SCOTUS Watch

[Skinypupy]

Other than the fact it will be Trump who makes the nomination.

If I thought for one second Trump had any input into that list of potential nominees, then you're right, I would have anger directed at him. But we all know he didn't, so 'meh'.

So for you it isn't Trump but unwavering hatred for any conservative positions. Good to know.

If what they're currently displaying in regards to civil rights, foreign policy, reproductive rights, tax policy, the rights of corporations over consumers, etc., etc. represents de facto "conservative positions", then yes, I'm absolutely, 100% guilty of that charge.

Trump just happens to be the jackass braying them the most loudly and often, and is the focal point as a result.

[El Guapo]

What would be the process to expand the size of the Court? I have seen some rumblings that the next D government should consider it as a way to counter the stolen Garland seat, assuming there is ever another D government.

What would make this okay now after FDR tried and failed?

FDR's attempt to pack the Court foundered on bipartisan opposition after public support wilted and the press turned against him. Today's politics are a whole different animal. Popular majorities are routinely undermined now, and each side's media constructs its own reality, so any such attempt would most likely divide along strictly partisan lines.

Most likely it's a non-starter, but it's an interesting thought experiment. If it were actually feasible, the Republicans might have already tried as long as they're blowing away norms anyway. 'Course, it's unnecessary now that they've learned they can steal appointments. We're more likely to see more of that.

The procedure is pretty simple. The number of justices is set by statute. So, you pass a law saying that the number of justices is now (say) 11. Once that is passed and signed, you now have two supreme court vacancies to fill.

I doubt they would do it. As you say the Garland affair provides some justification, but even with that it's sort of a weird remedy because Gorsuch would still be on the court. Who knows, though.

[El Guapo]

If you're McConnell, facing a midterm enthusiasm gap, don't you want to use the nomination vote to bait conservatives to the polls?

The timing is fraught with peril. Kennedy is leaving July 31, and it's likely that between then and November we'll have Mueller's report on Trump's obstruction (targeting him directly) and probably some indictments of close Trump cronies related to collusion. We can probably expect retaliation against the investigation either in anticipation or reaction.

We're looking at a major constitutional crisis with a 4-4 court.

That's definitely a risk. But at the same time, this seat is incredibly important for decades to come. On top of that, holding the seat open (if possible) would galvanize liberals too.

It's a risk, but how do you let this go without a big fight?

There is absolutely nothing that the Democrats can do. The filibuster is out. They can be as mad as they want, gnash all the teeth they want, cry all they want about the Gorsuch affair, but in the end, this is a done deal, unless . . . this is a judge too far for Collins and Murkowski. Both are pro-choice Republicans, so this will be a real test for them. So far they have supported all of the president’s legal nominees, including a number that were openly pro-life. Will it matter more if the Supreme Court and Roe vs Wade are at stake? I guess we will just have to wait and see.

The first step I imagine is to make outreach to Murkowski / Collins / Corker / Flake / McCain, etc., to suss them out on where they are. I think the most one could expect from any of them is: (1) *maybe* limit the worst possible nominees, but I really doubt that any of them would block a Gorsuch-esque nominee (which I assume Trump will wind up with); or (2) get concessions from McConnell / Trump for their votes. Like, Flake has said he'll block any judicial nominees unless the tariff statute is revised - maybe you could talk some of the Republicans into withholding their votes unless they get that, or a bill protecting Mueller, etc. But honestly I don't think we can expect much from any of them.

The other option is to refuse to participate in roll call votes, which would make it very difficult (but not impossible) for Republicans to maintain quorum. That requires all democrats to remain united in the strategy, which may be difficult with Manchin / Heitkamp / etc, but it's possible.

[Rip]

Other than the fact it will be Trump who makes the nomination.

If I thought for one second Trump had any input into that list of potential nominees, then you're right, I would have anger directed at him. But we all know he didn't, so 'meh'.

So for you it isn't Trump but unwavering hatred for any conservative positions. Good to know.

If what they're currently displaying in regards to civil rights, foreign policy, reproductive rights, tax policy, the rights of corporations over consumers, etc., etc. represents de facto "conservative positions", then yes, I'm absolutely, 100% guilty of that charge.

Trump just happens to be the jackass braying them the most loudly and often, and is the focal point as a result.

Then you should not be surprised that the people of opposing views are just as unyielding in their extreme distaste for your views. If anything I am just happy it is all out in the open now and no one is bothering to hide behind compromise or bipartisan babble. Now you can tell where people really stand.

[LordMortis]

So to get this straight, this conviction about how this about Trump when McConnell assured us Obama would never seat Supreme Court Justice was absent until now. But now democrats are hypocrites because when we call out McConnell for being of piece of shit, since, well forever, we are really just rallying behind our blind hatred of Trump and our blind hatred of Trump was really about we called Bush a nazi. And the fact that we call McConnell a piece of shit only goes to prove that we hate all forms of conservatism and Trump is just a stand in.

How does your head keep all that shit straight? What do you have to do forge that sort of alignment?

And day by day it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy. I move from thinking if the GOP were to collapse I could go back to my own form of conservatism to really, what is left to conserve? McConnell's Senate? Ryan's House? Trumps Administration? And the Supreme Court they are not extorting.... By authority of McConnell. This is not the rule of law I grew up proud of.

[Skinypupy]

Other than the fact it will be Trump who makes the nomination.

If I thought for one second Trump had any input into that list of potential nominees, then you're right, I would have anger directed at him. But we all know he didn't, so 'meh'.

So for you it isn't Trump but unwavering hatred for any conservative positions. Good to know.

If what they're currently displaying in regards to civil rights, foreign policy, reproductive rights, tax policy, the rights of corporations over consumers, etc., etc. represents de facto "conservative positions", then yes, I'm absolutely, 100% guilty of that charge.

Trump just happens to be the jackass braying them the most loudly and often, and is the focal point as a result.

Then you should not be surprised that the people of opposing views are just as unyielding in their extreme distaste for your views. If anything I am just happy it is all out in the open now and no one is bothering to hide behind compromise or bipartisan babble. Now you can tell where people really stand.

I tend to agree.

Thankfully, I'm pretty comfortable standing on the side that doesn't think separating families, throwing kids into internment camps, attempting to write discrimination into law, etc. are core American values. Good luck with all that, though.

[Rip]

Other than the fact it will be Trump who makes the nomination.

If I thought for one second Trump had any input into that list of potential nominees, then you're right, I would have anger directed at him. But we all know he didn't, so 'meh'.

So for you it isn't Trump but unwavering hatred for any conservative positions. Good to know.

If what they're currently displaying in regards to civil rights, foreign policy, reproductive rights, tax policy, the rights of corporations over consumers, etc., etc. represents de facto "conservative positions", then yes, I'm absolutely, 100% guilty of that charge.

Trump just happens to be the jackass braying them the most loudly and often, and is the focal point as a result.

Then you should not be surprised that the people of opposing views are just as unyielding in their extreme distaste for your views. If anything I am just happy it is all out in the open now and no one is bothering to hide behind compromise or bipartisan babble. Now you can tell where people really stand.

I tend to agree.

Thankfully, I'm pretty comfortable standing on the side that doesn't think separating families, throwing kids into internment camps, attempting to write discrimination into law, etc. are core American values. Good luck with all that, though.

Not sure what you mean by discrimination into law, but I abhor separating families and throwing kids into internment camps. No need for that when you can simply deny them entry/send them home. I fully support immigration in fact I am all for more legal immigration but illegal immigration should be stopped in its tracks.

No need for luck, I am quite happy voting my opinion and letting the chips fall where they may.

[Combustible Lemur]

Other than the fact it will be Trump who makes the nomination.

If I thought for one second Trump had any input into that list of potential nominees, then you're right, I would have anger directed at him. But we all know he didn't, so 'meh'.

So for you it isn't Trump but unwavering hatred for any conservative positions. Good to know.

If what they're currently displaying in regards to civil rights, foreign policy, reproductive rights, tax policy, the rights of corporations over consumers, etc., etc. represents de facto "conservative positions", then yes, I'm absolutely, 100% guilty of that charge.

Trump just happens to be the jackass braying them the most loudly and often, and is the focal point as a result.

Then you should not be surprised that the people of opposing views are just as unyielding in their extreme distaste for your views. If anything I am just happy it is all out in the open now and no one is bothering to hide behind compromise or bipartisan babble. Now you can tell where people really stand.

I tend to agree.

Thankfully, I'm pretty comfortable standing on the side that doesn't think separating families, throwing kids into internment camps, attempting to write discrimination into law, etc. are core American values. Good luck with all that, though.

Not sure what you mean by discrimination into law, but I abhor separating families and throwing kids into internment camps. No need for that when you can simply deny them entry/send them home. I fully support immigration in fact I am all for more legal immigration but illegal immigration should be stopped in its tracks.

No need for luck, I am quite happy voting my opinion and letting the chips fall where they may.

