Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

giphy.gif

Perfect example. Thanks. 

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

giphy.gif

I really do enjoy your posts. Pure hypocrisy and insanity wrapped up in a pretend logical wrapping. Add in a fun gif, and we have ourselves an A+ poster. You go girl! Love ya!

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
10 hours ago, MakeBuffaloGreatAgain said:

Perfect example. Thanks. 

I really do enjoy your posts. Pure hypocrisy and insanity wrapped up in a pretend logical wrapping. Add in a fun gif, and we have ourselves an A+ poster. You go girl! Love ya!

Why do you assume Tom is a girl? Sexist much?

Posted
19 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Kavanaugh would be a terrible pick for libertarians and conservatives.  I think he's more than likely to "turn Kennedy" once seated.

 

Kethledge is being touted as an Origionalist, though he's nothing of the sort.

 

Amy Coney Barrett is an Origionalist, and a person of faith; and would torture leftists who would be forced to read opinions they deem to be "anti-woman" by fiat, written in a woman's own hand.

 

She would be a fantastic choice.

Yes, she would torture libs! 

 

I hope she is the pick 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted

His Jew Bee Dance code book was translated from Hebrew to Russian to Canadian. Some important things got lost in translation(s).

4 hours ago, BringBackOrton said:

Why do you assume Tom is a girl? Sexist much?

 

Posted

Apparently there is a 4th candidate now

 

Sources tell Fox News that Judge Thomas Hardiman of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals is a candidate to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy; chief White House correspondent John Roberts reports.

Posted
7 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said:

Apparently there is a 4th candidate now

 

Sources tell Fox News that Judge Thomas Hardiman of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals is a candidate to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy; chief White House correspondent John Roberts reports.

 

I was on the "just say no" train with regard to Hardiman filling Scalia's seat.  My opinion hasn't changed.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, Nanker said:

What? Judge Judy, Hillary Clinton, Stormy Daniels, Max Waters all left out in the cold... again? :o 

I would support the nomination of Hillary Clinton just to watch the Senate Hearings and rejection

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted

Objectionists can kiss my ass.

 

The President, ANY SITTING PRESIDENT, has the right to select any Supreme Court Justice they see fit.

 

Democrats need to STFU and move on to another Trump-hating scenario they will undoubtedly uncover.

 

This is just one of those reasons that a lot of Americans want nothing to do with politics.

Posted
5 minutes ago, njbuff said:

Objectionists can kiss my ass.

 

The President, ANY SITTING PRESIDENT, has the right to select any Supreme Court Justice they see fit.

 

Democrats need to STFU and move on to another Trump-hating scenario they will undoubtedly uncover.

 

This is just one of those reasons that a lot of Americans want nothing to do with politics.

 

I agree

The Senate also has the right to reject the nominee or flat out refuse to consider the nominee

 

What worries me is talk from the Left about packing the Court next time a Democrat holds the White House.   Of course that sets a dangerous precedent, but that never stopped the Left before.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

 

I agree

The Senate also has the right to reject the nominee or flat out refuse to consider the nominee

 

What worries me is talk from the Left about packing the Court next time a Democrat holds the White House.   Of course that sets a dangerous precedent, but that never stopped the Left before.

not to worry. at the rate the Democrats are going, they'll be lucky to hold a seat at the local library.

  • Like (+1) 3
Posted
4 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

 

I agree

The Senate also has the right to reject the nominee or flat out refuse to consider the nominee

 

 

One case where being pedantic is important:

The Senate does not have the right to refuse to consider a nominee.  They do, however, have the right to determine how they consider the nominee...and if the Senate decides (which they have) that "considering" a nominee is nothing more than accepting written notification of the nomination from the White House and tabling it, then they have satisfied their required duty to "advise and consent."

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted (edited)

If the candidate is qualified and not under contempt they should get in

 

W’s joke of that woman was rightly quashed

 

 

Edited by row_33
Posted
1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

One case where being pedantic is important:

The Senate does not have the right to refuse to consider a nominee.  They do, however, have the right to determine how they consider the nominee...and if the Senate decides (which they have) that "considering" a nominee is nothing more than accepting written notification of the nomination from the White House and tabling it, then they have satisfied their required duty to "advise and consent."

Deja vu.

Posted
9 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

Deja vu.

 

Except this time the majority isn't going to spike the nomination on the Chair's desk.  

 

These buffoons, in 12 years, have managed to warp our system of government to one of strict one-party, winner-take-all rule where legislation is by executive fiat and judicial review, and justice by mob rule

  • Like (+1) 2
×
×
  • Create New...