Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Amy Coney-Barrett | Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
- Thread starter Ubik
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
Would have been surprised otherwise.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Justice Milker.
These people are far from a Bible Study group.
So what do we think, does this get confirmed pre-election or in the lame duck? Does it give Trump a boost with GOP turnout or will Dem anger surface? What will come first, the expansion of the Sun into a red giant or Mitch McConnell feeling a sense of shame?
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
He will try to push it through as soon as possible to avoid Mark Kelly (who may be sworn in on 11/30) from having any say in the matter. Pelosi may also try to impeach Trump again which would tie the Senate up and probably delay the SCOTUS vote. Any number of things could happen.
How does starting the impeachment process tie up the Senate? Doesn’t it go through the House machinations first?
Not surprised he went with the nuttiest of the ones under consideration. Larsen would have been a way less controversial pick but again Trump shows he controls the Republican party and is completely compromised by the fringe elements. This maybe more than anything shows he doesn't expect to sway voters and win the election legitimately.
Nothing like a good dose of 18th century life.
I think Pelosi has since come out and said she wouldn't do it. In theory it would clear the house quickly then the Senate would be forced to take it up, which would force SCOTUS hearings back on the calendar.
Heard that as well. Thanks!
I feel like impeachment would backfire as it looks so nakedly political. Better to go with statehood and the threat of packing because at least that actually looks like a response to Mitch's own dickishness.
Of course, the likeliest outcome still seems to be that the GOP get it done and the Dems do nothing in response.
Agreed. Plus Trump has a good chance of getting booted in just over a months so why tamper with that process.
I agree and also pretty sure mitch would find a way to put it to an immediate vote and get it finished in a day or two
Dear fecking god, she has only been a judge on the bench for three goddamn years. That alone should make her unqualified.
Last edited:
Its being reported she was the only candidate who was interviewed for the nomination. Can you imagine having to fill an important position (in any business or institution) and only bothering to interview one candidate.
To be fair wasnt she down to the last 2 and heavily vetted / interviewed when they picked kavanaugh
On that basis as they are looking to appoint quick it makes sense to just go with her.
I was planning on not voting this year but now that the guy who watches 14 hours of fox news everyday for vox dot com owned me with an epic clapback, I've decided to vote for the senile rapist.
Which one?
Why should that stop Trump. Betsy Devos, Ben Carson, know nothing about their positions, but if they can cause chaos and destroy these departments, they would have done their job.
Pretty sure Trump interviewed several people last time, including Coney-Barrett (she apparently bombed during the interview), which is part of the reason Kavanaugh was selected.
If he was willing to hire Jared and Ivanka as senior WH advisors then all bets were going to be off in terms of looking for quality over loyalty in other departments.
I imagine many businesses and institutions know exactly who they want to hire for key positions from the outset.
I'm no Trump loon, but this seems an odd criticism.
So instead of responding to the snide twattish part of the tweet by being a snide twat yourself, look at the stances and ramifications and consider to yourself if you're comfortable with that happening thanks to your 'principles'.
it's a heck of a thing to be comfortable with I'll give you that.
.lmao at you putting scare quotes around principles. Im not voting for Joe Biden because he is a credibly accused rapist and a horrible person who has caused immense human suffering in this country and worldwide.
brushing his past aside is a heck of a thing to be comfortable with ill give you that.
I'm picturing herself and Pence having the almighty horn for each other.
I think that typically states that have fair and open competition for their civil service positions tend to fare better in the longer term. Increasing patrimonalism can be an indicator of a delay in institutions. I don't believe the practises of private business translate directly across to a successful state; the goals don't match.
Would be fun to watch given that Pence is protestant.
I always assume that Catholic/Protestant isn't such a significant barrier in the US among the lunatic fanatics as it is over here.
So it's that, or all of the above on Coney-Barrett and you're siding with Coney-Barrett. The world is shit and those in power are the shittiest, you get to choose the least shittiest, not the best.
Again, 'principles'.
Like throwing a glass of water on a wildfire.
True to an extent, especially when it comes to abortion.
fecking vox still being tossed around as a smart person sourceThe world is shit so you must vote for those who made it that way. Sorry but I'm not taking advice on morality from you, Elliot.
Fine, don't vote. Just don't think about the millions of people that Coney-Barrett's opinions will affect for the next 40 years or so as opposed to Biden when the options are either a credibly accused rapist or a credibly accused rapist that'll enable all of the above.
Don't bother having opinions on morality at all actually.
What good does sticking to your 'principles' do for anyone but yourself?
Blah blah blah, the same old shit. You're not convincing anyone, which was the original point.
Imagine looking at 2016 where 100 million people didn't vote and thinking the best way to win in 2020 was to target the 1 million people who voted Jill Stein. And then once you've decided that Stein voters are the ones you need to win over, deciding that the best way to do it is not to adopt policies those voters want or give positions of power to people supported by those voters but instead to have The Screencap Dipshit make snidey comments about them. Truly that's the way to win over these voters.
The truth is that its not about increasing voter share or converting undecideds or harm mitigation or even about winning the election. Its simply about feeling smug and superior. You never reckon with the damage democrats have wrought. You never care about the lives Biden has destroyed. Its all about you feeling smug online.
Not voting 2020, eat my shorts
It's hard to blame green or left voters for not voting in a conservative Democrat and also when Ginsburg personally decide not to step down in the Obama years('Who you would prefer on the court than me?")
The U.S. political model was never intended to include universal suffrage and it's economic model produces insane politics. Blaming x group is utterly useless imo.
The U.S. political model was never intended to include universal suffrage and it's economic model produces insane politics. Blaming x group is utterly useless imo.