A SCOTUS Opening

[GMDino]

(10-28-2020, 10:00 AM)bfine32 Wrote: As I understand it. Bringing in posts from other threads is frowned upon; as it is void of context and often derails.

Within the contest of a post in this thread about "sophomoric", plus the discussion about "sexist" comments about Barrett it certainly is relevant as a "sexist" post in a second thread on the Supreme Court seat was posted...just not about Barrett.   So it begs the question is a "sexist" comment about a woman ok as long as it's not about certain women?  

[*bfine32*]

(10-28-2020, 10:37 AM)GMDino Wrote: Within the contest of a post in this thread about "sophomoric", plus the discussion about "sexist" comments about Barrett it certainly is relevant as a "sexist" post in a second thread on the Supreme Court seat was posted...just not about Barrett.   So it begs the question is a "sexist" comment about a woman ok as long as it's not about certain women?  

If I must explain and apparently I must; as you choose not to let it go as suggested:

One of the individuals mentioned has made her living through her body

One of the individuals mentioned has made a living through her brain

I see nothing wrong with complimenting either on the assets they flaunt.

Upton makes a great living because of a sexist society and one she gladly participates in.

ACB makes her living as a legal mind and doesn't deserve to be called a weirdo religious lady, no matter how hard you try to draw correlation.

Hard to believe but I think the old forum was better. Folks now are just trying to see how much they can get away with.

[GMDino]

(10-28-2020, 11:09 AM)bfine32 Wrote: If I must explain and apparently I must; as you choose not to let it go as suggested:

One of the individuals mentioned has made her living through her body

One of the individuals mentioned has made a living through her brain

I see nothing wrong with complimenting either on the assets they flaunt.

Upton makes a great living because of a sexist society and one she gladly participates in.

ACB makes her living as a legal mind and doesn't deserve to be called a weirdo religious lady, no matter how hard you try to draw correlation.

Hard to believe but I think the old forum was better. Folks now are just trying to see how much they can get away with.

Is it possible that Upton made a living by being a good actress vs "her body" and a "sexist society"?

I'm proposing this because some people decry "sexism" but flaunt it about when they want to be "humorous".  Like the occasional "I'd hit it".

Both things are sexist except to the person who uses them because they have justified why they used it.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-28-2020, 11:09 AM)bfine32 Wrote: If I must explain and apparently I must; as you choose not to let it go as suggested:

One of the individuals mentioned has made her living through her body

One of the individuals mentioned has made a living through her brain

I see nothing wrong with complimenting either on the assets they flaunt.

Upton makes a great living because of a sexist society and one she gladly participates in.

ACB makes her living as a legal mind and doesn't deserve to be called a weirdo religious lady, no matter how hard you try to draw correlation.

Hard to believe but I think the old forum was better. Folks now are just trying to see how much they can get away with.

I’ve never seen anyone work so hard to conflate calling a woman “lady” into a sexist pejorative.

In your opinion, what term should Nati Bengals have used to refer to a lady other than lady?

[BmorePat87]

(10-28-2020, 10:22 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Dude, what don't you understand?  The will of the people put Trump (Republican) and Senate (Republican) in power for 4 years.

This is false. Federalism put them in power, not the will of the people. 

Senate Democrats had a total of 11m more votes in 2016 and 17.5m more in 2018. Donald Trump had 3m less votes in 2016.

This is not to say that they shouldn't be in office, but the will of the people is not the deciding factor in the Senate or Presidency. 

[Dill]

(10-28-2020, 10:01 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 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?

Your non-opinion goes against the grain of Trump's previous behavior, which is to appoint people to do what he wants, regardless of law or propriety.

You'd have to assume Trump suddenly stands for rule of law--against all signs to the contrary.



Sure, it is a mild personal attack to call someone outside the forum a "weirdo religious lady." "Weirdo" is the operative word here, not "religious." And so not worth a digression.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-28-2020, 01:15 PM)Dill Wrote: Your non-opinion goes against the grain of Trump's previous behavior, which is to appoint people to do what he wants, regardless of law or propriety.

You'd have to assume Trump suddenly stands for rule of law--against all signs to the contrary.



Sure, it is a mild personal attack to call someone outside the forum a "weirdo religious lady." "Weirdo" is the operative word here, not "religious."

