Kansas Crimson

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 12:10 pm

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 11:50 am the federalist society

‘nuf said

An evil society of terrible people? Like all of them?

i’ll mark you down as someone who supports government regulated reproduction

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 12:51 pm

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 12:10 pm

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 11:50 am the federalist society

‘nuf said

An evil society of terrible people? Like all of them?

i’ll mark you down as someone who supports government regulated reproduction

I am pro-choice so you would be wrong...but wouldn't be the first time i was called something i am not on this board.

Is it that all of them are completely anti abortion? I sort of doubt they all are. I also sort of doubt that is all of their main/sole objective and the only important issue to them.

Or is it more than they are a group of conservatives and libertarians and those are viewed as "the other side"?

I just spent 10min browsing their website....i am not seeing a bunch of anti abortion propaganda. It seems they care about a lot of different issues, and not just stopping anyone from ever having an abortion for any reason. Maybe i need to dig deeper. I am sure some are against abortion. I know plenty of pro-life people. I disagree with them, but i don't think they are all the devil.

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 1:16 pm

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 12:51 pm

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 12:10 pm

An evil society of terrible people? Like all of them?

i’ll mark you down as someone who supports government regulated reproduction

I am pro-choice so you would be wrong...but wouldn't be the first time i was called something i am not on this board.

Is it that all of them are completely anti abortion? I sort of doubt they all are. I also sort of doubt that is all of their main/sole objective and the only important issue to them.

Or is it more than they are a group of conservatives and libertarians and those are viewed as "the other side"?

I just spent 10min browsing their website....i am not seeing a bunch of anti abortion propaganda. It seems they care about a lot of different issues, and not just stopping anyone from ever having an abortion for any reason. Maybe i need to dig deeper. I am sure some are against abortion. I know plenty of pro-life people. I disagree with them, but i don't think they are all the devil.

of course it isn’t the only issue they push, but it is one of the more dominant ones. just google “federalist society view on abortion”. of course, they wouldn’t just come out and say it’s one of their primary issues...their recommendation of judges would be even more controversial and the organization itself wouldn’t have quite the notoriety. i mean, they at least need to keep up the facade of being about more than just abortion

nobody said pro-life people were the devil, but they definitely aren’t people that i’d want forcing decisions on the citizenry

i’m more libertarian about a great many issues than i am democrat, so it isn’t an issue of them being on the “other side”. it’s an issue about them wanting to stipulate what a woman does with her body, and doing so on the faux moral grounds of protecting the life of the fetus. and i say faux because of the countless instances of them doing nothing or very little to address human rights abuses of lives outside of the uterus

is there anything on federalist site about childhood hunger? how about child abuse in general? human trafficking? the epidemic of missing/abducted native women in this country? how about the treatment of minor refugees?

and you can doubt in one hand shit in the other, then tell me which one fills up first

Mjl wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 11:49 am The constitution says extremely little about the SC nomination and confirmation process and that's been fine for over 200 years. Now we can't have nice things - actual rules are going to need to be codified.

The reality is that it hasn’t been fine for 200 years. It’s just we’re finding out now how f-up the process is and how it’s so easy to corrupt. We found out other ways that the Constitution was f-ed up continually throughout our history. It’s just that it taken us 220 years to find out it’s f-ed up in THIS way.

We may yet find out other ways it’s f-ed up in years to come including institutional anachronisms like the Electoral College and perhaps even the Senate.

electoral college for sure

but then, we’d have to do a better job ensuring that more than ~55% of eligible voters actually vote

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 2:50 pm electoral college for sure

but then, we’d have to do a better job ensuring that more than ~55% of eligible voters actually vote

Part of me says yes. Part of me says we might be better off with only the people who sort of pay attention voting.

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 2:54 pm

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 2:50 pm electoral college for sure

but then, we’d have to do a better job ensuring that more than ~55% of eligible voters actually vote

Part of me says yes. Part of me says we might be better off with only the people who sort of pay attention voting.

but that’s not what happens now

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 2:57 pm

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 2:54 pm

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 2:50 pm electoral college for sure

but then, we’d have to do a better job ensuring that more than ~55% of eligible voters actually vote

Part of me says yes. Part of me says we might be better off with only the people who sort of pay attention voting.

but that’s not what happens now

Very true.

Maybe - and hear me out on this one, Mitt - it’s a not-good idea to rubber-stamp this guy’s pick for the court that will end up hearing ballot challenges.

What in the actual eff??

It’s also fundamental to democracy to be able to suggest a potus might not respect constitutional guarantees without being dismissed as unthinkable and unacceptable.

And I mean come on, if it’s really so bad, Mitt, then call potus out when he’s the one suggesting that shit!

I think I responded to that before I realized he apparently was responding to potus? Albeit in a vague, toothless, Mittensy kinda way...

jfish26 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 6:15 am

Maybe - and hear me out on this one, Mitt - it’s a not-good idea to rubber-stamp this guy’s pick for the court that will end up hearing ballot challenges.

Unlike some other Senators Mitt said he would support going through the process with the nominee, he did not already commit to a yes vote.

Mitt is about the only principled Republican left in the Senate, yet he's now the one being attacked, not the 50 that completely lack principles.

TBF, no one has committed to actually voting someone through. I could see Mitt or lame duck Gardner appearing like he would at least vote for the candidate, making some sort of floor speech, and saying that he would vote for Justice Amy, but because the process was not done correctly, cannot vote at this time to confirm the justice.

HOWEVER, that's also trusting GOP doing the right thing. I've lost all trust in the GOP, so I'm expecting a log jam process, and to be very disappointed.

NiceDC wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:03 am TBF, no one has committed to actually voting someone through. I could see Mitt or lame duck Gardner appearing like he would at least vote for the candidate, making some sort of floor speech, and saying that he would vote for Justice Amy, but because the process was not done correctly, cannot vote at this time to confirm the justice.

HOWEVER, that's also trusting GOP doing the right thing. I've lost all trust in the GOP, so I'm expecting a log jam process, and to be very disappointed.

As I posted a few days ago, what is considered principled here is different. If you believe life begins at conception, then getting a pro-life justice trumps consistency in managing the nomination process.

Mjl wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:08 am

NiceDC wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:03 am TBF, no one has committed to actually voting someone through. I could see Mitt or lame duck Gardner appearing like he would at least vote for the candidate, making some sort of floor speech, and saying that he would vote for Justice Amy, but because the process was not done correctly, cannot vote at this time to confirm the justice.

HOWEVER, that's also trusting GOP doing the right thing. I've lost all trust in the GOP, so I'm expecting a log jam process, and to be very disappointed.

As I posted a few days ago, what is considered principled here is different. If you believe life begins at conception, then getting a pro-life justice trumps consistency in managing the nomination process.

Single-issue anti-abortion people (or, single-issue pro-abortion people) should not have this type of power. It's lunacy.

Overruling Roe also takes a massive carrot away from 100 million people. I doubt any GOP senator cares about Roe. They care that their base thinks they care.

NiceDC wrote: ↑Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:12 am Overruling Roe also takes a massive carrot away from 100 million people. I doubt any GOP senator cares about Roe. They care that their base thinks they care.

Again, this is where I think Romney is an exception. He has shown repeated willingness to do what is not popular amongst the Republican base.