Octopus Overlords

But about that swamp...

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:58 pm But about that swamp...

...it's bigger than any of us probably imagined.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:58 pm But about that swamp...

That particular bit of fake news media is a horse of a different feather.

In retrospect this exchange is far more interesting. Can you imagine if President Clinton had convinced a justice to retire just before an important election after that judge's son had lent the Foundation a billion dollars? The meltdown would be real. And justifiably. This stinks to high heaven and it merits barely a peep. We are majorly fucked.

Follow the money. There's a reason people kiss Trump's ass, and it's not because they like him. Unfortunately the American people are now seeing how little cash it actually takes to sell the country right out from under our noses.

YellowKing wrote: ↑Fri Jun 29, 2018 9:02 pm Follow the money. There's a reason people kiss Trump's ass, and it's not because they like him. Unfortunately the American people are now seeing how little cash it actually takes to sell the country right out from under our noses.

If only the American people were paying attention. You practically need to drag them to the story and the media is barely even talking about this angle. It's all horse race shit as usual.

I'm not going to do a victory lap, and I'm not going to wade back into R&P. I'm just going to leave this one comment:

Justice Roberts puts a huge amount of value on court precedent. Roe v Wade will not be touched while he is on the court with the current balance. He will uphold prior court rulings on this subject and cast the deciding vote in that direction.

Now, if the old bat goes belly up all bets are off........ however I still don't think the majority of the Justices have any appetite to overturn decades of Supreme Court decisions.

Maybe they don't fully overturn, but it's pretty likely that they allow states to chip away at it until there are wide swathes of the country where it's completely banned in practice, if not in name. Hell, we're almost there in several places. But hey, at least no women will be aborting fetuses. Well, they will, just not safely. Or having children they can't provide for, and that the government isn't interested in helping either. Just like jeebus wanted.

Chaz wrote: ↑Fri Jun 29, 2018 10:34 pm Maybe they don't fully overturn, but it's pretty likely that they allow states to chip away at it until there are wide swathes of the country where it's completely banned in practice, if not in name. Hell, we're almost there in several places. But hey, at least no women will be aborting fetuses. Well, they will, just not safely. Or having children they can't provide for, and that the government isn't interested in helping either. Just like jeebus wanted.

Honestly at this point, especially after the last two weeks or so, I'm starting to think the ONLY way the Republic survives intact without bloodshed is wholesale shifting of most major policy decisions out to the states. If you don't like xxx or like zzz -- move to a state that aligns with your ideology. Politics have now, more than ever, become a team A and team B thing. There aren't a whole lot of people left that think a little bit of what team A and also some of what team B thinks. It's line up behind your team at all costs.

msduncan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 29, 2018 10:40 pm

Chaz wrote: ↑Fri Jun 29, 2018 10:34 pm Maybe they don't fully overturn, but it's pretty likely that they allow states to chip away at it until there are wide swathes of the country where it's completely banned in practice, if not in name. Hell, we're almost there in several places. But hey, at least no women will be aborting fetuses. Well, they will, just not safely. Or having children they can't provide for, and that the government isn't interested in helping either. Just like jeebus wanted.

Honestly at this point, especially after the last two weeks or so, I'm starting to think the ONLY way the Republic survives intact without bloodshed is wholesale shifting of most major policy decisions out to the states. If you don't like xxx or like zzz -- move to a state that aligns with your ideology. Politics have now, more than ever, become a team A and team B thing. There aren't a whole lot of people left that think a little bit of what team A and also some of what team B thinks. It's line up behind your team at all costs.

The biggest problem with that is the vast majority of folks who can not afford to just pick up and move. The less privileged then become a new caste of peons for the wealthy to exploit where ever they are. Peasants tied to the land and subject to their overlord's likely less than tender mercy.

msduncan wrote: ↑Fri Jun 29, 2018 10:20 pm I'm not going to do a victory lap, and I'm not going to wade back into R&P. I'm just going to leave this one comment:

Justice Roberts puts a huge amount of value on court precedent. Roe v Wade will not be touched while he is on the court with the current balance. He will uphold prior court rulings on this subject and cast the deciding vote in that direction.

Now, if the old bat goes belly up all bets are off........ however I still don't think the majority of the Justices have any appetite to overturn decades of Supreme Court decisions.

Uh they *just did*. This week. You give Robert's too much credit.

msduncan wrote:He will uphold prior court rulings on this subject and cast the deciding vote in that direction.

Janus v AFSCME just overturned 40 years of precedent. So, no. Roberts will not.

LordMortis wrote: ↑Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:51 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:47 pm 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.

Rip wrote:

LordMortis wrote: ↑Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:51 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Jun 29, 2018 3:47 pm 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.

DB must be uniquely silo'd and since when did you start trusting MSNBC? Can we assume that you believe the rest of her Twitter feed?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Also kind of funny how a year ago the business relationship between Justin Kennedy and Trump was reported by the Financial Times, “Justin Kennedy, a trader who arrived from Goldman to become one of Mr Trump’s most trusted associates over a 12-year spell at Deutsche, is the son of a Supreme Court justice.”

https://www.ft.com/content/8c6d9dca-882 ... c239b45787

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Looks like somebody is on the short list!

In the past, he’s argued that the president should not be distracted by civil lawsuits, criminal investigations or even questions from attorneys while in office.

But, despite that stance, Kavanaugh worked under Ken Starr as one of the attorneys investigating Bill Clinton.

Despite the fact that the Republican judge worked on the legal attack mounted against Clinton, he has more recently written a law review article offering an extremist view of presidential power.

A president should not have to face “time-consuming and distracting” investigations or lawsuits because they “ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis.”

This is all really amazing to watch unfold in slow motion, though I'd like to be reading about it as it was happening 100 years ago, not actually living and experiencing it in real time.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Sat Jun 30, 2018 9:33 am Looks like somebody is on the short list!

In the past, he’s argued that the president should not be distracted by civil lawsuits, criminal investigations or even questions from attorneys while in office.

But, despite that stance, Kavanaugh worked under Ken Starr as one of the attorneys investigating Bill Clinton.

Despite the fact that the Republican judge worked on the legal attack mounted against Clinton, he has more recently written a law review article offering an extremist view of presidential power.

A president should not have to face “time-consuming and distracting” investigations or lawsuits because they “ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis.”

This is all really amazing to watch unfold in slow motion, though I'd like to be reading about it as it was happening 100 years ago, not actually living and experiencing it in real time.

What I've always found amazing about that particular line of legal reasoning is, if the president is sooooo busy he can't be bothered with, ya know, upholding national standards, mores, norms, and laws how the F does he have so much time to play golf?

Edit: also, what national financial or security crisis, exactly, are we facing? trump and his ilk have taken every opportunity to remind us how amazing the economy is, that NK is no longer a nuclear threat, and how Russia is our new BFF. We worried about Luxembourg getting too big for their britches?
The problem of course is no one knows any of this and/or if they did they wouldn't care cuz trump is their guy. I haven't actually liked a president we've had since I've been able to vote, despite having voted for 4 'winners' in that span. I just don't understand the mentality. This isn't college football where I get papering over every flaw and shouting your support from the rooftops but you'd think people who have enough sense to make their mortgage payment every month would see the need for a critical eye when it comes to politicians. ALL of them. Your's mine their's. But that is just...gone. Hence we get presidential elections between 2 of the most despised people in the whole damn country. Bravo America. :golf clap: Do we think Romulus had a golf clap going on back in his day? Just trying to hold on to traditions, such as they are.
And yes wine makes me morose. Sorry.

Romulus was raised by wolves.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asserted on Sunday that Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court case that legalized abortion nationwide, should not be overturned "unless there's a good reason."

link

Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a critical vote on whomever President Trump nominates to replace Justice Kennedy on the Supreme Court, said any nominee who would overturn Roe v. Wade would "not be acceptable."

link

I'm highly skeptical that they'll withhold their vote, but I guess we'll see.

