away our rights and now it's come full circle. What? you didn't think it would affect your rights to say things?

Shouldn't have listened to that Golden Idol.

Clearly you fail to see the how the restriction limits 1 group and not another.

Nether is right. SCOTUS is correct.

Clearly you don't care that republican voters will probably diminish in big numbers now that SCOTUS blocks New York COVID-19 Restrictions On Religious Gatherings. Keep up the good work. You help democrats without even realizing it.

I've said it before and I will say it again. Regardless of death bed wishes and/or the election, the sitting President has the right to nominate a SCOTUS pick. Note, I said nominate, not confirm. That is the job of the Senate.

Even if (likely when, it seems) Trump loses, until the end of his term he is able to nominate a SCOTUS pick. Obama was allowed to pick Merrick Garland, but the Senate was Republican. They chose to not confirm him. Even after Trump was elected, Obama could have picked a person for SCOTUS. The Senate would have made the confirmation decision.

In this case, the Senate leans Republican, so the pick will likely be confirmed. It might not be what some people want, but it is legal.

This has nothing to do with her capability. It never has been. It has to do with people pissed because there is a nominee during this time.

News flash, it doesn't matter if Trump wins or loses. He can nominate someone even after he loses. Until he is replaced, he is THE President of the United States.

No judge is required to have a photographic memory of the Constitution. I bet you could ask SITTING judges on the Supreme Court and have them miss a question. That is what clerks and research people are for.

What this comes down to is two basic things.

1. Merrick Garland never made it onto the court. People are still bitterly pissed off that he didn't. But what they forget is that he WAS nominated and did not get through the process due to a Republican majority. It was perfectly legal and was allowed. It sucks if you wanted him, but that is the way the game works.

2. People are STILL scared that Roe v Wade is going to go bye bye or the ACA is going to get kneecapped. News flash, SCOTUS has been majority Conservative leaning judges for YEARS. When Gorsuch was picked, all I recall hearing was OMG OMG, THE SKY IS FALLING, ROE V WADE IS DEAD! Same thing as when Kavanaugh was picked; although they were pissed about his supposed rape as well, every news site was repeating the mantra about Roe V Wade now dead.

It isn't going to happen. Not at a Federal level. It would be suicide for years. Conservatives, by and large, do not give a fuck about abortion. It's only the squirrelly ultra right wing pricks that care and Republicans sadly have to cater to them verbally to keep their votes. States, yeah, some will pass laws and then those will get turned away from SCOTUS like they have been for a while. The appellate courts will set the precedent on those rulings and they solidly rule for Roe v Wade.

Same thing for the ACA, although personally I wish that would die a fucking quick death. As I've said before many times, that little gem has fucked the value of my family insurance from work into the ground. I didn't get to keep my doctor unless I wanted to pay 2k+ per person per year, because he and a shit ton of other doctors went to Concierge fees to cover the money they were losing under the ACA. Now I have to go to either:

A. Doctor's who have horrible ratings for their practice, ie ones that suck or just don't care.

B. A clinic setup where I 'technically' have a 'family doctor' but in reality I can be bumped to others on staff or, most likely, a PA. There is no feeling that I know my doctor because, even if I do get to see him, they just run me through as fast as possible so they can get another patient in.

I have pre-existing conditions, so I empathize with those who are on the ACA. But the act itself is fucked up beyond repair. It needs to die and get replaced with a true national insurance. If not that, something that lets me go back to feeling like I have a real doctor and not just whoever is johnny on the spot at that moment.

It isn't going to be killed at SCOTUS though, they don't want to legislate. They will let it survive and if you think otherwise you are drinking the liberal koolaid that they are serving to round up voters.

I like the Youtuber and do agree with his other videos. I do not agree with this. I can diagnose a Macbook Pro right now if I had to, even after being away from Apple for around 8 years. But I might need to pull up a damn schematic or reference manual to know how much resistance I should be looking for on the PPbus if it isn't present when trying to power the thing on. If I and everyone else had photographic memories, we wouldn't have reference material. Wikipedia wouldn't exist. This is simply a nitpick because people are worried and still pissed.

all of us are qualified.

literally.

since anyone can serve on the SCOTUS then all are qualified to question her competence.

anyone can comment on national policy. are you familiar with the internet?

JANIS Joplin is a plus. at least he knows quality music. (deride him and misspell the name that's right in front of you?)

OMG! Why would we believe anything 'Flamous Anus' says? Even if he looses by an undisputable margin he will undoubtedly try to use his stacked SCOTUS to jam up the works.