U.S. Supreme Court nominations

Hypno

Hummingbird
The Hill Reports: The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to toss out an appeals court order that allows North Dakota to enforce its voter ID requirement during the 2018 elections. The request to toss out the order came from a group of Native American residents who are challenging a new state law that requires voters to present identification that includes a current residential street address.

The challengers argued the new rule disenfranchises a disproportionate share of the population because many Native American voters live on reservations without standard addresses. The District Court agreed and temporarily blocked the North Dakota secretary of state from enforcing the new requirements during the primary elections, but the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked that court order last month.

We officially have the first major victory on the board with Justice Kavanaugh, as the US Supreme Court has just ruled that North Dakota can enforce Voter ID. This is a very important decision by the US Supreme Court to allow Voter ID to be enforced, because technically with this Supreme Court decision every state can now enforce Voter ID across America should states choose to enforce voter ID like North Dakota.

This decision by the Supreme Court to allow North Dakota to enforce Voter ID should infuriate the Left, especially if more states follow North Dakota in enforcing voter id laws...As this decision comes just before the 2018 midterms. Lets see how this decision by the Supreme Court to allow North Dakota to enforce voter ID plays out across America, as this gives every state the option to enforce voter ID right before the very important 2018 midterms.

https://www.puppetstringnews.com/bl...court-allows-north-dakota-to-enforce-voter-id
 

DJ-Matt

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Kobach is leading the charge for enforcing voter ID and keeping illegals out here in Kansas. That's why the shitlibs here hate him so much. It's Trump-level hate that these fucks have for Kobach. I see hitlier/nazi comparisons and worse.
 

Hypno

Hummingbird
So Trump has appointed Gorsuch to replace Scalia, essentially a wash, and Kavanaugh to replace Kennedy, which should tilt the balance. (Kennedy was a GOP appointee, but never acted as one).

The real juice comes when he replaces the lefties.

RBG is hospitalized and at her age whether she leaves the hospital is an open question. She wasn't a fortress of health before her hospitalization, and her addmitted problem controlling her drinking (passed out during the State of the Union address) makes you wonder how she fell.

There is not much law, either empowering or limiting, that addresses the President's ability to nominate Justices. FDR famously threatened to pack the court by increasing its size beyond 9. (There is no law that says it is limited to 9). Similarly, there is no law that says the President can't appoint a temporary Justice to fill in for RBG while she is in the hospital or unable to stay awake.

Looking ahead, Sotomayer is 64 but a Type 1 diabetic. She joined the court 9 years ago but seems to have doubled in weight since then. I can't see her staying on the court past 2024.

Kagan is probably the other true lefty, but she is only 58. While she looks like a lesbian, and may be one, she was previously married to a man but is now divorced. She might just be an incel. Some speculation here: https://abovethelaw.com/2010/05/its-official-elena-kagan-is-straight/ Although she has admitted to smoking as a teenager, she seems reasonably healthy and unlikely to step down until there is a Democtrat in office.

Finally, Breyer, 80, is a moderate/liberal appointed by Clinton. That means he's anti-conservative. He seems reasonably healthy, is married to a woman and has 3 kids and probably several grandkids. He likely won't retire until there is a Democrat, although he might be 86 by then.

Note that being on the Supreme Court is like being a professor. You have summers off. You have clerks to do a lot of the work for you. So working that late in life is common.

Finally, Clarence Thomas is a trustworthy conservative vote but he is 70 and overweight. Being black, having grown up poor, and suffering significant stress in his life including an interracial marriage, you have to equate those 70 years to a much higher number. Would not be surprised to see him retire during Trump's first term to allow Trump to appoint an equally trustworthy replacement. They hire clerks for an annual term, so not likely until next summer.

So it very possible Trump replaces 2 more justices during his first term (RBG and Thomas), and a reasonable possibility of replacing Sotomayer and Breyer eventually, which would make 6, with an outside chance at Kagan for a 7th.
 

Libertas

Crow
Gold Member
Hearing rumors (but remember, just that) that Ginsburg might be stepping down in January.

I can't see her doing it willingly, but that rib fracture might make it impossible for her to do her job. She'll try to fight it out to the last though. We just have to see. If Ginsburg does retire, we can expect an even bigger meltdown than Kavanaugh.

Which also shows why those senate gains in Indiana, Missouri, Florida (when all this stupid shit is over), and North Dakota matter so much. Now we have a much bigger cushion and we don't need to rely as much on uncertain people like Collins and Murkowsky. Granted we lost Nevada and now probably Arizona, so the net flip is two, but we'll have 53 seats instead of 51.
 

scorpion

Ostrich
Gold Member
Assuming Trump replaces RBG before 2020 and even more so if he wins re-election and replaces another justice or two by 2024, can anyone imagine that the next Democratic president will not simply expand the court and appoint 3-4 liberal justices? I mean, do you actually think these people have any interest in playing fair or respecting established tradition? They absolutely do not, as they have demonstrated time and time again. So I fully expect the next Democratic president to pack the court to "undo the damage" (in their words) of Trump's appointments. That will obviously be a huge shitshow and could itself be the impetus for a total fracture of the government/beginning of civil war.
 