Defiant wrote: ↑Sun Jul 01, 2018 10:28 am

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asserted on Sunday that Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court case that legalized abortion nationwide, should not be overturned "unless there's a good reason."

link

Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a critical vote on whomever President Trump nominates to replace Justice Kennedy on the Supreme Court, said any nominee who would overturn Roe v. Wade would "not be acceptable."

link

I'm highly skeptical that they'll withhold their vote, but I guess we'll see.

They won't need to. The person who gets nominated will not be voting to overturn Roe-v-Wade. No problems.

Trump promised two years ago that he would overturn Roe vs. Wade. 2 days ago he swore he wouldn't. 2 days from now he'll swear he is going to overturn it. 4 days from now he'll claim he invented gravity.

hepcat wrote: ↑Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:58 pm Trump promised two years ago that he would overturn Roe vs. Wade. 2 days ago he swore he wouldn't. 2 days from now he'll swear he is going to overturn it. 4 days from now he'll claim he invented gravity.

Thing is he doesn't get a vote so he can't everturn shit. Looking across his list I don't even see 5 or 6 that I could even imagine considering the idea.

So here are 5 top five for the pick and the percentage of chance I would give them for the nod.

1: Margaret Ryan 25%
2: Amy Coney Barrett 25%
3: Mike Lee 20%
4: Amul Thapar 20%
5: Diane Sykes 10%

When he was campaigning he swore he was going to put judges in place that would overturn it.

During the beginning of the third presidential debate, Trump came out hard against abortion. He affirmed that, if elected, he would appoint only pro-life justices to the Supreme Court and that Roe v. Wade would be “automatically” overturned. (That’s not how the Supreme Court works.) He would then leave it up for the “states to make a determination” on the issue.

But as you hinted, it's important to remember that Trump may very well be the stupidest person to ever occupy the White House. Hell, he may be the dumbest politician of all time.

Rip is trolling. They are absolutely going to overturn Roe. They've been promising for years.

Holman wrote:Rip is trolling. They are absolutely going to overturn Roe. They've been promising for years.

But then how will they get evangelical single issue voters to keep enthusiastic?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Trump told my car radio that the important thing is finding a judge who will declare Obamacare's pre-existing condition provision unconstitutional. I find it baffling that his constituents could really hate making insurance companies accept sick people, but apparently they must admire mustache-twirling villains on principle.

Ireland of all places is changing its stance on abortion but America is headed back to the dark ages.

Hilarious.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Sun Jul 01, 2018 7:24 pm Ireland of all places is changing its stance on abortion but America is headed back to the dark ages.

Hilarious.

Despite a population that overwhelmingly supports not overturning Roe vs. Wade. Even the evangelicals are split almost evenly on that but it is almost certain that the will push to overturn it. And it will be mostly because 1) hardcore conservatives want it and 2) they want to flex their muscle to prove they are in charge. This isn't about good policy. This is about power.

It is almost axiomatic at this point that our country's policy positions are not supported by a majority of its citizens. On health care policy, trade policy, military policy, etc. It has become a real problem and is driving polarization. It will at some point shift to a question of what will be the breaking point.

Baptisms (new members ) in the Southern Baptists, which are the largest denomination of evangelicals, are at their lowest since 1947. They better enjoy their domination now, because evangelicals are going to be irrelevant as a block in ten years.

They shall be outnumbered by Pastafarians.

Default wrote: ↑Sun Jul 01, 2018 8:31 pm Baptisms (new members ) in the Southern Baptists, which are the largest denomination of evangelicals, are at their lowest since 1947. They better enjoy their domination now, because evangelicals are going to be irrelevant as a block in ten years.

I read a story a few days ago saying that the Southern Baptist Convention had ousted its old leadership and the new leader is breaking with the Republicans. This isn't the same story I saw, but it covers some of the same points. They haven't exactly revamped their brand, but they're distancing themselves from the poison.

