uncool2pillow

No doubt there are ominous concerns, especially in your home state. And while we are far from perfect in terms of equality of LGBT, we have made incredible progress.

I agree with everything you say except above. This is empirically false. There has been negative reaction against the acceptance our laws now grant, no doubt. Overall, though, I can't think of a better time to be gay in America. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They're on Fallon Friday night.

If it makes you feel any better, I have a hate for the Clintons that is not quite visceral, but very, very real, especially Hillary. I think she wants nothing more in this world than to be president. Not to serve, but to have the distinction of being the first woman president. Having said that, the day Trump seals the nomination is the day I re-register to vote. Probably as an independent, but possibly as a Democrat. I will proudly vote for Clinton even if there is a conservative 3rd party candidate because I would want to be very, very sure my vote would work to keep Drumpf out of the White

I think the number of opponents each candidates has faced makes this a pretty irrelevant tweet.

I was just thinking about this. I'm not sure whether I agree. Both are pretty scary. I think Cruz especially shows some Nixon-like levels of deceit and paranoia. On the other hand, I cannot think of a more thin-skinned politician than Trump. Trump's policies would probably end up being more moderate than Cruz. I can almost believe the sheep in wolf's clothing I've heard others mention. I don't think he'd give a shit about gay marriage or abortion, which is good. Though he'd probably appoint justices who did give a shit. The thing that worries me most is his demagoguery, especially as it rela

Can't really take credit for that. My H.S. Government teacher relished the story of some hippies who made buttons that had the chemical formula for urine followed by "On AuH2O". I think that's probably apocryphal as there can't really be one chemical formula for urine. It would be interesting to go back to research the Taft nomination. Were the Republicans in control of Congress? Were there concerns about potential conflicts of interest? A cursory glance at Wikipedia doesn't hint at any of this.

One issue with nominating Obama or anyone else who has served in Congress or as president is the conflict of interest. There would be a lot of cases where a principled justice would have to recuse themselves.

I tend to agree with Kevin (rare for me). Clinton is Machiavellian enough to move Republicans in a way that Obama and Sanders might not. Interesting analogy re: Sanders and AuH2O. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://youtu.be/ATSTjjEMmuk David Bowie Guest D.J. on BBC around 1979.

I love that Spotify has all the Dick's Picks and lots of other live stuff. As a casual fan, it's a great way to explore. NP: Dick's Picks 32 - 8/7/82 at Alpine Valley

So good!

No reason? Are you not familiar with one of the most sound and ancient of all legal principles?!? Finders keepers?!? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And it's the same crazies.

I like Kasich, but yeah, not cool. In my experience, the best way to spread so-called Judeo-Christian values is to quietly live them.

I honestly don't dispute that you honestly feel that way. I just doubt that this forum would be as replete with condemnations if the shoe was on the other foot. Imagine if RBG had died in February 2008 and Schumer and other Democrats said they didn't want Bush to tip the balance of the court with yet another conservative nominee. Maybe you can imagine outrage being expressed on by the same people on this board currently condemning the Republicans. But I will say it again. I find it implausible.

Because I am skeptical that the mostly left-leaning membership of this forum would be devoting so much time and energy to condemning a Democratic Senate for taking a similar course of action, which they most certainly would if the shoe was on the other foot. I find it simply implausible.

I will take you at your word. I tend to view myself as a political moderate. If I were very liberal or conservative I could see myself being very worried about an opposition president making a lifetime appointment so late in their term. I can understand, but not justify Schumer in 2007 or the Republicans today. Especially considering how big of a swing this makes in the court's alignment. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quick question: Was Schumer a petty bullshit artist in 2007? If so, would you be as angry about it? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And, as my above post confirms, exactly what Chuck Shumer wanted to do in July of 2007, seven months earlier in Bush's term. Not saying either side is right, but Schumer's comments this weekend are absolutely hypocritical. So fucking tired of this two-party system.

Bwahahaha!! http://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146

Not defending the Senate, but they get a say in this. If they want to obstruct, that is their right. Then it becomes the right of the electorate to hold them accountable. I've never not voted for Charles Grassley, but he's losing it recently, sounding a lot more like a FoxNews drone than the independent voice he used to. If he goes along with this obstruction (and I fully expect him to) he will most likely lose my vote. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fair point there.

And yet those liberals who knew him the best valued his friendship.