Gyroscopic Investing

pp4me wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 6:03 pm As I predicted in another thread somebody on twitter has already tried to paint her adoption of two Haitian girls as something sinister.

My advice to the Democrats would be to ask tough questions about judicial philosophy if you must but avoid the smear tactics and personal attacks that they have employed in the past (Bork, Thomas, Kavanaugh). I think normal people are getting a little tired of that and it especially won't play well with a woman.

I'll be very surprised if they follow that advice however.

Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 5:53 pm Now that it's over, I'll say why I didn't think he would pick Lagoa.

I'm a horrible person and when I look at her picture I can't help but think "down's syndrome". I haven't heard that from anyone else, so it is probably just me. I've never heard her speak, and I know nothing about her, but just knowing that Trump is pretty tuned in to visuals I couldn't imagine him making that front and center.

Okay, aisle seat on the bus to hell...

I watched the nomination speech and Amy seemed like the real deal. Also, the first time I'd heard her speak. I'm curious how the confirmation will go.

glennds wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 12:37 pm I think most would agree choosing a SCOTUS justice based on looks as the primary qualification is about as strategic as choosing a spouse for the same reason.
Who would do that?
The visuals...

Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 1:07 pm

glennds wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 12:37 pm I think most would agree choosing a SCOTUS justice based on looks as the primary qualification is about as strategic as choosing a spouse for the same reason.
Who would do that?
The visuals...

Glen, you have a delightful mix of sarcasm, wit, wisdom and 'desapreciar'. (sorry, I've never seen an adequate English translation)
You know that we are animals and that is how we work. It is evolutionary. We don't do it for no reason.

Short men and fat women don't do well in the work force or in the dating circles. It's not an accident.

Mark

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 1:17 pm "He's a lot taller when he sits on his wallet.".

Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 5:53 pm Now that it's over, I'll say why I didn't think he would pick Lagoa.

I'm a horrible person and when I look at her picture I can't help but think "down's syndrome". I haven't heard that from anyone else, so it is probably just me. I've never heard her speak, and I know nothing about her, but just knowing that Trump is pretty tuned in to visuals I couldn't imagine him making that front and center.

Okay, aisle seat on the bus to hell...

I watched the nomination speech and Amy seemed like the real deal. Also, the first time I'd heard her speak. I'm curious how the confirmation will go.

Mountaineer wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 1:25 pm It’s ok Mark. Christ died for you too. He took all your sins to the grave. No need to put your sunscreen and asbestos suit on. We are all horrible people w/o Jesus.

Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 1:07 pm

glennds wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 12:37 pm I think most would agree choosing a SCOTUS justice based on looks as the primary qualification is about as strategic as choosing a spouse for the same reason.
Who would do that?
The visuals...

Glen, you have a delightful mix of sarcasm, wit, wisdom and 'desapreciar'. (sorry, I've never seen an adequate English translation)
You know that we are animals and that is how we work. It is evolutionary. We don't do it for no reason.

Short men and fat women don't do well in the work force or in the dating circles. It's not an accident.

Mark

glennds wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 2:05 pm

Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 1:07 pm

glennds wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 12:37 pm I think most would agree choosing a SCOTUS justice based on looks as the primary qualification is about as strategic as choosing a spouse for the same reason.
Who would do that?
The visuals...

Glen, you have a delightful mix of sarcasm, wit, wisdom and 'desapreciar'. (sorry, I've never seen an adequate English translation)
You know that we are animals and that is how we work. It is evolutionary. We don't do it for no reason.

Short men and fat women don't do well in the work force or in the dating circles. It's not an accident.

Mark

Since the thread has taken a biblical turn, let me say having committed the sin myself, I am in no position to cast the first stone.
I speak of the pompatus of love.

glennds wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 2:05 pm

Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 1:07 pm

glennds wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 12:37 pm I think most would agree choosing a SCOTUS justice based on looks as the primary qualification is about as strategic as choosing a spouse for the same reason.
Who would do that?
The visuals...

