All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[OpaqueGiraffe17]

Supreme Court rejected outright the crazy Texas Lawsuit. They won't even consider it.

any relief I feel from this is overshadowed by disgust for the Republicans that tried to pull this treacherous nonsense in the first place.

[KOSLOX]

GOOD! That had to sting like hell for Trump, given he put three right wingers on the Court.

It’s because Trump doesn’t have any concept of personal or professional ethic, and views every relationship as transactional.

I’m sure he’s apoplectic.

[Hellion]

Guys, just think, if our society and nation decided to permanently split in two, here's how that would look:

The Left and probably most moderates would get the West and East Coasts. The Right would get all the farmland in the middle. They could attempt to starve us out, but since we'd control the tech industry and, well, most industry in general, we could **** with their ability to watch/listen to their brainwashers of choice and we'd shut down their internet. Who's going to cave first?

[AnakinFlair]

Twitter Link

I'm amazed that anyone on the Court dissented.

When I heard there were two dissenters, I figured it would be Kavanaugh and Barrett. Trump must be doubly pissed two of his picks for the court were with the majority.

[Tami]

When I heard there were two dissenters, I figured it would be Kavanaugh and Barrett. Trump must be doubly pissed two of his picks for the court were with the majority.

The way I figure it, Kavanaugh and Barrett are Federalist Society Lawyers. I doubt a Federalist Society Lawyer would go against Federalism, the rights of individual states. If they had voted in favor of the Texas Lawsuit, then they would incur the wrath of the Society. They were caught between the proverbial rock and hard nose.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Honestly as much as there was a lot of issues with them I much prefer Kavanaugh and Barrett to Thomas and Alito. Alito is a straight up partisan hack who concern mongers ever conservative issue and Thomas spent year on the court never saying a single thing and has been bitter since Anita Hill.

[Zauriel]

Wait, if these idiots want to secede from the United States anyways, why do they care who is President? Wouldn't they not recognize the President, no matter who it is?

A Republican actor named John Wayne, upon learning of John F. Kennedy's pres. election victory, said "Well I didn't vote for him but he is our president."
He didn't just recognize the president he voted for. He recognized the president elected by the majority of American people.


Republicans do not recognize a democratic POTUS as well as Democrats do not recognize a a Republican POTUS.

[worstblogever]

Republicans do not recognize a democratic POTUS as well as Democrats do not recognize a a Republican POTUS.

We recognized him, and that he openly called for foreign assistance in his election, which is an impeachable offense and crime. We recognized that he did the same f***ing thing with Ukraine years later. We've recognized he's committed enumerable impeachable offenses.

We recognize him. We have to had recognized him to go through the normal process of moving an immoral, criminal president.

Don't get it twisted.

[Kirby101]

Republicans do not recognize a democratic POTUS as well as Democrats do not recognize a a Republican POTUS.

That is just verifiable bullshit.

[The Cool Thatguy]

A Republican actor named John Wayne, upon learning of John F. Kennedy's pres. election victory, said "Well I didn't vote for him but he is our president."
He didn't just recognize the president he voted for. He recognized the president elected by the majority of American people.


Republicans do not recognize a democratic POTUS as well as Democrats do not recognize a a Republican POTUS.

We recognized him, we just hated him.

[worstblogever]

We recognized him, we just hated him.

And he didn't make it hard. At all. He denigrated the troops, attacked beloved celebrities, refused to criticize Neo-Nazis, built an administration out of the most evil, corrupt and incompetent people, and made every crisis about him. I could list much, much more... but that's just a fast summary of why.

[GindyPosts]

Republicans do not recognize a democratic POTUS as well as Democrats do not recognize a a Republican POTUS.

Huh?

I know "Not my President" was a thing by some of the far-left back in 2016 and early 2017, but by and large, Democrats accept when a Republican is in office. They do what they can to make sure that doesn't become a long-term situation, but when a Republican is in charge, that is the way it is. Only, this guy was arguably the most punchable president in history.

When a Democrat is in office, Republicans are often more indignant of the reality. To them, it's their God-given right to be in power and Democrats are usurpers to the throne. This is just more explicit as we have a soon to be ex-President strong arming his fellow members by saying "Support me... OR ELSE!"

[Jack Dracula]

A Republican actor named John Wayne, upon learning of John F. Kennedy's pres. election victory, said "Well I didn't vote for him but he is our president."
He didn't just recognize the president he voted for. He recognized the president elected by the majority of American people.


Republicans do not recognize a democratic POTUS as well as Democrats do not recognize a a Republican POTUS.

I'd hoped he could rise to the level of the office and surprise us with responsible leadership. Instead, he dragged the office down into the muck where he lives.
**** him and all those who support him.

[Powerboy]

A friend of mine pointed out that, while there have been accusations of voter fraud and manipulation of the results before on local levels, the accusation almost always comes from the challenger. It is almost unheard of for the person in charge to make that accusation because he has too much control for it to be believable. Trump has been setting the stage for his accusations for months. Yet he didn't use his power to take any steps to stop this alleged massive voter fraud because, of course, there wasn't any, certainly not enough to change the results.

But I'm just pointing out that it's almost unheard of for the incumbent to make such an accusation. It's absurd because he has the control. In some cases, the governors are Republican. Relevant mayors are Republican. Judges opposing him are of his own party and his nominations.

I was having a discussion about Medieval times and a joke that came up was that, if we could time travel back a thousand years and explain what was happening, they wouldn't get why we were making a big deal about it because they were used to mad kings who had no qualifications to be in charge and were a disaster.

The scariest part, of course, is not Trump. In past decades, he would never have won to begin with and would have been laughed out of the country. The entire nation would have united against him and given him no support or enabling as happened with Nixon. The scariest part is what the f#@$ have we turned into that almost half the country has turned into a bunch of moronic conspiracy theory lunatics that believe everything he says- even when he contradicts himself?

[Farealmer]

The way I figure it, Kavanaugh and Barrett are Federalist Society Lawyers. I doubt a Federalist Society Lawyer would go against Federalism, the rights of individual states. If they had voted in favor of the Texas Lawsuit, then they would incur the wrath of the Society. They were caught between the proverbial rock and hard nose.

I mentioned this to a friend and his reply was this.

That is part of it. Federalism does mean that the several states control their internal governance procedures, like elections. But there is more to it. The Federalist Society isn't first and foremost a Federalist society. Its a Conservative society. Conservative jurisprudence is in favor of avoiding constitutional issues. The easiest way to do that, is just deny standing when a constitutional case comes up. Conservative jurisprudence is against creating new rules through adjudication. Texas and the other plaintiffs were essentially asking for a new rule concerning elections. The easiest way to not give them that is to just deny standing to them. Conservative jurisprudence is in favor of originalism. No one thinks that any part of the constitution, including the amendments, was understood to say that the several states had a right to tell each other how to run their elections when it was written. So what the plaintiffs were asking for goes against both federalism, and conservative jurisprudence in general. The two dissenters were only dissenting because they believed that the Court can't deny standing when a case arises under their original jurisdiction. But even they don't actually want to grant Texas the relief that it seeks.

https://reason.com/volokh/2020/12/11...leave-to-file/