They will avoid overturning Roe v Wade at all costs. I cannot fathom why people don't understand this. This is not how the court works.

Let us remember that Buck vs Bell is still on the books even though almost every American would clearly understand that case is repugnant today - 90 years has not been kind to that "brilliant legal thinking". Once a ruling stands for decades they will never overturn it. The "organizational ego" of the SCOTUS will simply never allow this kind of admission.

What might happen: the SCOTUS might "discover" that in-utero babies are humans via some complex setup or legal/medical revelation. This revelation could be used to bypass Roe v Wade entirely - saying that images of beating hearts, brain wave monitoring, reflexes, pain receptor impulses, etc NOW reveal what was not clear 45 year ago; that babies are humans too. Leaving Roe v Wade in place as a legal artifact just like Buck v Bell.

So people who are interested in questioning the candidates need to focus on; "Do you think an in-utero fetus is a human being in light of current medical evidence?" and "Would that kind of human being EVER have any right to life?" and "Do you believe in ANY limits on killing an unborn, etc". I suspect they will not do this but will instead ask the simple but foolish question of "would you overturn Roe v Wade?" This will allow SCOTUS candidates to slip by and merely bypass Roe v Wade later without having given false answers.

Getting hung up on the mechanism of overturning Roe V Wade or not overturning it is a child's mistake. The bigger picture is the current trend of expanding American and human rights to "outside" groups. This is the approach people who want to stop abortions will take - humanizing the unborn.

If you want to know what the court will do in the future - you have to look at the past.

Yeah, don't make a child's mistake.

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Sun Jul 01, 2018 7:24 pm Ireland of all places is changing its stance on abortion but America is headed back to the dark ages.

Hilarious.

I guess when you stop shooting at each other you have to find other ways to knock the enemy numbers down a wee bit?

em2nought wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 2:41 am

GreenGoo wrote: ↑Sun Jul 01, 2018 7:24 pm Ireland of all places is changing its stance on abortion but America is headed back to the dark ages.

Hilarious.

I guess when you stop shooting at each other you have to find other ways to knock the enemy numbers down a wee bit?

Ireland doesn't have the advantages the #3 Louisiana has.

Yojimbo wrote: ↑Sun Jul 01, 2018 10:13 pm Once a ruling stands for decades they will never overturn it. The "organizational ego" of the SCOTUS will simply never allow this kind of admission.

Uhh...didn't they just do exactly this? With the Janus decision?

pr0ner wrote: ↑Mon Jul 02, 2018 8:39 am

Yojimbo wrote: ↑Sun Jul 01, 2018 10:13 pm Once a ruling stands for decades they will never overturn it. The "organizational ego" of the SCOTUS will simply never allow this kind of admission.

Uhh...didn't they just do exactly this? With the Janus decision?

Exactly - it has been mentioned several times already in this thread. They did this last week. Banning abortion has been a Conservative wish for decades. They might not strike it down 100% but they will almost certainly take a major whack at it that will lead to a tantamount ban in many states.

His response is basically, "It's not that I purposefully RT racists. I just don't really care whether I do it or not."

Default wrote: ↑Sun Jul 01, 2018 8:31 pm Baptisms (new members ) in the Southern Baptists, which are the largest denomination of evangelicals, are at their lowest since 1947. They better enjoy their domination now, because evangelicals are going to be irrelevant as a block in ten years.

Gotta be careful here though.

Evangelicals are in decline, but the big denominations are declining faster than overall numbers as there is a shift towards independent "nondenominational" mega-churches (many of them politically just as conservative) that don't identify as Southern Baptist or anything else.

PLW wrote:His response is basically, "It's not that I purposefully RT racists. I just don't really care whether I do it or not."

Well that and it being an issue at all is an evil seditious plot brought by the spooky left. Assuming you are discussing the other post in Political Randomness?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk