• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

TigerDeacon said:
Roberts's dissent in the interstate sales tax case was basically eight pages of stare decisis. I can't see him voting to overturn any of the more progressive 5-4 rulings that have come down during his tenure, even if he may have voted differently if it was a case of first impression.
Click to expand...

agree that Roberts seems like someone who would adjust for a fair judicial process
 
TigerDeacon said:
Roberts's dissent in the interstate sales tax case was basically eight pages of stare decisis. I can't see him voting to overturn any of the more progressive 5-4 rulings that have come down during his tenure, even if he may have voted differently if it was a case of first impression.
Click to expand...

This is how I feel as well. I'm prepared to be disappointed though.
 
Our national nightmare just keeps growing.

Hillary lost mainly because too many gullible 'mericans voted for Trump.

"Conservatives" are going to be like the dog that caught the car, more and more. Overturn gay rights, abortion rights, etc. and see the backlash.

Real problem is the autocrat in the WH is going to have a SC more and more of his making. Republican senators need to step up and not approve anyone that's not really a very good candidate. Ha. Not going to hold my breath but I'll still hope for it.
 
This Fall is going to be nuts. Trump is in a very different position relative to conservatives now than with Gorsuch. Trump can nominate someone he specifically wants and dare Republicans not to confirm him. He doesn’t have to take their advice at all. Plus, he has personal interest in this justice due to Mueller.

If Mueller is accelerating the investigation as is rumored, the shit could go down during confirmation hearings.
 
I will be shocked if whoever Donald nominates isn't confirmed. The Republicans have no spine whatsoever at this point.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Most of it was that she was a bad candidate - it wasn't because she was lazy
Click to expand...

You're an intelligent guy. You can't possibly really believe that. She didn't lose only because she was lazy...but she ran a very lazy campaign because she was so arrogant and confident of victory.

https://www.newsmax.com/Murdock/inauguration-rallied-social-media/2017/01/19/id/769336/

Call her lazy Hillary.

Secretary Clinton’s supporters relentlessly claim that the "illegitimate" President-elect Donald J. Trump won, thanks to the FBI, the KGB, "fake news," Electoral College members who voted as they promised; and perhaps the Bermuda Triangle. These sorest of losers refuse to concede that if Hillary Clinton really wanted to be a U.S. president she should have worked harder for the job.

Trump out-stumped Clinton. He spoke much more often than she did, and to far larger crowds. And then his fans reached out to people they knew and told them all about it.

Joe Hoft of Gateway Pundit meticulously tracked both nominees’ campaign rallies, from just after the conventions through Election Day. "I only included those events where the candidates themselves attended," rather than surrogates like Bill Clinton or Rudolph W. Giuliani. Hoft excluded debates, TV interviews, fundraisers, and, he told me, "visits to companies or other small meetings, unless one gave a major speech. Hoft also developed crowd estimates that were “very difficult to put together," due to what he considered often-biased news reports from establishment outlets. "The mainstream media almost always overstated Hillary’s crowds and understated Trump’s. I was forced many times to search at length to get numbers that looked reasonable . . . I believe these numbers are solid."

Hoft’s carefully compiled data should make Clinton’s partisans aim their unbridled rage at her. His statistics yield an inescapable conclusion: Every single week between Aug. 1 and Nov. 8, Donald J. Trump addressed more voters at more rallies than did Hillary Clinton. Across these 15 weeks, Trump appeared at 132 rallies versus Clinton’s 63 — less than half as many. He addressed an estimated 963,155 people, compared to Clinton’s 109,220.

Hoft calculates 7,297 guests at the average Trump rally. Just 1,734 reached the typical Clinton function. Participants averaged 9,729 per day for Trump and 1,103 for Clinton. Trump out-rallied Clinton in key swing states, which he captured. He held 25 in Florida to her 16. In Michigan, he organized eight to her four. Pennsylvania: Trump 15, Clinton 10.

In that period, Hoft also found that Clinton held no rallies in two states where Trump scored electoral votes. Clinton notoriously blew off Wisconsin. Trump held six rallies there and won. She also failed to rally in Maine. Trump did so thrice.

He secured one electoral vote among the four that Maine awards by congressional district. Hoft also counted 23 days where Trump held no rallies or took time off the trail. Amazingly enough, Clinton avoided rallies or relaxed on 57 days — nearly 60 percent of that crucial 99-day interval.

