just when you think it couldn't get any crazier....

exactly. we are now in a whole new plane of crazy.

i liked ginsburg personally, really liked that she and scalia were very good friends who even vacationed together. we could use a lot more of that ability to disagree respectfully. especially now!

unless the senate republicans make it clear they won’t confirm anyone until next year, unless that's the case, there’s no way this potus doesn’t nominate a staunch conservative, and there’s no chance it will be a white man, so he’ll get the democrats to show, right before the election, just how much they care about women and minorities with the smear campaign about to happen. amy barrett looking very compelling, staunch catholic with 7 children who schumer will smear without mercy.

elections have consequences. that’s what obama used to like to say. funny how the willingness to accept that idea changes so regularly for people with zero principles.

this is trumps chance to actually re shape the next 20 years. you could
argue it’s more important than him getting elected.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

just when you think it couldn't get any crazier....

if trump gets a conservative confirmed, and the democrats win the presidency and senate ( decent chance) look for them
to increase the number of scotus justices. thats their only card. there could be 50 judges on that court before we’re dead.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Her death is going to seal the gop’s fate.

Watch how they behave over this.

Her death is going to seal the gop’s fate.

Watch how they behave over this.

That started hours after her death, Moscow Mitch didn’t even wait a day before announcing his intentions, which is beyond disrespectful.

Her death is going to seal the gop’s fate.

Watch how they behave over this.

the american people freely chose to give senate control to the gop. i’m pretty sure those people want them to replace RBG with a staunch conservative. but we’ll see.

if trump nominates a non white man, and the senate democrats do to her what they did to kavanaugh, and a few percent of swing voters are turned off that, that seals Biden’s fate. lots of if’s.

obama nominated garland, then gave his nomination to the senate. the 2016 election shows that the american people were ok with what senate republicans did. why the heck wouldn’t trump do the same?

elections have consequences.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That started hours after her death, Moscow Mitch didn’t even wait a day before announcing his intentions, which is beyond disrespectful.

how long did the democrats wait after scalia death to plot the political strategy? i bet you don’t know, because you didn’t care.

it’s an unfortunate political reality. they can’t wait. not should
they.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump might not nominate anyone.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump might not nominate anyone.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and Kate Upton might put on a bikini and deliver a 42’ Wesmac to my driveway today.

you are cute sometimes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and Kate Upton might put on a bikini and deliver a 42’ Wesmac to my driveway today.

you are cute sometimes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I’m thinking he might use it to try and drive out more of the base, vote him in or you’ll lose your pick. Trump doesn’t care about a conservative court one whip, it’s all about winning. Remember he’s desperate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I’m thinking he might use it to try and drive out more of the base, vote him in or you’ll lose your pick. Trump doesn’t care about a conservative court one whip, it’s all about winning. Remember he’s desperate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Or he will nominate a woman.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I’m thinking he might use it to try and drive out more of the base, vote him in or you’ll lose your pick. Trump doesn’t care about a conservative court one whip, it’s all about winning. Remember he’s desperate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there is no way that hes going to roll the dice on him winning and in the gop maintaining the senate. i doubt 5 presidents in history have had the chance to shape the next 30 years that he now has. you don’t pass that up. this is possibly more
important than his re election.

and having the nation watching senate democrats smear and attack a female/minority nominee, will give him lots of political capital in the election.

he’s not desperate, he’s to cocky to think he has a chance of losing. you still don’t get him.

if i had to choose between replacing her with a conservative or trump getting re elected, id choose tilting the court to the right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Or he will nominate a woman.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he’s nominating a woman, to make the democrats show the country they don’t actually like women as much as they claim to. right before the election. it’s a no win situation for the democrats, a complete disaster. it was very risky for her not to step down during the obama presidency.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there is no way that hes going to roll the dice on him winning and in the gop maintaining the senate. i doubt 5 presidents in history have had the chance to shape the next 30 years that he now has. you don’t pass that up. this is possibly more
important than his re election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
It’s important to you, not to Trump. There’s no guarantee he’d even have the votes and a loss right before the election would seriously deflate a lot of enthusiasm in the base. Won’t be able to blame that on a rigged election either.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s important to you, not to Trump. There’s no guarantee he’d even have the votes and a loss right before the election would seriously deflate a lot of enthusiasm in the base. Won’t be able to blame that on a rigged election either.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device



this is the most pro life president in history. he doesn’t want to replace ginsburg with a conservative?

you’re right, he might not have the votes, which is why i said very clearly that not having the votes is the only way he doesn’t nominate someone. i completely agree a thumbs down vote on. a nominee would be a disaster before the election. obviously.

if he has the votes, this is a disaster for the democrats. in addition to having the court shift, they are in a no win situation. if they give his female nominee the kavanaugh treatment just before the election, undecided voters may get turned off. if they don’t give her the kavanaugh treatment, they run the risk of angering the progressive wing of their base, who aren’t thrilled with biden already.

a disaster. their only hope is trump not having the votes. which could
happen, especially with susan colins up for re election. that's the democrats only hope.

what does joe manchin do? he voted for kavanaugh.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

interesting video of trump being told on a live camera about Ginsburg’s death by a reporter. he managed to not blow it for once.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EGzo-sAnevk
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if trump gets a conservative confirmed, and the democrats win the presidency and senate ( decent chance) look for them
to increase the number of scotus justices. thats their only card. there could be 50 judges on that court before we’re dead.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's exactly what I think will happen if Republicans can replace her. Also if that happens there's going back to any civility ever
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump might not nominate anyone.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Interesting strategy to try driving up Republican participation / votes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's exactly what I think will happen if Republicans can replace her. Also if that happens there's going back to any civility ever
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If civility is your goal, or most important goal, some form of dictatorship or authoritarian rule is your best bet.

That's exactly what I think will happen if Republicans can replace her. Also if that happens there's going back to any civility ever
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

why wouldn’t he nominate someone and send it to the senate? that’s exactly what obama
did. after scalias death. why is it ok when obama did it, but the end of civility if trump does it?

there’s been little civility since 2008. there’s a 95% chance they replace her before the election.

packing the scotus is foolish, eventually the other side will
do the same thing. hell the gop can do it now.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Interesting strategy to try driving up Republican participation / votes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and about as smart as saying “i won powerball today, but i’m
not going to cash in the ticket because that way the prize will
increase next week, and hopefully i’ll win again.”

to think he’s not going to nominate someone before the election ( if they have the votes in the senate) is to know nothing about him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the democrats took scotus confirmations to a new level of political bs with bork, to the point that there is a new word to be unfairly vilified, to be “borked”. it continued with thomas and god knows with kavanaugh.

meanwhile, obama’s two nominees got plenty of republican votes.

for good or ill, this is where we are. the democrats under Biden and Reid brought us here, and not wanting to be wearing boxing gloves when the other guy is wearing brass knuckles, we elected trump.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

to think he’s not going to nominate someone before the election ( if they have the votes in the senate) is to know nothing about him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Oh he’ll nominate someone, I just don’t think they’ll put it up to a vote before the election. Worst case for Trump is he gets crushed and rams it through lame duck. Then Biden takes the oath and the prosecutions begin.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh he’ll nominate someone, I just don’t think they’ll put it up to a vote before the election. Worst case for Trump is he gets crushed and rams it through lame duck. Then Biden takes the oath and the prosecutions begin.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he won’t nominate someone unless he has the votes.if they have the votes, why in god’s name would
they wait?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Republicans can't even hide there dishonesty .. even a legitimate selection process takes longer than 50 days

And Jom election have consequences BS you pull out to defend them when they would not put garland foward and stonewalled for a year but this is ok .. Republicans have zero moral ground. On any topic its really sad to watch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he won’t nominate someone unless he has the votes.if they have the votes, why in god’s name would
they wait?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
because its the Right thing to do.. its not cryptic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Republicans can't even hide there dishonesty .. even a legitimate selection process takes longer than 50 days

And Jom election have consequences BS you pull out to defend them when they would not put garland foward and stonewalled for a year but this is ok .. Republicans have zero moral ground. On any topic its really sad to watch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

why 50 days? trump has been maintaining a list for 4 years.

obama nominated garland, and sent that nomination to the senate. the senate chose not to confirm. i’m not sure it’s reasonable to assume the american people have senate control to republicans because they wanted scalia replaced with garland.