Then why do you support self avowed nationalists. Miller, Trump etal. Don't beleive in immigration and have made clear their intent to engage in government waste, racist and unconstitutional behaviors in order to secure a whiter America. This is where your contrarian trolling bullshit really shows. The current republican party doesn't reflect your supposed views at all. They are in fact more antithetical to your stated positions than any but the most socialist of democrats. But because your dick gets tickled every time you troll someone you engage in your daily shenanigans. Personally I think the second you log off you turn on msnbc with a nice chardonnay and kale salad.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[tjg_marantz]

https://giphy.com/gifs/hulu-handmaidsta ... VXSJcE59HM

[Rip]

Other than the fact it will be Trump who makes the nomination.

If I thought for one second Trump had any input into that list of potential nominees, then you're right, I would have anger directed at him. But we all know he didn't, so 'meh'.

So for you it isn't Trump but unwavering hatred for any conservative positions. Good to know.

If what they're currently displaying in regards to civil rights, foreign policy, reproductive rights, tax policy, the rights of corporations over consumers, etc., etc. represents de facto "conservative positions", then yes, I'm absolutely, 100% guilty of that charge.

Trump just happens to be the jackass braying them the most loudly and often, and is the focal point as a result.

Then you should not be surprised that the people of opposing views are just as unyielding in their extreme distaste for your views. If anything I am just happy it is all out in the open now and no one is bothering to hide behind compromise or bipartisan babble. Now you can tell where people really stand.

I tend to agree.

Thankfully, I'm pretty comfortable standing on the side that doesn't think separating families, throwing kids into internment camps, attempting to write discrimination into law, etc. are core American values. Good luck with all that, though.

Not sure what you mean by discrimination into law, but I abhor separating families and throwing kids into internment camps. No need for that when you can simply deny them entry/send them home. I fully support immigration in fact I am all for more legal immigration but illegal immigration should be stopped in its tracks.

No need for luck, I am quite happy voting my opinion and letting the chips fall where they may.

Then why do you support self avowed nationalists. Miller, Trump etal. Don't beleive in immigration and have made clear their intent to engage in government waste, racist and unconstitutional behaviors in order to secure a whiter America. This is where your contrarian trolling bullshit really shows. The current republican party doesn't reflect your supposed views at all. They are in fact more antithetical to your stated positions than any but the most socialist of democrats. But because your dick gets tickled every time you troll someone you engage in your daily shenanigans. Personally I think the second you log off you turn on msnbc with a nice chardonnay and kale salad.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

The facts say differently. The immigration bill they were just working on increased legal immigration. Your charges ring hollow. Save the rhetoric for people who blindly swallow it while you tickle your own dick.

[Zarathud]

The facts also say the Republicans (and Trump) voted against that immigration bill.

[Paingod]

The facts say differently. The immigration bill they were just working on increased legal immigration.

That's why they voted against it. They voted against themselves. It's a party of great prestige and cohesion. A party to be proud of. The best party. It's really the Democrats that are to blame for this. They didn't support it.

Facts, schmacts. Go GOP!

[Captain Caveman]

This is the most important point I’ve seen made about this clusterfuck: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/plea ... -hes-right

I am deeply concerned that the Kennedy retirement will put the rule of law and our democratic institutions at graver risk than ever before. The President of the United States is the subject of a serious federal criminal investigation into (1) whether he conspired with a foreign adversary to help him win a narrow electoral college victory; and (2) whether he has obstructed that very investigation by, among things, firing the FBI director in charge of the investigation. The President will now be able to choose the person who, in a very real sense, may be the ultimate arbiter of whether or not he and others are ever held accountable.


Consider that the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide, for example, whether the President can pardon himself or others to protect himself, whether a sitting President can be indicted, whether a sitting President can be compelled to testify before a federal grand jury, whether the appointment of the Special Counsel somehow violated the Appointments Clause (as some conservatives absurdly assert), and whether a President can ever obstruct justice. Even beyond the Mueller investigation, the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide whether the President’s acceptance of significant foreign funds through his businesses violates the Emoluments Clause. We have no idea how Justice Kennedy would have ruled on these questions (he hasn’t exactly distinguished himself in the last two days). But we have no doubt how a Trump appointee will. Never before has the selection of a Supreme Court nominee been so thoroughly compromised by the President’s profound personal interest in appointing a judge the President can count on to protect the President. This is DEFCON 1 for the rule of law in this country.

Democrats arguing about the “McConnell Rule” is futile and stupid. They know they’re not winning that argument, especially when they hold no power to make decisions about the process. But why aren’t they hammering this point? Trump literally can now pick perhaps the consequential ref to protect himself. It’s the ultimate obstruction of justice.

