US Politics - 2020 Presidential Election - GOP v Dem cage fight (ENTER AT YOUR PERIL)

[chemiclord]

Justice Thomas outright said in his concurrance that those things should be reconsidered. I am going to believe him.

More baseless assertions from the fossil.

[TheLondonLion]

I studied politics to degree level so I’m pretty well versed on judicial activism going back to the Warren Court versus judicial restraint. I believe that the GOP manipulated the SC selection process by refusing to even grant Merrick Garland a hearing and then rushing through Amy Coney Barret as quickly as possible when the same situation was reversed.

”I want you to use my words against me if the situation is ever reversed” said Lindsey Graham, before voting to rush through Coney Barrett when the situation was reversed.

So I think the GOP have used unethical and devious means to manipulate the make up of the court to make these kind of decisions after lying under oath at their confirmation hearing about how they considered Roe v Wade settled law and precedent upon precedent before ripping it up at the first opportunity they had.

i don’t consider this a good example of democratic behaviour.

[-Deborah-]

When do you think life begins Deb?

I think it's complicated but it certainly shouldn't be considered a "baby" at conception. And terminating a pregnancy early on should not be considered "murder." But my point is that different religions hold different views on this and none of them should be law. Why is the Christian view the one being made into law? What about the Judaism view on this?

FB_IMG_1656368557011.jpg

[chemiclord]

I'd say it's less a matter of when "life" begins (because you're never going to get a concrete consensus on that) and more a matter of when the rights of the fetus should overrule the rights of the mother to her autonomy. Roe vs. Wade made the distinction about as well as you could hope to; until the fetus is capable of surviving on its own, its rights are subject to the mother's.

[Da Geezer]

I studied politics to degree level so I’m pretty well versed on judicial activism going back to the Warren Court versus judicial restraint. I believe that the GOP manipulated the SC selection process by refusing to even grant Merrick Garland a hearing and then rushing through Amy Coney Barret as quickly as possible when the same situation was reversed.

”I want you to use my words against me if the situation is ever reversed” said Lindsey Graham, before voting to rush through Coney Barrett when the situation was reversed.

So I think the GOP have used unethical and devious means to manipulate the make up of the court to make these kind of decisions after lying under oath at their confirmation hearing about how they considered Roe v Wade settled law and precedent upon precedent before ripping it up at the first opportunity they had.

i don’t consider this a good example of democratic behaviour.

Interesting.

As to the idea that the GOP is manipulating the selection process, I'd say simply that elections have consequences. You hear that a lot. When Garland was nominated, the Rs used the Ds own words against them when the Ds had done the same thing to the Rs previously. What is most important was that soon after Trump was nominated, he published a list of judges that he would consider for the SC. The Rs tried to leave the make-up of the SC to the voters. The second most mentioned reason for voting for Trump by exit-poll respondents was his list of prospective judges Remember, in our system the SC is to interpret the laws, not make the laws like they had been doing since the 70s. People rejected that in 2016 by electing Trump.

You are dead wrong about the Justices having lied to the Senators. ALL SC nominees have used RBG's formulation from her confirmation hearing that previous decisions of the SC are settled law and are precedent. They never prejudge any case. As far as promises made to Senators in private meetings (like with Sen. Collins) it would be unethical to promise to hold a certain way in order to obtain the vote of the Senator. That is called a bribe, and it is both illegal and unethical.

LL, I'll just say to you that the matter of an activist court v. a restrained court was put to the people in 2016, and the restrained court won. If the Ds had not previously eliminated the filibuster for federal judges, perhaps the outcome would have been different. I remember how things used to be on SC nominees. They were approved by substantial majorities like the 99-0 for RBG. That was before the high-tech lynching of Clarence Thomas by a Joe Biden-led committee.

[Whitley]

A restrained court would not have overturned a decision that was over 50 years old. All courts are activist courts. However, you like the decision that SCOTUS made so you think it is restrained.

[Da Geezer]

A restrained court would not have overturned a decision that was over 50 years old. All courts are activist courts. However, you like the decision that SCOTUS made so you think it is restrained.

I used "activist" and "restrained" because those were the words London Lion used in his post. As he said, he has degree-level knowledge of the SC's function, and the words "activist" and "restrained" are probably the most commonly used adjectives by educated people.

As to your claim about it being "activist" to overturn Roe, Roe was bad law from 1973 to today. The activist court then wanted to legalize abortion as a policy issue. It is the height of "restrained" for a court to finally overrule an error. That happened with Brown v Board too.

Some of you young bucks (sorry, Deb) here didn't live in the early '70s, I did. In the late '60s a book, The Population Bomb by Peter Urlich was massively influencing public policy. It predicted that the world would run out of resources by the year 2000 and that there would be mass starvation on a global scale. It was accepted as truth, much like global warming is today. Anyway, the SC wanted to "control" population any way they could, and they made up an "abortion right" out of whole cloth as good public policy.

[Futureshock]

Oversight Committee investigation of Commanders will end, if Republicans regain control of House

Posted by Mike Florio on June 30, 2022, 12:26 AM EDT

Getty Images

It’s no surprise, at all. But since the ranking member of the U.S. House Oversight & Reform Committee said it on Wednesday, it needs to be repeated.

