Fluffypants Posted November 8 Report Posted November 8 Alito is probably already packing up and Clarence Thomas may not be far behind so Trump may be assigning 2 more judges to the Supreme Court in his next term. Sotomayor needs to make a decision quick because she is 70 and that means she will have to hold on for at least 4 years if she doesn't get out like tomorrow, what is scary for Democrats is no one knows which way Manchin will jump if she does retire. If he won't vote for their choice it will be up to Trump to fill that spot and you know what that will mean. 1 Quote
gatomontes99 Posted November 8 Report Posted November 8 14 minutes ago, Fluffypants said: Alito is probably already packing up and Clarence Thomas may not be far behind so Trump may be assigning 2 more judges to the Supreme Court in his next term. Sotomayor needs to make a decision quick because she is 70 and that means she will have to hold on for at least 4 years if she doesn't get out like tomorrow, what is scary for Democrats is no one knows which way Manchin will jump if she does retire. If he won't vote for their choice it will be up to Trump to fill that spot and you know what that will mean. Manchin will support a justice nominated by Joe. Manchin doesn't want an imbalance of power. He wouldn't support a push to let Trump take another seat. Quote
Black Dog Posted November 8 Report Posted November 8 (edited) 1 hour ago, Fluffypants said: Alito is probably already packing up and Clarence Thomas may not be far behind so Trump may be assigning 2 more judges to the Supreme Court in his next term. Sotomayor needs to make a decision quick because she is 70 and that means she will have to hold on for at least 4 years if she doesn't get out like tomorrow, what is scary for Democrats is no one knows which way Manchin will jump if she does retire. If he won't vote for their choice it will be up to Trump to fill that spot and you know what that will mean. I remember a time year's ago when Republicans pretended that judicial activism was a bad thing, but now you pricks are just openly advocating for packing the court with partisan hacks. of course you'd cry and scream bloody murder if the roles were reversed and pul all kinds of bullshit like in Obama's last term, but the thing about you people is you are all of low character. Edited November 8 by Black Dog 1 1 Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Fluffypants Posted November 8 Author Report Posted November 8 1 hour ago, Black Dog said: I remember a time year's ago when Republicans pretended that judicial activism was a bad thing, but now you pricks are just openly advocating for packing the court with partisan hacks. of course you'd cry and scream bloody murder if the roles were reversed and pul all kinds of bullshit like in Obama's last term, but the thing about you people is you are all of low character. Don't kid yourself of you won you all would of shred the filibuster and packed the court with your partisan hacks. You all tried to do it once and Joe Manchin and Sinema stopped you. Quote
CdnFox Posted November 8 Report Posted November 8 3 hours ago, Black Dog said: I remember a time year's ago when Republicans pretended that judicial activism was a bad thing, but now you pricks are just openly advocating for packing the court with partisan hacks. of course you'd cry and scream bloody murder if the roles were reversed and pul all kinds of bullshit like in Obama's last term, but the thing about you people is you are all of low character. The rules were reversed and that's why the republicans are behaving this way. Don't pretend it's not a democrat issue too. Hillary Clinton stood in a debate and specifically said she would find judges and appoint them who would override The second amendment, so pretending this is sort of a trump thing is ridiculous This is especially true considering the democrats behavior in the lower courts . When you step over a line, the guy you're fighting may choose to step over that line as well. Judicial activism is a line the democrats hopped over quite some time ago and now the republicans are. If you don't want to fight don't pick one Quote
User Posted November 8 Report Posted November 8 13 hours ago, Black Dog said: I remember a time year's ago when Republicans pretended that judicial activism was a bad thing, but now you pricks are just openly advocating for packing the court with partisan hacks. of course you'd cry and scream bloody murder if the roles were reversed and pul all kinds of bullshit like in Obama's last term, but the thing about you people is you are all of low character. What a rambling bunch of BS. It is not "judicial activism" to appoint Justices to the Courts, it is judicial activism when you support and they engage in trying to change law, society, or culture through novel legal interpretations. It is not "court packing" when you are appointing existing judicial slots with judges to replace existing judicial slots emptied. Court packing is traditionally understood as increasing the size of a judicial body, in the number of slots available, so that you can then immediately appoint and fill them to push the Court in one ideological way. The BS in Obama's term was Democrats own fault. They were warned not to nuke the cloture rule on lower courts, they did it anyhow, so they could push through all of Obama's lower court appointments. That came back to bite them in the rear when it came to higher court appointments.   Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE." Â
Deluge Posted November 8 Report Posted November 8 (edited) 13 hours ago, Black Dog said: I remember a time year's ago when Republicans pretended that judicial activism was a bad thing, but now you pricks are just openly advocating for packing the court with partisan hacks. of course you'd cry and scream bloody murder if the roles were reversed and pul all kinds of bullshit like in Obama's last term, but the thing about you people is you are all of low character. That is funny coming from an abortion loving open borders slut. No, the Supreme Court needs justices, not activists, and thanks to democrats, it already has 4 activists. With all that said, I still have a really good feeling about the next four years in practically every aspect of this country.  Edited November 8 by Deluge Quote
Black Dog Posted November 8 Report Posted November 8 12 hours ago, Fluffypants said: Don't kid yourself of you won you all would of shred the filibuster and packed the court with your partisan hacks. You all tried to do it once and Joe Manchin and Sinema stopped you. Â Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Fluffypants Posted November 8 Author Report Posted November 8 59 minutes ago, Black Dog said: Â Here is the difference Republicans are following the rules as they stand and they got lucky, they didn't "pack" the court. Roe V Wade was a bad decision and they had 50 years to codify it but kept kicking it down the road because no one wants to go on record for it. Pelosi admitted it was a shaky decision because the "right" they are basing it on isn't actually a right in the Constitution. There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. Besides there has never been an agreement at what point that "clump of cells" becomes human and has right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we are all a clump of cells. Now most Americans agree that 12-15 weeks is reasonable but at the extremes you have one side that say they should be able to abort it up until birth and the other is the second your pregnant you need to keep it. Â Quote
Black Dog Posted November 8 Report Posted November 8 4 minutes ago, Fluffypants said: Here is the difference Republicans are following the rules as they stand and they got lucky, *stares in Merrick Garland* Quote they didn't "pack" the court. They didn't increase the size of the court but they certainly packed it with partisan hacks to deliver partisan outcomes. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
CdnFox Posted November 8 Report Posted November 8 44 minutes ago, Black Dog said: *stares in Merrick Garland* They didn't increase the size of the court but they certainly packed it with partisan hacks to deliver partisan outcomes. They appointed judges. Judges with long-standing careers and good records. You assume because you would only put in partisan hacks that anybody else's appointments are partisan acts but in reality that's generally not how it works It's true that from the short list they have to choose from, presidents tend to choose justices whose track records tend to be more in sync with their own views. If somebody is tougher on criminals than some judges and the president is tougher on criminals they'll tend to push that person forward. That does not make the person a partisan hack or guarantee they will vote the way the president wants or anything like that Quote
Nationalist Posted November 8 Report Posted November 8 16 hours ago, Black Dog said: I remember a time year's ago when Republicans pretended that judicial activism was a bad thing, but now you pricks are just openly advocating for packing the court with partisan hacks. of course you'd cry and scream bloody murder if the roles were reversed and pul all kinds of bullshit like in Obama's last term, but the thing about you people is you are all of low character. This is why any sympathy for you losers is not forthcoming. Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
Black Dog Posted November 8 Report Posted November 8 2 minutes ago, CdnFox said: They appointed judges. Judges with long-standing careers and good records. You assume because you would only put in partisan hacks that anybody else's appointments are partisan acts but in reality that's generally not how it works No that's literally what happened. You might actually be stupid and naive enough to think these were not partisan political appointments but no one else does. Just now, Nationalist said: This is why any sympathy for you losers is not forthcoming. Because I called you the scum-sucking hypocrites you are? Don't worry shithead, I don't expect or desire your sympathy, just your demise. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Nationalist Posted November 8 Report Posted November 8 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Black Dog said: No that's literally what happened. You might actually be stupid and naive enough to think these were not partisan political appointments but no one else does. Because I called you the scum-sucking hypocrites you are? Don't worry shithead, I don't expect or desire your sympathy, just your demise. Lol...well sucker...it won't be anytime soon so sit back and whine. Even better, start a civil war. I hear Raskin wants to. Go ahead. See what it gets ya. Edited November 8 by Nationalist 1 Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
CdnFox Posted November 8 Report Posted November 8 3 minutes ago, Black Dog said: No that's literally what happened. You might actually be stupid and naive enough to think these were not partisan political appointments but no one else does. LOL oh dear!! A meltdown so early in the day  Everyone knows they're not political partisan appointments. They absolutely pick people who seem to be on the same wavelength as their ideas and ideologies. But it's not like there's a secret deal that when they use a magic code word in court the judge taps his nose and guarantees that the verdict favors them. That's not how it works. And if you think it is how it works that must mean that you believe the same thing about the democrat appointments. And if you believe the democrats are doing the exact same thing then you really can't complain about it. Quote
Black Dog Posted November 8 Report Posted November 8 3 minutes ago, Nationalist said: Lol...well sucker...it won't be anytime soon so sit back and whine. Even better, start a civil war. I hear Raskin wants to. Go ahead. See what it gets ya. Soon enough for me. Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Nationalist Posted November 8 Report Posted November 8 6 minutes ago, Black Dog said: Soon enough for me. Soon enough for you? Lol Good. Get comfy-cozy pup. This is gonna run for several years. Â Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
Black Dog Posted November 8 Report Posted November 8 (edited) 13 minutes ago, CdnFox said: LOL oh dear!! A meltdown so early in the day  *Everyone knows they're not political partisan appointments. Again: you might actually be stupid and naive enough to think these are not partisan political appointments but no one else does. Quote They absolutely pick people who seem to be on the same wavelength as their ideas and ideologies. But it's not like there's a secret deal that when they use a magic code word in court the judge taps his nose and guarantees that the verdict favors them. That's not how it works. Yes, this is true, but the whole point of partisan political appointments is you don't need to do that sort of thing because you already know what these guys are gonna do. That's why you pick them. Quote And if you think it is how it works that must mean that you believe the same thing about the democrat appointments. And if you believe the democrats are doing the exact same thing then you really can't complain about it. You don't seem to understand my point here which is no surprise since you're quite stupid. As I said: Quote I remember a time year's ago when Republicans pretended that judicial activism was a bad thing, but now you pricks are just openly advocating for packing the court with partisan hacks. of course you'd cry and scream bloody murder if the roles were reversed and pul all kinds of bullshit like in Obama's last term, but the thing about you people is you are all of low character. IOW: it's the hypocrisy, stupid. Now me, I don't have that problem. I want the Dems to pack the court with as many flaming liberal leftists as they can next chance they get if that's what it takes. Edited November 8 by Black Dog Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Nationalist Posted November 8 Report Posted November 8 3 minutes ago, Black Dog said: Again: you might actually be stupid and naive enough to think these are not partisan political appointments but no one else does. Yes, this is true, but the whole point of partisan political appointments is you don't need to do that sort of thing because you already know what these guys are gonna do when you pick them in the first place. That's why you pick them. You don't seem to understand my point here which is no surprise since you're quite stupid. As I said: Its the hypocrisy, stupid. Now me, I don't have that problem. I want the Dems to pack the court with as many flaming liberal leftists as they can next chance they get if that's what it takes.   Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
Black Dog Posted November 8 Report Posted November 8 1 minute ago, Nationalist said: Â The wife's looking good bud! Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
User Posted November 8 Report Posted November 8 4 minutes ago, Black Dog said: The wife's looking good bud! Likely better than your boyfriend with the fake vagina... 1 Quote LOL, when people have to tell you they are ignoring you... From Robosmith: "IGNORE AWARDED DUE TO WORTHLESS POSTS. BYE." Â
Nationalist Posted November 8 Report Posted November 8 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Black Dog said: The wife's looking good bud! My wife has more class in her toes than you have and ever will have. Have a warm and fuzzy day... LOSER. Edited November 8 by Nationalist 1 Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
CdnFox Posted November 8 Report Posted November 8 27 minutes ago, Black Dog said: Again: you might actually be stupid and naive enough to think these are not partisan political appointments but no one else does. Yes, this is true, but the whole point of partisan political appointments is you don't need to do that sort of thing because you already know what these guys are gonna do. That's why you pick them. You don't seem to understand my point here which is no surprise since you're quite stupid. As I said: IOW: it's the hypocrisy, stupid. Now me, I don't have that problem. I want the Dems to pack the court with as many flaming liberal leftists as they can next chance they get if that's what it takes. Ok ok, calm down, you're absolutely hysterical. I'm sure that you believe all of that is true and that its' very important to you. And I understand that you desperately need it to be true in order to justify your own admitted desire for your own side to do this sort of thing. I mean if it was just your side then it would make you look bad, so of course you have to believe that the republicans do it. Hey, in a world where men can genuinely believe that they are women I guess you can believe this too if that's how you want to self identify. Feel better. Quote
Black Dog Posted November 8 Report Posted November 8 22 minutes ago, Nationalist said: My wife has more class in her toes than you have and ever will have. Have a warm and fuzzy day... LOSER. All eight of them lol Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Black Dog Posted November 8 Report Posted November 8 6 minutes ago, CdnFox said: Ok ok, calm down, you're absolutely hysterical. LOl the guy who constantly fills his posts with angry emojis is gonna talk about hysterical, too funny. Quote I'm sure that you believe all of that is true and that its' very important to you. And I understand that you desperately need it to be true in order to justify your own admitted desire for your own side to do this sort of thing. No, it's objective reality but I 'm well aware you're not familiar with the place. Quote I mean if it was just your side then it would make you look bad, so of course you have to believe that the republicans do it. I don't think it would look bad at all. Doing whatever it takes to win is never a bad look and that's what it's all about. Republicans know this, Democrats need to learn that lesson. 30 minutes ago, User said: Likely better than your boyfriend with the fake vagina... I dunno man a fake vag is probably better than the Holland Tunnel Nationalist drives through when the blue pills kick in.  Quote "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." - Francis M. Wilhoit
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.