SCOTUS

[BDKJMU]

Biden is so demented that he watched the hearings last week, and doesn’t remember it..

[Ivytalk]

And, to no one’s surprise, Susan Collins announces that she’ll vote for Jackson. The MSM is now hyperventilating about this “bipartisan” nomination. Just waiting for Mitt and Graham to announce.

[Ibanez]

And, to no one’s surprise, Susan Collins announces that she’ll vote for Jackson. The MSM is now hyperventilating about this “bipartisan” nomination. Just waiting for Mitt and Graham to announce.

1 Republican vote doesn't make it bi-partisan. That's more like an accounting error than broad party support. Our media will spin anything, won't they?

[Ivytalk]

And, to no one’s surprise, Susan Collins announces that she’ll vote for Jackson. The MSM is now hyperventilating about this “bipartisan” nomination. Just waiting for Mitt and Graham to announce.

1 Republican vote doesn't make it bi-partisan. That's more like an accounting error than broad party support. Our media will spin anything, won't they?

Yup. Check out the MSN news feed. Don’t take my word for it.

[Ibanez]

1 Republican vote doesn't make it bi-partisan. That's more like an accounting error than broad party support. Our media will spin anything, won't they?

Yup. Check out the MSN news feed. Don’t take my word for it.

Oh no, I believe you. That eye roll wasn't directed toward you.

[Ibanez]

Lindsey Graham is Lady G, Lady G is Lindsey Graham.

Lindsey has always been consistent on SCOTUS nominees - put forward someone qualified and he’ll vote to confirm them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina announced Thursday that he will not vote for President Joe Biden's Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, despite supporting her nomination to a previous Senate-confirmed position last year.

"I will oppose her and I will vote no," Graham said in a speech on the Senate floor.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/31/politics ... index.html

[Ivytalk]

Lindsey has always been consistent on SCOTUS nominees - put forward someone qualified and he’ll vote to confirm them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina announced Thursday that he will not vote for President Joe Biden's Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson, despite supporting her nomination to a previous Senate-confirmed position last year.

"I will oppose her and I will vote no," Graham said in a speech on the Senate floor.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/31/politics ... index.html

Lindsey must be up for re-election.

Anyone heard from Mitt?

[SDHornet]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/31/politics ... index.html

Lindsey must be up for re-election.

Anyone heard from Mitt?

[UNI88]

Lindsey must be up for re-election.

Anyone heard from Mitt?

So Matt Gaetz is hoping Jackson is assigned to his trial?

[Winterborn]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/31/politics ... index.html

Lindsey must be up for re-election.

Anyone heard from Mitt?

Just follow the smell of being a carpetbagger.

[kalm]

So Matt Gaetz is hoping Jackson is assigned to his trial?

[kalm]

So who are the front runners to replace Thomas?

(Oh wait…Dems are gigantic pussies. Never mind)

[Winterborn]

So who are the front runners to replace Thomas?

(Oh wait…Dems are gigantic pussies. Never mind)

When Thomas was admitted to the hospital the thought did cross my mind that I hope he lasts through November because after that it will not matter.

And if he didn't, the fireworks would be something to behold.

[GannonFan]

So who are the front runners to replace Thomas?

(Oh wait…Dems are gigantic pussies. Never mind)

Nah, he's 73. Not the picture of health, but he's likely to hang around for at least another 5-7 years. Breyer was 83 when he was pushed by outside groups to get out while the Dems had both entities required to put a new judge on the Bench. Like I said before in another thread, with Breyer leaving this is easily the youngest SCOTUS we've maybe seen in our lives. Compared to the other two branches of governments the SCOTUS looks like a bunch of kids wearing robes.

[houndawg]

So who are the front runners to replace Thomas?

(Oh wait…Dems are gigantic pussies. Never mind)

Nah, he's 73. Not the picture of health, but he's likely to hang around for at least another 5-7 years. Breyer was 83 when he was pushed by outside groups to get out while the Dems had both entities required to put a new judge on the Bench. Like I said before in another thread, with Breyer leaving this is easily the youngest SCOTUS we've maybe seen in our lives. Compared to the other two branches of governments the SCOTUS looks like a bunch of kids wearing robes.

Ol' Long Dong Silver may have some rough sailing coming what with his treasonus wife being clearly certifiable and neck deep in the attempted coup .

[kalm]

Nah, he's 73. Not the picture of health, but he's likely to hang around for at least another 5-7 years. Breyer was 83 when he was pushed by outside groups to get out while the Dems had both entities required to put a new judge on the Bench. Like I said before in another thread, with Breyer leaving this is easily the youngest SCOTUS we've maybe seen in our lives. Compared to the other two branches of governments the SCOTUS looks like a bunch of kids wearing robes.

Ol' Long Dong Silver may have some rough sailing coming what with his treasonus wife being clearly certifiable and neck deep in the attempted coup .

Yeah I was trolling a little with that post. Kudos to Ganny for not biting.

Nothing will come of this but Thomas should be impeached.

[AZGrizFan]

Ol' Long Dong Silver may have some rough sailing coming what with his treasonus wife being clearly certifiable and neck deep in the attempted coup .

Yeah I was trolling a little with that post. Kudos to Ganny for not biting.

Nothing will come of this but Thomas should be impeached.

Can you impeach a sitting SCOTUS? Is there a mechanism for that?

[UNI88]

Yeah I was trolling a little with that post. Kudos to Ganny for not biting.

Nothing will come of this but Thomas should be impeached.

Can you impeach a sitting SCOTUS? Is there a mechanism for that?

There is but I don't think it would succeed in doing more than wasting time, spending money, and further dividing the country.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

Ol' Long Dong Silver may have some rough sailing coming what with his treasonus wife being clearly certifiable and neck deep in the attempted coup .

Yeah I was trolling a little with that post. Kudos to Ganny for not biting.

Nothing will come of this but Thomas should be impeached.

Based on what?

[CID1990]

I don’t know why he should be impeached - from what I have seen, he hasn’t ruled on any significant Jan 6 cases yet. Maybe I’m wrong about that.

I do think he should recuse himself from Jan 6 cases. If he does not, and there is compelling evidence of a conflict of interest, then maybe - but for now I don’t see any grounds for removal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

I don’t know why he should be impeached - from what I have seen, he hasn’t ruled on any significant Jan 6 cases yet. Maybe I’m wrong about that.

I do think he should recuse himself from Jan 6 cases. If he does not, and there is compelling evidence of a conflict of interest, then maybe - but for now I don’t see any grounds for removal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He was the lone dissenter in one of the Jan 6 cases.

[CID1990]

I don’t know why he should be impeached - from what I have seen, he hasn’t ruled on any significant Jan 6 cases yet. Maybe I’m wrong about that.

I do think he should recuse himself from Jan 6 cases. If he does not, and there is compelling evidence of a conflict of interest, then maybe - but for now I don’t see any grounds for removal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He was the lone dissenter in one of the Jan 6 cases.

That wasn’t a decision on case law. It was a motion from Trump to avoid turning over Jan 6 documents.

I would agree that it adds to the body of circumstantial evidence that suggests Thomas has a conflict of interest and should recuse himself from any Jan 6 cases. Impeachment is still a very radical measure - only the most extreme Dems currently support it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[houndawg]

I don’t know why he should be impeached - from what I have seen, he hasn’t ruled on any significant Jan 6 cases yet. Maybe I’m wrong about that.

I do think he should recuse himself from Jan 6 cases. If he does not, and there is compelling evidence of a conflict of interest, then maybe - but for now I don’t see any grounds for removal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wouldn't he need to have more than one interest for there to be a conflict?

[kalm]

He was the lone dissenter in one of the Jan 6 cases.

That wasn’t a decision on case law. It was a motion from Trump to avoid turning over Jan 6 documents.

I would agree that it adds to the body of circumstantial evidence that suggests Thomas has a conflict of interest and should recuse himself from any Jan 6 cases. Impeachment is still a very radical measure - only the most extreme Dems currently support it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I caught that you qualified your comment with “significant.” We probably won’t agree on what constitutes significant. I’ve learned from experience that cases can be decided by decisions on motion.

My opinion is that this stinks to high high Heaven and the dots connected from Jan 6th to highly influential people inside and outside of government are significant. I suppose arguments will be made that Thomas and his wife never discussed Jan 6th, who she was speaking to and her opinions that Biden and Co needed to be forcefully removed from power. Some will buy that. An impeachment would publicly bring what was actually going on further into the light.

That’s an important thing in my book.

[CID1990]

That wasn’t a decision on case law. It was a motion from Trump to avoid turning over Jan 6 documents.

I would agree that it adds to the body of circumstantial evidence that suggests Thomas has a conflict of interest and should recuse himself from any Jan 6 cases. Impeachment is still a very radical measure - only the most extreme Dems currently support it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I caught that you qualified your comment with “significant.” We probably won’t agree on what constitutes significant. I’ve learned from experience that cases can be decided by decisions on motion.

My opinion is that this stinks to high high Heaven and the dots connected from Jan 6th to highly influential people inside and outside of government are significant. I suppose arguments will be made that Thomas and his wife never discussed Jan 6th, who she was speaking to and her opinions that Biden and Co needed to be forcefully removed from power. Some will buy that. An impeachment would publicly bring what was actually going on further into the light.

That’s an important thing in my book.

It is a measure supported only on the extremist left so I’m not surprised you also support it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk