![]() |
He was not confirmed bc of his role in the Sat. night massacre where he fired Archibald Cox after 2 folks refused and the firing was found by a judge to be improper.
There were other issues including his views of the division of power bt the pres and congress. He also believed that Constituion did not provide any privacy protection to individuals. |
Quote:
You want to say that Clarence Thomas was guilty, and Bork was unqualified. Fine. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
I asked previously for you to show me where the Dems. played the race card and that they "claiming that a black man was not to be trusted around women" when there were Dems who voted for Thomas and Repubs who voted against him. Biden was skewered for his questioning of Hill. In fact, Thomas was criticized for playing the race card and calling it a "high tech lynching" in his opening remarks. This seemed to scare many of the Dems. You really don't remember, do you? |
Quote:
According to columnist William Safire, the first published use of bork as a verb was possibly in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution of August 20, 1987. Safire defines to bork by reference "to the way Democrats savaged Ronald Reagan's nominee, the Appeals Court judge Robert H. Bork, the year before."[37] Perhaps the best known use of the verb to bork occurred in July 1991 at a conference of the National Organization for Women in New York City. Feminist Florynce Kennedy addressed the conference on the importance of defeating the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, saying, "We're going to bork him. We're going to kill him politically ... This little creep, where did he come from?"[38] Thomas was subsequently confirmed after one of the most divisive confirmation hearings in Supreme Court history. In March 2002, the Oxford English Dictionary added an entry for the verb bork as U.S. political slang, with this definition: "To defame or vilify (a person) systematically, esp. in the mass media, usually with the aim of preventing his or her appointment to public office; to obstruct or thwart (a person) in this way."[39] There was an earlier usage of bork as a passive verb, common among litigators in the D.C. Circuit: to "get borked" was to receive a conservative judicial decision with no justification in the law, reflecting their perception, later documented in the Cardozo Law Review, of Bork's tendency to decide cases solely according to his ideology.[40] |
Quote:
How many times did borks decisions get overturned by higher courts, how many times did Sotomayor? The gop is likely to get who they want, and god willing, it will transform the court for a generation. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
What's the radical change you're looking for? |
Quote:
This thread should expire. |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Spence, you need to tell this guy that nothing meaningful will change.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/32449...ign=benshapiro Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Jim you could tell this guy nothing meaningful will change
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.med...-explains/amp/ Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
When I point out an obvious truth related to SCOTUS, you respond with a tale about a republican acting horribly. If true, it’s yet another in a long list of republicans acting immorally. Not sure what that has to do with this, other than showing that you are unable to concede that I was right when I said the left is worried, as I would be if I were a democrat. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
A quote from the article you linked: No Wonder Jeff Toobin Wants Abortion So Badly, He Once Allegedly Gave His Mistress Money To Have One A quote from the one i linked: The prospect of Trump having had a political ally pay off a mistress to have an abortion would be extremely scandalous, even for him. But what we didn’t know, until now, is that there appears to be legitimate evidence to suggest that this affair and pregnancy happened while Trump was the president of the United States! |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
Quote:
This really may be an existential question for the board. Why is Jim so giddy? |
Quote:
Regardless of what you think, he has no magical powers. Gaslighting does not qualify you as a superhero. Time will tell Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
Quote:
[QUOTE=spence;1145666]We will but I had no idea the damage Trump would do to our democracy would be so significant and come so quickly. I don't think most of the effects have even really been felt yet and it looks like his rampage is far from over.[/QUOTE. We will, just as we did from the Obama years. (though the families who lost loved ones due to lack of action will never recover) No need for me to harp on the negative effects the previous two terms had on me, but my industry is white hot currently. People are spending on their homes. Is that a direct result of Trump? Not going to say that. Just what effects are you expecting Jeff? His style is not one I admire, but that is how business is done in much of New York. And I disliked him as a businessman and a person. But he was the lesser of two evils we had on the ballot. Our only hope to get change next time is to present a better candidate.... Until then.... suck it. We did. |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
More condescending crap from a pie hole🏅
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
It’s a beautiful thing to watch. 👍 Not a good time to be a liberal 😜 Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
There is a good chance DJT could have 2 more judges over the next few years. If high 70s to mid 80s are the benchmark for SC Justices retiring we will use 80 years old as a benchmark for Justices to retire. Interesting thing - how many of you plan to be working hard and flat out at 80? So these numbers are probably very optimistic as to how long these people will last.
How long to reach 80 years old: John Roberts - 17 Anthony Kennedy - retiring now Clarence Thomas -10 Ruth Bader Ginsburg - (5) Yes - she is Eighty Five now in 2018 Stephen Breyer - now Samuel Alito - 12 Sonia Sotomayor -16 Elena Kagan -22 Neil Gorsuch -29 How long to reach 75 years old: John Roberts - 12 Clarence Thomas -5 Ruth Bader Ginsburg - (10) Yes - she is Eighty Five Stephen Breyer - (5) Samuel Alito - 7 Sonia Sotomayor -11 Elena Kagan -17 Neil Gorsuch -24 New Justice - say 28 years In the next 5 years there is a good chance of 3 leaving the bench (not including Kennedy's replacement): Notorious RGB, Breyer, and Thomas Quote:
Quote:
|
[QUOTE=JohnR;
Frankly, no. It is not good to see either side do it though it bothers me less when it is Progressives being triggered.[/QUOTE] I tend to agree. Being on the conservative side I'm comfortable but seeing how some of my family and friends are reacting on social media makes me somewhat concerned about their future (mental) state of mind if the trend continues. |
Quote:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
That is the left,if you don't agree with their ideals then you must certainly be a bad American.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
That statement is the sort of thing that will begin the next civil war. I did not click on the youtube, no need after that troll. I saw a video recently where the speaker said that conservatives and libertarians need to be vigilant but not act first and wait ,even if they have to take a beating, for the liberals to fire first. Well my immediate reaction was that they already did fire first, it was on a ballfield recently, remember? Well threats are one thing, actions are another. People need to calm down and stop listening to propaganda and the media needs to be a lot less dramatic and stop egging lunatics on. I don't understand all the Chicken Little speak, Trump has not even announced his choice yet and people are freaking out. |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
[QUOTE=JohnR;1145690]There is a good chance DJT could have 2 more judges over the next few years. If high 70s to mid 80s are the benchmark for SC Justices retiring we will use 80 years old as a benchmark for Justices to retire. Interesting thing - how many of you plan to be working hard and flat out at 80? So these numbers are probably very optimistic as to how long these people will last.
How long to reach 80 years old: John Roberts - 17 Anthony Kennedy - retiring now Clarence Thomas -10 Ruth Bader Ginsburg - (5) Yes - she is Eighty Five now in 2018 Stephen Breyer - now Samuel Alito - 12 Sonia Sotomayor -16 Elena Kagan -22 Neil Gorsuch -29 How long to reach 75 years old: John Roberts - 12 Clarence Thomas -5 Ruth Bader Ginsburg - (10) Yes - she is Eighty Five Stephen Breyer - (5) Samuel Alito - 7 Sonia Sotomayor -11 Elena Kagan -17 Neil Gorsuch -24 New Justice - say 28 years Ruth Ginsburg is 85 & has cancer Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
#walkaway
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:08 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com