*Three Little Rino's*

[toobfreak]

Good for these 3, glad to see not all 50 GOP senators are freakshow.

So Pink here thinks the constitution is a freekshow.

Another idiot who deserves a cattle bolt.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Oh, here we go. The spiral down into conspiracy theory looney-tunes has officially begun.

And the first female African American Justice has been voted in. The Confederate flag waivers are vapor locking as we speak.

 

[g5000]

That is a response we expect to hear from you liberal Democrats. You also claimed pizzagate was fake, but Madison Cawthorn proved QAnon was right.

All someone with an R after their name has to do is speak words, and you come away bleeving they just PROVED something.

Wow.

Just...wow.

Madison Cawthorne is the guy who told the voters he was in a car crash and that his best friend, the driver, walked away and left him to die. He told the voters the paramedics pronounced him dead but then through the miracle of Jesus he revived.

He told the voters the disability he got from that crash is why he could not go to the US Naval Academy.

Every word of his claims is untrue. His best friend pulled him from the flames, he was never pronounced dead, and he was rejected by the Naval Academy BEFORE the crash.

This prolific liar also claims to have been invited to orgies and that he saw his colleagues doing "key bumps" in Congress.

All of it untrue.

So now you have just PROVED you are a grotesquely credulous rube if you swallow a drop of Cawthorne's piss.

 

[g5000]

She got her appointment because of her sex and race…

You seem to bleev there is only one black female judge to choose from.

 

[g5000]

Let’s make it simple. She has smarts. She has legal and judicial experience. She seems like a nice enough person. She Is qualified. But just because she is qualified doesn’t mean she deserves support for the SCOTUS bench. And opposition to her confirmation doesn’t have any nexus to her race.

Instead, her confirmation. is worthy of opposition because her partisan political views seem to govern her judicial philosophy — which they shouldn’t. The polestar OUGHT to be what the Constitution says and what it is intended to permit or to disallow.

Ah. She's qualified but shouldn't be appointed because of her partisan views.

You mean like all the pro-life judges Trump appointed?

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. She will prove to be dumb as a block of wood, AOC dumbness.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[g5000]

Sorry bout that,

1. She will prove to be dumb as a block of wood, AOC dumbness.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

I watched the confirmation hearing. She is far from dumb.

"I want to bleev it, so it must be true!"

 

[BackAgain]

Ah. She's qualified but shouldn't be appointed because of her partisan views.

You mean like all the pro-life judges Trump appointed?

“Appointment” doesn’t exist. Nomination and confirmation. use the right terminology and you don’t immediately lose cred.

I think she’s qualified. Do you disagree? No? Cool. So the issue is whether her partisan views are the basis of my opposition. The answer is a qualified “yes.” The qualification is as I’ve stated many times. Her partisan political views are NOT suppose to be the basis for her judicial decisions. The Constitution is.

If this still confuses you, I’m not surprised but I also don’t care. I can lead a jackass to water, but I can’t make you think or drink.

 

[g5000]

“Appointment” doesn’t exist. Nomination and confirmation. use the right terminology and you don’t immediately lose cred.

I think she’s qualified. Do you disagree? No? Cool. So the issue is whether her partisan views are the basis of my opposition. The answer is a qualified “yes.” The qualification is as I’ve stated many times. Her partisan political views are NOT suppose to be the basis for her judicial decisions. The Constitution is.

If this still confuses you, I’m not surprised but I also don’t care. I can lead a jackass to water, but I can’t make you think or drink.

I always knews you tards were unfamiliar with the Constitution.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

 

[g5000]

“Appointment” doesn’t exist. Nomination and confirmation. use the right terminology and you don’t immediately lose cred.

I think she’s qualified. Do you disagree? No? Cool. So the issue is whether her partisan views are the basis of my opposition. The answer is a qualified “yes.” The qualification is as I’ve stated many times. Her partisan political views are NOT suppose to be the basis for her judicial decisions. The Constitution is.

If this still confuses you, I’m not surprised but I also don’t care. I can lead a jackass to water, but I can’t make you think or drink.

So again, I ask you. If partisan views are supposed to be disqualifying, then what about Trump's appointments of pro-life judges.

That was a solid requirement he had for their appointments. It was a political campaign promise.

Goose/gander.

Hypocrite.

And you're welcome for the education about Supreme Court appointments and our Constitution.

 

[BackAgain]

I always knews you tards were unfamiliar with the Constitution.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Ok. Good girl. It’s still a nomination and a confirmation. Both are required.

 

[BackAgain]

So again, I ask you. If partisan views are supposed to be disqualifying, then what about Trump's appointments of pro-life judges.

That was a solid requirement he had for their appointments. It was a political campaign promise.

Goose/gander.

Hypocrite.

And you're welcome for the education about Supreme Court appointments and our Constitution.

You misunderstand. Again.

If your partisan political view causes you to disregard the proper analysis, then sure: it’s disqualifying. If your partisan political views happen to align with the proper analysis (ie that the Constitution controls), then there is no problem.

Can you see the difference?

 

[g5000]

Ok. Good girl. It’s still a nomination and a confirmation. Both are required.

You mean to tell me you have never heard of a judge referred to as "a Trump appointee" or "an Obama appointee"?

Seriously?

Just how deep in a cave do you live?

 

[g5000]

You misunderstand. Again.

If your partisan political view causes you to disregard the proper analysis, then sure: it’s disqualifying. If your partisan political views happen to align with the proper analysis (ie that the Constitution controls), then there is no problem.

Can you see the difference?

Yes, I see. You are a hypocrite. Pure and simple.

 

[g5000]

“Appointment” doesn’t exist.

 

[bripat9643]

Seems, beyond that lie...
You're incapable of telling us what you want.
AND
too stupid to understand what others want.

I wasn't trying to tell you what I want, shit for brains. I know exactly what you lying progs want, which is why Trump quashed the witch hunt

 

[bripat9643]

Interesting how liberal Democrats think we should tolerate RINOs.

This confirmation vote is precisely why we can't tolerate RINOs.

Exactly!

 

[Dadoalex]

I wasn't trying to tell you what I want, shit for brains. I know exactly what you lying progs want, which is why Trump quashed the witch hunt

You don't know how to use toilet paper.

AND

Trump interfered in a legitimate DOJ investigation.
Sound familiar?
Sound pathological?

Why is it you clowns can't articulate what you want?
Is it because you know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that if you do, everything said about you will ring true?
Must be terrible to have to stay in the closet that way.

 

[bripat9643]

You don't know how to use toilet paper.

AND

Trump interfered in a legitimate DOJ investigation.
Sound familiar?
Sound pathological?

There's no such thing at a legitimate Democrat DOJ investigation. They are all political witch hunts.

Why is it you clowns can't articulate what you want?
Is it because you know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that if you do, everything said about you will ring true?
Must be terrible to have to stay in the closet that way.

Where have we given any hint that we don't know what we want?

 

[SC Patriot]

Don't recall commenting on him beyond the need for a full investigation. something Trump had the FBI squash.

Still, you failed to tell us what you are for.

I am a conservative. Plain and simple. If I were to tell you what I was for you would call me a racist, a sexist and a hater. How do I know? If you have to ask me what I am for, then you have no idea how a conservative thinks.

However. What am I NOT for?

Race and sex being a criteria for a Supreme Court nominee.