OT: ACB just got sworn in

[T]

Amy Coney Barrett sworn in as Supreme Court justice at White House

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/amy-coney-barrett-sworn-in-as-supreme-court-associated-justice-at-white-house-ceremony

For the Collectivists, libs, democrats, communists,
fascists on this group. Here is a song to make
your feeling better:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDSud7vAH_0

USA USA USA USA USA USA

[rbowman]

As someone mentioned on Gab, a female justice is sworn in by a black
justice and the hypocritical bastards on the left are pissed off.

[T]

"hypocritical bastards" is a good description. If
it was not for the double standard, they would
have no standards at all.

It is a terrible thing to witness. These
Collectivists/Democrats/Communists/Fascists
want life time judges that are unelected legislators
with no accountability that do not follow the
constitution, the law, or the will of the people
as expressed by the legislature. These
folks do not belong in a Republic as they do
not believe in the rule of law.

But it is fun to see their head explode! Unfortunately,
they do grow back. Hopefully just in time to re-explode
after Trump wins. Now that will be fun. Just turn
the sound off and watch the wild eyes!

Be nice if Trump can appoint two more constructionists
in his second term. More heads will explode. Maybe
they will even keep the 25 women around to accuse
them of rape.

Good old Fox News radio just announced that she was
sworn in by Judge Roberts. Real good research there.

Oh I just heard that Trump is playing videos
at his rallies of Biden saying he would ban
fracking. Does he not realize that he is all over
the place saying this?

On second though, Biden has trouble remembering what
day it is, what state he is in, what office he is
running for, and what he said yesterday. So maybe
he does not realize. Who let Biden out of the
nursing home anyway?

[Peeler]

On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 22:19:46 -0600, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,
troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

>
> As someone mentioned on Gab, a female justice is sworn in by a black
> justice and the hypocritical bastards on the left are pissed off.

Seems a LOT of people in the poor US are now pissed off about just anything
and especially about each other, senile Trumptard.

[Dean Hoffman]

Give this a try
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAXHr0qccvE>

[Frank]

Do not know if it is true but I heard someone on the radio say that the
only people to broadcast the swearing in was FOX.

[angelica...@yahoo.com]

Depends what you mean by "broadcast". Looks like several online news
outlets streamed it live.

Television is for dinosaurs.

Cindy Hamilton

[trader_4]

On Tuesday, October 27, 2020 at 4:33:31 AM UTC-4, T wrote:
> On 2020-10-26 21:19, rbowman wrote:
> > On 10/26/2020 09:20 PM, T wrote:
> >> Amy Coney Barrett sworn in as Supreme Court justice at White House
> >>
> >> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/amy-coney-barrett-sworn-in-as-supreme-court-associated-justice-at-white-house-ceremony
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> For the Collectivists, libs, democrats, communists,
> >> fascists on this group.  Here is a song to make
> >> your feeling better:
> >>
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDSud7vAH_0
> >>
> >> USA USA USA USA USA USA
> >
> > As someone mentioned on Gab, a female justice is sworn in by a black
> > justice and the hypocritical bastards on the left are pissed off.
>
> "hypocritical bastards" is a good description. If
> it was not for the double standard, they would
> have no standards at all.
>
> It is a terrible thing to witness. These
> Collectivists/Democrats/Communists/Fascists
> want life time judges that are unelected legislators
> with no accountability that do not follow the
> constitution, the law, or the will of the people
> as expressed by the legislature. These
> folks do not belong in a Republic as they do
> not believe in the rule of law.
>
> But it is fun to see their head explode!

We'll see what happens with your head when Biden wins, the GOP loses
the Senate next week and then they pack the Supreme Court to get what
they want.

Unfortunately,
> they do grow back. Hopefully just in time to re-explode
> after Trump wins. Now that will be fun. Just turn
> the sound off and watch the wild eyes!
>
> Be nice if Trump can appoint two more constructionists
> in his second term. More heads will explode.

The clown is going down. People are turning out in record numbers to
vote. It's extremely unlikely that they are doing so because they are
excited about voting for Biden or Trump. They are turning out in record
numbers because they are fed up with the Trump reality shit show.

Maybe
> they will even keep the 25 women around to accuse
> them of rape.
>
> Good old Fox News radio just announced that she was
> sworn in by Judge Roberts. Real good research there.

It's as likely you got that right as most of the other things here
where you go off half-cocked. More likely what they said was that
she was sworn in by Thomas at the WH ceremony and will be sworn in
at the SC by Roberts.

>
> Oh I just heard that Trump is playing videos
> at his rallies of Biden saying he would ban
> fracking. Does he not realize that he is all over
> the place saying this?
>
> On second though, Biden has trouble remembering what
> day it is, what state he is in, what office he is
> running for, and what he said yesterday. So maybe
> he does not realize. Who let Biden out of the
> nursing home anyway?

And you know what? Most voters care more about Covid, healthcare and
having a president who isn't an embarrassing, lying, incompetent ass.

[trader_4]

If I was running programming at a broadcast network, I would not interrupt
regular programming to show the swearing in at the WH. The Trumpets have
a distorted reality as to what people want to see. And like you say, it;s
not 1975 anymore, it's available to see if you wanted to.

We'll see where all this leads. First indication will be in a week. The
Republicans started the SC play when they denied Obama even a hearing for
Garland, when we were 11 months away from a new president. They could have
held hearings, voted no, given Obama a chance to put forth someone that
might have been more acceptable, etc. But instead they just said NO!
Had Garland made it to the court, Trump would have had two appointments,
the court would today be about where it had been prior to Scalia passing.
So, we'll see where their hardball tactics take us now. I hope the Democrats
leave the court alone, but if they change it to their liking, the Republicans
have no one to blame but themselves.

[Dean Hoffman]

People like my brother are "frugal". He and my sister in law are
satisfied
with over the air tv so far.

[angelica...@yahoo.com]

My mother isn't a big spender. She has cable and internet. She started
ordering her groceries online a few years ago, since she doesn't drive.

Cindy Hamilton

[gfre...@aol.com]

Isn't "Flogging Molly" what Toobin got in trouble for ;-)

[gfre...@aol.com]

On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 06:51:36 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:

>If I was running programming at a broadcast network, I would not interrupt
>regular programming to show the swearing in at the WH. The Trumpets have
>a distorted reality as to what people want to see.

True. I doubt most people could name more than one or two SCOTUS
justices if they knew any of them but they need to know who got a
chair turn on The Voice and we certainly wouldn't want to interrupt
that.

The reality is I am not sure watching the swearing in was "Must See
TV" for anyone anyway.

I do think packing the court is a mistake because once you set that
precedent, whenever someone doesn't like the balance, they will just
add more justices. I doubt it would happen anyway. You need far more
than 50 votes in the Senate for something like that. It is at least 60
and that assumes someone doesn't make a court case out of it. Do you
think the SCOTUS is willing to reduce their own power?

[Bob F]

McConnell had before that stopped bringing Obama's court picks up for a
vote in the Senate. This was a long term plan to pack the courts with
ultra right wingers supported by a tiny minority of Americans, the
funders of the federalist society.
.

[trader_4]

On Tuesday, October 27, 2020 at 2:47:17 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 06:51:36 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
> <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >If I was running programming at a broadcast network, I would not interrupt
> >regular programming to show the swearing in at the WH. The Trumpets have
> >a distorted reality as to what people want to see.
>
> True. I doubt most people could name more than one or two SCOTUS
> justices if they knew any of them but they need to know who got a
> chair turn on The Voice and we certainly wouldn't want to interrupt
> that.
>
> The reality is I am not sure watching the swearing in was "Must See
> TV" for anyone anyway.
>
> I do think packing the court is a mistake because once you set that
> precedent, whenever someone doesn't like the balance, they will just
> add more justices. I doubt it would happen anyway. You need far more
> than 50 votes in the Senate for something like that.

Not if the Democrats get rid of the filibuster, which they are also
threatening to do. How serious they are about any of it, who knows.
They might keep the threat of expanding the court as leverage, figuring
that the conservative justices and/or litigants might be careful with
some cases.

It is at least 60
> and that assumes someone doesn't make a court case out of it. Do you
> think the SCOTUS is willing to reduce their own power?

You're not seriously suggesting that SC justices would or could bring such
a case, are you?

[T]

Comrade,

To quote Obama "elections have consequences". This has
been done 29 times before. Obama did not get his way
because the America elected a senate of the other party.

TOO FREAKING BAD.

And by the way, ACB was a great choice. Not one of
your totalitarian activists. Now you will have to
get your crap through congress the old fashioned
way.

[Ed Pawlowski]

On 10/27/2020 7:32 PM, T wrote:

>> McConnell had before that stopped bringing Obama's court picks up for
>> a vote in the Senate. This was a long term plan to pack the courts
>> with ultra right wingers supported by a tiny minority of Americans,
>> the funders of the federalist society.
>> .
>
> Comrade,
>
> To quote Obama "elections have consequences".  This has
> been done 29 times before.  Obama did not get his way
> because the America elected a senate of the other party.

Yes, Graham showed how much of a hypocrite he is. Legal? Yes.
Ethical? Not so much.

>
> TOO FREAKING BAD.
>
> And by the way, ACB was a great choice.  Not one of
> your totalitarian activists.  Now you will have to
> get your crap through congress the old fashioned
> way.
>

We won't know that for some time to come. I think she may be OK and she
is definitely smart. I just wonder how much her religious beliefs come
into play. if at all. People of Praise reminds me of a cult.

[rbowman]

Works for me but about all I watch is Austin City Limits and a local
music show. I was amazed the other week to catch a full Tom Petty show.
I thought it must be begging time every five minutes.

[T]

On 2020-10-27 17:44, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> TOO FREAKING BAD.
>>
>> And by the way, ACB was a great choice.  Not one of
>> your totalitarian activists.  Now you will have to
>> get your crap through congress the old fashioned
>> way.

> We won't know that for some time to come.  I think she may be OK and she
> is definitely smart. I just wonder how much her religious beliefs come
> into play. if at all.  People of Praise reminds me of a cult.

I do not care if the justices at Communists, the
religion of the flying zucchini, or worse, Bob F.,
as long as the respect the constitution, the law,
and the will of the people as expressed by the
legislature.

[gfre...@aol.com]

On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 12:19:56 -0700 (PDT), trader_4

<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Tuesday, October 27, 2020 at 2:47:17 PM UTC-4, gfre...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 06:51:36 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
>> <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> >If I was running programming at a broadcast network, I would not interrupt
>> >regular programming to show the swearing in at the WH. The Trumpets have
>> >a distorted reality as to what people want to see.
>>
>> True. I doubt most people could name more than one or two SCOTUS
>> justices if they knew any of them but they need to know who got a
>> chair turn on The Voice and we certainly wouldn't want to interrupt
>> that.
>>
>> The reality is I am not sure watching the swearing in was "Must See
>> TV" for anyone anyway.
>>
>> I do think packing the court is a mistake because once you set that
>> precedent, whenever someone doesn't like the balance, they will just
>> add more justices. I doubt it would happen anyway. You need far more
>> than 50 votes in the Senate for something like that.
>
>Not if the Democrats get rid of the filibuster, which they are also
>threatening to do. How serious they are about any of it, who knows.
>They might keep the threat of expanding the court as leverage, figuring
>that the conservative justices and/or litigants might be careful with
>some cases.
>

Litigants only care about the case in front of them.

I also doubt any senator really wants to lose the filibuster. In fact
one senator can throw a monkey wrench in litigation by delaying the
vote, pretty much forever.
Changing those rules is stripping them of the unique power a senator
has.

>
>It is at least 60
>> and that assumes someone doesn't make a court case out of it. Do you
>> think the SCOTUS is willing to reduce their own power?
>
>You're not seriously suggesting that SC justices would or could bring such
>a case, are you?

The court does not bring cases to the court, lawyers do but there are
plenty of GOP friendly lawyers who would oppose the law that changed
the court. Since Trump has put in plenty of lower court judges, it
could easily escalate to the Scotus.
I doubt Biden will try to pack the court but it wouldn't be a slam
dunk, if he did. FDR at the height of his power lost that vote 70 to
20. Biden is not going to have that kind of power nor that mandate. My
guess is he will spend his whole administration dodging silly
investigations. That is what the American body politic has become.

[gfre...@aol.com]

On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 20:44:21 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.xxx> wrote:

>On 10/27/2020 7:32 PM, T wrote:
>
>>> McConnell had before that stopped bringing Obama's court picks up for
>>> a vote in the Senate. This was a long term plan to pack the courts
>>> with ultra right wingers supported by a tiny minority of Americans,
>>> the funders of the federalist society.
>>> .
>>
>> Comrade,
>>
>> To quote Obama "elections have consequences".  This has
>> been done 29 times before.  Obama did not get his way
>> because the America elected a senate of the other party.
>
>Yes, Graham showed how much of a hypocrite he is. Legal? Yes.
>Ethical? Not so much.
>

Shocking as it might be to you all, I agree. This was a brazen
political move and hypocritical on the part of everyone who opposed
Garland but it is not unprecedented. This is exactly what prompted
Marbury v Madison. In fact Adams rammed through his court picks in a
lame duck session after he lost the election. They just screwed around
and did not get Marbury's commission in on time. Jefferson had Madison
rescind it and the suit ensued. Marbury actually lost and didn't get
his writ but the SCOTUS established it's power to overturn
legislation.

[gfre...@aol.com]

On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 19:06:40 -0600, rbowman <bow...@montana.com>
wrote:

That is what Tivo is for. You can skip commercials.

[Peeler]

On Tue, 27 Oct 2020 19:06:40 -0600, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,

troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

> Works for me but about all I watch is Austin City Limits and a local
> music show. I was amazed the other week to catch a full Tom Petty show.
> I thought it must be begging time every five minutes.

