Challenge for our leftie friends

Bourbon said:
You do realize there's a cost difference between buying a Car and taxing a Cab?
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges. Give me one good reason why adoption cost up to 10 times the cost of an abortion. Also remember that cost is on the adoptive parents not the mother.
 
domer76 said:
No, he sure didn't, did he? So where was your concern that a President gets his choice for SCOTUS then? Non-existent.

People are pssed about that obstructionism, and rightfully so.

On Kagan and Sotomayor. Were tens of thousands of relevant documents withheld? Nope.

People are also pissed about that obstructionism, and rightfully so.

And you wonder why they protest.

Stupid fuck.
Click to expand...

They protest because, like you, they're still pissed their bitch Hillary lost.
 
Grumpy said:
Since you bring up Roe V Wade do you agree with this?

5fTJhEb.jpg
Click to expand...

With what?
 
Teflon Don said:
I loved that Garland didn’t make it on the court. I would expect no less of Democrats if roles were reversed.
Click to expand...

Yet the roles have been reversed and the Democrats didn't do the same.

What is hilarious is lefties didn’t really care about Garland until AFTER Trump won.
Click to expand...

Go back and read the news archives from the era. You'll see you're incorrect. This was a huge issue at the time, even when Democrats thought Clinton would win.
 
Kavanaugh worked for Bush the Dumber.

That alone should disqualify him from any judgeship. Period.
 
CFM said:
Where in the Constitution does it say that is part of the qualifications?
Click to expand...

I'm all about dredging up Bush the Dumber since he was the one all you Conservative racists supported prior to Palin and Trump. Let's take a long look back at Kavanaugh's time in the Bush the Dumber White House. All of it; Iraq, torture, Enron, gay marriage, US attorney firings, etc. Let's bring it all back into the conversation.
 
LV426 said:
I'm all about dredging up Bush the Dumber since he was the one all you Conservative racists supported prior to Palin and Trump. Let's take a long look back at Kavanaugh's time in the Bush the Dumber White House. All of it; Iraq, torture, Enron, gay marriage, US attorney firings, etc. Let's bring it all back into the conversation.
Click to expand...

Sadly, you're not about knowing anything related to the qualifications the Constitution says are required to become a member of the SCOTUS. Stupid.
 
CFM said:
Sadly, you're not about knowing anything related to the qualifications the Constitution says are required to become a member of the SCOTUS. Stupid.
Click to expand...

Committing perjury would disqualify you from SCOTUS and is one of the few things that can be used to impeach a SCOTUS judge.
 
LV426 said:
Committing perjury would disqualify you from SCOTUS and is one of the few things that can be used to impeach a SCOTUS judge.
Click to expand...

Not according to the Constitution.

There are two things that must occur for someone to become a member of the SCOTUS.
 
Grumpy said:
Try reading sweet heart. What does the picture say??????? Afraid to answer?
Click to expand...

When I hit reply, I can see that there's an img in what you posted, but for whatever reason it's not showing up for me. Possibly the system I'm on is blocking it. What's it a picture of?
 
CFM said:
Sadly, you're not about knowing anything related to the qualifications the Constitution says are required to become a member of the SCOTUS. Stupid.
Click to expand...

The Constitution doesn't say a word about what's required to become a member of the Supreme Court. In theory, a president could nominate a six-month old citizen of Bhutan, or a felon, or his dog. The decision about whether someone is qualified comes down to the advice and consent of the Senate. The idea of the Founders is that if a president ever nominated someone who has no business being in the role, the Senate would reject the pick. The problem is the Founders didn't foresee the extent to which party politics would ultimately distort the process, such that Trump might well manage to get his dog through a nomination process if he really committed to it.
 
Oneuli said:
The Constitution doesn't say a word about what's required to become a member of the Supreme Court. In theory, a president could nominate a six-month old citizen of Bhutan, or a felon, or his dog. The decision about whether someone is qualified comes down to the advice and consent of the Senate. The idea of the Founders is that if a president ever nominated someone who has no business being in the role, the Senate would reject the pick. The problem is the Founders didn't foresee the extent to which party politics would ultimately distort the process, such that Trump might well manage to get his dog through a nomination process if he really committed to it.
Click to expand...

Well thankfully the democrat party doesn’t play partisan politics with Supreme Court nominations

I bet you sleep easy at night knowing that.
 
Thing1 said:
I mean, the irony of this is completely over-the-top.

When Scalia passed away, MANY prominent Republicans, as well as talk radio, argued endlessly that Obama HAD to nominate a conservative, because Scalia was such a conservative icon and could not be replaced with a liberal.

We live in such a surreal world now. I guess politicians forget that there are cameras and reporters, and that there words are actually recorded and can be referenced when they completely contradict themselves.
Click to expand...

the difference is that the republicans arguing that knew it was bullshit. it was politics and about exerting power.

liberals ACTUALLY BELIEVE it though. they ACTUALLY believe in "fairness" when it comes to this process. LOL.
 
domer76 said:
When were those nominations? Before or after Merrick Garland's nomination? You know, the guy who never even got a hearing because of Republican obstructionism.

How many tens of thousands of documents were withheld in the Kagan and Sotomayor hearings?
Click to expand...

"muh documents"

the documents you are referring to have nothing to do with kavanaugh. just a stall tactic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top