Jump to content

Kennedy Retires


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

You do have the right to remain silent.  Anything you say can and will be used against you

 

Not even.  Pretty sure I'm required to repudiate and denounce non-leftists when asked of me.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

Not even.  Pretty sure I'm required to repudiate and denounce non-leftists when asked of me.

 

Tell them you hate Trump and they’ll let you vote thrice

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, peace out said:

Judge Kennedy had a fantastic career of service. I wish him well in his retirement :thumbsup:

 

Liberal mantra is that he should be assassinated for..some reason.  Not sure what.  But you're going to lose your snowflake card.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, B-Man said:

 “They talk as if Mitch/GOP stonewalling of Garland came out of nowhere. In fact, it was richly-earned vengeance” for decades of unilateral Democratic escalations & power grabs. A brief history.

 

And from his 2017 column :

When Democrats continued their heretofore unforeseen practice of blocking up-or-down votes for majority-backed judicial nominees after the GOP regained the Senate in 2004, Republicans saber-rattled about invoking the so-called “nuclear option.” That fear led a bipartisan group of Senators, seven from each party, to forge the ‘Gang of 14′ compromise. The terms of that agreement survived a number of years until Democrats decided that they could not abide the GOP using the filibuster precedent they’d invented under Bush to thwart a limited number President Obama’s picks. For perspective, in their respective first terms, Obama had more of his circuit court nominees confirmed than Bush did — and enjoyed a better confirmation rate on district court selections than George H.W. Bush.

 

Nevertheless, Democrats decided that the deployment of their own tactics against a Democratic president constituted a fresh justification to abolish the very practice they’d pioneered, detonating the “nuclear” option that many of them had inveighed against when Republicans were merely considering it as a method of overcoming Democrats’ previous unprecedented escalation. Some Reid defenders have argued that the former Democratic leader did everything he could to reason with Republicans to avoid going nuclear very early in Obama’s second term. Not true:

When Reid broke the filibuster [in 2013], he claimed the GOP could have avoided the nuclear option if they’d simply confirmed the seven appointees they’d been blocking. According to Politico, McConnell conceded to those demands to save the filibuster. At the last moment, Reid insisted that Republicans surrender the threat of filibustering any Obama’s appointments in the future.

Democrats single-handedly and unilaterally introduced the concept of judicial filibusters against majority-supported nominees, then proceeded to unilaterally end it, all over the course of about a decade. They started the practice when they were in the minority, then blew it up when they were in the majority.

 

 

Well, that’s different because shut up.

 

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/04/04/unprecedented-make-senate-democrats-pay-for-their-toxic-partisanship-n2308081

Heard this on Levin last night, great read thanks for posting!?

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FDR has some fun with his SCOTUS nominations

 

LBJ's buddy Abe Fortas as well

 

Nixon lost a few

 

W put up a totally unqualified woman

 

 

If a decent judge is put forward for whom the only argument is the Dem's cuckoo-for-CocoaPuffs wings just hates him, it won't fly.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

So'd Obama.  But she got confirmed. 

 

even Dems know that the whole world rides on the GOP putting up serious appointments, the Dems can send up any senile candystriper they wish

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

Did you see the liberal bitches of the senate are ALREADY holding a "Save the Supreme Court" rally outside the SC?

 

Jesus !@#$ing Christ already. Enough is enough!

 

 

pretty good gig, eh?

 

do nothing but mouth off for the cameras, do nothing for your constituency, collect a golden pension

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, row_33 said:

 

pretty good gig, eh?

 

do nothing but mouth off for the cameras, do nothing for your constituency, collect a golden pension

 

 

 

Makes you wonder how they were able to mobilize such an event so quickly...SIGNS INCLUDED.

 

I'm tiring of the charade that is the two parties that run this country.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Makes you wonder how they were able to mobilize such an event so quickly...SIGNS INCLUDED.

 

I'm tiring of the charade that is the two parties that run this country.

 

 

they are just catching up to the postmodern age, which has long passed into the post-postmodern age...

 

 

it's amusing how half the Fox talking heads state they voted for neither party

 

 

[ Nothing exists; if anything existed, it could not be known; if anything were known, it could not be communicated]  - some wise Sophist...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, B-Man said:

ANALYSIS: TRUE.

Screen-Shot-2018-06-28-at-9.03.33-AM-600

 

 

 

.

 

Or perhaps the legislature isn't exercising enough.  Don't ask SCOTUS to fix your bad legislation.  Pass better legislation.

 

God, Democrats are such helpless whiny-ass babies.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Or perhaps the legislature isn't exercising enough.  Don't ask SCOTUS to fix your bad legislation.  Pass better legislation.

 

God, Democrats are such helpless whiny-ass babies.

 

so that's it for caging the illegal kids?

 

on to another crisis?

 

Trump should dick around for 2 months on this one, just to keep them boiling their bottoms

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how Crhis Matthews and others are saying we should wait until after the election so the "the voters can decide" who will decide on voting for or against Trump's nominee.

 

Hello, they already did.  What about the people that voted for their Senator 5 years ago?  Are their voices no longer important or valid?  Has a senators term been shortened to 5 1/2 years somewhere along the way that I just didn't hear about?

 

The people elected you, do your job even if it does get in the way of raising money and campaigning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

I love how Crhis Matthews and others are saying we should wait until after the election so the "the voters can decide" who will decide on voting for or against Trump's nominee.

 

Hello, they already did.  What about the people that voted for their Senator 5 years ago?  Are their voices no longer important or valid?  Has a senators term been shortened to 5 1/2 years somewhere along the way that I just didn't hear about?

 

The people elected you, do your job even if it does get in the way of raising money and campaigning.

 

i need closed caption for Matthews, all i hear is

 

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH in a fake angry bully tone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

I love how Crhis Matthews and others are saying we should wait until after the election so the "the voters can decide" who will decide on voting for or against Trump's nominee.

 

Hello, they already did.  What about the people that voted for their Senator 5 years ago?  Are their voices no longer important or valid?  Has a senators term been shortened to 5 1/2 years somewhere along the way that I just didn't hear about?

 

The people elected you, do your job even if it does get in the way of raising money and campaigning.

I think he was referring to the Garland pick that McConnell refused to have a vote on which was unprecedented.  He justified it by citing a hypothetical situation that Biden came up with a while back.  The difference I guess is it was a presidential election year.  Plus, the GOP controlled the House and Senate.  I liked the balance on the Supreme Court the way it was with Kennedy being the swing vote, but it is what it is.  Who's the swing vote now?  Roberts probably.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

I love how Crhis Matthews and others are saying we should wait until after the election so the "the voters can decide" who will decide on voting for or against Trump's nominee.

 

Hello, they already did.  What about the people that voted for their Senator 5 years ago?  Are their voices no longer important or valid?  Has a senators term been shortened to 5 1/2 years somewhere along the way that I just didn't hear about?

 

The people elected you, do your job even if it does get in the way of raising money and campaigning.

 

I'm considering a Senate run, on the platform of "I'm an adult."

 

The Democrats don't realize they're letting their actions be dictated by Mitch McConnell's !@#$ery, do they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I think he was referring to the Garland pick that McConnell refused to have a vote on which was unprecedented.  He justified it by citing a hypothetical situation that Biden came up with a while back.  The difference I guess is it was a presidential election year.  Plus, the GOP controlled the House and Senate.  I liked the balance on the Supreme Court the way it was with Kennedy being the swing vote, but it is what it is.  Who's the swing vote now?  Roberts probably.

 

NO, he's talking about this year.  Right here, right now to quote a Bills philosopher.

 

I also find it funny that Kagan was confirmed in August 2010.  I guess the people didn't get to decide on that one.

 

This should be fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, joesixpack said:

 

Makes you wonder how they were able to mobilize such an event so quickly...SIGNS INCLUDED.

 

I'm tiring of the charade that is the two parties that run this country.

 

:thumbsup: welcome to the club, better late than never.

repeat after me....

it's a dog and pony show....

it's a dog and pony show....

it's a dog and pony show....

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, reddogblitz said:

 

NO, he's talking about this year.  Right here, right now to quote a Bills philosopher.

 

I also find it funny that Kagan was confirmed in August 2010.  I guess the people didn't get to decide on that one.

 

This should be fun.

 

Aren't you a liberal?  You're taking a pretty hard line anti-Democrat position on this.

 

You might get kicked out of Die Partei if you keep thinking for yourself.  Gatorman might report you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I think he was referring to the Garland pick that McConnell refused to have a vote on which was unprecedented.  He justified it by citing a hypothetical situation that Biden came up with a while back.  The difference I guess is it was a presidential election year.  Plus, the GOP controlled the House and Senate.  I liked the balance on the Supreme Court the way it was with Kennedy being the swing vote, but it is what it is.  Who's the swing vote now?  Roberts probably.

Can you imagine a right to ban abortion? That will now become a major issue in state elections. 

 

Or a national law law to ban abortion? Presidents will have to weigh in on supporting or denouncing it. 

 

 

Gay rights could go backwards, too. 

 

This will be fun to watch. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DC Tom said:

 

Aren't you a liberal?  You're taking a pretty hard line anti-Democrat position on this.

 

You might get kicked out of Die Partei if you keep thinking for yourself.  Gatorman might report you.

Seig heil! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...