General Discussion

c-rational

(3,203 posts)

51. You are a DU treasure StarfishSaver. Thanks

Fri Dec 11, 2020, 11:14 PM

Dec 2020

PS - Have you ever heard the story of the little girl on the beach throwing starfish back into the sea and someone came along ans asked what she was doing and she told him. He replied she could not save them all, and she said well this one will appreciate what I am doing, and with that threw another into the sea. Along came a crowd and they were so impressed with her resolve everyone got involved and threw all the starfish back into the sea. The triumph of Spirit.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

65 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Please note: The Supreme Court decision tonight was actually a UNANIMOUS smackdown [View all] StarfishSaver Dec 2020 OP

Thx for weighing starfish!! Happy dance 💃 Thekaspervote Dec 2020 #1

Leave it to Democrats to find defeat in a victory, even one this obvious and warranted. TwilightZone Dec 2020 #2

Some people are just never satisfied StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #6

At times I question if they are supporters or adversaries. LiberalFighter Dec 2020 #28

I feel your frustration. *sigh* CaptainTruth Dec 2020 #52

The subtlety is the shade that makes us. cachukis Dec 2020 #50

What does, "no opinion" mean _(ツ)_/ Bluesaph Dec 2020 #3

They just said they were offering no opinion about any of the substance of the pleadings StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #4

Supreme Court rejects Texas' effort to overturn election in fatal blow to Trump legal blitz to stop elleng Dec 2020 #5

Yep! StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #7

Actually, Alito and Thomas have a point. Fortinbras Armstrong Dec 2020 #64

Right, their long-standing policy, to hear/entertain cases brought against one state by another; elleng Dec 2020 #65

haha....... i read that and my wife said "what does that mean"? Takket Dec 2020 #8

Exactly! StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #11

Short and succinct. n/t ms liberty Dec 2020 #45

Yes. It was. Laelth Dec 2020 #9

Even this is not quite right. VMA131Marine Dec 2020 #10

Exactly. There's a whole lot of whining about the Thomas and Alito "dissents," The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2020 #12

Interesting that the 3 justices Trump installed weren't willing to even consider the case StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #14

Good! I hope has a major stroke over it. Lonestarblue Dec 2020 #35

Agreed. But wouldn't it have been a better for us if they heard the case and made a negative ruling? DEbluedude Dec 2020 #13

No. StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #15

Ok, I get it. DEbluedude Dec 2020 #19

Exactly. It was thrown out on procedure - but the procedure failed because it completely lacked StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #20

You are a DU treasure StarfishSaver. Thanks c-rational Dec 2020 #51

It's not just "procedural" -- a state cannot supervise and second-guess another state's elections Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2020 #24

Yes StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #25

Wish they would've used your words exactly. :) Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2020 #27

Didn't their refusal to hear the case also wnylib Dec 2020 #44

Yes StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #54

I get it. DEbluedude Dec 2020 #26

Not sure it's sedition. Might be rebellion. Hermit-The-Prog Dec 2020 #33

It's not sedition StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #34

OK, but I think it does at least teeter on the edge of sedition. DEbluedude Dec 2020 #40

It may be close, but when it comes to whether an actual crime was committed, StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #46

This may help (no extra charge for the smile) soldierant Dec 2020 #62

noooooooooooooooooo obamanut2012 Dec 2020 #16

I recall reading an opinion (don't remember whose it was) to the effect The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2020 #17

Your first sentence summed up my original thoughts perfectly. DEbluedude Dec 2020 #21

I never posted it, but I thought that way. Mr.Bill Dec 2020 #31

Yah, granted, but this what seemed ?? to some of us, me included, was giving me/us the sprinkleeninow Dec 2020 #42

They did, to the extent possible and relevant: elleng Dec 2020 #18

The Court very skillfully shot down the merits in one succinct sentence about procedure StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #22

Yes, they handled it exactly as they should have. The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2020 #23

Alito and Thomas would only have allowed TX DeminPennswoods Dec 2020 #29

They didn't allow the filing because they have no jurisdiction to hear such a case StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #36

Yes, it was unanimous but for two distinct reasons. What's great is that trump's three appointees... George II Dec 2020 #30

Perhaps Trump has been doing all this fundraising luvtheGWN Dec 2020 #47

That pot of money is going straight to his creditors StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #49

Well said . . . credit where credit is due . . . OneBlueSky Dec 2020 #57

Absolutely K&R...!!! spanone Dec 2020 #32

Exactly what I predicted. onenote Dec 2020 #37

Yes. Their position is that the Court must allow original jurisdiction cases to be filed. StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #38

OMG! I left for a couple of hours & Cha Dec 2020 #39

Supreme Court: "Gitaddaheah!" NBachers Dec 2020 #41

I'm not on Twitter, but birdographer Dec 2020 #43

It went exactly the way I thought it would, and predicted. BobTheSubgenius Dec 2020 #48

It was a LANDSLIDE, yo Blue Owl Dec 2020 #53

K&R betsuni Dec 2020 #55

My friends laughed when i told them "Barrett & Kavenaugh arent giving you an election" oldsoftie Dec 2020 #56

Smackdown complete ;) BlueWavePsych Dec 2020 #58

That was the expected outcome. malthaussen Dec 2020 #59

The dissent agrees with you StarfishSaver Dec 2020 #60

They got too greedy. Only way he could win in the end was to ask Laura PourMeADrink Dec 2020 #61

I would love to be a fly on the wall Dukkha Dec 2020 #63