HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » fallout87 » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Tue Jun 13, 2017, 09:53 PM
Number of posts: 819

Journal Archives

Something is off about the Manafort deliberations....

The jury for the Zimmerman case acquitted him after a mere 16 hours of deliberation. That was after 3 weeks of testimony. I would assume this case is less complicated than a murder case (yes I know there are thousands of documents, but the jury isn't reading every one of them). Not getting a good feeling about this. Seems like one or more are hung and wont convict. That's just my prediction unfortunately.

Re: Manafort... What is considered a fast deliberation timeline?

I know that guilty verdicts usually come back from deliberations fairly fast... what is considered fast? 2 hours? 5 hours? Just curious.

Collins and Murkowski signal comfort with Kavanaugh

I knew it. There's no way they vote against him. Collins even sent out a signal that he would have to publicly demonstrate hostility to precedence (Roe V Wade) for her to vote now.

Of COURSE he's not going to openly admit to wanting to overturn precedence... No Nominee would be that dumb

Collins, Murkowski signal comfort with Kavanaugh

The centrist GOP senators offered few hints on Tuesday about how they will vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court. But it’s clear that Trump could have made confirmation in the narrowly divided Senate much more difficult if he had picked someone like 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett or another equally conservative nominee.

“Let’s put it this way: There were some who have been on the list that I would have had a very, very difficult time supporting, just based on what was already publicly known about them,” Murkowski (R-Alaska) said in an interview on Monday. “We’re not dealing with that.”

Collins (R-Maine) told reporters that while she wouldn’t directly compare Kavanaugh with Barrett, she touted Kavanaugh’s experience and sounded warm notes about him while insisting she has yet to decide.

“It will be very difficult for anyone to argue that he’s not qualified for the job. He clearly is qualified for the job,” Collins said. “But there are other issues involving judicial temperament and his political, or rather, his judicial philosophy that also will play into my decision.”


CNN's Cillizza: Why Democrats' SCOTUS secret weapon may be a dud

For more insight into how Susan Collins is approaching this decision -- and how Maine is approaching Collins' decision, I reached out to Steve Collins (no relation), a reporter for the Lewiston Sun Journal. (Amazingly named newspaper, by the way!) Our conversation, conducted via email and lightly edited for flow is below.

Cillizza: Finish this sentence: "The chances that Susan Collins votes against Donald Trump's SCOTUS nominee are _____________%." Now, explain.

Steve Collins: If President Trump picks someone mainstream for the seat, the chances are virtually zero that she will vote "no." But given that the President is, how shall we put this, unpredictable, there is a possibility Sen. Collins will wind up opposed.
However, if Gorsuch is an indication of the President's thinking on the matter, then it seems pretty darn certain that he will find somebody that passes muster with Maine's senior senator.

Court Packing... your thoughts?

Let's play worst case scenario.... tRump gets re-elected(incumbents are extremely hard to beat, and if the economy stays up he can ride it in 2020), and then gets to fill two more seats. I'm not so sure the Notorious RBG or Breyer can outlast 6 more years of him.

When we get back in power, the only way to get back any semblance of power in the Court is to pack it. It will be (quite possibly) either 6-3 or 7-2 by then.

The only downside, is that the rethugs will do the same thing.

I'm really stressed out about this.... and I don't see any solution here!!!!

Looks like Manchin is a YES for trumps nominee


and Heitcamp too


Janus Decision

Source: scotusblog

Court holds that union fees violate "the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern.

Read more: Link to source

5-4 against the unions

If you think the travel ban decision was bad, wait until Janus tomorrow

The USSC is about to gut Public sector unions tomorrow at around 10am. I don't know how much more of this crap I can take. We already know the way in which 8 of the justices will vote.... is there really any mystery how Gorsuch will vote?

Big thanks to Susan Surandan and the other RF's that helped Mitch McConnell.

Since some on here are praising Comey as some sort of hero..

Just read what he is writing about AG Loretta Lynch....

He's inferring that there is classified information on her that would make her look like she tainted the Hillary email investigation..

Deleting my facebook profiile

Why? Because they have proven time and time again that they do not care what happens to user's information, as long as they can make a buck.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 Next »