Page 52 of 60
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2024 11:52 am
by jfish26
Shirley wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2024 11:07 am
twocoach wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2024 9:12 am
I doubt that cutting 6-7% is going to knee cap them. My guess is that it doesn't pass because
virtually nothing that House Republicans try to pass actually is worthy of being passed.
You'll get no argument from me about that. That being said:
"If you pluck a chicken one feather at a time, no one will notice."
Benito Mussolini
The percentage itself doesn't make a difference to me; I have no doubt whatsoever that
each and every federal or state level agency, program, initiative, whatever, has 6-7%, or double that, of bloat that can be trimmed without affecting performance of the core mission.
However.
We have seen time and time and time and time again that Rs are uniquely interested in breaking government so that it can be said to be broken (so that, magically, (1) it can either be scrapped altogether, or replaced/supplemented in whole or in part by favored private interests, or (2) it functions only in favored ways).
And so my concern would be those things that represent a fraction of even the portion of the budget to be cut, but where the cut would have a dramatic, adverse effect on the core mission (in ways that serve favored people/interests).
For (silly) example, cameras themselves are certainly less than 6-7% of a law enforcement agency's budget. But ceasing to procure cameras would dramatically and adversely affect a law enforcement agency's ability to perform its core mission. And so cutting cameras out of the budget would weaken law enforcement (and result, magically, in something like procuring new cameras from favored vendors, or simply law enforcement deciding to not deploy the scarce cameras it has to surveil white supremacists in the expansive, remote West).
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2024 1:00 pm
by jfish26
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455
Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Justice Alito Caught on Tape Discussing How Battle for America ‘Can’t Be Compromised’
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... 235036470/
Justice Samuel Alito spoke candidly about the ideological battle between the left and the right — discussing the difficulty of living “peacefully” with ideological opponents in the face of “fundamental” differences that “can’t be compromised.” He endorsed what his interlocutor described as a necessary fight to “return our country to a place of godliness.” And Alito offered a blunt assessment of how America’s polarization will ultimately be resolved: “One side or the other is going to win.”
[...]
The recording, which was provided exclusively to Rolling Stone, captures Windsor [the "interlocutor"] approaching Alito at the event and reminding him that they spoke at the same function the year before, when she asked him a question about political polarization. In the intervening year, she tells the justice, her views on the matter had changed. “I don’t know that we can negotiate with the left in the way that needs to happen for the polarization to end,” Windsor says. “I think that it’s a matter of, like, winning.”
“I think you’re probably right,” Alito replies. “On one side or the other — one side or the other is going to win. I don’t know. I mean, there can be a way of working — a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised. They really can’t be compromised. So it’s not like you are going to split the difference.”
Windsor goes on to tell Alito: “People in this country who believe in God have got to keep fighting for that — to return our country to a place of godliness.”
“I agree with you. I agree with you,” replies Alito, who authored the Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs decision, which reversed five decades of settled law and ended a constitutional right to abortion.
This does not seem difficult: the impartiality (in
culture wars matters) of a justice who agrees that the country must be returned to "a place of godliness," and who thinks political polarization can ONLY be resolved by one side achieving total victory, can reasonably be questioned.
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2024 1:08 pm
by KUTradition
makes me want to vomit
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2024 2:07 pm
by Shirley
Shirley wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2024 9:50 pm
SMFH. We are so fucked.
Like I already said. Still, it's starkly disconcerting to have it confirmed.
Hard to believe, considering she agrees, that she would share the recording.
No doubt, being the man of integrity he is, he'll resign under the circumstances.
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2024 2:13 pm
by defixione
Is this before or after hell freezes over?
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Mon Jun 10, 2024 3:19 pm
by jfish26
Shirley wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2024 2:07 pm
Shirley wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2024 9:50 pm
SMFH. We are so fucked.
Like I already said. Still, it's starkly disconcerting to have it confirmed.
Hard to believe, considering she agrees, that she would share the recording.
No doubt, being the man of integrity he is, he'll resign under the circumstances.
I don't think she agrees, really.
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2024 8:49 am
by KUTradition
these recordings coming out are something else
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2024 8:54 am
by zsn
The problem is no longer Alito, Thomas and Roberts. We all know what they are. The problem is Durbin’s (and Senate Democrats’) impotence.
There should be one and only one guiding principle: What Would Mitch McConnell Do?
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2024 8:57 am
by jfish26
KUTradition wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2024 8:49 am
these recordings coming out are something else
Normies of all stripes - red, blue, purple, whatever - should be
deeply concerned that at least two of the nine individuals with the power to determine, this week, that the Presidency is an office above the law, obviously consider themselves to be above even basic good-faith and honesty.
Again: the right is telling you, everywhere and OUT LOUD, that they simply do not consider themselves to be bound by any laws, rules, regulations, standards or norms of ANY sort.
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2024 9:07 am
by KUTradition
jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2024 8:57 am
KUTradition wrote: ↑Tue Jun 11, 2024 8:49 am
these recordings coming out are something else
Normies of all stripes - red, blue, purple, whatever - should be
deeply concerned that at least two of the nine individuals with the power to determine, this week, that the Presidency is an office above the law, obviously consider themselves to be above even basic good-faith and honesty.
Again: the right is telling you, everywhere and OUT LOUD, that they simply do not consider themselves to be bound by any laws, rules, regulations, standards or norms of ANY sort.
win at all costs
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2024 6:24 am
by RainbowsandUnicorns
We all have crazy relatives. Including spouses.
Sam hit the crazy jackpot with his wife.
I have been told this is legit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP09bVPZPR4
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2024 7:41 am
by jfish26
Among other things, her reference to being “liberated” in time to bring lawsuits before a five year statute of limitations, when considered in light of her husband’s power to influence the 2024 election, should scare the nipple rings off of all of us.
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2024 9:18 am
by jfish26
And, just so we're on exactly the same page here, Mrs. Gilead's comments are all ANY rational person would need in order to conclude that Mr. Gilead has an actual, direct interest in Trump- and 2024-related cases - meaning his partiality is plain, and not even a matter of whether his impartiality "could reasonably be questioned."
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2024 9:29 am
by Shirley
Score one for sanity, at least in the near term:
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2024 9:31 am
by jfish26
I'm not gonna empty what's reserved in my medicine cabinet just yet.
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2024 9:33 am
by Shirley
jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 9:31 am
I'm not gonna empty what's reserved in my medicine cabinet just yet.
#smart
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2024 9:51 am
by RainbowsandUnicorns
Shirley wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 9:33 am
jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 9:31 am
I'm not gonna empty what's reserved in my medicine cabinet just yet.
#smart
Yeah, similar to why I keep a supply of wire hangars in my apartment just in case.
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2024 1:45 pm
by Shirley
RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 9:51 am
Shirley wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 9:33 am
jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2024 9:31 am
I'm not gonna empty what's reserved in my medicine cabinet just yet.
#smart
Yeah, similar to why I keep a supply of wire hangars in my apartment just in case.
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2024 3:11 pm
by KUTradition
hearing some speculation that alito (directly or complicity) was behind the dobbs leak in order to keep kavanaugh and barrett in line
Re: SCOTUS
Posted: Thu Jun 13, 2024 3:12 pm
by jfish26
Yeah, started hearing that back when it happened. Nothing we have seen since cuts against that idea.