Ruth Bader-Ginsburg has died

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

3 minutes ago, alexava said:

https://research.msu.edu/the-truth-behind-racial-disparties-in-fatal-police-shootings/
 

studies like this get shutdown. Facts are not allowed in academic studies. 

1) This is based on an academic study, so for you to say "facts are not allowed in academic studies" is just completely inaccurate.  Hell man, it's published by Michigan State.  You're undercutting your own post.

2) This doesn't address the fact that Blacks are killed at a higher rate than Whites by police.  This study looks at the race of the officer vs the race of the shooting victim.  That's like serving pie and then telling me it's steak.  Two completely different conversations.

[channonc 466]

On 9/19/2020 at 9:31 AM, auskip07 said:

you act like harry reid didn't eliminate the nuclear option  to benefit the democrats only to see it blow up in the partys face.   The democrats play dirty as much as the republicans.   Its just depends on which side you agree with. 

 

I know I am well versed in Senate procedure beyond what most people know/understand, but let's be very accurate about what happened.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (at the time) used "the nuclear option", which was actually changing the Senate Rules, through provisions pushed through on partisan lines through the Senate Rules Committee and ultimately an up/down vote in the Senate which removed the filibuster on all judicial nominees-- except USSC. Later, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell "used the nuclear option" to change the rules to eliminate the filibuster for USSC nominees. 

Sorry to seem nitpicky, but a misuse of terminology over procedures in the legislative branch are a pet peeve of mine. Carry on!

[Mikey 16,575]

12 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

you are looking at black lives matter wrong. a white kid and his dad go fishing. the police pull up and shoot him seven times in the back while he is reaching for his fishing license.

You forgot the part where the police know there's a warrant out on him for a rape charge, they tell him to stop and he refuses, gets tazed, gets up and runs to his car and reaches for a weapon. Color doesn't matter under those circumstances.

That seven times stuff is silly. They will shoot until the criminal goes down. Don't want to get shot multiple times? Go down after the first shot. Don't want to get shot at all? Don't resist arrest.

[SocialCircle 570]

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

As someone who respects the field of sociology, I am fine with any statistical analysis of this problem if the statistics are available (which for the most part they are not).  That includes arrests, use of violence and mere "stops".

But let's keep in mind that numbers don't necessarily reflect the historical causes of a disparate crime rate between the races. For example, you'd also need to factor in socio/economic status, which in turn, can be largely influenced by race. Unfortunately, until such data is collected we have to rely on what data we do have plus simple observation. 

I do believe each case should be considered individually.  Having said that, considering the history of racist law enforcement in this country, it's not hard for me to accept the proposition of systemic racial bias still exists.  Things didn't suddenly change overnight when the Civil Rights Act was passed and like it or not, racism still exists in this country, including in some areas of our law enforcement agencies. 

How long ago was the Civil Rights Act? No things didn’t suddenly change overnight. There will always be racism because evil will always exist. However, things have changed for the better over the years as it relates to racism. 

[Mikey 16,575]

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

Yeah, it's George's responsibility to be adequately prepared physically for a cop to kneel on his neck for 8 minutes while he can't breathe. 

WTF is wrong with you people???   

 

People who are drugged up do stupid things and his breathing was already impaired by the Fentanyl. It's possible Floyd kept struggling for eight minutes. Thankfully there's going to be a trial and all these things will come to light.

[savorytiger 182]

1 hour ago, Mikey said:

People who are drugged up do stupid things and his breathing was already impaired by the Fentanyl. It's possible Floyd kept struggling for eight minutes. Thankfully there's going to be a trial and all these things will come to light.

Seriously?

[Mikey 16,575]

5 minutes ago, savorytiger said:

Seriously?

Yes. I could understand the cop holding Floyd down until he stopped resisting. Again, there will be a trial where all the details should come to light.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 minute ago, Mikey said:

Yes. I could understand the cop holding Floyd down until he stopped resisting. Again, there will be a trial where all the details should come to light.

Have you actually seen the video?

[Mikey 16,575]

4 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Have you actually seen the video?

Yes. Did it show me everything I'd like to know about what was going on? No.

[AuCivilEng1 10,998]

I’m actually pretty surprised that anyone is able to justify and encourage the GOP trying to ram through a Supreme Court nominee with 42 days left until the election, when they wouldn’t let Obama pick one 9 months before he left office. How do you make that justification, without admitting your blatant hypocrisy and disregard for a sense of order and fairness to the American people. This government has turned into a ******* clown show and I don’t think there is any coming back from it. I agree with the other posters who have mentioned anything is fair game at this point. If we are going to operate with no rules, procedures, or decorum in this country, the Dems might as well step up to the plate and start doing it too. 

