[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Do you believe that every nominee must be carefully and fairly considered, no matter who nominated them?

...

[The Final Dakar]

So, what's the WH/Senste justification for not interviewing the witnesses the accusers say will corroborate their claims?

[andi*pandi]

Or even the accusers. Or anyone who knows anything about Bart's drinking.

[turtle777]

Does it matter ? No matter what the FBI does, if the outcome is that it doesn’t find any proof or corroboration, the left will continue to throw a tantrum and say the investigation should be longer / more independent / lead by Muller etc...

In their mind, all of the stuff happened, and if the FBI can’t find it, it’s nefarious.

There is no point in continuing with this sham.

-t

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Does it matter ? No matter what the FBI does, if the outcome is that it finds any proof or corroboration, the right will continue to throw a tantrum and say the investigation wasn't legal / was a sham / but her emails etc...

In their mind, none of the stuff happened, and even if the biased FBI can find it, it’s nefarious.

There is no point in continuing with this sham.

-t

Fixed.

Complaining about how biased "the left" is and how they'd be unwilling to accept the outcome of an investigation if they don't like the results seems a bit..tone deaf?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Does it matter ? No matter what the FBI does, if the outcome is that it doesn’t find any proof or corroboration, the left will continue to throw a tantrum and say the investigation should be longer / more independent / lead by Muller etc...

In their mind, all of the stuff happened, and if the FBI can’t find it, it’s nefarious.

There is no point in continuing with this sham.

-t

The swing votes? Yes.

With two days left on the investigation they had the time to keep interviewing people. The WH is acting like they're afraid of what they might find.

[andi*pandi]

Krusty the clown, you are accused of throwing pies at a party. We will investigate by neither asking anyone who may have been at the party, or similar parties, nor anyone who remembers your tendency to throw pies.

[Laminar]

You would have said that no matter what.

[The Final Dakar]

They didnt let the FBI interview Kavanaugh. That's an incredible tell.

[The Final Dakar]

Retired Justice John Paul Dtevens says Kavanaugh isn't qualified to serve (!!)

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

They didnt let the FBI interview Kavanaugh. That's an incredible tell.

[andi*pandi]

Sideshow Bob, you were reportedly in the room with Krusty when the pie flinging occurred, and may have assisted in pie flinging. Do you recall such an event happening?

Sideshow Bob: Why no of course not, that would incriminate myself sir!

[The Final Dakar]

Kavanaugh dropped an op-Ed the WSJ yesterday. Feels like damage control this late in the game.

Say what you want about Dem opposition, but if the GOP is having trouble getting the votes the problem isn't partisanism, it's the candidate.

[The Final Dakar]

Murkowski voted no on cloture!

[The Final Dakar]

Collins is yes, and for a lot of imaginary reasons

[andi*pandi]

yup, they're about to pull the football away from her again.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I could be wrong, but I don’t think Roberts wants to flip it.

I realize you don't participate any more but the abortion discussion this week clarified my thinking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_...v._Hellerstedt

ustice Alito, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas, filed a second dissenting opinion, arguing that there is no direct causal link between the Texas law and the closings of abortion clinics, and they may have also been affected by the withdrawal of state funds, declining demand for abortions, and retirements of doctors.

Roberts would have allowed the Texas law the closed over half the clinics (without the surgical center provision ever going to effect). So he might not overturn Roe, but he's ok with adding so much regulatory burden a majority of clinics shut down, greatly reducing access to abortion.

So yes, abortion won't be outlawed, but it'll be difficult to access for all but those in dense population centers ...and the rich.

[The Final Dakar]

WSJ made an sexual assault joke

[turtle777]

Well, this episode is over.

Can’t wait for the next installment of this shitshow, when Ruth BG bites the dust.

The Dems are going to try pulling a Weekend at Bernie’s with her.

Fun times ahead.

-t

[Chongo]

Justice Thomas should swear him in.

[Face Ache]

As an outsider, it seems odd to me that they'd vote a proven liar into the Supreme Court.

Odd, and hilarious.

[Thorzdad]

So, apparently neither Kavenaugh or anyone working for him thought to register brettkavenaugh.com.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I realize you don't participate any more but the abortion discussion this week clarified my thinking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_...v._Hellerstedt


Roberts would have allowed the Texas law the closed over half the clinics (without the surgical center provision ever going to effect). So he might not overturn Roe, but he's ok with adding so much regulatory burden a majority of clinics shut down, greatly reducing access to abortion.

So yes, abortion won't be outlawed, but it'll be difficult to access for all but those in dense population centers ...and the rich.

I don’t want to blow this off but I’m not comfortable with doing anything beyond acknowledging the clarification.

[Chongo]

Rumors are flying that RBG is stepping down. (or has died)

[Thorzdad]

The rumors were started at the White House and pretty exclusively flying at like-minded sources. Merely wishful thinking at this point.

[andi*pandi]

The woman voted from her hospital bed. Hell no.

[turtle777]

They’re gonna keep her on the SC, Weekend at Bernie’s style.

-t

[Chongo]

Another week missed by RBG.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

The Dems are going to try pulling a Weekend at Bernie’s with her.
-t

Originally Posted by turtle777 

They’re gonna keep her on the SC, Weekend at Bernie’s style.

-t

Amazing.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Amazing.

You keep better track of my posts than I.

Amazing.

-t

[Chongo]

Ooops.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ed/2637263002/

[andi*pandi]

riiiight.

Although it's common knowledge that newspapers have prewritten obits ready for famous people, and it's likely that the graphics department also keeps some things made ahead of time in their pocket, there's no reason that graphic should have been anywhere near production unless someone put it there on purpose.

Hi chongo!

[The Final Dakar]

Mr. I respect precedent voted to not to stay Louisiana's abortion provider restrictions just months after SCOTUS overturned similar restrictions in a Texas case.

[andi*pandi]

So, another person has come out to accuse Brett "I like Beer" Kavanaugh of indecency. People want him impeached.

[Thorzdad]

That’s even less likely than Individual-1 getting impeached, and I give that next to no chance.

[andi*pandi]

Gosh, that majority is just paying for itself:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sonia-sot...jtc_news_index

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Gosh, that majority is just paying for itself:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sonia-sot...jtc_news_index

Yeah, funny how they complain when things don’t go their way.

Do you really find any value in partisan bickering like this ?

-t

[Laminar]

*Guy on my side is a partisan shithead*

"LOL I'm in this for the hilarious entertainment!"

*Person on the other side calls out partisan shitheads"

"I'm angry about partisan bickering! It's unproductive!"

[andi*pandi]

SCOTUS feeling a little frisky?

DACA, LGBTQ Rights, and now SCOTUS just struck down the Louisiana abortion restrictions, 5-4, with Roberts joining the majority again.

[subego]

I’m curious what the dissent was on the LA law. but I probably can’t be arsed to read it.

If the law is being described to me properly, it sure sounds like they would need to flip (IIRC) Planned Parenthood v Casey.

[Waragainstsleep]

I always thought Trump wanted to overturn Roe V Wade. Is that still something they are working up to?

[Thorzdad]

Originally Posted by subego 

I’m curious what the dissent was on the LA law. but I probably can’t be arsed to read it.

Part of Thomas’ dissent reads:

Today a majority of the Court perpetuates its ill-founded abortion jurisprudence by enjoining a perfectly legitimate state law and doing so without jurisdiction.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I always thought Trump wanted to overturn Roe V Wade. Is that still something they are working up to?

I don’t think Trump himself cares about Roe, but he does care about those precious evangelical votes. In a way, this ruling gives him something useful to rant about on the campaign trail. The right’s drive to overturn Roe will continue unabated long after Trump’s gone.

[OreoCookie]

I’m with Thorzdad on this one. This is an easy promise for Trump to stick to, he promised he would appoint super conservative judges and he did. Chief Justice Roberts wasn’t his appointment, so he can’t be “blamed” either, “his” judges voted for the minority.

@Waragainstsleep
Yes, at least this is the plan. You can already see that all justices are working in this direction. The liberal justices have emphasized the role of precedence in recent verdicts for a reason. Roe vs. Wade is a precedent, and not overturning precedents is “conservative”.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

Part of Thomas’ dissent reads:

I meant one of the justices who isn’t a troll.

Skimming Alito’s dissent, it looks like he’s arguing the doctors not granted admitting privileges didn’t try particularly hard to get them.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

I meant one of the justices who isn’t a troll.

Skimming Alito’s dissent, it looks like he’s arguing the doctors not granted admitting privileges didn’t try particularly hard to get them.

The goal of these laws, though, is to make abortions impossible by piling on onerous restrictions which are not warranted by potential medical needs of the patients. I find it hard to believe that Alito isn’t aware of this.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The goal of these laws, though, is to make abortions impossible by piling on onerous restrictions which are not warranted by potential medical needs of the patients. I find it hard to believe that Alito isn’t aware of this.

In both this opinion, and a previous one I’ve read, he argued deciding whether an abortion law is too restrictive should be determined by the precedent set in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. If the goal is to make abortion unreasonably difficult or impossible, at some point he would have to abandon this position.

What grounds are there to base an assumption he’ll just drop the reasoning he’s used in multiple opinions? He’s not Scalia.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

In both this opinion, and a previous one I’ve read, he argued deciding whether an abortion law is too restrictive should be determined by the precedent set in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

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.

Originally Posted by subego 

If the goal is to make abortion unreasonably difficult or impossible, at some point he would have to abandon this position.

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.

Originally Posted by subego 

On what grounds are there to base an assumption he’ll just drop the reasoning he’s used in multiple opinions? He’s not Scalia.

Look at his record, including his minority dissent on Planned Parenthood vs. Casey.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

I don’t think Trump himself cares about Roe, but he does care about those precious evangelical votes.

It's the carrot he can dangle out in front of evangelicals, a button he can push when he needs to drum up support (see: Church/bible photo-op in the midst of riots).

It helps rally evangelicals and gets them to ignore that basically every one of his stances and actions are in direct conflict with Biblical teaching.

[Thorzdad]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

It helps rally evangelicals and gets them to ignore that basically every one of his stances and actions are in direct conflict with Biblical teaching.

Yes, well, apparent conflicts with biblical teachings hasn't seemed to sway evangelicals away from supporting the far right, no matter how obvious the hypocrisy. Conservative evangelicals seem to have no problem putting Jesus on a shelf in the closet when need be.

[OAW]

They are called White Evangelical Christians in that order for a reason.

OAW