this is the same thing. trump will
probably nominate someone, and send the nomination to the senate. i’m sorry, but that’s how it works, and i’m sorry that elections have consequences.

the senators can do what they choose, and shortly after, he people will decide what we think of that in an election.

the american people
elected trump, and gave senate control to the democrats. that had consequences.

if you want to go back to the days when senators on both sides confirmed all nominees, if also welcome that. bill clinton’s no
i need were confirmed, almost unanimously in ginsburgs case, a lot of republicans voted for her. then the democrats changed the rules. if they changed the rules thinking they’d hold the senate forever and never be on the receiving end, that’s their fault, blame harry reid for that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Republicans can't even hide there dishonesty .. even a legitimate selection process takes longer than 50 days
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Scalia died on 2/13/16

Garland was nominated on 3/16/16

have someone do that math for you. that’s about 31 days, and 31<50. so either kindly show us your posts back then where you said obama went too fast and therefore it was an “illegitimate selection”, or kindly admit you’re a naked hypocrite who can’t subtract.

you don’t even know what you’re saying, it’s just left wing incoherent gibberish.

and i did not like what senate republicans did back then, i said that garland should have had a vote, where they voted no. i probably said that here, it’s how i always felt.

friggin hypocrite.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

because its the Right thing to do.. its not cryptic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

on what basis is waiting the right thing? obama didn’t wait, he nominated garland and sent the nomination to the senate. note that the senate republicans didn’t fabricate rape charges against him, or attack him for drinking beer in high school.

i’m not a huge fan of McConnell, but this is where he shines. he’s a shrewd legislative mechanic. he can most likely get 50 votes, in which case get ready for a very different SCOTUS. one that makes decisions based on what the constitution actually says, not based on what they wish it said. that’s a good thing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did you masturbate after posting that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did you masturbate after posting that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

because i pointed out the mathematical fact that he's holding trump to a much higher standard?

nebe, id have popeyes arms if i did that every time i embarrassed a liberal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

brit hume on foxnews wondering if nominating someone is worth what it would put the country through. a fascinating situation.

he may not have the votes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

nebe, id have popeyes arms if i did that every time i embarrassed a liberal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That’s the great thing about rubbing one out. Fantasies can come true. 😂
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That’s the great thing about rubbing one out. Fantasies can come true. 😂
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
right because i’m merely fantasizing about winning that specific discussion about 50 days. i didn’t actually destroy his argument. yawn. whatever you say.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence, god help
me for asking, but did you watch the video of trump being told about her death? what did you think? maybe the only time i’ve seen him show a speck of class when discussing someone who hated him. and boy did she hate him. but it was raw and unrehearsed. didn’t know he had it in him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

collins says she won’t confirm until after the election. assuming romney is also out, he needs every other republican, unless
manchin defects.

do democrats ever defect meaningfully? or only republicans?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pretty much sums things up....


America Is Witnessing the Leftist Toddlers’ Temper Tantrum

pretty much sums things up....


America Is Witnessing the Leftist Toddlers’ Temper Tantrum


Whatever. Lookk back to 2016 when all of the republicans were sooooo into the “you shouldn’t place a Supreme Court judge in an election year”. And now....

What a bunch of spineless cowards.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can you spell hypocrisy?

Whatever. Lookk back to 2016 when all of the republicans were sooooo into the “you shouldn’t place a Supreme Court judge in an election year”. And now....

What a bunch of spineless cowards.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wait....were there no democrats who insisted you should?

Can you spell hypocrisy?

probably better than many here...:rude:

You may need a tissue in less than a couple months:)

You may need a tissue in less than a couple months:)

I think I'll be OK...if biden wins it will be very entertaining:laughs:

Can you spell hypocrisy?

obama made a nomination, and sent it to the senate. they should have given him a vote in my opinion, but chose not to.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You may need a tissue in less than a couple months:)

we don’t throw hissy fits when we lose. that’s democrats who do that.

already the calls for
violence and arson from the left, if trump has the nerve to nominate someone as he’s authorized to do. and as obama did. but it was ok when obama did it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh the hypocrisy
I think Tweety’s boys are fellating themselves in unison though it’s likely a joint effort.
If you swallow it means you really love Trump
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh the hypocrisy
I think Tweety’s boys are fellating themselves in unison though it’s likely a joint effort.
If you swallow it means you really love Trump
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
how about the hypocrisy of every single democrat who claimed that obama had the right to make a nomination, but are saying trump doesn’t? any hypocrisy there.

mcconnell is a glaring hypocrite, no question, as he said ( stupidly) that nominees shouldn’t be confirmed
in an election year. mcconnell is a hypocrite, as is every single
democrat. i won’t lose a seconds sleep over that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In 2016, nine months before an election, the Republicans said that the next president should fill a Supreme Court vacancy. Today, six weeks before an election, they should hold the same position. Preserving the institution of the Senate should be paramount to any political gain.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And then again there’s those promises
TRUMP: "If I lose to him, I don't know what I'm gonna do. I will never speak to you again. You'll never see me again."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In 2016, nine months before an election, the Republicans said that the next president should fill a Supreme Court vacancy. Today, six weeks before an election, they should hold the same position. Preserving the institution of the Senate should be paramount to any political gain.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

mitch mcconnell. not the republicans. and it’s not the same position. then, the potus and senate weren’t in the same party.

they should have given garland a hearing and then told
him no thanks.

as i said, mcconnell is a hypocrite, no question. as are all the democrats.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And then again there’s those promises
TRUMP: "If I lose to him, I don't know what I'm gonna do. I will never speak to you again. You'll never see me again."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

do you require Kleenex or tampons?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In 2016, nine months before an election, the Republicans said that the next president should fill a Supreme Court vacancy. Today, six weeks before an election, they should hold the same position. Preserving the institution of the Senate should be paramount to any political gain.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the american people
didn’t give senate control to republicans so they could replace scalia with a liberal. nor did they give control to republicans t squander this opportunity.

Elections have consequences. i bet you just loved it when obama
said that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

“I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.”
~Lindsey Graham
March 10, 2016
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bottom line: If Trump and the Turtle even try to install an ideologically polarizing nominee in RBGs seat, the Republicans will lose the Senate, House and Presidency, and there could easily be 13 justices on the Supreme Court by the end of 2021. So, go ahead and try ....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

“I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.”
~Lindsey Graham
March 10, 2016
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

right. and they repaid graham by trying to ruin the life of
his friend brett kavanaugh.

consequences, pete. i know liberals prefer to pretend that consequences don’t exist, but they do. graham spent his whole career trying to be the democrats’ favorite republican. then they turned on him, and made their friend, their enemy.

your side brought out the brass knuckles. you can’t do that and ask the other side to keep using boxing gloves. life doesn’t work
that way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bottom line: If Trump and the Turtle even try to install an ideologically polarizing nominee in RBGs seat, the Republicans will lose the Senate, House and Presidency, and there could easily be 13 justices on the Supreme Court by the end of 2021. So, go ahead and try ....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

bottom line...you have been wrong for 4 years...so keep making predictions:laugha::laugha:

and there could easily be 13 justices on the Supreme Court by the end of 2021. So, go ahead and try ....


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what kind of petulance would this be?

this is a wonderful opportunity for the left to reinforce the fact that they are unhinged loons and cannot be trusted to run anything....they are delivering as expected :cheers:

There's a lot of hypocrisy going around, but the hits on the Democrats aren't landing with the same force. It's not hard to see how they could legitimately change their tune -- and the crowd that loves to say "we're just playing by their rules!" should be able to understand that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

“I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.”
~Lindsey Graham
March 10, 2016
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what Lindsay said has no bearing on the fact that there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents trump from nominating someone before the election...I think RBG herself stated that emphatically....you can whine all you want and scream hypocrisy...but it doesn't matter...he either will or won't depending on what he feels benefits him the most politically and you will scream foul either way :deadhorse:

If a divisive president who rose to power with the illicit backing of a foreign enemy installs three Supreme Court justices seen as partisan loyalists, it will further divide the nation and likely cause tit-for-tat partisan court packing that will destroy judicial independence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bottom line: If Trump and the Turtle even try to install an ideologically polarizing nominee in RBGs seat, the Republicans will lose the Senate, House and Presidency, and there could easily be 13 justices on the Supreme Court by the end of 2021. So, go ahead and try ....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

first, to address hypocrisy.

in 1992, at the end of Bush 41’s first term, Biden was head of the senate judiciary committee. he said that he would not hold a vote on any nominations bush made in an election year.

Then in 2016, obviously, Biden felt very differently about nominations during an election year.

So where’s the consistency, Pete? The democrats chose to remove bipartisanship from this process. when clinton was president, Ginsburg received 94 votes, meaning almost every single republican voted for her.

The democrats, under biden and reid, changed the rules. They torpedoed Bork and then Reid took an eraser to all the rules to help senate democrats. Fine. but don’t cry foul just because the gop is now using those same revised rules in their favor when they can.

you’re right, if trump and
mcconnell move ahead, the american people will get to vote on what they think, very shortly after. and when the democrats give the female nominee the kavanaugh treatment, voters will also have the option of expressing how they feel about that as well. right?

as to court stacking, if that’s where the democrats want to go, then trump and mcconnell can do that right now too.

when you threaten things like court stacking, that’s only a viable threat if you assume the gop will
never again hold the white house and senate. thats what harry reid was banking on when he implemented the nuclear option and eliminated the filibuster on these nominations. how is that working out today, for the democrats? tell us pete, hows it working out?

if trump can get 50 votes in the senate ( which i thought was certain, but obviously i was very wrong), he’s going to nominate someone who change the courts. there is no “if”. only the senate can stop him.

why is that scary anyway? what’s so terrifying about a court who is guided by what the constitution actually says, instead of what they wish it said?

i keep hearing the court will outlaw abortion. they can’t. what they’d do, is let states decide, which is exactly what the constitution says should be the case. if people want abortion, they’ll elect state legislatures that allow it. that’s called democracy. why is that so horrible?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If a divisive president who rose to power with the illicit backing of a foreign enemy installs three Supreme Court justices seen as partisan loyalists, it will further divide the nation and likely cause tit-for-tat partisan court packing that will destroy judicial independence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is mindless blubbering.....

you want to nominate supreme court justices?.....get weekend at biden's elected somehow...oh..and hope some retire or die

what kind of petulance would this be?

there could just as easily be 13 justices on the court before his halloween. this is the wrong president to play chicken with.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is a wonderful opportunity for the left to reinforce the fact that they are unhinged loons and cannot be trusted to run anything....they are delivering as expected :cheers:

the lefty threats of violence and arson started already. shocker.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There's a lot of hypocrisy going around, but the hits on the Democrats aren't landing with the same force. It's not hard to see how they could legitimately change their tune -- and the crowd that loves to say "we're just playing by their rules!" should be able to understand that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

tell that to supreme court justice Robert Bork.

you’re making up unhinged, demonstrably false gibberish pete.

i don’t blame you for coming unglued. i remember how i felt when scalia died, appalled at the thought of obama
replacing him. i was saved by the sanate. maybe you will be too.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If a divisive president who rose to power with the illicit backing of a foreign enemy installs three Supreme Court justices seen as partisan loyalists, it will further divide the nation and likely cause tit-for-tat partisan court packing that will destroy judicial independence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

(1) three justices who agree to adhere to the constitution. explain why that’s scary?

(2) you don’t get to claim about wanting the country united, when you back Biden who told
blacks that republicans “want to put y’all back in chains.”. you backed hilary, who called us all deplorable
and irredeemable. you backed obama, who called us racists and bitter clingers.

spare us your lame-ass, phony calls for and end to the divisiveness.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is mindless blubbering.....

you want to nominate supreme court justices?.....get weekend at biden's elected somehow...oh..and hope some retire or die

scott he needs 50 votes. if we assume murkowski and collins and romney are a no, what do you think? any other RINOs? any chance he can get everyone else?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

scott he needs 50 votes. if we assume murkowski and collins and romney are a no, what do you think? any other RINOs? any chance he can get everyone else?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he wins either way...simply suggesting that he will nominate someone has sent the loons into the stratosphere, let them continue squawking and threatening for a few weeks....he'll just keep toying with them...we remember what they did during the Kavanaugh hearings...they would descend to even lower depths if he does and will likely anyway if he just threatens...should be fun and instructional....

Did you masturbate after posting that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
He has a wonderful gift of always suggesting his examples are some how relevant. And presents them as the same.. or use what is and what isnt in Constitution as a justification for Republicans misdeeds from garland to this gerrymandering it goes on and on
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hitler came to power in a brokered deal because conservative elites thought they could keep him in check & that Hitler would be useful to their political goals. It was the last free & fair election before he destroyed democracy - leading a torch carrying cult.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hitler came to power in a brokered deal because conservative elites thought they could keep him in check & that Hitler would be useful to their political goals. It was the last free & fair election before he destroyed democracy - leading a torch carrying cult.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

historical examples carry no sway with the faithful. I posted a similar example i swapped out Germany and Hitler with America and Trump in the article

And the defense presented by the faithful against the article was interesting
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what Lindsay said has no bearing on the fact that there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents trump from nominating someone before the election...
The election is already underway, many states have started early voting.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He has a wonderful gift of always suggesting his examples are some how relevant. And presents them as the same.. or use what is and what isnt in Constitution as a justification for Republicans misdeeds from garland to this gerrymandering it goes on and on
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it was YOUR example. You said a
minimum of 50 days, when obama
used a lot less. how was that my example?

are you saying republicans need to spend 50 days, but democrats can spend less time? if so, just say it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hitler came to power in a brokered deal because conservative elites thought they could keep him in check & that Hitler would be useful to their political goals. It was the last free & fair election before he destroyed democracy - leading a torch carrying cult.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

trump came to power in a free election, and has repeatedly been kept in check by the legislature and the courts. exactly as intended. your hitler reference is absurd.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

historical examples carry no sway with the faithful. I posted a similar example i swapped out Germany and Hitler with America and Trump in the article

And the defense presented by the faithful against the article was interesting
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

did hitler have the checks and balances to keep him
in check like trump has?

if trump was hitler, would
cnn and msnbc exist?

republicans want smaller federal influence. Less federal influence, not more. is that going too fast for you?

i have an idea! let’s post some more photos of kids in cages during the obama years, to show what a monster trump is. that makes all
kinds of sense, right?

you’re all completely unglued. RBG has every opportunity to retire during the obama 8 years, she chose to roll the dice. sometimes you win, sometimes you don’t.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

trump is hitler! dont you all
see the death camps?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"You have good genes, you know that, right? You have good genes. A lot of it is about the genes, isn't it, don't you believe? The racehorse theory. You think we're so different? You have good genes in Minnesota.”
Tweety’s NOT even hiding RACIST platform any longer. Standing in front of an ALL WHITE crowd, talks about audience having "good genes" fitting "racehorse theory." Sooo... Tweety’s enablers explain any possible explanation for a political candidate to use such an analogy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

trump came to power in a free election,
With help from mother Russia.

and has repeatedly been kept in check by the legislature and the courts. exactly as intended.

Kept in check, are you effing crazy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It makes people uncomfortable to make Hitler comparisons - it shouldn't. Trump is NO Hitler. Frankly, he is far too STUPID/INCOMPETENT. But the tactics/rhetoric used by Hitler in the EARLY 1930's in the name of "Nationalism" have haunting similarities that should NOT be ignored.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

With help from mother Russia.



Kept in check, are you effing crazy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

sure, sure, russia brainwashed us. the fact that hilary is a wretched unlikeable ghoul who called half the country irredeemable, had nothing to do with it. right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

With help from mother Russia.



Kept in check, are you effing crazy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the dems control
the house. the scotus slapped his wrist a few times, as they did with obama. again, if you want to cry that he’s a dictator, please explain what kind of dictator allows cnn and msnbc to do what they do?

we survived obama ( with a LOT less whining and temper tantrums from the opposition, and a whole
let less feral violence) we’re surviving trump. you can hang
in a few more weeks, then i suspect we’ll have a senile liberal you’ll like.

the pendulum swings both ways, always has. you guys really need to learn how to lose with a speck of
maturity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It makes people uncomfortable to make Hitler comparisons - it shouldn't. Trump is NO Hitler. Frankly, he is far too STUPID/INCOMPETENT. But the tactics/rhetoric used by Hitler in the EARLY 1930's in the name of "Nationalism" have haunting similarities that should NOT be ignored.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
if he’s stupid and incompetent, what does that say about the person he clobbered in the election, who had the entire media behind her?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When Hillary Clinton called them deplorables, she was right. When she said Putin and MAGA were one, she was right. When she warned about what was to come, she was right. She was right about all of it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When Hillary Clinton called them deplorables, she was right. When she said Putin and MAGA were one, she was right. When she warned about what was to come, she was right. She was right about all of it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yes the people who volunteer at homelessness shelters and soup kitchens are deplorable. but you, who go after mothers and daughters of members here, are just swell!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When Hillary Clinton called them deplorables, she was right. When she said Putin and MAGA were one, she was right. When she warned about what was to come, she was right. She was right about all of it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

was she right when she concluded she didn’t need to campaign in Wisconsin?

She’s a genius!!! the most inevitable candidate ever, with the media in her pocket, got creamed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hillary should be in jail and Pete should be in a mental hospital 😁
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hillary should be in jail and Pete should be in a mental hospital 😁
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
i’ll settle for her not being potus and having speaking engagements in front of 40 ticket buyers.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When Hillary Clinton called them deplorables, she was right. When she said Putin and MAGA were one, she was right. When she warned about what was to come, she was right. She was right about all of it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

just curious, was she right when she said that nothing happened between her husband and monica lewinski, but rather theybwere being framed by “the vast right conspiracy?”. was she right?

was she right when she said she came under sniper fire in that trip
to bosnia? was she right?

Was she right? Hmmmm?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it was YOUR example. You said a
minimum of 50 days, when obama
used a lot less. how was that my example?

are you saying republicans need to spend 50 days, but democrats can spend less time? if so, just say it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not talking about the act of naming a nominee .. but the process of vetting said nominee.. remind me did Garland even get a senate vote?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not talking about the act of naming a nominee .. but the process of vetting said nominee.. remind me did Garland even get a senate vote?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ginsburgs entire process took 40-something days. you can’t win this one.

no he didn’t get a senate vote, because america freely chose to give senate control to republicans. and elections have consequences, at least that’s what we’re told when democrats win.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

To cram through a Ginsburg replacement, GOP needs the vote before election. The lame duck project - a defeated Senate majority pushing through a nomination by a repudiated President - sounds ruthless now. It will look nakedly illegitimate after 11/3- and legitimacy matters
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In 2016 Merrick Garland fight, McConnell did not say, “I’ve got the votes, so No.” He felt the need to devise *justifications.* He cannot have cared himself, but he felt he needed them, to create at least a veneer of legitimacy. Post-election 2020, he won’t have that. So if McConnell cannot confirm immediately, he soon bumps into serious trouble. Not enough trouble maybe to deter him personally. But other senators could flinch- and so by the way could the nominee, who may not wish to enter judicial history in this disturbing mode.
Now my bet is that
My bet is that Moscow Mitch is gonna try to rush this process, & slam a new justice into SCOTUS before the election. So they can pull a Bush v. Gore, stop vote counts, and rat#^&#^&#^&#^& the election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In 2016 Merrick Garland fight, McConnell did not say, “I’ve got the votes, so No.” He felt the need to devise *justifications.* He cannot have cared himself, but he felt he needed them, to create at least a veneer of legitimacy. Post-election 2020, he won’t have that. So if McConnell cannot confirm immediately, he soon bumps into serious trouble. Not enough trouble maybe to deter him personally. But other senators could flinch- and so by the way could the nominee, who may not wish to enter judicial history in this disturbing mode.
Now my bet is that
My bet is that Moscow Mitch is gonna try to rush this process, & slam a new justice into SCOTUS before the election. So they can pull a Bush v. Gore, stop vote counts, and rat#^&#^&#^&#^& the election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are 100% correct. 100%. McConnell should have said "America put the GOP in charge, and we say no". That's all he had to say. Why he chose to say that 8 months from an election is too close, I don't know. And as I've said 100 times, I think he should have had a vote, which ended in a rejection.

THi sis different. Obama had no chance of re-election, and it was differing parties. It's not the same thing.

And Pete, When Bush 41 was president, Biden said (it became known as the Biden rule), that there should be no SCOTUS appointments in an election year, said it famously. Then in 2016, he changed his tune, and I'll bet you a shiny new nickel that you didn't call him out for hypocrisy.

Then the dems torpedoed Bork, the Reid changed the standard for filibuster and the nuclear option. The Dems did all that. And I haven't mentioned what they did to Kavanaugh.

If you want both sides to go back to playing fair with SCOTUS, I would vote for that. But if your side is going to fight dirty, don't ask the other side not to.

Ginsburg got 94 votes. 94. It used to be a civilized process. The democrats changed that for their short term gain. If you're unhappy that it now may come back to bite them in the azz in gargantuan fashion, cry to Joe Biden and Harry Reid. They changed the rules, they did this.

If he has the 50 votes (I don't think it's certain), he will tilt the court waaaay to the right. Shortly after, the people will voice their opinion on that.

You did a good job of highlighting the GOP flip flopping. Shockingly, you forgot to mention everything that preceded it.

In My bet is that Moscow Mitch is gonna try to rush this process, & slam a new justice into SCOTUS before the election.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He'd be stupid not to. If he has the votes. Why in Gods name wouldn't he do it before the election, if he has the votes?

And even I would not support doing it after the election, if Trump loses or if the Democrats take the senate.

There's a great chance Trump loses and the dems take the senate, so why wouldn't Trump/McConnell do this before the election? From the political view, the chance to replace Ginsberg with Amr Barrett is a gift from God, it's literally having a winning powerball ticket. Why wouldn't he cash it in?

McConnell has said very clearly that he wants a vote before the election, so you're not really sticking you neck out with that prediction.

Has Romney said anything?

And for the third time, why is it so horrifying to have a majority of SCOTUS justices who will be guided by what the constitution says, not by what they wish it said? WHat could be more scary than having someone with a lifetime appointment, who feels entitled to force their own personal moral compass on 320 million people? That's what's totalitarian. Always being guided by the constitution? Why is that so scary?

This isn't a power grab, it's the opposite of that. It's a desire for smaller federal government dominance, and more local authority. Again, I don't see why that's scary, unless you like the idea of legislating from the bench. Which is an idea that liberals like, since their agenda fails so often in the court of public opinion. Easier to ask 5 judges who aren't answerable to anybody, to ram your agenda through.

Not only does it show that the Turtle thinks they'll lose, but that conservatives have lost faith in their own ideas - which is why they're obsessed with the courts. They've given up on the power of ideas and will settle for the power of courts.
I’m old enough to remember when “legislating through the courts” was supposedly a liberal vice, and Bad. Now it’s a conservative virtue.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not only does it show that the Turtle thinks they'll lose, but that conservatives have lost faith in their own ideas - which is why they're obsessed with the courts. They've given up on the power of ideas and will settle for the power of courts.
I’m old enough to remember when “legislating through the courts” was supposedly a liberal vice, and Bad. Now it’s a conservative virtue.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Not only does it show that the Turtle thinks they'll lose"

Big whoop. Even if Trump was ahead in the polls, and even if the polls showed the GOP would keep the senate, you still don't pass up this chance. He has a chance to drastically re-shape (fix in my opinion) the court. You don't take chances with that. It would be insane to risk losing the opportunity.

"conservatives have lost faith in their own ideas - which is why they're obsessed with the courts"

That is idiotic. The democrats aren't obsessed with the court? You didn't see what they did to Clarence Thomas, Bork, or Kavanaugh?

Republicans have had a huge, huge majority in DC and across the states, since 2010. They've crushed democrats in the last decade, absolutely crushed them. But the pendulum swings both ways, that's the nature of things. It doesn't mean the end of the GOP, any more than 2016 marked the end of the Democrats. It's just pendulum swinging.

"I’m old enough to remember when “legislating through the courts” was supposedly a liberal vice, and Bad. Now it’s a conservative virtue.'

But the GOP won't legislate through a conservative court. Obviously you don't know what a conservative court means. By definition, we want judges who aren't activists. If Trump gets his nominee in, it won't be a switch from leftwing judicial activism to rightwing judicial activism. It will be a halt to judicial activism.

A conservative court won't make abortion illegal. It will (as the constitution clearly enumerates that it should) refer the question to the states. The states can do whatever they want.

Do you understand the difference? While I'm opposed to abortion, conservatives don't want a SCOTUS to outlaw abortion, that would be judicial overreach. We want a SCOTUS to say "this isn't a federal issue, it's a state issue". We do not want, nor will we ask for, right-wing activism from the bench. We want a neutral bench. We want to make decisions based on the constitution, regardless of party, regardless of who is asking for what.

You just don't get it. Or you get it, and you're lying.

ginsburgs entire process took 40-something days. you can’t win this one.

no he didn’t get a senate vote, because america freely chose to give senate control to republicans. and elections have consequences, at least that’s what we’re told when democrats win.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim you keep saying this bs Americans didnt vote to give Republicans the senate to block one presidential nominee and fast track another's nominee .. or are you again suggesting like Trump we have 2 Americas 1 blue and 1 red.. so the reason the held of garlad was a manufactured lie.. from turtle boy..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Use My Words Against Me': Lindsey Graham's Shifting Position On Court Vacancies

Jim maybe you should go review some Tapes of Cruz Rubio and other republicans on filling a seat during an election year. But your historical blindness won't allow you to see the Truth
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are they liars? We will soon see

This is the list of Republican Senators who promised the American people they wouldn't confirm a SCOTUS Justice in an election year:

Blunt, Burr, Cornyn, Cruz, Ernst, Gardner, Graham, Grassley, Hoeven, Inhofe, Johnson, Perdue, Portman, Rubio, Scott, Tillis, and Toomey.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so the reason the held of garlad was a manufactured lie.. from turtle boy..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device



"so the reason the held of garlad was a manufactured lie"

Sort of. I can't explain why McConnell didn't just say "Obama can nominate who he wants, and the senate can do what we want with that nomination". It was idiotic to say that the proximity to the election had anything to do with it.

I'll ask you what I keep asking Pete, which he keeps dodging. Are democrats not guilty of the same exact hypocrisy? Biden said when Bush 41 was POTUS, that no nominations should be made in an election year, they even called that the Biden rule. Then Biden obviously flip flopped in 2016.

So if McConnell lied, Biden told the same exact lie, and for the same exact reason. And you're voting for Biden. So if you're OK with democrats flip-flopping to get what they want on any given day, how can you complain when republicans do the same thing?

Have fun with that...

Are they liars? We will soon see

This is the list of Republican Senators who promised the American people they wouldn't confirm a SCOTUS Justice in an election year:

Blunt, Burr, Cornyn, Cruz, Ernst, Gardner, Graham, Grassley, Hoeven, Inhofe, Johnson, Perdue, Portman, Rubio, Scott, Tillis, and Toomey.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And Joe Biden said very famously when George HW Bush was POTUS, that supreme court nominations shouldn't be made in an election year. Then in 2016, he violated the rule named after him.

Pete, why is it only worrisome to you, when Republicans do it?

Use My Words Against Me': Lindsey Graham's Shifting Position On Court Vacancies

Jim maybe you should go review some Tapes of Cruz Rubio and other republicans on filling a seat during an election year. But your historical blindness won't allow you to see the Truth
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Graham addressed that. Graham voted for both of Obama's nominees, he voted for Kagan and Sotomayor. How did the democrats thank him? By trying to destroy Kavanaugh's life. Graham was the best friend the democrats had in the GOP, but they turned on him as soon as it suited them. So he is now their political enemy.

Pete, you can't fight with brass knuckles and ask your opponent to wear velvet gloves. It doesn't work that way.

Jim maybe you should go review some Tapes of Cruz Rubio and other republicans on filling a seat during an election year. But your historical blindness won't allow you to see the Truth
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I freely concede the republican flip-flopping. I'd be a lunatic to deny it.

Can you concede that "the Biden Rule", named after Joe Biden, was the rule that no nominations would be made in an election year? And that Biden gleefully violated his own rule in 2016 when it benefitted his side?

WDMSO, I can admit the sleaziness on my side. Can you do the same? Nope.

Graham was the best friend the democrats had in the GOP, but they turned on him as soon as it suited them. So he is now their political enemy.
Because he was an institutionalist before he sold his soul to Trump. Looks like he might even get beat in November.

Because he was an institutionalist before he sold his soul to Trump. Looks like he might even get beat in November.

trump had nothing to do with it. graham realized, 20
years too late, that the democrats have no principles except winning.

ginsburg got 94 votes. those days are gone thanks to the democrats.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Joe Biden can present himself as the pro-RBG, pro-Supreme Court, and pro-Roe v. Wade candidate. And in each of those cases, he will be sitting smack-dab in the center of the majority opinion. Which is most likely a winning place to be.
Because after paying tribute to RBG, presenting himself as someone who respects the Court, and pledging to defend Roe, Biden will be able to pivot to the issues that have put Tweety behind in the race: his mismanagement of the coronavirus, his divisiveness, his failure to rise to the demands of the office, and on and on.
The President called RBG's grandaughter a liar on national television. Does anyone really want four more years of this.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Joe Biden can present himself as the pro-RBG, pro-Supreme Court, and pro-Roe v. Wade candidate. And in each of those cases, he will be sitting smack-dab in the center of the majority opinion. Which is most likely a winning place to be.
Because after paying tribute to RBG, presenting himself as someone who respects the Court, and pledging to defend Roe, Biden will be able to pivot to the issues that have put Tweety behind in the race: his mismanagement of the coronavirus, his divisiveness, his failure to rise to the demands of the office, and on and on.
The President called RBG's grandaughter a liar on national television. Does anyone really want four more years of this.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What will it take, for you to respond to the fact that Biden also keeps flip-flopping on SCOTUS appointments?

How is Biden more "pro Supreme court" than Trump, exactly?

"his mismanagement of the coronavirus"

Biden said the virus wasn't serious enough to limit travel from China.

You're getting very, very desperate.

Trump can say he's better on the economy, better on immigration, better on national defense, way less likely to encourage riots and arson, pro law and order, did more to promote peace in the middle east, and pro life. He's the only candidate in the race who hasn't been called a racist and a rapist by his vice presidential candidate. And also the candidate not suffering from dementia.

You claim “they” all do it and therefore it’s acceptable when Tweety does it.
Frequency counts, besides Tweety was a dem for years
Most Americans respect the SC.
You are lying about what Biden said about China, I’ve posted the transcript of that speech before.
Biden was correct a lot more was needed than a travel ban, that’s why we have 200K dead .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You claim “they” all do it and therefore it’s acceptable when Tweety does it.
Frequency counts, besides Tweety was a dem for years
Most Americans respect the SC.
You are lying about what Biden said about China, I’ve posted the transcript of that speech before.
Biden was correct a lot more was needed than a travel ban, that’s why we have 200K dead .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can you get one right even by accident? I claim they're all wrong when they do it, and I'd like to see everyone stop doing it.

You claim only republicans do it. At least you refuse to comment on anything related to proof that democrats do it.

"Frequency counts"

I agree! Biden said no appointments in election years, then flip-flopped in 2016, then flip-flopped again in 2020.

The GOP confirmed Ginsburg almost unanimously.

The democrats torpedoed Bork, tried to lynch Clarence Thomas, tried to destroy Brett Kavanaugh.

The GOP denied Garland, and is doing a 180 today.

Hows that for frequency, Pete?

"Biden was correct a lot more was needed than a travel ban"

Except back in January, Biden didn't say "the travel ban isn't enough". He said the travel ban was hysterical and xenophobic. The word ":hysterical" makes it pretty clear that Biden thought it was an over-reaction, not an under-reaction.

Nice try, Pete my boy.

Most Americans respect the SC.
.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not what I asked. I asked on what basis Biden is more pro-SC than Trump is.

Pete: Biden is more pro-SC than trump.

Jim: how so?

Pete: most Americans support the SC.

I see why you like Biden, you seem to share a similar dementia.

Biden is a far more capable politician, that’s why RBG got 94 votes.
People forget that Bork had an activist agenda on social policy and said as much in his hearing, which is why the Dems really did a number of him, though maybe his role in Watergate had a bit to do with it too.

The GOP replacing Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas was a deep insult.

Regardless of who he selects, the mere fact that Trump is the one selecting RBG's replacement is more offensive than Thomas replacing Marshall.

I'm still wondering: 1) Who paid off Kavanaugh's debts? 2) What prompted Kennedy's sudden retirement when he already had clerks lined up for fall? 3) What did 45 say to him that prompted this reaction?
https://twitter.com/eleven_films/status/1049449309790322688?s=21
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Biden is a far more capable politician, that’s why RBG got 94 votes.
People forget that Bork had an activist agenda on social policy and said as much in his hearing, which is why the Dems really did a number of him, though maybe his role in Watergate had a bit to do with it too.

The GOP replacing Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas was a deep insult.

Regardless of who he selects, the mere fact that Trump is the one selecting RBG's replacement is more offensive than Thomas replacing Marshall.

I'm still wondering: 1) Who paid off Kavanaugh's debts? 2) What prompted Kennedy's sudden retirement when he already had clerks lined up for fall? 3) What did 45 say to him that prompted this reaction?
https://twitter.com/eleven_films/status/1049449309790322688?s=21
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Biden is a far more capable politician, that’s why RBG got 94 votes"

I see!! Biden was so skilled, that's why Ginsburg got 94 votes. Not because both sides were more civilized, it was because Biden was so skilled!

Using your logic then, can we assume Biden lost a few mph off his fastball by 2016, is that why Garland didn't get a vote?

You are hysterical. And very, very, very desperate.

"Regardless of who he selects, the mere fact that Trump is the one selecting RBG's replacement is more offensive "

I felt exactly the same way at the thought of Obama replacing Scalia. Exactly the same way. I was saved by the senate. Perhaps you will have the same fortune. We will soon see.

Unfortunately for you, there's nothing in the constitution which says you have the right to never be deeply offended.

I'm still wondering: 1) Who paid off Kavanaugh's debts? 2) What prompted Kennedy's sudden retirement when he already had clerks lined up for fall? 3) What did 45 say to him that prompted this reaction?
https://twitter.com/eleven_films/status/1049449309790322688?s=21
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No one else is wondering. Take off the tin foil hat, get a dog, take it for a walk.

Kudlow is lying in regards to recovery with 30M unemployed without benefits, Barr is declaring cities ‘Anarchist jurisdictions’, Azar is taking control of CDC and stripping data from covid guidelines while we have 200k dead and GOP is planning to install a SCOTUS pick 40 days from election.
You’re claiming the Dems made them do it, some pretty pathetic heroes you have.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Kudlow is lying in regards to recovery with 30M unemployed without benefits, Barr is declaring cities ‘Anarchist jurisdictions’, Azar is taking control of CDC and stripping data from covid guidelines while we have 200k dead and GOP is planning to install a SCOTUS pick 40 days from election.
You’re claiming the Dems made them do it, some pretty pathetic heroes you have.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Barr is declaring cities ‘Anarchist jurisdictions’"

What would you call cities that allow anarchists to set up autonomous zones?

"GOP is planning to install a SCOTUS pick 40 days from election. "

Because a SCOTUS judge died 40 days before the election. Read the constitution. It allows for this. Calm down.

"You’re claiming the Dems made them do it, some pretty pathetic heroes you have."

Damn right the dems made them do it. George W Bush chose to play nice while he was attacked. It didn't work. SO there's no value in fighting with one hand tied behind your back while your opponent uses two hands with brass knuckles. I don't expect them nor do I want them, to hand the keys to a bunch of baby killing, racist, Godless, Marxist freaks who are so screwed up, that they no longer concede genders.

The last places on Earth I look for heroes, are sports, Hollywood, and politics. So I cannot imagine what I ever said, that would lead you to believe I'd call them heroic. But my side does have Tom Cotton, Dan Crenshaw, Tim Scott, the terrific young AG from KY (watch that kid's star rise). I'll put them up against anyone on the other side, anyone. How do Talib and AOC compare?

You’ve already shown who you are.
When a politician praises an all-white audience in a predominantly-white state for their "good genes," you don't get to act like his campaign isn't entirely based around white supremacy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If the senate flips this move by Mitch will cost the GOP, but I do understand his urgency and the parties hypocrisy is to be expected.

You’ve already shown who you are.
When a politician praises an all-white audience in a predominantly-white state for their "good genes," you don't get to act like his campaign isn't entirely based around white supremacy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

who i am, is one of the very few people here who will
praise and criticize both sides.

it’s not based entirely around white supremacy. i care about protecting the unborn, so i should vote for biden? who is going to do more to protect the unborn? trump will
never come close to being as destructive in the black community as liberalism.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If the senate flips this move by Mitch will cost the GOP, but I do understand his urgency and the parties hypocrisy is to be expected.

when you accuse me of advocating white supremacy, you could
not be doing more to show your stupidity or desperation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If the senate flips this move by Mitch will cost the GOP, but I do understand his urgency and the parties hypocrisy is to be expected.

the hypocrisy is one sided? let’s examine the facts.

ginsburg was approved with 94 votes, meaning almost every republican votes for her.

then biden came
up with The Biden Rule, where he said no nominations should be made in an election year. did he stick to that in 2026? or did he flip flop for his party’s gain? now is he flip flopping again?

the democrats torpedoed Bork. they tried to lynch Thomas by appealing to the most base creeds of racists ( darkies can’t control
themselves around women). then they tried to crucify kavanaugh.

of course there’s gop hypocrisy here. but you reap what you sow. republicans won’t forgive senate democrats for what they did to kavanaugh, no should
they.

if this costs trump re election and costs the gop the senate, it’s worth it. because the most liberal congress ever will be limited by what they can do with a new court.

when you cry about republican hypictisy and mention nit a syllable if democrat tactics regarding scotus nominations, you reveal yourself very clearly.

liberals are threatening violence and arson and riots. to quote you, it’s to be expected by that bunch of sociopathic, anarchist babies.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Really that’s how you think the GOP will view loosing the White House and the senate, wow that’s amazing. So a little revenge will make loosing the power worth while, I’d be surprised if a single GOP senator shares that view, which says something.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Really that’s how you think the GOP will view loosing the White House and the senate, wow that’s amazing. So a little revenge will make loosing the power worth while, I’d be surprised if a single GOP senator shares that view, which says something.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

before last friday, there was already a good chance the democrats take the white house and the senate. that’s just the pendulum swinging back and forth.

in 2008, the democrats ran the table, just opened up a major can of whoop azz. was that the end of the gop? no, the gop took back a staggering number of federal, state, and local seats over the next 12 years. no party goes on a run much longer than that,,it doesn’t happen.

twice as many republican senators are up for reelection as democrats. they only need 4. obviously there’s a good chance they’ll get it, regardless of what happened friday.

and of course i’m correct when i say that if amy barrett replaces ginsburg, liberals will have a much harder time enacting their agenda. that’s why they’re coming unglued.

i’m not saying it’s good if the democrats control everything. i’m saying the natural state of things is that the pendulum
swings back and forth. we’re due for a shift back to the left.

if i had to choose between (1) replacing ginsburg with Barrett or (2) a trump re election, if take the former any day. the former shapes policy for decades, not just 4 years. no question which is better.

how isnthat logic flawed exactly? be specific. obviously republicans senators won't say that, because they want to be senators.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well payback will be a bitch, hopefully for Mitch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well payback will be a bitch, hopefully for Mitch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

maybe. and then in a few years, the pendulum
swings back, and on and on.but again, with that tilt
in the court, and the way trump packed lower courts with judges who aren’t activists, a liberal federal government can’t go as far to the left. so personally, ill
sleep like a rock if amy barrett replaces ginsburg.

id like to see both sides lower the temperature and restore civility. i have no desire for the gop to play clean and get clobbered by low blows, been there and done that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that’s why they’re coming unglued.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yup, unglued...violent, destructive, making threats and continuing to cause mayhem and promise more if they don't get their way...truly awful excuses for citizens...remember when the tea party was called "terrorists" by these morons?:spin:

trump should name keith richards...he's never gonna die

Then vote for Biden. Don't expect Trump to save you from the woke mobs: He needs them to justify his existence, and vice-versa.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then vote for Biden. Don't expect Trump to save you from the woke mobs: He needs them to justify his existence, and vice-versa.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

THAT is brilliant. Just brilliant.

Romney announced he's on board with voting for Trumps nominee, which means there's a 99% chance this is happening.

When the next Congress, for example, passes universal healthcare and using it’s article 3 powers to strip the SC of jurisdiction, then tell me how great having a loaded court is.
Article III, section 2, clause 2 explicitly empowers Congress to make “exceptions” to the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction—that is, to pick and choose for approximately 99 percent of the Supreme Court’s total docket what cases the Court has the power to hear and total power over the existence of the lower courts exists in Article 3 section 1.
There’s always more than one way to skin a cat.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When the next Congress, for example, passes universal healthcare and using it’s article 3 powers to strip the SC of jurisdiction, then tell me how great having a loaded court is.
Article III, section 2, clause 2 explicitly empowers Congress to make “exceptions” to the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction—that is, to pick and choose for approximately 99 percent of the Supreme Court’s total docket what cases the Court has the power to hear and total power over the existence of the lower courts exists in Article 3 section 1.
There’s always more than one way to skin a cat.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're very angry and bitter Pete. Want a binky?

If the dems control everything, they can do whatever the constitution says they can do. They should be careful about doing things for short term gain, however. The democrats are learning that lesson the hard way, after Harry Reid and Joe Biden changed the rules, presumably assuming that the GOP would never be in power again. That was a mis-calculation.

You're very angry and bitter Pete.



4 years worth...better be a king size binky

Why do you claim that?
The ultimate promise of jurisdiction stripping isn’t as a short-term stratagem to restore the courts’ partisan balance. It is a deeper remedy that can help put an end to the unhealthy situation in which Americans look to federal courts to resolve every important political question.
Congress could enact wealth tax legislation that includes a provision stripping the federal courts of jurisdiction to review the tax. In so doing, Congress would be advancing its own understanding of the meaning of the Constitution’s apportionment requirement—the exact scope of which is, in fact, subject to reasonable debate—and telling courts to stay out. If voters dislike what Congress has done (that is, if they disagree either with the tax itself or with Congress’s decision to limit judicial review), they can give their votes in the next election to candidates who oppose the tax, the jurisdiction-stripping provision, or both.

But your view is consistently

Judge giving liberal verdict - Activist judge

Judge giving conservative verdict - The constitution is a perfect document
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But your view is consistently

Judge giving liberal verdict - Activist judge

Judge giving conservative verdict - The constitution is a perfect document
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wrong.

Judge IGNORING THE CONSTITUTION to deliver any verdict, to satisfy their personal agenda - activist judge (bad).

Judge ignoring their personal ideology and ruling by what the constitution says - conservative judge (good).l

You just can't explain what I believe for two syllables without lying. Because you have no response for the truth - NONE. The truth is, we're all better off when judges leave their personal agenda at home. Have you ever noticed that on every courthouse steps, there's a statue of lady justice, and that she's always blindfolded? Do you know what the blindfold is for?

Judge giving liberal verdict

Judge giving conservative verdict


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:huh:

You didn’t read the whole thing I wrote just the part that easily triggered you.
Let’s look at a few decisions
Dred Scott v. Sanford started the Civil War
Or Korematsu v. United States, that upheld the interment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry.
Or Roe vs Wade, which seems to be of great importance to you.
Are we a government of the people or ruled by 9 people with lifetime appointments.
It seems you want the latter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there is no reason to have hearings..they should go straight to a vote

You didn’t read the whole thing I wrote just the part that easily triggered you.
Let’s look at a few decisions
Dred Scott v. Sanford started the Civil War
Or Korematsu v. United States, that upheld the interment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry.
Or Roe vs Wade, which seems to be of great importance to you.
Are we a government of the people or ruled by 9 people with lifetime appointments.
It seems you want the latter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

are you drunk?

Are we a government of the people or ruled by 9 people with lifetime appointments.
It seems you want the latter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
And a President who lost the popular vote, and a Senate majority that represents far less that the Democrats.

Tyranny of the minority.

Are we a government of the people or ruled by 9 people with lifetime appointments.
It seems you want the latter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I completely agree that recently, the SC is too powerful.

Here's what you don't get, because it doesn't serve your agenda, even though it's obviously true.

Liberal judges give more power to the court, and to the federal government. Conservative judges give less power to the SC and to the federal government, more power to states, and therefore more power to people to govern themselves.

What a concept!

And a President who lost the popular vote, .

Because he was the candidate who had a basic grasp of electoral math, and therefore didn't waste time in CA.

Your problem is with Hilary, no one told her to blowoff flyover country and to call many of them deplorable and irredeemable. That's her fault, not Trumps.

And a President who lost the popular vote.



this is meaningless

are you drunk?

You’re the one who thinks they should go straight to a vote, genius
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Tyranny of the minority.



this is foolish

You’re the one who thinks they should go straight to a vote, genius
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

no reason not to....save the country from the evil the democrats would conjure up...it's been a tough year already

I completely agree that recently, the SC is too powerful.

Here's what you don't get, because it doesn't serve your agenda, even though it's obviously true.

Liberal judges give more power to the court, and to the federal government. Conservative judges give less power to the SC and to the federal government, more power to states, and therefore more power to people to govern themselves.

What a concept!

So the majority of Americans support Roe vs Wade, but it’s ok for an activist court to overturn it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So the majority of Americans support Roe vs Wade, but it’s ok for an activist court to overturn it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Last I heard it was about 70%. It's not just Roe though, Casey fixed the issues people had with Roe and is a lot stronger.

So the majority of Americans support Roe vs Wade have you asked everyone?

, but it’s ok for an activist court to overturn it.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so activist courts can create laws but activist courts can't overturn laws...?

Last I heard it was about 70%.

.

meaningless

So the majority of Americans support Roe vs Wade, but it’s ok for an activist court to overturn it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Try to follow along here...we are governed by a document called the constitution, not by popular vote.

The constitution lists powers granted to the federal government, it specifies areas where the feds have the say. It also clearly says that all other matters are to be handled by states.

Nowhere in the constitution does it mention abortion or privacy. This doesn't mean abortion is illegal. It means the feds don't have jurisdiction, that states should decide the question.

Any state where most of the citizens support abortion, is likely to elect a state legislature that also supports it.

That's. How. It's. Supposed. To. Work.

Instead, it was legalized by activist judges who aren't elected, and therefore who aren't accountable to anybody. That's what's contrary to democracy.

Christ, you are slow and dense at times.

so activist courts can create laws but activist courts can't overturn laws...?

as long as the laws they create are liberal.

Christ, you are slow and dense at times.

his power curve is early morning...like weekend at biden's

the hypocrisy is one sided? let’s examine the facts.

ginsburg was approved with 94 votes, meaning almost every republican votes for her.

then biden came
up with The Biden Rule, where he said no nominations should be made in an election year. did he stick to that in 2026? or did he flip flop for his party’s gain? now is he flip flopping again?No, that is not what he said.

the democrats torpedoed BorkBC of his role in the Sat. night massacre and his wanting to roll back civil rights. Even some Rep. voted against him while some Dems. voted for him.. they tried to lynch Thomas by appealing to the most base creeds of racists ( darkies can’t control
themselves around women)so Anita Hill wasn't credible?. then they tried to crucify kavanaugh.

of course there’s gop hypocrisy here. but you reap what you sow. republicans won’t forgive senate democrats for what they did to kavanaugh, no should
they.you mean look into credible evidence he lied? The Repub. limited the FBI in their investigation.

if this costs trump re election and costs the gop the senate, it’s worth it. because the most liberal congress ever will be limited by what they can do with a new court.

when you cry about republican hypictisy and mention nit a syllable if democrat tactics regarding scotus nominations, you reveal yourself very clearly.

liberals are threatening violence and arson and riots. to quote you, it’s to be expected by that bunch of sociopathic, anarchist babies.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Biden didn't argue for a delay in an election year, as McConnell is doing. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election.

This close they should put it off until after the election and they will have plenty of time to vote the justice in. However if the Repub. do confirm a justice and the Dems win the Pres and Sen. be prepared for a bunch of new justices and probably a need to put 2 more stars on ourflags.

Biden didn't argue for a delay in an election year, as McConnell is doing. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election.

This close they should put it off until after the election and they will have plenty of time to vote the justice in. However if the Repub. do confirm a justice and the Dems win the Pres and Sen. be prepared for a bunch of new justices and probably a need to put 2 more stars on ourflags.

