BREAKING: Ruth Bader Ginsburg hospitalized

[mongo18]

Obamagate is the completely legit and not made up claim that the investigation into ties between the trump campaign and Russia were purely intended to sabotage trump's election and had no basis in fact. That's why all those involved in the illegal and unethical investigation have been indicted and charged and nobody related to the trump campaign has ever been found to actually have ties to Russia, or to have lied about those ties, or to have acted unethically in any way.

 

[Little Red Wagon Repairman]

Obamagate is the completely legit and not made up claim that the investigation into ties between the trump campaign and Russia were purely intended to sabotage trump's election and had no basis in fact. That's why all those involved in the illegal and unethical investigation have been indicted and charged and nobody related to the trump campaign has ever been found to actually have ties to Russia, or to have lied about those ties, or to have acted unethically in any way.

I think you're right. The Michelle having a wiener that Barack enjoys sitting on deal was called the Obama PROBE. Scandalous nonetheless.

 

[georges]

As we could expect it and predict it the beyond desperate and bad faith Democrats threaten to pack Court if Republicans vote on Ginsburg replacement this year
https://dailycaller.com/2020/09/19/...ush&utm_source=daily_caller&utm_campaign=push

 

[mongo18]

Please explain how the democrats are bad faith in this situation? It's the republicans who applied a rule to an Obama nominee 4 years ago and are now refusing to apply that same rule to themselves. Don't you think there should be consistency in matters of this level of significance? If you believe that the republicans were right to block Garland's appointment, then you cannot believe that they are right to confirm trump's appointment in the near future. It's just not possible. Either they were wrong back then, or they're wrong now. Which is it?

 

[georges]

Obamagate is the completely legit and not made up claim that the investigation into ties between the trump campaign and Russia were purely intended to sabotage trump's election and had no basis in fact. That's why all those involved in the illegal and unethical investigation have been indicted and charged and nobody related to the trump campaign has ever been found to actually have ties to Russia, or to have lied about those ties, or to have acted unethically in any way.

Obamagate was a set up from the beginning. If it was a fully legit action then why Mr Mueller intentionnaly lied to the congress because there is already a conflict of interest with his story
https://www.judicialwatch.org/deep-dive/did-mueller-lie-to-congress/
All this russian collusion delusion bs was a set up especially with the steele dossier which was a slanderous and salacious dossier made of false claims based on nothing concrete. There was no ties to Russia. The fact that the Mueller team wiped up their phones is more than enough for me not to trust anyone from the Obama administration who was involved in operation Hurrican Crossfire and behing the trials made against Trump. Let me remember you the fact about the Mueller's team wiping up their phones https://www.judicialwatch.org/tom-fittons-weekly-update/mueller-team-wiped-phones/
If Mueller's Team was honest and was totally transparent , they wouldn't have done it.

 

[georges]

Please explain how the democrats are bad faith in this situation? It's the republicans who applied a rule to an Obama nominee 4 years ago and are now refusing to apply that same rule to themselves. Don't you think there should be consistency in matters of this level of significance? If you believe that the republicans were right to block Garland's appointment, then you cannot believe that they are right to confirm trump's appointment in the near future. It's just not possible. Either they were wrong back then, or they're wrong now. Which is it?

The Democrats wanted to thwart the 2016 election so they did all their best by manipulating evidence of a legitmately elected president. "In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia’s death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president’s second term. We kept our promise. Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year," McConnell said in a statement following Ginsburg's death. "By contrast, Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary. Once again, we will keep our promise," he continued. "President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate."
Trump told CNN in March 2016 that he believed the next president -- presumably him -- should pick the nominee, not Obama.
"I think the next president should make the pick, and I think they shouldn't go forward," he told "New Day" on March 16, 2016. "And I believe I'm pretty much in line with what the Republicans are saying. I think that the next president should make the pick. We don't have a very long distance to wait."
There is ample precedent for nominations and confirmations to the Supreme Court in presidential election years. It's happened six times since 1900. The most recent nomination and confirmation in an election year was 1940, after Justice Pierce Butler died in office and Franklin D. Roosevelt nominated Frank Murphy in January 1940; he was confirmed 12 days later.
The latest election year confirmation came in 1916 when Charles Evans Hughes resigned in June and President Woodrow Wilson nominated John Clarke on July 14. Ten days later he was unanimously confirmed. There has never been one filled later than that ahead of an election.

 

[gmase]

There is ample precedent for nominations and confirmations to the Supreme Court in presidential election years. It's happened six times since 1900. The most recent nomination and confirmation in an election year was 1940, after Justice Pierce Butler died in office and Franklin D. Roosevelt nominated Frank Murphy in January 1940; he was confirmed 12 days later.

Your argument has much value. The issue is the recent precedent McConnell set in 2016. He can try, but he cannot run from that position. McConnell was wrong in 2016. He was not acting in good faith for constitutional principles, but acting in bad faith as a partisan.

I hate to say it: In 2016, Obama's nominee should have been given a hearing. In 2020, Trump's nominee should receive the same. Let the Senate, not McConnell, decide the question.

 

[Theopolis Q. Hossenffer]

Your argument has much value. The issue is the recent precedent McConnell set in 2016. He can try, but he cannot run from that position. McConnell was wrong in 2016. He was not acting in good faith for constitutional principles, but acting in bad faith as a partisan.

I hate to say it: In 2016, Obama's nominee should have been given a hearing. In 2020, Trump's nominee should receive the same. Let the Senate, not McConnell, decide the question.

The Trumpista party has proven themselves to be lying hypocrites of the highest order. I say a vid of Lindsey Graham(a weasel it there ever was one) saying that he would never endorse a Supreme Court nomination in the year before an election as the American people deserved to have the winner of the election decide who would be nominated. That was in 2016.Then I read yesterday he announced he would do everything in his power to ensure The Donald picked Ginsburg's replacement. I would remind Old Lindsey of one of my Daddy's favorite sayings and I quote" The Sun Doesn't shine on one Dog's ass all the time" And any of you Trumpistas who agree with Graham are liars' as well.

 

[georges]

Your argument has much value. The issue is the recent precedent McConnell set in 2016. He can try, but he cannot run from that position. McConnell was wrong in 2016. He was not acting in good faith for constitutional principles, but acting in bad faith as a partisan.

I hate to say it: In 2016, Obama's nominee should have been given a hearing. In 2020, Trump's nominee should receive the same. Let the Senate, not McConnell, decide the question.

Have Democrats been acting in good faith during the 2016 election and during the Obama presidency? The answer is clearly no. But let's enumerate the facts regarding of filling a vacant Scotus position.
Dem Senator already threatening to pack court, end filibuster if SCOTUS seat is filled
https://www.westernjournal.com/dem-...urnal&ats_es=4d2520a7c1a015afe226b01322ab3014

Leftists threaten to riot if Republicans fill RBG's SCOTUS seat before the election
https://www.westernjournal.com/left...urnal&ats_es=4d2520a7c1a015afe226b01322ab3014

Mob moves to intimidate McConnell in wake of RBG's death, home location posted online
https://www.westernjournal.com/mob-...urnal&ats_es=4d2520a7c1a015afe226b01322ab3014

The unhinged left shows its true colors by rioting and even intimidating an elected official what a great sign of tolerance from a party that dares to call itself the Democrats

On the other side, Trump isn't helped by his own party for filling the SCOTUS vacant seat
4 GOP Senators could thwart Trump's choice for Supreme Court
https://www.newsmax.com/john-gizzi/...=DM147584_09192020&s=acs&dkt_nbr=010502a45xfy

Nevertheless,Trump being tenacious as he always is, identifies 2 women as front-runners to replace RBG on Supreme Court:
https://www.westernjournal.com/trum...urnal&ats_es=4d2520a7c1a015afe226b01322ab3014

 

[mongo18]

The unhinged left shows its true colors by rioting and even intimidating an elected official what a great sign of tolerance from a party that dares to call itself the Democrats

And so they fucking should. Republicans have completely subverted democracy. They're governing for the minority, and making up rules as they go along, as showcased by their intention of confirming a trump pick to the court after blocking garland.

If those in power show no respect for the law, why should anybody else? How long did you think the republican party could get away with flaunting their corruption in broad daylight while the population just grabs their ankles and takes it?

 

[gmase]

Here's the slippery slope and a perfect example of why partisanship continues to leave us in a path to nowhere.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option)

In November 2013, Senate Democrats led by Harry Reid used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments, but not for the Supreme Court. In April 2017, Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell extended the nuclear option to Supreme Court nominations in order to end debate on the nomination of Neil Gorsuch.

Democrats, by using this option when they were in power, are now feeling the blow back. Requiring 60 votes for judicial nominees helps ensure there is some consensus about those we are appointing for life.

 

[Theopolis Q. Hossenffer]

Here's the slippery slope and a perfect example of why partisanship continues to leave us in a path to nowhere.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option)

In November 2013, Senate Democrats led by Harry Reid used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments, but not for the Supreme Court. In April 2017, Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell extended the nuclear option to Supreme Court nominations in order to end debate on the nomination of Neil Gorsuch.

Democrats, by using this option when they were in power, are now feeling the blow back. Requiring 60 votes for judicial nominees helps ensure there is some consensus about those we are appointing for life. Quote


The Dems are not innocent in this at all. The whole "Nuclear" option was a stupid idea in the first place. The 60 votes were there for a reason and now it has helped lead us to where we are today. That said it seems that the Trumpistas are going further in the direction of blatant "FUCK YOU' than ever before.. I have never seen a President and Senate leader so obviously have such a control of life and political death over the members. Here in Illinois, yes but Nationally, no

 

[mongo18]

Here's the slippery slope and a perfect example of why partisanship continues to leave us in a path to nowhere.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option)

In November 2013, Senate Democrats led by Harry Reid used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments, but not for the Supreme Court. In April 2017, Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell extended the nuclear option to Supreme Court nominations in order to end debate on the nomination of Neil Gorsuch.

Democrats, by using this option when they were in power, are now feeling the blow back. Requiring 60 votes for judicial nominees helps ensure there is some consensus about those we are appointing for life.

You forget that Reid was forced into that position because of republicans unprecedented obstruction on Obama's nominees. If they could have gotten away with it, they would have left every seat vacant for Obama's entire term, because controlling the courts is part of their strategy. If democracy doesn't work for them (and a fair democracy wouldn't), they're fine with governing through the courts, because getting and keeping power is all that matters.

Blaming this on Reid and democrats is being incredibly ignorant of the facts, they were just trying to make the system work after republicans broke it.

 

[gmase]

You forget that Reid was forced into that position because of republicans unprecedented obstruction on Obama's nominees. If they could have gotten away with it, they would have left every seat vacant for Obama's entire term, because controlling the courts is part of their strategy. If democracy doesn't work for them (and a fair democracy wouldn't), they're fine with governing through the courts, because getting and keeping power is all that matters.

Blaming this on Reid and democrats is being incredibly ignorant of the facts, they were just trying to make the system work after republicans broke it.

Ouch. I did not forget and I am certainly not ignorant - much less "incredibly ignorant". The insinuation is quite insulting actually. 🖕

 

[Señor Sarcasmo]

Here's the slippery slope and a perfect example of why partisanship continues to leave us in a path to nowhere.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option)

In November 2013, Senate Democrats led by Harry Reid used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments, but not for the Supreme Court. In April 2017, Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell extended the nuclear option to Supreme Court nominations in order to end debate on the nomination of Neil Gorsuch.

Democrats, by using this option when they were in power, are now feeling the blow back. Requiring 60 votes for judicial nominees helps ensure there is some consensus about those we are appointing for life.

I remember when that happened and everyone was telling reed that he should think twice but he werent about to listen how's that nuclear option grabbing you now guys people in his own party pleading with him but nope Well there's your bed you made whyn't you take a nap now haha
correct about the higher vot threshold more agreement compromise

 

[mongo18]

Ouch. I did not forget and I am certainly not ignorant - much less "incredibly ignorant". The insinuation is quite insulting actually. 🖕

Well, if you're going to make a post about the dangers of extreme partisanship using that as an example and leave out all those background details, you're either being ignorant or disingenuous. I don't give a shit about your feelings.

 

[gmase]

Nor should you.

 

[Theopolis Q. Hossenffer]

Somehow I fucked up when using a quote from gmase and my statement got mixed into the text credited to him. I am unable to correct it so an reposting my remarks here. Sorry for the Bleep up:

The Dems are not innocent in this at all. The whole "Nuclear" option was a stupid idea in the first place. The 60 votes were there for a reason and now it has helped lead us to where we are today. That said it seems that the Trumpistas are going further in the direction of blatant "FUCK YOU' than ever before.. I have never seen a President and Senate leader so obviously have such a control of life and political death over the members. Here in Illinois, yes but Nationally, no

 

[Little Red Wagon Repairman]

At least Kate doesn't have to worry about memorizing any lines.

Lorne Michaels Hints That ‘Saturday Night Live’ Hasn’t Seen The Last Of Kate McKinnon’s Ruth Bader Ginsburg
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/lorne-michaels-hints-saturday-night-135239383.html

 

[gmase]

Somehow I fucked up when using a quote from gmase and my statement got mixed into the text credited to him. I am unable to correct it so an reposting my remarks here. Sorry for the Bleep up:

The Dems are not innocent in this at all. The whole "Nuclear" option was a stupid idea in the first place. The 60 votes were there for a reason and now it has helped lead us to where we are today. That said it seems that the Trumpistas are going further in the direction of blatant "FUCK YOU' than ever before.. I have never seen a President and Senate leader so obviously have such a control of life and political death over the members. Here in Illinois, yes but Nationally, no

No worries. I was good with your quote - especially "the 60 votes were there for a reason."

It's going to get cold, they should sell some long-sleeved versions.