Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

Mainstream media and Democrats avoided hammering the point that her version of religion speaks in tongues.

Speaks. In. Tongues.



(no I dont consider bill maher mainstream media)

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

Lol...sunnyside.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=Chico23231;1263656]Lol...pack the court is your answer? JFC...dilute the institution

Harry Reid fuck it all up, not McConnell period.

If there is a stain, at least understand who stained it. Democrats have a history there...read up[/quote]

Lolololol.

Harry Reid fucked it all up by reducing lower judicial nominees to a majority-vote threshold, so naturally the only proper reaction was to do the same thing to the highest court in the land?

Are we agreeing that this tit-for-tat bs is the status quo now?

Because if we are, it's only natural that the Dems retaliate in some manner, and we've been playing this game long enough that the only options left are extreme options.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[QUOTE=mooby;1263706]Lolololol.



Harry Reid fucked it all up by reducing lower judicial nominees to a majority-vote threshold, so naturally the only proper reaction was to do the same thing to the highest court in the land?



Are we agreeing that this tit-for-tat bs is the status quo now?



Because if we are, it's only natural that the Dems retaliate in some manner, and we've been playing this game long enough that the only options left are extreme options.[/QUOTE]I have said that I wished Trump had focused on unity and held off. That said neither party is trying to be the better actor in all this. Both are pandering to the more extreme part of their base with their respective media outlets. The US is going downhill fast and, as Sunny likes to point out, the Democrats will get to be the ones in charge when it all goes pop

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1263708]I have said that I wished Trump had focused on unity and held off. That said neither party is trying to be the better actor in all this. Both are pandering to the more extreme part of their base with their respective media outlets. The US is going downhill fast and, as Sunny likes to point out, the Democrats will get to be the ones in charge when it all goes pop

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk[/quote]

For 200 years SCOTUS was held to a honorable standard above the partisan bickering of the day.

Sad to see that day has passed. It's all in the game though gents. No turning around now.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[QUOTE=mooby;1263710]For 200 years SCOTUS was held to a honorable standard above the partisan bickering of the day.



Sad to see that day has passed. It's all in the game though gents. No turning around now.[/QUOTE]True. And the Democrats use of Roe v Wade as political measuring stick was ultimately the seed of the end. There is such a fundamental disconnect between one side (in extreme) seeing the fetus as an inconvenience to be washed away and at the other end a life to be protected above all, that in the end there is no 1 truth that all judges, or people in the US hold to anymore.

The old adage of I may disagree with you but i will defend to the death your right to say it falls short of the mark when your concept of rights includes killing the unborn, or on the other side, taking away the right of a woman over her own body.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1263712]True. And the Democrats use of Roe v Wade as political measuring stick was ultimately the seed of the end.[/quote]

Your post is proof it's actually the other way around. Republicans have been stirring up political BS about Roe vs Wade since it was decided . The Republicans have had to destroy the integrity of the SC just to get the Court the way they want it ,again very trump like.I must get my way at all cost damn everything else.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=mooby;1263710]For 200 years SCOTUS was held to a honorable standard above the partisan bickering of the day.

Sad to see that day has passed. It's all in the game though gents. No turning around now.[/quote]


Amen ,Republicans have no one to blame but themselves for this mess . They sold their souls to the Devil in backing trump and in the process might have destroyed the republican party.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=Giantone;1263718]Amen ,Republicans have no one to blame but themselves for this mess . They sold their souls to the Devil in backing trump and in the process might have destroyed the republican party.[/quote]
so have you moved off the I'm a republican facade?

This all started long before Trump, and would have occurred with any republican, because none were going to pass up the opportunity to put SC justices on the bench.

This is a blood feud between McConnell and Schumer, and the whole damn country is going to suffer because of it, while liberals and conservatives both play the wo is me chorus to their sycophants.

You, for what it's worth are so caught up in your Trump hatred that you don't see the devil is in both parties. Full tilt.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=Giantone;1263717]Your post is proof it's actually the other way around. Republicans have been stirring up political BS about Roe vs Wade since it was decided . The Republicans have had to destroy the integrity of the SC just to get the Court the way they want it ,again very trump like.I must get my way at all cost damn everything else.[/quote]

Only in Bizarro G1 Land does your post make any sense

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[quote=Giantone;1263718]Amen ,Republicans have no one to blame but themselves for this mess . They sold their souls to the Devil in backing trump and in the process might have destroyed the republican party.[/quote]

You are amening to something Mooby didn't say. The post you responded to said nothing about solely blaming Republicans. Both sides got us to where we are right now.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

Disclaimer - What the Republicans did with Garland was bush league. Going 10 months without a SC justice is dumb.

And they were too pathetic to put him up for a vote, so every Senate member had to put their name on it. Took the cowardly way out.

So I can see why Democrats are against ACB. Has nothing to do with her at all, at least I don't think so, she seems pretty impressive.

Trump had every right to fill that seat. And by that standard, Obama absolutely had the right to nominate Garland.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[QUOTE=sdskinsfan2001;1263725]Disclaimer - What the Republicans did with Garland was bush league. Going 10 months without a SC justice is dumb.



And they were too pathetic to put him up for a vote, so every Senate member had to put their name on it. Took the cowardly way out.



So I can see why Democrats are against ACB. Has nothing to do with her at all, at least I don't think so, she seems pretty impressive.



Trump had every right to fill that seat. And by that standard, Obama absolutely had the right to nominate Garland.[/QUOTE]Agree with all this.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

This is an opinion piece. But it's from the WSJ. I think 99% of us hold them as a credible organization and this carries at least a bit more weight than the average opinion piece.

[url]https://www.wsj.com/articles/harry-reids-filibuster-legacy-11602803203[/url]

I admit I have never followed the judicial appointment procedures as close as I should have, so a lot of this is new info to me. If anyone posts an article about the same issue from a different perspective I'll read it.

Re: Supreme Court vacancy
 

[QUOTE=sdskinsfan2001;1263728]This is an opinion piece. But it's from the WSJ. I think 99% of us hold them as a credible organization and this carries at least a bit more weight than the average opinion piece.



[url]https://www.wsj.com/articles/harry-reids-filibuster-legacy-11602803203[/url]



I admit I have never followed the judicial appointment procedures as close as I should have, so a lot of this is new info to me. If anyone posts an article about the same issue from a different perspective I'll read it.[/QUOTE]The article needed a login to the WSJ. Bummers

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk