Senator calls gorsuch, alito, and thomas "horsemen of the apocalypse"

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

What happens when they get a fourth member?  They can start a boy band?

[krazen1211]

What happens when they get a fourth member?  They can start a boy band?

That's sexist. The next horseperson might be a woman. With the nuclear option detonated there is nothing that Mazie can do but squeal.

[Coraxion]

She's not wrong.

[Mr. Reactionary]

She's not wrong.

Well no she's not wrong, but then again she's expressing pure opinion, which means she is also not right ...

[TJ in Oregon]

She's not wrong.

Well no she's not wrong, but then again she's expressing pure opinion, which means she is also not right ...

Eh, opinions can in fact be right or wrong. She could theoretically be right if they are in fact the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse who have come riding out of scrolls unsealed by the Lamb of God as the end times are unleashed. I suppose that counts as "extremism".

I'm not holding my breath on this one though. It seems, uh, unlikely. Apocalyptic predictions are not generally good bets.

[MarkD]

These were the original Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (from the 1920s and 30s).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willis_Van_Devanter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clark_McReynolds
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Sutherland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_Butler_(justice)

But look at when each of them left the Court. It happened within just four years. Van Devanter retired in June, 1937; Sutherland retired January 1938; Butler died in November, 1939; McReynolds retired January, 1941. It took less than four years to see them all leave the bench. How long do you think it will take for Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch to leave?

Not that I have any greater desire to see them leave the Court than liberals like Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. As far as I'm concerned, they're all mediocrities, irrespective of whether they're conservative or liberal. Kennedy is the worst. Possibly Chief Justice Roberts is the best of the current Justices. Maybe. But I still wish we had a Supreme Court with folks like Holmes, Cardozo, and Black, not these mediocrities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Wendell_Holmes_Jr.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_N._Cardozo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Black

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What happens when they get a fourth member?  They can start a boy band?

That's sexist. The next horseperson might be a woman.

Extremely unlikely that Trump would appoint a female justice unless he thinks she has a nice smile.  Trump is easily the most sexist President we've had since at least Harding.

[krazen1211]

What happens when they get a fourth member?  They can start a boy band?

That's sexist. The next horseperson might be a woman.

Extremely unlikely that Trump would appoint a female justice unless he thinks she has a nice smile.  Trump is easily the most sexist President we've had since at least Harding.

That's interesting. He has nominated several of the women from the list to the circuit courts. Those folks are being blue slip blocked by obstructionist Democrats.

[The Self]

Who gives a ? Is it gonna hurt his pwecious feewings?

[The_Doctor]

They aren't bad justices, or jurists to be honest. But I'm probably partial to their jurisprudence, for the most part. I'm sympathetic, for the most part, to the Court's rulings and interpretation of the Constitution (particularly the "Constitution - in - Exile"). 

For example, as far as the Horsemen go, I agree with Citizens United, I dissent in Obergefell v. Winterfell, and I don't agree with NIB v. Sebelius. The "horsemen" would be more in line with my thinking.

That said, I would hope for a Court that integrates a Kennedy - Gorsuch blend of jurisprudence. We need both types on the Court to make the most effective conservative rulings without being so reactionary that we blunt the good effects of constructionist rulings

[The Self]

They aren't bad justices, or jurists to be honest. But I'm probably partial to their jurisprudence, for the most part. I'm sympathetic, for the most part, to the Court's rulings and interpretation of the Constitution (particularly the "Constitution - in - Exile"). 

For example, as far as the Horsemen go, I agree with Citizens United, I dissent in Obergefell v. Winterfell, and I don't agree with NIB v. Sebelius. The "horsemen" would be more in line with my thinking.

That said, I would hope for a Court that integrates a Kennedy - Gorsuch blend of jurisprudence. We need both types on the Court to make the most effective conservative rulings without being so reactionary that we blunt the good effects of constructionist rulings

Do you ever listen to yourself?

[The_Doctor]

They aren't bad justices, or jurists to be honest. But I'm probably partial to their jurisprudence, for the most part. I'm sympathetic, for the most part, to the Court's rulings and interpretation of the Constitution (particularly the "Constitution - in - Exile"). 

For example, as far as the Horsemen go, I agree with Citizens United, I dissent in Obergefell v. Winterfell, and I don't agree with NIB v. Sebelius. The "horsemen" would be more in line with my thinking.

That said, I would hope for a Court that integrates a Kennedy - Gorsuch blend of jurisprudence. We need both types on the Court to make the most effective conservative rulings without being so reactionary that we blunt the good effects of constructionist rulings

Do you ever listen to yourself?

I expressed a right wing view on jurisprudence. I was also indirectly disputing Senator Hirono's account of the justices. So yes?

[Badger]

What happens when they get a fourth member?  They can start a boy band?

That's sexist. The next horseperson might be a woman.

Extremely unlikely that Trump would appoint a female justice unless he thinks she has a nice smile.  Trump is easily the most sexist President we've had since at least Harding.

That's interesting. He has nominated several of the women from the list to the circuit courts. Those folks are being blue slip blocked by obstructionist Democrats.

Having seen several of the names nominated, good. Women's rights will be much stronger without them.

Krazen is just worried that the war on whites will be extended to a war on white men.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What happens when they get a fourth member?  They can start a boy band?

That's sexist. The next horseperson might be a woman.

Extremely unlikely that Trump would appoint a female justice unless he thinks she has a nice smile.  Trump is easily the most sexist President we've had since at least Harding.

That's interesting. He has nominated several of the women from the list to the circuit courts.

What's interesting is the idea that at the circuit court level he'll bother to do more than ratify people his flunkies have made certain aren't Democrats and haven't spoken ill of him. If he spent time choosing between candidates for circuit court vacancies, it would cut into his tweeting time and we both know which he considers more important for a modern day president.

[krazen1211]

What happens when they get a fourth member?  They can start a boy band?

That's sexist. The next horseperson might be a woman.

Extremely unlikely that Trump would appoint a female justice unless he thinks she has a nice smile.  Trump is easily the most sexist President we've had since at least Harding.

That's interesting. He has nominated several of the women from the list to the circuit courts.

What's interesting is the idea that at the circuit court level he'll bother to do more than ratify people his flunkies have made certain aren't Democrats and haven't spoken ill of him. If he spent time choosing between candidates for circuit court vacancies, it would cut into his tweeting time and we both know which he considers more important for a modern day president.

If you believe this, why did you post this before? You should choose one theory or another, but not both at the same time.


Extremely unlikely that Trump would appoint a female justice unless he thinks she has a nice smile.  Trump is easily the most sexist President we've had since at least Harding.

For the record, though, at least some of those female nominees are both under 50 and normal body weight, unlike certain former Offensive Line size nominees, so I suspect they could adhere to your criteria with a bit of work under the knife.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What happens when they get a fourth member?  They can start a boy band?

That's sexist. The next horseperson might be a woman.

Extremely unlikely that Trump would appoint a female justice unless he thinks she has a nice smile.  Trump is easily the most sexist President we've had since at least Harding.

That's interesting. He has nominated several of the women from the list to the circuit courts.

What's interesting is the idea that at the circuit court level he'll bother to do more than ratify people his flunkies have made certain aren't Democrats and haven't spoken ill of him. If he spent time choosing between candidates for circuit court vacancies, it would cut into his tweeting time and we both know which he considers more important for a modern day president.

If you believe this, why did you post this before? You should choose one theory or another, but not both at the same time.


Extremely unlikely that Trump would appoint a female justice unless he thinks she has a nice smile.  Trump is easily the most sexist President we've had since at least Harding.

For the record, though, at least some of those female nominees are both under 50 and normal body weight, unlike certain former Offensive Line size nominees, so I suspect they could adhere to your criteria with a bit of work under the knife.

You need to learn how to read. There's zero contradiction in believing that Trump will be personally involved in choosing Supreme Court Justices that receive widespread press coverage and minimally involved in choosing Circuit Court Judges that only political junkies such as ourselves will pay attention to. The man is the utter definition of a publicity hound.

[Badger]

Krazen is a troll, and an awful human being as opposed to someone with abhorrent politics, back-to-back episodes #2392 & 3. 

[Figueira]

Without reading anything but the title, I think this might be my new favorite Senator. Brian Schatz?

EDIT: Darn, I was so close. At least I got the state right.