THREE

[Yakuda]

Those are individual rights - not ideological.

It's all about liberty.

There is no right to look babies or to be married

[Granule]

Palatable means someone that pushes their ideology.

Yup.

Many of these perverts don't even try to hide their disdain for the Constitution anymore.

[CFM]

That’s ironic coming from a Trumpkin, kinda like when they accuse another individual of lying, I am saying that Mitch knew what he was doing and it would be hypocritical of him and the right not to expect the obvious

Nothing hypocritical about the President nominating and the Senate giving/denying consent.

I must have hit a nerve showing your hypocrisy, Kunta. No one is surprised you'd try to justify doing what you claim is wrong. You left wingers say using race to make hiring decision is wrong yet support affirmative action, something that uses race, when it benefits certain groups.

[BartenderElite]

You mean more palatable for millions who think like you, right ButtenderElite?

America doesn't need you, comrade. Go Socialize in Canada.

I actually prefer a more conservative court - but not TOO conservative.

I just don't think it was fair play. Trump & McConnell were perfectly within their rights to rush this one through - but it's poor optics at best after what happened w/ Garland.

At best, it puts a dent in the integrity of the court. McConnell made it very political.

[CFM]

Yup.

Many of these perverts don't even try to hide their disdain for the Constitution anymore.

They try to justify that disdain. archives just did. He said what McConnell did was wrong yet admitted he'd support Democrats doing wrong by doing the same thing if they get the chance.

[Yakuda]

Ah, the Court has been conservative for close to two decades now so what the hell are you talking about

So its your contention the left hasn't used the court to make "law" they could never get passed in legislation? The court has NOT been conservative as you sim as justice Roberts caved and other "conservative" justices have not decided things as one would expect a "conservative" justice to decide.

[BartenderElite]

There is no right to look babies or to be married

But there are privacy rights, rights to equality and rights to non-discrimination.

[CFM]

I actually prefer a more conservative court - but not TOO conservative.

I just don't think it was fair play. Trump & McConnell were perfectly within their rights to rush this one through - but it's poor optics at best after what happened w/ Garland.

At best, it puts a dent in the integrity of the court. McConnell made it very political.

By what standard in the Constitution do you use to call it rushing through?

Every Justice on the Court received a nomination and a majority vote in order to get there. No one on the Court got there without doing that.

[CFM]

Ah, the Court has been conservative for close to two decades now so what the hell are you talking about

I guess that's why same sex marriage and the Obamacare mandate were upheld being that those are two extremely conservative things.

[Yakuda]

Claiming appointments made by Obama (Sotomayor and Kagan) and Clinton (RBG and Breyer) weren't pushing a left wing ideology.

No of course not they were purely objective. Not like the mean conservative justices.

[CFM]

But there are privacy rights, rights to equality and rights to non-discrimination.

Where does the Constitution mention privacy?

[CFM]

No of course not they were purely objective. Not like the mean conservative justices.

The old "it's different" excuse.

[Yakuda]

But there are privacy rights, rights to equality and rights to non-discrimination.

Killing someone isn't a privacy right and no gay was ever refused a license to marry because they were gay.

[Yakuda]

The old "it's different" excuse.

Yeah never works but the poor dopes have nothing else.

[CFM]

Yeah never works but the poor dopes have nothing else.

That's if you call that something.