I hope Scalia retires. But the man seems to run on spite.So, if Hillary wins and even is just a one term president, the composion of the SCOTUS is going to drastically changed for generations. No more Ginsburg (probably in Obama's term) and probably the exit of one of the conservatives.
I hope Scalia retires. But the man seems to run on spite.
Kennedy I think is gonna leave soon. And who Obama and Hillary will replace. Giving the court a 5-4 liberal bent. My least favorite justice has to be alito, he seems like he's turned into Scalia lite
How old is Thomas?
So, if Hillary wins and even is just a one term president, the composion of the SCOTUS is going to drastically changed for generations. No more Ginsburg (probably in Obama's term) and probably the exit of one of the conservatives.
Just flipping Scalia would be a sea change. I would advocate the "Roberts model," the youngest competent jurist we can get
My least favorite justice has to be alito, he seems like he's turned into Scalia lite
Didn't know Thomas was that young when he was nominated. Thanks for the info/perspective.Roberts was 50, a pretty common age rage (50-53) for appointments.
Thomas was 43. HW Bush really fucked us with that one. He's might be on the court for 40 years!
Another prophecy from the book of Aaron! It will be as it was written.
Ginsburg should retire within the next year imo. It's too much of a gamble to expect a Dem president to be able to replace her or even for Democrats to hold the Senate.So, if Hillary wins and even is just a one term president, the composion of the SCOTUS is going to drastically changed for generations. No more Ginsburg (probably in Obama's term) and probably the exit of one of the conservatives.
Just arrived in Austin. Any poligaffers from around these parts? Looking for recommendations.
Google says she campaigned for Obama, so probably yes.Isn't Paula Deen a democrat?
Google says she campaigned for Obama, so probably yes.
Check out the White Horse for drink and music. It'll be a good Texas experience.
Heh, Guardian had to take down another piece on the NSA, since their source was well-noted nutjob Wayne Madsen.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/info/2013/jun/30/taken-down
https://twitter.com/mcmoynihan/status/351103380631990273
While we're making fun of the Guardian, here's Chait making fun of Glenn Greenwald.
Re: Bolling v. Krugmman
Bollings comments about the price of milk are like Stelphen Colberts famous "Truthiness" comments come to life.
"Sure my opponent may have the facts, but how do to feel about the truth when you search your gut?"
Can't believe people lap that shit up.
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Opponents of gay marriage petitioned the Supreme Court on Saturday to immediately reinstate a 5-year-old ban on same-sex matrimony in California, saying a federal appeals court had acted prematurely in removing the prohibition on gay nuptials.
Supporters of the gay marriage ban, known as Proposition 8, which California voters approved in 2008, asked the high court to overrule a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals order on Friday lifting a stay that had kept same-sex unions outlawed.
Friday's surprise removal of the stay launched a flurry of swiftly arranged weddings by gay and lesbian couples up and down the state following a Supreme Court decision on Wednesday to let stand a 2010 lower-court opinion striking down Prop 8 as unconstitutional.
But opponents said the three-judge panel of the appeals court had jumped the gun in lifting its injunction before a 25-day "reconsideration" period at the Supreme Court had elapsed.
The Arizona-based group Alliance Defending Freedom argued that the 9th Circuit lacked authority to act when it did, and that it violated the terms of its own stay requiring that it remain in place "until final disposition by the Supreme Court."
The alliance asserted that final disposition could not occur before passage of the 25 days the Supreme Court normally gives petitioners to seek a re-hearing, in this case Prop 8 backers who were denied legal standing to appeal the 2010 decision.
But the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which sponsored the federal court challenge to Prop 8, issued a statement insisting that the 9th Circuit acted under its own "broad discretion" to issue its stay in the first place.
"Now that the Supreme Court has decided that the injunction against Proposition 8 must stand, it was entirely appropriate for the 9th circuit to dissolve its stay of that injunction," the alliance said in a statement.
Foundation attorney Ted Boutrous told reporters on a conference call on Friday that the 9th Circuit's move was hardly unprecedented and that appeals courts have taken similar actions in "much more boring cases than this" without drawing much notice.
Prop 8 supporters, he said, "should hang it up and quit trying to stop people from getting married."
The emergency petition seeking to bring gay marriages to a halt came as dozens of same-sex couples lined up at San Francisco City Hall for a second straight day since the appeals court lifted its stay against the 2010 decision by U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker barring further enforcement of Prop 8.
Salty beings practically beg Supreme Court to reinstate Prop 8.
Supreme Court petitioned to reimpose California gay marriage ban
Suffer, haters. Gays will continue to get gay married.
Salty beings practically beg Supreme Court to reinstate Prop 8.
Supreme Court petitioned to reimpose California gay marriage ban
Suffer, haters. Gays will continue to get gay married.
Of course.The Arizona-based group
So when are the democrats going to try and replace the VRA stuff like the Supreme Court apparently wants them to? I know it's likely that the House holds it back, but I'd like to at least force them to defend themselves for doing it.
So when are the democrats going to try and replace the VRA stuff like the Supreme Court apparently wants them to? I know it's likely that the House holds it back, but I'd like to at least force them to defend themselves for doing it.
So when are the democrats going to try and replace the VRA stuff like the Supreme Court apparently wants them to? I know it's likely that the House holds it back, but I'd like to at least force them to defend themselves for doing it.
And having witnessed Mr. Obama’s dismantling of John McCain and Mr. Romney, they are eager to demonstrate that they represent a new generation. “The reality is, when you look at the Democrats, they’ve got old, tired ideas being produced by old, tired candidates,” Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, 42, said in an interview this month, citing “more government and more spending” for the ideas but not referring to any candidates by name.
The radio host Rush Limbaugh, echoing his commentary from her first presidential run, asked his audience in April whether the American people “want to vote for somebody, a woman, and actually watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?”
2008: Obama's too green for the job! Our guy has EXPERIENCEJudiciary I think is gonna have hearings soon. I expect a law to be voted on by summer of next year. They're gonna try to make it an election issue.
Also it looks like the GOP is going to go after clintons age?
They're not very smart.
That went fabulous for the last guy who tried that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/u...residential-election.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1&
Also, beside rubio who did vote for immigration this is laughable.
2008: Obama's too green for the job! Our guy has EXPERIENCE
2016: Clinton's too old! Our guy brings a NEW FRESH PERSPECTIVE
Hilarious
My favorite bit:Judiciary I think is gonna have hearings soon. I expect a law to be voted on by summer of next year. They're gonna try to make it an election issue.
Also it looks like the GOP is going to go after clintons age?
They're not very smart.
That went fabulous for the last guy who tried that. And they are going to get slammed running an attack on a women for her age while ruining around talking about how awesome Reagan was, sexism much?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/u...residential-election.html?smid=tw-share&_r=1&
Also, beside rubio who did vote for immigration this is laughable.
Oh ho ho!The reality is, when you look at the Democrats, theyve got old, tired ideas being produced by old, tired candidates, Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, 42, said in an interview this month, citing more government and more spending for the ideas but not referring to any candidates by name.
They don't have to do it explicitly. Right wing media can selectively use photos that make Hillary look less flattering, and they can speak like Jindal where they don't pinpoint a single person, but use words that lead the listen think of age. Worn-down, old, withering, weakening, etc... The problem for them is they've been infiltrated by the american taliban who just can't keep their mouths shut and continue to talk about rape and soon to be women.Also it looks like the GOP is going to go after clintons age?
They're not very smart.
They don't have to do it explicitly. Right wing media can selectively use photos that make Hillary look less flattering, and they can speak like Jindal where they don't pinpoint a single person, but use words that lead the listen think of age. Worn-down, old, withering, weakening, etc... The problem for them is they've been infiltrated by the american taliban who just can't keep they're mouths shut and continue to talk about rape and soon to be women.
Let's also not ignore that senior citizens are a big part of the Republicans' base. They'd be pretty stupid to make it an issue.
Let's also not ignore that senior citizens are a big part of the Republicans' base. They'd be pretty stupid to make it an issue.
Especially not after they ran the walking corpse in 2008.
So it's definitely going to be an issue...
2008: Obama's too green for the job! Our guy has EXPERIENCE
2016: Clinton's too old! Our guy brings a NEW FRESH PERSPECTIVE
Hilarious
Oh, no doubt.So it's definitely going to be an issue...
Democrats would be wise to start grooming a candidate. They're putting all their hopes in Hillary basket. Without her, they have Cuomo who no one likes and Biden who probably won't run. It's ok for 2016 but in long term it's gonna be a disadvantage.
Republicans have a variety of critters to chose from; Christie, Rubio, Jeb Bush, Jindal (lol), Bob McDonnell.
Are we really concerned about not having a candidate "groomed" over a decade before the fact?Democrats would be wise to start grooming a candidate. They're putting all their hopes in Hillary basket. Without her, they have Cuomo who no one likes and Biden who probably won't run. It's ok for 2016 but in long term it's gonna be a disadvantage.
Republicans have a variety of critters to chose from; Christie, Rubio, Jeb Bush, Jindal (lol), Bob McDonnell.
Are we really concerned about not having a candidate "groomed" over a decade before the fact?
How does Diablos feel about this?Its never to early to worry!
Thomas isn't going anywhere, he's in power save mode.