Cuban with some food tweets

Analysis: Judge rules Trump may have incited violence, and Trump has his own mouth to blame

The Trump team continues to lose. This time they lose another one with 'you can't take him literally'. The fact of the matter is we shouldn't take him seriously, but that is as president.

Joe Donnelly becomes the third Democrat to say he will support the well qualified Neal Gorsuch

People who believe corporations should have the same rights as people are not qualified to sit on the SC.

/NoHumanityinGorsuch

jerseyhoya wrote:Joe Donnelly becomes the third Democrat to say he will support the well qualified Neal Gorsuch

Neil

jerseyhoya wrote:Joe Donnelly becomes the third Democrat to say he will support the well qualified Neal Gorsuch

Yeah, I don't see how with the information out there anyone would justify voting for him as unqualified.

That's coming from someone who sees originalism as equivalent to devoting your intellectual capabilities to discerning how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. And who sees his strange fascination with arguments against euthanasia while avoiding questions of capital punishment and war as either odd or morally exculpatory. And his support of two of the most bizarre and historically and legally unsupported decisions in history, Hobby Lobby and Citizens United, as dumbfounding from someone of his apparent legal and intellectual qualities.

But in terms of his being qualified for the Supreme Court, based on testimony so far, he really should be be voted in virtually unanimously.

CalvinBall wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Joe Donnelly becomes the third Democrat to say he will support the well qualified Neal Gorsuch

Neil

I never won a spelling bee

swishnicholson wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Joe Donnelly becomes the third Democrat to say he will support the well qualified Neal Gorsuch

Yeah, I don't see how with the information out there anyone would justify voting for him as unqualified.

That's coming from someone who sees originalism as equivalent to devoting your intellectual capabilities to discerning how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. And who sees his strange fascination with arguments against euthanasia while avoiding questions of capital punishment and war as either odd or morally exculpatory. And his support of two of the most bizarre and historically and legally unsupported decisions in history, Hobby Lobby and Citizens United, as dumbfounding from someone of his apparent legal and intellectual qualities.

But in terms of his being qualified for the Supreme Court, based on testimony so far, he really should be be voted in virtually unanimously.

Interesting. I do agree that he has the qualifications to be on the court in terms of having held the right jobs and received the correct degrees. But I'm curious about this part:

And his support of two of the most bizarre and historically and legally unsupported decisions in history, Hobby Lobby and Citizens United, as dumbfounding from someone of his apparent legal and intellectual qualities.

I also agree with this part, but not with the conclusion you draw from it. To me, this stuff should be disqualifying, and not just because I disagree with it. How can he support such "bizarre and historically and legally unsupported" decisions and still be considered qualified? On top of the decisions making no sense on their face, they seem morally bankrupt (and maybe politically motivated).

Monkeyboy wrote:

Interesting. I do agree that he has the qualifications to be on the court in terms of having held the right jobs and received the correct degrees. But I'm curious about this part:

And his support of two of the most bizarre and historically and legally unsupported decisions in history, Hobby Lobby and Citizens United, as dumbfounding from someone of his apparent legal and intellectual qualities.

I also agree with this part, but not with the conclusion you draw from it. To me, this stuff should be disqualifying, and not just because I disagree with it. How can he support such "bizarre and historically and legally unsupported" decisions and still be considered qualified? On top of the decisions making no sense on their face, they seem morally bankrupt (and maybe politically motivated).

The law is an ass. I'm hardly the first person to come to this conclusion. Somehow these cases had a enough case law and other arguments supporting them to make it to the Supreme Court and to be supported by five justices. By asserting that support of these cases makes one ipso facto unqualified to serve on the Supreme court, i would be have to be making the argument as well that none of the justices who supported it, or in fact any other legal minds that might have found merit in them, were qualified to serve as well. I'm not sure history bears that out, though it certainly does in some cases, and I'm not ready to come to that broad of a conclusion. You can certainly disagree, though.

swishnicholson wrote:his support of two of the most bizarre and historically and legally unsupported decisions in history, Hobby Lobby and Citizens United, as dumbfounding from someone of his apparent legal and intellectual qualities.

