Just curious.......

[nowisthetime]

Nope don’t agree. If I acted like that during an interview they would file me under “crazy as a loon”
No go for me but he will probably be picked anyway.

Why do people go back and forth with him? I've written him off as a common troll.

This justice wannabe is not a person of color nor a woman, so it's ok for him to show anger, even encouraged.

The hypocrisy from the right is just amazing, knows no bounds.

Total bullshit.

Oh dear God, he is back with his bullshit.

 

[Que]

Giving his history, I have to assume he had some prosthetic ones installed, but my, of my, what big, shiny brass ones he has now!

Lindsey Graham about whether they should administer a polygraph to Kavanaugh: "Why don't we junk him and water and see if he floats!"

https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1047884001971773450

 

[nowisthetime]

He's pointing out, which you well know but your continually misfiring #AspieBrain refuses to acknowledge, that Merrick Garland never even got a confirmation hearing.

I'm that, with you being the #SmartestGuyOnTehGeneralBoard, it shouldn't be too hard for you to rationalize that little fact somehow.

Such arrogance! Smart enough to nut hug one of the greatest fools that led the country, eh?

They have foggy brains, don't they?

Sigh, repug males.

 

[Oblimo]

Whether he decides to take action or not the fact remains that Kavanaugh has been weaponized and the democrats know it hence the desperation in their tactics.

Did you just agree that Kavanaugh is a partisan tool?

 

[adrina]

Speaking of just curious...

https://scontent.ftpa1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/43080703_600658590349173_4537006351150219264_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&oh=04cecb019bf533fff60a999faf946c83&oe=5C541FC7

 

[Oblimo]

Clarence Thomas had a similar "meltdown," when he decried that he was a black man undergoing a high-tech lynching.

No he fucking did not. He did not talk over the Senators. He did not talk back to the Senators. He did not wear a rictus of rage.

The highest he dialed it up to was “indignant” and “dudgeon,” particularly during his famous “uppity” line.

Has he "melted down" or gone crazy while serving on the bench?

He argued before the Federalist Society that Marbury v. Madison is bad law and should be overturned.

For Constituional scholars, that counts as fucking insane.

 

[Oblimo]

But, but whatabout Garrrrland???

#whataboutism

He's pointing out, which you well know but your continually misfiring #AspieBrain refuses to acknowledge, that Merrick Garland never even got a confirmation hearing.

Thanks for revealing this to me.

Que, a Democratic saying “what about Garland?” isn’t Whataboutism. Garland didn’t do anything wrong. He was wronged, assjack.

 

[Que]

Many Constitutional scholars agree Marbury is bad law.

The overriding argument for Marberry is that we have to have some foundational reason for the Supreme Court to have any power at all so something like Marbury had to come along so we accept Marbury but few accept the idea that Marbury was competently argued.

 

[Que]

Thanks for revealing this to me.

Que, a Democratic saying “what about Garland?” isn’t Whataboutism. Garland didn’t do anything wrong. He was wronged, assjack.

It surely is. It is not Garland doing anything wrong it is the assertion that the Republicans invoking the Joe Biden rule about letting the electorate decide who gets to appoint in presidential election years did something wrong.

Whatabout Garland is shorthand for whatabout what those rascally Republucans did to Garland by following precedent set by Democrats.

 

[schism666]

Many Constitutional scholars agree Marbury is bad law.

The overriding argument for Marberry is that we have to have some foundational reason for the Supreme Court to have any power at all so something like Marbury had to come along so we accept Marbury but few accept the idea that Marbury was competently argued.

that's interesting. name one.

 

[Que]

that's interesting. name one.

I haven't read every constitutional scholar on the subject like for example I have no idea what the position that constitutional scholar Barack Hussein Obama holds on the matter or the opinion of the actual constitutional scholar that penned the notes that Barry Soetoro read off the teleprompter during his time as guest lecturer, but I do read some.

Admittedly my reading list tends to be biased towards originalists. I like people that have an original interpretation of what the Constitution meant at the time it was written. For example constitutional scholar Thomas Jefferson:

“You seem ... to consider the judges as ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. ... The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.”

I was pretty careful to not suggest that it is universally accepted that Marbury is bad law. For example Colonel Hogan and I have debated this very topic in the past and he is of the opinion that Marbury is good and necessary law. He has more or less won me over on the idea that it is necessary law but that does not make it good law.

 

[von_Bismarck]

I haven't read every constitutional scholar on the subject like for example I have no idea what the position that constitutional scholar Barack Hussein Obama holds on the matter or the opinion of the actual constitutional scholar that penned the notes that Barry Soetoro read off the teleprompter during his time as guest lecturer, but I do read some.

Admittedly my reading list tends to be biased towards originalists. I like people that have an original interpretation of what the Constitution meant at the time it was written. For example constitutional scholar Thomas Jefferson:

“You seem ... to consider the judges as ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. ... The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.”

I was pretty careful to not suggest that it is universally accepted that Marbury is bad law. For example Colonel Hogan and I have debated this very topic in the past and he is of the opinion that Marbury is good and necessary law. He has more or less won me over on the idea that it is necessary law but that does not make it good law.

Many authors agree...

...I cannot name one.

LMAO. Good one, Queef Quavin.

 

[Que]

No he fucking did not. He did not talk over the Senators. He did not talk back to the Senators. He did not wear a rictus of rage.

The highest he dialed it up to was “indignant” and “dudgeon,” particularly during his famous “uppity” line.



He argued before the Federalist Society that Marbury v. Madison is bad law and should be overturned.

For Constituional scholars, that counts as fucking insane.

Scism666 would like you to provide a citation for your polling of all Constitutional Scholars on their opinions about Marbury V Madison.

He is "interested" in the topic.

I am sure he just forgot to query you about your obviously invalid generalization.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

that's interesting. name one.

They are all on reddit posting from their mom's basement at the tender age of 60.

 

[Oblimo]

that's interesting. name one.

Que is confusing different uses of the term “bad law.”

He’s also talking about the lunatic fringe who want to end judicial review.

Edit: Oh, and he might think Ben Shapiro counts as a Constitutional scholar.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Que is confusing different uses of the term “bad law.”

He’s also talking about the lunatic fringe who want to end judicial review.

Que is often confused.

#AspieBrain
#HeTriesSoooHard

 

[Kirkrapine]

I haven't read every constitutional scholar on the subject like for example I have no idea what the position that constitutional scholar Barack Hussein Obama holds on the matter or the opinion of the actual constitutional scholar that penned the notes that Barry Soetoro read off the teleprompter during his time as guest lecturer, but I do read some.

He's' been gone two years! Why can't you guys get over him?!

 

[Que]

Of course people that think history began when the brilliant constitutional scholar Barack Hussein Obama strolled into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and discovered that some guy named George Bush had driven a car into a irrigation ditch out in front probably wouldn't have any idea who Thomas Jefferson is or how it is that he could be considered a scholar on all things constitutional....

How about Michael Stokes Paulsen from this century. He was editor of the Yale Law Review. Now granted, he cannot be said to be "historic" since he a beloved that distinction on scholarship, rather than on the color of his skin, but still. . . .

That would be "one." ...of "many."

 

[von_Bismarck]

Of course people that think history began when the brilliant constitutional scholar Barack Hussein Obama strolled into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and discovered that some guy named George Bush had driven a car into a irrigation ditch out in front probably wouldn't have any idea who Thomas Jefferson is or how it is that he could be considered a scholar on all things constitutional....

How about Michael Stokes Paulsen from this century.

That would be "one." ...of "many."

OBAMA!!!​

 

[Que]

Que is confusing different uses of the term “bad law.”

He’s also talking about the lunatic fringe who want to end judicial review.

Edit: Oh, and he might think Ben Shapiro counts as a Constitutional scholar.

What's wrong with Ben Shapiro? He's certainly more qualified in the law of than you or say Sean.

I find it interesting that you set yourself up as some sort of authority here on constitutional law when you haven't even read the basics on the debate, clearly.

Interesting counselor that while I'm right here in the room you want to refer to me in third person rather than engage me in debate.

That's OK. You may go now.

 

[Que]

This, by the way is why I never bother to provide citations. Here we are with three or four people that don't even know what Marbury v Madison is about or why the ruling is foundational ...yet they are piling on about how I'm wrong when they don't even know what it is we're talking about.

My assertion that many constitutional Scholars argue that Marbury was badly decided is not really open to debate. There are people who argue that.

Like every good debate there's the other side where people feel that it is good law. The fact that I'm pointing out there actually is a debate about that is not even debatable but yet we have numbskulls here pretending they even have any idea what we're talking about.

 

[von_Bismarck]

This, by the way is why I never bother to provide citations. Here we are with three or four people that don't even know what Marbury v Madison is about or why the ruling is foundational ...yet they are piling on about how I'm wrong when they don't even know what it is we're talking about.

My assertion that many constitutional Scholars argue that Marbury was badly decided is not really open to debate. There are people who argue that.

Like every good debate there's the other side where people feel that it is good law. The fact that I'm pointing out there actually is a debate about that is not even debatable but yet we have numbskulls here pretending they even have any idea what we're talking about.

Queef is a victim, dammit, A VICTIM!

 

[Kirkrapine]

What's wrong with Ben Shapiro?

Pretty much everything.

 

[Que]

Queef is a victim, dammit, A VICTIM!

How am I a "victim" when several (a couple) of idiots choose to wade into a subject they are ill-equipped to argue?

I don't feel at all victimized when you show up and decide to make yourself look stupid.

Edit speaking of stupid I didn't even notice which account you happened to use to post this. If you're going to try to not make it incredibly obvious what your root account is you probably shouldn't use one of the 30 or so of his stock retorts.

 

[Que]

Pretty much everything.

Are his qualifications on the law inferior to yours?

Pretty interesting strawman. Usually strawman are made entirely of straw but in this case Oblimo put Shapiro up on a pole in the bean field and suggested that I defend him and here you are also attacking him when I never cited him at all.

I had no idea who he even was until such time as he became controversial because snowflakes can't even bear to become educated on the same campus that he might give an utterance upon.

If he's written something on the subject at hand I would be interested in reading it why don't you go ahead and post that up instead of meaningless attacks on somebody that isn't even under discussion?