DC Tom Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 2 minutes ago, Tiberius said: If Obama was suspected of being a traitor, like some see Trump as, I wouldn't want him picking the judges who will diretly preside over his issue either. Some did see Obama as a traitor. And you're complaining his judicial nomination didn't get rubber-stamped by the Senate. You are so full of ****, you really need help. 1 2
Deranged Rhino Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 https://twitter.com/i/moments/1037192687953346560
Tiberius Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 5 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Some did see Obama as a traitor. And you're complaining his judicial nomination didn't get rubber-stamped by the Senate. You are so full of ****, you really need help. Well I hope the judges recused themselves on the court with all the issues that came up because of that, ha ha. You are weak
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 52 minutes ago, Cinga said: You're such a disingenuous type aren't you? No hearings on Garland and correctly so since they only followed the "Biden Rule". But how 'bout Sotomayor or Kagan? The Reps had every chance to throw a temper tantrum then but didn't.... I wonder why and don't even claim they were such outstanding characters. Hell, Kagan had never even served as a judge! As for your dishonest question of recusal, let's play a game... Since Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kagan have all spoken out publicly against Trump, shouldn't they have to recuse themselves from ANYTHING associated with him? 100% correct, in context and no reply necessary.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 48 minutes ago, Tiberius said: The Senate?? That's funny! Obama won the election, what about that will of the people? You make a silly argument. You just think Republicans will is the will of the people The President nominates, silly boy, and former President Obama did just that. No outcry, no wailing at the Washington monument, and I agree with you 100% that the will of the people was served in that regard. I say that in spite of the fact that I was not a fan of then President Obama. It's unfortunate that in this case, the nomination was akin to winning the popular vote, which might provide some lasting sentimental memory, and may well go on the shelf next to the Best Smile-Right Fielder trophy from a winless little league season, but it means little in the grand scheme of things. But this boils down to understanding the rules for confirming a nominee, and it's vital for you to understand that's a crucial part of the process. I can't help you if you think nominee = confirmation. Read a book sometime. On the other hand I am ok with calling the Obama nominee "Special Nominated Honorary Justice Merrick Garland" if it would ease your pain.
Tiberius Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 1 hour ago, Cinga said: As for your dishonest question of recusal, let's play a game... Since Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kagan have all spoken out publicly against Trump, shouldn't they have to recuse themselves from ANYTHING associated with him? No, nice try, but exercising freedom of speech is completely different from being picked for your job by a person who might have issues before the court. By your standard, Gorsuch couldn't judge Trump either because he spoke out, also, neither could Roberts, who swore him in. Just now, leh-nerd skin-erd said: The President nominates, silly boy, and former President Obama did just that. No outcry, no wailing at the Washington monument, and I agree with you 100% that the will of the people was served in that regard. I say that in spite of the fact that I was not a fan of then President Obama. It's unfortunate that in this case, the nomination was akin to winning the popular vote, which might provide some lasting sentimental memory, and may well go on the shelf next to the Best Smile-Right Fielder trophy from a winless little league season, but it means little in the grand scheme of things. But this boils down to understanding the rules for confirming a nominee, and it's vital for you to understand that's a crucial part of the process. I can't help you if you think nominee = confirmation. Read a book sometime. On the other hand I am ok with calling the Obama nominee "Special Nominated Honorary Justice Merrick Garland" if it would ease your pain. I'm not against his nomination, I just think he should recuse himself on issues involving the guy who picked him
DC Tom Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 7 minutes ago, Tiberius said: I'm not against his nomination, I just think he should recuse himself on issues involving the guy who picked him But you want a blanket preemptive statement of recusal, before a case gets to the court, before there's even a case. That's now how the federal court system works. First you need a case, then the case has to go through all the lower courts, then the case has to be filed with the Supreme Court, then the court has to decide to hear it (which happens in about 1% of filings). Then there's something to recuse himself from. Plus...you're demanding a blanket preemptive statement of recusal based on patronage. Which is even more retarded. By that argument, Ginsburg should have recused herself from Bush v. Gore. 2
Deranged Rhino Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 2 minutes ago, DC Tom said: But you want a blanket preemptive statement of recusal, before a case gets to the court, before there's even a case. That's now how the federal court system works. First you need a case, then the case has to go through all the lower courts, then the case has to be filed with the Supreme Court, then the court has to decide to hear it (which happens in about 1% of filings). Then there's something to recuse himself from. Plus...you're demanding a blanket preemptive statement of recusal based on patronage. Which is even more retarded. By that argument, Ginsburg should have recused herself from Bush v. Gore. Prog-Fascists don't do reason or facts. They don't even realize they're prog-fascists half the time because: EMOTIONS!
DC Tom Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Prog-Fascists don't do reason or facts. They don't even realize they're prog-fascists half the time because: EMOTIONS! They also don't do rules or procedure. They think governance requires the Nietzschiean ubermensch, which is what makes them fascists to begin with. 2
Deranged Rhino Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 Just now, DC Tom said: They also don't do rules or procedure. They think governance requires the Nietzschiean ubermensch, which is what makes them fascists to begin with. Correct.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 59 minutes ago, DC Tom said: They also don't do rules or procedure. They think governance requires the Nietzschiean ubermensch, which is what makes them fascists to begin with. Funny then that they themselves are the untermencschen.
Tiberius Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 Asked if Trump could pardon himself, he wouldn't answer. 1 hour ago, DC Tom said: They also don't do rules or procedure. They think governance requires the Nietzschiean ubermensch, which is what makes them fascists to begin with. Who is them? You got names?
IDBillzFan Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 (edited) Best shout down ever. Edited September 5, 2018 by LABillzFan 1 2
Koko78 Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 3 hours ago, Tiberius said: Obama won the election... So did Trump.
B-Man Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 Kavanaugh chaos: The hearing that was Congress at its worst by Howard Kurtz Original Article
IDBillzFan Posted September 5, 2018 Posted September 5, 2018 Gutfeld holds a mirror to the left. Absolutely hysterical...and not just in a Kamala Harris kind of hysterics. 2
LB3 Posted September 6, 2018 Posted September 6, 2018 James Hohmann @jameshohmann Sen. Dick Blumenthal (D-Conn.) says he reserves the right to disclose confidential documents from Kavanaugh's time in the Bush White House that are key for Americans to see. "We are literally trying to get at the truth here," he says. 10:01 AM · Sep 6, 2018
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 6, 2018 Posted September 6, 2018 The Deomocratic Senators' position: All documents are the peoples' documents. My postion: Great! Let's see all of Hillary Clinton's emails! 4 1
Deranged Rhino Posted September 6, 2018 Posted September 6, 2018 So Booker violated Senate rules (and possibly federal law) to release documents that show... nothing of substance. Great strategy, Mr. Booker. Hope it was worth it. (Personal success above country, that's what's on display)
Recommended Posts