So here is what I have been saying, he is such a wonky judge that he picks apart words examining each for meaning. He has said things like he disagrees personally with some decisions, but that is the law. He deals in minutia, things like "the" and "it", while also focusing on incompleteness of though opening doors for interpretations that are things like it does not exclude this therefore it must be included. It is at once disturbing and comforting. Disturbing because the lack of total consideration is acting on unilaterally as a hole. Comforting because things like RvW, and perhaps Obamacare are arbitrated which is therefore impervious law. I think he is safer then a lot of people think, but he might come out on strange sides of arguments. Personally I like people who form thoughts more completely through consideration otherwise it is just programmable logic that we could stick a 286 in the chair to parse simple logic.

swishnicholson wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

Interesting. I do agree that he has the qualifications to be on the court in terms of having held the right jobs and received the correct degrees. But I'm curious about this part:

And his support of two of the most bizarre and historically and legally unsupported decisions in history, Hobby Lobby and Citizens United, as dumbfounding from someone of his apparent legal and intellectual qualities.

I also agree with this part, but not with the conclusion you draw from it. To me, this stuff should be disqualifying, and not just because I disagree with it. How can he support such "bizarre and historically and legally unsupported" decisions and still be considered qualified? On top of the decisions making no sense on their face, they seem morally bankrupt (and maybe politically motivated).

The law is an ass. I'm hardly the first person to come to this conclusion. Somehow these cases had a enough case law and other arguments supporting them to make it to the Supreme Court and to be supported by five justices. By asserting that support of these cases makes one ipso facto unqualified to serve on the Supreme court, i would be have to be making the argument as well that none of the justices who supported it, or in fact any other legal minds that might have found merit in them, were qualified to serve as well. I'm not sure history bears that out, though it certainly does in some cases, and I'm not ready to come to that broad of a conclusion. You can certainly disagree, though.

I don't think these people really believe corporations should have the same rights as people based on precedent or what the founding fathers intended. I think they want corporations to be treated as people for other reasons. They are mixing up their politics and their constitutional law, imho.

"We the People..." is how the constitution starts. I find it a big stretch to believe that anyone really thinks the founding fathers intended for corporations to be treated equally as people. Their words were chosen carefully, argued over. They aren't an accident. JMO.

who gives a shit if he's 'qualified'; he'll be sitting in a stolen seat

a democrat that votes for him is a weak person

I was wrong, Mar-a-lago this week was the Republican Golf Classic, next week is being dumbfounded that the Chinese leadership do not golf, by decree.

he golfed at his place in Virginia this weekend

Trump sent out two tweets this morning regrading Hillary. I'm glad he's moved on and is leading this country.

can't wait until Nov 8 2016 so we can move on from the election

the killing and de-legitimizing of gay men in Checnya:

By Saturday, the paper reported, and an analyst of the region with her own sources confirmed, that more than 100 gay men had been detained. The newspaper had the names of three murder victims, and suspected many others had died in extrajudicial killings.

A spokesman for Chechnya’s leader, Ramzan Kadyrov, denied the report in a statement to Interfax on Saturday, calling the article “absolute lies and disinformation.”

“You cannot arrest or repress people who just don’t exist in the republic,” the spokesman, Alvi Karimov, told the news agency.

“If such people existed in Chechnya, law enforcement would not have to worry about them, as their own relatives would have sent them to where they could never return,” Mr. Karimov said.

The group had not applied for a permit in Chechnya, but in another Muslim region in southern Russia, Kabardino-Balkaria. The mere application there — denied, as usual — had prompted an anti-gay counterdemonstration.

In the restive Muslim regions, Mr. Putin has empowered local leaders to press agendas of traditional Muslim values, to co-opt an Islamist underground. The gay pride parade applications became a galvanizing issue.

“In Chechnya, the command was given for a ‘prophylactic sweep’ and it went as far as real murders,” Novaya Gazeta reported.

According to the report, the authorities set to finding and arresting closeted gay men, partly by posing as men looking for dates on social networking sites.

“Of course, none of these people in any way demonstrated their sexual orientation publicly — in the Caucasus, this is equal to a death sentence,” the newspaper wrote of those detained in the sweep.

pacino wrote:war crimes in Syrian military hospitals

I watched The White Helmets this weekend. 40 min documentary about syrian first responders to airstrikes. My review: ugh.

slugsrbad wrote:Trump sent out two tweets this morning regrading Hillary. I'm glad he's moved on and is leading this country.

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
Was the brother of John Podesta paid big money to get the sanctions on Russia lifted? Did Hillary know?
4:16 AM - 3 Apr 2017

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
Did Hillary Clinton ever apologize for receiving the answers to the debate? Just asking!
4:21 AM - 3 Apr 2017


At least ten dead in a St. Petersburg subway explosion but let's keep our focus on Hillary and the debate questions. This guy is a fucking imbecile.