# Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election



## Aletheia4u

They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings. 
 And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..



Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.

Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.

But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.

McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.

Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.








						Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
					

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.




					www.washingtonexaminer.com


----------



## Obiwan

Fuck the Schmuck...

Trump should go for it!!!!


----------



## candycorn

Aletheia4u said:


> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com



That was the precedent that was set in 2016.

However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins.  And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.


----------



## Polishprince

Chuck U. Schumer is a hypocrite deluxe.    In 2016, he tried to ram through Merrick Garland's nomination even though it was an election year.

Now, he changes his tune.  He should be told to "F" off


----------



## mudwhistle

Aletheia4u said:


> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com


Sorry Chuck.....we don't negotiate with terrorists.


----------



## Obiwan

candycorn said:


> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the precedent that was set in 2016.
> 
> However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins.  And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
Click to expand...

In case you can't figure it out, the Senate has a say....

And they can change the "precedent" if they want to....

The Democrats did it all the time when THEY were in charge!!!!!


----------



## Quasar44

Aletheia4u said:


> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com


Let me tell you about the fat schmuck Schumer
. He is a Bolshevik fraud and a pimp to Big Business , Big Tech , Dirty lawyers are nothing else

He is basically a giant greasy slab of cornbeef  with 2 eyes, 2 ears and a huge mouth
. Hs is very smart but has less morals than Stalin


----------



## Camp

Rushing a Supreme Court nominee will guarantee two things, the increased incentive for electing a Democratic Senate and pressure on Republican incumbents, and the likelihood of a Democrat President and Senate increasing the size of Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court.


----------



## Votto

Aletheia4u said:


> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com


Why on earth is Schumer not wanting Trump to fill the position news?   It's like telling people that the sky is blue.

Democrats have shown their ass after what they pulled with justice Kavenaugh.   They will resist at any price no matter who it is and have no moral scruples about how they go about it.

And make no mistake, if the democrats owned the Senate and the White House, nothing would stop them from filling the seat. 

Nothing!


----------



## Quasar44

Only in NYC can such a nefarious and demonic man rise to the top


----------



## candycorn

Obiwan said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the precedent that was set in 2016.
> 
> However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins.  And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In case you can't figure it out, the Senate has a say....
> 
> And they can change the "precedent" if they want to....
> 
> The Democrats did it all the time when THEY were in charge!!!!!
Click to expand...

True.

Except instead of changing the precedent set by the other party, turtle is changing his own precedent he set 48 months ago.


----------



## Quasar44

Camp said:


> Rushing a Supreme Court nominee will guarantee two things, the increased incentive for electing a Democratic Senate and pressure on Republican incumbents, and the likelihood of a Democrat President and Senate increasing the size of Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court.


Yes but they’re planning on doing it anyways but they may not take back the Senate


----------



## xband

Aletheia4u said:


> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com


Astounding in the least.


----------



## Votto

This is what the GOP is up against

When Justice Kavenaugh first had his hearing, this was the type of left wing response









						Protester Smears Menstrual Bloody Mess in Kavanaugh Hearing - The Shad Olson Show
					

The bloody deranged left: A woman resists Capitol security attempts to remove her from the Kavanaugh committee hearing even as she apparently menstruates all over her clothing and chair. As cameras cut away and committee members struggled to restore order to the Senate Judiciary Committee...



					www.shadolsonshow.com
				








Here we have a "woman" smearing her mensuration all over her body so that the police won't want to forceably remove her when she started to shout obscenities at the justice

And this was all before the sexual abuse allegations.

Democrats are vile animals, and need to be treated as such.


----------



## Polishprince

Camp said:


> Rushing a Supreme Court nominee will guarantee two things, the increased incentive for electing a Democratic Senate and pressure on Republican incumbents, and the likelihood of a Democrat President and Senate increasing the size of Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court.




I don't know about that.  But I do know that having hearings next month on the new Supreme Court justice would show the liberals as the nasty, ill tempered individuals they are, which can be contrasted with the President pounding out more peace agreements with warring nations and accepting Nobel Peace nominations. in the WH.


----------



## Quasar44

The Republicans are weak and spineless !!
If these rapacious morons would have blocked the influx of tens of millions of peasants decades ago ; then they would be controlling every branch because their policies work 
 They refused to stop the influx of tens of millions of new peasants who vote blue


----------



## Camp

Quasar44 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rushing a Supreme Court nominee will guarantee two things, the increased incentive for electing a Democratic Senate and pressure on Republican incumbents, and the likelihood of a Democrat President and Senate increasing the size of Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but they’re planning on doing it anyways but they may not take back the Senate
Click to expand...

Rushing a nominee in before the election or new President and Senate will give the Dem's a rewarding excuse and support.


----------



## Quasar44

Camp said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rushing a Supreme Court nominee will guarantee two things, the increased incentive for electing a Democratic Senate and pressure on Republican incumbents, and the likelihood of a Democrat President and Senate increasing the size of Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but they’re planning on doing it anyways but they may not take back the Senate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rushing a nominee in before the election or new President and Senate will give the Dem's a rewarding excuse and support.
Click to expand...

It’s a common practice since Washington 
They will try to expand and stack the court , anyways
 F them


----------



## xband

Polishprince said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rushing a Supreme Court nominee will guarantee two things, the increased incentive for electing a Democratic Senate and pressure on Republican incumbents, and the likelihood of a Democrat President and Senate increasing the size of Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about that.  But I do know that having hearings next month on the new Supreme Court justice would show the liberals as the nasty, ill tempered individuals they are, which can be contrasted with the President pounding out more peace agreements with warring nations and accepting Nobel Peace nominations. in the WH.
Click to expand...

Democrats are powerless, bless their hearts.


----------



## Camp

Quasar44 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rushing a Supreme Court nominee will guarantee two things, the increased incentive for electing a Democratic Senate and pressure on Republican incumbents, and the likelihood of a Democrat President and Senate increasing the size of Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but they’re planning on doing it anyways but they may not take back the Senate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rushing a nominee in before the election or new President and Senate will give the Dem's a rewarding excuse and support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a common practice since Washington
> They will try to expand and stack the court , anyways
> F them
Click to expand...

It's a huge gamble for Republicans and the results could be huge and overwhelming.


----------



## wamose

Schumer is a disrespectful weasel blowing off poor Ruth's death and concentrating on stacking the SC with radical lefties. He forgot about her before she was cold the same way they forgot about Blasey-Ford after Kavanaugh was confirmed. Schumer is a classless opportunist. And his statement about delaying an appointment to give people a say is ridiculous.  He says we should wait until we get a new President. Will someone please tell him that this is only Trump's first term. Waiting until 2024 for a new President is an absurd idea that only a buffoon like Schumer or Pelosi would come up with. MAGA


----------



## Quasar44

Schumer is a corpulent, greasy , slime ball of zero morals 
A giant slab of rotten filthy corn beef with 2 eyes , 2 ears and a big mouth


----------



## JoeB131

Polishprince said:


> Chuck U. Schumer is a hypocrite deluxe. In 2016, he tried to ram through Merrick Garland's nomination even though it was an election year.
> 
> Now, he changes his tune. He should be told to "F" off



Garland we had nearly a year to consider when Guido Scalia got that well deserved appointment to the Netherworld. 

This is less than 40 days to an election Trump is probably going to lose.


----------



## Quasar44

wamose said:


> Schumer is a disrespectful weasel blowing off poor Ruth's death and concentrating on stacking the SC with radical lefties. He forgot about her before she was cold the same way they forgot about Blasey-Ford after Kavanaugh was confirmed. Schumer is a classless opportunist. And his statement about delaying an appointment to give people a say is ridiculous.  He says we should wait until we get a new President. Will someone please tell him that this is only Trump's first term. Waiting until 2024 for a new President is an absurd idea that only a buffoon like Schumer or Pelosi would come up with. MAGA


He is the most unscrupulous man in the entire East coast


----------



## xband

Camp said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rushing a Supreme Court nominee will guarantee two things, the increased incentive for electing a Democratic Senate and pressure on Republican incumbents, and the likelihood of a Democrat President and Senate increasing the size of Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but they’re planning on doing it anyways but they may not take back the Senate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rushing a nominee in before the election or new President and Senate will give the Dem's a rewarding excuse and support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a common practice since Washingto
> It's a huge gamble for Republicans and the results could be huge and overwhelming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I vote for Rudi Giuliani. Go Rudi!
Click to expand...


----------



## Quasar44

JoeB131 said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chuck U. Schumer is a hypocrite deluxe. In 2016, he tried to ram through Merrick Garland's nomination even though it was an election year.
> 
> Now, he changes his tune. He should be told to "F" off
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Garland we had nearly a year to consider when Guido Scalia got that well deserved appointment to the Netherworld.
> 
> This is less than 40 days to an election Trump is probably going to lose.
Click to expand...

Appoint !!!!


----------



## Quasar44

White leftist are demons 
They’re the only true threat left in America


----------



## 22lcidw

JoeB131 said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chuck U. Schumer is a hypocrite deluxe. In 2016, he tried to ram through Merrick Garland's nomination even though it was an election year.
> 
> Now, he changes his tune. He should be told to "F" off
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Garland we had nearly a year to consider when Guido Scalia got that well deserved appointment to the Netherworld.
> 
> This is less than 40 days to an election Trump is probably going to lose.
Click to expand...

You called him Guido. See the Prog for what they really are. Scalia was murdered.


----------



## Obiwan

candycorn said:


> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the precedent that was set in 2016.
> 
> However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins.  And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In case you can't figure it out, the Senate has a say....
> 
> And they can change the "precedent" if they want to....
> 
> The Democrats did it all the time when THEY were in charge!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True.
> 
> Except instead of changing the precedent set by the other party, turtle is changing his own precedent he set 48 months ago.
Click to expand...

In the words of Harry Reid (when forced to admit that he lied on the Senate floor about Romney)...

_So what???_


----------



## Polishprince

22lcidw said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chuck U. Schumer is a hypocrite deluxe. In 2016, he tried to ram through Merrick Garland's nomination even though it was an election year.
> 
> Now, he changes his tune. He should be told to "F" off
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Garland we had nearly a year to consider when Guido Scalia got that well deserved appointment to the Netherworld.
> 
> This is less than 40 days to an election Trump is probably going to lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You called him Guido. See the Prog for what they really are. Scalia was murdered.
Click to expand...



Good point.    The Friedrichs decision has just gone against Big Labor/ the La Cosa Nostra and was going to cost the Families literally billions of dollars.   The only way to stop it was to bump off one of the "aye"votes.   You do the math.


----------



## JLW

mudwhistle said:


> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Chuck.....we don't negotiate with terrorists.
Click to expand...

Just how stupid that comment is beyond description.


----------



## JLW

JoeB131 said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chuck U. Schumer is a hypocrite deluxe. In 2016, he tried to ram through Merrick Garland's nomination even though it was an election year.
> 
> Now, he changes his tune. He should be told to "F" off
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Garland we had nearly a year to consider when Guido Scalia got that well deserved appointment to the Netherworld.
> 
> This is less than 40 days to an election Trump is probably going to lose.
Click to expand...

The idea of fair play in the USA is gone. Your word means nothing in politics, especially for Republicans.  McConnell’s decision to move forward on a nominee is hypocrisy of the highest order.


----------



## Darkwind

candycorn said:


> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the precedent that was set in 2016.
> 
> However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins.  And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
Click to expand...

Simply ask yourself what the Democrats would do.  If they thought the possibility existed that they may lose a SCOTUS nomination, they would not count the cost nor would they give a single fuck what the minority leader had to say.  

Republicans need to act exactly the way the Democrats would act.  Nominate and sit a good SC candidate before November.


----------



## JLW

Darkwind said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the precedent that was set in 2016.
> 
> However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins.  And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply ask yourself what the Democrats would do.  If they thought the possibility existed that they may lose a SCOTUS nomination, they would not count the cost nor would they give a single fuck what the minority leader had to say.
> 
> Republicans need to act exactly the way the Democrats would act.  Nominate and sit a good SC candidate before November.
Click to expand...

Wrong analysis. McConnell made the rule. This is sleaze of the highest order.


----------



## mudwhistle

Johnlaw said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Chuck.....we don't negotiate with terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just how stupid that comment is beyond description.
Click to expand...

Only to a terrorist.


----------



## JLW

mudwhistle said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Chuck.....we don't negotiate with terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just how stupid that comment is beyond description.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only to a terrorist.
Click to expand...

No to anyone with a friggin brain.


----------



## Polishprince

Johnlaw said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the precedent that was set in 2016.
> 
> However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins.  And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply ask yourself what the Democrats would do.  If they thought the possibility existed that they may lose a SCOTUS nomination, they would not count the cost nor would they give a single fuck what the minority leader had to say.
> 
> Republicans need to act exactly the way the Democrats would act.  Nominate and sit a good SC candidate before November.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong analysis. McConnell made the rule. This is sleaze of the highest order.
Click to expand...



So what if McConnell "made the rule", (even though Joe Biden actually did).

McConnell took a HUGE amount of heat from liberals trying to get him to change the rule.   So he did.

So you libs should be happy that The Turtle saw the "error of his ways" and is correcting his course.


----------



## 22lcidw

Johnlaw said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chuck U. Schumer is a hypocrite deluxe. In 2016, he tried to ram through Merrick Garland's nomination even though it was an election year.
> 
> Now, he changes his tune. He should be told to "F" off
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Garland we had nearly a year to consider when Guido Scalia got that well deserved appointment to the Netherworld.
> 
> This is less than 40 days to an election Trump is probably going to lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The idea of fair play in the USA is gone. Your word means nothing in politics, especially for Republicans.  McConnell’s decision to move forward on a nominee is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Click to expand...

One of the most vile politicians ever in D.C. was Harry Reid.  Progs must have had an almost total belief in a sure thing for total control to do things he did.  It is possible by Prog standards, he screwed up.


----------



## DustyInfinity

Obiwan said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the precedent that was set in 2016.
> 
> However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins.  And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In case you can't figure it out, the Senate has a say....
> 
> And they can change the "precedent" if they want to....
> 
> The Democrats did it all the time when THEY were in charge!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True.
> 
> Except instead of changing the precedent set by the other party, turtle is changing his own precedent he set 48 months ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the words of Harry Reid (when forced to admit that he lied on the Senate floor about Romney)...
> 
> _So what???_
Click to expand...

Good ole Harry was the first open and unapologetic corrupt lifer.  His stink still lingers among the cherry trees.


----------



## DustyInfinity

Darkwind said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the precedent that was set in 2016.
> 
> However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins.  And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply ask yourself what the Democrats would do.  If they thought the possibility existed that they may lose a SCOTUS nomination, they would not count the cost nor would they give a single fuck what the minority leader had to say.
> 
> Republicans need to act exactly the way the Democrats would act.  Nominate and sit a good SC candidate before November.
Click to expand...

Definitely not a time to revert to our spineless past.


