Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kagus]

They're called "laypeople" because they can get laid. As opposed to the non-laypeople, who cannot.

I'm also not a huge fan of Tyson. Or, I should say, I'm not a huge fan of Tyson's public demeanor, as I really can't say anything about his scientific contributions and methodology in his field. I do think he's a prime example of why it's a bad thing when celebrity scientists become more celebrity than scientist, and also an example of why Twitter was generally a bad idea.

Pardon? Please re-read.

So that time he harassed a women is just ignored then.

Whuh

[Maximum Spin]

as I really can't say anything about his scientific contributions and methodology in his field.

we hate him

[Teneb]

also an example of why Twitter was generally a bad idea.

Twitter is not a new idea, merely the transposition of messages written in public physical walls to messages written in public virtual walls. Except future archaeologists won't be able to as easily recover said messages for study millenia from now.

[redwallzyl]

Oh sorry. I'm a bit tired.

[Frumple]

This qualifies him as an anti-abortion zealot?

His history as a right-winger, and his nomination by trump (who has stated pretty damn bluntly what his judicial goal re: roe is), makes him a clear threat for abortion rights. On top of a host of other things. Not sure who, if anyone, is calling him an anti-abortion zealot, but it's to all appearances damn likely he'll rubber stamp fucking anything the GOP puts in front of him, and they're locked in fairly hard on that particular subject.

Don't need to be a zealot to be perfectly willing to break abortion rights in half, just beholden to zealots and/or uncaring enough on the subject to screw it.

[PTTG??]

Hold on, is someone bad-mouthing Sargon of Akkid, Son of La'ibum, Cup-bearer to Ur-Zababa? He who was king of such repute that for two thousand years was the epitome of rulership throughout Mesopotamia?

EDIT: Getting back on topic, here's fivethirtyeight with the data on abortion polling.

[Lord Shonus]

So, you're saying that Supreme Court picks should be judged solely and entirely by the people who nominate them, and their own words and records should be ignored?

His own words, from a previous confirmation hearing.

Mr. Kavanaugh: Senator, on the question of Roe v. Wade, if confirmed to the D.C. Circuit, I would follow Roe v. Wade faithfully and fully. That would be binding precedent of the Court. It's been decided by the Supreme Court--

Senator Schumer: I asked you your own opinion.

Mr. Kavanaugh: And I'm saying if I were confirmed to the D.C. Circuit, Senator, I would follow it. It's been reaffirmed many times, including in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

[Kagus]

Hold on, is someone bad-mouthing, Sargon of Akkid, Son of La'ibum, Cup-bearer to Ur-Zababa? He who was king of such repute that for two thousand years was the epitome of rulership throughout Mesopotamia?

The dude chopped some guy's head off and gave the sword a cult of popularity, and everyone knew Gilgamesh was better anyways.

[redwallzyl]

EDIT: Getting back on topic, here's fivethirtyeight with the data on abortion polling.

That's a theme in Republican positions. They present everything as binary. Guns being the other prime example. So they go super extreme pulling all the people in the middle in. Nuanced positions are alien to them. The all or nothing thing is really annoying.

[Dunamisdeos]

Hold on, is someone bad-mouthing, Sargon of Akkid, Son of La'ibum, Cup-bearer to Ur-Zababa? He who was king of such repute that for two thousand years was the epitome of rulership throughout Mesopotamia?

The dude chopped some guy's head off and gave the sword a cult of popularity, and everyone knew Gilgamesh was better anyways.

Henceforth we shall judge kings by the number of beheadings they have personally conducted. All in favor?

[Kagus]

Hold on, is someone bad-mouthing, Sargon of Akkid, Son of La'ibum, Cup-bearer to Ur-Zababa? He who was king of such repute that for two thousand years was the epitome of rulership throughout Mesopotamia?

The dude chopped some guy's head off and gave the sword a cult of popularity, and everyone knew Gilgamesh was better anyways.

Henceforth we shall judge kings by the number of beheadings they have personally conducted. All in favor?

Charlemagne: "Aye"

Harald Sigurdsson: "Aye"

Basileios II: "Eyes"

[Frumple]

So, you're saying that Supreme Court picks should be judged solely and entirely by the people who nominate them, and their own words and records should be ignored?

Considering I didn't say that, no. If he had a record that strongly indicated he would be willing to defend abortion rights, that included more than words, it might offset the flat fact he was nominated by someone who explicitly wants the previous ruling squashed and is hostile to the general subject (if largely by proxy in the repeat adulterer's case). If there's more than words behind his record, I'm not aware of it. Roe isn't the only means of attack, either, if he actually held true to that quoted statement.

Though I'd trust the world of a trump nominee to SCOTUS on their willingness to oppose republican political goals about as far as I could throw them, sitting in my bed multiple states away from the capital. We were promised partisan activist judges, and until proven otherwise that's what I'm expecting we're going to get.

But hell, maybe abortion rights would be one of the few areas this particular critter defies the base on (already stated this guy is more corruption than that side of things, anyway). I'll believe it when I see it happen.

[bloop_bleep]

I'd say his own personal statements as to his opinion matter more than the statements of opinion of his appointer (who he did not actively choose).

[Trekkin]

I'd say his own personal statements as to his opinion matter more than the statements of opinion of his appointer (who he did not actively choose).

Well, I would agree, particularly with regard to the statements he made to his appointer as to his position. Since we can't know those, the political climate in which he was appointed is well worth considering.

[EnigmaticHat]

I mean he was part of the Clinton investigation and then he became a Bush employee and suddenly had a nuanced view on the subject of special counsels.  I'd say his word means about shit.

Also, he worked for the late justice Kennedy.  This is a bad thing, Kennedy wasn't as moderate as the news is making him out to be.  For example he was the deciding vote on the Citizens United verdict.  The fact that Kennedy voted with fucking Scalia *most of the time* instead of *all the time* is not something to be proud of.

I'll admit I'm biased.  After what the party of "how about we just don't do our jobs" did with Obama's supreme court pick, any conservative justice who accepts a nomination this close to 2016 is automatically a corrupt asshat in my opinion.  I am extremely bitter right now.