Glen, you have a delightful mix of sarcasm, wit, wisdom and 'desapreciar'. (sorry, I've never seen an adequate English translation)
You know that we are animals and that is how we work. It is evolutionary. We don't do it for no reason.

Short men and fat women don't do well in the work force or in the dating circles. It's not an accident.

Mark

Since the thread has taken a biblical turn, let me say having committed the sin myself, I am in no position to cast the first stone.
I speak of the pompatus of love.

Mountaineer wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 3:26 pm

glennds wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 2:05 pm

Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 1:07 pm

glennds wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 12:37 pm I think most would agree choosing a SCOTUS justice based on looks as the primary qualification is about as strategic as choosing a spouse for the same reason.
Who would do that?
The visuals...

Glen, you have a delightful mix of sarcasm, wit, wisdom and 'desapreciar'. (sorry, I've never seen an adequate English translation)
You know that we are animals and that is how we work. It is evolutionary. We don't do it for no reason.

Short men and fat women don't do well in the work force or in the dating circles. It's not an accident.

Mark

Since the thread has taken a biblical turn, let me say having committed the sin myself, I am in no position to cast the first stone.
I speak of the pompatus of love.

Kudos to Steve Miller. Don’t joke too much.

Democrats try the virus as a new excuse to block Amy Coney Barrett.

When court-packing threats didn’t deter Senate Republicans from moving forward with Amy ConeyBarrett’s Supreme Court nomination, Democrats seemed to be out of options. But now they sense an opportunity in the Covid-19 diagnoses among Republican officials. Could that be a pretext for drawing out the process past the election—and then sinking Judge Barrett?
[...]
Democrats know the Judiciary Committee can function safely with proper precautions. We learned in the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation that Democrats will use every procedural trick to stop Republicans from confirming judges, and we hope they don’t fall for it.

doodle wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 11:01 am I can understand confirmation hearings for ACB going forward, what I can't understand is why Merrick Garland was denied a hearing? Why wasn't he allowed to have a hearing and then approved or denied in that hearing based on his merits as a judge. The Republicans are arguing today that supreme court justices jobs are to interpret the constitution and that they don't have space to allow their religious influences to color their judgements. Why then if that is the case would Merrick Garland be denied a hearing? If he was found not up to the task he would have been denied.

yankees60 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 11:14 am

doodle wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 11:01 am I can understand confirmation hearings for ACB going forward, what I can't understand is why Merrick Garland was denied a hearing? Why wasn't he allowed to have a hearing and then approved or denied in that hearing based on his merits as a judge. The Republicans are arguing today that supreme court justices jobs are to interpret the constitution and that they don't have space to allow their religious influences to color their judgements. Why then if that is the case would Merrick Garland be denied a hearing? If he was found not up to the task he would have been denied.

Of course we know the answer to that one! It was an exercise of raw, naked political power! Never expect a politician to be consistent and NOT hypocritical!

Vinny

doodle wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 11:17 am

yankees60 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 11:14 am

doodle wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 11:01 am I can understand confirmation hearings for ACB going forward, what I can't understand is why Merrick Garland was denied a hearing? Why wasn't he allowed to have a hearing and then approved or denied in that hearing based on his merits as a judge. The Republicans are arguing today that supreme court justices jobs are to interpret the constitution and that they don't have space to allow their religious influences to color their judgements. Why then if that is the case would Merrick Garland be denied a hearing? If he was found not up to the task he would have been denied.

Of course we know the answer to that one! It was an exercise of raw, naked political power! Never expect a politician to be consistent and NOT hypocritical!

Vinny

So is it constitutional if Biden adds more justices or is that forbidden by constitution? Ifs it's legal then what is the argument against him doing it if there is nothing unconstitutional about it? Wouldn't that just be an exercise of raw naked political power as well?