----------



## DustyInfinity

Camp said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rushing a Supreme Court nominee will guarantee two things, the increased incentive for electing a Democratic Senate and pressure on Republican incumbents, and the likelihood of a Democrat President and Senate increasing the size of Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but they’re planning on doing it anyways but they may not take back the Senate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rushing a nominee in before the election or new President and Senate will give the Dem's a rewarding excuse and support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a common practice since Washington
> They will try to expand and stack the court , anyways
> F them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a huge gamble for Republicans and the results could be huge and overwhelming.
Click to expand...

I was thinking about that too, but the people it would piss off are already pissed off.  I'm not sure who it would encourage to the polls.


----------



## DGS49

For those who were politically aware in 2016, President Trump garnered MILLIONS of individual votes from people *who SPECIFICALLY intended for for him to replace RBG - not someone else - with a Conservative justice*.  THIS IS SPECIFICALLY WHY HE WAS ELECTED.  The voters have spoken and they will be heard.  Fuck Mitt Romney and those two RINO bitches.  We don't NEED their fucking votes.

RBG had a chance to control her legacy on the court by retiring while Soetoro was still in office, and she declined to do so.

If Schumer were in the same position, there is absolutely no doubt what he would do.

Roll on.


----------



## johnwk

Obiwan said:


> Fuck the Schmuck...
> 
> Trump should go for it!!!!




Seems to me the communist/socialist Democrat Leadership is shaking in their boots because someone who may actually support and defend the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text will be nominated.



Of course, those shaking in their boots are among those who approve of using the *Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language *being applied to our Constitution:

*"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."*

JWK


_Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean._


----------



## 22lcidw

DustyInfinity said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rushing a Supreme Court nominee will guarantee two things, the increased incentive for electing a Democratic Senate and pressure on Republican incumbents, and the likelihood of a Democrat President and Senate increasing the size of Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but they’re planning on doing it anyways but they may not take back the Senate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rushing a nominee in before the election or new President and Senate will give the Dem's a rewarding excuse and support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a common practice since Washington
> They will try to expand and stack the court , anyways
> F them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a huge gamble for Republicans and the results could be huge and overwhelming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was thinking about that too, but the people it would piss off are already pissed off.  I'm not sure who it would encourage to the polls.
Click to expand...

It is not what Repubs would do. It is what Progs would have done. And they would push through a Supreme Court Judge.  McConnell should never forget the threat he faced with his wife at his home by potential rioters.  The Prog politicians being sheepishly silent. That in itself should give him the strength to get this done if he chooses to do so.


----------



## mudwhistle

Camp said:


> Rushing a Supreme Court nominee will guarantee two things, the increased incentive for electing a Democratic Senate and pressure on Republican incumbents, and the likelihood of a Democrat President and Senate increasing the size of Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court.


Bullshit. 
Democrats invented the dirty-trick. COVID-19 is their latest dirty-trick.
Their rioters are another..
I don't see why we should reward these folks for being assholes since last Summer starting with their fake impeachment. 
I don't see the point of working with folks like those in the Democrat Party.
They are beyond negotiating with at this point. 
So I say take the gloves off and let em have it right between the friggen eyes.


----------



## Darkwind

Johnlaw said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the precedent that was set in 2016.
> 
> However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins.  And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply ask yourself what the Democrats would do.  If they thought the possibility existed that they may lose a SCOTUS nomination, they would not count the cost nor would they give a single fuck what the minority leader had to say.
> 
> Republicans need to act exactly the way the Democrats would act.  Nominate and sit a good SC candidate before November.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong analysis. McConnell made the rule. This is sleaze of the highest order.
Click to expand...

Are you aware of  your surroundings at all?  What rule?  The Senate has always been responsible for confirming SCOTUS nominees.


----------



## blackhawk

The right and the left switching their positions when it suits them what a shock.


----------



## Camp

DustyInfinity said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rushing a Supreme Court nominee will guarantee two things, the increased incentive for electing a Democratic Senate and pressure on Republican incumbents, and the likelihood of a Democrat President and Senate increasing the size of Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but they’re planning on doing it anyways but they may not take back the Senate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rushing a nominee in before the election or new President and Senate will give the Dem's a rewarding excuse and support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a common practice since Washington
> They will try to expand and stack the court , anyways
> F them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a huge gamble for Republicans and the results could be huge and overwhelming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was thinking about that too, but the people it would piss off are already pissed off.  I'm not sure who it would encourage to the polls.
Click to expand...

Women and people with pre-existing medical conditions.


----------



## ZZ PUPPS

All together now...

FUCK CHUCK

TIA


----------



## Death Angel

Schumer is irrelevant


----------



## Rye Catcher

Obiwan said:


> Fuck the Schmuck...
> 
> Trump should go for it!!!!



He will, of course.  And Moscow Mitch will support Trump's nominee and bring it to the floor ASAP.  One more example (do we need any more?!) that the GOP is the party of HYPOCRISY AND DISHONESTY.  

The Mission Statement left to us and in particular to our elected officials is in the Preamble.  This vision is  being eroded by Trump and his fellow travelers; a coterie who are self serving, dishonest and opposed to democracy. 

Is it any wonder that so many real Republicans, those who support the Democratic Republic left to us over two centuries ago,  have rejected Trumpism, i.e. Authoritarianism; they have come forth and will not support Trump and Pence to have four more years to destroy what has been the longest Democratic Republic in the history of the world.


----------



## Darkwind

Rye Catcher said:


> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck the Schmuck...
> 
> Trump should go for it!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He will, of course.  And Moscow Mitch will support Trump's nominee and bring it to the floor ASAP.  One more example (do we need any more?!) that the GOP is the party of HYPOCRISY AND DISHONESTY.
> 
> The Mission Statement left to us and in particular to our elected officials is in the Preamble.  This vision is  being eroded by Trump and his fellow travelers; a coterie who are self serving, dishonest and opposed to democracy.
> 
> Is it any wonder that so many real Republicans, those who support the Democratic Republic left to us over two centuries ago,  have rejected Trumpism, i.e. Authoritarianism; they have come forth and will not support Trump and Pence to have four more years to destroy what has been the longest Democratic Republic in the history of the world.
Click to expand...

You're just mad because McConnell is going to do exactly what the Democrats would do in this situation.  The Democrats would do as they please and not give a damn about the opposition.

I encourage EVERY Republican to do the same, and continue to do just that until the Democrats learn to negotiate and compromise.


----------



## Hugo Furst

candycorn said:


> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the precedent that was set in 2016.
> 
> However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins.  And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
Click to expand...



NO

it was set in 1992.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Johnlaw said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the precedent that was set in 2016.
> 
> However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins.  And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply ask yourself what the Democrats would do.  If they thought the possibility existed that they may lose a SCOTUS nomination, they would not count the cost nor would they give a single fuck what the minority leader had to say.
> 
> Republicans need to act exactly the way the Democrats would act.  Nominate and sit a good SC candidate before November.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong analysis. McConnell made the rule. This is sleaze of the highest order.
Click to expand...




Johnlaw said:


> McConnell made the rule.




NO


Biden made the rule. in 1992


----------



## Rye Catcher

Darkwind said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck the Schmuck...
> 
> Trump should go for it!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He will, of course.  And Moscow Mitch will support Trump's nominee and bring it to the floor ASAP.  One more example (do we need any more?!) that the GOP is the party of HYPOCRISY AND DISHONESTY.
> 
> The Mission Statement left to us and in particular to our elected officials is in the Preamble.  This vision is  being eroded by Trump and his fellow travelers; a coterie who are self serving, dishonest and opposed to democracy.
> 
> Is it any wonder that so many real Republicans, those who support the Democratic Republic left to us over two centuries ago,  have rejected Trumpism, i.e. Authoritarianism; they have come forth and will not support Trump and Pence to have four more years to destroy what has been the longest Democratic Republic in the history of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're just mad because McConnell is going to do exactly what the Democrats would do in this situation.  The Democrats would do as they please and not give a damn about the opposition.
> 
> I encourage EVERY Republican to do the same, and continue to do just that until the Democrats learn to negotiate and compromise.
Click to expand...


Mad?  Have you not read through this thread and the comments above, (mostly ad hominems)?

Maybe you need to touch base with reality, making this false allegation that Democrats won't negotiate or compromise is ludicrous.


----------



## Rye Catcher

WillHaftawaite said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the precedent that was set in 2016.
> 
> However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins.  And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply ask yourself what the Democrats would do.  If they thought the possibility existed that they may lose a SCOTUS nomination, they would not count the cost nor would they give a single fuck what the minority leader had to say.
> 
> Republicans need to act exactly the way the Democrats would act.  Nominate and sit a good SC candidate before November.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong analysis. McConnell made the rule. This is sleaze of the highest order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> McConnell made the rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NO
> 
> 
> Biden made the rule. in 1992
Click to expand...


Proof is missing, please post a link to your statement what Biden did or said over 25 years ago is a rule, it was an opinion.  An opinion which carried no weight in law or equity.


----------



## two_iron

The marxists begged that little shit-eating rodent to retire while the kenyan lawn jockey still had full control over the process. The dice were rolled... and the party of shit lost. Too bad.

Pretend for one second, Upchuck was faced with this same decision.... yeah, that's what I thought.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Rye Catcher said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the precedent that was set in 2016.
> 
> However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins.  And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply ask yourself what the Democrats would do.  If they thought the possibility existed that they may lose a SCOTUS nomination, they would not count the cost nor would they give a single fuck what the minority leader had to say.
> 
> Republicans need to act exactly the way the Democrats would act.  Nominate and sit a good SC candidate before November.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong analysis. McConnell made the rule. This is sleaze of the highest order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> McConnell made the rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NO
> 
> 
> Biden made the rule. in 1992
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof is missing, please post a link to your statement what Biden did or said over 25 years ago is a rule, it was an opinion.  An opinion which carried no weight in law or equity.
Click to expand...




(psst, it's in the Congressional Record.)

and that's as much as rule as McConnells comments.


----------



## 22lcidw

Rye Catcher said:


> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck the Schmuck...
> 
> Trump should go for it!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He will, of course.  And Moscow Mitch will support Trump's nominee and bring it to the floor ASAP.  One more example (do we need any more?!) that the GOP is the party of HYPOCRISY AND DISHONESTY.
> 
> The Mission Statement left to us and in particular to our elected officials is in the Preamble.  This vision is  being eroded by Trump and his fellow travelers; a coterie who are self serving, dishonest and opposed to democracy.
> 
> Is it any wonder that so many real Republicans, those who support the Democratic Republic left to us over two centuries ago,  have rejected Trumpism, i.e. Authoritarianism; they have come forth and will not support Trump and Pence to have four more years to destroy what has been the longest Democratic Republic in the history of the world.
Click to expand...

I remember reading forums and not this one when Scalia died. He was roasted and laughed at.  The media gave a grudging respect to him. Contrast that to now with Ginsberg. She could do no wrong as she is sanctified. She is a murderer. No progression of rights can be cemented without primal ways interfering with it if things become bad. It is just what the alignments are when it occurs. There are a lot of people who have scores to settle. And would if they were suddenly empowered in some way if the worse happens with an economic downturn or something similar.


----------



## TheParser

From a practical point of view, the Senate should approve President Trump's nominee before the election. Then they will be sure of having the position filled by a conservative if (as is likely), President Trump loses.

If this were a perfect world and IF the Dems had acted in a gentlemanly fashion during the last four years, then the Republicans should wait for the election winner to nominate someone, as they told President Obama when he sent the name of his nominee, and  the Republicans refused to even hold hearings.


----------



## Rye Catcher

WillHaftawaite said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the precedent that was set in 2016.
> 
> However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins.  And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply ask yourself what the Democrats would do.  If they thought the possibility existed that they may lose a SCOTUS nomination, they would not count the cost nor would they give a single fuck what the minority leader had to say.
> 
> Republicans need to act exactly the way the Democrats would act.  Nominate and sit a good SC candidate before November.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong analysis. McConnell made the rule. This is sleaze of the highest order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> McConnell made the rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NO
> 
> 
> Biden made the rule. in 1992
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof is missing, please post a link to your statement what Biden did or said over 25 years ago is a rule, it was an opinion.  An opinion which carried no weight in law or equity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (psst, it's in the Congressional Record.)
> 
> and that's as much as rule as McConnells comments.
Click to expand...


No it's not.  Are you familiar with the Nuclear Option and the Senate Rules?  Biden wasn't a Senator when Ried and then McConnell used the N.O. to push through nominees.


----------



## 22lcidw

Rye Catcher said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck the Schmuck...
> 
> Trump should go for it!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He will, of course.  And Moscow Mitch will support Trump's nominee and bring it to the floor ASAP.  One more example (do we need any more?!) that the GOP is the party of HYPOCRISY AND DISHONESTY.
> 
> The Mission Statement left to us and in particular to our elected officials is in the Preamble.  This vision is  being eroded by Trump and his fellow travelers; a coterie who are self serving, dishonest and opposed to democracy.
> 
> Is it any wonder that so many real Republicans, those who support the Democratic Republic left to us over two centuries ago,  have rejected Trumpism, i.e. Authoritarianism; they have come forth and will not support Trump and Pence to have four more years to destroy what has been the longest Democratic Republic in the history of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're just mad because McConnell is going to do exactly what the Democrats would do in this situation.  The Democrats would do as they please and not give a damn about the opposition.
> 
> I encourage EVERY Republican to do the same, and continue to do just that until the Democrats learn to negotiate and compromise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mad?  Have you not read through this thread and the comments above, (mostly ad hominems)?
> 
> Maybe you need to touch base with reality, making this false allegation that Democrats won't negotiate or compromise is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Politicians have gotten worse. And Progs do not compromise.  They have to get their "cut" in every negotiation even if they are not in power.


----------



## Rye Catcher

22lcidw said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck the Schmuck...
> 
> Trump should go for it!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He will, of course.  And Moscow Mitch will support Trump's nominee and bring it to the floor ASAP.  One more example (do we need any more?!) that the GOP is the party of HYPOCRISY AND DISHONESTY.
> 
> The Mission Statement left to us and in particular to our elected officials is in the Preamble.  This vision is  being eroded by Trump and his fellow travelers; a coterie who are self serving, dishonest and opposed to democracy.
> 
> Is it any wonder that so many real Republicans, those who support the Democratic Republic left to us over two centuries ago,  have rejected Trumpism, i.e. Authoritarianism; they have come forth and will not support Trump and Pence to have four more years to destroy what has been the longest Democratic Republic in the history of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I remember reading forums and not this one when Scalia died. He was roasted and laughed at.  The media gave a grudging respect to him. Contrast that to now with Ginsberg. She could do no wrong as she is sanctified. She is a murderer. No progression of rights can be cemented without primal ways interfering with it if things become bad. It is just what the alignments are when it occurs. There are a lot of people who have scores to settle. And would if they were suddenly empowered in some way if the worse happens with an economic downturn or something similar.
Click to expand...


Murder is the unlawful taking of a human life.  Your use of murder / homicide in this post is untrue, and nothing more than an echo of a BIG LIE.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Rye Catcher said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the precedent that was set in 2016.
> 
> However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins.  And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply ask yourself what the Democrats would do.  If they thought the possibility existed that they may lose a SCOTUS nomination, they would not count the cost nor would they give a single fuck what the minority leader had to say.
> 
> Republicans need to act exactly the way the Democrats would act.  Nominate and sit a good SC candidate before November.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong analysis. McConnell made the rule. This is sleaze of the highest order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> McConnell made the rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NO
> 
> 
> Biden made the rule. in 1992
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof is missing, please post a link to your statement what Biden did or said over 25 years ago is a rule, it was an opinion.  An opinion which carried no weight in law or equity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (psst, it's in the Congressional Record.)
> 
> and that's as much as rule as McConnells comments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not.  Are you familiar with the Nuclear Option and the Senate Rules?  Biden wasn't a Senator when Ried and then McConnell used the N.O. to push through nominees.
Click to expand...


" Biden wasn't a Senator when Reid and then McConnell used the N.O. to push through nominees."

NO, but he WAS a senator when he stated, on the record, that a Justice not be confirmed prior to an election.


or did you not watch the video?


----------



## Otium

Rye Catcher said:


> Obiwan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck the Schmuck...
> 
> Trump should go for it!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He will, of course.  And Moscow Mitch will support Trump's nominee and bring it to the floor ASAP.  One more example (do we need any more?!) that the GOP is the party of HYPOCRISY AND DISHONESTY.
> 
> The Mission Statement left to us and in particular to our elected officials is in the Preamble.  This vision is  being eroded by Trump and his fellow travelers; a coterie who are self serving, dishonest and opposed to democracy.
> 
> Is it any wonder that so many real Republicans, those who support the Democratic Republic left to us over two centuries ago,  have rejected Trumpism, i.e. Authoritarianism; they have come forth and will not support Trump and Pence to have four more years to destroy what has been the longest Democratic Republic in the history of the world.
Click to expand...


" Real Republicans" ?  Like Romney? Flake? Bush?   LOL.


We call them RINOs.   With expendable "values".

Let's see.  According to Senate records?    Justices Ginsberg, Stevens and O'Connor were al confirmed in short periods of time.


Stevens took 19 days, O'Connor took 33 and Ginsboig took 42.


We got this. 

I hope Trump goes for Estrada.   Let the unhinged  left / media/Dems demonize a Hispanic heading into Nov 3.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2020-09-18/bidens-2016-arguments-support-republican-vote-on-new-supreme-court-justice
		

Okay...if you say so, as you did in 2016, Joe.

A man of _deep wisdom and honor_, such as yourself, would not argue forcefully for the Obama nominee
Merrick Garland to go through the process of appointment to the court, during the elections of 2016, and then just three years later, claim the republicans cannot dare to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg under similar circumstances and conditions. No one could be that tone deaf.

That would make you look like an old fraud. A hypocrite. A lying partisan stooge saying anything to gain political advantage one year and then the exact opposite the next as it benefits the party you shill for.

Is this how you wish to be remembered, Joe, as you spend you last days in the public eye before a stinging
landslide loss in yet another failed attempt to become president?

Look back at what you said about Merrick Garland and see if it doesn't clash furiously with what you
claim now. And think how that makes you look....like a deceitful old hack who will say and do anything
to gain political advantage. And then be willing to switch back again and contradict you own words
if that's what the political moment calls for.
Yes, Merrick Garland MUST be put onto the court. But NO, we cannot allow the successor to Ginsburg
the same treatment. Sad.

That's not a man who should be president of the United States of America. That's a cynical, vain political
windsock of a man, willing to go in any direction at any time, depending on how political winds blow, if it brings advantage to your party.
You're a sorry sad old man, Joe Biden. Here's hoping you get to meet Ruth Ginsburg very soon.


----------



## Otium

WillHaftawaite said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the precedent that was set in 2016.
> 
> However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins.  And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply ask yourself what the Democrats would do.  If they thought the possibility existed that they may lose a SCOTUS nomination, they would not count the cost nor would they give a single fuck what the minority leader had to say.
> 
> Republicans need to act exactly the way the Democrats would act.  Nominate and sit a good SC candidate before November.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong analysis. McConnell made the rule. This is sleaze of the highest order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> McConnell made the rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NO
> 
> 
> Biden made the rule. in 1992
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof is missing, please post a link to your statement what Biden did or said over 25 years ago is a rule, it was an opinion.  An opinion which carried no weight in law or equity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (psst, it's in the Congressional Record.)
> 
> and that's as much as rule as McConnells comments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not.  Are you familiar with the Nuclear Option and the Senate Rules?  Biden wasn't a Senator when Ried and then McConnell used the N.O. to push through nominees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " Biden wasn't a Senator when Reid and then McConnell used the N.O. to push through nominees."
> 
> NO, but he WAS a senator when he stated, on the record, that a Justice not be confirmed prior to an election.
> 
> 
> or did you not watch the video?
Click to expand...



So what?   Biden has said a lot of foolish things both prior to his dementia onset and since.


----------



## Otium

TheParser said:


> Then they will be sure of having the position filled by a conservative if (as is likely), President Trump loses.





Likely? 


LOL.   Trump is en route to a landslide re election.   Possibly a record -breaker. 


Pull the lens back.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Camp said:


> Rushing a Supreme Court nominee will guarantee two things, the increased incentive for electing a Democratic Senate and pressure on Republican incumbents, and the likelihood of a Democrat President and Senate increasing the size of Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court.



The American people surely support a political Party that loves criminals, hates the Constitution and wants to reeducate people who don't fall in lock step with their Communist ideology!


----------



## wamose

Ginsburg was a blatant partisan who didn't belong on the court in the first place. She was a radical activist whose claim to fame was her support of women's rights, otherwise known as killing babies. I see no major accomplishments on her resume. I also see no reason to wait till after the election to nominate a new judge. This is nothing like the Garland nomination because Trump is not a lame duck. So lets just move this thing along and see what Biden's army of lawyers do to delay the process, lowlife Marxists that they are. MAGA


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

TheParser said:


> From a practical point of view, the Senate should approve President Trump's nominee before the election. Then they will be sure of having the position filled by a conservative if (as is likely), President Trump loses.
> 
> If this were a perfect world and IF the Dems had acted in a gentlemanly fashion during the last four years, then the Republicans should wait for the election winner to nominate someone, as they told President Obama when he sent the name of his nominee, and  the Republicans refused to even hold hearings.


Yes. That would be nice. Too bad the democrats crossed over that Rubicon the second Trump became the republican nominee for president. He's been ruthlessly attacked personally and as president and was
the target of two illegal and ill advised attempts to remove him from office.

We are still in the middle of the job of identifying the people behind the coup and prosecuting them.

No going back now. No crying when he pushes your faces in the dirt.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

CrusaderFrank said:


> The American people surely support a political Party that loves criminals, hates the Constitution and wants to reeducate people who don't fall in lock step with their Communist ideology!


Of course! Nothing says America like that.


----------



## Rye Catcher

WillHaftawaite said:


> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the precedent that was set in 2016.
> 
> However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins.  And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply ask yourself what the Democrats would do.  If they thought the possibility existed that they may lose a SCOTUS nomination, they would not count the cost nor would they give a single fuck what the minority leader had to say.
> 
> Republicans need to act exactly the way the Democrats would act.  Nominate and sit a good SC candidate before November.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong analysis. McConnell made the rule. This is sleaze of the highest order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> McConnell made the rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NO
> 
> 
> Biden made the rule. in 1992
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof is missing, please post a link to your statement what Biden did or said over 25 years ago is a rule, it was an opinion.  An opinion which carried no weight in law or equity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (psst, it's in the Congressional Record.)
> 
> and that's as much as rule as McConnells comments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not.  Are you familiar with the Nuclear Option and the Senate Rules?  Biden wasn't a Senator when Ried and then McConnell used the N.O. to push through nominees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " Biden wasn't a Senator when Reid and then McConnell used the N.O. to push through nominees."
> 
> NO, but he WAS a senator when he stated, on the record, that a Justice not be confirmed prior to an election.
> 
> 
> or did you not watch the video?
Click to expand...


I watched the video, Biden's statement was a political comment, he was speaking to a taping in what was likely and empty chamber.  All Senators do so, they are speaking to their constituents and telling them what they want to hear.  

It was not a rule of the Senate until Reid and then McConnell used a fait accompli to make it so.


----------



## Obiwan

Rye Catcher said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the precedent that was set in 2016.
> 
> However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins.  And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply ask yourself what the Democrats would do.  If they thought the possibility existed that they may lose a SCOTUS nomination, they would not count the cost nor would they give a single fuck what the minority leader had to say.
> 
> Republicans need to act exactly the way the Democrats would act.  Nominate and sit a good SC candidate before November.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong analysis. McConnell made the rule. This is sleaze of the highest order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> McConnell made the rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NO
> 
> 
> Biden made the rule. in 1992
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof is missing, please post a link to your statement what Biden did or said over 25 years ago is a rule, it was an opinion.  An opinion which carried no weight in law or equity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (psst, it's in the Congressional Record.)
> 
> and that's as much as rule as McConnells comments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not.  Are you familiar with the Nuclear Option and the Senate Rules?  Biden wasn't a Senator when Ried and then McConnell used the N.O. to push through nominees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " Biden wasn't a Senator when Reid and then McConnell used the N.O. to push through nominees."
> 
> NO, but he WAS a senator when he stated, on the record, that a Justice not be confirmed prior to an election.
> 
> 
> or did you not watch the video?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I watched the video, Biden's statement was a political comment, he was speaking to a taping in what was likely and empty chamber.  All Senators do so, they are speaking to their constituents and telling them what they want to hear.
> 
> It was not a rule of the Senate until Reid and then McConnell used a fait accompli to make it so.
Click to expand...

So Biden couldn't even get folks to show up and listen to him then, either????


----------



## Hugo Furst

Rye Catcher said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rye Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the precedent that was set in 2016.
> 
> However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins.  And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply ask yourself what the Democrats would do.  If they thought the possibility existed that they may lose a SCOTUS nomination, they would not count the cost nor would they give a single fuck what the minority leader had to say.
> 
> Republicans need to act exactly the way the Democrats would act.  Nominate and sit a good SC candidate before November.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong analysis. McConnell made the rule. This is sleaze of the highest order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> McConnell made the rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NO
> 
> 
> Biden made the rule. in 1992
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proof is missing, please post a link to your statement what Biden did or said over 25 years ago is a rule, it was an opinion.  An opinion which carried no weight in law or equity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (psst, it's in the Congressional Record.)
> 
> and that's as much as rule as McConnells comments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not.  Are you familiar with the Nuclear Option and the Senate Rules?  Biden wasn't a Senator when Ried and then McConnell used the N.O. to push through nominees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " Biden wasn't a Senator when Reid and then McConnell used the N.O. to push through nominees."
> 
> NO, but he WAS a senator when he stated, on the record, that a Justice not be confirmed prior to an election.
> 
> 
> or did you not watch the video?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I watched the video, Biden's statement was a political comment, he was speaking to a taping in what was likely and empty chamber.  All Senators do so, they are speaking to their constituents and telling them what they want to hear.
> 
> It was not a rule of the Senate until Reid and then McConnell used a fait accompli to make it so.
Click to expand...




Rye Catcher said:


> It was not a rule of the Senate until Reid and then McConnell used a fait accompli to make it so.



Your opinion.

The video proves you to be in error.


----------



## Rye Catcher

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> TheParser said:
> 
> 
> 
> From a practical point of view, the Senate should approve President Trump's nominee before the election. Then they will be sure of having the position filled by a conservative if (as is likely), President Trump loses.
> 
> If this were a perfect world and IF the Dems had acted in a gentlemanly fashion during the last four years, then the Republicans should wait for the election winner to nominate someone, as they told President Obama when he sent the name of his nominee, and  the Republicans refused to even hold hearings.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That would be nice. Too bad the democrats crossed over that Rubicon the second Trump became the republican nominee for president. He's been ruthlessly attacked personally and as president and was
> the target of two illegal and ill advised attempts to remove him from office.
> 
> We are still in the middle of the job of identifying the people behind the coup and prosecuting them.
> 
> No going back now. No crying when he pushes your faces in the dirt.
Click to expand...


"We are still in the middle of the job of identifying the people behind the coup and prosecuting them"


*coup*,  "a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government"  Hmmmm... when did this happen?

The process to legally impeach an elected official, and in this case The President, was not a coup, it was not sudden and it was not violent.  For the record, Trump was Impeached, and he was not acquitted.


----------



## candycorn

Darkwind said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the precedent that was set in 2016.
> 
> However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins.  And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply ask yourself what the Democrats would do.  If they thought the possibility existed that they may lose a SCOTUS nomination, they would not count the cost nor would they give a single fuck what the minority leader had to say.
> 
> Republicans need to act exactly the way the Democrats would act.  Nominate and sit a good SC candidate before November.
Click to expand...


They would do the same exact thing.


----------



## JoeB131

22lcidw said:


> You called him Guido. See the Prog for what they really are. Scalia was murdered.



Yes, it was totally unlikely a miserable, fat, sexually repressed 76 year old could have died of natural causes.


----------



## TheParser

Otium said:


> TheParser said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then they will be sure of having the position filled by a conservative if (as is likely), President Trump loses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likely?
> 
> 
> LOL.   Trump is en route to a landslide re election.   Possibly a record -breaker.
> 
> 
> Pull the lens back.
Click to expand...


Personally,  I hope you're right that the President will be reelected.

It will teach the Dems that abetting violence is a bad career move.

But the polls ...

And the late mail ballots coming in after November 3 ...

There's plenty of room for mischief from the Dems.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Conveniently ignoring the first attempt to remove Trump from office with the absurd Russia-gate nonsense
aren't you? Yes. Of course you are.

Trump was impeached entirely along partisan lines so who is surprised by that?
That Schumer and that bug eyed fucker Adam Schiff couldn't get anyone to go along with the thinly
veiled attempt at a coup is hardly surprising.

Here Schiff tries to put the milk back into the bottle once it's been spilled all over the floor.








						Schiff cleans up after saying committee had no contact with whistleblower
					

House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff on Thursday clarified comments he made last month that his committee had not spoken directly with a whistleblower after his office acknowledged Wednesday it had been in contact with the whistleblower before the complaint over President Donald Trump's...




					www.cnn.com
				




I wonder what fascist soy boy Eric Ciaramella is doing now? Whistleblower Was Overheard in '17 Discussing With Ally How to Remove Trump | RealClearInvestigations


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Aletheia4u said:


> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com


Schuck Fumer


----------



## Crixus

Aletheia4u said:


> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com




if chucky was the majority leader right now the seat would already be filled. now we see just how serious the republicans are about the shit they talk. they should fill the seat and be done.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

Obiwan said:


> So Biden couldn't even get folks to show up and listen to him then, either????


So sad and pathetic! And THIS is the man who is supposed to be riding into office on a landslide
election?  

Who is running the left wing machine? What a bunch of delusional incompetent turds they appear to be.
I'm glad I jumped off that train when those evil Arkansas mega-grifters took office and I've never ever
looked back even for one moment.


----------



## Canon Shooter

Aletheia4u said:


> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement *before the election*.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled *until we have a new president*.”



Those are hardly the same. 

Does he want to wait until after this election, when Trump is elected to a second term or, at the earliest, 2024?

The whole "the American people should have a voice" thing is bullshit. It's not the job of the American people to nominate Supreme Court Justices. It never has been and it never should be, That responsibility rests solely with the President.

Trump can do whatever he wants here, and it's the duty of Congress to take whatever choice the President makes and then do _their _job...


----------



## westwall

Aletheia4u said:


> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com








Schumer can go pound sand.


----------



## westwall

Johnlaw said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chuck U. Schumer is a hypocrite deluxe. In 2016, he tried to ram through Merrick Garland's nomination even though it was an election year.
> 
> Now, he changes his tune. He should be told to "F" off
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Garland we had nearly a year to consider when Guido Scalia got that well deserved appointment to the Netherworld.
> 
> This is less than 40 days to an election Trump is probably going to lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The idea of fair play in the USA is gone. Your word means nothing in politics, especially for Republicans.  McConnell’s decision to move forward on a nominee is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Click to expand...






Pot, meet kettle.


----------



## Otium

TheParser said:


> But the polls ...





PLease.

Go look at August/ Sept of some past BLOWOUT elections. The same folks who brought you Russia!  24/7?   Are financing ( hence shaping/ rigging ) the polls. 

- Voters now give President Trump the highest marks of his presidency when it comes to his handling of the economy and national security. He's doing better than President Obama was going into the 2012 election.​​- President Trump has now edged to a one-point lead over Democratic nominee Joe Biden in the latest Rasmussen Reports’ weekly White House Watch survey. While statistically insignificant, it’s the first time Trump has been ahead.​​- Three-out-of-four voters who’ve had violent anti-police protests in their community rate those protests important to their vote in the presidential election. *Among these voters, a sizable majority like the job President Trump is doing.*​​








						What They Told Us: Reviewing Last Week’s Key Polls
					

In surveys last week, this is what America told Rasmussen Reports...




					www.rasmussenreports.com
				






Toss in Trump's silent but deadly gain in popularity among blacks ? Hispanics?  Since 2016?

And Biden's OBVIOUS unfitness for ANYTHING?


----------



## two_iron

Anybody doing the math? You got to get *ONE *of the RINO shitstains to play along: mittens, that alaska slut, the maine slut or sasse....

All you need is one of them. Pence will break the tie. Then let the marxist shitstains melt down. I've got enough ammo to stop India from getting into my gated community.


----------



## DigitalDrifter

McConnell needs to be fearless, move forward with whoever the nominee is, and at least make the attempt to get the nominee seated before January.

Time to play hardball and be "ruthless"!


----------



## Zander

Too bad Chucky doesn't control  the Senate. As Obama once haughtily prounounced "Elections have consequennces".  Indeed, they do.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

two_iron said:


> Anybody doing the math? You got to get *ONE *of the RINO shitstains to play along: mittens, that alaska slut, the maine slut or sasse....
> 
> All you need is one of them. Pence will break the tie. Then let the marxist shitstains melt down. I've got enough ammo to stop India from getting into my gated community.


This does throw Marxist plans for a US take down into a loop. And it gives us four years of breathing space
to get serious about rooting out the gutless plotters and planners in their government safe spaces out into the open where sunlight will hit them like a hammer and then watch the cockroaches scatter.

And it brings to mind the truest words ever written: _Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty._

We have many enemies waiting to jump on us and slice our throats but none are as frightening and effective
as the ones working in this nation this very moment to take us down, Schiff, Schumer, Pelosi, etc.

Ironically this warning was used to smear Trump. It actually applies to his enemies.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees

The people had their say; they elected trump and repub senate majority.
Now they’re doing they’re job. They shouldn’t hesitate or they’d be playing politics more than the dems.


----------



## johnwk

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> The people had their say; they elected trump and repub senate majority.
> Now they’re doing they’re job. They shouldn’t hesitate or they’d be playing politics more than the dems.




Seems to me the communist/socialist controlled Democrat Leadership is shaking in their boots because someone who may actually support and defend the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text, will be nominated and be our next Supreme Court Justice.

Of course, those shaking in their boots are among those who approve of using the *Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language *_*being applied to our Constitution:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."*
_
JWK
_

*Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.*_


----------



## theHawk

Aletheia4u said:


> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com


Who gives a fuck what Chucky has to say about it.


----------



## johnwk

theHawk said:


> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a fuck what Chucky has to say about it.
Click to expand...



This is really frightening.

Pelosi says Democrats ‘have our options’ when asked about impeaching Trump if he replaces Ginsburg

_“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday did not rule out the possibility of impeaching President Donald Trump if he tries to push through a Supreme Court nominee to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a lame-duck session.”_

Now that our President seems to be moving forward with his duty to nominate someone to take Justice Ginsburg’s place, the communist/socialist controlled Democrat Leadership is showing their real intentions if they ever seize power: packing the Supreme Court; holding more impeachment hearings; getting rid of the Electoral College; creating a number of new democrat controlled states, etc…

Is it not clear that today’s communist/socialist controlled Democrat Party Leadership wants to tear down our very system of government and create a one-party socialist/communist rule over the entire United States and her Citizens?

Forewarned is forearmed

JWK

*At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' A republic, if you can keep it,’ responded Franklin.*


----------



## NoNukes

Aletheia4u said:


> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com


Conservatives want a Conservative court. Liberals want a liberal court. By having a fair member of both, the American people are better represented.


----------



## johnwk

NoNukes said:


> Conservatives want a Conservative court. Liberals want a liberal court. By having a fair member of both, the American people are better represented.



It's not about conservatives vs liberals.  It's about following rules and preserving and protecting our Constitution, i.e., abiding by its written text and its legislative intent as expressed during its framing and ratification process, which gives context to its text.  That is the sworn-to duty of a judge and Justice whether they have "conservative" or "liberal" feelings.

JWK

*Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.*


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees

johnwk said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a fuck what Chucky has to say about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is really frightening.
> 
> Pelosi says Democrats ‘have our options’ when asked about impeaching Trump if he replaces Ginsburg
> 
> _“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday did not rule out the possibility of impeaching President Donald Trump if he tries to push through a Supreme Court nominee to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a lame-duck session.”_
> 
> Now that our President seems to be moving forward with his duty to nominate someone to take Justice Ginsburg’s place, the communist/socialist controlled Democrat Leadership is showing their real intentions if they ever seize power: packing the Supreme Court; holding more impeachment hearings; getting rid of the Electoral College; creating a number of new democrat controlled states, etc…
> 
> Is it not clear that today’s communist/socialist controlled Democrat Party Leadership wants to tear down our very system of government and create a one-party socialist/communist rule over the entire United States and her Citizens?
> 
> Forewarned is forearmed
> 
> JWK
> 
> *At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' A republic, if you can keep it,’ responded Franklin.*
Click to expand...

Again, since democrats refuse to respect and accept the system why do they bother trying to affect the system?


----------



## toobfreak

Aletheia4u said:


> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.  “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”



When in doubt, just ask Chuck.  

Funny how all the Dems including Joe were singing the OPPOSITE tune a few years ago!

Lemme guess:  it was Ruth's DYING WISH!

Has anyone actually confirmed that?  How is it that only a few democrats seem, to have heard this?

Ruth, you're lucky you weren't replaced a few years ago in 2016 when you said that Trump had no consistency — I can't imagine what the country would be with Donald Trump as our president…Now it's time for us to move to New Zealand. When asked about a Trump victory, Ginsburg said: "I don't want to think about that possibility."

What kind of Supreme Justice expresses such malice and bias PUBLICLY?


----------



## johnwk

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a fuck what Chucky has to say about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is really frightening.
> 
> Pelosi says Democrats ‘have our options’ when asked about impeaching Trump if he replaces Ginsburg
> 
> _“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday did not rule out the possibility of impeaching President Donald Trump if he tries to push through a Supreme Court nominee to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a lame-duck session.”_
> 
> Now that our President seems to be moving forward with his duty to nominate someone to take Justice Ginsburg’s place, the communist/socialist controlled Democrat Leadership is showing their real intentions if they ever seize power: packing the Supreme Court; holding more impeachment hearings; getting rid of the Electoral College; creating a number of new democrat controlled states, etc…
> 
> Is it not clear that today’s communist/socialist controlled Democrat Party Leadership wants to tear down our very system of government and create a one-party socialist/communist rule over the entire United States and her Citizens?
> 
> Forewarned is forearmed
> 
> JWK
> 
> *At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' A republic, if you can keep it,’ responded Franklin.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, since democrats refuse to respect and accept the system why do they bother trying to affect the system?
Click to expand...


Do the words "tyrants", "revolutionaries", "sedition", etc., come to mind?

JWK

*BEWARE! The Biden/Harris Administration, in wanting to keep Obamacare, which currently covers less than 9 million ___ many being foreigners/aliens ___ want to take away the existing private health insurance plans from over 150 million American Citizens, and force them into a Communist/Socialist, Cuban style healthcare system.*


----------



## Papageorgio

candycorn said:


> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the precedent that was set in 2016.
> 
> However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins.  And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
Click to expand...


The double speak, the talking out both sides of the mouth, the hypocrisy is norm for most politicians. I fully expect the either political party to take advantage of situations that they are given and they know full well if the situation was reversed, the opposition would quickly do the same. Biden many years ago while in the Senate, stated a vote for a Supreme Court Justice while a President was a must, now he claims different. Fast forward to 2016, McConnell didn't think it was right to confirm a Supreme Court Justice during an election year, now he is saying the opposite. 

I expect any party that believes their ideals and ways are better for the country will take advantage of political opportunities such as this. The Democrats would do the same and I'd expect it, it is all politics, no such thing as fair.


----------



## Dick Foster

Aletheia4u said:


> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com


Of course he does but I'm quite sure Trump is willing to have Chuck Schumer kiss his rosy red ass.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees

toobfreak said:


> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.  “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When in doubt, just ask Chuck.
> 
> Funny how all the Dems including Joe were singing the OPPOSITE tune a few years ago!
> 
> Lemme guess:  it was Ruth's DYING WISH!
> 
> Has anyone actually confirmed that?  How is it that only a few democrats seem, to have heard this?
> 
> Ruth, you're lucky you weren't replaced a few years ago in 2016 when you said that Trump had no consistency — I can't imagine what the country would be with Donald Trump as our president…Now it's time for us to move to New Zealand. When asked about a Trump victory, Ginsburg said: "I don't want to think about that possibility."
> 
> What kind of Supreme Justice expresses such malice and bias PUBLICLY?
Click to expand...

A democrat one


----------



## Quasar44

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schuck Fumer
Click to expand...

The fat “ salami tongue snake “


----------



## Quasar44

Entire state of NY has millions of Chuck Schumer types


----------



## Turtlesoup

candycorn said:


> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the precedent that was set in 2016.
> 
> However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins.  And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
Click to expand...

Screw that---Trump has a list and is all prepared.

One of the ladies will be nominated Friday or Saturday of this week and will be voted on within a month..............the quicker the better


----------



## johnwk

And now we see Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez threatens Mitch McConnell is _‘playing with fire’_ regarding his constitutionally authorized Senate duty.

[video=youtube_share;APiRa3mcJzU?t=57 ]


As you can see, the communist/socialist controlled Democrat Party Leadership is showing they are a threat to our very system of government!

JWK

*BEWARE! The Biden/Harris Administration, in wanting to keep Obamacare, which currently covers less than 9 million ___ many being foreigners/aliens ___ want to take away the existing private health insurance plans from over 150 million American Citizens, and force them into a Communist/Socialist, Cuban style healthcare system.*


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair

There is every legal precedent for what republicans intend to do. Schumer can cram his empty threats.


----------



## Quasar44

Johnlaw said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chuck U. Schumer is a hypocrite deluxe. In 2016, he tried to ram through Merrick Garland's nomination even though it was an election year.
> 
> Now, he changes his tune. He should be told to "F" off
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Garland we had nearly a year to consider when Guido Scalia got that well deserved appointment to the Netherworld.
> 
> This is less than 40 days to an election Trump is probably going to lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The idea of fair play in the USA is gone. Your word means nothing in politics, especially for Republicans.  McConnell’s decision to move forward on a nominee is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Click to expand...

You leftist demons would do the exact same thing


----------



## candycorn

Turtlesoup said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the precedent that was set in 2016.
> 
> However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins.  And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Screw that---Trump has a list and is all prepared.
> 
> One of the ladies will be nominated Friday or Saturday of this week and will be voted on within a month..............the quicker the better
Click to expand...


Quicker the better for the political aspirations of the GOP.  Not sure if the same holds true for the nation.  Then again, as we've seen with Roberts, Kennedy, O'Connor, and Souter--all GOP presidential nominees....the court has a way of moderating itself.  Gorsuch (sp?) ruled recently that LGBTs can file discrimination suits under the 64 civil rights act.  Not exactly what most conservatives have in mind.


----------



## johnwk

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> There is every legal precedent for what republicans intend to do. Schumer can cram his empty threats.




Exactly!   Let us not forget what Harry Reid told us:
.
.

JWK


*Our country is infested with a Fifth Column movement at MSNBC, NEW YORK TIMES, CNN, WASHINGTON POST, ATLANTIC MAGAZINE, New York Daily News, Time, ETC., and their countless Yellow Journalists, who work hand in hand with the Democrat Party socialist/communist leadership to plunder, paralyze and destroy our free market, free enterprise system. *


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

johnwk said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a fuck what Chucky has to say about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is really frightening.
> 
> Pelosi says Democrats ‘have our options’ when asked about impeaching Trump if he replaces Ginsburg
> 
> _“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday did not rule out the possibility of impeaching President Donald Trump if he tries to push through a Supreme Court nominee to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a lame-duck session.”_
> 
> Now that our President seems to be moving forward with his duty to nominate someone to take Justice Ginsburg’s place, the communist/socialist controlled Democrat Leadership is showing their real intentions if they ever seize power: packing the Supreme Court; holding more impeachment hearings; getting rid of the Electoral College; creating a number of new democrat controlled states, etc…
> 
> Is it not clear that today’s communist/socialist controlled Democrat Party Leadership wants to tear down our very system of government and create a one-party socialist/communist rule over the entire United States and her Citizens?
> 
> Forewarned is forearmed
> 
> JWK
> 
> *At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' A republic, if you can keep it,’ responded Franklin.*
Click to expand...

Not as frightening as we will be if they try that shit.

No mercy. 

This is a game for keeps. 

It's an existential struggle. 

We will be victorious or we will die in battle, ride the Valkyrie to feast, fight, fuck forever in Valhalla!


----------



## hadit

Camp said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rushing a Supreme Court nominee will guarantee two things, the increased incentive for electing a Democratic Senate and pressure on Republican incumbents, and the likelihood of a Democrat President and Senate increasing the size of Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but they’re planning on doing it anyways but they may not take back the Senate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rushing a nominee in before the election or new President and Senate will give the Dem's a rewarding excuse and support.
Click to expand...

