Oh boy....

[scottw]

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

[Pete F.]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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....

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Nebe

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

[Pete F.]

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

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

[Jim in CT]

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

[Pete F.]

"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

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[Pete F.]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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

[Pete F.]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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

[scottw]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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