As for the faces in these crowds, they used social media to share with their friends and loved ones what they saw and heard. Here, too, Trump outpaced Clinton.
By Election Day, according to audited reports that Hoft and Gateway Pundit inspected, Trump had 12,512,841 Twitter followers versus 9,765,645 for Clinton. Trump’s 11,443,714 Facebook likes outshone Clinton’s 7,124,977. And Trump’s YouTube views, trounced Clinton’s more than three to one: 96,814,793 for him and 29,211,723 for her. In letters rather than digits, the ubiquitous and indefatigable Trump inspired his supporters, and they carried his message forward via high-tech communications channels.

But Clinton enjoyed even more abundant advantages. While the right’s "Never Trump" crowd hounded the Republican standard bearer, Clinton boasted a generally unified Democratic Party. The old guard media loyally carried Clinton’s water in buckets, barefoot across shattered glass, and constantly slammed Trump with sadistic glee. The battle-scarred Clinton fought her second presidential campaign, atop two successful Senate bids and both of her husband’s winning White House contests.

Trump never had been a candidate for so much as school board. Clinton also outspent Trump, $521 million to $270 million — or $7.91 per vote for her and $4.29 per vote for him.
 
bym051d said:
Lots of Republicans held their nose and voted for Trump because of the court.

Enough Democrats didn't vote or didn't vote for Hillary because of reasons.

This is the fallout.
Click to expand...

And it is far from over. Ginsburg is 85. Breyer is 79.
 
SwissChaletDeac said:
You're an intelligent guy. You can't possibly really believe that. She didn't lose only because she was lazy...but she ran a very lazy campaign because she was so arrogant and confident of victory.

https://www.newsmax.com/Murdock/inauguration-rallied-social-media/2017/01/19/id/769336/

Call her lazy Hillary.

Secretary Clinton’s supporters relentlessly claim that the "illegitimate" President-elect Donald J. Trump won, thanks to the FBI, the KGB, "fake news," Electoral College members who voted as they promised; and perhaps the Bermuda Triangle. These sorest of losers refuse to concede that if Hillary Clinton really wanted to be a U.S. president she should have worked harder for the job.

Trump out-stumped Clinton. He spoke much more often than she did, and to far larger crowds. And then his fans reached out to people they knew and told them all about it.

Joe Hoft of Gateway Pundit meticulously tracked both nominees’ campaign rallies, from just after the conventions through Election Day. "I only included those events where the candidates themselves attended," rather than surrogates like Bill Clinton or Rudolph W. Giuliani. Hoft excluded debates, TV interviews, fundraisers, and, he told me, "visits to companies or other small meetings, unless one gave a major speech. Hoft also developed crowd estimates that were “very difficult to put together," due to what he considered often-biased news reports from establishment outlets. "The mainstream media almost always overstated Hillary’s crowds and understated Trump’s. I was forced many times to search at length to get numbers that looked reasonable . . . I believe these numbers are solid."

Hoft’s carefully compiled data should make Clinton’s partisans aim their unbridled rage at her. His statistics yield an inescapable conclusion: Every single week between Aug. 1 and Nov. 8, Donald J. Trump addressed more voters at more rallies than did Hillary Clinton. Across these 15 weeks, Trump appeared at 132 rallies versus Clinton’s 63 — less than half as many. He addressed an estimated 963,155 people, compared to Clinton’s 109,220.

Hoft calculates 7,297 guests at the average Trump rally. Just 1,734 reached the typical Clinton function. Participants averaged 9,729 per day for Trump and 1,103 for Clinton. Trump out-rallied Clinton in key swing states, which he captured. He held 25 in Florida to her 16. In Michigan, he organized eight to her four. Pennsylvania: Trump 15, Clinton 10.

In that period, Hoft also found that Clinton held no rallies in two states where Trump scored electoral votes. Clinton notoriously blew off Wisconsin. Trump held six rallies there and won. She also failed to rally in Maine. Trump did so thrice.

He secured one electoral vote among the four that Maine awards by congressional district. Hoft also counted 23 days where Trump held no rallies or took time off the trail. Amazingly enough, Clinton avoided rallies or relaxed on 57 days — nearly 60 percent of that crucial 99-day interval.

As for the faces in these crowds, they used social media to share with their friends and loved ones what they saw and heard. Here, too, Trump outpaced Clinton.
By Election Day, according to audited reports that Hoft and Gateway Pundit inspected, Trump had 12,512,841 Twitter followers versus 9,765,645 for Clinton. Trump’s 11,443,714 Facebook likes outshone Clinton’s 7,124,977. And Trump’s YouTube views, trounced Clinton’s more than three to one: 96,814,793 for him and 29,211,723 for her. In letters rather than digits, the ubiquitous and indefatigable Trump inspired his supporters, and they carried his message forward via high-tech communications channels.

But Clinton enjoyed even more abundant advantages. While the right’s "Never Trump" crowd hounded the Republican standard bearer, Clinton boasted a generally unified Democratic Party. The old guard media loyally carried Clinton’s water in buckets, barefoot across shattered glass, and constantly slammed Trump with sadistic glee. The battle-scarred Clinton fought her second presidential campaign, atop two successful Senate bids and both of her husband’s winning White House contests.

Trump never had been a candidate for so much as school board. Clinton also outspent Trump, $521 million to $270 million — or $7.91 per vote for her and $4.29 per vote for him.
Click to expand...

Interesting to see the numbers..
 
PhDeac said:
This Fall is going to be nuts. Trump is in a very different position relative to conservatives now than with Gorsuch. Trump can nominate someone he specifically wants and dare Republicans not to confirm him. He doesn’t have to take their advice at all. Plus, he has personal interest in this justice due to Mueller.

If Mueller is accelerating the investigation as is rumored, the shit could go down during confirmation hearings.
Click to expand...

I actually think Kennedy's retirement could work in the Democrat's favor this fall. If Trump, as everyone expects, nominates another hard-right conservative to the court, I think it will motivate the Democratic base even more. It will confirm that every branch of government is thoroughly controlled by Trumpites, and that there are really no checks on his power. I've read several polls which show that well over 60% of voters say that electing members of Congress "who will check Trump" is very important to them. It's going to be impossible for the GOP this fall to argue that they will check Trump. Of course, that all depends on the Democrats taking advantage of the issue, which is always uncertain.
 
No, Trump won because he was and remains an entertaining spectacle. And a good-enough con man.

And the Republican party, and "conservatives" generally, have been molded for years to be ever so gullible.
 
buckets said:
what is kennedy doing? he has to know this is a shit show

he couldn't wait 2 more years?
Click to expand...

2 more years wouldn't help you, anyway. If you let the Far Left extremists keep marching the Democratic Party off the cliff by nominating socialists, homosexuals & other leftwing lunatics you going to be further away from regaining a majority in two years than you are now.
 
ConnorEl said:
No, Trump won because he was and remains an entertaining spectacle. And a good-enough con man.

And the Republican party, and "conservatives" generally, have been molded for years to be ever so gullible.
Click to expand...

LOL. Keep telling yourself that. No problem losing as long as you have a good excuse.
 
How can someone with no honor or integrity post here and imagine that anyone will take him seriously?


Oh. Thanks Trump.
 
SwissChaletDeac said:
2 more years wouldn't help you, anyway. If you let the Far Left extremists keep marching the Democratic Party off the cliff by nominating socialists, homosexuals & other leftwing lunatics you going to be further away from regaining a majority in two years than you are now.
Click to expand...

Nominating "homosexuals?" Get the fuck out of here with this bigoted garbage Bud. This is disgusting. Fuck you.
 
SwissChaletDeac said:
2 more years wouldn't help you, anyway. If you let the Far Left extremists keep marching the Democratic Party off the cliff by nominating socialists, homosexuals & other leftwing lunatics you going to be further away from regaining a majority in two years than you are now.
Click to expand...

yep. gotta keep those faggots out of office.
 
SwissChaletDeac said:
2 more years wouldn't help you, anyway. If you let the Far Left extremists keep marching the Democratic Party off the cliff by nominating socialists, homosexuals & other leftwing lunatics you going to be further away from regaining a majority in two years than you are now.
Click to expand...

QFP
 
Geez. Only two years ago BKF was a card carrying socialist who was pro-LGBT Rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top