Politics: Sorta Black guy v Sorta Old Guy

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 17:36:51

Of course, the really, really rich folks don't mess with "income".

by **Stay_Disappointed** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 19:49:11

lethal wrote:
BuddyGroom wrote:Salon's blogger Glenn Greenwald notes the importance, in light of this particular decision, on how who wins this fall's election will affect the Supreme Court.

"UPDATE: Three of the five Justices in the majority -- John Paul Stevens (age 88 ), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (age 75) and David Souter (age 68 ) -- are widely expected by court observers to retire or otherwise leave the Court in the first term of the next President. By contrast, the four judges who dissented -- Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Sam Alito -- are expected to stay right where they are for many years to come.

John McCain has identified Roberts and Alito as ideal justices of the type he would nominate, while Barack Obama has identified Stephen Breyer, David Souter and Ginsberg (all in the majority today). It's not hyperbole to say that, from Supreme Court appointments alone, our core constitutional protections could easily depend upon the outcome of the 2008 election.

-- Glenn Greenwald"

(Note this is just a snippet of a much longer article, should not be a copyright problem.)

I thought Supreme Court nomination were the most important part of the last election cycle. With a Kerry victory, it would have secured a left leaning majority for several more decades. Now Alito and Roberts are so young that they will be on the court for decades. Add in Thomas to that and that's a sizable portion of a unbeatable majority.

What would happen if one of the old liberal guys were to unexpectedly die before Bush's term is up? Any chance that Congress would confirm any nominee Bush sends before them? With all the contempt the current administration has shown towards Congress I would love it if they just flat out rejected anyone and eveyone he would nominated

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 19:50:32

Unless Bush seriously consults Leahy and Schumer and whatnot before nominating someone, there's no way they confirm a justice.

by **Woody** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 19:53:50

If Bush were the CEO of the US instead of the President, he'd have been fired about 4 years ago, right?

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 19:56:20

Well, he got reelected less than four years ago.

by **Woody** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 20:02:49

jerseyhoya wrote:Well, he got reelected less than four years ago.

Only because our Board of Directors is incompetent

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 20:08:27

Woody wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Well, he got reelected less than four years ago.

Only because our Board of Directors is incompetent

No, it's cause of Diebold and cheating Republicans and Ken Blackwell and stuff.

by **Woody** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 20:09:37

jerseyhoya wrote:
Woody wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Well, he got reelected less than four years ago.

Only because our Board of Directors is incompetent

No, it's cause of Diebold and cheating Republicans and Ken Blackwell and stuff.

So you're saying it was an inside job?

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 20:12:31

Forget I said anything. I already gave away our plans to round people up this week to Steagles. This is why you can't trust me with any secrets.

by **VoxOrion** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 21:58:27

dajafi wrote:Obama/McCain tax plans compared

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fbxpMw4mco[/youtube]

Good Lord, I think she had an orgasm right there on screen.

by **Woody** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 21:59:49

VoxOrion wrote:
dajafi wrote:Obama/McCain tax plans compared

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fbxpMw4mco[/youtube]

Good Lord, I think she had an orgasm right there on screen.

Nah, that's just the pixelation from YouTube

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 22:09:06

I like the "which is actually pretty rich in this country" line for the 66k-112k group.

Cunt

by **VoxOrion** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 22:12:09

I used to work with a lot of union folks that were married to... people in unions. I know for a fact most of these couples pulled in well into or over that $112K range annually. Why isn't the AFL-CIO standing up to Obama on this!

by **Stay_Disappointed** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 22:27:29

jerseyhoya wrote:Unless Bush seriously consults Leahy and Schumer and whatnot before nominating someone, there's no way they confirm a justice.

Yeah and they all agree that he should nominate Hillary Clinton

by **pacino** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 22:28:37

VoxOrion wrote:I used to work with a lot of union folks that were married to... people in unions. I know for a fact most of these couples pulled in well into or over that $112K range annually. Why isn't the AFL-CIO standing up to Obama on this!

because we were all at a baseball game tonight

by **Houshphandzadeh** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 23:23:02

Is that video pretty accurate?

by **Houshphandzadeh** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 23:25:05

jerseyhoya wrote:I like the "which is actually pretty rich in this country" line for the 66k-112k group.

$#@!

That's true, isn't it?

by **jerseyhoya** » Thu Jun 12, 2008 23:27:26

If you're single assholes like you and me, yeah, that's pretty damn well off. If you have kids and stuff, I don't think that you're feeling too rich at 66k.

I'm not sure how accurate the video is. It's probably based strictly on what the candidates have said their plans are, regardless of whether they're workable or not. If Obama is somehow gonna get people healthcare, cut taxes for people who make 100k, and cut the deficit, he's got a pretty sweet plan.

by **dajafi** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 00:07:01

One thing I want to learn more about is McCain evidently mentioning recently that he wanted to go through the Pentagon budget and lay waste to unnecessary spending on stupid, pointless billion-dollar programs designed to stop the Bolsheviks from conquering West Germany (my phrasing, not his).

Granted, McCain's also calling for more spending to pay for his "War--it's FAN-tastic!" agenda (and indeed he wants to take a tougher line against Russia), but anyone who's even willing to voice the sentiment that the defense budget has a lard-to-substance ratio approaching that of Mark Penn's ass is okay by me.

by **Laexile** » Fri Jun 13, 2008 02:15:45

dajafi wrote:One thing I want to learn more about is McCain evidently mentioning recently that he wanted to go through the Pentagon budget and lay waste to unnecessary spending on stupid, pointless billion-dollar programs designed to stop the Bolsheviks from conquering West Germany (my phrasing, not his).

Granted, McCain's also calling for more spending to pay for his "War--it's FAN-tastic!" agenda (and indeed he wants to take a tougher line against Russia), but anyone who's even willing to voice the sentiment that the defense budget has a lard-to-substance ratio approaching that of Mark Penn's ass is okay by me.

McCain has a long history of killing Pentagon programs going way back. It's been a crusade of his. The Air Force hates him. Boeing despises him and will do anything they can to make sure McCain's not elected. He's been a thorn in Boeing's side so long that he has no chance of carrying Washington.

I know it's popular to depict McCain as a war monger, but few defense contractors are benefitting from Iraq. It's a war that doesn't need complex weapons that the Pentagon and defense contractors want to develop. Defense contractors will all be lining up behind Obama. As evidenced by the earmarks he's tried to get Illinois he isn't that concerned with unnecessary spending.

Archived

Politics: Sorta Black guy v Sorta Old Guy