A SCOTUS Opening

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-27-2020, 04:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, he did say all of those things.  He did not say they shouldn't be allowed.  One is his opinion on the merits of their participation and the other is his stating they shouldn't be allowed to participate at all.  Saying he stated women should not be allowed to participate is just not a true statement.

(10-27-2020, 03:46 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Religious bigotry? Probably.  Sexism? No.
Anyway, you're they one who doesn't think women should go to Ranger School because of their sex which is sexism.

I wrote bfine thinks they shouldn't go.  I didn't write bfine thinks they shouldn't be allowed or barred or prohibited and stating such is just not a true statement.

And thinking a soldier shouldn't go to a leadership school because of their sex is sexism.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-27-2020, 05:03 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I wrote bfine thinks they shouldn't go.  I didn't write bfine thinks they shouldn't be allowed or barred or prohibited and stating such is just not a true statement.

And thinking a soldier shouldn't go to a leadership school because of their sex is sexism.

OK, fair enough.  Maybe I'm guilty of reading into your posts as well.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-27-2020, 04:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: First off; We're bringing up thoughts from 5 years ago? talk about leaving an impression.

It's called a "memory."  That's how I recall you claimed you took an anthropology class and you later claimed you never took an anthropology class.  You should try it some time.  Might help you keep your story straight the next time you decide to tell a lie.

Quote:Secondly: You grasped my point

My point was that these women would never be called upon to employ the tactics, techniques, and procedures taught at ranger School; although, I did applaud their efforts.  This POV included anyone who would not be using squad level combat tactics. I have seen too often where the only reason to go is to "Get the Tab".

WTS, since that post the Army has opened up Infantry and other Combat Arms to women and I hope many women get the training.

So you hope they will get this type of training you still don't think they will ever use even though I showed you a press clipping of a woman using this exact type of training?

Yep, sounds about right.

[NATI BENGALS]

I’m embarrassed at the pearl clutching for calling a handmaid a handmaid. Point blank period. She was a handmaid in a religious group that called them handmaids. Suck it the f up gentlemen.

Save your fake outrage for something more important.

The way don the con is worshipped for being so tough yet freaks out over little questions on 60 minutes and claims to be treated unfairly doesn’t surprise me his followers would follow suit and allow themselves to becomes so thin skinned and defensive.

[*bfine32*]

(10-27-2020, 06:01 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: It's called a "memory."  That's how I recall you claimed you took an anthropology class and you later claimed you never took an anthropology class.  You should try it some time.  Might help you keep your story straight the next time you decide to tell a lie.


So you hope they will get this type of training you still don't think they will ever use even though I showed you a press clipping of a woman using this exact type of training?

Yep, sounds about right.

Your obsession has gone from sad to creepy, I've taken the Mod's advice and ignored you, but that just gives you carte blanche to follow me from thread to thread and bring up stuff from the distant past that has nothing to do with the discussion. SSF has stepped up and pointed this out a few times, but he shouldn't have to.


WTS, I'm sure we'll get a generic blast that says "don't focus on posters", now that I have finally responded and there's a good chance I'll get banned. 

[*bfine32*]

(10-27-2020, 11:51 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I’m embarrassed at the pearl clutching for calling a handmaid a handmaid. Point blank period. She was a handmaid in a religious group that called them handmaids. Suck it the f up gentlemen.  

Save your fake outrage for something more important.

The way don the con is worshipped for being so tough yet freaks out over little questions on 60 minutes and claims to be treated unfairly doesn’t surprise me his followers would follow suit and allow themselves to becomes so thin skinned and defensive.

I was more concerned with you calling her a "religious wierdo lady". No thin skin on my part, just point out what I consider to be poor taste and sophomoric in nature. 

[NATI BENGALS]

(10-28-2020, 12:17 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I was more concerned with you calling her a "religious wierdo lady". No thin skin on my part, just point out what I consider to be poor taste and sophomoric in nature. 

I’ve seen religion be used as an excuse for many horrible things. And I have plenty of disdain for religion in general. Because she is a she doesn’t exempt her from being a part of that. And because she was in an extreme religious group and forced through onto the scotus makes it even more proper to call it like it is.

You having no problem with a religious extremist on the scotus is pretty shocking. Actually never mind no it isn’t. But if it was an extremist from a different religion I think you would feel differently. I know your high and mighty claim will follow. But my comment stands.

[*bfine32*]

(10-28-2020, 12:32 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I’ve seen religion be used as an excuse for many horrible things. And I have plenty of disdain for religion in general. Because she is a she doesn’t exempt her from being a part of that. And because she was in an extreme religious group and forced through onto the scotus makes it even more proper to call it like it is.

You having no problem with a religious extremist on the scotus is pretty shocking. Actually never mind no it isn’t. But if it was an extremist from a different religion I think you would feel differently. I know your high and mighty claim will follow. But my comment stands.

While on the Seventh Circuit, Barrett wrote 79 majority opinions, 4 concurring opinions, and 6 dissenting opinions; yet, every elected Democrat in Washington could not cite one case where her "extreme religious beliefs" caused her to rule conversely to established law. 

Personally I think you're just mad that she got seated and have taken to route of attacking her. But that's just my opinion.  

[Dill]

(10-28-2020, 01:12 AM)bfine32 Wrote: While on the Seventh Circuit, Barrett wrote 79 majority opinions, 4 concurring opinions, and 6 dissenting opinions; yet, every elected Democrat in Washington could not cite one case where her "extreme religious beliefs" caused her to rule conversely to established law. 