TravelerKai

Peacock
Gold Member
scorpion said:
Assuming Trump replaces RBG before 2020 and even more so if he wins re-election and replaces another justice or two by 2024, can anyone imagine that the next Democratic president will not simply expand the court and appoint 3-4 liberal justices? I mean, do you actually think these people have any interest in playing fair or respecting established tradition? They absolutely do not, as they have demonstrated time and time again. So I fully expect the next Democratic president to pack the court to "undo the damage" (in their words) of Trump's appointments. That will obviously be a huge shitshow and could itself be the impetus for a total fracture of the government/beginning of civil war.
If Democrats get the White House and both houses in Congress after Trump's 8th year, they will definitely pack the court. A few Dems have already had congressional meetings about it. The break point for them would be if every case starts getting 7-2 decision votes on just about anything they want to go their way, but they might do it even if cases are very close just as a security blanket for their power.
 
Slim Shady said:
Fuck Ann Coulter. I don't trust women not to flake the first chance shit hits the fan (like Coulter often does).
Sacrilege. Other than Tucker Carlson, she's the most woke commentator out there. Even touched on the JQ a couple times. Excellent choice for Ginsberg replacement.
 

Hypno

Hummingbird
Technically you need Congress to pack the court. So holding the Senate if we lose the oval office is key.

If Trump ends up appointing 6 relatively young jurists, there just won't be any retirement s for a long time for Ivanka or the next president to appoint. (Baron won't be age 35 by 2024).
 

scorpion

Ostrich
Gold Member
TravelerKai said:
If Democrats get the White House and both houses in Congress after Trump's 8th year, they will definitely pack the court. A few Dems have already had congressional meetings about it. The break point for them would be if every case starts getting 7-2 decision votes on just about anything they want to go their way, but they might do it even if cases are very close just as a security blanket for their power.
Right? And then what happens when a Dem-packed court overreaches on a 2nd Amendment case and essentially opens the door for massive federal government crackdown on gun ownership? That's exactly the sort of scenario that could very realistically lead to talk of secession by conservative states, or outright armed rebellion. A blatantly unconstitutional ruling from a Dem-packed court would not be seen as legitimate by a large percentage of the country. There is no law at that point, only violence.
 

ChicagoFire

Kingfisher
The admin needs to start cracking down on antifa. They're 2 years late, but at least now is a start. Unless of course those darn weed heads are going to muster the energy to rob a bank. People can claim trust the plan all they want but why are people getting doxxed and hurt from this domestic terrorist group? WHY? That new AG should get a RICO case started on Antifa's financiers.

Political violence is going to keep rising and RBG will be another critical point. I predict that we will see another Scalise style shooting once RBG croaks. The left is getting insane by the day. FFS look at that AP thread and you will see liberals getting heart burn over RBG breaking her ribs. Liberals aren't going away anytime soon and sadly this may be the path we're heading. Come on Trump, lay the law down!

scorpion said:
Assuming Trump replaces RBG before 2020 and even more so if he wins re-election and replaces another justice or two by 2024, can anyone imagine that the next Democratic president will not simply expand the court and appoint 3-4 liberal justices? I mean, do you actually think these people have any interest in playing fair or respecting established tradition? They absolutely do not, as they have demonstrated time and time again. So I fully expect the next Democratic president to pack the court to "undo the damage" (in their words) of Trump's appointments. That will obviously be a huge shitshow and could itself be the impetus for a total fracture of the government/beginning of civil war.
 

TravelerKai

Peacock
Gold Member
scorpion said:
TravelerKai said:
If Democrats get the White House and both houses in Congress after Trump's 8th year, they will definitely pack the court. A few Dems have already had congressional meetings about it. The break point for them would be if every case starts getting 7-2 decision votes on just about anything they want to go their way, but they might do it even if cases are very close just as a security blanket for their power.
Right? And then what happens when a Dem-packed court overreaches on a 2nd Amendment case and essentially opens the door for massive federal government crackdown on gun ownership? That's exactly the sort of scenario that could very realistically lead to talk of secession by conservative states, or outright armed rebellion. A blatantly unconstitutional ruling from a Dem-packed court would not be seen as legitimate by a large percentage of the country. There is no law at that point, only violence.
Yeah there is no going back on that. If they give states the rights to pick up guns or the federal government to confiscate all guns. If will be a very tense situation. A federal gun ban on certain rifles will be very tense as well, but it will not be as bad as a mandate to pick up guns. Some state governors may not comply with gun pick up drives, but if the last election is a precursor of anything, conservatives with very low numbers in all states pretty much makes it a lock for confiscation.

Gun massacres in no gun zones and certain states like California will continue to rise because of a culture problem but the vast majority of Americans are unable to see that, which is dangerous because it will give encouragement for the SCOTUS to someday overturn the 2nd Amendment if packed.
 
Hypno said:
The Hill Reports: The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to toss out an appeals court order that allows North Dakota to enforce its voter ID requirement during the 2018 elections. The request to toss out the order came from a group of Native American residents who are challenging a new state law that requires voters to present identification that includes a current residential street address.

The challengers argued the new rule disenfranchises a disproportionate share of the population because many Native American voters live on reservations without standard addresses. The District Court agreed and temporarily blocked the North Dakota secretary of state from enforcing the new requirements during the primary elections, but the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked that court order last month.

We officially have the first major victory on the board with Justice Kavanaugh, as the US Supreme Court has just ruled that North Dakota can enforce Voter ID. This is a very important decision by the US Supreme Court to allow Voter ID to be enforced, because technically with this Supreme Court decision every state can now enforce Voter ID across America should states choose to enforce voter ID like North Dakota.

This decision by the Supreme Court to allow North Dakota to enforce Voter ID should infuriate the Left, especially if more states follow North Dakota in enforcing voter id laws...As this decision comes just before the 2018 midterms. Lets see how this decision by the Supreme Court to allow North Dakota to enforce voter ID plays out across America, as this gives every state the option to enforce voter ID right before the very important 2018 midterms.

https://www.puppetstringnews.com/bl...court-allows-north-dakota-to-enforce-voter-id
The whole thing is a farce. In many rural areas, especially in Indian Country, there are no physical addresses. They simply do not exist. This “physical address” regime only works in well-mapped urban areas.

In these remote rural areas most physical addresses are contrived by the individual and you can be as creative as you wish. The Post Office has a policy of “dual addressing” so you can do this-

Hypno Gamemaster
PO Box 101
Small Town, ND

Into this-

Hypno Gamemaster
101 Game Street
PO Box 101
Small Town, ND

Or you use the address of the post office (let’s assume 123 Day Bang Street).

Hypno Gamemaster
123 Day Bang Street Apt 101
Small Town, ND

You can do many different combinations and variations of the above.

Or if you are a tribal member the tribe will just print you out a new ID with whatever bogus address you want on there-

Hypno Gamemaster
123 Big Bear Ave
Small Town, ND

So what does this “physical address” on an ID actually accomplish? It’s all fake! Fake addresses!

It’s also interesting that if you want to purchase a firearm, under federal law you have to have a residential address on an ID (or other documentation to support it). So it’s not much different than this North Dakota voter ID requirements. And again, everyone in Indian Country or very rural areas use these contrived addresses.
 

Thomas More

Hummingbird
frozen-ace said:
Hypno said:
The Hill Reports: The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to toss out an appeals court order that allows North Dakota to enforce its voter ID requirement during the 2018 elections. The request to toss out the order came from a group of Native American residents who are challenging a new state law that requires voters to present identification that includes a current residential street address.

The challengers argued the new rule disenfranchises a disproportionate share of the population because many Native American voters live on reservations without standard addresses. The District Court agreed and temporarily blocked the North Dakota secretary of state from enforcing the new requirements during the primary elections, but the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked that court order last month.

We officially have the first major victory on the board with Justice Kavanaugh, as the US Supreme Court has just ruled that North Dakota can enforce Voter ID. This is a very important decision by the US Supreme Court to allow Voter ID to be enforced, because technically with this Supreme Court decision every state can now enforce Voter ID across America should states choose to enforce voter ID like North Dakota.

This decision by the Supreme Court to allow North Dakota to enforce Voter ID should infuriate the Left, especially if more states follow North Dakota in enforcing voter id laws...As this decision comes just before the 2018 midterms. Lets see how this decision by the Supreme Court to allow North Dakota to enforce voter ID plays out across America, as this gives every state the option to enforce voter ID right before the very important 2018 midterms.

https://www.puppetstringnews.com/bl...court-allows-north-dakota-to-enforce-voter-id
The whole thing is a farce. In many rural areas, especially in Indian Country, there are no physical addresses. They simply do not exist. This “physical address” regime only works in well-mapped urban areas.

In these remote rural areas most physical addresses are contrived by the individual and you can be as creative as you wish. The Post Office has a policy of “dual addressing” so you can do this-

Hypno Gamemaster
PO Box 101
Small Town, ND

Into this-

Hypno Gamemaster
101 Game Street
PO Box 101
Small Town, ND

Or you use the address of the post office (let’s assume 123 Day Bang Street).

Hypno Gamemaster
123 Day Bang Street Apt 101
Small Town, ND

You can do many different combinations and variations of the above.

Or if you are a tribal member the tribe will just print you out a new ID with whatever bogus address you want on there-

Hypno Gamemaster
123 Big Bear Ave
Small Town, ND

So what does this “physical address” on an ID actually accomplish? It’s all fake! Fake addresses!

It’s also interesting that if you want to purchase a firearm, under federal law you have to have a residential address on an ID (or other documentation to support it). So it’s not much different than this North Dakota voter ID requirements. And again, everyone in Indian Country or very rural areas use these contrived addresses.
One of the things I've always thought was cool was the way real estate developers could build a subdivision and name all the streets. The streets in my subdivision are named after various universities. I've seen places where the guy must have named the streets after his wife, daughters, and nieces.

I think I'd like to build a subdivision and name all the streets after red pill concepts!

Zero Date Bang Pl.
LMR Court
Kino Road
Push Pull Blvd
DHV Way
Peacock Dr.

(by the way, a couple of these actually exist!)
 
Top