[SocialCircle 570]

12 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

I’m actually pretty surprised that anyone is able to justify and encourage the GOP trying to ram through a Supreme Court nominee with 42 days left until the election, when they wouldn’t let Obama pick one 9 months before he left office. How do you make that justification, without admitting your blatant hypocrisy and disregard for a sense of order and fairness to the American people. This government has turned into a ******* clown show and I don’t think there is any coming back from it. I agree with the other posters who have mentioned anything is fair game at this point. If we are going to operate with no rules, procedures, or decorum in this country, the Dems might as well step up to the plate and start doing it too. 

There is hypocrisy on both sides.
 

Obama made a nomination his last year and the Democrats pushed for a vote. 

The party that has the power at the time is going to use it. 

[AuCivilEng1 10,998]

9 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

There is hypocrisy on both sides.
 

Obama made a nomination his last year and the Democrats pushed for a vote. 

The party that has the power at the time is going to use it. 

This is another false equivalency. Obama made the Garland nomination on March 16, 2016. The election was on November 8, 2016. That’s 237 days before another president was chosen. If Trump were to make a nomination today, that’s 42 days before the election. Please tell me that you see the difference between what the Dems did trying to get a vote and what the GOP talking about doing now. We won’t even go into them trying to push through a justice if they lose the senate and or presidency. That should piss off everyone.

[homersapien 11,362]

10 hours ago, savorytiger said:

Seriously?

Oh he's serious all right. 

[SocialCircle 570]

1 hour ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

This is another false equivalency. Obama made the Garland nomination on March 16, 2016. The election was on November 8, 2016. That’s 237 days before another president was chosen. If Trump were to make a nomination today, that’s 42 days before the election. Please tell me that you see the difference between what the Dems did trying to get a vote and what the GOP talking about doing now. We won’t even go into them trying to push through a justice if they lose the senate and or presidency. That should piss off everyone.

The equivalency is it is in the last year.  I stand 100% by my statement. We can agree to disagree. One problem with not getting someone seated soon is you would have an even number on the court. This is not wise when you have an election that is likely going to be contested no matter which side loses. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

https://www.wsfa.com/2020/09/22/trump-interviews-barrett-while-weighing-high-court-nominee

Romney will vote on confirmation.

[AuCivilEng1 10,998]

21 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

The equivalency is it is in the last year.  I stand 100% by my statement. We can agree to disagree. One problem with not getting someone seated soon is you would have an even number on the court. This is not wise when you have an election that is likely going to be contested no matter which side loses. 

And the fate of our country will fall onto a Supreme Court that Donald Trump has named 3 justices. 2 of whom were named using 2 completely different sets of rules. That doesn’t seem like a good way to conduct a government to me personally. The republicans used some bull**** excuse to not give Obama an appointment in his last year. They should own that decision and give Trump the same treatment. If they don’t, they are basically letting it be known that they care nothing about precedence and therefore are ok with a free for all anything goes way of governing from now on. And the last year equivalency argument stops there. That is the only thing equal about this. But there is a real difference in the timing here. People are already casting ballots in this election. When Garland was nominated, the 2016 election primaries weren’t even over yet. Huge difference. 

[SocialCircle 570]

14 minutes ago, AuCivilEng1 said:

And the fate of our country will fall onto a Supreme Court that Donald Trump has named 3 justices. 2 of whom were named using 2 completely different sets of rules. That doesn’t seem like a good way to conduct a government to me personally. The republicans used some bull**** excuse to not give Obama an appointment in his last year. They should own that decision and give Trump the same treatment. If they don’t, they are basically letting it be known that they care nothing about precedence and therefore are ok with a free for all anything goes way of governing from now on. And the last year equivalency argument stops there. That is the only thing equal about this. But there is a real difference in the timing here. People are already casting ballots in this election. When Garland was nominated, the 2016 election primaries weren’t even over yet. Huge difference. 

Like I said we can agree to disagree. 

Let's not forget how the Democrats jammed Obamacare down our throats even after Brown won the seat formerly held by Kennedy in MA.

What goes around comes around.  I bet Harry Reid now regrets ever invoking the nuclear option.  

The bottom-line is the party in power typically uses their political power. 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

 

Quote

 

The SCOTUS Vote Is a Sign of Republican Weakness

They think they're going to get blown out on November 3.

Jonathan V. Last

Here are the two data points that explain why Republicans are going to push a SCOTUS nomination through before November 3:

• 62 percent of Americans say the winner of the election should pick the next nominee.

• Joe Biden leads the national polling average by +7 points.

That’s it. That’s your explanation.

The polling on who should be making this SCOTUS pick is pretty definitive. Only 23 percent of respondents said that Trump should be the one making the nomination.

So why would Republicans rush into a high-profile fight where they’re on the wrong side of public opinion by nearly 3-to-1? And in the process weaken their presidential nominee and make a bunch of vulnerable senators even more vulnerable?

Because they believe Trump is going to lose.

If Republicans were confident that Trump was going to win, they’d hold off on the SCOTUS vote. They wouldn’t expose senators such as McSally or Gardner.

If Republicans thought that Trump had a realistic chance to win, they’d also hold off on the vote. Because they’d be scrapping for any issue that might tilt 50-50 odds in their favor.

(And besides, they could tell themselves that if this gamble didn’t pay off, then they could always vote on the nomination in the lame duck session.)

But the decision to vote now tells us that Mitch McConnell and the Republican caucus have decided that Trump is highly likely to lose—and that they are likely to lose their majority, too. 

Which is why they have to push the vote through before the election—because doing it in a lame-duck after a large-scale loss would invite apocalyptic levels of public backlash.

In other words: This is a decision based not on strength, but on weakness and fear. And you know what the old green guy says about fear:

You might think of Senate Republicans as a bunch of bank robbers, running around in the vault, stuffing every last wad of cash they can grab down the front of their pants because they hear the sirens and they know that the cozzers will be on the scene any minute.

One more thing: In all of the SCOTUS drama of the last few days, you don’t see a lot of “more in sorrow than in anger” arguments from Republicans saying, something like:

Yes, this is worrisome. Yes, it’s a judgment call. And yes we understand that it looks bad and that there will be adverse consequences for the court and the country if we hold this vote. But for reasons X, Y, and Z, voting on Trump’s nominee is still the most prudent course.

Instead what you see is closer to . . . glee.

It’s almost as if Republicans are relishing jamming through a last-minute vote even more than they would a normal, orderly confirmation process.

It’s almost as if the norm-busting is part of the appeal.

 

https://thetriad.thebulwark.com/p/the-scotus-vote-is-a-sign-of-republican

 

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

6 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

 

 

It is obvious they are doing it because they know they are going to lose. I saw Romney's answer to the hypocrisy and it is a hell of a spin. While I don't agree with them doing so, I understand it at the same time. This will get ugly. 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

2 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

Like I said we can agree to disagree. 

Let's not forget how the Democrats jammed Obamacare down our throats even after Brown won the seat formerly held by Kennedy in MA.

What goes around comes around.  I bet Harry Reid now regrets ever invoking the nuclear option.  

The bottom-line is the party in power typically uses their political power. 

Do they really believe that under the same circumstances that Democrats wouldn't be doing the exact same thing the Republicans are doing? 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

2 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

Do they really believe that under the same circumstances that Democrats wouldn't be doing the exact same thing the Republicans are doing? 

 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

4 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

Do they really believe that under the same circumstances that Democrats wouldn't be doing the exact same thing the Republicans are doing? 

That's the thing - we don't know.  This is uncharted territory just as refusing to even hold a vote on Garland was.  All we know is that the Republicans have decided to do these things and the Democrats have not.

[SocialCircle 570]

16 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

 

 

After watching what the Dems tried to do to Kavanaugh, I would not even be opposed to going straight to a vote without any hearings. Although I think having Americans watch the Democrats go after a woman with great credentials would be beneficial in the upcoming election for the Republicans overall. 

[SocialCircle 570]

11 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

It is obvious they are doing it because they know they are going to lose. I saw Romney's answer to the hypocrisy and it is a hell of a spin. While I don't agree with them doing so, I understand it at the same time. This will get ugly. 

If you are the underdog, then what do you have to lose?  And there is a chance this could change the dynamics of the election. 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

24 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

If you are the underdog, then what do you have to lose?  And there is a chance this could change the dynamics of the election. 

Are they being hypocrites? Yes. Are they playing the rules to their favor? Yes.