Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Things are different now. Obama has removed the mask and shown us who he really is. He's a racist. A Muslim sympathizer. His friends like Beyonce' support Blacklivesmatters and the Black Panthers......showed it during the Super Bowl. Cop haters, anti-Semites, gun-grabbing assholes. Obama isn't held in high regard like before. Trump winning states during the primary process pretty much spells that out.I think Obama deserves several kicks in the balls on national television.
.....and we all know how "well" that little threat about kicking Obama worked out for you guys in the past. LOL
For who?That's not how I read it. The primary reason was his stance on Rove v. Wade.
You can "read it" any way you want, but Bork was a catastrophe.
The only reason Clarence Thomas got a floor vote and a confirmation was because Democrats didn't want to look like racists.
Please explain.......or do you hate black people?The only reason Clarence Thomas got a floor vote and a confirmation was because Democrats didn't want to look like racists.
And now we'll look like idiots.
Gee, that's going to work out well.
>>>>
Please explain.......or do you hate black people?
========Obama doesn't know moderation.I'm torn between that and nominating a moderate who the Senate already confirmed for a lower court. A Liberal would be easy for them to reject. A moderate they've already approved of...? Not so much.Obama < SHOULD > nominate an ultra liberal because Republicans will certainly install an ultra conservative if they get the chance.
And then he should hold weekly press conferences with charts showing how long it took to appoint previous replacements and showing how Republicans are being nothing but obstructionists and are refusing to do their job according to the Constitution.
My friend, THAT is exactly what the DNC is hoping for in an election cycle.....A spectacle that will show to the average voter (not the ultra conservative) what a DO-NOTHING senate is all about.
(Actually, Scalia gave the DNC quite the "gift")
========Knock yourself out. A fight is what we want.========Well, no. In reality, the average time it takes to appoint a judge is little more than 2 months. So there is still plenty of time for Obama to get a judge on the bench.It should take over a year to vet anyone that he's nominated.....so Obama missed out on his chance. Judging by his previous picks, he doesn't deserve the benefit of a doubt. Besides, he wants to make sure Hillary is elected. She's offered him a bribe of a Supreme Court appointment and he's not gonna throw that away.
Obama < SHOULD > nominate an ultra liberal because Republicans will certainly install an ultra conservative if they get the chance.
And then he should hold weekly press conferences with charts showing how long it took to appoint previous replacements and showing how Republicans are being nothing but obstructionists and are refusing to do their job according to the Constitution.
I think Obama deserves several kicks in the balls on national television.
If he was a Republican you'd hate em.Please explain.......or do you hate black people?
The Dem's will ride this into the dirt during the election cycle where 24 Republican Senators are up for reelection vs. only 10 Democrat Senators and with us having only a 4 vote majority in the Senate.
Why would I hate black people?
I don't even hate Obama because he's black.
>>>>
What if games are for children and that is not the reality on the ground, so why govern on a fantasy? This we know for certain. In the past, democrats refused to allow nominees to even come up for hearings or a vote. Now, they're livid thinking that may be done to them. Again, Obama doesn't know moderation and will not nominate a moderate, because his rigid ideology won't let him.========Obama doesn't know moderation.I'm torn between that and nominating a moderate who the Senate already confirmed for a lower court. A Liberal would be easy for them to reject. A moderate they've already approved of...? Not so much.Obama < SHOULD > nominate an ultra liberal because Republicans will certainly install an ultra conservative if they get the chance.
And then he should hold weekly press conferences with charts showing how long it took to appoint previous replacements and showing how Republicans are being nothing but obstructionists and are refusing to do their job according to the Constitution.
My friend, THAT is exactly what the DNC is hoping for in an election cycle.....A spectacle that will show to the average voter (not the ultra conservative) what a DO-NOTHING senate is all about.
(Actually, Scalia gave the DNC quite the "gift")
If Republicans were in his position they WOULD nominate an Ultra - Conservative and you know it.
So why shouldn't Dems follow our ideology just as you would like to follow yours?
What if games are for children and that is not the reality on the ground, so why govern on a fantasy? This we know for certain. In the past, democrats refused to allow nominees to even come up for hearings or a vote. Now, they're livid thinking that may be done to them. Again, Obama doesn't know moderation and will not nominate a moderate, because his rigid ideology won't let him.
Read about what dems did to Bush's minority picks. Next.What if games are for children and that is not the reality on the ground, so why govern on a fantasy? This we know for certain. In the past, democrats refused to allow nominees to even come up for hearings or a vote. Now, they're livid thinking that may be done to them. Again, Obama doesn't know moderation and will not nominate a moderate, because his rigid ideology won't let him.
How did Kennedy get confirmed?
How many democrats voted against Scalia?
Learn some history and do get back to us.
If he was a Republican you'd hate em.Please explain.......or do you hate black people?
The Dem's will ride this into the dirt during the election cycle where 24 Republican Senators are up for reelection vs. only 10 Democrat Senators and with us having only a 4 vote majority in the Senate.
Why would I hate black people?
I don't even hate Obama because he's black.
>>>>
=====What if games are for children and that is not the reality on the ground, so why govern on a fantasy? This we know for certain. In the past, democrats refused to allow nominees to even come up for hearings or a vote. Now, they're livid thinking that may be done to them. Again, Obama doesn't know moderation and will not nominate a moderate, because his rigid ideology won't let him.========Obama doesn't know moderation.I'm torn between that and nominating a moderate who the Senate already confirmed for a lower court. A Liberal would be easy for them to reject. A moderate they've already approved of...? Not so much.Obama < SHOULD > nominate an ultra liberal because Republicans will certainly install an ultra conservative if they get the chance.
And then he should hold weekly press conferences with charts showing how long it took to appoint previous replacements and showing how Republicans are being nothing but obstructionists and are refusing to do their job according to the Constitution.
My friend, THAT is exactly what the DNC is hoping for in an election cycle.....A spectacle that will show to the average voter (not the ultra conservative) what a DO-NOTHING senate is all about.
(Actually, Scalia gave the DNC quite the "gift")
If Republicans were in his position they WOULD nominate an Ultra - Conservative and you know it.
So why shouldn't Dems follow our ideology just as you would like to follow yours?
I wouldn't waste that much time if I were Obama. I'd have a nominee in the Senate by the end of this week.We're talking about the Supreme Court. Even Bush's nominees averaged about two months.
Plenty of time.
My guess, is that Obama will have 1 or 2 nominees by the end of April...then the fun will begin with the senate judiciary committee....Bear in mind that the GOPers in the judiciary committee are all from red states therefore pretty safe in getting reelected....HOWEVER, their right wing colleagues in the senate will be in a frenzy to get the nominee out of the committee for a floor vote.
This is the Republicans chance to get a moderate to replace Scalia. If they pass on this opportunity hoping to get another Conservative, they might, if the election goes their way. If it doesn't, a Liberal will take that seat.I'm torn between that and nominating a moderate who the Senate already confirmed for a lower court. A Liberal would be easy for them to reject. A moderate they've already approved of...? Not so much.Obama < SHOULD > nominate an ultra liberal because Republicans will certainly install an ultra conservative if they get the chance.
And then he should hold weekly press conferences with charts showing how long it took to appoint previous replacements and showing how Republicans are being nothing but obstructionists and are refusing to do their job according to the Constitution.
My friend, THAT is exactly what the DNC is hoping for in an election cycle.....A spectacle that will show to the average voter (not the ultra conservative) what a DO-NOTHING senate is all about.
(Actually, Scalia gave the DNC quite the "gift")
A nominee for a district court or appellate court will not do as much damage as one for SCOTUS , specially one which will disrupt the 5-4 balance.
.
Not sure what any of that has to do with the current situation. Again, the average time to fill a seat is little over two months.Bush never nominated extremists either, as Obama has.We're talking about the Supreme Court. Even Bush's nominees averaged about two months.Not with Republican presidents. Dingy Harry had many Bush nominees waiting for years. Many appointments stayed vacant.Well, no. In reality, the average time it takes to appoint a judge is little more than 2 months. So there is still plenty of time for Obama to get a judge on the bench.It should take over a year to vet anyone that he's nominated.....so Obama missed out on his chance. Judging by his previous picks, he doesn't deserve the benefit of a doubt. Besides, he wants to make sure Hillary is elected. She's offered him a bribe of a Supreme Court appointment and he's not gonna throw that away.
Plenty of time.
Reagan was a totally different story. Robert Bork for example. Bork was suggested before the process began. Democrats said no. Reagan nominated him anyway. They rejected him. Most of the time, presidents just want to fill the position, not have a long drawn out fight.
The Clarence Thomas hearings turned into a sexual-harassment circus. A total disgrace chaired by Sen Joe Biden. That was abnormal. I would love to see Obama's nominees stand up to that kind of harassment by Republicans. But I don't expect them to act so shitty.
However, since Obama doesn't like working with Congress, and regularly goes around them, I don't see why we need to keep with the average time, maybe a rejection or two are in order.. He deserves the same consideration he used to force Obamacare down our throats. None.
LOLWell, tough-shit.The shameful treatment that conservative judges got at the hands of Democrats (Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas) only illustrates the depths that liberals are willing to sink to.
Bork got a floor vote.
So did Thomas.
The Senate leadership is saying they don't want to allow that for a Dem President.
>>>>