I think you're digging too deeply, Trump is a shallow guy.  She was recommended by people he trusted.  She's a woman (no longer a redundant statement), she's religious and she's conservative.  She ticks off every box for him.  I know the theory that she's a reliable vote in his corner in the result of a disputed election, but would that not be a concern for anyone Trump nominated at this point?  If her being a complete activist, and not a judge in the traditional and desired sense, was a major concern then the Dem senators would have been all over it during the confirmation process.  As I stated previously, Barrett didn't give anyone a reason to not vote for her on a personal level and I think the Dems basically conceded that and went for political posturing during the hearings.

[Mickeypoo]

(10-28-2020, 12:54 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This is false. Federalism put them in power, not the will of the people. 

Senate Democrats had a total of 11m more votes in 2016 and 17.5m more in 2018. Donald Trump had 3m less votes in 2016.

This is not to say that they shouldn't be in office, but the will of the people is not the deciding factor in the Senate or Presidency. 

How about the will of the people over the geographical size of the USA?

 I don't want 3 or 4 major coastal cities deciding every election which is what would happen is the EC is done away with.  3/4+ of the Country is Red.

I wonder how our elections would look if each county in the USA got 1 electoral vote.  Based on a quick look at the map, Dems would not be winning anything anytime soon.
https://www.rgj.com/story/opinion/voices/2019/01/08/electoral-college-best-method-presidential-elections-wozniak/2514497002/

NY is actually a very red state controlled by a few Dem cities unfortunately.  Almost 7/8 of NY is red, yet we are controlled by Dems.
https://www.pressconnects.com/story/news/local/new-york/2016/11/11/nys-election-map-becomes-familiar/93664010/

I didn't post the links for the articles, I posted them for the maps.  Didn't even look at the articles.

[BmorePat87]

(10-28-2020, 01:40 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: How about the will of the people over the geographical size of the USA?

 I don't want 3 or 4 major coastal cities deciding every election which is what would happen is the EC is done away with.  3/4+ of the Country is Red.

I wonder how our elections would look if each county in the USA got 1 electoral vote.  Based on a quick look at the map, Dems would not be winning anything anytime soon.
https://www.rgj.com/story/opinion/voices/2019/01/08/electoral-college-best-method-presidential-elections-wozniak/2514497002/

NY is actually a very red state controlled by a few Dem cities unfortunately.  Almost 7/8 of NY is red, yet we are controlled by Dems.
https://www.pressconnects.com/story/news/local/new-york/2016/11/11/nys-election-map-becomes-familiar/93664010/

I didn't post the links for the articles, I posted them for the maps.  Didn't even look at the articles.

As I said, I’m not suggesting that our federal system is invalid or invalidates any electoral victory, but will of the people is a matter of majority or plurality of the electorate. Those coastal areas contain more people.

With regards to your county statement, counties are not identical in size. While New York may have many red counties, the population isn’t spread evenly. That’s why their state legislature is roughly 2-1 Democrat over Republican and why Clinton had +22%.

Per your idea, Congressional districts are closer to being even, so that would make more sense. If you end gerrymandering then that’s a solid idea.

[Dill]

(10-28-2020, 01:40 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: How about the will of the people over the geographical size of the USA?

 I don't want 3 or 4 major coastal cities deciding every election which is what would happen is the EC is done away with.  3/4+ of the Country is Red.

I wonder how our elections would look if each county in the USA got 1 electoral vote.  Based on a quick look at the map, Dems would not be winning anything anytime soon.
https://www.rgj.com/story/opinion/voices/2019/01/08/electoral-college-best-method-presidential-elections-wozniak/2514497002/

NY is actually a very red state controlled by a few Dem cities unfortunately.  Almost 7/8 of NY is red, yet we are controlled by Dems.
https://www.pressconnects.com/story/news/local/new-york/2016/11/11/nys-election-map-becomes-familiar/93664010/

I didn't post the links for the articles, I posted them for the maps.  Didn't even look at the articles.

This is like saying a nickel should be worth more than a dime because it is bigger. 

7/8 of the population of New York is not red.

[Mickeypoo]

(10-28-2020, 03:57 PM)Dill Wrote: This is like saying a nickel should be worth more than a dime because it is bigger. 

7/8 of the population of New York is not red.

Geographically, according to the map, it is close.

[Mickeypoo]

(10-28-2020, 02:23 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: As I said, I’m not suggesting that our federal system is invalid or invalidates any electoral victory, but will of the people is a matter of majority or plurality of the electorate. Those coastal areas contain more people.

With regards to your county statement, counties are not identical in size. While New York may have many red counties, the population isn’t spread evenly. That’s why their state legislature is roughly 2-1 Democrat over Republican and why Clinton had +22%.

Per your idea, Congressional districts are closer to being even, so that would make more sense. If you end gerrymandering then that’s a solid idea.

Let's say you have a 10 square mile area with 5 million people crammed in like sardines.  (No idea why people would like that, but whatever).  Let's say there are 3 school districts in that area and 3 local governments.

Now lets say there are 2.5 million people in a 300 square mile area.  75 different school districts with  75 different local governments.

Why should those 5 million in a tiny little area with minimum school districts and local governments override the 2.5 covering a vast amount of space, far more school districts and far more local governments?

Maybe I am thinking about this wrong and I am willing to listen.  And I will admit my analogy may suck, but I think you get the idea I am trying to convey.

[BigPapaKain]

(10-28-2020, 04:30 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Let's say you have a 10 square mile area with 5 million people crammed in like sardines.  (No idea why people would like that, but whatever).  Let's say there are 3 school districts in that area and 3 local governments.

Now lets say there are 2.5 million people in a 300 square mile area.  75 different school districts with  75 different local governments.

Why should those 5 million in a tiny little area with minimum school districts and local governments override the 2.5 covering a vast amount of space, far more school districts and far more local governments?

Maybe I am thinking about this wrong and I am willing to listen.  And I will admit my analogy may suck, but I think you get the idea I am trying to convey.

Because power should belong to people not land masses.

[*bfine32*]

Take your EC debate to the minority rule thread.

[Mickeypoo]

(10-28-2020, 04:34 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Because power should belong to people not land masses.

So 3 school districts and 3 local governments in a 10 mile area should outweigh 75 school districts and 75 local governments in a 300 mile area?

[Mickeypoo]

(10-28-2020, 04:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Take your EC debate to the minority rule thread.

Oops, sorry.  

[Dill]

(10-28-2020, 01:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think you're digging too deeply, Trump is a shallow guy.  She was recommended by people he trusted.  She's a woman (no longer a redundant statement), she's religious and she's conservative.  She ticks off every box for him.  I know the theory that she's a reliable vote in his corner in the result of a disputed election, but would that not be a concern for anyone Trump nominated at this point?  If her being a complete activist, and not a judge in the traditional and desired sense, was a major concern then the Dem senators would have been all over it during the confirmation process.  As I stated previously, Barrett didn't give anyone a reason to not vote for her on a personal level and I think the Dems basically conceded that and went for political posturing during the hearings.

Shallow as he may be, Trump fights for his power, relates all political judgments to retaining power. He may be incapable of grasping legal norms and arguments, but he is certainly calculating polls and base support and the stock market with every appointment he makes. Months out from the election he was already breaking the post office and suing states like PA for "voter fraud." The Republican party is working overtime to inhibit mail in balloting in support of their candidate. Why would he suddenly change character with the chance to appoint a judge who might be ruling on the election he is already calling "rigged"? The most important "box" Trump wants ticked off is not "religious and conservative."

Trump farmed out his legal judgment to the Federalist Society for sure (and the choice of Barrett is as much McConnell's as his), but that doesn't mean he would nominate anyone who might be a danger to him should the election be thrown to the courts. He has made it abundantly clear that nine justices will likely be "needed" for this election. It is unimaginable that his legal team has not gamed an election thrown to the courts and who might be the best fit for their interests.

The conservative fight to create a 6-3 conservative court was not a battle to get judges on board who would just "follow the law," or they'd be happy with another  Roberts. It has been an effort to confirm people who would rule in Conservatives favor on a range of issues, from campaign finance to gay rights to Roe v Wade. Given the unpredictability of past appointments, the goal has been to identify and nominate judges who would be "consistent"--people who cannot say for sure that Brown vs Board was correctly decided.  And that is why Barrett was chosen. While insisting that a judge's personal preferences/values should play no role in legal decisions, she will shift the court dramatically rightward in case after case, making the court the final bastion of minority rule if Republicans lose Congress and the Exec.

[Dill]

(10-28-2020, 04:18 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Geographically, according to the map, it is close.

The nickel is bigger. Should be worth more than a dime.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-28-2020, 04:18 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Geographically, according to the map, it is close.

Do square miles vote?

[*PhilHos*]

(10-28-2020, 04:52 PM)Dill Wrote: The nickel is bigger. Should be worth more than a dime.

Honestly, I think it's ridiculous that a dime is worth more than a nickel and a penny combined yet both of those coins are larger than the dime. Seriously. It's ridiculous. And dollar coins now are barely larger than a quarter. Let's go back to the old days when a dollar coin was basically the size of a coffee cup saucer.