Packing the court will give the democrats a huge black eye and ensure electoral losses for generations to come.


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> Packing the court will give the democrats a huge black eye and ensure electoral losses for generations to come.



Will it?  Frankly, that seems unlikely. 

So let's be straight up that in 2022, assuming the Democrats throw out Trump and the GOP Senate, that they will probably have some reversed in the midterms because the incumbant party always does.  So there's really no downside to restructuring the court with 13 Members to counter the illegal packing Trump has done.  

By 2024, I doubt it will still be an issue.  Let's assume that due to his age, Biden won't run for a second term.  We can also assume that by 2024, the Republicans will be going through a lot of civil war trying to Purge the Trump Davidians out of their ranks.  So there will be a lot of turmoil on both sides.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Packing the court will give the democrats a huge black eye and ensure electoral losses for generations to come.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will it?  Frankly, that seems unlikely.
> 
> So let's be straight up that in 2022, assuming the Democrats throw out Trump and the GOP Senate, that they will probably have some reversed in the midterms because the incumbant party always does.  So there's really no downside to restructuring the court with 13 Members to counter the illegal packing Trump has done.
> 
> By 2024, I doubt it will still be an issue.  Let's assume that due to his age, Biden won't run for a second term.  We can also assume that by 2024, the Republicans will be going through a lot of civil war trying to Purge the Trump Davidians out of their ranks.  So there will be a lot of turmoil on both sides.
Click to expand...

It certainly will cause them problems, because it's a naked attempt to turn the court into a democrat rubber stamp, like FDR tried to do.  If they succeeded, it would destroy the court's judicial authority, because every decision would rightly be seen as just more democrat politics. 

Now, this "illegal packing" (and remember you said HAS DONE, which means in the past). TRUMP! has not done anything illegal with his picks for the court, but if you think he did, feel free to cite what law he's already broken and in which appointment. Words mean things, and when you say he DID something illegal, it's up to you to at least specify what you mean so we can laugh at you. Failing to do so just means you're spouting your feelz again.

Keep in mind as well, that if the democrats pack the court, there will be nothing to stop Republicans from doing the exact same thing. And, just like what happened with the nuclear option, what short sighted democrats do for short term gain will bite them in the butt.


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> It certainly will cause them problems, because it's a naked attempt to turn the court into a democrat rubber stamp, like FDR tried to do. If they succeeded, it would destroy the court's judicial authority, because every decision would rightly be seen as just more democrat politics.



Okay, you kind of defeated your own argument.  FDR tried this, and a Democratic Congress said no.   While there were democratic losses in Congress in 1938 (but only because the Republicans had been losing seats from 1930 to 1936, and they had nowhere to go but up.) FDR STILL easily won re-election in 1940 and 1944.  



hadit said:


> Now, this "illegal packing" (and remember you said HAS DONE, which means in the past). TRUMP! has not done anything illegal with his picks for the court, but if you think he did, feel free to cite what law he's already broken and in which appointment. Words mean things, and when you say he DID something illegal, it's up to you to at least specify what you mean so we can laugh at you. Failing to do so just means you're spouting your feelz again.



Trump's existence is illegal. He stole the election, and voiding everything he's done needs to be a priority. 

Frankly, I'd like to impeach Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, but that would be too much trouble.  Adding 4 more justices... easily done.


----------



## johnwk

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who gives a fuck what Chucky has to say about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is really frightening.
> 
> Pelosi says Democrats ‘have our options’ when asked about impeaching Trump if he replaces Ginsburg
> 
> _“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday did not rule out the possibility of impeaching President Donald Trump if he tries to push through a Supreme Court nominee to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a lame-duck session.”_
> 
> Now that our President seems to be moving forward with his duty to nominate someone to take Justice Ginsburg’s place, the communist/socialist controlled Democrat Leadership is showing their real intentions if they ever seize power: packing the Supreme Court; holding more impeachment hearings; getting rid of the Electoral College; creating a number of new democrat controlled states, etc…
> 
> Is it not clear that today’s communist/socialist controlled Democrat Party Leadership wants to tear down our very system of government and create a one-party socialist/communist rule over the entire United States and her Citizens?
> 
> Forewarned is forearmed
> 
> JWK
> 
> *At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' A republic, if you can keep it,’ responded Franklin.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not as frightening as we will be if they try that shit.
> 
> No mercy.
> 
> This is a game for keeps.
Click to expand...


Indeed.  It is a game "for keeps".  Just look at the sorry souls living in Cuba and no more need be said.

Forewarned is forearmed!

JWK


*Socialist/communist democrats running for office will promise food on the table, free public housing, health care for all, guaranteed income, free college tuition, and other niceties by taxing the so called rich; and if by chance they ever do gain political power because of such promises made, their socialist/communist iron-fisted system will enslave the very fools who elected them.*


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> Keep in mind as well, that if the democrats pack the court, there will be nothing to stop Republicans from doing the exact same thing.



If we are ever stupid enough to let them get back into power, yeah.   There aren't enough stupid white people left to do that, though.  

The GOP hasn't won a majority since 2004.  They have to use tricks to get any power at all- Gerrymandering, voter suppression, etc.


----------



## johnwk

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind as well, that if the democrats pack the court, there will be nothing to stop Republicans from doing the exact same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> If we are ever stupid enough to let them get back into power. . .
Click to expand...


I'm very curious to know who is the "we" and "them" you mention?

From where I stand, I see the forces of good and evil in a raging confrontation and our constitutionally limited "Republican Form of Government" hanging in the balance.

Is this not what the fight is about with regard to nominating and confirming Supreme Court Justices?

On one hand we have Justices who actually work to support and defend the text of our Constitution and its legislative intent, as expressed during its framing and ratification process, which gives context to its text, and, on the other hand, we have Justices who use their office of public trust to impose their personal whims and fancies as "the rule of law" regardless of the very intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.

On the one hand we have a system of government controlled and regulated by a written constitution which the people have agreed to, and may be altered only be its Amendment Process, which requires the people's consent as prescribed therein.  On the other hand the constitution becomes a meaningless document, perverted by figure heads to accomplish nefarious goals which the people, through their Constitution, have forbidden.

So, my friend, in this fight between good and evil, who is the "we" and "them" which you mention.

JWK

*Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records and gives context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.*


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly will cause them problems, because it's a naked attempt to turn the court into a democrat rubber stamp, like FDR tried to do. If they succeeded, it would destroy the court's judicial authority, because every decision would rightly be seen as just more democrat politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, you kind of defeated your own argument.  FDR tried this, and a Democratic Congress said no.   While there were democratic losses in Congress in 1938 (but only because the Republicans had been losing seats from 1930 to 1936, and they had nowhere to go but up.) FDR STILL easily won re-election in 1940 and 1944.
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, this "illegal packing" (and remember you said HAS DONE, which means in the past). TRUMP! has not done anything illegal with his picks for the court, but if you think he did, feel free to cite what law he's already broken and in which appointment. Words mean things, and when you say he DID something illegal, it's up to you to at least specify what you mean so we can laugh at you. Failing to do so just means you're spouting your feelz again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump's existence is illegal. He stole the election, and voiding everything he's done needs to be a priority.
> 
> Frankly, I'd like to impeach Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, but that would be too much trouble.  Adding 4 more justices... easily done.
Click to expand...

So you DON'T have a law that TRUMP! broke, making his appointments illegal. That's what I thought. Next.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind as well, that if the democrats pack the court, there will be nothing to stop Republicans from doing the exact same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we are ever stupid enough to let them get back into power, yeah.   There aren't enough stupid white people left to do that, though.
> 
> The GOP hasn't won a majority since 2004.  They have to use tricks to get any power at all- Gerrymandering, voter suppression, etc.
Click to expand...

Pack the court like that and see what happens. It would be screamingly obvious to all but the most hardened hater that the democrats were trying to pervert the court, and out you go.


----------



## JoeB131

johnwk said:


> On one hand we have Justices who actually work to support and defend the text of our Constitution and its legislative intent, as expressed during its framing and ratification process, which gives context to its text, and, on the other hand, we have Justices who use their office of public trust to impose their personal whims and fancies as "the rule of law" regardless of the very intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.



Yeah, when I hear you guys say that, I wonder if you would want to go with 18th Century Medicine or 18th Century Food preparation or 18th century sanitation.   You'd be bleeding yourself after eating spoiled food and shitting in a chamber pot.  

We live in the 21st century, I really don't care about the "intent" of 18th century slave rapists.


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> Pack the court like that and see what happens. It would be screamingly obvious to all but the most hardened hater that the democrats were trying to pervert the court, and out you go.



Guy, if anyone cared about the Court, Trump never would have won to start with.  

The Court is an abstract to most people, they really don't understand what it does or how it does it.  

After they strip 20 million people of their health care and take away a woman's right to choose, they STILL won't understand it.


----------



## 22lcidw

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pack the court like that and see what happens. It would be screamingly obvious to all but the most hardened hater that the democrats were trying to pervert the court, and out you go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, if anyone cared about the Court, Trump never would have won to start with.
> 
> The Court is an abstract to most people, they really don't understand what it does or how it does it.
> 
> After they strip 20 million people of their health care and take away a woman's right to choose, they STILL won't understand it.
Click to expand...

You guys live off of the politics of fear. Everything based on a steady stream of government largesse. Slow it down and your whole way of life collapses.  If the system itself collapsed without the Repubs doing, it would be the real culprit.


----------



## johnwk

JoeB131 said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> On one hand we have Justices who actually work to support and defend the text of our Constitution and its legislative intent, as expressed during its framing and ratification process, which gives context to its text, and, on the other hand, we have Justices who use their office of public trust to impose their personal whims and fancies as "the rule of law" regardless of the very intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, when I hear you guys say that, I wonder if you would want to go with 18th Century Medicine or 18th Century Food preparation or 18th century sanitation.   You'd be bleeding yourself after eating spoiled food and shitting in a chamber pot.
> 
> We live in the 21st century, I really don't care about the "intent" of 18th century slave rapists.
Click to expand...



I have no idea what you are talking about.  Did you have something to add to the discussion with respect to what you quoted?

JWK



*BEWARE! The Biden/Harris Administration, in wanting to keep Obamacare, which currently covers less than 9 million ___ many being foreigners/aliens ___ want to take away the existing private health insurance plans from over 150 million American Citizens, and force them into a Communist/Socialist, Cuban style healthcare system.*


----------



## JoeB131

22lcidw said:


> You guys live off of the politics of fear. Everything based on a steady stream of government largesse. Slow it down and your whole way of life collapses. If the system itself collapsed without the Repubs doing, it would be the real culprit.



Seriously, is English even your first language?  



johnwk said:


> I have no idea what you are talking about. Did you have something to add to the discussion with respect to what you quoted?
> 
> JWK



Uh, yeah, did I need to use smaller words for you?


----------



## wamose

Schumer needs to STFU and check his privilege, uppity White bastard that he is. It's time for him to drag his simple minded ass to the back of the bus for a change. From here on, we want these establishment elitists to be seen but not heard. Viva Trump, making the country better for everyone.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pack the court like that and see what happens. It would be screamingly obvious to all but the most hardened hater that the democrats were trying to pervert the court, and out you go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, if anyone cared about the Court, Trump never would have won to start with.
> 
> The Court is an abstract to most people, they really don't understand what it does or how it does it.
> 
> After they strip 20 million people of their health care and take away a woman's right to choose, they STILL won't understand it.
Click to expand...

Dude, the court was a big reason why TRUMP! won in the first place. A whole lot of voters knew the next president would appoint multiple justices and they wanted him to do it, not the defeated one. And don't worry, the court won't prevent you from making your girlfriend get an abortion.


----------



## johnwk

JoeB131 said:


> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys live off of the politics of fear. Everything based on a steady stream of government largesse. Slow it down and your whole way of life collapses. If the system itself collapsed without the Repubs doing, it would be the real culprit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, is English even your first language?
> 
> 
> 
> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you are talking about. Did you have something to add to the discussion with respect to what you quoted?
> 
> JWK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah, did I need to use smaller words for you?
Click to expand...


So, you just stopped by to be a nuisance.

 

JWK

*To support Joe Biden and Kamala Harris is to support a continuance with Obama's love affair with our Global Governance Crowd *


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> Dude, the court was a big reason why TRUMP! won in the first place.



Trump didn't win. He lost by 3 million votes. I don't know why I have to keep pointing this out. 



hadit said:


> And don't worry, the court won't prevent you from making your girlfriend get an abortion.



I live in IL, where a woman's right to choose is locked into the law.  I'm more worried about the poor women in Red States who are going to get abortions from sketchy providers because you are trying to please your imaginary sky man.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, the court was a big reason why TRUMP! won in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump didn't win. He lost by 3 million votes. I don't know why I have to keep pointing this out.
Click to expand...


You have to keep "pointing it out" because it's meaningless and no one cares about it. Those votes were totally irrelevant. You might as well claim the loser in the Super Bowl actually won because they kicked more field goals while the other team scored touchdowns. Were you playing hooky the day when they went over that in Civics class? 



> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And don't worry, the court won't prevent you from making your girlfriend get an abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I live in IL, where a woman's right to choose is locked into the law.  I'm more worried about the poor women in Red States who are going to get abortions from sketchy providers because you are trying to please your imaginary sky man.
Click to expand...

There are not going to be many places at all that will completely outlaw abortion, so your faux concern is misplaced.


----------



## WTF19

Polishprince said:


> Chuck U. Schumer is a hypocrite deluxe.    In 2016, he tried to ram through Merrick Garland's nomination even though it was an election year.
> 
> Now, he changes his tune.  He should be told to "F" off


okay...fuck off schumer, the only thing you are good at is sticking out of the douchebag pill-osis ass---hemorrhoid of ny


----------



## WTF19

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, the court was a big reason why TRUMP! won in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump didn't win. He lost by 3 million votes. I don't know why I have to keep pointing this out.
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And don't worry, the court won't prevent you from making your girlfriend get an abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live in IL, where a woman's right to choose is locked into the law.  I'm more worried about the poor women in Red States who are going to get abortions from sketchy providers because you are trying to please your imaginary sky man.
Click to expand...

if you are that worried, you perform the abortions!!!  because you are told what to think and when, thank your evil demoncrats for that.  btw, what gives you the right to make everybody elses mind up?  nothing.  you should read what you type, im glad trumps supporters dont think like you.  btw, we can think for ourselves, and have open minds, and we can make our own decisions, unlike demoncrats


----------



## johnwk

JoeB131 said:


> Trump didn't win. He lost by 3 million votes. I don't know why I have to keep pointing this out.



And when was the Electoral College ended?

  

JWK

*The Democrat Party Leadership has been angry, stupid and obnoxious ever since the Republican Party Leadership freed democrat owned slaves and put the KKK out of business. ___ Author unknown*


----------



## johnwk

JoeB131 said:


> I live in IL, where a woman's right to choose is locked into the law.  I'm more worried about the poor women in Red States who are going to get abortions from sketchy providers because you are trying to please your imaginary sky man.



Well, if you are sincerely "worried about the poor women in Red States", then why not offer them transportation to your state, living quarters, etc.?  PROBLEM SOLVED!

JWK


* 

When it comes to healthcare, our communist/socialist candidates, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris, have no moral compass whatsoever. They refuse to make the distinction between CHARITABLE GIVING and tax tyranny to support the healthcare needs of illegal entrants. *


----------



## JimBowie1958

Senator Shmucker is such a cuckolded old self hating moron.


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> You have to keep "pointing it out" because it's meaningless and no one cares about it. Those votes were totally irrelevant. You might as well claim the loser in the Super Bowl actually won because they kicked more field goals while the other team scored touchdowns. Were you playing hooky the day when they went over that in Civics class?



Actually, it IS relevent to the context.  You guys keep claiming the people voted for Trump's agenda. Nope. The people voted AGAINST Trump's agenda.  By 3 million votes.   That we have this RACIST system in place that gives more votes to white states does not mean the people agreed with Trump's Agenda.  They clearly said "No" to it,  loudly in both 2016 and 2018.  



hadit said:


> There are not going to be many places at all that will completely outlaw abortion, so your faux concern is misplaced.



That there will be ANY at all is the problem.  Frankly, I don't want politicians making ANY medical decisions.  Isn't this your complaint against single payer health care. The only two people who should be involved in the decision to end a pregnancy should be the woman and her doctor, PERIOD. FULL FUCKING STOP.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to keep "pointing it out" because it's meaningless and no one cares about it. Those votes were totally irrelevant. You might as well claim the loser in the Super Bowl actually won because they kicked more field goals while the other team scored touchdowns. Were you playing hooky the day when they went over that in Civics class?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it IS relevent to the context.  You guys keep claiming the people voted for Trump's agenda. Nope. The people voted AGAINST Trump's agenda.  By 3 million votes.   That we have this RACIST system in place that gives more votes to white states does not mean the people agreed with Trump's Agenda.  They clearly said "No" to it,  loudly in both 2016 and 2018.
Click to expand...


"More votes to white states". Do you know how foolish you sound? First, take a look at which states have the highest concentrations of black people, then do the same for the time frame in which the EC was created and get back to me. And again, you keep saying TRUMP! actually lost. He didn't, he won by the rules of the contest. The popular vote is totally irrelevant. Therefore, his agenda matters, Hillary's doesn't. It's just that simple, no matter how much you stomp your feet and hold your breath. You might as well have said that Obama didn't win your state, so his agenda stops at the state border.



> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are not going to be many places at all that will completely outlaw abortion, so your faux concern is misplaced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That there will be ANY at all is the problem.  Frankly, I don't want politicians making ANY medical decisions.  Isn't this your complaint against single payer health care. The only two people who should be involved in the decision to end a pregnancy should be the woman and her doctor, PERIOD. FULL FUCKING STOP.
Click to expand...

The biggest complaint against socialized medicine is the inevitable long waits, rationing and lower quality health care, not only who makes medical decisions. Heck, non-doctors are involved in almost all medical decisions already. Why do you think we have so many problems deciding what health insurance and Medicare will and will not cover? Also, your defense of abortion hinges solely on your legal (not biological) definition of a living human being. The way you guys talk, you'd think there's a lizard growing inside the mother until one day it gets sprinkled with dust from a lawyer fairy and magically turns into a human being. I thought you guys were all about science and not superstition, but when it comes to this you run as far from science as you can and cling desperately to changeable legal terms. Once you accept that there is a living human being in that mother, the whole equation changes and abortion gets a lot harder to defend.


----------



## johnwk

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, it IS relevent to the context. You guys keep claiming the people voted for Trump's agenda. Nope.



Of course they voted for Trump's agenda and that is why he was elected.

 

JWK

*Our country is infested with a Fifth Column movement at MSNBC, NEW YORK TIMES, CNN, WASHINGTON POST, ATLANTIC MAGAZINE, New York Daily News, Time, ETC., and their countless Yellow Journalists, who work hand in hand with the Democrat Party socialist/communist leadership to plunder, paralyze and destroy our free market, free enterprise system. *


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> And again, you keep saying TRUMP! actually lost.



He lost by 3 million votes.  The people said no.  Therefore, nothing he is doing is the "Will of the people". 

The "Will of 306 Political Hacks" is not a form of good government.


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> The biggest complaint against socialized medicine is the inevitable long waits, rationing and lower quality health care, not only who makes medical decisions. Heck, non-doctors are involved in almost all medical decisions already. Why do you think we have so many problems deciding what health insurance and Medicare will and will not cover?



Blah, blah, blah... I'd rather have this done by governments I can vote out than corporate assholes I can't. 



hadit said:


> Also, your defense of abortion hinges solely on your legal (not biological) definition of a living human being.



No, my defense is based on a simple fact. 

If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she will FIND a way to not be pregnant.  

If she wants it, the Baby is Due in September. 
If she doesn't, it's "that thing I need to take care of on Tuesday".  

No law or appeal to biology is going to change this basic reality.


----------



## johnwk

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest complaint against socialized medicine is the inevitable long waits, rationing and lower quality health care, not only who makes medical decisions. Heck, non-doctors are involved in almost all medical decisions already. Why do you think we have so many problems deciding what health insurance and Medicare will and will not cover?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah... I'd rather have this done by governments I can vote out than corporate assholes I can't.
Click to expand...


Well, you could move to Cuba if that really is your concern. 

 

JWK

_*They are neither “liberals” nor “progressives”. They are conniving Marxist/Communist/Socialist parasites who use government force to steal and then enjoy the property which labor, business and investors have worked to create.*_


----------



## johnwk

JoeB131 said:


> _*Worst Pandemic in 100 years.*_
> *Worst Recession in 80 years.
> Worst Riots in 50 years. *



All true in communist/socialist Democrat controlled cities.  The good news is:

.
.
*Here is Kim Klacik’s Republican plan for Baltimore, a city destroyed by generations of Democrat rule which Kim has walked away from!*



[video=youtube_share;wBebl5fqzCA]

*God Bless Kim Klacik!*


JWK


*The Biden/Harris Administration’s plan to keep Obamacare, which currently covers less than 9 million ___ many being foreigners/aliens ___ will take away the existing private health insurance plans from over 150 million American Citizens, and force them into a Communist/Socialist, Cuban style healthcare system.*


----------



## JoeB131

johnwk said:


> Here is Kim Klacik’s Republican plan for Baltimore, a city destroyed by generations of Democrat rule which Kim has walked away from!



Another Step and Fetchit telling whitey what he wants to hear.


----------



## RealDave

Quasar44 said:


> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you about the fat schmuck Schumer
> . He is a Bolshevik fraud and a pimp to Big Business , Big Tech , Dirty lawyers are nothing else
> 
> He is basically a giant greasy slab of cornbeef  with 2 eyes, 2 ears and a huge mouth
> . Hs is very smart but has less morals than Stalin
Click to expand...

Anti-Semetic assfuck.


----------



## LeftofLeft

Whining Chuck would be saying otherwise if it were a Democrat President nominating a justice to a Democrat controlled Senate. “Elections have consequences” - Barack Obama.  ( I loved it when President Obama said this because as Democrats and their liberal supporters were running around spiking the ball, I knew Obama’s crass but truthful statement would bite them in the ass).


----------



## johnwk

LeftofLeft said:


> Whining Chuck would be saying otherwise if it were a Democrat President nominating a justice to a Democrat controlled Senate. “Elections have consequences” - Barack Obama.  ( I loved it when President Obama said this because as Democrats and their liberal supporters were running around spiking the ball, I knew Obama’s crass but truthful statement would bite them in the ass).


----------



## miketx

Aletheia4u said:


> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com


I declare schumer should be castrated and hung from a pole.


----------



## johnwk

JoeB131 said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is Kim Klacik’s Republican plan for Baltimore, a city destroyed by generations of Democrat rule which Kim has walked away from!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another Step and Fetchit telling whitey what he wants to hear.
Click to expand...


You mean privileged whitey instructing Blacks!

.


----------



## johnwk

JoeB131 said:


> Another Step and Fetchit telling whitey what he wants to hear.



Why you sucking up to this whitey?  Eh?

.







*And isn't this Joey Boy Biden calling Robert KKK Byrd, a "friend" and "mentor"?* 



Why you sucking up to whitey.  Eh?

JWK


----------



## johnwk

*Yo!  JoeB131,

You never answered the question!*

JWK


----------



## JoeB131

johnwk said:


> Yo! JoeB131,
> 
> You never answered the question!



Yes, I did.  You just didn't understand it or didn't want to hear it.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again, you keep saying TRUMP! actually lost.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He lost by 3 million votes.  The people said no.  Therefore, nothing he is doing is the "Will of the people".
> 
> The "Will of 306 Political Hacks" is not a form of good government.
Click to expand...

TRUMP! won by the rules of the contest both he and Hillary competed in. Nothing you can say, nothing you can repeat with your fingers in your ears and holding your breath until you turn blue changes that in the slightest. Sorry, but Hillary is not living in the White House, TRUMP! is. Hillary is not flying on Air Force 1, TRUMP! is. Hillary is not your president, TRUMP! is. Hillary is not signing EO's, TRUMP! is. Hillary is not placing justices on the Supreme Court, TRUMP! is. I can go on like this for a long time, because it's fun.

Now, what were you saying about him losing again?


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest complaint against socialized medicine is the inevitable long waits, rationing and lower quality health care, not only who makes medical decisions. Heck, non-doctors are involved in almost all medical decisions already. Why do you think we have so many problems deciding what health insurance and Medicare will and will not cover?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah... I'd rather have this done by governments I can vote out than corporate assholes I can't.
Click to expand...


It won't be. It will be done by unelected bureaucrats. With corporations you have to option to use a different one. With the rapacious government, you have no choice at all.



> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, your defense of abortion hinges solely on your legal (not biological) definition of a living human being.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, my defense is based on a simple fact.
> 
> If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she will FIND a way to not be pregnant.
> 
> If she wants it, the Baby is Due in September.
> If she doesn't, it's "that thing I need to take care of on Tuesday".
> 
> No law or appeal to biology is going to change this basic reality.
Click to expand...


So you think it's just as easy to defend abortion if you admit there is a tiny, defenseless human being that loses his/her life in the process? That's pretty sick.


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> TRUMP! won by the rules of the contest both he and Hillary competed in



Completely irrelevant to the point I was making.  The people said no.  Therefore, anything he does in defiance to the will of the people and therefor invalid.


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> So you think it's just as easy to defend abortion if you admit there is a tiny, defenseless human being that loses his/her life in the process? That's pretty sick.



Fetuses aren't people.  Their globs of parasitic tissue.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> TRUMP! won by the rules of the contest both he and Hillary competed in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Completely irrelevant to the point I was making.  The people said no.  Therefore, anything he does in defiance to the will of the people and therefor invalid.
Click to expand...

Bogus on its face. What do you call the guy who graduates last in his medical school class? Doctor. What do you call the guy who wins the electoral college but loses the popular vote? President. It simply doesn't matter how outraged you get, how hard you stomp your feet, how far you throw your crayons, TRUMP! is just as much the president, has just as much authority, and his actions are every bit as valid as Obama's were. Why? Because he's president. It's a binary thing, either you are or you're not. TRUMP! is president, therefore any replacement of Ginsburg starts with him. Hillary is not, therefore her opinion on who should replace Ginsburg is irrelevant and nobody cares. TRUMP! is president, bottom line, and everything he does is as legitimate as anything Obama did. Heck, using your standard, obamadon'tcare is illegitimate because the people clearly did not want it.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you think it's just as easy to defend abortion if you admit there is a tiny, defenseless human being that loses his/her life in the process? That's pretty sick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fetuses aren't people.  Their globs of parasitic tissue.
Click to expand...

And you prove my point. You won't admit a developing baby is human so you can hide behind semantics and not acknowledge that abortion kills a human being. You want to believe in your lawyer fairy that sprinkles magic dust on the baby when he/she is born and turns them into a human being, just like Pinocchio.


----------



## johnwk

JoeB131 said:


> johnwk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo! JoeB131,
> 
> You never answered the question!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I did.  You just didn't understand it or didn't want to hear it.
Click to expand...


The question was:  Why you sucking up to whitey?

JWK


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> TRUMP! is just as much the president, has just as much authority, and his actions are every bit as valid as Obama's were.



Nope. The people said no. He knows he's a fraud.   

So if he rams his illegitmate nutters onto the court after the people have clearly said otherwise, the Democrats are perfectly entitled to stack the court with as many people as needed. 



hadit said:


> And you prove my point. You won't admit a developing baby is human so you can hide behind semantics and not acknowledge that abortion kills a human being. You want to believe in your lawyer fairy that sprinkles magic dust on the baby when he/she is born and turns them into a human being, just like Pinocchio.



The legal beginning of my life was when my birth certificate was issued... that's the legal standard in this country.  

I'm not the one you have to convince.  You have to convince all those women who decided they didn't want to have babies that they were in fact murderers. .


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> TRUMP! is just as much the president, has just as much authority, and his actions are every bit as valid as Obama's were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. The people said no. He knows he's a fraud.
> 
> So if he rams his illegitmate nutters onto the court after the people have clearly said otherwise, the Democrats are perfectly entitled to stack the court with as many people as needed.
Click to expand...


Doesn't work that way. TRUMP! won fair and square. It's why he's in the White House and Hillary is retired, throwing things at Bubba. It's why he's in the news and no one cares what she thinks. It's why his hand-picked justices get to decide SC cases while hers simply don't exist. And get this, their opinions have just as much weight as any of Obama's picks. Ain't that a kick in the kisser? If the democrats try to stack the court, it will rebound against them big time. There will be about five of you hard-core sycophants who will claim they're justified and no one will care as the democrats get slapped down, hard. And note that, as well, TRUMP! was given a Republican Senate both in 16 and in 18. Let's review the facts. You know what facts are, right? They're those things that override your feelz.

1. He won the presidency.
2. He was given a supportive Senate in 16.
3. He was given an even more supportive Senate in 18.

Yup, the people obviously want him putting justices on the bench, and he is happy to oblige them.



> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you prove my point. You won't admit a developing baby is human so you can hide behind semantics and not acknowledge that abortion kills a human being. You want to believe in your lawyer fairy that sprinkles magic dust on the baby when he/she is born and turns them into a human being, just like Pinocchio.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The legal beginning of my life was when my birth certificate was issued... that's the legal standard in this country.
> 
> I'm not the one you have to convince.  You have to convince all those women who decided they didn't want to have babies that they were in fact murderers. .
Click to expand...

And again all you have to hide behind is a legal definition that could change tomorrow. What will you try to hide behind if science prevails over superstition and life is acknowledged to begin at conception? You'll have to switch to something else because there's no way you'd allow yourself to admit abortion is wrong, even when it's obvious you're slaughtering small, defenseless human beings.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

candycorn said:


> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the precedent that was set in 2016.
> 
> However, I fully expect the Republicans to do nominate and vote on a pick before 1/20/21 regardless of who wins.  And I can't blame them a bit for the hypocrisy. Politically, waiting is a non-starter.
Click to expand...


ROTFLMAO

Mitch used Bidens 1992 yapping as a weak excuse.

And now you are using Mitch's.

How delightful.

When you own the senate, you get to do what you want.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> TRUMP! is just as much the president, has just as much authority, and his actions are every bit as valid as Obama's were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. The people said no. He knows he's a fraud.
> 
> So if he rams his illegitmate nutters onto the court after the people have clearly said otherwise, the Democrats are perfectly entitled to stack the court with as many people as needed.
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you prove my point. You won't admit a developing baby is human so you can hide behind semantics and not acknowledge that abortion kills a human being. You want to believe in your lawyer fairy that sprinkles magic dust on the baby when he/she is born and turns them into a human being, just like Pinocchio.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The legal beginning of my life was when my birth certificate was issued... that's the legal standard in this country.
> 
> I'm not the one you have to convince.  You have to convince all those women who decided they didn't want to have babies that they were in fact murderers. .
Click to expand...


Keep hoping for that court packing.

Some dems have already said no and when it comes right down to it, a lot of them will.


----------



## hadit

Sun Devil 92 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> TRUMP! is just as much the president, has just as much authority, and his actions are every bit as valid as Obama's were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. The people said no. He knows he's a fraud.
> 
> So if he rams his illegitmate nutters onto the court after the people have clearly said otherwise, the Democrats are perfectly entitled to stack the court with as many people as needed.
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you prove my point. You won't admit a developing baby is human so you can hide behind semantics and not acknowledge that abortion kills a human being. You want to believe in your lawyer fairy that sprinkles magic dust on the baby when he/she is born and turns them into a human being, just like Pinocchio.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The legal beginning of my life was when my birth certificate was issued... that's the legal standard in this country.
> 
> I'm not the one you have to convince.  You have to convince all those women who decided they didn't want to have babies that they were in fact murderers. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep hoping for that court packing.
> 
> Some dems have already said no and when it comes right down to it, a lot of them will.
Click to expand...

It's really a pipe dream, because it would be a blatant perversion of the court, trying to turn it into just another arm of the DNC power structure.


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> Doesn't work that way. TRUMP! won fair and square.



You mean other than the collusion with Russia?  It doesn't matter if he won "fair and square".  The ONLY legitimacy of his rule is did the majority of the people agree to it.  They didn't.  The people said no.  They are going to say no again in November.  

When Trump is gone, you are going to see a LOT of changes to make sure that sort of thing never happens again.  



hadit said:


> And again all you have to hide behind is a legal definition that could change tomorrow. What will you try to hide behind if science prevails over superstition and life is acknowledged to begin at conception? You'll have to switch to something else because there's no way you'd allow yourself to admit abortion is wrong, even when it's obvious you're slaughtering small, defenseless human beings.



Hey, gonna tell you a story.  When I was still in the service, there was this gal I knew who was engaged to one of my fellow NCO's.   Except he largely treated her like shit and she spent a lot of time complaining to me about it. Now, this gal was brought up devout Catholic, strict Asian American household, you know, somewhere that you think your spewing about "abortion was murder" would take hold. And she wasn't a stupid girl, she was college educated.  

 Well, he kept putting off marrying her and she decided to up the ante by stopping her birth control and got knocked up.   of course, this guy was, you know, a jerk, and she decided to get an abortion because she didn't want her parents to know she wasn't still a virgin at 22.  Then she got back with the same guy, a year later, and the same thing happened.  

And here's the reason why abortion will always happen.  Because people, even smart ones, even religious ones, tend to be stupid about their relationships.  Forcing them to have babies they don't want would be impossible to enforce.  

Joe's Ideal World, no one would have an abortion because everyone would be smart about relationships and contraception would always work.   We don't live in an ideal world. Overturning Roe and giving globs of meat more rights than the woman they are inside in some states is not going to change that.


----------



## Gdjjr

Trump’s shortlist was down to two – this one, Amy Coney Barrett, or Lagoa, daughter of Cuban immigrants. Take the Cuban, Trump’s advisers told him, and the Cubans of Florida will vote for you. More, the Latinos will vote for you! Care for minorities, and you will win! But Trump chose Amy. He gave a chance to a normal non-hyphenated American, a cis-gender native, not an immigrant, not black, not Latino, not gay, not trans, not Jew and not even Ivy League. For years, such people were the least privileged, always rejected by the smart set who prefer minority identity politics, but Trump put all that aside and picked a traditional American. 
*Trump Did Not Flinch* - LOL poor cry babies in the media and idiot message board posters can't handle it-


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't work that way. TRUMP! won fair and square.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean other than the collusion with Russia?  It doesn't matter if he won "fair and square".  The ONLY legitimacy of his rule is did the majority of the people agree to it.  They didn't.  The people said no.  They are going to say no again in November.
> 
> When Trump is gone, you are going to see a LOT of changes to make sure that sort of thing never happens again.
Click to expand...


And that's where you're just making stuff up, because there wasn't "collusion with Russia". The haters tried to prove it for years, remember, and didn't even bother to complain about it in the impeachment. I mean, if they had even the slightest hope they could make the case, they would have tried but didn't. If only they had asked you. At any rate, the only legitimacy TRUMP! ever required was getting the most EC votes, that's it, and the fact that a bunch of voters in California didn't like him means diddly squat. Therefore, everything he does has the exact same legitimacy as anything Obama did. Tell you what, let's apply your standard to obamadon'tcare. It was obvious when it was enacted that the people didn't want it. Makes it illegitimate, right? Or don't you want to go down that road?



> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again all you have to hide behind is a legal definition that could change tomorrow. What will you try to hide behind if science prevails over superstition and life is acknowledged to begin at conception? You'll have to switch to something else because there's no way you'd allow yourself to admit abortion is wrong, even when it's obvious you're slaughtering small, defenseless human beings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, gonna tell you a story.  When I was still in the service, there was this gal I knew who was engaged to one of my fellow NCO's.   Except he largely treated her like shit and she spent a lot of time complaining to me about it. Now, this gal was brought up devout Catholic, strict Asian American household, you know, somewhere that you think your spewing about "abortion was murder" would take hold. And she wasn't a stupid girl, she was college educated.
> 
> Well, he kept putting off marrying her and she decided to up the ante by stopping her birth control and got knocked up.   of course, this guy was, you know, a jerk, and she decided to get an abortion because she didn't want her parents to know she wasn't still a virgin at 22.  Then she got back with the same guy, a year later, and the same thing happened.
> 
> And here's the reason why abortion will always happen.  Because people, even smart ones, even religious ones, tend to be stupid about their relationships.  Forcing them to have babies they don't want would be impossible to enforce.
> 
> Joe's Ideal World, no one would have an abortion because everyone would be smart about relationships and contraception would always work.   We don't live in an ideal world. Overturning Roe and giving globs of meat more rights than the woman they are inside in some states is not going to change that.
Click to expand...

And when you finally decide to accept science over superstition, you'll have to decide how to defend the practice of killing over a million defenseless humans every year in the US, largely for convenience. Of course abortion will always happen because people always do illegal things. That doesn't mean they should be legal.


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> And that's where you're just making stuff up, because there wasn't "collusion with Russia". The haters tried to prove it for years, remember, and didn't even bother to complain about it in the impeachment.



Yawn...  next you'll tell me John Gotti was innocent...  

Trump might be the first President where we go back through the history books and black out his name, his repute will be so bad. 



hadit said:


> And when you finally decide to accept science over superstition, you'll have to decide how to defend the practice of killing over a million defenseless humans every year in the US, largely for convenience. Of course abortion will always happen because people always do illegal things. That doesn't mean they should be legal.



Wow, really, did you argue "no, you are!" as a child?  

Fetuses aren't people. 

As far as people doing illegal things, it's a matter of agreement. 

Let's take murder, one of my favorite subjects.  We have 19,000 murders in this country every year, and we manage to convict about 60% of them.  Why? Because people will inform on their friends and family when a murder happens, police investigate seriously, prosecutors bring cases and juries convict when presented with clear evidence.  Therefore the law works. 

Now.  For abortion- Most people will not inform on their friends if they have an abortion, even if they know. (most cases, they never do.) Police will not bother to investigate, and frankly, the minute they start treating a miscarriage like a murder, there will be a hue and cry.  I promise you, if I ever found myself on jury in an abortion case, I'd vote to acquit even if they had film of the provider tossing little Globby into a medical waste container and yelling "POINTS!!!" 

Law only works if you have consensus.  This is why prohibition failed. It's the reason why you have at least six Happy Ending Massage Parlors within a few miles of me despite prostitution being against the law. (And I don't live in a particularly bad neighborhood).  

So you can scream, "What about the BAAAAABIES" all day, but most people won't go along with it.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that's where you're just making stuff up, because there wasn't "collusion with Russia". The haters tried to prove it for years, remember, and didn't even bother to complain about it in the impeachment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn...  next you'll tell me John Gotti was innocent...
> 
> Trump might be the first President where we go back through the history books and black out his name, his repute will be so bad.
Click to expand...


Totally irrelevant. Your complaints are baseless. Of course, you believe yourself, but apply just a little critical thought. Had Pelosi even the slightest hope that she could prove Russian collusion, are you really stupid enough to think she wouldn't have used it? Face it, TRUMP! is still your president, has been since 16, and might be for the NEXT 4 years as well. Heck, I hear there are a few more SC justices getting older and maybe looking to retire. Wouldn't it be cool for him to put another couple on the bench?



> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when you finally decide to accept science over superstition, you'll have to decide how to defend the practice of killing over a million defenseless humans every year in the US, largely for convenience. Of course abortion will always happen because people always do illegal things. That doesn't mean they should be legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, really, did you argue "no, you are!" as a child?
> 
> Fetuses aren't people.
> 
> As far as people doing illegal things, it's a matter of agreement.
> 
> Let's take murder, one of my favorite subjects.  We have 19,000 murders in this country every year, and we manage to convict about 60% of them.  Why? Because people will inform on their friends and family when a murder happens, police investigate seriously, prosecutors bring cases and juries convict when presented with clear evidence.  Therefore the law works.
> 
> Now.  For abortion- Most people will not inform on their friends if they have an abortion, even if they know. (most cases, they never do.) Police will not bother to investigate, and frankly, the minute they start treating a miscarriage like a murder, there will be a hue and cry.  I promise you, if I ever found myself on jury in an abortion case, I'd vote to acquit even if they had film of the provider tossing little Globby into a medical waste container and yelling "POINTS!!!"
> 
> Law only works if you have consensus.  This is why prohibition failed. It's the reason why you have at least six Happy Ending Massage Parlors within a few miles of me despite prostitution being against the law. (And I don't live in a particularly bad neighborhood).
> 
> So you can scream, "What about the BAAAAABIES" all day, but most people won't go along with it.
Click to expand...

You keep saying "people", which is what I expected, since you don't want to admit that those are human beings that are being killed. Like I said, hide behind superstition and avoid science. And I know full well you'd defend even the worst abortionist, because your ideology means more to you than destroyed lives. As long as the baby is killed, you don't care that the girl has nightmares the rest of her life.


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> Totally irrelevant. Your complaints are baseless. Of course, you believe yourself, but apply just a little critical thought. Had Pelosi even the slightest hope that she could prove Russian collusion, are you really stupid enough to think she wouldn't have used it?



Unlikely.... She really didn't want to impeach Trump over Ukraine, but that was even more blatant.  There's a reason why impeachment is rarely done, and it's usually because it's next to impossible to pull off.  

Trump is a fraud... he'll always be the fraud who cheated his way into the White House. 



hadit said:


> You keep saying "people", which is what I expected, since you don't want to admit that those are human beings that are being killed.



Um, no, most PEOPLE don't consider fetuses to have the same rights they have.. that's the point I'm getting across to you.  

You want to really end abortion, convince a majority that fetuses are people, then get back to me.  

Me, I'm all for abortion because it pisses off the religious nutters.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Totally irrelevant. Your complaints are baseless. Of course, you believe yourself, but apply just a little critical thought. Had Pelosi even the slightest hope that she could prove Russian collusion, are you really stupid enough to think she wouldn't have used it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlikely.... She really didn't want to impeach Trump over Ukraine, but that was even more blatant.  There's a reason why impeachment is rarely done, and it's usually because it's next to impossible to pull off.
> 
> Trump is a fraud... he'll always be the fraud who cheated his way into the White House.
Click to expand...


I understand that the only way you can cope with TRUMP!'s triumph is to go the sour grapes route, but he didn't cheat. Naturally, you will continue insisting in the face of multiple failed attempts to prove that he did, but it won't change reality. TRUMP! has been your president since 2016 and he could well be your president for 4 more years. Won't you get tired of uselessly and fruitlessly whining that somehow he's not?



> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying "people", which is what I expected, since you don't want to admit that those are human beings that are being killed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no, most PEOPLE don't consider fetuses to have the same rights they have.. that's the point I'm getting across to you.
> 
> You want to really end abortion, convince a majority that fetuses are people, then get back to me.
> 
> Me, I'm all for abortion because it pisses off the religious nutters.
Click to expand...

Yet you hide behind your superstition to do it.


----------



## Polishprince

RealDave said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aletheia4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are playing games. They really want Pres. Trump to rush in nominating his choice. But he needs to take his time to elect someone to fill the position. He should do it after the election, when he has both control over the House and the Senate. But then, if they has a bunch of paid protesters at the congressional hearings. That it will be hard for them to stay six feet apart under this mask mandate at these hearings.
> And so I wonder what these brood of vipers are up to..
> 
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice,” the New York Democrat said in a statement. “Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
> 
> The two parties have battled over filling high court vacancies close to an election.
> 
> Democrats wanted the Senate to consider Judge Merrick Garland, whom President Barack Obama nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in 2015.
> 
> But Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, would not take up Garland’s nomination, and it paid off for the GOP when Donald Trump defied the polls and won in 2016.
> 
> McConnell, who has ensured the confirmation of hundreds of conservative judges over the past three and a half years, has indicated repeatedly that he would move a nominee if a high court vacancy occurs late in Trump’s term.
> 
> Schumer may staunchly oppose taking up a Trump nominee right before the election, but he has little ability to stop McConnell. Both parties have stripped away the filibuster for judges, and now, only 51 votes are needed to confirm a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schumer declares Supreme Court vacancy should not be filled until after election in wake of RBG death
> 
> 
> Minority Leader Chuck Schumer issued a statement Friday following Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, advising Republicans not to confirm a replacement before the election.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.washingtonexaminer.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me tell you about the fat schmuck Schumer
> . He is a Bolshevik fraud and a pimp to Big Business , Big Tech , Dirty lawyers are nothing else
> 
> He is basically a giant greasy slab of cornbeef  with 2 eyes, 2 ears and a huge mouth
> . Hs is very smart but has less morals than Stalin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anti-Semetic assfuck.
Click to expand...



Opposition to Chuck U. Schumer isn't based upon anti-semitism, but anti-stalinism.

Sen. Schumer is actually a JINO, BTW.   Jewish in Name Only.


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> I understand that the only way you can cope with TRUMP!'s triumph is to go the sour grapes route, but he didn't cheat.



Yeah, actually he did. The people said no.  



hadit said:


> Yet you hide behind your superstition to do it.



Are you some kind of a retard?  I have to ask, because you think repeating the other side's argument is sensible. 

Fetuses aren't people.  A woman who doesn't want to be pregnant will find a way to not be pregnant. 

Unless you are willing to imprison women for HAVING abortions, any law you make is meaningless.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that the only way you can cope with TRUMP!'s triumph is to go the sour grapes route, but he didn't cheat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, actually he did. The people said no.
Click to expand...


Apparently you skipped school the day they went over this in Civics class, so I'll have to educate you. The popular vote literally doesn't matter when it comes to electing the president, only the EC votes matter, and whether you like it or not is irrelevant. Until the constitution is amended, the states elect the president. Thus, there was no cheating and TRUMP! is as legit as Obama. Until they change the rules, one team controlling the ball in a football game still doesn't win the game if the other team scores more points.



> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you hide behind your superstition to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you some kind of a retard?  I have to ask, because you think repeating the other side's argument is sensible.
> 
> Fetuses aren't people.  A woman who doesn't want to be pregnant will find a way to not be pregnant.
> 
> Unless you are willing to imprison women for HAVING abortions, any law you make is meaningless.
Click to expand...

But unborn babies ARE human beings, something you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge because for you, superstition overrides science.


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> The popular vote literally doesn't matter when it comes to electing the president,



Yawn, a technicality doesn't mean he has the will of the people.  The people said "NO".  Clearly, loudly.  

Now, Trump could have did what GWB did, and build bridges and work with people... he hasn't.  



hadit said:


> But unborn babies ARE human beings, something you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge because for you, superstition overrides science.



Naw, man, practicality overrides "science". 

If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she will find a way to not be pregnant.  

So you will have one of two things happen. - You'll go back to the pre-1973 standard of a law on the books everyone ignores, 

or

you'll have to create a police state where every woman's uterus is property of the state. 

I don't give a crap about the fetuses because mostly, I don't really give a crap about a lot of actual people. 

I go by, what can you PRACTICALLY accomplish as policy.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The popular vote literally doesn't matter when it comes to electing the president,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn, a technicality doesn't mean he has the will of the people.  The people said "NO".  Clearly, loudly.
> 
> Now, Trump could have did what GWB did, and build bridges and work with people... he hasn't.
Click to expand...


A "technicality" that is the only criteria by which the president is elected. You might as well, as I've said many times, insist that the team that held the ball longer actually won the Super Bowl against the team that scored more points.



> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> But unborn babies ARE human beings, something you steadfastly refuse to acknowledge because for you, superstition overrides science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, man, practicality overrides "science".
> 
> If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, she will find a way to not be pregnant.
> 
> So you will have one of two things happen. - You'll go back to the pre-1973 standard of a law on the books everyone ignores,
> 
> or
> 
> you'll have to create a police state where every woman's uterus is property of the state.
> 
> I don't give a crap about the fetuses because mostly, I don't really give a crap about a lot of actual people.
> 
> I go by, what can you PRACTICALLY accomplish as policy.
Click to expand...

Therefore you cannot support the Green New Deal, do not support the abrupt elimination of coal and petroleum as an energy source, support opening the economy back up in spite of having no vaccine or treatment for Covid, etc. Congratulations, you're a conservative.


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> A "technicality" that is the only criteria by which the president is elected. You might as well, as I've said many times, insist that the team that held the ball longer actually won the Super Bowl against the team that scored more points.



Again, we aren't talking about a 'game'.  We are talking about the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. 

The PEOPLE said NO.  



hadit said:


> Therefore you cannot support the Green New Deal, do not support the abrupt elimination of coal and petroleum as an energy source, support opening the economy back up in spite of having no vaccine or treatment for Covid, etc. Congratulations, you're a conservative.



Um, no, nothing like that at all.  It kind of had nothing to do with my point.  When you grow up and can address my point, please let me know.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> A "technicality" that is the only criteria by which the president is elected. You might as well, as I've said many times, insist that the team that held the ball longer actually won the Super Bowl against the team that scored more points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, we aren't talking about a 'game'.  We are talking about the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
> 
> The PEOPLE said NO.
Click to expand...


And you still don't grasp the reality that the "WILL OF THE PEOPLE" doesn't elect the president in this country. I used a game metaphor because I thought it would be easier for you to understand, since you keep carrying on about totally irrelevant things. See, the "WILL OF THE PEOPLE" might be for the Patriots to be humiliated in a Super Bowl, but if they score the most points, they win, simple as that. TRUMP! won the presidency by the only metric that matters, the EC. In addition to that, he was given a stronger Senate in the mid terms, so OBVIOUSLY it's the "WILL OF THE PEOPLE" that he be able to appoint justices to the SC, and he is doing that. Everything he does is as legitimate as anything Obama or any of the presidents before him did.

Admit the truth, if the next democrat president is elected by the EC and loses the popular vote, you will do a 180 on this so fast you'll sprain your neck.



> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore you cannot support the Green New Deal, do not support the abrupt elimination of coal and petroleum as an energy source, support opening the economy back up in spite of having no vaccine or treatment for Covid, etc. Congratulations, you're a conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no, nothing like that at all.  It kind of had nothing to do with my point.  When you grow up and can address my point, please let me know.
Click to expand...

Has everything to do with your claim to value practicality over science. When you're ready to address what you said, let me know, conservative.


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> And you still don't grasp the reality that the "WILL OF THE PEOPLE" doesn't elect the president in this country.



No, but it is the fundamental operating assumption 

The constitution starts  WE THE PEOPLE.   

The people said no.  

Therefore, no one is really obligated to work with Trump unless Trump can convince us it's a good idea. 



hadit said:


> Has everything to do with your claim to value practicality over science.



Um, no.  Science doesn't come into this debate.   It's purely a debate on what kind of law you can practically enforce.  

I don't particularly want to live with the Sex Police.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you still don't grasp the reality that the "WILL OF THE PEOPLE" doesn't elect the president in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but it is the fundamental operating assumption
> 
> The constitution starts  WE THE PEOPLE.
> 
> The people said no.
> 
> Therefore, no one is really obligated to work with Trump unless Trump can convince us it's a good idea.
Click to expand...


On the contrary, TRUMP! is fully president as much as Obama ever was, with the same authority Obama had. If he puts tariffs on goods originating in a foreign country, you pay that tariff whether you think it's a good idea or not. If a Republican Congress (guess what, elected by the people) to send him legislation you hate and he signs it, you're bound to obey it whether you think it's a good idea or not. If he sends troops into battle and you or "the people" don't like it, well, he has the authority to send  them. Your opinion literally means nothing, and simply leaves you ranting toothlessly on the internet. TRUMP! won, and might win again. And guess what, once again, it doesn't matter if you like it or not. If he wins by a single EC vote and loses the popular vote by 10 million, it makes no more difference than if he wins a 49 state (56 in Obama's world) landslide and 85% of the popular vote. He'd still be president with the same authority. Tell you what, will you come back here and say the will of the people elected TRUMP! and he's completely legit if he gets both the EC and popular vote, or will you continue ranting about somebody looked sideways and somebody, or put an ad on FaceBook, and it's JUST NOT FAIR? If Biden is elected, he's elected and he's president. Of course, if his mind is as gone as it seems obvious, he'll at best be a figurehead, trotted out to mumble some stuff now and then while his handlers run things, but he'd be the president, and the voters will know not to do that again.



> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has everything to do with your claim to value practicality over science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no.  Science doesn't come into this debate.   It's purely a debate on what kind of law you can practically enforce.
> 
> I don't particularly want to live with the Sex Police.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. If you insist you only support practical legislation, you cannot support the Green New Deal, cannot support the abrupt termination of using coal and petroleum, and have to support opening the economy back up. Face it, that makes you a conservative, because liberals go for feelz over everything else. And yes, science really does enter into the picture, because people need to be honest about what actually gets killed in an abortion. Pretending that a developing baby is not a human being because he/she doesn't have the legal protection of "personhood" is just trying to weasel out of the truth.


----------



## Quasar44

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Packing the court will give the democrats a huge black eye and ensure electoral losses for generations to come.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will it?  Frankly, that seems unlikely.
> 
> So let's be straight up that in 2022, assuming the Democrats throw out Trump and the GOP Senate, that they will probably have some reversed in the midterms because the incumbant party always does.  So there's really no downside to restructuring the court with 13 Members to counter the illegal packing Trump has done.
> 
> By 2024, I doubt it will still be an issue.  Let's assume that due to his age, Biden won't run for a second term.  We can also assume that by 2024, the Republicans will be going through a lot of civil war trying to Purge the Trump Davidians out of their ranks.  So there will be a lot of turmoil on both sides.
Click to expand...

Then when the GOP has full power they will pack it to 17 from 13 and it will go on and on 
 Right now the court is 4 to 4


----------



## Quasar44

Roberts is a leftist


----------



## Quasar44

Schumer is a slimy piece of salami with 2 eyes , 2 ears and a big nose


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> On the contrary, TRUMP! is fully president as much as Obama ever was,



Nope. The people said No.  And he was impeached.  



hadit said:


> Irrelevant. If you insist you only support practical legislation, you cannot support the Green New Deal



I don't support the Green New Deal.  Some of it's ideas are okay, but that's why we have a congress.  

Nothing to so with your desire for a sexual police State.


----------



## JoeB131

Quasar44 said:


> Then when the GOP has full power they will pack it to 17 from 13 and it will go on and on
> Right now the court is 4 to 4



You think this country will ever be fool enough to elect another Republican?  Demographics are not your friend.

All the old white racists are dying off, and no one is going to miss them.


----------



## Staidhup

Schumer is such a fraud. He views the Constitution as toilet paper.


----------



## Staidhup

The role of the Senate was designed to check and temper the House, create consensus and compromise, regretfully it’s just an extension of partisan politics. The Dim’s demand it their way or the highway. Obama ignored the opposition party, if they wouldn’t capitulate F em, his idea of compromise was to tell them to shut up and stand aside. It’s why the house serves two year and senate 6 year terms.


----------



## beautress

JoeB131 said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chuck U. Schumer is a hypocrite deluxe. In 2016, he tried to ram through Merrick Garland's nomination even though it was an election year.
> 
> Now, he changes his tune. He should be told to "F" off
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Garland we had nearly a year to consider when Guido Scalia got that well deserved appointment to the Netherworld.
> 
> This is less than 40 days to an election Trump is probably going to lose.
Click to expand...

You're going to have a bad day November 3, because the American people didn't fall for having a criminal extortionist for president.


----------



## JoeB131

beautress said:


> You're going to have a bad day November 3, because the American people didn't fall for having a criminal extortionist for president.



If you guys are so sure that Trump is going to win, why are you in such a hurry to ram Serena Joy onto the court.


----------



## Polishprince

JoeB131 said:


> beautress said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're going to have a bad day November 3, because the American people didn't fall for having a criminal extortionist for president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you guys are so sure that Trump is going to win, why are you in such a hurry to ram Serena Joy onto the court.
Click to expand...



Actually, it doesn't make a difference, Joe.   Even if Trump were to lose, ACB still gets voted on to the court after election day.


----------



## Quasar44

JoeB131 said:


> Quasar44 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then when the GOP has full power they will pack it to 17 from 13 and it will go on and on
> Right now the court is 4 to 4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think this country will ever be fool enough to elect another Republican?  Demographics are not your friend.
> 
> All the old white racists are dying off, and no one is going to miss them.
Click to expand...

The only white racist are on the demoncat side 
. You’re the side of fascism and racism and you can die off


----------



## Quasar44

I am as strong as ever , even at 45


----------



## JoeB131

Polishprince said:


> Actually, it doesn't make a difference, Joe. Even if Trump were to lose, ACB still gets voted on to the court after election day.



Then there's no real reason why you guys should be forcing a vote... 

Of course, if half the GOP Caucus gets the Covid, it might not make a difference.


----------



## Polishprince

JoeB131 said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it doesn't make a difference, Joe. Even if Trump were to lose, ACB still gets voted on to the court after election day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then there's no real reason why you guys should be forcing a vote...
> 
> Of course, if half the GOP Caucus gets the Covid, it might not make a difference.
Click to expand...



Actually, there is a good political reason, to expose the Democrat Party as the fascistic obstructionists they are , before Americans are sealed in the voting cubicles.


----------



## JoeB131

Polishprince said:


> Actually, there is a good political reason, to expose the Democrat Party as the fascistic obstructionists they are , before Americans are sealed in the voting cubicles.



Wait a minute, your side argued that we shouldn't consider Garland with NINE months before an election, but we should consider Serena Joy with only weeks to go?


----------



## Polishprince

JoeB131 said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, there is a good political reason, to expose the Democrat Party as the fascistic obstructionists they are , before Americans are sealed in the voting cubicles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait a minute, your side argued that we shouldn't consider Garland with NINE months before an election, but we should consider Serena Joy with only weeks to go?
Click to expand...


The Dems started this, Joe.   You forget that at the BEGINNING of the 2007-08 Congress, after the D's took control, Sen. Schumer declared that they would accept NO nominees for the SCOTUS from President Bush.

That was with TWO YEARS left in the term.   Sen. McConnell was just following Liberal Precedent in 2016 with the Garland nomination.


----------



## JoeB131

Polishprince said:


> The Dems started this, Joe. You forget that at the BEGINNING of the 2007-08 Congress, after the D's took control, Sen. Schumer declared that they would accept NO nominees for the SCOTUS from President Bush.



So then you agree, precedent is we should wait until after an election.


----------



## 22lcidw

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, TRUMP! is fully president as much as Obama ever was,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. The people said No.  And he was impeached.
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. If you insist you only support practical legislation, you cannot support the Green New Deal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't support the Green New Deal.  Some of it's ideas are okay, but that's why we have a congress.
> 
> Nothing to so with your desire for a sexual police State.
Click to expand...

The elites, the media, the entertainers and the Prog Politicians with some Repub ones and the unelected Deep State individuals said no. They then spread it to the people. On the Green New Deal we will see Several dollar a gallon gasoline with you flunkies.


----------



## beautress

JoeB131 said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it doesn't make a difference, Joe. Even if Trump were to lose, ACB still gets voted on to the court after election day.
> 
> 
> 
> Then there's no real reason why you guys should be forcing a vote...
> 
> Of course, if half the GOP Caucus gets the Covid, it might not make a difference.
Click to expand...

Poor JoeB is so annoyed that his beloved extortionist Biden has been found out nationally and law-abiding adults are going with the Donald for President as a fight back to the filthy, dirty Democrats of Obama-Biden-Clinton-Shumer-Pelosi-Shiff-Nadler-Waters _et al. Four long years of Democrat calumny, cheap shots, and charlitan tactics._


----------

