Fogbow

Posted: **Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:58 pm**

bob wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:42 pm
AndyinPA wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:39 pm Please tell me he was joking.
NYTpitchbot is a joke account; it fakes stories that sound like they could be in the NYT.

(The account is skewering the NYT's relentless bothsidesism.)

Oh, thank you!

Posted: **Thu Jan 27, 2022 11:21 am**

Susan "the asshole" Collins has some thoughts about filling the vacancy.

"I felt that the timetable for the last nominee was too compressed,” Collins told reporters after an event highlighting planned pedestrian improvements to a busy stretch of road in Augusta. “This time there is no need for any rush. We can take our time, have hearings, go through the process, which is a very important one. It is a lifetime appointment, after all."

Too bad Susan "the asshole" Collins wasn't around when Amy Coney Barrett was rushed through!

https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/20 ... ice-breyer

Posted: **Thu Jan 27, 2022 11:26 am**

Shorter Collins, "Rushing is ok when my side is doing it."

Posted: **Thu Jan 27, 2022 1:33 pm**

Scott MacFarlane @MacFarlaneNews wrote: "Looking ahead — the American people elected a Senate that is evenly split at 50-50. To the degree that President Biden received a mandate, it was to govern from the middle, steward our institutions, and unite America."

(more)

Sen. McConnell (more): "...The President must not outsource this important decision to the radical left. The American people deserve a nominee with demonstrated reverence for the written text of our laws and our Constitution.”

just like the last three, right?

Posted: **Thu Jan 27, 2022 1:36 pm**

Posted: **Thu Jan 27, 2022 1:46 pm**

orlylicious wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:57 pm Bonus: The Fox News brain trust is running in circles.

Kamala Harris To Supreme Court? Fox News Hosts Say It Could Happen
Carmine Sabia January 26, 2022 4,157
OPINION: This article contains commentary which reflects the author's opinion

President Joe Biden and the Democrats may have just solved their issue with the incredibly shrinking poll numbers for Vice President Kamala Harris. What position could Harris have that her poll numbers and popularity would not matter and she could stay in power forever?

Fox News hosts speculated on Wednesday, after liberal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer was reported to be retiring, that Harris could meet the criteria Biden is looking for in the next Supreme Court Justice. Namely, black, female and young. Because, after all, if you check all of the woke boxes who cares about anything else?

“This person has to be a woman, she has to be black and she has got to be younger,” Harris Faulkner said. “Anyone thinking what I’m thinking? They do not know what to do with Kamala Harris in the White House right now. I can’t be the only person seeing this.”

Cohost of the show and former White House Press Secretary for former President Donald Trump, Kayleigh McEnany, weighed in. “I think you’re right,” the host said. “That was playing in my mind from the moment we heard about this retirement. You know, it is, politically speaking if you are not happy with your vice president and want her in a different role, there is no greater role than the Supreme Court. It is a role that anyone would be honored to have.”

She noted that there is no reporting on Kamala Harris to the Supreme Court and they were just speculating, but she continued. “It’s a possibility. I think she’s at least on the shortlist and maybe it’s a position she’d readily want to consider or accept given the challenges of the vice presidency. Given the frustrations she’s incurred,” she said.
https://conservativebrief.com/harris-co ... medium=539

Yeah Harris Faulkner, keep up that hard news show.

For the Right, this is a bonus. Associate Justice Kamala Harris on the Supreme Court frees up speculation that Biden will then slide Hillary Clinton in as his new VP and then resign to hand her the presidency. Bonus conspiracy!

NOTE: this is meant as a joke. It's *meant* as a joke.

Posted: **Thu Jan 27, 2022 1:56 pm**

I suspect Clyburn will have a say.

Posted: **Thu Jan 27, 2022 3:29 pm**

Mike Lindell just announced that President Trump will appoint Sidney Powell to replace Stephen Breyer by Valentines Day.

Posted: **Thu Jan 27, 2022 3:53 pm**

Read the resignation letter ... he's not leaving until his successor is nominated and confirmed. That's my take.

Posted: **Thu Jan 27, 2022 4:11 pm**

Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 11:26 am Shorter Collins, "Rushing is ok when my side is doing it."

"For the record," Collins was the only Republican to vote against Barrett's nomination.

Her publicly stated reason was that the nomination had been rushed. Rushed to right before an election ... in which Collins was seeking re-election.

(The Republicans had two votes to give to vulnerable incumbents.)

Posted: **Thu Jan 27, 2022 4:22 pm**

bob wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 4:11 pm
Slim Cognito wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 11:26 am Shorter Collins, "Rushing is ok when my side is doing it."
"For the record," Collins was the only Republican to vote against Barrett's nomination.

Her publicly stated reason was that the nomination had been rushed. Rushed to right before an election ... in which Collins was seeking re-election.

(The Republicans had two votes to give to vulnerable incumbents.)

I fergot about that.

Still.

Posted: **Thu Jan 27, 2022 4:45 pm**

I agree, she only voted no on Barrett because she was up for reelection and Republicans had the votes to spare. If she thinks Biden should wait until after the midterms to have someone confirmed, she is full of shit. There is almost a year. I don't know what the average time span is for confirming a new Supreme Court justice, but it shouldn't take until after the midterms.

Do they actually have to wait until the date of his resignation to start holding hearings? I would think all the hearings could start any time, and if necessary or required just the final confirmation vote held after the resignation date. But I don't think you should have to wait to hold hearings until after Breyer is officially retired.

Posted: **Thu Jan 27, 2022 4:56 pm**

RVInit wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 4:45 pm Do they actually have to wait until the date of his resignation to start holding hearings? I would think all the hearings could start any time, and if necessary or required just the final confirmation vote held after the resignation date. But I don't think you should have to wait to hold hearings until after Breyer is officially retired.

Breyer states in his resignation letter that his resignation isn't effective until his successor is confirmed. FWIW. I don't know anything about this, but I assume he would know how it works.

Posted: **Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:38 pm**

If it were Clarence Thomas, I think the GOP senators would already be dug in to obstruct the process.

Posted: **Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:47 pm**

New Turtle wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:38 pm If it were Clarence Thomas, I think the GOP senators would already be dug in to obstruct the process.

Concur (essentially): On the surface, the worst-case scenario for Republicans is if Biden nominates someone more liberal than Breyer. Which isn't all that bad (for them), because it'll still be 6-3, so suck it, libs. (And keep the powder dry.)

The actual worst-case scenario for Republicans is if Biden nominates someone who is more persuasive than Breyer. Someone who could peel off Roberts and Kavanaugh (where Breyers could not). Which is also not so bad for Republicans, because that's also unlikely.

Posted: **Fri Jan 28, 2022 7:43 am**

Chilidog wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 3:29 pm Mike Lindell just announced that President Trump will appoint Sidney Powell to replace Stephen Breyer by Valentines Day.

My first thought was

Chilidog, comic genius.

But now that we learn more about how the attempted coup almost succeeded, that seems a little more scary. Then think about who might have been in the cabinet.

Posted: **Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:59 am**

bob wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:41 pm
orlylicious wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:57 pm Bonus: The Fox News brain trust is running in circles.
Yeah: The tongue-wagging is that Brandon Biden is unhappy with Harris, and will tell her to take the SCOTUS seat because she's getting dumped in 2024.

There's no evidence to support that supposition; it is just baseless gossip. So of course FOX will lead with it.

At his press conference the other day, a reporter asked if he would guarantee 2 things. I forget what the first one was, but the 2nd was if he'd guarantee that Harris would be his running mate again if he runs for re-election. His answer was a very quick, very strong "Yes and yes." So there's that for whatever its worth.

Posted: **Fri Jan 28, 2022 2:38 pm**

Kriselda Gray wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:59 am
bob wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:41 pm
orlylicious wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 2:57 pm Bonus: The Fox News brain trust is running in circles.
Yeah: The tongue-wagging is that Brandon Biden is unhappy with Harris, and will tell her to take the SCOTUS seat because she's getting dumped in 2024.

There's no evidence to support that supposition; it is just baseless gossip. So of course FOX will lead with it.
At his press conference the other day, a reporter asked if he would guarantee 2 things. I forget what the first one was, but the 2nd was if he'd guarantee that Harris would be his running mate again if he runs for re-election. His answer was a very quick, very strong "Yes and yes." So there's that for whatever its worth.

She’s going to be whoever Clyburn wants nominated.

Posted: **Fri Jan 28, 2022 2:41 pm**

And that's how Republican talking points take up all the time that should be spent on, y'know, reality.

Posted: **Fri Jan 28, 2022 3:30 pm**

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 2:38 pm
Kriselda Gray wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:59 am
bob wrote: ↑Wed Jan 26, 2022 3:41 pm
Yeah: The tongue-wagging is that Brandon Biden is unhappy with Harris, and will tell her to take the SCOTUS seat because she's getting dumped in 2024.

There's no evidence to support that supposition; it is just baseless gossip. So of course FOX will lead with it.
At his press conference the other day, a reporter asked if he would guarantee 2 things. I forget what the first one was, but the 2nd was if he'd guarantee that Harris would be his running mate again if he runs for re-election. His answer was a very quick, very strong "Yes and yes." So there's that for whatever its worth.
She’s going to be whoever Clyburn wants nominated.

That's interesting because Clyburn has been making the cable TV rounds insisting it be Judge Childs. Although he says she's brilliant and comes from a non-Ivy background, he's also insisting that she has the support of Lindsey and *Tim Scott*. I am disappointed that any Democrat believes that Tim Scott is a man of his word (calling Corey Booker!!!). Ditto for Lindsey. But this will be the argument Clyburn makes and if Biden chooses her IMHO it will look like a direct payback (quid pro quo) to Clyburn.

Posted: **Fri Jan 28, 2022 4:39 pm**

filly wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 3:30 pm
pipistrelle wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 2:38 pm
Kriselda Gray wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:59 am
At his press conference the other day, a reporter asked if he would guarantee 2 things. I forget what the first one was, but the 2nd was if he'd guarantee that Harris would be his running mate again if he runs for re-election. His answer was a very quick, very strong "Yes and yes." So there's that for whatever its worth.
She’s going to be whoever Clyburn wants nominated.
That's interesting because Clyburn has been making the cable TV rounds insisting it be Judge Childs. Although he says she's brilliant and comes from a non-Ivy background, he's also insisting that she has the support of Lindsey and *Tim Scott*. I am disappointed that any Democrat believes that Tim Scott is a man of his word (calling Corey Booker!!!). Ditto for Lindsey. But this will be the argument Clyburn makes and if Biden chooses her IMHO it will look like a direct payback (quid pro quo) to Clyburn.

Biden promised Clyburn a Black woman. I’m just assuming he may want a say.

Posted: **Fri Jan 28, 2022 4:56 pm**

I won't bother linking, but I've seen a number of Twits posting today about how the new justice will need to recuse herself from any affirmative action or race based cases, as her position will be the result of a... race based quota.

None of them ever accuse tfg of using race based quotas despite the fact that what, NONE of his 53 appellate court appointments were Black?

Posted: **Fri Jan 28, 2022 7:46 pm**

I watched the presentation of Breyer twice. What a warm, thoughtful and wise man. His demeanor was Mr. Roger's. I look forward to hearing more from him.

Posted: **Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:04 pm**

pipistrelle wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 4:39 pm
filly wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 3:30 pm
pipistrelle wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 2:38 pm
She’s going to be whoever Clyburn wants nominated.
That's interesting because Clyburn has been making the cable TV rounds insisting it be Judge Childs. Although he says she's brilliant and comes from a non-Ivy background, he's also insisting that she has the support of Lindsey and *Tim Scott*. I am disappointed that any Democrat believes that Tim Scott is a man of his word (calling Corey Booker!!!). Ditto for Lindsey. But this will be the argument Clyburn makes and if Biden chooses her IMHO it will look like a direct payback (quid pro quo) to Clyburn.
Biden promised Clyburn a Black woman. I’m just assuming he may want a say.

He doesn’t get to dictate the choice though. I think this could hurt Judge Childs.

Posted: **Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:15 pm**

There appear to be many Black women qualified for SCOTUS. I've seen Clyburn talking about Judge Childs. Biden is fulfilling his promise to appoint a Black woman. I don't think that Clyburn has a right to name her, not when there are so many outstanding candidates. All of them are more qualified than at least the last two appointments.

Fogbow

SCOTUS

Re: SCOTUS

Re: SCOTUS

Re: SCOTUS

Re: SCOTUS

Re: SCOTUS

Re: SCOTUS

Re: SCOTUS

Re: SCOTUS

Re: SCOTUS

Re: SCOTUS

Re: SCOTUS

Re: SCOTUS

Re: SCOTUS

Re: SCOTUS

Re: SCOTUS

Re: SCOTUS

Re: SCOTUS

Re: SCOTUS

Re: SCOTUS

Re: SCOTUS

Re: SCOTUS

Re: SCOTUS

Re: SCOTUS

Re: SCOTUS

Re: SCOTUS