Jump to content

U.S politics: You got knocked the Warnocked out:


Varysblackfyre321
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I just don’t think we need to wait until liberal justices are close to or into their 80s in order to urge them to retire.

To be clear, I don't think we necessarily need to wait until then either.  If there was a justice in their early 70s I could see it, especially at the beginning a presidential term.  But Kagan's only been on the court 12 years - she almost certainly isn't even halfway through her tenure.  She's 18 years younger than the president, ten years younger than the Senate majority leader.  It's simply not fair based on the rules and it's unreasonable to ask a 62 year old to retire just because you are worried she might drop dead before we get another Democratic president and Senate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

To be clear, I don't think we necessarily need to wait until then either.  If there was a justice in their early 70s I could see it, especially at the beginning a presidential term.  But Kagan's only been on the court 12 years - she almost certainly isn't even halfway through her tenure.  She's 18 years younger than the president, ten years younger than the Senate majority leader.  It's simply not fair based on the rules and it's unreasonable to ask a 62 year old to retire just because you are worried she might drop dead before we get another Democratic president and Senate.

TBC I support  SC judges  getting 10 year term limits.

Biden’s age was always a reason for why people were concerned with nominating him.

Is it unfair to ask her end her career? Maybe . Would it be practical? I think so.

At least can we agree Sotomeyer needs to step down quickly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

TBC I support  SC judges  getting 10 year term limits.

So do I!  But until they do it's ridiculous to ask a 62 year old to retire just because you're worried about Senate math.  Normatively, that's plainly not how SC justice tenure should work, at least if they can't even collect social security yet.

5 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

At least can we agree Sotomeyer needs to step down quickly?

Not really no, but I don't think the request is nearly as ridiculous considering she's 68 and does have a significant health issue.  I would request you spell Sotomayor's name right though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

I think it's going to be very difficult for Roe to be as significant as an election issue two years from now,

Ya. Women only think about medical issues connected to their reproductive systems once or twice every 20 years, not, like, you know, every single of day of their lives between puberty and even after menopause. Certainly not when they are trying to get pregnant, hoping to be pregnant, not wanting to be pregnant, when they are pregnant.  O no, never at all.

How many women live in the USA?  Who deal with these issues every single day?  And can't even get the drugs they need to keep them from dying from endometriosis? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Women only think about medical issues connected to their reproductive systems once or twice every 20 years, not, like, you know, every single of day of their lives between puberty and even after menopause

Easy friend I think DMC is just recognizes how quickly so many people can grow used to oppression or accept it if people are promising to alleviate other concerns.

Democrats shouldn’t let up on it though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Such Norms aren’t worth respecting if they get in the way of keeping and obtaining power.

The gop knows this.

That's not what I meant by normatively.  Normatively means what "should" be done.  Which is, of course, what we're talking about.  You keep on saying this is "practical," but it's not.  There's obviously no "practical" way for anyone to force Kagan or Sotomayor to step down, and both quite obviously would ignore any attempts to pressure them anyway.  Kagan, in particular, is taking things to a ridiculous extreme.  This is not like Ginsburg - nor Kennedy or Breyer.  All were in their 80s when most people started to call for their resignations.  If you wanna extend that to their 70s I can see that.  Indeed, many states have 70 as a cutoff point for reupping their judges.  But 62 with no health issue is beyond the pale.

5 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Ya. Women only think about medical issues connected to their reproductive systems once or twice every 20 years, not, like, you know, every single of day of their lives between puberty and even after menopause. Certainly not when they are trying to get pregnant, hoping to be pregnant, not wanting to be pregnant, when they are pregnant.  O no, never at all.

:rolleyes:.  That wasn't my point at all and you should know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

Normatively means what "should" be done.  Which is, of course, what we're talking about.

Yes.

9 minutes ago, DMC said:

You keep on saying this is "practical," but it's not.  There's obviously no "practical" way for anyone to force Kagan or Sotomayor to step down, and both quite obviously

It’s practical for them to step down when they can be easily replaced by progressives.

Admittedly they may prove resilient to any such calls for them to do such. 
I at least want Biden to make an attempt at convincing them to retire.

13 minutes ago, DMC said:

Kagan, in particular, is taking things to a ridiculous extreme. 

No what’s extreme is this insistence of democracy having to depend  on the health of a select group of elderly people.

15 minutes ago, DMC said:

This is not like Ginsburg -

Yet.

17 minutes ago, DMC said:

All were in their 80s when most people started to call for their resignations

Ginsburg and Breyer should have retired years before under democratic presidents.

19 minutes ago, DMC said:

If you wanna extend that to their 70s I can see that.  Indeed, many states have 70 as a cutoff point for reupping their judges.  But 62 with no health issue is beyond the pale.

A progressive 45 year old Supreme Court judge will be preferable to a 62 year old.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It’s practical for them to step down when they can be easily replaced by progressives.

I guarantee you they don't see it that way.  Nor Biden.  Which means nothing you are arguing is "practical."  What you're saying is it would be ideal.  Which, sure!  It certainly would.  But I'm not gonna hold my breath and I'm not gonna call for a 62 year old with no health issue to retire because it's insulting and unfair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DeSantis calls for grand jury to investigate Covid-19 vaccines
Gov. Ron DeSantis’ announcement was the latest in an ongoing war between his administration and the Biden administration — and the broader medical community — over the pandemic.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/13/desantis-grand-jury-covid-19-vaccines-00073718

Quote

 

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Gov. Ron DeSantis on Tuesday asked the Florida Supreme Court to empanel a grand jury to investigate “wrongdoing” linked to the Covid-19 vaccines, including spreading false and misleading claims about the efficacy of the doses.

Most of the medical community, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FDA and Johns Hopkins, have emphasized that the Covid vaccine is safe and effective in preventing the virus and protecting against serious symptoms.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

guarantee you they don't see it that way. 

Neither did Ruth.

Hopefully you’re wrong

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

Nor Biden.

Perhaps.

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

But I'm not gonna hold my breath and I'm not gonna call for a 62 year old with no health issue to retire because it's insulting and unfair.

Idc if it’s unfair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DMC said:

That's not what I meant by normatively.  Normatively means what "should" be done.  Which is, of course, what we're talking about.  You keep on saying this is "practical," but it's not.  There's obviously no "practical" way for anyone to force Kagan or Sotomayor to step down, and both quite obviously would ignore any attempts to pressure them anyway.  Kagan, in particular, is taking things to a ridiculous extreme.  This is not like Ginsburg - nor Kennedy or Breyer.  All were in their 80s when most people started to call for their resignations.  If you wanna extend that to their 70s I can see that.  Indeed, many states have 70 as a cutoff point for reupping their judges.  But 62 with no health issue is beyond the pale.

:rolleyes:.  That wasn't my point at all and you should know that.

No.  I did not know that.  You should know how easily and quickly men dismiss what matters to women.  It was a lot easier to do of course before voting and women voting.  Which is why voting, and women voting must be stopped NOW.

Evidently that's what the male reich politcos and SCOTUS thought.  History teaches us in these matters male politicos of whatever stripe are no different.

 

Edited by Zorral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Zorral said:

You should know how easily and quickly men dismiss what matters to women.

And you should know the discussion was about whether or not Roe/abortion will be as significant a boost to Dems' electoral chances in 2024 as it was last month - which as I explained it won't be for the simple fact the Dems aren't going to have to worry about turning out voters in a presidential cycle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...