Quote: (10-03-2018 07:14 PM)Enoch Wrote:
I could see Justice Thomas being a team player and retiring while Trump is in office to assure a conservative replacement.
Quote: (10-03-2018 05:13 PM)Easy_C Wrote:
That thumbnail is the best example of million cock state I've ever seen.
Quote: (10-04-2018 03:02 PM)HighSpeed_LowDrag Wrote:
Quote: (10-03-2018 07:14 PM)Enoch Wrote:
I could see Justice Thomas being a team player and retiring while Trump is in office to assure a conservative replacement.
I doubt it. After what the Democrats did to him, rest assured he will be smacking them down to his dying breath.
Him and Kavanaugh both.
Quote: (10-07-2018 05:32 AM)Hypno Wrote:
Quote: (10-04-2018 03:02 PM)HighSpeed_LowDrag Wrote:
Quote: (10-03-2018 07:14 PM)Enoch Wrote:
I could see Justice Thomas being a team player and retiring while Trump is in office to assure a conservative replacement.
I doubt it. After what the Democrats did to him, rest assured he will be smacking them down to his dying breath.
Him and Kavanaugh both.
I have heard rumors that Thomas wants to retire, and retiring during Trumps administration makes sense. He's the oldest of the Repubulican justices at 70.
Looking ahead for Trump's other nominations:
Ginsburg - 85 looks near to death
Breyer - 80 - pretty old for anybody, but seems pretty sharp and spry based on an interview he gave in July.
Sotomayer - 64 overweight, looks unhealthy. Very likely makes it to Trump's 2nd term, possibly beyond.
Kagan - 58
Sotomayer looks like Danny Devito these days
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bckT6JKWDQA
Quote:[url=https://twitter.com/TitaniaMcGrath/status/1058484725592002560][/url]
Quote: (11-09-2018 08:24 AM)scorpion Wrote:
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.
Quote: (11-09-2018 10:58 AM)Slim Shady Wrote:
Fuck Ann Coulter. I don't trust women not to flake the first chance shit hits the fan (like Coulter often does).
Quote: (11-09-2018 11:05 AM)TravelerKai Wrote:
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.
Quote: (11-09-2018 08:24 AM)scorpion Wrote:
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.
Quote: (11-09-2018 11:39 AM)scorpion Wrote:
Quote: (11-09-2018 11:05 AM)TravelerKai Wrote:
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.
Quote: (10-13-2018 06:21 AM)Hypno Wrote:
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/blog/fi...e-voter-id
Quote: (11-09-2018 02:35 PM)frozen-ace Wrote:
Quote: (10-13-2018 06:21 AM)Hypno Wrote:
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/blog/fi...e-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.
