No Elephants
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Jan-11-10 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #32 |
| 33. Get real. It was pure political shat. No issue whatever. |
|
Edited on Mon Jan-11-10 12:41 PM by No Elephants
You show as responding to slackmaster, but your words seem to address my statement.
|
| -Supreme Court blocks broadcast of trial on Calif. ban of gay marriage |
kpete |
Jan-11-10 10:48 AM |
#0 |
 -
K&R. |
midnight |
Jan-11-10 10:50 AM |
#1 |
| -
Assholes... |
hlthe2b |
Jan-11-10 10:54 AM |
#2 |
  -
Didn' they just say they were going to take a couple of days to consider the issue? |
kristopher |
Jan-11-10 03:25 PM |
#85 |
| -
I hope so.... you info sounds more current |
hlthe2b |
Jan-11-10 03:30 PM |
#88 |
| -
Oh well, it's not as if broadcasting the trial would have any impact on its outcome |
slackmaster |
Jan-11-10 11:00 AM |
#3 |
| -
This just strengthens my resolve |
Newsjock |
Jan-11-10 11:06 AM |
#4 |
| -
The Felonious Five believes all that transparent democracy crap is overrated..... |
marmar |
Jan-11-10 11:08 AM |
#5 |
| -
Try felonious 8.... |
WriteDown |
Jan-11-10 11:24 AM |
#12 |
| -
Key word being "publicly." |
No Elephants |
Jan-11-10 12:01 PM |
#17 |
| -
If you didn't dissent publicly then you are as much at fault. nt |
WriteDown |
Jan-11-10 12:08 PM |
#19 |
| -
Not really. If a decision has a majority, with or without your dissent, |
No Elephants |
Jan-11-10 12:26 PM |
#29 |
| -
I wouldn't label "lack of courage" as being a "good reason" |
liberation |
Jan-11-10 12:30 PM |
#31 |
| -
No one said the "good reasons" would include lack of courage. |
No Elephants |
Jan-11-10 12:38 PM |
#34 |
| -
Hard to know who the felonious are then... |
WriteDown |
Jan-11-10 12:42 PM |
#36 |
| -
Meh. I think Sotomayor is the only possible crossover, depending upon how Catholic |
No Elephants |
Jan-11-10 03:34 PM |
#89 |
| -
So people who hid jews from the Nazis silently are just as complicit |
CreekDog |
Jan-11-10 12:49 PM |
#41 |
| -
Nice Godwin... |
WriteDown |
Jan-11-10 01:00 PM |
#47 |
| -
Really??? |
joeglow3 |
Jan-11-10 03:17 PM |
#83 |
| -
No, it's not the same, but: |
CreekDog |
Jan-11-10 03:29 PM |
#87 |
| -
It does not fall flat on its face |
joeglow3 |
Jan-11-10 04:53 PM |
#97 |
| -
But it's not the *same* as uttering those slurs |
CreekDog |
Jan-11-10 04:56 PM |
#98 |
| -
You are accusing Supreme Court justices of not standing up for a minority? |
CreekDog |
Jan-11-10 10:01 PM |
#101 |
| -
Ummm, go back and read |
joeglow3 |
Jan-12-10 08:25 AM |
#103 |
| -
I didn't realize someone else made this argument to me, sorry |
CreekDog |
Jan-12-10 11:31 AM |
#104 |
| -
Justice in action. n/t |
Downwinder |
Jan-11-10 11:14 AM |
#6 |
| -
Don't you mean "Justice inaction"? |
gilpo |
Jan-11-10 11:20 AM |
#10 |
| -
Why does no one call for impeachment of Roberts? |
Democat |
Jan-11-10 11:18 AM |
#7 |
| -
We can't "brand" anything - we have no media representation |
Doctor_J |
Jan-11-10 11:19 AM |
#9 |
| -
Maybe they like Roberts where he is. |
No Elephants |
Jan-11-10 12:03 PM |
#18 |
| -
You can't throw out an SC justice just because you don't like him, like we in CA do to our governors |
slackmaster |
Jan-11-10 12:10 PM |
#21 |
| -
You mean someone has to give Roberts a bj? |
No Elephants |
Jan-11-10 12:13 PM |
#23 |
| -
That would only be illegal if he paid for it, or it was from an underage person |
slackmaster |
Jan-11-10 12:14 PM |
#24 |
| -
Tell that to the folks who impeached Clinton. |
No Elephants |
