Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Future of the Supreme Court

The Future of the Supreme Court (Page 7)
Thread Tools
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2020, 08:20 PM
 
Thats not what I call them.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2020, 01:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Alito dissented from the majority on Planned Parenthood vs. Casey as a judge of the Court of Appeals. So I'd take that with a grain of salt.

He would or he doesn't, but should?
I don't see that happening. Not because I take issue with your reasoning, but because I don't think Alito will follow this line of reasoning until its logical conclusion. When it comes to these issues, motivated reasoning is very strong — even in Supreme Court justices.

Look at his record, including his minority dissent on Planned Parenthood vs. Casey.
At your prompting, I read this dissent. It’s easy to build a profile of where he stands because he’s freaky consistent.

Alito doesn’t question the protection for abortion provided by law. In every dissent he reaffirms the law obligates him to provide these protections. He hasn’t budged on this for going on three decades.

Now, he’s a real unforgiving hardass when it comes to judging whether a law infringes on these protections, but as far as I can tell, he’s never ever questioned whether abortion is due these protections. His position is the law says it‘s due, so it’s due.

A court where Alito’s opinion was in the majority would no doubt be more restrictive of abortion, however it wouldn’t be a court intent on eliminating the protections abortion has been given. Throughout his entire career, Alito has treated these protections as settled law.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2020, 04:18 AM
 
Its nice to know that there are at least some on the right prepared to respect the law over what they personally favour. I get the impression they are a nearly extinct breed these days.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2020, 10:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
At your prompting, I read this dissent. It’s easy to build a profile of where he stands because he’s freaky consistent.
First of all, kudos to you for reading the dissent. I haven't, so I'll take your summary at face value.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Alito doesn’t question the protection for abortion provided by law. In every dissent he reaffirms the law obligates him to provide these protections. He hasn’t budged on this for going on three decades.
My dad was a lawyer and I worked for him during high school typing up legal texts of all sorts. I don't want to pretend I'm a lawyer, I'm not, but I have read in quite a bit of detail how lawyers argue. I'd say Alito is putting forth his best argument given the current legal framework. So as you say, as long as Roe vs. Wade hasn't been overturned, that's the current legal framework he has to stay within. And like you write:
Originally Posted by subego View Post
A court where Alito’s opinion was in the majority would no doubt be more restrictive of abortion, however it wouldn’t be a court intent on eliminating the protections abortion has been given.
Roe vs. Wade was not on the table — this time. But you can carve out so many exceptions to a right until it practically no longer exists. For example when it comes to voter ID laws, you can shape the law so as to surgically target one specific part of the electorate (say, you exclude students IDs, but accept hunting licenses). On paper, you are not disenfranchising one particular political group even though in practice you very much do. If this law comes before you as a judge, you can find good micro arguments to go either way, which allows you to give more weight to the theory of the law or they are put in practice.

Supreme Court justices are not stupid, they know full well what is going on. In some aspects, legal details do matter. But we shouldn't lose sight of the bigger picture.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Throughout his entire career, Alito has treated these protections as settled law.
This is the only point where I'd quibble with you and say that Alito has in fact ruled on Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, the other relevant important precedent (as a lower court judge before he was elevated to the Supreme Court). So Alito has helped shape the current legal framework on abortion.


Zooming out again, I don't think it is smart either way to rely on the Supreme Court coming to the “right” conclusion, whatever you may consider this to be. But given that legislation on this topic is even less likely than legislation on any topic, you Americans need to rely on a bunch of really old people in funny robes making the “right” choice.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2020, 12:20 PM
 
Can anyone tell me why the court agreed to hear the Louisiana case in the first place? As I understand it, the law was, for all intents, identical to the Texas law which the court had already struck down.
[set curmudgeon_mode=1]
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2020, 03:39 PM
 
Two new justices since the Texas ruling.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 2, 2020, 09:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
Can anyone tell me why the court agreed to hear the Louisiana case in the first place? As I understand it, the law was, for all intents, identical to the Texas law which the court had already struck down.
I heard that one of the factors was who the plaintiff was in this case vs. the previous one on the Texan abortion law.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Two new justices since the Texas ruling.
That, too.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2020, 06:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Supreme Court justices are not stupid, they know full well what is going on. In some aspects, legal details do matter. But we shouldn't lose sight of the bigger picture.
Let’s take a near-worst case scenario in Louisiana, where regulations whittle things down until there’s only one abortion provider left in the entire state.

