Uncle Clarence's wife now a teabagger activist

Started by CountDeMoney, March 16, 2010, 05:56:21 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Syt

I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.
—Stephen Jay Gould

Proud owner of 42 Zoupa Points.

derspiess

Quote from: grumbler on March 16, 2010, 12:20:07 PM
I get an odd sense of enjoyment watching Spicey dance on his crank about "stereotypical black men." 

:huh:
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

Jacob

So it's unproblematic in the US if the spouses of supreme court judges are political activists?

Eddie Teach

Quote from: Jacob on March 16, 2010, 01:12:58 PM
So it's unproblematic in the US if the spouses of supreme court judges are political activists?

I think if anything her group's involved with came before the court, he'd be ethically bound to recuse himself. And yeah, it does look bad. But ultimately, it's a free country and she can do what she wants.
To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?

DGuller

Quote from: Jacob on March 16, 2010, 01:12:58 PM
So it's unproblematic in the US if the spouses of supreme court judges are political activists?
If it's ok for the spouses of the spouses, why should it be different for the spouses?

garbon

Laura Ingraham was cool till cancer struck her.  Then she went batshit and stopped having reports from her gay brother in Marin.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Eddie Teach

Quote from: DGuller on March 16, 2010, 02:06:22 PM
If it's ok for the spouses of the spouses, why should it be different for the spouses?

Yeah, to an untrained and sporadic observer of supreme court cases like myself, it does appear politics rather than "judicial philosophy" is usually the determinant of how the justices vote.  :glare:
To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?

Malthus

She married Thomas. It is no wonder she enjoys a good teabagging.   :D
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane—Marcus Aurelius

garbon

Quote from: Malthus on March 16, 2010, 02:29:18 PM
She married Thomas. It is no wonder she enjoys a good teabagging.   :D

racist?
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Malthus

Quote from: garbon on March 16, 2010, 02:31:48 PM
Quote from: Malthus on March 16, 2010, 02:29:18 PM
She married Thomas. It is no wonder she enjoys a good teabagging.   :D

racist?

Given that she married a Black guy, I'm assuming not. But you bring up a good point: being racist would add an extra element of humiliation! For some, that would be extra hott.  :D
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane—Marcus Aurelius

garbon

Quote from: Malthus on March 16, 2010, 02:41:41 PM
Given that she married a Black guy, I'm assuming not. But you bring up a good point: being racist would add an extra element of humiliation! For some, that would be extra hott.  :D

:rolleyes:
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

DGuller

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 16, 2010, 02:24:56 PM
Quote from: DGuller on March 16, 2010, 02:06:22 PM
If it's ok for the spouses of the spouses, why should it be different for the spouses?

Yeah, to an untrained and sporadic observer of supreme court cases like myself, it does appear politics rather than "judicial philosophy" is usually the determinant of how the justices vote.  :glare:
Maybe a legal expert like Misky can justify it, but to me, whenever important cases like "Should police require consent before performing summary executions?" are decided by the 5-4 majority, and you ALWAYS know who the 5 and the 4 are, the credibility of the court is eroded.  How can such decisions be seriously respected as precedent when they're one heartbeat away from being decided completely in reverse?

Admiral Yi

Quote from: DGuller on March 16, 2010, 03:25:08 PM
Maybe a legal expert like Misky can justify it, but to me, whenever important cases like "Should police require consent before performing summary executions?" are decided by the 5-4 majority, and you ALWAYS know who the 5 and the 4 are, the credibility of the court is eroded.  How can such decisions be seriously respected as precedent when they're one heartbeat away from being decided completely in reverse?
I think decisions with larger majorities *are* given more weight.

CountDeMoney

Quote from: derspiess on March 16, 2010, 08:41:40 AM
I get an odd sense of enjoyment in watching non-stereotypical black men bring out Seedy's racism.

Just Clarence Thomas.  Still plays house boy to Massa Scalia.

Jaron

Hey Malthus, Spiess, et al.

Why not just drop the subterfuge and get the nigger jokes rolling?
Winner of THE grumbler point.