RBG is dead,

[DCandtheUTBand]

I will try to help the lefties here. The relevant stuff from McConnells quote (below) is in bold and underlined. No hypocrisy just the media lying again by omission of the relevant facts. To help the low IQ leftists also note that the Senate and Presidency are currently part of the same party. This should be common sense. I would suspect that what might happen is a nominee will be put forward soon and voted upon after Nov 4 regardless of election outcome.

"The next president should make this nomination. The — that certainly is supported by precedent. You’d have to go back to 1888 when Grover Cleveland was in the White House to find the last time a Senate of a different party from the president confirmed a nominee for the Supreme Court in an election year, . . . Who should make the decision? . . . the nomination should be made by the president the people elect in the election that’s underway right now…the overwhelming view of the Republican Conference of the Senate, in the Senate, is that this nomination should not be filled, this vacancy should not be filled by this lame-duck president. That was the view of Joe Biden when he was chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 1992. . . . We know what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot. We know what would happen. A nominee of a Republican president would not be confirmed by a Democratic Senate when the vacancy was created in a presidential election year. That’s a fact. "- McConnell 2016

 

[LizardGrad89]

That was a great decision; a victory for free speech and freedom of association. They were simply upholding the Constitution, not making law.

Liberals resort to penumbras to create rights not explicitly granted by the Constitution.

You believe, actually BELIEVE, that giving Corporations and Unions a right to free speech is a good thing? These are artificial beings. They have no voice. All this does is give an outsized, extra loud voice to some. It was a HORRIBLE decision.

 

[LizardGrad89]

Haha...something like black lives matter, unless they're unborn babies? As a Democrat, you have little use for the phrase 'ethical construct.'

'Something else you don't understand: The abortion discussion.

 

[LizardGrad89]

I will try to help the lefties here. The relevant stuff from McConnells quote (below) is in bold and underlined. No hypocrisy just the media lying again by omission of the relevant facts. To help the low IQ leftists also note that the Senate and Presidency are currently part of the same party. This should be common sense. I would suspect that what might happen is a nominee will be put forward soon and voted upon after Nov 4 regardless of election outcome.

"The next president should make this nomination. The — that certainly is supported by precedent. You’d have to go back to 1888 when Grover Cleveland was in the White House to find the last time a Senate of a different party from the president confirmed a nominee for the Supreme Court in an election year, . . . Who should make the decision? . . . the nomination should be made by the president the people elect in the election that’s underway right now…the overwhelming view of the Republican Conference of the Senate, in the Senate, is that this nomination should not be filled, this vacancy should not be filled by this lame-duck president. That was the view of Joe Biden when he was chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 1992. . . . We know what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot. We know what would happen. A nominee of a Republican president would not be confirmed by a Democratic Senate when the vacancy was created in a presidential election year. That’s a fact. "- McConnell 2016

McConnel put forth that there should not be a new supreme court nominee during an election cycle. That is what he said, that is what Lindsay Graham said, that is what multiple Republicans in the leadership said. Well, are we not in the midst of an election cycle? Hypocrisy. Try again.

 

[BamaFan1137]

'Something else you don't understand: The abortion discussion.

Then school me smart guy. While you're at it, tell me where i stand on abortion.

 

[BamaFan1137]

McConnel put forth that there should not be a new supreme court nominee during an election cycle. That is what he said, that is what Lindsay Graham said, that is what multiple Republicans in the leadership said. Well, are we not in the midst of an election cycle? Hypocrisy. Try again.

You mentioned deflection before...can you see where someone might accuse you of the same after this post?

I'll help, did you leave one of DC's major points out with your half-assed reply? And did you do so on purpose? These questions are entirely rhetorical if you haven't caught on.

 

[Sunburnt Indian]

A reminder: What one says and especially how one says it defines one. The golden rule for the administrator for intelligence quotient testing. After 15 minute interviews, the administrator generally knows how test scores will conclude.

BamaFan1137 can clearly define all seven components of critical thinking. He relies on analysis and little on assumption. I know how he and his opponent would score in the class room.

Had BamaFan1137 voted for Obama, he could qualify for admission for WalkAway, and very likely would.

 

[GwinnettDawg]

Jiminy fudging crickets you are a PITA. You were alive in 2016, right? Not in a coma or anything?

Pick your favorite:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_nomination

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-garland-vs-after-ginsburgs-death/5837543002/

https://ballotpedia.org/Supreme_Court_nomination_of_Merrick_Garland

This is a good one, it's an actual video of McConnell. Probably not biased. Particularly like Lindsay Graham's piece.

View embedded media

Here's Fox News, spinning just as hard as they can, but they put hypocritical right in the title, so...

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/what-senators-said-after-scalias-death-in-2016

Happy now?

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

You believe, actually BELIEVE, that giving Corporations and Unions a right to free speech is a good thing? These are artificial beings. They have no voice. All this does is give an outsized, extra loud voice to some. It was a HORRIBLE decision.

Again I will try to help. People have the right to redress government. They also have the right of assembly. Now I am not a fan of unions or for profit influence but groups like Sierra and NRA are groups of people assembling to pool resources as a NON profit corporation in order to petition (redress) government. Now this is consistent with the first amendment.

I would be perfectly happy if gubmint allowed groups, non-profit, tax free ability to organize and redress, But since they force incoporation on these non profits then rightly they ruled spending money to redress or buy ads is a form of speech.

If you spend $25 on your own you do not have the effect that you would by pooling money with like minded individuals to petition or buy ads. Pooling your money actually gives your voice more force.

It was the correct constitutional choice.

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

McConnel put forth that there should not be a new supreme court nominee during an election cycle IF THE PRSIDENT and SENATE are controlled by different parties. IT is a 132 year old precedent. That is what he said, that is what Lindsay Graham said, that is what multiple Republicans in the leadership said. Well, are we not in the midst of an election cycle? YES but the president and Senate are controlled by the same party. Read all of his quote or I will just consider you another leftist liar leaving out all the fact in order to lie and paint another false narrative. Hypocrisy. Yeah thats democrats all day everyday. Try again. Sure but its the last chance for you to comprehend or drop the lies.

FIFY maybe you can read it this time or do you lack comprehension skills

 

[Sunburnt Indian]

FIFY maybe you can read it this time or do you lack comprehension skills

I know how DC would score in a class room setting. He provides me with a treasury of information, as we all do.

 

[gatorbuilderorlando]

McConnel put forth that there should not be a new supreme court nominee during an election cycle. That is what he said, that is what Lindsay Graham said, that is what multiple Republicans in the leadership said. Well, are we not in the midst of an election cycle? Hypocrisy. Try again.

And every democrat at the time said this was wrong headed.

So did you believe Dems then, or dems now?

It's obvious this is just politics at it's worse from both sides. The strain you are showing to attack reps and protect dems is laughable.

You are only making the arguement you are making because it's convenient for your end goal.

 

[LizardGrad89]

View embedded media

Untrue. Here was the follow up to that:

“Emily, you know that that line, which you quoted accurately, was vastly misinterpreted,” [Ginsburg] said. “I was surprised that the court went as far as it did in Roe v. Wade, and I did think that with the Medicaid reimbursement cases down the road that perhaps the court was thinking it did want more women to have access to reproductive choice. At the time, there was a concern about too many people inhabiting our planet. There was an organization called Zero Population Growth.” She continued, “In the press, there were articles about the danger of crowding our planet. So there was at the time of Roe v. Wade considerable concern about overpopulation.”

 

[LizardGrad89]

And every democrat at the time said this was wrong headed.

So did you believe Dems then, or dems now?

It's obvious this is just politics at it's worse from both sides. The strain you are showing to attack reps and protect dems is laughable.

You are only making the arguement you are making because it's convenient for your end goal.

So you want Dems to accept that there shouldn't be a Supreme Court nominee in an election year, except when Republicans say it's ok. Gotcha.

 

[LizardGrad89]

Yes. Next Question.

Artificial beings do not speak. They have no voice. This decision made, and makes, no sense. Supporting it makes no sense.

 

[LizardGrad89]

Again I will try to help. People have the right to redress government. They also have the right of assembly. Now I am not a fan of unions or for profit influence but groups like Sierra and NRA are groups of people assembling to pool resources as a NON profit corporation in order to petition (redress) government. Now this is consistent with the first amendment.

I would be perfectly happy if gubmint allowed groups, non-profit, tax free ability to organize and redress, But since they force incoporation on these non profits then rightly they ruled spending money to redress or buy ads is a form of speech.

If you spend $25 on your own you do not have the effect that you would by pooling money with like minded individuals to petition or buy ads. Pooling your money actually gives your voice more force.

It was the correct constitutional choice.

The people who belong to the Union have the right to redress government. The people who belong to the NRA have the right of assembly.

THE.

PEOPLE.

Unions are not people. The NRA is not a person. Corporations are not people. They are not people. This argument is fundamentally wrong on both a legal and a human standpoint.

You think the NRA has the right of assembly? How, exactly, does the NRA "assemble"? It doesn't exist, except as a piece of paper. Just idiocy.

Beyond the FACT that this is bad law (and this was the original point of the discussion), it's JUDGE MADE law. It is a vast extension of the original ideas in the constitution, and exactly the same thing liberal justices are accused of doing and that conservatives claim they hate, except this is ok because you like it, so, more hypocrisy.

No actually it's not the same thing. It's FAR MORE. It's one thing to look at the constitution and readdress the issue of human rights, and another to increase the definition of who gets those rights. What's next? Dogs? The door has been opened for non-human entities to have rights, after all. Or maybe AI? The day is coming when non-human intelligences will be reality. This opens the door for them to be recognized under the constitution. You sure that was a smart idea?

 

[LizardGrad89]

FIFY maybe you can read it this time or do you lack comprehension skills

Read this, let's see if you have any comprehension skills.
-------------------------------
BY AVERY ANAPOL - 10/03/18

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Wednesday said he would be willing to hold a Supreme Court seat open until after the election if there is a vacancy during the last year of President Trump’s term.

The remarks came after an audience booed and jeered at him as he defended Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.


“This may make you feel better, but I really don’t care,” Graham said. “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait until the next election.”

The remarks referenced the blockade by GOP senators in 2016 of Merrick Garland, former President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Garland was nominated on March 16, 2016, but never received a hearing or vote from Republicans then controlling the Senate.

“If you look back at 100 years, no one has been replaced under that circumstance,” Graham told Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg in the interview at the Atlantic Ideas Festival. “I felt like I was doing the traditional thing there.”

Graham said that he has “honored” Democrats’ Supreme Court picks in the past, a comment that caused the audience to laugh and jeer. Graham voted to confirm Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, both Obama nominees.
---------------------------------

This was the position of the Republican party until what, 3 days ago?

I will graciously accept your humble and heartfelt apology.

 

[LizardGrad89]

Looks like a damage control effort to me.

You realize she joined the court in 1993, right? She was not part of the vote for Roe v Wade, so she was talking about her belief on what the justices may have been thinking at the time. That should be evident to anyone willing to think for 5 seconds.

 

[NavigatorII]

It should have been done 4 years ago. There was no reason then to wait, the election was 10 months away. and inauguration day was a year away. Yet Republicans were so insistent that it was unfair to the American people, they felt so STRONGLY about it, it's sad that 4 years later the same people are saying the exact opposite. It's just more proof that the Republican party stands for nothing. Their ethical construct is relativistic in nature; they have no guiding ethical or moral principles other than to do whatever it takes to accrue more power. There is a word that defines that stance: EVIL.

And if that's the way you want to be, that's fine. It's your choice. But the Democrats are getting very tired of taking the high road and watching you roll around in the mud. And that's exactly what's been happening, no matter how much you may try to refute it.

lol............thank Dirty Harry Reid for this. Remember, mkkk? Or did you conveniently forget? Also, who controls the Senate? That's the bottom line here, albeit there are several RINO stinkers in their ranks.

As for taking the "high" road? Surely ye jest. And remember, as Nancy knows Trump will forever be remembered as the President who wasn't convicted of an impeachment witchhunt. High road...........LMAO!!

 

[BamaFan1137]

lol............thank Dirty Harry Reid for this. Remember, mkkk? Or did you conveniently forget? Also, who controls the Senate? That's the bottom line here, albeit there are several RINO stinkers in their ranks.

As for taking the "high" road? Surely ye jest. And remember, as Nancy knows Trump will forever be remembered as the President who wasn't convicted of an impeachment witchhunt. High road...........LMAO!!

And Pelosi threatenes impeachment again...taking the high road, lol.

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

Read this, let's see if you have any comprehension skills.
-------------------------------
BY AVERY ANAPOL - 10/03/18

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Wednesday said he would be willing to hold a Supreme Court seat open until after the election if there is a vacancy during the last year of President Trump’s term.

The remarks came after an audience booed and jeered at him as he defended Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.


“This may make you feel better, but I really don’t care,” Graham said. “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait until the next election.”

The remarks referenced the blockade by GOP senators in 2016 of Merrick Garland, former President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Garland was nominated on March 16, 2016, but never received a hearing or vote from Republicans then controlling the Senate.

“If you look back at 100 years, no one has been replaced under that circumstance,” Graham told Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg in the interview at the Atlantic Ideas Festival. “I felt like I was doing the traditional thing there.”

Graham said that he has “honored” Democrats’ Supreme Court picks in the past, a comment that caused the audience to laugh and jeer. Graham voted to confirm Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, both Obama nominees.
---------------------------------

This was the position of the Republican party until what, 3 days ago?

I will graciously accept your humble and heartfelt apology.

You deflected . This was about McConnell being taken out of context AND misquoted. Try again.

I did not look into Graham's quotes here but he is either mistaken or being misquoted also. Its been 132 years and the qualifier is the Senate and President being of different parties. That is NOT the case right now. So Graham is wrong or being misquoted here.

Here are the relevant facts concerning appointments. Article written last month before Ginsburg assumed room temperature but not 2 years ago like the article on Graham

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020...cans-filling-a-supreme-court-vacancy-in-2020/

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

The whole premise behind the Citizens United case was a non-profit group making a documentary critical of Hillary Clinton. She and her minions tried to supress their efforts (directly infringing their free speech and implicitly infringing their freedom of association).

Left-wing groups are free to engage in same speech that is protected by Citizens United. I’ve never understood why this issue is such a lightning rod for the left.

Because they dont want debate or the exchange of ideas. The whole point was to give incumbents unfettered speech and only their challenger could say anything. Challengers are often less funded and are at a disadvantage.

I gave $25 to the Swift Boat Vets. W was never going to go down that road. Mudslinging was beneath him. SBV brought Kerry's hero narrative under scrutiny. I could not buy an ad for $25, well except I DID because my money was pooled with others to buy that ad and have OUR VOICE heard. LEFT wing groups know they have the media and entertainment sectors locked up. Their message would always get out regardless. Now they own Facebook, Google and Twitter. What do we see? Censorship of conservative messages.

"And liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people who have a right from the frame of their nature to knowledge, as their great Creator who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings and a desire to know. But besides this they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible divine right to the most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean of the characters and conduct of their rulers. " - John Adams

 

[gatorbuilderorlando]

So you want Dems to accept that there shouldn't be a Supreme Court nominee in an election year, except when Republicans say it's ok. Gotcha.

Whoever is in power decides - it's not that complicated.

 

[gatorbuilderorlando]

lol............thank Dirty Harry Reid for this. Remember, mkkk? Or did you conveniently forget? Also, who controls the Senate? That's the bottom line here, albeit there are several RINO stinkers in their ranks.

As for taking the "high" road? Surely ye jest. And remember, as Nancy knows Trump will forever be remembered as the President who wasn't convicted of an impeachment witchhunt. High road...........LMAO!!

It's pretty funny if you know the history - and it's out there if people want to find it.

At the time that the Dems changed the rules to ramrod Obamacare or some judge through - McConnell is on video telling them that they might not like the new rules once they lost power. This was like 2010 I think - next year, the reps take power and the dems have eaten crow ever since.

 

[BamaFan1137]

It's pretty funny if you know the history - and it's out there if people want to find it.

At the time that the Dems changed the rules to ramrod Obamacare or some judge through - McConnell is on video telling them that they might not like the new rules once they lost power. This was like 2010 I think - next year, the reps take power and the dems have eaten crow ever since.

This is 100% true. As it turns out, they don't like it.

 

[NavigatorII]

Agree they would and would have under Obama if the Senate had been under their control. They would today if the roles were reversed. I'm just not sure it's wise for the conservatives to do something because it's what the libs would do.

For example, if Biden wins, I don't plan on burning, rioting, looting or murdering.

There won't be burning, rioting, or looting. But the days of playing nice in the sandbox with Democrats are forever gone. The GOP are slow learners, but after decades of Dimtard bullcrap dirty tactics, I think the message got through. Elections have consequences, and they better learn to like them.

Barack Hussein Obama