Assuming this provider is in one of the top three metro areas, per the Casey test (within 150 miles of a provider), over half the state population still has access.

This is restricting abortion far beyond what the law allows, but even with that, it can’t exactly be said it’s been restricted to the point of unavailability.


P.S. I want to address the settled law part, but that’s a little more involved.
( Last edited by subego; Jul 4, 2020 at 08:28 AM. )
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2020, 02:28 PM
 
Roberts and others back in line to allow religious institutions to not include birth control in their health insurance packages, and religious schools free to discriminate however they wish. Oh, and in Montana tax credits can be used toward religious schools. Betsy Devos is getting her money's worth.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...source=twitter

Some theorize this is throwing meat to Trump before coming out hard on the tax issue. We'll see.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2020, 03:14 PM
 
Kagan is throwing meat to Trump?
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2020, 04:07 PM
 
I've lost track of what dimension of chess they're all playing at this point.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2020, 05:33 PM
 
It's a little surprising Kagan went with the crowd on these. The vote was 7-2 with only Sotomayer and Ginsberg dissenting. So two judges went with majority.

I never considered that judges may have backroom dealings like other politicians "I'll vote for yours if you vote for mine." I hope not. The religious angle is a tricky one.

As many on twitter are saying, all the more reason to make healthcare not dependent on employer.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 8, 2020, 06:12 PM
 
Maybe I’m being naive, but my guess is they don’t horse trade. There’s no real incentive, and morals and egos both get in the way.

Further, I get the impression they all enjoy getting into legal judo matches with each other.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2020, 10:25 AM
 
SCOTUS has ruled Trump must turn over his tax returns to the SDNY.
A 7-2 decision. Not even close. Roberts wrote the majority opinion.
( Last edited by Thorzdad; Jul 9, 2020 at 10:39 AM. )
[set curmudgeon_mode=1]
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2020, 10:44 AM
 
What if he refuses?

Can they just get them from the IRS?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2020, 11:04 AM
 
I think, technically, they subpoenaed the accountants who prepped the returns, and Trump sued to block the move. I don't think he actually has a say in the matter.
[set curmudgeon_mode=1]
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2020, 11:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
SCOTUS has ruled Trump must turn over his tax returns to the SDNY.
A 7-2 decision. Not even close. Roberts wrote the majority opinion.
What do we expect to see? It's not like he's going to report employment by the Russian government. I have no idea what a tax return looks like at that level. If it looks like he didn't make money, he just makes the claim that his brilliant Jew accountant cooked the books so he wouldn't have to pay taxes. If it shows that he made tons of money, he revels in being rich. I guess I don't see the downside here.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2020, 11:23 AM
 
It's already been shown that he owes money to russian banks, right?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2020, 11:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
SCOTUS has ruled Trump must turn over his tax returns to the SDNY.
A 7-2 decision. Not even close. Roberts wrote the majority opinion.
Womp womp.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2020, 04:14 PM
 
And his spokesperson spins and sidles it away "A unanimous decision in favor of the president." His taxes will be released after audit. How long do audits take? Forever?

Q: "the pres] could release his taxes at any time... why shouldn't the American public, at this point, believe the pres. has something he's trying to hide?"

A: "The taxes are under audit, he said he would release them when they were no longer under audit"

https://t.co/Qx5HleVL1p
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2020, 04:30 PM
 
She’s counter-spinning too much, but all the headlines I’ve seen up to now did omit some kinda sorta important details.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2020, 07:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
What do we expect to see? It's not like he's going to report employment by the Russian government. I have no idea what a tax return looks like at that level. If it looks like he didn't make money, he just makes the claim that his brilliant Jew accountant cooked the books so he wouldn't have to pay taxes. If it shows that he made tons of money, he revels in being rich. I guess I don't see the downside here.
Best case scenario for Trump is his returns reveal that he has considerably less money than he claims and his ego takes hit. More likely, they reveal all sorts of troubling information mostly being conflicts of interest with shares in businesses he's been awarding government contracts to (more than the ones we already know about) and security concerns due to debts or payments to foreign governments.
( Last edited by Waragainstsleep; Jul 10, 2020 at 12:51 AM. )
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2020, 10:13 PM
 
I’d add to that he also probably has investments in Russia he claimed to never have.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2020, 07:27 AM
 
But tax returns don't show net worth do they? And do they break out specific investment sources? I've only ever done poverty-level normal people taxes, where "capital gains" is a single field, and the only time income source is called out is when I have a W2, which rich people wouldn't really care about. If most of his net worth is wrapped up in real estate and investments, what would be incriminating about a tax return?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2020, 07:57 AM
 
I’ve got nothin. I don’t even look at the thing. My accountant says “pay this”, and then I cry.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2020, 12:31 PM
 
Investments (banks, trusts, etc) issue 1099 forms to report their income, which get included in tax returns. If he itemizes (likely to obtain the lowest tax) the forms will include a lot about his direct assets. There are extra forms for foreign income, for unusual deductions, etc. Explanations may be attached, pointing out "suspicious item X" was audited two years ago, and passed. Collectively, his returns are likely to include a whole lot of info.

I'm still rooting for some illegal income. He should have paid for a tax attorney to prepare his returns, instead of an accounting house. Yes, it costs more. But your attorney is covered by attorney-client privilege, and a subpoena is a waste of time. The fact he cheeped-out with a tax preparation firm, suggests he also deducted every last item he could, for every dime of tax savings. Which means his forms will include the maximum amount of info.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2020, 06:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
This is the only point where I'd quibble with you and say that Alito has in fact ruled on Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, the other relevant important precedent (as a lower court judge before he was elevated to the Supreme Court). So Alito has helped shape the current legal framework on abortion.
Sorry for the delay!

I guess I’m ultimately confused here.

When Casey was before him, he ruled on it, which is what he’s supposed to do.

The central question was what test to use, whether “undue burden” or a lesser standard.

His argument was for a lesser standard, however he took no issue with the undue burden standard. To him, that standard was settled law.

FWIW, he also said that under the undue burden standard, the clause in question was likely unconstitutional.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2020, 08:06 PM
 
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2020, 09:32 PM
 
I’m so glad Mitch McConnell is in charge of the Senate. He knows that Presidents should not appoint Supreme Court judges in their last year, the people should have a say in this and we should wait until after the election.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2020, 09:43 PM
 
Mitch is gonna push a confirmation vote through before her body’s cold. I wouldn’t be surprised if it happens sometime over the next two weeks.
[set curmudgeon_mode=1]
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2020, 12:28 AM
 
An unscrupulous choice, with an election only weeks away. Lots of states on the fence. The future balance of the Senate up in the air. The chance to lose yet more House seats. Losing more state legislative seats, right before redistricting, could alter control of the House and state legislatures for a decade. A wise person would step carefully.

So yes, I expect a Senate confirm attempt right away.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2020, 01:25 AM
 
Well, said.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2020, 03:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
An unscrupulous choice, with an election only weeks away.
This gives undecided Trump voters a galvanization point. The issue of judges has been a strong issue that overrode many other considerations in the past, and the theater that this appointment will become is undoubtedly distract from, well, the pandemic and the myriad of scandals Trump, Trump family members and Trump administration officials are mired in. Plus, it is really easy to understand.

However, the Trump administration has been very good at scoring own goals. If they pick a Gorsuch, i. e. a conservative with an impeccable record and a decent person, there will be very little the Democrats can do now. But if Trump goes for a firebrand like a Kavanaugh, he might get into trouble. Susan Collins probably won't hold her nose this time — another Kavanaugh will sink her re-election prospects.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2020, 04:09 AM
 
My guess is he’ll pick a woman, which will make the Democrats reluctant to punch her in the face like they’d want to.
     
Doc HM
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2020, 04:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My guess is he’ll pick a woman, which will make the Democrats reluctant to punch her in the face like they’d want to.
I suspect you over estimate the man.
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2020, 05:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doc HM View Post
I suspect you over estimate the man.
He’s intimately familiar with stacking the deck.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2020, 06:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My guess is he’ll pick a woman, which will make the Democrats reluctant to punch her in the face like they’d want to.
Maybe. That’d be logical, and if we were talking about a “normal” president, I’d be inclined to agree. With Trump, though, I get the impression, though, that a troubled nomination like Kavanaugh’s gets his juices flowing. Kavanaugh-the-poor-railroaded-victim made for great TV in his mind, me thinks. If Trump has an angle on it, then I am sure the only thing he cares about are his re-election chances. So he’ll just pick whoever is at the top of the list of what-was-this-ultraconservative-legal-scholars-society’s-name-again.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2020, 06:25 AM
 
Under normal circumstances, yes, but this is going to be a speedrun.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2020, 08:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
Mitch is gonna push a confirmation vote through before her body’s cold. I wouldn’t be surprised if it happens sometime over the next two weeks.
Ding! Ding! Ding!

