The SCOTUS nominee thread

[Rainman]

@89th said in The SCOTUS nominee thread:

I wonder if either will be accused of sexual misconduct when they were in high school.

Lesbians, no doubt.
Wait. That would be good, right? I mean, not for the right, but for the left. So, if they are not lesbians, then that would be good for the right in terms of support, but disappointing for some on the left.

So, the solution would be bi-sexual. hmmm. Nope, that would not be right.
Transsexual? I don't know, because I don't really know what it means. And I'm not going to google it, because then I'll start receiving a bunch of ads for transexual stuff.

Transgender? God, it's getting complicated. Right would prefer a white male, but it's not a male, it's a female that experienced onset femininity, then started climbing trees around 3rd grade while dreaming about boys, or girls.

These days, there is no such thing as sexual misconduct. "Misconduct" is allowed, it's 2020 for gosh sakes.

Good, I fixed it all. Maybe then a little bit of time could be spent on their qualifications instead of what they might have been doing or thinking, or thinking about thinking, or thinking about doing, in their past.

[George K]

Apparently, it's Barrett, per leaks.

"ACB..."

[Mik]

@89th said in The SCOTUS nominee thread:

I wonder if either will be accused of sexual misconduct when they were in high school.

Catholic girl. Bet your bottom dollar.

I'm telling you, church girls are a great date.

[George K]

@Mik said in The SCOTUS nominee thread:

Catholic girl

Billy Joel....

[Mik]

That's only Italian girls in NY.

[George K]

Moar (cheap) Scotch. Imma need to place a deliver order with Binny's!

[Mik]

Cheap (but excellent) Italian wine everywhere.

[Jolly]

Strong Second Amendment. Very strong.

[Rainman]

Last night I watched an interview with her. It was OK, she seemed like a smart enough person. But, and just my opinion of course, she didn't seem to have the gravitas of someone being considered. Maybe it was her young sounding voice, or "average" vocabulary.
If I were on a committee, after listening to her field questions, I think I would have asked for more candidates for consideration.

[Mik]

@Jolly said in The SCOTUS nominee thread:

Strong Second Amendment. Very strong.

It says what it says and does not say what it doesn't.

[mark]

@George-K said in The SCOTUS nominee thread:

@Mik said in The SCOTUS nominee thread:

Catholic girl

Billy Joel....

Frank Zappa

Link to video

[Jolly]

@Rainman said in The SCOTUS nominee thread:

Last night I watched an interview with her. It was OK, she seemed like a smart enough person. But, and just my opinion of course, she didn't seem to have the gravitas of someone being considered. Maybe it was her young sounding voice, or "average" vocabulary.
If I were on a committee, after listening to her field questions, I think I would have asked for more candidates for consideration.

She's very young. In her 40's, IIRC.

[George K]

@Jolly said in The SCOTUS nominee thread:

In her 40's, IIRC.

48

[George K]

[jon-nyc]

Lol @George-K

Barrett it is. No surprise.

[George K]

Because Mazie's gotta Mazie...

[George K]

Well, this aged well. Look at the date.

"In January 2018, I tweeted the cover story of the National Law Journal. It was titled The Great Reshaping: How the Trump Administration is Changing the Game on Judicial Nominations. And it depicted portraits of then-Justice Gorsuch, and Judges Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Willett. So far, these predictions are looking good. I'm still holding out for Justice Willett."

[George K]

VietNam war hero Blumenthal agrees with Maize:

[Mik]

Gosh, Bloomie, where in the Constitution dos it say that?

[taiwan_girl]

@Mik said in The SCOTUS nominee thread:

Gosh, Bloomie, where in the Constitution dos it say that?

Exactly. I would be more upset about what happened in 2016 than now.

Seems like the are following the rules in this case, maybe not so much in 2016. Doesn't matter , however, that is over and done in the past.