who i am, is one of the very few people here who will
praise and criticize both sides.

it’s not based entirely around white supremacy. i care about protecting the unborn, so i should vote for biden? who is going to do more to protect the unborn? trump will
never come close to being as destructive in the black community as liberalism.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

when you accuse me of advocating white supremacy, you could
not be doing more to show your stupidity or desperation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the hypocrisy is one sided? let’s examine the facts.

ginsburg was approved with 94 votes, meaning almost every republican votes for her.

then biden came
up with The Biden Rule, where he said no nominations should be made in an election year. did he stick to that in 2026? or did he flip flop for his party’s gain? now is he flip flopping again?

the democrats torpedoed Bork. they tried to lynch Thomas by appealing to the most base creeds of racists ( darkies can’t control
themselves around women). then they tried to crucify kavanaugh.

of course there’s gop hypocrisy here. but you reap what you sow. republicans won’t forgive senate democrats for what they did to kavanaugh, no should
they.

if this costs trump re election and costs the gop the senate, it’s worth it. because the most liberal congress ever will be limited by what they can do with a new court.

when you cry about republican hypictisy and mention nit a syllable if democrat tactics regarding scotus nominations, you reveal yourself very clearly.

liberals are threatening violence and arson and riots. to quote you, it’s to be expected by that bunch of sociopathic, anarchist babies.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Really that’s how you think the GOP will view loosing the White House and the senate, wow that’s amazing. So a little revenge will make loosing the power worth while, I’d be surprised if a single GOP senator shares that view, which says something.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

before last friday, there was already a good chance the democrats take the white house and the senate. that’s just the pendulum swinging back and forth.

in 2008, the democrats ran the table, just opened up a major can of whoop azz. was that the end of the gop? no, the gop took back a staggering number of federal, state, and local seats over the next 12 years. no party goes on a run much longer than that,,it doesn’t happen.

twice as many republican senators are up for reelection as democrats. they only need 4. obviously there’s a good chance they’ll get it, regardless of what happened friday.

and of course i’m correct when i say that if amy barrett replaces ginsburg, liberals will have a much harder time enacting their agenda. that’s why they’re coming unglued.

i’m not saying it’s good if the democrats control everything. i’m saying the natural state of things is that the pendulum
swings back and forth. we’re due for a shift back to the left.

if i had to choose between (1) replacing ginsburg with Barrett or (2) a trump re election, if take the former any day. the former shapes policy for decades, not just 4 years. no question which is better.

how isnthat logic flawed exactly? be specific. obviously republicans senators won't say that, because they want to be senators.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well payback will be a bitch, hopefully for Mitch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

maybe. and then in a few years, the pendulum
swings back, and on and on.but again, with that tilt
in the court, and the way trump packed lower courts with judges who aren’t activists, a liberal federal government can’t go as far to the left. so personally, ill
sleep like a rock if amy barrett replaces ginsburg.

id like to see both sides lower the temperature and restore civility. i have no desire for the gop to play clean and get clobbered by low blows, been there and done that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yup, unglued...violent, destructive, making threats and continuing to cause mayhem and promise more if they don't get their way...truly awful excuses for citizens...remember when the tea party was called "terrorists" by these morons?:spin:

trump should name keith richards...he's never gonna die

Then vote for Biden. Don't expect Trump to save you from the woke mobs: He needs them to justify his existence, and vice-versa.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

THAT is brilliant. Just brilliant.

Romney announced he's on board with voting for Trumps nominee, which means there's a 99% chance this is happening.

When the next Congress, for example, passes universal healthcare and using it’s article 3 powers to strip the SC of jurisdiction, then tell me how great having a loaded court is.
Article III, section 2, clause 2 explicitly empowers Congress to make “exceptions” to the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction—that is, to pick and choose for approximately 99 percent of the Supreme Court’s total docket what cases the Court has the power to hear and total power over the existence of the lower courts exists in Article 3 section 1.
There’s always more than one way to skin a cat.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're very angry and bitter Pete. Want a binky?

If the dems control everything, they can do whatever the constitution says they can do. They should be careful about doing things for short term gain, however. The democrats are learning that lesson the hard way, after Harry Reid and Joe Biden changed the rules, presumably assuming that the GOP would never be in power again. That was a mis-calculation.

4 years worth...better be a king size binky

Why do you claim that?
The ultimate promise of jurisdiction stripping isn’t as a short-term stratagem to restore the courts’ partisan balance. It is a deeper remedy that can help put an end to the unhealthy situation in which Americans look to federal courts to resolve every important political question.
Congress could enact wealth tax legislation that includes a provision stripping the federal courts of jurisdiction to review the tax. In so doing, Congress would be advancing its own understanding of the meaning of the Constitution’s apportionment requirement—the exact scope of which is, in fact, subject to reasonable debate—and telling courts to stay out. If voters dislike what Congress has done (that is, if they disagree either with the tax itself or with Congress’s decision to limit judicial review), they can give their votes in the next election to candidates who oppose the tax, the jurisdiction-stripping provision, or both.

But your view is consistently

Judge giving liberal verdict - Activist judge

Judge giving conservative verdict - The constitution is a perfect document
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wrong.

Judge IGNORING THE CONSTITUTION to deliver any verdict, to satisfy their personal agenda - activist judge (bad).

Judge ignoring their personal ideology and ruling by what the constitution says - conservative judge (good).l

You just can't explain what I believe for two syllables without lying. Because you have no response for the truth - NONE. The truth is, we're all better off when judges leave their personal agenda at home. Have you ever noticed that on every courthouse steps, there's a statue of lady justice, and that she's always blindfolded? Do you know what the blindfold is for?

:huh:

You didn’t read the whole thing I wrote just the part that easily triggered you.
Let’s look at a few decisions
Dred Scott v. Sanford started the Civil War
Or Korematsu v. United States, that upheld the interment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry.
Or Roe vs Wade, which seems to be of great importance to you.
Are we a government of the people or ruled by 9 people with lifetime appointments.
It seems you want the latter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there is no reason to have hearings..they should go straight to a vote

are you drunk?

And a President who lost the popular vote, and a Senate majority that represents far less that the Democrats.

Tyranny of the minority.

I completely agree that recently, the SC is too powerful.

Here's what you don't get, because it doesn't serve your agenda, even though it's obviously true.

Liberal judges give more power to the court, and to the federal government. Conservative judges give less power to the SC and to the federal government, more power to states, and therefore more power to people to govern themselves.

What a concept!

Because he was the candidate who had a basic grasp of electoral math, and therefore didn't waste time in CA.

Your problem is with Hilary, no one told her to blowoff flyover country and to call many of them deplorable and irredeemable. That's her fault, not Trumps.

this is meaningless

You’re the one who thinks they should go straight to a vote, genius
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is foolish

no reason not to....save the country from the evil the democrats would conjure up...it's been a tough year already

So the majority of Americans support Roe vs Wade, but it’s ok for an activist court to overturn it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Last I heard it was about 70%. It's not just Roe though, Casey fixed the issues people had with Roe and is a lot stronger.

so activist courts can create laws but activist courts can't overturn laws...?

meaningless

Try to follow along here...we are governed by a document called the constitution, not by popular vote.

The constitution lists powers granted to the federal government, it specifies areas where the feds have the say. It also clearly says that all other matters are to be handled by states.

Nowhere in the constitution does it mention abortion or privacy. This doesn't mean abortion is illegal. It means the feds don't have jurisdiction, that states should decide the question.

Any state where most of the citizens support abortion, is likely to elect a state legislature that also supports it.

That's. How. It's. Supposed. To. Work.

Instead, it was legalized by activist judges who aren't elected, and therefore who aren't accountable to anybody. That's what's contrary to democracy.

Christ, you are slow and dense at times.

as long as the laws they create are liberal.

his power curve is early morning...like weekend at biden's

Biden didn't argue for a delay in an election year, as McConnell is doing. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election.

This close they should put it off until after the election and they will have plenty of time to vote the justice in. However if the Repub. do confirm a justice and the Dems win the Pres and Sen. be prepared for a bunch of new justices and probably a need to put 2 more stars on ourflags.

