The Goat Pen

Just like you didn't care about getting 2 Supreme Court justices on the court in the most unethical way imaginable. But I agree with you, at this point (and probably forever) nobody gives a shit about anything except what they want. However it happens is fine with them, as long as they get their way...

hedge wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:44 am Just like you didn't care about getting 2 Supreme Court justices on the court in the most unethical way imaginable. But I agree with you, at this point (and probably forever) nobody gives a shit about anything except what they want. However it happens is fine with them, as long as they get their way...

how was getting these 2 supreme courts justices any different that SCOTUS of the past?

sardis wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 7:35 am Another great day under the Biden administration.

The EPA is threatening to disrupt gas production in Texas

interesting timing when Biden supposedly cares about the pain Americans are feeling at the pump.

so wait, Hutchison is a witness relaying a story she was told by Ornato and not a eye witness to the event itself?

"how was getting these 2 supreme courts justices any different that SCOTUS of the past?"

Obama was thwarted from having his nominee even get a hearing by Mitch, the explanation being some pious bullshit about "the voters should have a say in this, it's too close to the election" (the election was like a year away), but then when RBG died like 2 weeks before the election the Pubs rammed her thru in record time. But you already knew all this and, more importantly, not only didn't care but were delighted...

and that is your most unethical way possible? The democrats failed to get a SCOTUS because they were outmaneuvered by the GOP using established procedures?

yea, I'd have the red ass about that if I was a dem, but to say the most unethical way possible? that's a stretch.

sardis wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 9:49 am https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/2 ... e-00043164

What's the point of this? They didn't reach out 10 days before? So? They didn't need to. They will now though. They've already spoken to Engel beforehand. They weren't worried about her presenting her testimony. Dispute it under oath. I think we're all for that.

eCat wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 10:55 am and that is your most unethical way possible? The democrats failed to get a SCOTUS because they were outmaneuvered by the GOP using established procedures?

yea, I'd have the red ass about that if I was a dem, but to say the most unethical way possible? that's a stretch.

They also lied to Congress about Roe but go on.

I've read a few articles to see what was said. Kavanaugh seems to be a lightning rod. I don't see anything that quotes him saying he wouldn't overturn it if it was established as a constitutional error. It appears to be a case of people hearing what they want to hear without analyzing what he was saying.

“To me, their careful lawyerly phrasing was, itself, a demonstration that they were prepared to overturn Roe,” said Dan Urman, director of the Law and Public Policy Minor at Northeastern University. “If they were not, then they could have given a more direct and less careful answer.”

Kavanaugh.....

“Start with my record, my respect for precedent, my belief that it is rooted in the constitution, and my commitment and its importance to the rule of law,” Kavanaugh responded, according to notes taken by “multiple” staffers at the meeting, the Times said. “I understand precedent and I understand the importance of overturning it.”

“Roe is 45 years old, it has been reaffirmed many times, lots of people care about it a great deal, and I’ve tried to demonstrate I understand real-world consequences,” Kavanaugh elaborated, according to these notes. He also claimed, “I am a don’t-rock-the-boat kind of judge. I believe in stability and in the Team of Nine.”

British talk show interviews suck about this. The interviewers never want to ask the really tough questions. They are far too polite, far too worried about whatever. This interview, this was the best.



They kept interrupting Lady Victoria when she was getting into the gory details. I'm like, interviewers, shut the fuck up and let her talk! All the details she had, amazing. Basically:

• Virginia Roberts Guiffre was a lying cvnt who WAS an underage sex victim at the hands of Epstein and Ghislaine BUT was ALSO a recruiter for Epstein (which is why he sent her to Southeast Asia at age 19, to find more girls) when she was "rescued" by her Australian husband (which is what I have been saying about her for years)
• She explained how the Prince Andrew/Virginia Roberts photo was "photoshopped" and she even got into the details of the image the hand being Jeffrey Epstein's hand
• She explained why Prince Andrew (who in her opinion, was innocent) gave her $12 million and why he must keep silent
• She explained how the media in the UK are morons because none of them called out Virginia Roberts about her lies about Prince Andrew drinking when everyone in the media knows, he doesn't drink
• She explained how Epstein was blackmailing powerful men who were fucking these girls
• She explained why Epstein was killed in his cell (not suicide) AND
• She even named Epstein's killer! She got into details on how he murdered Epstein, talked about Epstein's liver spots and how it would impact the corpse if it was a suicide vs a murder
• She got into the details of a 12 year old girl have a couple abortions
• She spoke about Alan Dershowitz (who hasn't given Roberts Guiffre a dime yet and he is suing her!)