"Biden didn't argue for a delay in an election year,"

Read this, and tell me he didn't say that. He said that the potus shouldn't nominate in an election year, and if the does, the senate should refuse to have a hearing. Biden said that. You just make sh*t up now?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/us/politics/joe-biden-argued-for-delaying-supreme-court-picks-in-1992.html

"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."

and from the article

Hours after archival C-Span video clips of the speech began circulating, Mr. Biden issued a statement saying that his remarks had been misinterpreted, and stressing that he believed, then and now, that the White House and Congress should “work together to overcome partisan differences” on Supreme Court nominations. He had a record of moving such candidates during his time as chairman of the judiciary panel, he said.

“Some critics say that one excerpt of my speech is evidence that I oppose filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year,” Mr. Biden said. “This is not an accurate description of my views on the subject.”

In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year
By C. Eugene Emery Jr. on Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 5:37 p.m.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell invoked the so-called "Biden Rule" to justify why the Senate should not consider the nomination of Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court in an election year.
Yes, as in Vice President Joe Biden.
McConnell is using Biden’s own words from 1992, when George H.W. Bush was president and Biden was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to explain why he intends to block President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court pick in an election year.
"The Senate will continue to observe the Biden Rule so that the American people have a voice in this momentous decision" on who to name to the court, McConnell said in a March 16 speech on the floor of the Senate.
McConnell went on to quote some words from then-Judiciary Chairman Biden to show why the Senate’s disagreement with Obama is "about a principle, not a person."
Help PolitiFact fact-check the immigration debate in 2016
Did Biden really say he would be against the president nominating a Supreme Court justice in an election year when political control of the Senate and White House were flipped?
We wanted to use our In Context feature to lay out what Biden said back then outside of McConnell’s sound bite. Readers can determine if it’s relevant now.
Biden's floor speech was on June 25, 1992, more than three months later in the election cycle than it is now.
There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill.
There was no nominee to consider.
The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election.
Nonetheless, Biden took to the floor in a speech addressing the Senate president to urge delay if a vacancy did appear. But he didn't argue for a delay until the next president began his term, as McConnell is doing. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election, which was on Nov. 3, 1992.
Many of Biden's words echo the state of Washington today:
"Given the unusual rancor that prevailed in the (Clarence) Thomas nomination, the need for some serious reevaluation of the nomination and confirmation process, and the overall level of bitterness that sadly infects our political system and this presidential campaign already, it is my view that the prospects for anything but conflagration with respect to a Supreme Court nomination this year are remote at best."
He noted that among the previous seven nominations, two were not confirmed and two passed with strong opposition.
"In my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down.
"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. 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."
Biden said if Bush were to nominate someone anyway, "the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over."
Based on Biden's words, it appears he would not have objected to Bush nominating someone the day after election day. It would have given the Senate more than two and a half months to vote on confirmation.
Biden contended this was not an attempt to play politics with the selection.
"Some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it. But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course we were to choose in the Senate — to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over."
In the case of Obama's nomination of Garland, Democrats have argued that the Supreme Court seat should be filled immediately because the court needs a deciding vote.
Biden in his 1992 speech addressed that issue, saying that some people "may fret that this approach would leave the Court with only eight members for some time. But as I see it, Mr. President, the cost of such a result, the need to reargue three or four cases that will divide the justices four to four are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the president, the senate, and the nation would have to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President, if that nomination were to take place in the next several weeks."

"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."

and from the article

Hours after archival C-Span video clips of the speech began circulating, Mr. Biden issued a statement saying that his remarks had been misinterpreted, and stressing that he believed, then and now, that the White House and Congress should “work together to overcome partisan differences” on Supreme Court nominations. He had a record of moving such candidates during his time as chairman of the judiciary panel, he said.

“Some critics say that one excerpt of my speech is evidence that I oppose filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year,” Mr. Biden said. “This is not an accurate description of my views on the subject.”

Paul, Biden said that Bush shouldn't make a nomination during an election year, and that if he did make a nomination, the senate should delay a vote. Those are Biden's words in his speech. I don't care what context someone puts it in to make it seem like he didn't contradict himself in 2016.

Those remarks cannot be misinterpreted, there is zero ambiguity. Zero.

Paul, Biden said that Bush shouldn't make a nomination during an election year, and that if he did make a nomination, the senate should delay a vote. Those are Biden's words in his speech. I don't care what context someone puts it in to make it seem like he didn't contradict himself in 2016.

Those remarks cannot be misinterpreted, there is zero ambiguity. Zero.

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."

Those are his exact words

However if the Repub. do confirm a justice and the Dems win the Pres and Sen. be prepared for a bunch of new justices and probably a need to put 2 more stars on ourflags.

oh good...more childishness from the democrats

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."

Those are his exact words

I agree. He said that presidents should not name a nominee in an election year (you conveniently left out the part where he said that if the president does make a nomination in an election year, the senate should refuse to vote).

Here is Biden's naked hypocrisy Paul. In 2016, he an dObama violated the Biden rule, and nominated a candidate during an election year.

Therefore, Biden is every bit the hypocrite that McConnell and Graham are.

Sorry, what's god for the goose...

I'm struggling to figure out how you think you are refuting my point, when you are making my point. Biden did the opposite of what he asked Bush to do.

oh good...more childishness from the democrats

not going to happen. What will eventually happen, is that as people flee liberal states, those states will lose congressional seats, and therefore, electoral votes.

liberals don’t need to worry, according to the Babylon Bee, the 9th circuit court of appeals, has overturned the death of Ginsberg, declaring it unconstitutional.

so no worries.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I agree. He said that presidents should not name a nominee in an election year no, he didn't say that.(you conveniently left out the part where he said that if the president does make a nomination in an election year, the senate should refuse to vote).I didn't conveniently leave anything out as I provided everything he said

Here is Biden's naked hypocrisy Paul. In 2016, he an dObama violated the Biden rule, and nominated a candidate during an election year.

Therefore, Biden is every bit the hypocrite that McConnell and Graham are.

Sorry, what's god for the goose...

I'm struggling to figure out how you think you are refuting my point, when you are making my point. Biden did the opposite of what he asked Bush to do.

I've only provided what he said - "...After the election"

Some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it. But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course we were to choose in the Senate — to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over."

not going to happen. What will eventually happen, is that as people flee liberal states, those states will lose congressional seats, and therefore, electoral votes.

and where will they go - to the warmer conserv. states and will turn them into blue states. Once Texas becomes blue (largely from Latinos) the Rep. party will be dead.

I've only provided what he said - "...After the election"

Some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it. But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course we were to choose in the Senate — to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over."

"no, he didn't say that"

Are you feeling OK? Yes, he did.

"I didn't conveniently leave anything out as I provided everything he said "

Wrong. Biden said that if a president made a nomination in an election year, the senate should refuse to have a vote. Watch the video!

Even the article you posted to "counter" my argument, admitted he said there should be no nominations in an election year. They just pointed out there didn't happen to be any nominations in that election year, so push never came to shove. But the article you posted, said that the Biden Rule was a rule saying presidents should not make nominations in an election year.

My god, you turned into Pete.

and where will they go - to the warmer conserv. states and will turn them into blue states. Once Texas becomes blue (largely from Latinos) the Rep. party will be dead.

No. Again, you aren't thinking. The liberal whackos aren't feeing CT, why would they? Its conservatives who are fleeing.

You are 100% correct on TX flipping because of demographic shifts, and once that happens, it will be a gold mine for democrats. No way for a republican to win if TX flips. Republican presidential candidates will be dead.

"no, he didn't say that"

Are you feeling OK? Yes, he did.

"I didn't conveniently leave anything out as I provided everything he said "

Wrong. Biden said that if a president made a nomination in an election year, the senate should refuse to have a vote. Watch the video!

Even the article you posted to "counter" my argument, admitted he said there should be no nominations in an election year. They just pointed out there didn't happen to be any nominations in that election year, so push never came to shove. But the article you posted, said that the Biden Rule was a rule saying presidents should not make nominations in an election year.

My god, you turned into Pete.
He said until after the election is over.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No. Again, you aren't thinking. The liberal whackos aren't feeing CT, why would they? Its conservatives who are fleeing.


You can't help yourself but constantly insult people.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device