Jump to content

Buddha

MotownSports Fan
  • Content Count

    49,733
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    36

Everything posted by Buddha

  1. for trump its about turnout. will his supporters come out in a way they didnt (2018) before because he wasnt on the ballot?
  2. he's doing better with black and hispanic voters than in 2016. mostly male voters. but he's lost the suburbs and is doing much much worse with white educated women. and biden is doing a bit better than hillary with white working class people and seniors. like mtu said, its basically what we saw in 2018.
  3. i dunno. from scotusblog: In a brief opinion agreeing with the decision to deny relief, Roberts explained that he agreed with the 7th Circuit’s decision to put Conley’s ruling on hold because the case involved a federal district court that had “intervened in the thick of election season to enjoin enforcement of a State’s laws.” Roberts said that this case was different from the Pennsylvania case — in which the justices last week let stand a lower-court order requiring election officials to count absentee ballots received within three days after Election Day — because those requests involved the power of state courts to apply their own constitution to election regulations. This case, by contrast, involves a federal “intrusion on state lawmaking process.”
  4. ok. i guess were not friends anymore. you win
  5. good lord, man. take some coffee. if i misunderstood what you wrote, then i apologize. again. nobody is out to get you, my man. we're all friends here.
  6. i didnt conveniently add anything. you wrote "kennedy: conspiracy theory." if i misunderstood what you meant, then i apologize. did you not write "kennedy: conspiracy theory"?
  7. nice job voting for jill stein you morons. remember when she collected all that money for a recount in wisconsin? idiots. i remember getting into an argument on this site with "ron burgandy" (rip) when he said the supreme court shouldnt matter when voting for president. welp. no. it matters a lot.
  8. some do. and some people want abortion to be legal up until the point of conception (some would argue even after conception given how the laws would be written). so what? youre tarring a judge with the broad brush of what you think "evangelicals" want. so what if they want it? they didnt want transgender people to be protected by the civil rights act and they got it. sometimes its more nuanced than what a particular bogeyman group "wants" which im sure you realize. again, all the focus on abortion is misplaced, imo. the most the supreme court would do is overturn roe which would send it back to the states. there arent 5 votes or even a case that would allow the court to make abortion illegal in the whole country and you know it. save that hyperbolic bull**** for the taters of the board ranting about "the fash", you know that wont happen. the MOST roberts court would likely do would be to wittle away at the edges of Casey as to what is an undue burden. and if they were go so far as to overturn roe, it would mean you'd have a robust abortion business north of the mason dixon line cause it definitely wont be illegal in most blue states. and you know it. the much more legitimate criticism is the court's bent toward the protection of business interests. now, to someone like me, thats a positive. but not in every case. and this court has shown it will go to lengths to protect the right of businesses against that of the individual. that is a legit criticism, not some bull**** about them disallowing the minimum wage or turning america into a catholic fantasy land. save that **** for salon or the nation. its not happening.
  9. ok. oh well. just like evil justice gorsuch who hates gays and lesbians because he is endorsed by the evil cabal of the federalist society ended up writing the opinion that enshrined protections for transgendered individuals into the law? its almost as if the mainstream press' opinions on legal matters are about as nuanced and well reasoned as mainstream sportswriters' opinions about baseball...
  10. phew! i would hope we'd have moved on from the anti-catholic bias of the 1960s, but i guess not.
  11. they wont, so you wont have to worry about it.
  12. i say this to you a lot. the way you phrase something might not be understood by your reader in the same way you meant when you wrote it. if i misunderstood what you said, the i apologize.
  13. they would likely send it back to the states by ruling there is no "right to privacy" in the constitution. because there is a legitimate argument that there is no right to privacy in the constitution because the constitution does not say there is a right to privacy. but you can chalk it all up to jesus if it makes you feel righteous.
  14. ok. so pfife tells me any objection to kennedy was based on a "conspiracy theory" and then g2 tells me that every judge - and presumably elected official - should be questioned about their ability to be loyal to the constitution? which one is it? is it a conspiracy or is it legitimate? its almost as if its a legitimate question when the person is a perceived political opponent and not a legitimate question when the person is a political friend.
  15. the right to buy contraceptives is not at stake in this election.
  16. ok. we will - once again - agree to disagree!
  17. i dont think these justices have said they are going to enforce "catholicism" on us, whatever that means.
  18. bork was rejected because the party in power in the senate felt he should not have been on the supreme court because his opinions were very far outside the mainstream. that's what the party in power in the senate is supposed to do, not just act as a rubber stamp for whomever the president nominates.
  19. why are they not like kennedy when it comes to religion? that's what g2 was talking about.
  20. i think what he said can be easily associated with people that suck, whether he meant it that way or not.
  21. i think that's right. and i hate it. i wish they would be more forthcoming about their opinions and then the senators could cast their votes with more accurate information. if you're a democrat and committed to upholding Roe, the why would you vote for a candidate who would overturn it? they should be honest in how they feel. that said, there is some justification for the ginsburg rule. a judge shouldnt comment on cases that could come before her at a later date.
  22. i feel i quoted him and placed his quote in an historical context. i feel his quote resembled the quotes from that time period when people said those things about catholics and jews and that they now say about muslims.
  23. nominate an intelligent, successful woman?
×
×
  • Create New...