"Biden didn't argue for a delay in an election year,"

Read this, and tell me he didn't say that. He said that the potus shouldn't nominate in an election year, and if the does, the senate should refuse to have a hearing. Biden said that. You just make sh*t up now?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/u...s-in-1992.html

"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

and from the article

Hours after archival C-Span video clips of the speech began circulating, Mr. Biden issued a statement saying that his remarks had been misinterpreted, and stressing that he believed, then and now, that the White House and Congress should “work together to overcome partisan differences” on Supreme Court nominations. He had a record of moving such candidates during his time as chairman of the judiciary panel, he said.

“Some critics say that one excerpt of my speech is evidence that I oppose filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year,” Mr. Biden said. “This is not an accurate description of my views on the subject.”

In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year
By C. Eugene Emery Jr. on Thursday, March 17th, 2016 at 5:37 p.m.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...t-nominations/
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell invoked the so-called "Biden Rule" to justify why the Senate should not consider the nomination of Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court in an election year.
Yes, as in Vice President Joe Biden.
McConnell is using Biden’s own words from 1992, when George H.W. Bush was president and Biden was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to explain why he intends to block President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court pick in an election year.
"The Senate will continue to observe the Biden Rule so that the American people have a voice in this momentous decision" on who to name to the court, McConnell said in a March 16 speech on the floor of the Senate.
McConnell went on to quote some words from then-Judiciary Chairman Biden to show why the Senate’s disagreement with Obama is "about a principle, not a person."
Help PolitiFact fact-check the immigration debate in 2016
Did Biden really say he would be against the president nominating a Supreme Court justice in an election year when political control of the Senate and White House were flipped?
We wanted to use our In Context feature to lay out what Biden said back then outside of McConnell’s sound bite. Readers can determine if it’s relevant now.
Biden's floor speech was on June 25, 1992, more than three months later in the election cycle than it is now.
There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill.
There was no nominee to consider.
The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election.
Nonetheless, Biden took to the floor in a speech addressing the Senate president to urge delay if a vacancy did appear. But he didn't argue for a delay until the next president began his term, as McConnell is doing. He said the nomination process should be put off until after the election, which was on Nov. 3, 1992.
Many of Biden's words echo the state of Washington today:
"Given the unusual rancor that prevailed in the (Clarence) Thomas nomination, the need for some serious reevaluation of the nomination and confirmation process, and the overall level of bitterness that sadly infects our political system and this presidential campaign already, it is my view that the prospects for anything but conflagration with respect to a Supreme Court nomination this year are remote at best."
He noted that among the previous seven nominations, two were not confirmed and two passed with strong opposition.
"In my view, politics has played far too large a role in the Reagan-Bush nominations to date. One can only imagine that role becoming overarching if a choice were made this year, assuming a justice announced tomorrow that he or she was stepping down.
"Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.
"Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."
Biden said if Bush were to nominate someone anyway, "the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over."
Based on Biden's words, it appears he would not have objected to Bush nominating someone the day after election day. It would have given the Senate more than two and a half months to vote on confirmation.
Biden contended this was not an attempt to play politics with the selection.
"Some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it. But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course we were to choose in the Senate — to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over."
In the case of Obama's nomination of Garland, Democrats have argued that the Supreme Court seat should be filled immediately because the court needs a deciding vote.
Biden in his 1992 speech addressed that issue, saying that some people "may fret that this approach would leave the Court with only eight members for some time. But as I see it, Mr. President, the cost of such a result, the need to reargue three or four cases that will divide the justices four to four are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the president, the senate, and the nation would have to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President, if that nomination were to take place in the next several weeks."

Paul, Biden said that Bush shouldn't make a nomination during an election year, and that if he did make a nomination, the senate should delay a vote. Those are Biden's words in his speech. I don't care what context someone puts it in to make it seem like he didn't contradict himself in 2016.

Those remarks cannot be misinterpreted, there is zero ambiguity. Zero.

Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

Those are his exact words

oh good...more childishness from the democrats