I mean this interview was gold. She named names. She got into the weeds. She was explaining exactly why Epstein was so socially awkward (he would rather hang out with scientists and talk about genetics and other taboo science subjects, then talk to models that were all over the place.) She also said that she was around Epstein as a young model and she saw all the other young models there and that was where they were supposed to be because that was where all the rich men were. (That is honest if not super fucking creepy.) She thought a lot of what was happening was creepy and she even admits that she was "recorded" while in Epstein's apartment.

and keep in mind Harry Reid, in frustration for not having a majority and failing to get lower court nominees appointed with the Republicans using the filibuster went with the nuclear option.

In retaliation when Repubs had power they expanded it to include SCOTUS, which is why the Dems see themselves in this situation now. McConnell, as much of an asshat as he is, tried to warn the Dems they were screwing themselves over and they went ahead blaming the Republicans for standing in the way of them loading up the lower courts with progressives.

"yea, I'd have the red ass about that if I was a dem, but to say the most unethical way possible? that's a stretch."

Dude, Mitch has all but said a republican controlled Senate will NEVER confirm a Dem president's candidate for the Supreme Court, no matter if he has 3 1/2 years left in his first term and then wins a second term. Yeah, I'd say that's pretty unethical. The very definition, actually, i.e., twisting the rules to violate the spirit of the rules simply to suit your own political agenda. Sure, that kind of thing gets done all the time on less important issues, but the Supreme Court should be outside that (it certainly used to be). Not anymore. Fucking A, even Bork got a hearing...

" McConnell, as much of an asshat as he is, tried to warn the Dems they were screwing themselves over"

The only thing certain about politics is change. California used to be a republican state. You can bet if the dems are in control of the senate and a repub president tries to put anybody but the most moderate judge up for the Supreme Court, they're going to laugh him out of the chamber. That's not how the Founders set this up and that's not the way it was done for centuries, but it will be now, going forward, forever. Thanks, Mitch (not that he gives a shit, he'll be dead)...

Hopefully soon

I gotta tell ya. Ever since that Trump Traitor spilled the beans Tuesday Air Station Beaufort has been hopping.

hedge wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:54 am "yea, I'd have the red ass about that if I was a dem, but to say the most unethical way possible? that's a stretch."

Dude, Mitch has all but said a republican controlled Senate will NEVER confirm a Dem president's candidate for the Supreme Court, no matter if he has 3 1/2 years left in his first term and then wins a second term. Yeah, I'd say that's pretty unethical. The very definition, actually, i.e., twisting the rules to violate the spirit of the rules simply to suit your own political agenda. Sure, that kind of thing gets done all the time on less important issues, but the Supreme Court should be outside that (it certainly used to be). Not anymore. Fucking A, even Bork got a hearing...

look I don't like McConnel either but don't act like Reid, Schumer and Pelosi would be any different.

McConnel said his goal was to block the Obama agenda, Dems grew frustrated with his ability to do it and made a calculated move that came back to bite them in the ass.

I don't need data to make an emotional reactionary decision

hedge wrote: ↑Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:00 pm " McConnell, as much of an asshat as he is, tried to warn the Dems they were screwing themselves over"

The only thing certain about politics is change. California used to be a republican state. You can bet if the dems are in control of the senate and a repub president tries to put anybody but the most moderate judge up for the Supreme Court, they're going to laugh him out of the chamber. That's not how the Founders set this up and that's not the way it was done for centuries, but it will be now, going forward, forever. Thanks, Mitch (not that he gives a shit, he'll be dead)...

Yeah they really know how to fuck things up. Both sides. You can expect that every President is going to start getting impeached after a couple years in office from now on too.

When Herschel Walker is President he'll put a stop to that.