Rep. James Comer, a Republican from Kentucky, told the Washington Times (via TheHill.com) that the investigation of the Commanders will end, if the Republicans reclaim control of the House of Representatives in November.

Comer called the investigation a waste of tax dollars, and not a priority for the Republican members of Congress.

“The Democrats know that the outcome of the midterm elections is not favorable for them,” Comer told the Times. “Whether it’s the Washington Football Team investigation or whatever investigation they have against any of the oil CEOs, they should probably focus on wrapping it up before Dec. 31.”

That’s one of the basic realties of our currently dysfunctional political system. Bipartisan action doesn’t occur. One party believes in regulation and accountability of private business when necessary. The other party believes it’s rarely if ever necessary.

Comer’s comments come at a time when the Committee has been unable to serve a subpoena on Commanders owner Daniel Snyder. If he’s filling to float in international waters on his superyacht for six months, maybe the subpoena will never be served.

[JGSpartan]

Speaking up about sexual harassment or sexual assault should never be allowed to be covered by NDA's. Donors wouldn't like things like that actually coming from that oversight. Better shut it down.

[Futureshock]

"Right is Wrong. What used to be good is now evil. What used to be evil is now good. A plaque will go across all the land. The devil's worshippers will reason away poor behavior and the world leaders will be silent" Rev Allen, Shiloh Missionary Baptist Church, Flint MI (1972) Speaking about the end of days.

I thought he was loosing it, but he had it all figured out 50 years earlier.

[Futureshock]

This story probably fits here best...


Cowboys have nothing to say about controversial coffee sponsorship

Posted by Mike Florio on July 5, 2022, 5:36 PM EDT

Getty Images

Cowboys owner Jerry Jones thinks bad news is good for business. If so, Tuesday was a pretty good day for business.

The Cowboys are facing criticism for unveiling on Twitter a partnership with Black Rifle Coffee Company. Via the Associated Press, the company’s products include AK-47 Espresso, Silencer Smooth, and Murdered Out.

The Cowboys posted the tweet after another day of multiple mass shootings in America, including a massacre at a parade in Highland Park, Illinois.

The Cowboys had no comment to the AP. The coffee company crowed about the partnership. And for good reason; the relationship with the Cowboys and the inevitable controversy elevate its profile and brand. Anyone uncomfortable with the connection to the Cowboys wouldn’t have bought the coffee anyway; this makes those inclined to support the coffeemaker more aware of it — and perhaps more likely to buy its products.

The company claims that it “supports veterans, first responders, and America’s men and women in uniform.” That prompted this strange remark from the author of the AP story: “Cowboys owner Jerry Jones’ steadfast support of the military was best illustrated when he was one of the most outspoken NFL owners against players kneeling during The Star-Spangled Banner before games to protest racial injustice and police brutality.”

Folks, for the umpteenth time plus one, the anthem protests weren’t an assault on the military. And Jones wasn’t supporting the military by cajoling players to stand. He was preserving his ability to buy and maintain a superyacht, along with all his other holdings. Jones and the league deliberately pandered to those who refused then (and now) to see that the gesture wasn’t about the military. And it’s hard to imagine how Tuesday’s tone-deaf gesture by the Cowboys is about supporting the military.

It also would be interesting to know how much the Cowboys are making in this deal. Whatever it is, it arguably isn’t worth it. Unless America’s Team wants to saturate the portion of America that was repelled by anthem kneeling and that, in turn, will embrace a line of coffee products dripping with pro-gun messaging, even if it’s announced the day after guns were once again used to create more havoc in America.

[Da Geezer]

Black Rifle is great coffee. I recommend Murdered Out. It gives a lot to veterans and first responders. Mike Florio is another cancel-culture fool who just doesn't like patriots or the military or first responders. I certainly see how the Cowboys want their brand associated with Black Rifle.

Chick Fil A was just named the best chain restaurant for the 8th year in a row. Amazing how well good products do even when (or maybe because) leftist ideologues can't stand what they stand for in the culture wars.

[JGSpartan]

Chick Fil A throws chicken in the deep frier the best. Keep aiming high. You're right about one thing. Conservatives rally behind the select few businesses that push their agenda. Liberals don't have to do that because they have options.

[Da Geezer]

JG: Fact is, you would probably pick a Chick Fil A sandwich in a blind test. You might also pick Black Rifle coffee.

Then, when you found out that CFA closed on Sundays or that Black Rifle gives a portion of its profits to first-responders, you would immediately stop buying from them. That is the Prog mindset.

Fortunately, the Dallas Cowboys and the American people (for eight consecutive years now) apparently don't agree with your politics-above-everything attitude.

[JGSpartan]

So you have the best products but not the best sales and that's a win? I stand by my point that the right has rallied behind them. They themselves recognized their Anti-LGBT donations as problematic though and are changing them. They aren't changing it because they want to. They are doing it for sales. That is very much counter to your stance.

No, I'm not going to stop buying their products because they close on Sundays or aid first responders. Those are asinine views on the subject. You are only making yourself look bad if you believe that nonsense. You know damn well its about the previously mentioned history of Anti-LGBT stances and Gun imagery in these cases.

I assume you're smart enough to know that. So stop with the strawman bullshit. The NFL gives to a lot of great causes too that i could claim people are against if they boycotted over Kaepernick but we'd both know that's not true. So get out of here with that nonsense.