DC Tom Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 4 minutes ago, MakeBuffaloGreatAgain said: Trolls gonna troll. Keep on trucking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakeBuffaloGreatAgain Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: Perfect example. Thanks. 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: 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! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 3 hours ago, BringBackOrton said: Why do you assume Tom is a girl? Sexist much? You haven't heard of the Tutu Caper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 6, 2018 Author Share Posted July 6, 2018 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 she related to the Cohn-Bendit German terrorist gang of the 70s? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 6, 2018 Author Share Posted July 6, 2018 Hopefully so. That would ensure full Democrat support in the Senate. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bray Wyatt Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 6, 2018 Author Share Posted July 6, 2018 What? Judge Judy, Hillary Clinton, Stormy Daniels, Max Waters all left out in the cold... again? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 10 minutes ago, Nanker said: What? Judge Judy, Hillary Clinton, Stormy Daniels, Max Waters all left out in the cold... again? I would support the nomination of Hillary Clinton just to watch the Senate Hearings and rejection 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njbuff Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 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. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 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." 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted July 6, 2018 Share Posted July 6, 2018 (edited) If the candidate is qualified and not under contempt they should get in W’s joke of that woman was rightly quashed Edited July 6, 2018 by row_33 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted July 7, 2018 Share Posted July 7, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted July 7, 2018 Share Posted July 7, 2018 What goes around comes around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 7, 2018 Share Posted July 7, 2018 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 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts