All democrats supported election year nomination in 2016. You guys are a bunch of 1st class hypocrites.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Printable View
All democrats supported election year nomination in 2016. You guys are a bunch of 1st class hypocrites.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
That's because the Republicans, much much to your disappointment, have control of Senate. If the roles were reversed, Chuck and Nancy wouldn't wait a day. Biden was against it, Then he was for it in 2016, now he is against it again.. Yeah they all flip flop.. but only focus on Republicans..Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I am not a democrat.Quote:
Originally Posted by glm47
So if Trump wins and Republicans keep Senate,, you would favor Trump expanding Court to ensure liberals could not flip it back??Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Democrats controlled the senate when they confirmed lame duck Reagan’s pick in 87/88.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
You bet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
And I invented electricity.
The Dems could expand it later too. It can always be expanded, so I don’t see how that could “ensure” anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
The system only works when it enjoys the support of the governed. If a massively unpopular president tries to fundamentally change balance of power it will not endure.
Great question! Yeah, let's have a Trump WH and GOP Senate and expand the SC to 11, 13, 15! and ALL the additions be VERY conservative, and young and healthy. I'm sure Goosey would agree with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
Actually, as I posted, I cannot fathom why anyone would not want a conservative SC.
And SCOTUS nominations have been done and confirmed several more times than that in our nations history. It wasn't until democrats started to mess with traditional procedural processes that things changed. Harry Reid, with the nuclear option, is a recent example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Sheeet! good point. Okay, keep it at 9.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Even Reid knew that the nuclear option shouldn’t be available for something as substantial as Supreme Court confirmations.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
To quote the late RGB using her own words regarding seating Supreme Court Justices during their last year
"Asked whether the Senate was obligated to consider Garland, Ginsburg replied, “That’s their job. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.”
And Republicans didn’t. Which is why we will see the court expand under Biden. You heard it here first.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
If Biden wins (America loses) then I suppose that is a real probability.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/why-does-supreme-court-have-nine-justices-why-can-t-ncna992851
As you posted, then the next time the GOP has control they can change it again. I wonder if, let's say, the SC is at 11 and Congress wants to bring it back to 9, can they boot two justices off the court! Why not? Guess it would come down to a vote who gets booted.
Nah! I say leave it at 9.
Blatant hypocrisy from Graham and McConnell (not that ANYONE is surprised). And there is NO way the Dems wouldn’t be doing the same thing if they had the same circumstances.
Our society doesn’t value integrity, so we have two major parties with almost no integrity between them.
Don’t see how Congress can boot living justices as under the Constitution they have lifetime appointments.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
The precedent from the Judicial Circuits Act (1866) is that the next Justice to retire would not be replaced until they get to the set number. I don't think lowering the number has been addressed since.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
But, basically, Congress can do it however they agree to do it.
I am just glad the republicans have not engaged in character assassination (yet) to try and preserve their perceived advantage. No, foolishly the repubs have voted overwhelmingly for dem appointments because they recognize the dems had the right to appoint them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I am ready for the repubs to pull a Thomas or Kavanaugh type of tantrum and drag a good person through the mud, then claim some sort of moral superiority.
Figures you'd fall for whatever they are peddling. You are incapable of empathy, sympathy or pity for anyone you disagree with...which is pure narcissism.
Except for Garland, right? Or are you going with the technicality that by blocking his consideration they didn’t actually vote against the appointment.Quote:
Originally Posted by DawgyNWindow
So, a GOP Senate CAN"T vote against a Dem POTUS's nominee?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
If I were a Senator I would vote against any liberal nominee, and vote for a conservative nominee. I wouldn't care if some very ugly person accused them of some sexual misconduct when they were in high school, in either case.
Scalia, Kennedy and O’Connor were unanimous. It doesn’t have to be partisan.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
That all changed when Reed took over as senate majority leader. Partisanship is the rule of the day in DC now. There is no longer any room for compromise on the Democrat side of the aisle, and now that the shoe is on the other foot, you people can't take what you had no problem dishing out. Like your hero said, elections have consequences. Just suck it up and take it Guisslapp. Ginsberg's seat is going to be filled by a conservative. Remember, you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you might find you get what you need. Just think, a 6-3 conservative majority on the SCOTUS. Hallelujah!!!!!!! Happy days are here again!!!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
What preceded Reid using the nuclear option?Quote:
Originally Posted by brtransplant
Oh yeah, it was Republicans filibustering all executive and judicial appointments of Obama had an unprecedented level. Over half of all filibuster blocked appointments ever occurred during the Obama presidency. So, it sure seems like Republican partisanship begat Reid’s nuclear option.
Sorry if I don't shed a tear.. After the behavior of the democrats on Kavanaugh's hearings, smearing a good man's name, then Schiff and his shady tactics in the impeachment hearings.. I don't care.. Democrats have proven time and again in last 3 years that they DO NOT want to work with Republicans.. Many democrats are threatening massive violence and destruction if Republicans go through with this. That's blackmail and sedition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
They didn't destroy his character.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
See, real sympathy/empathy involves those feelings even if you don't agree with what the person represents, not just when it helps your tribe.
I have heard virtually every supporter of Trump express empathy for George Floyd and the children murdered in Chicago and other left-leaning cities, yet I have never heard you utter a peep about that or destroying Flynn's or Kavanaugh's character....calling them traitors or rapists and worse. All in the name of the game, right? End justifies the means in the leftist/Marxist world I suppose.
Your empathy is obviously for yourself because you are not getting your way. You have a lot of nerve calling anyone else out on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
Where oh where was Guisslapp's empathy then?
Little history note:
22 of the previous 44 presidents faced what Trump now faces with regard to the SC. Whether to nominate a justice in an election year, lame duck or otherwise. All 22 (100%) sent a nomination to the senate since it is a constitutional duty. Everyone from G. Washington to B. Obama. It wouldn’t be unprecedented if Trump nominates a replacement to fill the empty seat, it would be unprecedented if he DIDN’T. Surely all the wizard lawyers in the democrat congress can figure this out too, right?
I saw that. Bad orange man is upsetting to the drama queens on the left.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
When was the last time a president with less than majority support picked 3 SC judges? He can do what he wants, but since he lacks a mandate, it will be fixed.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
Read about the electoral college. I know, you already know about it and want to change that don't you? So much of our Constitution bothers people like you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I am not bothered because I know it will be fixed.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Polls.. how do you know?? Oh never mind.. Hillary had a 93% chance of defeating Trump according to NYT.. day before election.. Everyone I know doesn't answer those polling questions. We will make our voice heard on election day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Referring to the fact that a president that gets 46 percent of the vote doesn’t have a mandate to fundamentally change anything about the country. It will get changed back. That is all in the design of the Constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
Or the popular vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
Regardless, it’s no surprise that they will try to fill the seat. It’s also no surprise that they tried to church up their decision not to move on Garland.
It’s just not super common that their hypocrisy is on such clear display.
And the Dems would do the same thing. And they might’ve tried to pack the court regardless. It’s almost a foregone conclusion now, but they’ve been talking about it for a while.
You should be focused on getting all the professional athletes for social justice and all those BLM/Antifa guys registered to vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Not worried. If this country is too stupid to elect Trump a second time it deserves to fail.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
You always play your omniscient/mentally elite card when you are getting beaten up on by common sense. You and your snowflake BLM/Antifa guys have a plan to disrupt the election. Your peeps began calling the election for bad orange man when you decided the polls were BS again and pulled Biden out of his bunker. Better put a muzzle on your colored VP candidate as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I couldn’t even guess what this racist comment is referring to.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
You and Turbo...Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
It's not racist to call her colored. Your people wanted A PERSON OF COLOR as a running mate. You are the racist, not me.
To connect muzzling her with her race is racially loaded, and I know you know better.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Some of the memes on Facebook are getting brutal. One said something to the effect, future Supreme Court decisions will be partisan and ruthless. Get it, RUTHless! And that is one of the tamer ones.
So, Pelosi said dems will just impeach President Trump again to prevent him from filling the vacancy. Of course the evil dems would stoop to such low levels...well, in fact, the dems are already so low, they would need a ladder to reach the sewer. But, I am not sure how another bogus impeachment will stop Trump and the GOP Senate from filling the vacancy.
None of those thugs need worry about voting, the Dems already have warehouses full of bogus ballots and will distribute them as needed, just like they did to steal the House in 2018, and the Minnysoda Senate seat for Al Franken.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
That connection was not implied, but you and all your mentally elite perception inferred it because it came from one of the deplorables.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I didn’t need to infer what you implied because you were explicit.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Funny, how you overlook your liberal buddies blatant racism, but bust a gasket when one of the deplorables follows along. I just don't know what to call her. How about radical socialist female. Is that acceptable?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
You are confused again. Harris is not a radical socialist. The Democrats are running a centrist duo. Any Republican looking for any alternative to Trump have a great option this year. I know you are disappointed.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
I can criticize Harris's policies, and positions all day long, that doesn't make me a racist..Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
No one said it did. Stop being a drama queen.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
Centrist would indicate the Harris/Biden ticket has leaned right on at least some issues. Which ones are those? I didn't see anything even moderate in the democrat debates. I know, you have to act like that didn't happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
That's one reason RINOs and weak men like McCain and Romney got whipped by (half) black candidate Obama, who had never put anything together in his life.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
That is not what a centrist means.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
It means moderate. What views are moderate? Moderate means they are not always to the left. What views do they hold that are not to the left?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Tough to get an answer out of you when you don't have one.
Stop being a drama queen yourself!! Now Trump can't appoint a 3rd SC person because he is unpopular.. boo hoo.. The Garland shouldn't have been nominated because Obama was in 40% range as well.. You keep on moving the goal posts.. But fear not, your brown shirts in the streets will ratchet up the violence if Trump wins again.. and you will not be able to accept it yet again like you haven't the last 4 years..Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
You should change your avatar tag to Dawg Narcissit Czar..
Actually, Obama had a majority of the popular vote. Didn’t say Trump can’t appoint someone - just that it won’t matter in the end.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
Well, if it won't matter "in the end" then you lefties won't mind if Trump seats a 3rd justice prior to the election.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Like I said. If he does, it will get fixed by expanding the court.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
That’s back before the Dems lost anything left resembling integrity and sanity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
The New York Times reported that from about 9 p.m. ET Friday -- about 90 minutes after RBG's death was announced -- ActBlue reported receiving $6.2 million in donations, the most ever in just one hour in the platform's 16-year history. That record was broken the following hour when $6.3 million was donated, more than $100,000 per minute. Saturday, after Trump announced he would be nominating a candidate for RBG's seat this week, ActBlue raised another $70.6 million dollars from 1.2 million contributors. All told in the 28 hours after RBG's death, ActBlue reported receiving $100 million in donations for DemocratsQuote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
There needs to be blood in the streets...
I hate it. I wish the Democrat Party had not been taken over by lunatic commies, but it has. Obviously no amount of reasoning, or citing tradition and standards and precedent matters to these assholes. They have cast down the gauntlet of outright radical departure from all convention. They aim to destroy America and that means they are enemies of this nation, and the US military needs to be deployed to defend our country "against all enemies foreign and domestic." Arrest all the loonies, Pelosi and all the rest, charge them with treason, have a fair trial, then execute them via a firing squad. Send in the troops to eradicate all lefty rioters. Track down George Soros and all those operatives in his evil organization and eliminate them. Seize all their assets so never again can Soros et al finance anti-American activities.
It is terrible it has come to this, but the Left has left us no choice.
You have it backwards. It is is Russia and Trump that aim to destroy America.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
So...by carrying out his Constitutional duty to nominate someone to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court, Trump aims to destroy America?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Okay...got it :icon_roll:
Wasn’t pointing to this particular move, rather the entirety of his conduct in running for office and dereliction of duty while in office.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Try a different approach. No, really, you just look stupid trying to make that case. I don't have the patience to spell it out for you, and the maybe one other goofball on this board who might believe your BS.
Frankly, you are the lamest libtard we've had the pleasure to laugh at here. Used to have more dedicated and thoughtful libs...can't recall their forum names, but it was ole "salty", and some "wolf," and my personal favorite the fellow up in NW Arkansas...his name is right there on the "tip of my tongue" as the saying goes. We have had some lib-lites too, posters who were not totally delusional, just sometimes goofy on a given issue.
You are boring.
I don’t think liberals post here anymore. All you have now is folks that could vote Republican if the party would pick someone that isn’t destructive for the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
So if Trump wins in November, and Republicans keep Senate, you have no problem with Senate moving forward on voting for a nomination? Or is it just that it needs to be a liberal and not conservative SC justice?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Sure. And that would be much more likely to stick long term.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
Wow.. this is how much of a religion politics is to some progressives
Beverly
@BevanneTX
I’m married to a Trump supporter. I’m serious that if he doesn’t come around and vote for Biden/Harris I will not stay around. I married him before Trump was elected. I voted for Hillary. It’s been a rough 4 years to say the least.
2:14 PM · Sep 19, 2020·Twitter for iPhone
Another guy basically went nuts when he saw his dad put a Trump sign in his yard, and told his dad he had to pick Trump or his grandkids.. (he's basically getting roasted on social media for it, a few deranged supporters but most are against it)
Progressive has a positive connotation. Nothing progressive about what these haters are doing.
Centrist seems to be the new buzz word for the haters since moderate sounds too far left.:icon_razz:
Boring....Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Just for kicks, I wonder what the reaction would be if Trump nominated Merrick Garland. That would be interesting! He is too liberal for me, but based on what I have read, he is somewhat a moderate, especially in comparison to old Ruthie.
But, Trump seems bent on nominating a woman.
Nope! Wrong again as always. China just tried to destroy America and the world like a Big Dog with their direct cause and pinpoint militarization of their Kung Flu. Of course Biden and his kid made $millions and $billions illegally off China.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
And Iran would probably have already tried nuking Israel and America if Trump wouldn’t have cleaned up Obama/Biden’s mess.
Russia....they are just killing their own political opponents in their own country. It’s Obama and Hillary’s “Russia Reboot” which was the worst to happen per Russia.
Huge PA news for Trump.
So it was covered last week the Pa Supreme Court ruled people could extend when they vote by mail and also that ballot harvesting is illegal.
But what wasn’t covered is that mail in ballots will ONLY count if they’re mailed in with their “secrecy envelope”.
Dems are freaking out because it could invalidate 30-40% of the mail in votes and 40-50k votes in Philly alone.
Because dems are mostly voting by mail and republicans voting same day... this could be huge
Some libtard federal judge will come to their rescue...Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
If anyone is going to do mail-in ballots, they should have to have arrived by November 3rd. Outside of standard absentee balloting, I think ALL mail-in voting should be declared void. But, at least have the cutoff date November 3rd. Although really, it should be weeks sooner.
A better question is “why are Republicans trying to suppress the vote?” by asking to invalidate votes that don’t include the secrecy envelope.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
We know the answer. Because it disproportionately cancels Democrat votes.
Republicans will stop at nothing to make the process more difficult for those that are economically underprivileged and cannot take off work or abandon their kids to vote.
Record numbers of traditionally democrat voters (black and brown) are voting for Trump. Union peeps are voting for trump. Not sure what your racist comment was implying, but I know what was inferred.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
No, you know and I know that it keeps Democrats from committing election fraud and submitting fake ballots for Biden. Please do not act as if this doesn't take place. Democratic operatives have already given interviews that it DOES take place. A few have already been arrested this year for this very act.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Record numbers lol. You mean more than last time?Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Interesting that you inferred race from my post. It wasn’t implied, but if you want to infer it, i don’t think it changes anything.
How does a secrecy envelope do that?Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
Perhaps it is barcoded and can show if it has been tampered with. There are such envelopes. I noticed you also completely avoided talking about democrats committing fraud.. That was your hail mary you were counting on for this election, because everyone knows that Biden would not get legitimate votes needed to win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Nope. This is an envelope that goes inside the other envelope.You can google image search it and see what it looks like.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
This is not about voter fraud, which republicans have just as much a history with. But voter fraud is not really a widespread problem in the base case, and there are severe consequences if you do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
This is about disqualifying ballots in a way that disproportionately impacts democrats. That is a much bigger problem. Republicans have a unique history of doing this.
It's not a wide spread problem because mail in voting has never been wide spread.. only localized to smaller offices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
And where they have mail in voting, it hasn’t been a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ore...outputType=ampQuote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
https://nypost.com/2020/08/29/political-insider-explains-voter-fraud-with-mail-in-ballots/
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/25/polit...ges/index.html
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/california-rejected-100000-mail-in-ballots-because-of-mistakes
Just in the last few months..
https://www.foxnews.com/us/californi...raud-elections
Being a lawyer, you should know that process matters.
And a secrecy envelope stops this type of fraud how?Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
Btw, cases where fraud is enough to sway an election, like the NCarolina Republican fraud case, are easy to catch.
My bro-in-law voted by mail in a state that permits it and he was contacted because his signature didn’t match the records.
In other words, the problem is not with mail-in voting. To the extent there is fraudulent voting (mail-in or in person), it is an issue with local controls not whether a vote is cast by mail. Many states get this right already.
This hysteria about mail in voting is just another voter suppression tactic that gives republicans an edge.
Which process?Quote:
Originally Posted by JuBru
Too bad that it isn't Republicans doing this. The PA Supreme Court is 5-2 Democratic vs Republican. So your argument is false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Yep! Biden and the DNC involved in China and BLM kickback cash in this election.
Published 50 mins ago
Herschel Walker claims China is helping fund BLM which then donates to Democrats
He noted that Black Lives Matter’s founders said they were trained by Marxists
More
https://www.foxnews.com/sports/hersc...s-to-democrats
Lol. Courts are not supposed to bring politics into their rulings.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
Who was the one filing the petition challenging the validity of votes not submitted in a secrecy sub-envelope? I will spare you the effort of researching - it was the Republicans (a challenge brought by the RNC and Trump Campaign).
It is dirty politics, but par for the course for the Republicans these days.
ROFL Democrats have been playing dirty politics for decades... But back to the point.. then why did the PA SC rule in favor of the challenge if it had no merit? Remember they are not political.. your words..Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
The Dems have always been the definition of dirty politics and lies. And prejudice and racial injustice against blacks and minorities is their most common and best tool. They invented it!Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
It was a matter of statutory interpretation and the court interpreted that the statute require the secrecy envelope. But why did Republicans ask the court to support this interpretation? And why are Republicans legislators not willing to work to fix the issue? Again, it is because tactically they think it will hurt the Democrat vote by disqualifying more Democrat votes than Republican votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
LBJ was a straight up non-racist.:laugh:
https://babylonbee.com/news/giggling...ted-for-scotusQuote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Is Biden refusing to disclose his list of SC nominees because they are all radical commies, or because he doesn't know what the Supreme Court is and is just confused?
Democrats are now screeching about the electoral college, or anything, just hoping that voters will hear them. Voters have heard and seen them for the last 3 years and they have completely disenfranchised the middle class and independent voters. Trump has huge leads in Hispanic communities, larger percentages in other minority communities as well. Even Newsweek has said 45% of gay men plan to vote for Trump.
You shouldn’t get your news from social media.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog