BuffaloHokie13 Posted October 16, 2020 Share Posted October 16, 2020 2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: All of this was set in motion when RBG selfishly decided to stay on the court instead of retiring when Obama was President. She was sure Hilary would win. She was wrong! The change you’re going to see will be that Justices will do more calculus as to when they retire. It’s not hard. If they care about more than their own ego they’ll retire while their ‘side’ holds the White House, and possibly the Senate, and preferably BEFORE an election year. Early start for you. Dang! Good morning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reality Check Posted October 16, 2020 Share Posted October 16, 2020 Only a fool would refuse the leverage that is available to them. ACB was the pick. She will be number 9 on the SCOTUS. Case closed. Politics has always been a dirty business. To think that it is worse now than previous generations, you might just be a tad naive. Time to grow up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted October 16, 2020 Share Posted October 16, 2020 (edited) 3 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said: Early start for you. Dang! Good morning Good morning! Not early. Just another day for a working stiff. A cup of coffee, some quiet time, and a chance to catch up on the latest left wing lunacy and hate speech. Edited October 16, 2020 by SoCal Deek 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted October 16, 2020 Share Posted October 16, 2020 11 hours ago, shoshin said: Graham was not alone either. The premise of not holding hearings on Garland was that it was an election year--10 months before the election. That's the word they went back on. They all know what they did but they are acting expediently and coming up with new rationale because it's to their benefit. This is your Scalia was assassinated theory, I assume? seems the Senate was fully aware of the dirty tricks being perpetrated during the Obama administration now that the curtain has been pulled back on an attempted coup by those same Obama officials against a duly elected US Presidient why are you so flabbergasted that Scalia's death probably was not natural His death was mysterious, not investigated, no autopsy - and conveniently cleared a seat on the Supreme Court for Obama to fill in their arrogance, it was a slam dunk Hence, why O'connell did not reward their duplicity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoshin Posted October 16, 2020 Share Posted October 16, 2020 5 minutes ago, spartacus said: Hence, why O'connell did not reward their duplicity Jerry? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 16, 2020 Author Share Posted October 16, 2020 She doesn’t believe in man made climate change. Is she that ignorant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted October 16, 2020 Share Posted October 16, 2020 1 hour ago, Reality Check said: Only a fool would refuse the leverage that is available to them. ACB was the pick. She will be number 9 on the SCOTUS. Case closed. Politics has always been a dirty business. To think that it is worse now than previous generations, you might just be a tad naive. Time to grow up. It is worse now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backintheday544 Posted October 16, 2020 Share Posted October 16, 2020 5 hours ago, BuffaloHokie13 said: I believe it was within McConnell's full statement on the matter, but I could be mistaken. Neither one (Kavanaugh or Barrett) would've likely happened if the Democrats didn't change the rules, by the way. Simple majority vs 2/3 led to this. Regardless, I agree that the Democrats will seek revenge for the Republicans taking advantage of their own rule change. You do realize it was the Republicans who changed the voting rules on the Supreme Court, right? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backintheday544 Posted October 16, 2020 Share Posted October 16, 2020 5 hours ago, BuffaloHokie13 said: Graham was wrong, but the point was more that despite electing a democrat as president in 2012, the senate went republican in 2014 'to put a check on the president' those circumstances are not replicated here. No it wasn't. The senate just won back typical Republican strongholds that they lost due to the popularity of Obama in 2008. "Mark Begich of Alaska lost to Dan Sullivan, Mark Pryor of Arkansas lost to Tom Cotton, Mark Udall of Colorado lost to Cory Gardner, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana lost to Bill Cassidy and Kay Hagan of North Carolina lost to Thom Tillis. The Republicans also picked up another 4 open seats in Iowa, Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia." Outside of North Carolina they just won back states they normally would win. It wasn't a pushback on the President. It was the luck of a map. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted October 16, 2020 Share Posted October 16, 2020 12 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said: You do realize it was the Republicans who changed the voting rules on the Supreme Court, right? Indeed, utilizing the precedent for other federal appointments set by Harry Reid. Wasn't it McConnell himself who said they would regret setting that precedent? 8 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said: No it wasn't. The senate just won back typical Republican strongholds that they lost due to the popularity of Obama in 2008. "Mark Begich of Alaska lost to Dan Sullivan, Mark Pryor of Arkansas lost to Tom Cotton, Mark Udall of Colorado lost to Cory Gardner, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana lost to Bill Cassidy and Kay Hagan of North Carolina lost to Thom Tillis. The Republicans also picked up another 4 open seats in Iowa, Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia." Outside of North Carolina they just won back states they normally would win. It wasn't a pushback on the President. It was the luck of a map. So they only took back the majority, like I said? You'd think that if the country didn't want the President held in check they would've stuck with the party... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backintheday544 Posted October 16, 2020 Share Posted October 16, 2020 27 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said: Indeed, utilizing the precedent for other federal appointments set by Harry Reid. Wasn't it McConnell himself who said they would regret setting that precedent? So they only took back the majority, like I said? You'd think that if the country didn't want the President held in check they would've stuck with the party... He did. He also said things like We will make Obama a one term President and we will not appointment a Supreme Court Justice in an election year. They took back the majority based on seats they would have had anyways if not for the huge Obama wave in 2008. Thank you for using that logical though. Now we can say, looking at 2020, you'd think if the country didn't want the Supreme Court packed they wouldn't have given the Dems the House, Senate and White House (assuming the polls hold true). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted October 16, 2020 Share Posted October 16, 2020 1 minute ago, Backintheday544 said: Thank you for using that logical though. Now we can say, looking at 2020, you'd think if the country didn't want the Supreme Court packed they wouldn't have given the Dems the House, Senate and White House (assuming the polls hold true). I think if the Democrats win the presidency, senate, and house that it shows that the country supports their plan/platform over the current group, yes. Biden has gone out of his way to not give an answer about court packing, so probably not the best example. Based on the elections occurring the Senate seems unlikely, though maybe in '22. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backintheday544 Posted October 16, 2020 Share Posted October 16, 2020 55 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said: I think if the Democrats win the presidency, senate, and house that it shows that the country supports their plan/platform over the current group, yes. Biden has gone out of his way to not give an answer about court packing, so probably not the best example. Based on the elections occurring the Senate seems unlikely, though maybe in '22. I think most polls are showing a likely 51-49 Dem advantage in the senate. Biden gave the answer the Republicans gave in 2016. He wants the American people to pick. If the American people put the House/Senate/White House in Dem hands, then he will pack. That's my reading on what he has said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted October 16, 2020 Share Posted October 16, 2020 (edited) 51 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said: I think most polls are showing a likely 51-49 Dem advantage in the senate. Biden gave the answer the Republicans gave in 2016. He wants the American people to pick. If the American people put the House/Senate/White House in Dem hands, then he will pack. That's my reading on what he has said. The last I saw he said that the American people didn't deserve to know his stance. Maybe he clarified during his town hall? I can't imagine the message played well with people. www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/10/13/biden-says-voters-dont-deserve-know-his-position-court-packing-thats-unacceptable/ Edited October 16, 2020 by BuffaloHokie13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backintheday544 Posted October 16, 2020 Share Posted October 16, 2020 2 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said: The last I saw he said that the American people didn't deserve to know his stance. Maybe he clarified during his town hall? I can't imagine the message played well with people. www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/10/13/biden-says-voters-dont-deserve-know-his-position-court-packing-thats-unacceptable/ It was an out of context reaction quote. Plus the American voters basically already know who they're voting for. Polls show undecideds are 2-4 percent. Anyone undecided this close to the election is probably not voting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted October 16, 2020 Share Posted October 16, 2020 58 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said: The last I saw he said that the American people didn't deserve to know his stance. Maybe he clarified during his town hall? I can't imagine the message played well with people. www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/10/13/biden-says-voters-dont-deserve-know-his-position-court-packing-thats-unacceptable/ ...ease up Big Dawg......the teleprompter did NOT have an answer...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orlando Tim Posted October 17, 2020 Share Posted October 17, 2020 16 hours ago, Backintheday544 said: It was an out of context reaction quote. Can you give me the context that this reaction is proper? He had been asked the question several time before this moment so please don't say he was unaware it might come up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted October 17, 2020 Share Posted October 17, 2020 ...Feinstein showed some class post hearings and got crushed for it........Jesus, are we sinking THAT Fast?...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted October 17, 2020 Share Posted October 17, 2020 4 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said: ...Feinstein showed some class post hearings and got crushed for it........Jesus, are we sinking THAT Fast?...... We already sunk. You must have missed it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unforgiven Posted October 20, 2020 Share Posted October 20, 2020 (edited) Turn it up libtards !!! one part rap one part fat white chick one part abortion lol Edited October 20, 2020 by Unforgiven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted October 20, 2020 Share Posted October 20, 2020 ...so what say you Chuck The Schmuck?.......obstruct the people's poll as usual and demonstrate your leadership(COUGH)"??.....yet ANOTHER miserable NYS failure in a long list of putz's extraordinaire..... Majority favor confirming Barrett to Supreme Court, oppose court packing, polls show Barrett received greater support than Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh during their confirmations By Ronn Blitzer | Fox News A new Gallup poll shows that a majority of Americans support the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court by a slim margin. The poll, released Tuesday morning, revealed that 51% of participants said they are in favor of President Trump's latest nominee joining the high court, compared to 46% who are opposed. Just 3% said they do not have an opinion on the matter, the lowest number since Gallup started taking polls on Supreme Court nominees. The poll was taken from Sept. 30 – four days after Trump nominated Barrett – to Oct. 15, the final day of her confirmation hearing. Barrett's 51% approval is higher than both of Trump's previous nominees. Justice Neil Gorsuch received support from 45% of those polled when he was nominated, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh garnered 41%. In both of those situations, far more people stated they had no opinion. For Gorsuch, 23% had no opinion and 32% were opposed, and for Kavanaugh 22% had no opinion and 37% were opposed. The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on Barrett's nomination on Thursday. The full Senate will then hold a vote on whether to confirm her to the Supreme Court. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell tweeted Monday that he will make sure the process moves forward swiftly. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/polls-amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-confirmation-court-packing 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 21, 2020 Author Share Posted October 21, 2020 Revealed: ex-members of Amy Coney Barrett faith group tell of trauma and sexual abuse Amy Coney Barrett People of Praise hire lawyers to investigate historical sexual abuse allegations as former members speak of ‘emotional torment’ Stephanie Kirchgaessner in Washington @skirchy Email Wed 21 Oct 2020 05.00 EDTLast modified on Wed 21 Oct 2020 08.52 EDT Shares 4,122 Amy Coney Barrett in Washington last month. Some ex-members who spoke to the Guardian said they were deeply concerned that too little was understood of People of Praise. Photograph: Demetrius Freeman/Getty Images Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the supreme court has prompted former members of her secretive faith group, the People of Praise, to come forward and share stories about emotional trauma and – in at least one case – sexual abuse they claim to have suffered at the hands of members of the Christian group. In the wake of the allegations, the Guardian has learned that the charismatic Christian organization, which is based in Indiana, has hired the law firm of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan to conduct an “independent investigation” into sexual abuse claims on behalf of People of Praise. Of course! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unforgiven Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 21, 2020 Author Share Posted October 21, 2020 She part of a sexual exploitation group! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 Democrats will boycott tomorrow’s Judiciary Committee vote to send Amy Coney Barrett nomination to full Senate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 If the Senate Judiciary Committee held a vote and no Dems showed up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Improved DC Tom Posted October 22, 2020 Share Posted October 22, 2020 6 minutes ago, Doc said: If the Senate Judiciary Committee held a vote and no Dems showed up... "ACB's nomination was sent to the Senate by a unanimous vote..." 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 On 10/21/2020 at 12:27 PM, Tiberius said: She part of a sexual exploitation group! ...first hand knowledge I presume..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted October 24, 2020 Share Posted October 24, 2020 20 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said: ...first hand knowledge I presume..... You're mixing up Tibs and Pooj again. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted October 24, 2020 Share Posted October 24, 2020 1 hour ago, 4merper4mer said: You're mixing up Tibs and Pooj again. ...my SINCERE apology......too many frauds here to keep track of......set aside individuals(ie Trump) and consider only POLICIES for a moment......is it conceivable that not ONE SINGLE POLICY in the last 3 3/4 years has benefitted the country?.....seriously?....how foolish of me expecting an objective answer......TDS is a disease and the perfect shield to hide behind.....why did the MAJORITY say they are better off today versus 4 years ago?......doesn't the first attack on ACB's religion as an instant disqualifier tell you something?..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reality Check Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 Amy Coney Barrett for the win. Perfect timing. Thank you RGB... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 Not a great look, Nancy. But let’s not pretend this is the first time she’s looked bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 Does it matter what the Dems do/say/think/vote tomorrow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 1 minute ago, Doc said: Does it matter what the Dems do/say/think/vote tomorrow? They're just desperately trying to make it look like there's a principled reason for their votes against her. Well, beyond the actual principle of "you're not one of us." She should be approved 100-0. She'll get 52 yeas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 2 minutes ago, Taro T said: They're just desperately trying to make it look like there's a principled reason for their votes against her. Well, beyond the actual principle of "you're not one of us." She should be approved 100-0. She'll get 52 yeas. Yeah, that I get. And the principled reason is "they blocked Merrick Garland." But it's all in vain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backintheday544 Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 3 hours ago, B-Man said: Not a great look, Nancy. But let’s not pretend this is the first time she’s looked bad. Why does she look bad for asking a Supreme Court nominee to explain her views on major laws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 (edited) 14 hours ago, Backintheday544 said: Why does she look bad for asking a Supreme Court nominee to explain her views on major laws? Because Nancy gets no say in this whatsoever! She’s not a Senator, Hey Nancy....don’t you have some actual work to do today? Edited October 26, 2020 by SoCal Deek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backintheday544 Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 56 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: Because Nancy gets no say in this whatsoever! She’s not a Senator, Hey Nancy....don’t you have some actual work to do today? I don't think Nancy comes on this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 4 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said: I don't think Nancy comes on this board. Probably getting her hair done! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts