Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Okay, now answer my question and I'll answer yours.
LOL, you just keep making my point for me. Gangster morality. Anything goes for you and you justify it by telling yourself your enemies/opposition are worse. Trump is the perfect representative of this version of the Republican party.
No morals, no values, just will to power. Yet still keeps this shell of pretending to be the Christian values party, superior to the Democrats. Just full of shit, comprehensively full of it.
I support the rule of law. The law allows this appointment.
Why are you and other libs afraid of the law?
I support the rule of law. The law allows this appointment.
Why are you and other libs afraid of the law?
I support the rule of law. The law allows this appointment.
Why are you and other libs afraid of the law?
The Constitution requires the president to submit nominations to the Senate for its advice and consent.
They are required to consent or deny nominations. That IS part of their Constitutional responsibility.
Mitch McConnell may disagree, but he abdicated his Constitutional responsibility.
You are literally too dumb to realize you are just spouting off Russian propaganda. You are one dumb SOB. Several states have been voting my mail for years and it works just fine. It becomes an issue when you have a foreign adversary working to undermine our election process for the 2nd time with a useful idiot in the White House that screams Russian talking points in just about every public appearance and interview he conducts. Then factor in a a donor inserted into the postal service to cause intentional harm and delays, you talk of a cluster that you morons created. Then you have the army of idiots, including you, that simply want to create chaos to stay in power. you shameless morons are a disgrace.
You're a republican supporter as evidenced by your posts. All Republicans aren't hypocrites, Mitch McConnel is and those who support such decisions are as well.
The "well, they are too" defense is really lame.
Why were Republicans afraid of the law in 2016?
You know that's not true, but I get why you say it.
It absolutely is true.
So if the Dems take control, you'd have no problem with them expanding the court or adding states? What about granting citizenship to every illegal alien? If they were to take control of the Senate but not the presidency, would you have a problem with them not confirming another judge for the next four years?
Would it bother you if they ran on right to center policy ideas and then after they won were like, j/k, AOC is running this place?
This idea that you would be okay with those because you support the rule of law is absurd. You support the rule of law when your side has the power and can use that as an excuse to abuse that power.
This is the current Republican party mindset in a nutshell. Gangster morality. And yet they claim to also be the morals party, the values party. Just so comprehensively full of shit.
Following the law is not abusing power.
Lol - love it when you go all hissy fit. You are having a real hard time justifying your support of this hypocrisy so you're lashing out. Much like Trump does.You're an imbecile who can't recognize a liberal as evidenced by your posts.
Remember, everyone who's smart enough not to be a Dem lackey isn't dumb enough to be a Repub lackey. Much like everyone who's smart enough not to be a Repub lackey isn't dumb enough to be a Dem lackey.
But something tells me you're an imbecile who doesn't even know the meaning of "liberalism", so that probably goes a long way towards your inability to recognize a liberal
I see you have no answers to the questions posed.Following the law is not abusing power.
Holy heaping helping of absolute horseshit you just wrote. WTF have you been reading??!!
Lol - love it when you go all hissy fit. You are having a real hard time justifying your support of this hypocrisy so you're lashing out. Much like Trump does.
And don't sell yourself short just because you identify as something other than the republicans you're supporting - you're a tremendous lackey nevertheless.
You're demonstrating you don't even know the definition of hypocrisy. Or sycophant for that matter. Lol.I recognize the hypocrisy.
And also the sycophants too dumb to recognize their own hypocrisy.
Have you ever wondered what you'd do with a brain if you had one?
You're demonstrating you don't even know the definition of hypocrisy. Or sycophant for that matter. Lol.
Oh, and brutal burn. 🙄
Ouch - you're on fire! Lol.You're demonstrating that for an imbecile, you sure aint not real bright, Jethro.
But that's nothing new.
How 'bout another lap around HROT in your pointy white cap? You know, just for posterity sake.
Do these two arguments sound the same to you?
