Jump to content

bnm73

Members
  • Posts

    1,424
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

bnm73's Achievements

  1. I'm sorry if you're offended, but according to https://sites.google.com/site/therabbishmuelbennachmani/his-life-a-biograph, Rabbi Shmuel Ben Nachmani lived in the times after Jesus (round about the 3rd century). The Torah was written before Jesus. It would stand to reason that his writings wold not be part of the Torah. Am I missing something? Am I mistaken? It's been known to happen.
  2. For some reason, he doesn't strike me as the person of integrity, as much as an opportunist. Sort of like a leech. Like leeches, he might be useful in certain situations. Like a leech, I don't think I'd want him with his proverbial finger on the button.
  3. If you're more afraid of a random act of "terror," that's your own issue.
  4. Or possibly measured, self-controlled, etc. Or you take your few minutes of dressing down and suck it up. If you can't handle being chewed out without becoming a sweatty-toothed madman, then wtf are you doing in the chair in the first place? No, that was Yertle the Turtle's doing...to prevent a feared filibuster of Gorsuch. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/mcconnell-went-nuclear-confirm-gorsuch-democrats-changed-senate-filibuster-rules-n887271 A simple majority was needed under Democrats for lower-level courts and such (due to obstructionism leaving dozens of extended vacancies), but SCOTUS nominees still could have faced a filibuster. Then Yertle changed the rule for SCOTUS nominees. The next logical step, no doubt...but it was McConnell's step, nonetheless.
  5. The "good old days" when women and minorities "knew their place?" When Jews were kept out of "restricted" country clubs, housing divisions, etc.? Unless one has a TARDIS, wishing for the way things used to be (and likely never actually were) is kind of pointless, isn't it?
  6. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/28/trump-emoluments-lawsuit-ruling-853272 "A federal district judge in Washington says a group of nearly 200 Democratic senators and representatives has legal standing to sue President Donald Trump to prove he violated the U.S. Constitution’s emoluments provision banning the acceptance of gifts from foreign interests. The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan found that lawmakers have adequately shown that they’ve suffered harm from the president’s alleged violation of the emoluments clause, which bans benefits from foreign governments unless a majority of both houses of Congress consent. The ruling was the second time a federal court judge has decided to advance such unprecedented constitutional lawsuits against the president. A federal judge in Maryland ruled in July that a similar lawsuit against Trump filed by the attorneys general for Maryland and the District of Columbia could proceed, but only as pertained to earnings from Trump’s Washington, D.C., hotel." This obviously is merely a first step in what would be a tedious and wonky lawsuit....which would probably drag on so long that Trump would no longer be in office by the time it was decided, rendering it moot. (Not that I'm cynical.) But this way we get to continue having one party arguing that the other is more corrupt and vice versa.
  7. Correct. The Talmud is not the Torah. One is commentaries. The other is the proverbial scripture.
  8. You can suggest whatever you like. In that context, it was their job to ask pointed questions. It was not his job to try to shut them up by talking over them and interrupting them and wasting their limited time. If you can't sit there and take a dressing down (deserved or not) for a few minutes, you do not have the temperament to be on the high court. The more I think on his behavior yesterday, the less I think he would make a worthwhile justice. I'm coming to believe that he would be a stain on the history of SCOTUS, more worthy of Taney much more than of Holmes.
  9. Theoretically, Trump or the DOJ can decide not to release the information to the Senate. They can come up with some cockamamie reason to classify it, I'm sure. Since it's safe to assume that there are not the votes to pass Kavanaugh at this time (why else would they be finally requesting additional background checking?), not giving the information to the Senate would likely doom Kavanaugh on the floor of the Senate. Something tells me Flake knew that Kavanaugh didn't have the votes, or that if he said "I'm voting no on the floor vote unless someone actually looks at this" that others on his side of the aisle would agree. Which means, all said and done, that if Grassley and Yertle the Turtle had asked for it in the first place, then the country's time wouldn't have been wasted, and the Committee would have had actual information to ask about at the hearing yesterday.
  10. Whoever the next Democratic president is, would it be poetic justice if their first SCOTUS appointment is a rape survivor?
  11. Hopefully, this will be a relatively simple diversion. Some people prefer opera (though not many these days, it seems). Some are all about the current Top 40. Some hold on to a singer from their youth. When you think the words "great singer," what name pops immediately to your head? For me, it would have to be Ella Fitzgerald, even though she was "before my time." She had a way of making everything she sang seem like it was the easiest thing in the world. Her pitch was darned-near perfect long before people were using Autotune. She could scat with the best in jazz, but her interpretation of songs from "Porgy and Bess" can bring a tear to your eye. Who's next?
×
×
  • Create New...