[El Guapo]

This is the most important point I’ve seen made about this clusterfuck: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/plea ... -hes-right

I am deeply concerned that the Kennedy retirement will put the rule of law and our democratic institutions at graver risk than ever before. The President of the United States is the subject of a serious federal criminal investigation into (1) whether he conspired with a foreign adversary to help him win a narrow electoral college victory; and (2) whether he has obstructed that very investigation by, among things, firing the FBI director in charge of the investigation. The President will now be able to choose the person who, in a very real sense, may be the ultimate arbiter of whether or not he and others are ever held accountable.


Consider that the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide, for example, whether the President can pardon himself or others to protect himself, whether a sitting President can be indicted, whether a sitting President can be compelled to testify before a federal grand jury, whether the appointment of the Special Counsel somehow violated the Appointments Clause (as some conservatives absurdly assert), and whether a President can ever obstruct justice. Even beyond the Mueller investigation, the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide whether the President’s acceptance of significant foreign funds through his businesses violates the Emoluments Clause. We have no idea how Justice Kennedy would have ruled on these questions (he hasn’t exactly distinguished himself in the last two days). But we have no doubt how a Trump appointee will. Never before has the selection of a Supreme Court nominee been so thoroughly compromised by the President’s profound personal interest in appointing a judge the President can count on to protect the President. This is DEFCON 1 for the rule of law in this country.

Democrats arguing about the “McConnell Rule” is futile and stupid. They know they’re not winning that argument, especially when they hold no power to make decisions about the process. But why aren’t they hammering this point? Trump literally can now pick perhaps the consequential ref to protect himself. It’s the ultimate obstruction of justice.

I agree, although one issue with that argument is that it sort of begs the question of how long the Mueller investigation will go on. For a normal investigation (i.e. one where the investigator is not subject to possible summary firing at any time by the main person that he is investigating), it could go on for another year or more. So it would be fair to ask, if the Democrats made that argument, that are they saying the Supreme Court should be 4-4 until the Mueller investigation is concluded? If Mueller either charges Trump or makes a referral that Trump has committed crimes, can Trump nominate someone at that point or does it have to wait until that's resolved? And those tricky questions aside, broadly it plays into the "when is this all going to end?" talking point on Mueller.

The other problem is that this could be semi-easily 'cured' by various procedures. Basically, Trump 'recuses' himself from the deliberations on the pick, which could be lead by anyone from Pence to Paul Ryan to some sort of outside (GOP / conservative) committee, with a pledge by Trump to abide by whatever pick they make. And obviously the result of that would be unsatisfactory to Democrats.

I agree with the point, but I'm not sure that it would be some sort of significant obstacle to Trump. I guess they could insist that at a minimum Trump not personally meet with any of the candidates.

[Chaz]

I don't think Trump specifically recusing himself from making a pick is worth anything, because I don't think he's actually involved in making the choice to begin with. Sure, he'll sign off on whoever's put in front of him, and might make some suggestions or veto a choice or two, but the man knows nothing about anything, he won't have any substantive input.

The better argument, it seems, would be that both Justices Trump selected should recuse themselves from any case involving Trump that comes before the Court. If the argument is that his nominees are tainted, and possibly prejudiced toward him, then they shouldn't be involved.

[Paingod]

The other problem is that this could be semi-easily 'cured' by various procedures. Basically, Trump 'recuses' himself from the deliberations on the pick...

Let's be serious, Trump would never accept that. The man thinks he is a stable genius, surrounds himself with yes-men, and openly attacks any and all who question him and his loyalists. He'd sooner start flying by anal-propulsion.

The better argument, it seems, would be that both Justices Trump selected should recuse themselves from any case involving Trump that comes before the Court. If the argument is that his nominees are tainted, and possibly prejudiced toward him, then they shouldn't be involved.

Way more likely, as they wouldn't want a cloud over themselves for the next 40 years while they set Christian conservative legal rulings in motion for us all to obey.

[ImLawBoy]

The better argument, it seems, would be that both Justices Trump selected should recuse themselves from any case involving Trump that comes before the Court. If the argument is that his nominees are tainted, and possibly prejudiced toward him, then they shouldn't be involved.

Way more likely, as they wouldn't want a cloud over themselves for the next 40 years while they set Christian conservative legal rulings in motion for us all to obey.

Not very likely, I don't think (although certainly more likely than Trump voluntarily recusing himself). If you believe that the court will just rule on the matter based on whether they were appointed by a Democrat or a Republican, then recusing themselves is basically handing the decision to the Democrats.

In theory, the justices are immune to the political pressures, as they are lifetime appointments. Assuming that nominees are good and thoughtful jurists who will vote what they believe to be right are nominated (and Kennedy and Roberts are both examples of conservative Justices who have not always been bound by conservative political orthodoxy), then there is no need for recusal.

Of course, that's theory. Reality may be quite different (and I don't like the odds). Still, the chances of a recusal of either Trump from the selection process or the Trump appointed Justices from the decision making process are vanishingly small, IMO.

[El Guapo]

The other problem is that this could be semi-easily 'cured' by various procedures. Basically, Trump 'recuses' himself from the deliberations on the pick...

Let's be serious, Trump would never accept that. The man thinks he is a stable genius, surrounds himself with yes-men, and openly attacks any and all who question him and his loyalists. He'd sooner start flying by anal-propulsion.

The better argument, it seems, would be that both Justices Trump selected should recuse themselves from any case involving Trump that comes before the Court. If the argument is that his nominees are tainted, and possibly prejudiced toward him, then they shouldn't be involved.

Way more likely, as they wouldn't want a cloud over themselves for the next 40 years while they set Christian conservative legal rulings in motion for us all to obey.

Of course Trump would accept it. He'd be told in advance by his people that they'll pick someone from a short list that he likes, and that this is the best option if he wants to be sure to retain his full pardon powers (including of himself).

The bigger problem is that, this being Trump, he'd be liable to blurt out the game in advance.

[LordMortis]

The bigger problem is that, this being Trump, he'd be liable to blurt out the game in advance.

Great things coming soon for #Supreme Court. I could have picked liberal judge. I like liberal judges had to do best for AMERICA to clean CORRUPT DOJ & FBI and extremist democrat party won't fix laws. So I have to do things.

[Rip]

The facts also say the Republicans (and Trump) voted against that immigration bill.

Actually the facts say Trump supported it as did all but 41 Republicans. Facts are tricky I guess.

Last week Republicans lost 41 votes from their own members as the hard-core Goodlatte immigration bill went down to defeat, by a vote of 193 to 231. That wasn’t surprising; the bill was well to the right of Donald Trump’s own proposal, providing no “path to citizenship” for Dreamers and including every nasty provision anti-immigration ultras had been pining for.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... -bill.html

[LawBeefaroni]

The facts also say the Republicans (and Trump) voted against that immigration bill.

Actually the facts say Trump supported it as did all but 41 Republicans. Facts are tricky I guess.

Last week Republicans lost 41 votes from their own members as the hard-core Goodlatte immigration bill went down to defeat, by a vote of 193 to 231. That wasn’t surprising; the bill was well to the right of Donald Trump’s own proposal, providing no “path to citizenship” for Dreamers and including every nasty provision anti-immigration ultras had been pining for.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... -bill.html

Wrong bill. This one was 121 to 300.

And before you go moving goalposts or changing history, Zarathud was responding directly to your post where you said:

The facts say differently. The immigration bill they were just working on increased legal immigration. Your charges ring hollow. Save the rhetoric for people who blindly swallow it while you tickle your own dick.

Vote you quoted? Wrong one. It was last week. Not for the "bill they were just working on."


Yeah, facts are tricky. Just not like you think.

[Rip]

The facts also say the Republicans (and Trump) voted against that immigration bill.

Actually the facts say Trump supported it as did all but 41 Republicans. Facts are tricky I guess.

Last week Republicans lost 41 votes from their own members as the hard-core Goodlatte immigration bill went down to defeat, by a vote of 193 to 231. That wasn’t surprising; the bill was well to the right of Donald Trump’s own proposal, providing no “path to citizenship” for Dreamers and including every nasty provision anti-immigration ultras had been pining for.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... -bill.html

Wrong bill. This one was 121 to 300.

And before you go moving goalposts or changing history, Zarathud was responding directly to your post where you said:

The facts say differently. The immigration bill they were just working on increased legal immigration. Your charges ring hollow. Save the rhetoric for people who blindly swallow it while you tickle your own dick.

Vote you quoted? Wrong one. It was last week. Not for the "bill they were just working on."


Yeah, facts are tricky. Just not like you think.

A less conservative bill got less votes. Color me surprised.

Still just as many voted for as against(among Republicans) and Trump supported both!

[Zarathud]

Close only counts when Mitch McConnell is stealing SCOTUS vacancies.

[Isgrimnur]

Patent disputes:

The nation's highest court said in a unanimous opinion that damages for design patent infringement can be based only on the part of the device that infringed the patents, not the entire product.

The ruling reshapes the value of designs, and how much one company has to pay for copying the look of a competitor's product. Current law said an award could be collected on the entire profits of an infringing device. In this case, that's the $399 million Samsung paid Apple late last year. But this decision means that amount will likely go down.
...
The Supreme Court didn't, however, say how damages should be determined.

The case will go back to lower courts for the damages to be reexamined.

CNN

Apple and Samsung just ended their epic seven-year legal patent infringement fight.
The two companies agreed to a settlement in the case, according to court documents filed Wednesday, but did not disclose the terms.

The settlement closes a dispute that started in 2011 when Apple accused Samsung (SSNLF) of "slavishly" copying the iPhone's design and software features. A jury awarded Apple (AAPL) $539 million in May, leaving Samsung with an outstanding balance of $140 million it owed Apple. It was not clear Wednesday how much more, if anything, Apple will receive.

Litigating the case cost the two world's two largest smartphone makers hundreds of millions of dollars and resulted in several rulings and appeals. In 2012, a jury ruled that Samsung must pay Apple more than $1 billion for copying various hardware and software features of the iPhone and iPad. A federal judge later reduced that penalty by $450 million.

Their fight eventually landed in the Supreme Court, which in 2016 reversed an appeals court ruling that Samsung must pay $399 million for patent infringement. Justices sent the case back to the lower court to sort out the financial penalty.

[Rip]

Not to get too bogged down in the details, but here's what just happened: The Democrats screwed themselves. Donald Trump is going to nominate the second Supreme Court justice of his administration, and then the United States Senate is going to confirm Trump's nominee. And there's absolutely nothing that anybody can do to stop him. It doesn't matter if you voted for him or not.* It doesn't matter if you like him or not.** This is a fait accompli. It's a done deal. The Dems can't stop it.

Or... can they?

It's time to take the gloves off and stop playing by the rules, Dems. No more Mr. and/or Ms. Nice Guy. You need to put aside your longstanding commitment to civility and decorum. You need to put aside consensus reality itself. You need to start thinking outside the box!

Here are just a few ways you can stop this from happening, Democrats. And let me just say one thing in advance: You're welcome.

One.

Time travel. Who needs foresight when you've got a do-over? The Democrats can get themselves out of this mess simply by using a time machine. All they need to do is put a flux capacitor in a DeLorean, speed up to 88 MPH, and prevent themselves from making any or all of the blunders that got them into this fiasco: nominating Hillary, encouraging the GOP to nominate Trump, Harry Reid nuking the filibuster, Chuck Schumer trying to stop Gorsuch, etc. If you can't plan ahead, just hit Rewind!

Two.

Clone the Notorious RBG. We all know how much you guys love Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but there's only one of her. Solve that problem and the rest will take care of itself. Get a sample of RBG's DNA, speed-grow a clone, and copy-and-paste her consciousness into it. Presto! Then you just need to convince Trump to nominate the clone to the Supreme Court, but that's easy. Just have the clone tell Trump that he's the greatest president ever, and he'll do whatever RBG-2 wants.

Three.

Build a Matrix. What do you do when all your delusions and delaying tactics and denial just can't stave off reality anymore? Create a new reality! In the movie, the Matrix was a soothing illusion designed to keep humanity occupied while they were being used as literal batteries by a far-future artificial intelligence. But it won't be like that this time! This time, you can "jack into" an artificially created reality where there are no Republicans and no Trump, and all the candy is free, and your dad is proud of you. And while you're in your own little fantasy world, the rest of us will get on with our lives in peace and quiet. Everybody's happy!

Four.

Put Kennedy's brain in a robot body. We did it with JFK.*** Why not do it with Anthony? He's only retiring because he's 81 and his body is old and tired. New android body = Solved problem. Plus, then he can finally beat RBG in their long-running pushup feud.

Five.

Scream and cry and throw a big baby tantrum. Yeah, sure, that's what you're doing anyway. That's what you always do when you don't get what you want. But have you tried being even louder? Even angrier? Even less rational? We know you can do it.

Thank You Jim Treacher for the laugh.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/five-ways- ... y-kennedy/

[GreenGoo]

I can think of several uncivil ways to stop him.

Ha ha, right?

Why did you post that here? Because you thought we'd enjoy it?

Why did you take the time to quote it instead of just drive by link dropping like normal?

You are a terrible person who thinks it's funny to mock and troll the entire forum.

You are the absolute worst stigginit has to offer.

Congrats on helping build a world that's going backwards in time.

[Unagi]

Thank You Jim Treacher for the laugh.

