Republicans swore when they wouldn't hear Obama nominations in an election year that the same would go for Trump...obviously that was a total lie just like everything they say.

I think anyone who accepts the nomination before the election results is putting a target on their forehead along with their family, and I'll donate to the shooter's defense fund.
luxintenebrisjokingly says...

the grand old party is as good as their word.

why should we worry? deny the president was guilty and removing him, only strengthen america's chances against a killer virus...right? pence would have been worse on the covid response...right? like pontius pilate the call was in their hands.

these are the same folks that say corporations are people, we can wait on infrastructure, healthcare and education necessities, they can channel the forefathers, and the almighty put their presidential candidates on the ballot.

as the god chosen they've divine this is the time to start another holy war. during a time when...
- a virus cold war is going on. rubes with attitudes spitting lines about constitutionality and freedom (spitting being the keyword). then accusations that the spit-upon are politizing the disease
- blm movements meeting up w/the far-right press and punks
- half the country is on fire and the other under water
- homelessness, evictions, unemployment, and the real possibility of a bone-crushing depression settling in longer than covid itself...

...and now the might right wants to add to the fire. like they are running a gender identification party.

any wonder my moscow mitch had a 13% approval rating? if the republicans hate their representatives, what chance does anything else have?

sure. justice cruz will be a salve to soothe the burn. like ethanol in hell.

newtboyjokingly says...

Hey! I'm eating, and you just made me throw up a little.

On second thought, not only will no jury convict me, no one would even care to prosecute, making him the perfect candidate.

luxintenebrissaid:

sure. justice cruz will be a salve to soothe the burn. like ethanol in hell.

bobknight33says...

Lets be frank.
Lyndsey Graham is a POS. He a political tool and goes with political wind.

The nicest thing I can say about him is that I hope he joins his friend ( also a POS) John McCain .


WRT of supreme court nomination. My first thought was no, not till after election. Then Democrats ranted and screamed that would pack the court and a few other things.

POTUS job is to nominate, as did Obama. Dems did not control the senate. Mitch McConnell was / is the Senate Majority Leader. It is his decision to or not to advise and consent.

AS to now the court will be conservative if Trumps pick goes through, that implies that it was had a liberal slant.

Sounds like liberals don't want that to happen

This is America it swings to the left for a while then to the right.

newtboysaid:

@bobknight33, I'm waiting with bells on to hear your excuse for this hypocrisy.

newtboysays...

Same goes for any other Republican that said the same and now wants a blitzkrieg to install a non judge (before her recent appointment by Trump and a woman who intends to legislate based on the bible) at an accelerated speed not seen in history not the constitution, right? Of course that's right.
So you support immediately impeaching everyone who's followed suit. Cool.

It's going to be a 6-3 supreme court with 3 being sycophants not professionals.

Yes, it's his decision, which patriots make based on national best interest but the right flip flops their thinking based on what's politically expedient, what's best for them, and precedent or their solemn word means nothing if it doesn't help them today, they're willing dishonest, disingenuous hypocrites but you love that.

The court today is heavily conservative now, 5-3, and will stay 5-4 conservative without him filling the slot during an election. Can't you count to 8?

At least when they get the power, democrats are poised to add as many seats as necessary to balance it.

Tell me when it's been a 6-3 liberal court.
Tell me when a lame duck president has confirmed a court pick during an election.
Tell me when the last time you sucked off a 13 year old boy was.
Tell me!

bobknight33said:

Lets be frank.
Lyndsey Graham is a POS. He a political tool and goes with political wind.

The nicest thing I can say about him is that I hope he joins his friend ( also a POS) John McCain .


WRT of supreme court nomination. My first thought was no, not till after election. Then Democrats ranted and screamed that would pack the court and a few other things.

POTUS job is to nominate, as did Obama. Dems did not control the senate. Mitch McConnell was / is the Senate Majority Leader. It is his decision to or not to advise and consent.

AS to now the court will be conservative if Trumps pick goes through, that implies that it was had a liberal slant.

Sounds like liberals don't want that to happen

This is America it swings to the left for a while then to the right.

cloudballoonsays...

The fact that a President can get 3 partisan judges in one term to the SCOTUS is madness. No matter the leaning.

Take the selection power away from the President. Why should a SCOTUS judge be a Presidential pick in the first place? It should belong to the people.

I think a fair minded party SHOULD pack the court to fix the system. However, the method need to be different than the President nominate/Senate approve process currently in place. Use a lottery type of system is an option. House/Senate Republicans and Democrats each gets to choose the same amount of nominations (vetted by both sides) and then the selection is done by lottery. That'll ensure some form of randomized fairness, and the judges aren't so overly partisan.

bobknight33says...

The court was leaning 1 way and now can swing back the other way and you think its madness?

It sounds like our Constitution is working just fine.

President nominate/Senate approve process is the check and balance.

cloudballoonsaid:

The fact that a President can get 3 partisan judges in one term to the SCOTUS is madness. No matter the leaning.

Take the selection power away from the President. Why should a SCOTUS judge be a Presidential pick in the first place? It should belong to the people.

I think a fair minded party SHOULD pack the court to fix the system. However, the method need to be different than the President nominate/Senate approve process currently in place. Use a lottery type of system is an option. House/Senate Republicans and Democrats each gets to choose the same amount of nominations (vetted by both sides) and then the selection is done by lottery. That'll ensure some form of randomized fairness, and the judges aren't so overly partisan.

cloudballoonsays...

Having situations where lapdogs rubber stamping nominees because they're on the same side is "check and balance"?

I absolutely believe if the situation is reversed, I fully expect the same shenanigans from the Democrats abusing their power. That's politics and there lay the core issue.

The SCOTUS should be as apolitical as possible. A system where the people or the other parties CAN get no say by design... that's madness. That's a broken system that need to be fixed.

The founding fathers or the Constitution may have faith in the system. But today, there's ample proof that their faith is misplaced. Hyper-partisanship has FUBAR everything in Washington.

bobknight33said:

The court was leaning 1 way and now can swing back the other way and you think its madness?

It sounds like our Constitution is working just fine.

President nominate/Senate approve process is the check and balance.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists




notify when someone comments
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
  
Learn More