Yakuda
Verified User
So you didn't know it was part of one of the branches of govt did you, you dumbass. Go back to, licking my balls.
Let's be truthful about this Supreme Court appointment.
- Thread starter Charoite
- Start date
So you didn't know it was part of one of the branches of govt did you, you dumbass. Go back to, licking my balls.
moon
Satire for Sanity
' Government ' is usually taken to refer to the elected body, you desperate loser. Lick them yourself, you spineless twat.
Getin the ring
Verified User
Amy Barrett will be a lovely addition to the constitution
Ruth bader nutberg was trying to rewrite it
Ruth bader nutberg was trying to rewrite it
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
Nope. Try again.
Yakuda
Verified User
So you're argument is that because federal judges aren't elected they aren't a branch of the government? That's is literally the single dumbest fucking thing i have ever heard in my entirely life. You are an genuine idiot.
moon
Satire for Sanity
Read and comprehend, lame-brain. A ' tier of government ' should suggest to anybody with active synapses to be a part of the partisan elected body, like Congress, the Senate and the president. Desperate wankers, such as yourself, will ultimately fail to convince anybody at all that anything else was intended. Your first, dumbass, attention-seeking, interjection deliberately ignored the context of ' tier of government' in order to make the blunt and dumbassed ' point' that secret masturbaters, such as yourself, frequently lampoon themselves with.
Now fuck off and polish your jackboots, Trump-hump. You're done. Don't even bother with a zombie follow-up.
Haw, haw....................haw.
moon
Satire for Sanity
Let's have a refresher to embarrass this ' Yakuda ' asshole;
Trump is making the Supreme Court another tier of government. That was never the intent- but it has, quite obviously, become a danger to American democracy, therefore the country ought to be investigating ways to get rid of it. As a tier of government it is unfit for purpose.
Trump is making the Supreme Court another tier of government. That was never the intent- but it has, quite obviously, become a danger to American democracy, therefore the country ought to be investigating ways to get rid of it. As a tier of government it is unfit for purpose.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Do you think you might give some indication why you believe an election year is a valid justification for Congress to not do their job? Why would We the People accept that as an excuse?
It would appear that you are operating under the misunderstanding that this is the same Senate and that this is the same Supreme Court nominee.
So I will correct your misunderstanding and clue you in that this is an entirely different situation at a different time in a different Senate in an inherently political context. Your implication that it is somehow unethical for some part of this situation to be identical to some part of a different situation is totally absurd. It's like you don't fully grasp this "government" thing or this "politics" thing.
Only morons who are having others tell them what to think/believe will say this.
Wait a minute! All is already fair in politics. You simply think that it is only fair for Leftist morons while everything is "cheating" and/or an "ethics violation" for Republicans/Conservatives. You did not complain about the House's sham impeachment of the President. You did not scream when Trump was raked over the coals for simply doing his job with Ukraine's President. Your position is totally absurd.
The Senate is responsible for filling vacancies on the Supreme Court. It would be an ethical violation for the Senate to shirk that responsibility.
There is a vacancy on the Supreme Court. It would be an ethical violation for the Senate to not fill it quickly with a qualified nominee.
As it stands, the Senate is quickly moving to do its job. There is no ethical violation. The Senate is not shirking its duty. The substantive part of the confirmation hearings have ended. Congressional Judiciary Committees and the ABA have testified to the unblemished academic, professional and ethical fitness of Amy Barrett. The Senate can now decide to confirm her at any moment but will likely not do so for one week, i.e. Oct 22, 2020.
Proper procedure is being followed and We the People are being dutifully served.
Yakuda
Verified User
Its already a govt body you putrid smelling pussy of a whore.
moon
Satire for Sanity
Hey, foreskin-chewer, you're already ridiculed. Fuck off and wank for Bibi.
Yeah, meaning the views of Justices are obviously influenced by their interpretation of the Constitution which is sometimes influenced by their politics. But, 35% of cases are unanimous and most Justices agree with their colleagues 80-90% of the cases.
But the wording of the Constitution is often vague and legitimate differences exist. The 4th says there shall be no unreasonable search without a warrant. That means a reasonable search can be conducted without a warrant, but what is reasonable cannot be determined by the words of the 4th but must be based on precedent, intent, etc.
It does not work for it.
moon
Satire for Sanity
The current furore is caused by Trump's belief that it should.
moon
Satire for Sanity
Sure, lawyers love ambiguities- the lifeblood of protraction and huge fees.
So- justices can themselves be judged by their records and presidents can choose justices that agree with presidential viewpoints according to such records. The justices' oath to abide by the law is subject to interpretation of that law and ambiguity rules according the justices' personal choices. It occurs to me that the nine should consist of four each appointed by the two major parties and the ninth elected by public vote. That would certainly be more democratic than the loaded shambles that the Republicans are promoting.
ExpressLane
Verified User
Do you really think a Democrat Senate would approve a Trump nominee if a seat had become vacant 10 months before the election? Of course they wouldn't have. The bottom line is after Bork, Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh the gloves have come off and the Republicans are fighting.
The "false premise": CHECKS and BALANCES. BHO was denied "his duty".......the PEOPLE elected the senate the same as they did the POTUS, its the Senate that decides (representatively) who gets appointed not the POTUS. BHO exercised his right to nominate the SENATE exercised its right to CHECK the hell out of BHO......the peoples choice in the senate exercised their right to confirm or deny. What? THE PEOPLE did not elect a conservative controlled senate? There is truth and there is SPIN. You just attempted to spin the 2016 SCOTUS vacancy as being skewed and un-precedented while hinting that it was somehow unethical. Reality: THE PEOPLE spoke and part of the reason that the people elected a conservative majority in the senate was "exactly" for the purpose of confirming or denying SCOTUS picks. The People spoke in 2016 and again in 2018 when they elected conservative majorities to the Senate. The People were never left out of the loop. Truth: Reverse the situation. What where the democrats saying about filling a SCOTUS seat in an election year? This seat must not go empty.....the nation needs 9 justices and its our duty to see that its filled. Its all nothing but political theatre....with the rule being as BHO was once quoted, "ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES...."
The same applies to this SCOTUS vacancy. The left screams......THE PEOPLE should have a voice and the next POTUS should get to pick. That's BS.....4 years is 4 years, THE PEOPLE spoke loud and clear in 2016/2018 and that term is not up.....regardless of a supposed dying wish (which I think was total BULLSHIT to begin with considering RBG's stance in relation to this exact situation while she was still living which was the direct opposite of the snowjob being spun by the left and the media about a dying wish with their documented record of lying their asses off and attempting to document something through anonymous sources they make up out of thin air...."
Another False premise making the rounds in the left wing media: Honest Abe refused to nominate close to an election. Indeed Abe did not nominate a SCOTUS choice right before the election....not because, "Its not the right thing to do this close to an election" as falsely quoted by the left......Abe did not get to fill the seat because the US SENATE was not in secession until DEC. of that year. As soon as he could he did make a nomination to fill the seat. Leftists always attempt to revise history.
Last edited:
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Are you predicting that the Senate will reject her nomination?
You are taking political talk too seriously. Trump is trying to assure his supporters he is appointing Justices who will carry out his agenda. But we all know that is just talk and there is no way he insure his appointees will vote any certain way. Often the issues in a case are very narrow and do not involve major changes.
We can't claim Trump is a liar and incompetent and at the same time say he is being truthful about appointing Justices who will vote a certain way and successfully carry out that promise.
