Stack The Court, Genius Move Democrats!

[Winston]

Hillary was supposed to appoint the 5th and final SCOTUS justice who would eliminate the 1st and 2nd Amendment; the 4th died right after 9/11

What the hell are you talking about? That makes no sense at all. Even if someone want to get rid of an amendment, the SCOTUS can not do it unilaterally . Your just spewing hot air

You disagree with what Doc7505 ? Are you so ignorant of how things work that you actually think that SCOTUS could repeal and amendment? What is perhaps even more ridiculous is the idea that Democrats want to repeal the 1st and 2nd Amendments

What really gets me is all this talk about judicial activism. Legislating from the bench. Yet Heller was the biggest example of judicial activism in the history of this country. For over two hundred years the second amendment was a collective right, not an individual right. It had nothing, I mean nothing at all to do with personal protection. Jesus Christ, when the Constitution was signed it was too damn dangerous to allow individual citizens to keep "arms" in their home. The indians might get them. I mean for the love of God, where were the British going prior to the battles of Lexington and Concord? To the FREAKING ARMOURY, because that is where the guns were. They wouldn't even have bothered to march if everyone was keeping their guns in their home.

When the Constitution was written everyone had firearms in their homes. Everyone. That's how they put dinner on the table. By 11 years old boys were expected to be proficient enough with a rifle to get food. Did you think there was a village armory someplace?

Uh, duh huh. Yes, there was a village amory. Again, where were the British heading prior to the battles of Lexington and Concord. And no, "guns" were not required to put food on the table. My father hunted with dogs, no gun, and bought home rabbits for supper. Hell, ammo cost too much. My great, great, great, oh hell, I don't know how many greats grandfather had one of the only guns in this area during the time the Constitution was written. It is currently on display at a historical museum. And it was the gun that took Ferguson down at the Battle of Kings Mountain, borrowed from the old man. Truth of the matter, white men during colonial times were some piss poor hunters. They damn near starved to death in an environment teeming with wild life. It was the Indians that bought the deer to the Thanksgiving dinner. Matter of fact, guns were more often traded with Indians to get wild game than actually used to take it down. You have a fantasy view of what this country was like at it's founding.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Hillary was supposed to appoint the 5th and final SCOTUS justice who would eliminate the 1st and 2nd Amendment; the 4th died right after 9/11

What the hell are you talking about? That makes no sense at all. Even if someone want to get rid of an amendment, the SCOTUS can not do it unilaterally . Your just spewing hot air

You disagree with what Doc7505 ? Are you so ignorant of how things work that you actually think that SCOTUS could repeal and amendment? What is perhaps even more ridiculous is the idea that Democrats want to repeal the 1st and 2nd Amendments

What really gets me is all this talk about judicial activism. Legislating from the bench. Yet Heller was the biggest example of judicial activism in the history of this country. For over two hundred years the second amendment was a collective right, not an individual right. It had nothing, I mean nothing at all to do with personal protection. Jesus Christ, when the Constitution was signed it was too damn dangerous to allow individual citizens to keep "arms" in their home. The indians might get them. I mean for the love of God, where were the British going prior to the battles of Lexington and Concord? To the FREAKING ARMOURY, because that is where the guns were. They wouldn't even have bothered to march if everyone was keeping their guns in their home.

When the Constitution was written everyone had firearms in their homes. Everyone. That's how they put dinner on the table. By 11 years old boys were expected to be proficient enough with a rifle to get food. Did you think there was a village armory someplace?

Uh, duh huh. Yes, there was a village amory. Again, where were the British heading prior to the battles of Lexington and Concord. And no, "guns" were not required to put food on the table. My father hunted with dogs, no gun, and bought home rabbits for supper. Hell, ammo cost too much. My great, great, great, oh hell, I don't know how many greats grandfather had one of the only guns in this area during the time the Constitution was written. It is currently on display at a historical museum. And it was the gun that took Ferguson down at the Battle of Kings Mountain, borrowed from the old man. Truth of the matter, white men during colonial times were some piss poor hunters. They damn near starved to death in an environment teeming with wild life. It was the Indians that bought the deer to the Thanksgiving dinner. Matter of fact, guns were more often traded with Indians to get wild game than actually used to take it down. You have a fantasy view of what this country was like at it's founding.

You have just proven yourself a complete ignoramus. End of sentence.

 

[Winston]

When the Constitution was written everyone had firearms in their homes. Everyone.