Mitch threw down the glove in his eulogy press release.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2020, 09:34 AM
 
Other things I noted from his press release, emphasis on "2cd term lame duck presidents don't get to nominate judges" which leaves the door open for him to claim that since it's not Trump's second term, democrats can't pull the republican trick. Mitch is a slimeball of the highest order. I heard McGrath's donations are way up today.

As to who the nominee is, I agree if he nominates a woman it would be a challenge for Dems to criticize her. Someone on Facebook noted: "Amy Coney Barrett is going to be his nominee, worse than Cotton or Cruz... The republicans can’t afford to lose a senator right now." Coney Barrett has only been on the court for 3 years (trump nominee) and is rabidly antiabortion.

https://www.businessinsider.com/who-...e-court-2020-9

https://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/s...lection-years/
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2020, 12:23 PM
 
I don’t think it will be hard for the Dems to vote against any woman who Trump deems up to his standards. Any Trump nominee, man or woman, is all but guaranteed to be a slimy piece of work, easily voted down simply based on their record and/or lack of qualifications.
[set curmudgeon_mode=1]
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2020, 06:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
I don’t think it will be hard for the Dems to vote against any woman who Trump deems up to his standards. Any Trump nominee, man or woman, is all but guaranteed to be a slimy piece of work, easily voted down simply based on their record and/or lack of qualifications.
The vote is irrelevant. For all intents and purposes the vote has happened, and the Democrats lost.

However, that won’t stop the Democrats from trying to character assassinate the nominee, and it’s here where gender matters. The Democrats won’t be able to use their normal playbook on a woman.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2020, 06:46 PM
 
I’m worried Chongo’s dead.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2020, 08:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Under normal circumstances, yes, but this is going to be a speedrun.
Sure, I agree with you on that. I'm just saying that I think Trump will choose the candidate that he thinks will give him the best chances at the election. So if Trump thinks nominating a woman who is also a conservative firebrand will rile up Democrats more and he believes this will help him, then this is what he will do. But of course, we are not privy to these kinds of details (fortunately).

Clearly, unlike with Justice Scalia, the death of Judge Ginsburg did not come as a surprise to anyone, so I'm sure people in the White House have had plans squared away in a drawer and just need to take them out.
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
Other things I noted from his press release, emphasis on "2cd term lame duck presidents don't get to nominate judges" which leaves the door open for him to claim that since it's not Trump's second term, democrats can't pull the republican trick. Mitch is a slimeball of the highest order. I heard McGrath's donations are way up today.
We should keep in mind that this is not what lame duck means and there was never a provision that presidents could not appoint someone in their last term. If I were a Democratic strategist, the only reason I might consider to use this argument is to e. g. show that quite a few Republican senators (including Lindsey Graham) are breaking their own promises now.

Regarding races, Amy McGrath seems quite a bit behind, but Graham is in a dead heat with his Democratic challenger. And Susan Collins is behind. No doubt this motivated her promise to not vote on Ginsburg's replacement until a new President is sworn in.
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
I don’t think it will be hard for the Dems to vote against any woman who Trump deems up to his standards. Any Trump nominee, man or woman, is all but guaranteed to be a slimy piece of work, easily voted down simply based on their record and/or lack of qualifications.
I think subego is right when he says “the vote has already happened.” Unless the president does a big oopsie, which is always a possibility with Trump, the person he will nominate will be approved in short order. They should focus on winning elections on all levels. If the issue of the Supreme Court can galvanize Democratic voters, then they could use this as an issue during the campaign. Keep the eyes on the prize.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2020, 09:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I’m worried Chongo’s dead.
No worries.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2020, 10:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Susan Collins is behind. No doubt this motivated her promise to not vote on Ginsburg's replacement until a new President is sworn in.
The thing to always remember with Collins is she’s running a protection racket.

“Nice little majority you got here Mitch. Wouldn’t want anything to... happen to it now would we?“
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2020, 10:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
No worries.
Excellent!!! Great to see you!!!
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2020, 10:20 AM
 
Trump's Shortlist:

Himself
Ivanka
Tiffany
Eric
Ann Coulter
Tomi Lahren
Anyone from Fox News
Stormy Daniels
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2020, 10:31 AM
 
You are teh funny.

NOT

-t
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2020, 10:34 AM
 
GOP doesn’t need Collins or Murkowski’s vote.
Thanks to the Democrats, 50 votes are enough to.

-t
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:03 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,