Personally I think you're just mad that she got seated and have taken to route of attacking her. But that's just my opinion.  

In your "opinion," did Trump nominate her because he thought she would not "rule conversely to established law"? 

[GMDino]

(10-28-2020, 12:17 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I was more concerned with you calling her a "religious wierdo lady". No thin skin on my part, just point out what I consider to be poor taste and sophomoric in nature. 

(10-08-2020, 11:54 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm in favor of a stacked Supreme Court


Kate Upton for Justice

Or are we not talking about "sexist" references to a SCJ justice anymore?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-28-2020, 12:13 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Your obsession has gone from sad to creepy, I've taken the Mod's advice and ignored you, but that just gives you carte blanche to follow me from thread to thread and bring up stuff from the distant past that has nothing to do with the discussion. SSF has stepped up and pointed this out a few times, but he shouldn't have to.


WTS, I'm sure we'll get a generic blast that says "don't focus on posters", now that I have finally responded and there's a good chance I'll get banned. 

I figured you for a guy who would vehemently deny being a liar and challenge me to “prove it.”

But, not this time, huh?

[Mickeypoo]

(10-27-2020, 11:51 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I’m embarrassed at the pearl clutching for calling a handmaid a handmaid. Point blank period. She was a handmaid in a religious group that called them handmaids. Suck it the f up gentlemen.  

Save your fake outrage for something more important.

The way don the con is worshipped for being so tough yet freaks out over little questions on 60 minutes and claims to be treated unfairly doesn’t surprise me his followers would follow suit and allow themselves to becomes so thin skinned and defensive.

You mean like the people losing their crap over an empty SCOTUS seat being filled?   

[Mickeypoo]

(10-28-2020, 12:32 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I’ve seen religion be used as an excuse for many horrible things. And I have plenty of disdain for religion in general. Because she is a she doesn’t exempt her from being a part of that. And because she was in an extreme religious group and forced through onto the scotus makes it even more proper to call it like it is.

You having no problem with a religious extremist on the scotus is pretty shocking. Actually never mind no it isn’t. But if it was an extremist from a different religion I think you would feel differently. I know your high and mighty claim will follow. But my comment stands.

She was not forced through.  Appointed quickly, maybe, but others have been appointed quicker.

[GMDino]

(10-28-2020, 09:17 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: She was not forced through.  Appointed quickly, maybe, but others have been appointed quicker.

Indeed.

https://www.npr.org/sections/supreme-court-nomination/2020/10/01/916644231/how-a-barrett-confirmation-would-compare-to-past-supreme-court-timelines

Still there was a sense of desperation from McConnell and the GOP to hurry up before the election even though they had all the votes they needed.  Even going so far as to limit debate before the vote.

[Mickeypoo]

We are so divided right now that I think, in general, that it is better to have 9 on the court than 8.  If this election is contested (it's almost certain to be imo) and there is a split decision in SCOTUS our divide could get far worse.

I understand the arguments about which way she might vote, but again, in general, I think 9 is better than a split 8 in our current climate.

Could be desperation or could have been excitement to get it done.  We will never know what is in his head.

[*bfine32*]

(10-28-2020, 08:46 AM)GMDino Wrote:


Or are we not talking about "sexist" references to a SCJ justice anymore?

As I understand it. Bringing in posts from other threads is frowned upon; as it is void of context and often derails.

[*bfine32*]

(10-28-2020, 01:51 AM)Dill Wrote: In your "opinion," did Trump nominate her because he thought she would not "rule conversely to established law"? 

It's not an opinion; of course he did.

Now my turn for question:

Do you consider it a personal attack to call her a weirdo religious lady?

[NATI BENGALS]

(10-28-2020, 09:35 AM)GMDino Wrote: Indeed.

https://www.npr.org/sections/supreme-court-nomination/2020/10/01/916644231/how-a-barrett-confirmation-would-compare-to-past-supreme-court-timelines

Still there was a sense of desperation from McConnell and the GOP to hurry up before the election even though they had all the votes they needed.  Even going so far as to limit debate before the vote.

John Paul with a vote of 98-0

Sandra Day with a vote of 99-0

"Only two justices since President Gerald Ford's administration in the 1970s have been confirmed in so quick a time: John Paul Stevens, confirmed 16 days after his nomination was sent to the Senate; and Sandra Day O'Connor, confirmed 33 days after her nomination was sent to the Senate."


50 years and then the most destructive anti American senator in modern US history moscow mitch politicizes and packs the court against the will of the majority for a conman lying prez being directed by a big business illuminati group.

[Mickeypoo]

(10-28-2020, 10:04 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: John Paul with a vote of 98-0

Sandra Day with a vote of 99-0

"Only two justices since President Gerald Ford's administration in the 1970s have been confirmed in so quick a time: John Paul Stevens, confirmed 16 days after his nomination was sent to the Senate; and Sandra Day O'Connor, confirmed 33 days after her nomination was sent to the Senate."


50 years and then the most destructive anti American senator in modern US history moscow mitch politicizes and packs the court against the will of the majority for a conman lying prez being directed by a big business illuminati group.

Dude, what don't you understand?  The will of the people put Trump (Republican) and Senate (Republican) in power for 4 years.

RBG passed.  RIP.   SCOUTUS opening.  Trump nominated and Senate confirmed.

What is the problem?  She isn't even the fastest to ever be confirmed.   Multiple Justices have been confirmed faster.

[*Nately120*]

The year is anywhere from 1980-2012, a man appears and tells you he is from the year 2020 and Donald Trump has appointed 3 conservative SC justices. What do you do?