Mostly just white males who were also expected to be in the Militias too.

Everyone who eats had a gun in the home.

You are so wrong. Guns were expensive, unreliable, and slow. A bow was a much better option to take game. Cheap, faster, more reliable, and more accurate in the hands of someone that knew what they were doing. Snare traps and pitfalls were more often used. And besides, the rivers and sounds were teeming with fish. Why waste time and energy "hunting" when you could just net a pile of fish without even trying. George Washington took so much fish out of the Potomac that do this day you can still find the remains of his barrels of salted fish throughout the Caribbean.

 

[Winston]

Hillary was supposed to appoint the 5th and final SCOTUS justice who would eliminate the 1st and 2nd Amendment; the 4th died right after 9/11

What the hell are you talking about? That makes no sense at all. Even if someone want to get rid of an amendment, the SCOTUS can not do it unilaterally . Your just spewing hot air

You disagree with what Doc7505 ? Are you so ignorant of how things work that you actually think that SCOTUS could repeal and amendment? What is perhaps even more ridiculous is the idea that Democrats want to repeal the 1st and 2nd Amendments

What really gets me is all this talk about judicial activism. Legislating from the bench. Yet Heller was the biggest example of judicial activism in the history of this country. For over two hundred years the second amendment was a collective right, not an individual right. It had nothing, I mean nothing at all to do with personal protection. Jesus Christ, when the Constitution was signed it was too damn dangerous to allow individual citizens to keep "arms" in their home. The indians might get them. I mean for the love of God, where were the British going prior to the battles of Lexington and Concord? To the FREAKING ARMOURY, because that is where the guns were. They wouldn't even have bothered to march if everyone was keeping their guns in their home.

When the Constitution was written everyone had firearms in their homes. Everyone. That's how they put dinner on the table. By 11 years old boys were expected to be proficient enough with a rifle to get food. Did you think there was a village armory someplace?

Uh, duh huh. Yes, there was a village amory. Again, where were the British heading prior to the battles of Lexington and Concord. And no, "guns" were not required to put food on the table. My father hunted with dogs, no gun, and bought home rabbits for supper. Hell, ammo cost too much. My great, great, great, oh hell, I don't know how many greats grandfather had one of the only guns in this area during the time the Constitution was written. It is currently on display at a historical museum. And it was the gun that took Ferguson down at the Battle of Kings Mountain, borrowed from the old man. Truth of the matter, white men during colonial times were some piss poor hunters. They damn near starved to death in an environment teeming with wild life. It was the Indians that bought the deer to the Thanksgiving dinner. Matter of fact, guns were more often traded with Indians to get wild game than actually used to take it down. You have a fantasy view of what this country was like at it's founding.

You have just proven yourself a complete ignoramus. End of sentence.

Why don't you google "starving times" and learn a little something about US History.

 

[BlindBoo]

When the Constitution was written everyone had firearms in their homes. Everyone.

Mostly just white males who were also expected to be in the Militias too.

Everyone who eats had a gun in the home.

White males were not the only ones who ate.

 

[BlindBoo]

Since the Senate has regressed to the "Tyranny of Democracy" to fill the federal bench as well as the Supreme Court with ideologues, I expect the Democrats to use every Constitutional measure to counter the Banana Republicans attack on our once great Republic.

The tyranny of using their duly assigned authority and powers? How horrible!

That's exactly what the Democrats will be saying

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Since the Senate has regressed to the "Tyranny of Democracy" to fill the federal bench as well as the Supreme Court with ideologues, I expect the Democrats to use every Constitutional measure to counter the Banana Republicans attack on our once great Republic.

Man are you going to shit yourself when you find out who Harry Reid is what he and the democrats did. Look up nuclear option.

 

[kaz]

Biden didn't say that, you made it up

Ruh-roh. Someone's finding out that his masters lied to him again, and he's not taking it well.

In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell invoked the so-called "Biden Rule" to justify why the Senate should not consider

www.politifact.com

Here are Biden's exact words.
---
"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."
---

Now you know you were lied to about the supposed Biden standard. You rejected that standard in 2016. In order to not be a raging partisan hypocrite, you'll have to reject that standard in 2020. Do you reject it, or are you fully embracing the hypocrisy?

And nowhere did he say your claim that Biden would have had hearings after the election for an HW nominee. You still lied, you still made it up

 

[BlindBoo]

Since the Senate has regressed to the "Tyranny of Democracy" to fill the federal bench as well as the Supreme Court with ideologues, I expect the Democrats to use every Constitutional measure to counter the Banana Republicans attack on our once great Republic.

Man are you going to shit yourself when you find out who Harry Reid is what he and the democrats did. Look up nuclear option.

How many well qualified judges did the minority block before Reid resorted to that. It was McConnell who changed the 60 vote Cloture rule for the Highest Court in the land. which he had the power to do. It would be the best thing in the long run for the Banana Republicans to shove their nominee down America's throat. Especially right before this election.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

54% to 42%

It doesn't matter how energized the Republican base is. Trump has energized not only the Democratic base, but every other sane person in this country against him.

If the SCOTUS acts fairly, the Democrats won't pack the court, but if SCOTUS is nothing but a right-wing political weapon, you can bet your ass that they'll pack the court.

What happened to "elections have consequences"?

 

[kaz]

Since the Senate has regressed to the "Tyranny of Democracy" to fill the federal bench as well as the Supreme Court with ideologues, I expect the Democrats to use every Constitutional measure to counter the Banana Republicans attack on our once great Republic.

So you actually believe Democrats wouldn't have filled the seat
You sir, are a total and complete liar. {slap} I slap your face with my glove ...

I believe Trump and his enablers have set another bad precedent, and the country will be worse off because of it.

And did you say that when Democrats ended the filibuster for presidential appointments or court nominations?

We both know you didn't.

BTW, you really never get over your massive crush on Ivanka, do you?

 

[kaz]

My position in 1992 Biden Rule:

The Biden rule said that Obama should have been able to have his nomiation voted on after the 2016 election.

You didn't support that. So, you clearly did not support the Biden rule in 2016, making the charges of hypocrisy against you and all Republicans valid and correct.

Biden didn't say that, you made it up

"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all," Biden said. "Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

Still doesn't include any quote by Biden backing up he said he'd have hearings for an HW nominee.

Fail!

 

[kaz]

Since the Senate has regressed to the "Tyranny of Democracy" to fill the federal bench as well as the Supreme Court with ideologues, I expect the Democrats to use every Constitutional measure to counter the Banana Republicans attack on our once great Republic.

So you actually believe Democrats wouldn't have filled the seat
You sir, are a total and complete liar. {slap} I slap your face with my glove ...

I believe Trump and his enablers have set another bad precedent, and the country will be worse off because of it.

You people are a joke. Dems would leap at the chance to fill a conservative seat on the court with a liberal and you people know it.

Remember when Stewart retired and Democrats screamed they get anyone they want since he was a total brainless leftist and preserving the balance of the court was SOOOOOO important to them?

Then when Scalia died, they nominated a leftist ideologue in a heartbeat.

Lie, lie, lie, lie, that's all Democrats do

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Biden didn't say that, you made it up

Ruh-roh. Someone's finding out that his masters lied to him again, and he's not taking it well.

In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell invoked the so-called "Biden Rule" to justify why the Senate should not consider

www.politifact.com

Here are Biden's exact words.
---
"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."
---

Now you know you were lied to about the supposed Biden standard. You rejected that standard in 2016. In order to not be a raging partisan hypocrite, you'll have to reject that standard in 2020. Do you reject it, or are you fully embracing the hypocrisy?

The Biden Doctrine: "President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

 

[BlindBoo]

My position in 1992 Biden Rule:

The Biden rule said that Obama should have been able to have his nomiation voted on after the 2016 election.

You didn't support that. So, you clearly did not support the Biden rule in 2016, making the charges of hypocrisy against you and all Republicans valid and correct.

Biden didn't say that, you made it up

"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all," Biden said. "Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

Still doesn't include any quote by Biden backing up he said he'd have hearings for an HW nominee.

Fail!

It was a successful quote.

 

[kaz]

Since the Senate has regressed to the "Tyranny of Democracy" to fill the federal bench as well as the Supreme Court with ideologues, I expect the Democrats to use every Constitutional measure to counter the Banana Republicans attack on our once great Republic.

So you actually believe Democrats wouldn't have filled the seat.

You sir, are a total and complete liar. {slap} I slap your face with my glove ...

The last time they had both the Senate and the Presidency the Cloture rule for SC Nominees was still in effect.

In the face of the last 12 years, I expect the winner to do away with the Cloture rule altogether, and we'll see how well the Banana Republicans deal with the Tyranny of Democracy.

Another flat out liar.

Democrats invented the filibuster for judges under W
Democrats ended the filibuster for judges under O
Democrats invented the filibuster for administration appointments under O
Democrats ended the filibuster for administration appointments under O
Democrats changed the voting rules to get Obamacare through despite Scott Brown's appointment to the senate.

Now you present it as if you're somehow the victims of changing filibuster rules when you DID all the changes. You're a complete and utter liar.

You only have one use. Here's a stick, boy, go fetch it, go fetch! That's it, jump up and down, now ... {throws stick, bendog fetches}.

Gooboy, gooboy, gooboy!

Republicans, not Democrats, eliminated the Senate filibuster on Supreme Court nominees

Fact check: Republicans, not Democrats, eliminated the Senate filibuster on Supreme Court nominees

Democrats led by Sen. Harry Reid ended the filibuster for non-SCOTUS nominees, but the GOP under Sen. Mitch McConnell eliminated it for SCOTUS picks.

www.usatoday.com

OK, stupid one.

There was no judicial filibuster before W. Democrats invented it. Then under Obama Democrats eliminated the filibuster for all judicial appointments other than SCOTUS.

That Republicans approved two hard left Obama appointments, so Democrats didn't have to end it.

So there was zero reason they had to leave the selective filibuster Democrats invented one administration ago in place

The first time a judicial filibuster was used was in 1968 when Johnson tried to elevate Fortas to Chief Justice. You do realize Johnson was a democrat, so it was the Republicans that first started the practice. It was done through the cloture motion, which I am quite sure you don't even know what the hell that is.

There was no filibuster in 1968, you don't know what you are talking about. Do you know what the term filibuster means? You don't, do you?

You have zero understanding of what happened in 1968. There was one cloture vote. Democrats wanted Johnson to withdraw Fortas for chief justice, it wasn't "Republicans," you lied. Democrats didn't want to vote him down, they wanted him to be withdrawn so they didn't have to. Both parties voted against the single cloture attempt.

Also, if Johnson hadn't removed him, they were going to vote him down, not continue to vote against cloture. Again, that means it was NOT a filibuster, you lied.

Do you know what happened ultimately to the criminally corrupt Fortas?

 

[BlindBoo]

Then when Scalia died, they nominated a leftist ideologue in a heartbeat.

Again you lack credibility. Garland was a moderate.

 

[kaz]

My position in 1992 Biden Rule:

The Biden rule said that Obama should have been able to have his nomiation voted on after the 2016 election.

You didn't support that. So, you clearly did not support the Biden rule in 2016, making the charges of hypocrisy against you and all Republicans valid and correct.

Biden didn't say that, you made it up

"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all," Biden said. "Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

Still doesn't include any quote by Biden backing up he said he'd have hearings for an HW nominee.

Fail!

It was a successful quote.

Bull shit. The claim was that Biden would have held hearings after the election. He never said that. You lied.

You also got a lot of drool on my tennis ball when I was throwing it for you before

 

[kaz]

Then when Scalia died, they nominated a leftist ideologue in a heartbeat.

Again you lack credibility. Garland was a moderate.

First of all, you lied again. Second, you need to learn to eat out of your bowl more slowly, you don't need to eat your entire meal in one bite. And third, even if your lie were true, it wouldn't change what I said

 

[BluesLegend]

Since the Senate has regressed to the "Tyranny of Democracy" to fill the federal bench as well as the Supreme Court with ideologues, I expect the Democrats to use every Constitutional measure to counter the Banana Republicans attack on our once great Republic.

So you actually believe Democrats wouldn't have filled the seat
You sir, are a total and complete liar. {slap} I slap your face with my glove ...

I believe Trump and his enablers have set another bad precedent, and the country will be worse off because of it.

You people are a joke. Dems would leap at the chance to fill a conservative seat on the court with a liberal and you people know it.

Remember when Stewart retired and Democrats screamed they get anyone they want since he was a total brainless leftist and preserving the balance of the court was SOOOOOO important to them?

Then when Scalia died, they nominated a leftist ideologue in a heartbeat.

Lie, lie, lie, lie, that's all Democrats do

That is the point that president Trump has tried to make with the GOP, Dem's no longer play by the rules and would throw the GOP under the bus in a heartbeat. It's already happened many times. It's like the GOP keep praying one day Lucy won't snatch the football away.