GOP 2016: We need to let the people decide and that's why we won't hold hearings 7 months before the election.
Dems 2016: Thats BS, the people had a say when they elected Obama for 8 years.
Dems 2020: Okay, if we needed to wait in 2016 for the people to decide when a justice dies in March, surely we need to wait when a justice dies in September.
GOP 2020: No we don't. We were lying about the people needing a say in this four years ago.
Which is why Obama probably should have simply appointed him.But the Constitution does not require the Senate to provide it's advice and consent.
Ouch - you're on fire! Lol.
Get your homework done.
Which is why Obama probably should have simply appointed him.
Give them a 30 day window to hold hearings, then simply appoint.
Lots of things the Constitution doesn't explicitly require; but empowering any entity is really requiring them to perform their function.
Don't be late for school.You're still as dumb as ever.
Whoda thunk, right?
Don't be late for school.
You're really bad at this.
So, what you're saying is the framers of the Constitution specifically put in the responsibility for "advice and consent" from the Senate and specifically refrained from saying they must exercise that responsibility? That was their intention? To give the Senate an opportunity to not perform their responsibilities?The Constitution requires Senate "advice and consent" to appoint a SCOTUS, but it does not require the Senate to provide that advice and consent.
Surely there is a literate child in your neighborhood who iwill take pity on you and provide an explanation.
Are you suggesting that I am a KKK member? BWAAAAAA HAHAHA! You're making even less sense than usual.Parade around HROT in our pointy white cap some more.
It's the one thing you're really good at.
So, what you're saying is the framers of the Constitution specifically put in the responsibility for "advice and consent" from the Senate and specifically refrained from saying they must exercise that responsibility? That was their intention? To give the Senate an opportunity to not perform their responsibilities?
In other words, I have no intelligent response to the questions posed so I'll deflect with another insult. Got it.What I'm saying is that one of us can read, and one of us cannot. And the one who cannot is also too dumb to figure out which is which.
Read the posts from Riley Hawk in this thread, that is a perfect example of what is going onI find it very hypocritical what the Repubs are doing with the Justice if they get one through before the election. But I find it funny that blind supporting Dems don't think they would have done the same thing when and if they were in power at the end of Obama's tenure. Heck they were clamoring for it. Both parties are hypocritical, power hungry mo fos that's blind supporters think are morally superior.
But that's not hypocritical in the least. In 2016 Democrats sought to execute the responsibilities set out in the Constitution but the republicans said "no - the people deserve a voice" and changed the rules. Now the Democrats are upset that the republicans aren't following the rules they set out. They have every right to call out the blatant hypocrisy of the Senators who said, on the record, that if a SC seat came open in Trump's last year they would wait until after the election to decide on confirmation.I find it very hypocritical what the Repubs are doing with the Justice if they get one through before the election. But I find it funny that blind supporting Dems don't think they would have done the same thing when and if they were in power at the end of Obama's tenure. Heck they were clamoring for it. Both parties are hypocritical, power hungry mo fos that's blind supporters think are morally superior.
I find it very hypocritical what the Repubs are doing with the Justice if they get one through before the election. But I find it funny that blind supporting Dems don't think they would have done the same thing when and if they were in power at the end of Obama's tenure. Heck they were clamoring for it. Both parties are hypocritical, power hungry mo fos that's blind supporters think are morally superior.
But that's not hypocritical in the least. In 2016 Democrats sought to execute the responsibilities set out in the Constitution but the republicans said "no - the people deserve a voice" and changed the rules. Now the Democrats are upset that the republicans aren't following the rules they set out. They have every right to call out the blatant hypocrisy of the Senators who said, on the record, that if a SC seat came open in Trump's last year they would wait until after the election to decide on confirmation.
How do republicans justify this?
You can justify or slant it any way you want. Both parties are full of crap and hypocritical. The political class sucks.Read the posts from Riley Hawk in this thread, that is a perfect example of what is going on