Yeah, I mean it is a topsy turvy world we live in with lots of things going on and it is easy to forget how difficult the times can be for those around us.
I have no doubt your son would be very proud.

[Holman]

Thank You Jim Treacher for the laugh.

In all apolitical, sincere seriousness: you really laughed at that?

It's like a master class in how to ruin an attempt at a joke by laboriously explaining it.

Our cultural life would be so much richer if conservatives had even two decent comedians.

[Zarathud]

Their tragedy is bad enough.

But be careful what you joke about, Rip. A few Hillary clones sent back in time could terminate Trump -- or campaign more in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

[LawBeefaroni]

The facts also say the Republicans (and Trump) voted against that immigration bill.

Actually the facts say Trump supported it as did all but 41 Republicans. Facts are tricky I guess.

Last week Republicans lost 41 votes from their own members as the hard-core Goodlatte immigration bill went down to defeat, by a vote of 193 to 231. That wasn’t surprising; the bill was well to the right of Donald Trump’s own proposal, providing no “path to citizenship” for Dreamers and including every nasty provision anti-immigration ultras had been pining for.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... -bill.html

Wrong bill. This one was 121 to 300.

And before you go moving goalposts or changing history, Zarathud was responding directly to your post where you said:

The facts say differently. The immigration bill they were just working on increased legal immigration. Your charges ring hollow. Save the rhetoric for people who blindly swallow it while you tickle your own dick.

Vote you quoted? Wrong one. It was last week. Not for the "bill they were just working on."


Yeah, facts are tricky. Just not like you think.

A less conservative bill got less votes. Color me surprised.

Still just as many voted for as against(among Republicans) and Trump supported both!

You had the wrong bill, incorrectly criricized someone for not getting their facts right, and say, "Save the rhetoric for people who blindly swallow it while you tickle your own dick."

And then you move the goalposts when confronted on it.

Functionally, you're a bot.

[El Guapo]

The facts also say the Republicans (and Trump) voted against that immigration bill.

Actually the facts say Trump supported it as did all but 41 Republicans. Facts are tricky I guess.

Last week Republicans lost 41 votes from their own members as the hard-core Goodlatte immigration bill went down to defeat, by a vote of 193 to 231. That wasn’t surprising; the bill was well to the right of Donald Trump’s own proposal, providing no “path to citizenship” for Dreamers and including every nasty provision anti-immigration ultras had been pining for.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... -bill.html

Wrong bill. This one was 121 to 300.

And before you go moving goalposts or changing history, Zarathud was responding directly to your post where you said:

The facts say differently. The immigration bill they were just working on increased legal immigration. Your charges ring hollow. Save the rhetoric for people who blindly swallow it while you tickle your own dick.

Vote you quoted? Wrong one. It was last week. Not for the "bill they were just working on."


Yeah, facts are tricky. Just not like you think.

A less conservative bill got less votes. Color me surprised.

Still just as many voted for as against(among Republicans) and Trump supported both!

You had the wrong bill, incorrectly criricized someone for not getting their facts right, and say, "Save the rhetoric for people who blindly swallow it while you tickle your own dick."

And then you move the goalposts when confronted on it.

Functionally, you're a bot.

Ok class, what lesson can we draw from this (and literally every time) about engaging with Rip?

[geezer]

The facts also say the Republicans (and Trump) voted against that immigration bill.

Actually the facts say Trump supported it as did all but 41 Republicans. Facts are tricky I guess.

Last week Republicans lost 41 votes from their own members as the hard-core Goodlatte immigration bill went down to defeat, by a vote of 193 to 231. That wasn’t surprising; the bill was well to the right of Donald Trump’s own proposal, providing no “path to citizenship” for Dreamers and including every nasty provision anti-immigration ultras had been pining for.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... -bill.html

Wrong bill. This one was 121 to 300.

And before you go moving goalposts or changing history, Zarathud was responding directly to your post where you said:

The facts say differently. The immigration bill they were just working on increased legal immigration. Your charges ring hollow. Save the rhetoric for people who blindly swallow it while you tickle your own dick.

Vote you quoted? Wrong one. It was last week. Not for the "bill they were just working on."


Yeah, facts are tricky. Just not like you think.

A less conservative bill got less votes. Color me surprised.

Still just as many voted for as against(among Republicans) and Trump supported both!

You had the wrong bill, incorrectly criricized someone for not getting their facts right, and say, "Save the rhetoric for people who blindly swallow it while you tickle your own dick."

And then you move the goalposts when confronted on it.

Functionally, you're a bot.

Ok class, what lesson can we draw from this (and literally every time) about engaging with Rip?

Joke's on me. womp womp....

[Zarathud]

That Rip's bullshit is exposed almost every time you engage. Even if he then tries to move the goalpost.

Convincing Rip has never been the goal. Making sure Rip's bullshit doesn't go unchallenged or become normal and accepted is the goal. That path lies to madness and Trump.

[El Guapo]

That Rip's bullshit is exposed almost every time you engage. Even if he then tries to move the goalpost.

Convincing Rip has never been the goal. Making sure Rip's bullshit doesn't go unchallenged or become normal and accepted is the goal. That path lies to madness and Trump.

Huh? No one here is in any danger of being convinced by Rip regardless. All replying to him does is clog the threads and inhibit actual discussion of issues.

Remember when Rip left R&P for a week or two? Those were good times.

[malchior]

That Rip's bullshit is exposed almost every time you engage. Even if he then tries to move the goalpost.

Convincing Rip has never been the goal. Making sure Rip's bullshit doesn't go unchallenged or become normal and accepted is the goal. That path lies to madness and Trump.

Agreed - My recent pattern has been to post one refutation and ignore his responses. I like the comparison to a bot. Expecting some viewpoint from him is frankly useless. It is almost always some fact-free garbage he dug up somewhere else and on top who knows if he even believes it. He isn't an honest actor so refute it with the facts and move on to keep other people on page. Engaging is pointless.

[Blackhawk]

That Rip's bullshit is exposed almost every time you engage. Even if he then tries to move the goalpost.

Convincing Rip has never been the goal. Making sure Rip's bullshit doesn't go unchallenged or become normal and accepted is the goal. That path lies to madness and Trump.

Ignoring Rip's bullshit leads to a bored Rip who can't get a rise out of people anymore, which is his sole apparent motivation for posting. Bored Rip then goes home. Goodbye, Rip!

[LordMortis]

Ignoring Rip's bullshit leads to a bored Rip who can't get a rise out of people anymore, which is his sole apparent motivation for posting. Bored Rip then goes home. Goodbye, Rip!

If Rip's bullshit is a standin for the direction of the US in the last decade, I used to think that way. I'm very unhappy with what I used to believe. Staying silent so as not to give credit failed while normal changed and I was complicit in that failure.

I don't see me ever joining Z's form of liberalism but I'll have to sit with him for the time being for the exact reason he states.

(Though I also admit it's a form of catharsis for time when I still fail. I'm working on being better people but I have way to go.)

[Blackhawk]

If Rip's bullshit is a standin for the direction of the US in the last decade, I used to think that way. I'm very unhappy with what I used to believe. Staying silent so as not to give credit failed while normal changed and I was complicit in that failure.

Again, this requires the assumption that Rip's bullshit is sincere. We have no idea what Rip believes. For all we know, he voted for Hillary. His posting habits have made it pretty clear that his posts are intended to rile people up and get an entertaining response (IE - troll), not to argue any particular point.

[LawBeefaroni]

Was this already covered?

The son of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy was leading a real-estate division of Deutsche Bank as it gave President Donald Trump over $1 billion in loans to finance his real-estate projects when other banks wouldn't, The New York Times reported Thursday.

Justin Kennedy, the former global head of Deutsche Bank's real-estate capital markets division, was one of Trump's close business associates, The Times reported, citing two sources familiar with the matter.
....
The Times article describes an unusually close relationship between Anthony Kennedy and Trump and a "quiet campaign" from the White House to encourage Kennedy to retire. Trump has praised Kennedy and his work, though it has included decisions on hot-button issues such as abortion, marriage equality, and the death penalty that many conservatives disagreed with.

[LordMortis]

Was this already covered?

The son of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy was leading a real-estate division of Deutsche Bank as it gave President Donald Trump over $1 billion in loans to finance his real-estate projects when other banks wouldn't, The New York Times reported Thursday.

Justin Kennedy, the former global head of Deutsche Bank's real-estate capital markets division, was one of Trump's close business associates, The Times reported, citing two sources familiar with the matter.
....
The Times article describes an unusually close relationship between Anthony Kennedy and Trump and a "quiet campaign" from the White House to encourage Kennedy to retire. Trump has praised Kennedy and his work, though it has included decisions on hot-button issues such as abortion, marriage equality, and the death penalty that many conservatives disagreed with.

Heh, I was just reading about this and was going to ask someone to Izzy it for me. The more I read the more it looks like the it's just a matter of the gravity of orbits of people with privilege and not COLLUSION. It is a further iteration of justice and Justus being real and being two different concepts.