Oh, yes, lowbrowwoman, everyone on Usenet is so eager to hear all that from
you, you totally fucked senile creep! LOL

[trader_4]

Not sure what that comment has to do with anything here.

>
> I also doubt any senator really wants to lose the filibuster. In fact
> one senator can throw a monkey wrench in litigation by delaying the
> vote, pretty much forever.
> Changing those rules is stripping them of the unique power a senator
> has.

We'll see.

>
> >
> >It is at least 60
> >> and that assumes someone doesn't make a court case out of it. Do you
> >> think the SCOTUS is willing to reduce their own power?
> >
> >You're not seriously suggesting that SC justices would or could bring such
> >a case, are you?
>
> The court does not bring cases to the court,

Then why did you pose the question about lawsuits and ask if we thought

lawyers do but there are
> plenty of GOP friendly lawyers who would oppose the law that changed
> the court.

On what grounds? Am I wrong that Congress by law can and has changed the
number of SC justices?

Since Trump has put in plenty of lower court judges, it
> could easily escalate to the Scotus.

I see, so you're saying that Trump justices don't follow the law, decide
cases on the law, they just blindly follow the cult of Trump.

> I doubt Biden will try to pack the court but it wouldn't be a slam
> dunk, if he did. FDR at the height of his power lost that vote 70 to
> 20. Biden is not going to have that kind of power nor that mandate.

You might want to wait until after Tuesday to make that claim. It looks
to me like a historic defeat for Trump and the GOP.

My
> guess is he will spend his whole administration dodging silly
> investigations. That is what the American body politic has become.

That might be true, but the GOP is going to have a hard time investigating
anything if they lose the Senate, which seems likely. Or do you believe
Trump? He says they will retake the House.

[trader_4]

I'll remind you of that a week from now. See what you have to say then.
I suppose you believe the evil orange clown and think that Trump is going
to win big and the GOP will retake the House?

[Ralph Mowery]

In article <78d87da5-b27d-4fca...@googlegroups.com>,
tra...@optonline.net says...

>
> On what grounds? Am I wrong that Congress by law can and has changed the
> number of SC justices?
>
>
>

Congress can change the number of justices. This has been done several
times in the past, the last time was 1869.

To get rid of one of them is basically the same as the President, house
charges, senate trials. Otherwise they retire on their own or die in
office.

The constitution does not say how many there can be. So I take it there
could be only one, or 10,000 if congress so desires.

[T]

:-)

[Bob F]

The Repubs had no problem dumping the filibuster for Supreme court
justices in 2017.

[Ralph Mowery]

In article <rncngk$6eh$1...@dont-email.me>, bobn...@gmail.com says...

> I also doubt any senator really wants to lose the filibuster. In fact
> >> one senator can throw a monkey wrench in litigation by delaying the
> >> vote, pretty much forever.
> >> Changing those rules is stripping them of the unique power a senator
> >> has.
> >
> > We'll see.
> >
>
> The Repubs had no problem dumping the filibuster for Supreme court
> justices in 2017.
>
>
>

Much of the time I wonder if we are electing grown people or a bunch of
whiney brats. They do not seem to really want to help the country but
just get their party elected.

That filibuster should be done away with so business can be carried on.

A few years back the Republicans held up the court for almost a year,
this year it went though in less than a month.

The SC should be all or maybe all but one justice vote away. This is
suppose to be the legal law and the judges should be following the law
and not making it what they want it to be.

[Bob F]

I wonder what that last sentence could be intending to say?

[Ralph Mowery]

In article <rnddg7$esj$2...@dont-email.me>, bobn...@gmail.com says...

>
> > The SC should be all or maybe all but one justice vote away. This is
> > suppose to be the legal law and the judges should be following the law
> > and not making it what they want it to be.
> >
> >
>
> I wonder what that last sentence could be intending to say?
>
>
>

If I go to a local court the jury in a criminal case must all return a
guilty verdic. Thease people are like me, just ones off the street with
no legal training.

The SC justices have many years of training and education. Looks like
to me that their verdic should be held to a very high standard and not
just a simple majority.

It might be a way that if only 2 justices out of the 9 hold out then
nothing hapens. This would help with packing the court system with more
or less liberal or consertavie judges.

[rbowman]

I do have a problem with law being made by 1 person in many SCOTUS
cases. I don't think 12 or 20 justices would make a difference unless it
was so partisan as to be a kangaroo court.

[Peeler]

On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 07:41:06 -0600, lowbrowwoman, the endlessly driveling,

troll-feeding, senile idiot, blabbered again:

> I do have a problem with

with you inability to STOP blathering, babbling and gossiping endlessly, you
endlessly gossiping senile washerwoman?