Jan-11-10 12:19 PM |
#26 |
| -
I believe the charge was perjury, or lying to Congress while under oath |
slackmaster |
Jan-11-10 12:20 PM |
#27 |
| -
Oh, please. Nothing was the issue. They were hell bent on impeaching him from the jump. |
No Elephants |
Jan-11-10 12:29 PM |
#30 |
| -
You are correct that they were determined to impeach... |
DWilliamsamh |
Jan-11-10 01:34 PM |
#66 |
| -
Believe it or not, I know a blow job is not illegal --and I am biting my tongue not to say anything |
No Elephants |
Jan-11-10 03:39 PM |
#90 |
| -
Well if you "know the difference" then don't write differently. (N/T) |
DWilliamsamh |
Jan-11-10 07:41 PM |
#99 |
| -
huh? The blow jobs were THE issue, since that is what they used for the charges of perjury... |
liberation |
Jan-11-10 12:32 PM |
#32 |
| -
Get real. It was pure political shat. No issue whatever. |
No Elephants |
Jan-11-10 12:34 PM |
#33 |
| -
There was never any question that he received BJs |
slackmaster |
Jan-11-10 12:42 PM |
#35 |
| -
You need to look up Perjury... |
DWilliamsamh |
Jan-11-10 01:36 PM |
#67 |
| -
In short....somebody has to put their money where their mouth is. |
TheEuclideanOne |
Jan-11-10 02:23 PM |
#74 |
| -
Thank God! You're the first person who got I was not being literal. |
No Elephants |
Jan-11-10 04:01 PM |
#94 |
| -
So they're not just corporatists |
Doctor_J |
Jan-11-10 11:19 AM |
#8 |
| -
I'm sure Obama and other Democratic politicians will speak out! |
Democat |
Jan-11-10 11:23 AM |
#11 |
| -
Average citizens. See someone getting mugged on the street, and just move on. n/t |
Downwinder |
Jan-11-10 11:38 AM |
#13 |
| -
Speaking out would do absolutely nothing to impact the SCOTUS. Now, Republicans do speak |
No Elephants |
Jan-11-10 12:16 PM |
#25 |
| -
No surprise. Roberts worked for Reagan and was appointed by Dummya. |
No Elephants |
Jan-11-10 12:09 PM |
#20 |
| -
the court is hyper-partisan and reactionary conservative as well. |
AlbertCat |
Jan-11-10 03:28 PM |
#86 |
| -
Good thing President Obama took a STRONG, VOCAL STANCE on this...n/t |
newtothegame |
Jan-11-10 11:41 AM |
#14 |
| -
YEAH! |
Fearless |
Jan-11-10 11:47 AM |
#15 |
| -
He's a fierce advocate for the GLBT community. |
closeupready |
Jan-11-10 11:57 AM |
#16 |
| -
His Justice Department fiercly argures against us in federal courts. |
David Zephyr |
Jan-11-10 01:29 PM |
#64 |
| -
So there. Why do you guys keep bitchin? You gots your 'fierce', You gots your 'advocate". |
closeupready |
Jan-11-10 01:50 PM |
#69 |
| -
He is running for re-election in 2012. |
winninghand |
Jan-11-10 03:21 PM |
#84 |
| -
It would not have mattered what Obama did. |
No Elephants |
Jan-11-10 12:11 PM |
#22 |
| -
I was waiting for someone to tie Obama to this. |
tranche |
Jan-11-10 12:44 PM |
#38 |
| -
Your wish is my command dear sir. |
newtothegame |
Jan-11-10 12:53 PM |
#43 |
| -
What other trials has Obama said should be broadcast publicly? |
CreekDog |
Jan-11-10 12:51 PM |
#42 |
| -
How about Obama using this to take a swipe at Roberts |
Democat |
Jan-11-10 01:05 PM |
#51 |
| -
Heck, he didn' t even put Roberts in his place when Roberts messed up the oath of office, |
No Elephants |
Jan-11-10 03:49 PM |
#91 |
| -
They can sure work fast when they want, huh? |
Piewhacket |
Jan-11-10 12:25 PM |
#28 |
| -
yeah that WAS amazing |
sui generis |
Jan-11-10 12:46 PM |
#40 |
| -
Perfectly understandable. |
No Elephants |
Jan-11-10 03:58 PM |
#93 |
| -
California Supreme? |
JerseygirlCT |
Jan-11-10 12:44 PM |
#37 |
| -
Nope |
slackmaster |
Jan-11-10 01:07 PM |
#53 |
| -
Geez |
JerseygirlCT |
Jan-11-10 01:27 PM |
#62 |
| -
If they find in our favor there could be riots |
sui generis |
Jan-11-10 12:45 PM |
#39 |
| -
They're not going to find in our favor |
Downtown Hound |
Jan-11-10 12:53 PM |
#44 |
| -
Who is "[t]hey"? |
Unvanguard |
Jan-11-10 01:00 PM |
#48 |
| -
LOL. "So if this reaches them it won't be a matter of discretion, they'll almost certainly follow |
Downtown Hound |
Jan-11-10 01:02 PM |
#49 |
| -
What on Earth are you talking about? |
Unvanguard |
Jan-11-10 01:04 PM |
#50 |
| -
I already said they won't. |
Downtown Hound |
Jan-11-10 01:12 PM |
#56 |
| -
Again: who is "they"? |
Unvanguard |
Jan-11-10 01:17 PM |
#60 |
| -
Who are they? The Supreme Court |
Downtown Hound |
Jan-11-10 01:22 PM |
#61 |
| -
But this decision will be announced long before it goes to the Supreme Court. |
Unvanguard |
Jan-11-10 01:31 PM |
#65 |
| -
Jesus Christ, how many different ways do I have to say the same thing |
Downtown Hound |
Jan-11-10 01:47 PM |
#68 |
| -
I'm not defending it. I think it was wrong. I just think your explanation is silly. |
Unvanguard |
Jan-11-10 02:19 PM |
#73 |
| -
Yep, actually they do know how he's going to rule, and so do I |
Downtown Hound |
Jan-11-10 02:34 PM |
#76 |
| -
You can revel in your dogmatic cynicism all you like; it doesn't make you any more right. |
Unvanguard |
Jan-11-10 02:48 PM |
#77 |
| -
LOL. Well, you're right, Nostradamus I'm not |
Downtown Hound |
Jan-11-10 10:44 PM |
#102 |
| -
Correct, (except that their general policy is always a matter of discretion). |
No Elephants |
Jan-11-10 03:55 PM |
#92 |
| -
So what are they worried about? |
sui generis |
Jan-11-10 01:06 PM |
#52 |
| -
You pretty much answered your own question |
Downtown Hound |
Jan-11-10 01:09 PM |
#54 |
| -
There's plenty of live coverage of the proceedings. |
Unvanguard |
Jan-11-10 01:11 PM |
#55 |
| -
Those aren't cameras |
Downtown Hound |
Jan-11-10 01:13 PM |
#57 |
| -
Meaningful, sustainable action is the way to go. |
closeupready |
Jan-11-10 01:54 PM |
#71 |
| -
Yes. |
closeupready |
Jan-11-10 01:51 PM |
#70 |
| -
I'm not sure this is worth getting angry about. |
Unvanguard |
Jan-11-10 12:55 PM |
#45 |
| -
WHY? |
SkyDaddy7 |
Jan-11-10 12:57 PM |
#46 |
| -
Chickenshits. |
KamaAina |
Jan-11-10 01:16 PM |
#58 |
| -
Man, this nation really hates gay people. This has nothing to do with cameras. |
David Zephyr |
Jan-11-10 01:16 PM |
#59 |
| -
it's a temp stay until they make a final decision. but yeah, half this country hates Gay people... |
Divine Discontent |
Jan-11-10 04:11 PM |
#95 |
| -
Conservatives and bigots love to do their thing in the dark. And ONLY the dark. (n/t) |
DWilliamsamh |
Jan-11-10 01:28 PM |
#63 |
| -
So much for transparency and justice... |
winyanstaz |
Jan-11-10 02:00 PM |
#72 |
| -
Apparently Gays are no longer the closet cases. |
William769 |
Jan-11-10 02:54 PM |
#80 |
| -
Good one. |
No Elephants |
Jan-11-10 04:13 PM |
#96 |
| -
This sucks... |
alp227 |
Jan-11-10 02:27 PM |
#75 |
| -
FUCK THEM!!! |
Odin2005 |
Jan-11-10 02:48 PM |
#78 |
| -
I was going to write a long reasoned response to this farce |
William769 |
Jan-11-10 02:53 PM |
#79 |
| -
LOL, you're welcome! |
Odin2005 |
Jan-11-10 03:12 PM |
#82 |
| -
Misleading headline... |
kirby |
Jan-11-10 03:11 PM |
#81 |
| -
Aren't cameras banned in federal courts? |
SpartanDem |
Jan-11-10 09:29 PM |
#100 |
| -
Oh good, more "transparency." |
Vidar |
Jan-12-10 04:00 PM |
#105 |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread