Jump to content

Amy Coney Barrett (ACB) is COOL as a CUCUMBER !! She is going to SAIL thru... SHE si so QUALIFIED, so SMOOTH, and so COMPETENT... it's SCARY !!


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 546
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Translation = I don’t have any proof of my assertions. Look them up for me and see if you can prove me right. If you can’t prove me right, maybe it’ll take so long you’ll forget I posted this crap...

An ANNOYING  VOICE?,  NANCY Pelosi... now THERE'S an ANNOYING VOICE !!

Amy klobachar is just pissed she is not being nominated for the Supreme Court what a bitch 

54 minutes ago, rippy38 said:

Translation...

 

The Dems have so royally fucked this up that I hope they manipulate the system enough to at least get them back in the game.

 

Lol

nah... you know deep in your heart, that when Mitch didn't apply the same fucked up rule he used to deny Merrick Garland his seat and now jams ACB down our throats at the last minute that there would be a price to pay.  I have no idea how big a price Chuck and Nancy are willing to put on payback.... but I certainly think that four more senators and four more justices would not be TOO much to exact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, maineman said:

nah... you know deep in your heart, that when Mitch didn't apply the same fucked up rule he used to deny Merrick Garland his seat and now jams ACB down our throats at the last minute that there would be a price to pay.  I have no idea how big a price Chuck and Nancy are willing to put on payback.... but I certainly think that four more senators and four more justices would not be TOO much to exact.

Assuming that Chucky and Nancy have any power after November 3rd.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, ConservativeVoice said:

 

Someone ONCE SAID... "Elections have CONSEQUENCES" !!

 

AND, Donald Trump WON the 2016 Presidential Election, AND the Republicans won the Senate in 2016 and 2018 !!

 

THAT gives them the RIGHT to Nominate and CONFIRM a Supreme court Judge... SHOULD a seat come available !!  THAT is the LAW !!

 

If Anyone is trying to FUCK things UP... it's the Democrats... THEY need to be THROWN OUT of EVERY seat and position that they hold ANYWHERE in America...

 

THEN things would become SUBSTANTIALLY LESS "FUCKED UP "

Sit back and relax.  You're gonna get a thrashing.  You know it.... even the clown knows it.  We'll have the oval office, the senate and the house by the end of January... and you'll have SCOTUS.... for a few months, anyhow,  until we cram four more super liberal super young justices on the court... then, we'll add four new senators just for good measure - and you gotta know, that from Puerto Rico and DC, they're gonna be democrats!!!

 

You guys got just a tad too greedy when you stole the Merrick Garland seat... now you're gonna pay and pay and pay and pay and pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rippy38 said:

Assuming that Chucky and Nancy have any power after November 3rd.

well duh.

 

I am assuming they both will, kinda like I am assuming the sun is gonna come up tomorrow.

 

Are you really operating on the assumption that the clown will win and the GOP will retain the senate?

 

This is not 2016.  The clown is not some unknown quantity that we can take a flyer on. What the heck?  How bad can he be???  That might have been a reasonable approach until COVID came to town.  Now?  Not so much.

 

 In 2016 at this point,  he was rapidly closing the gap between him and Hillary.. and she had yet to get above 50% in any major poll.  Today, Biden is above 50% in nearly EVERY poll and rather than the clown charging, he is backsliding and failing to close the gap and make a winning closing argument.  COVID is spiking all over clown land.  When you look at the polling cross tabs, you see that he has LOST seniors... he has LOST suburban women.. he has LOST college educated folks... The ONLY demographic he is reliably ahead in is white men without a college degree.  There ain't enough of you guys to put him back in office even if ALL of you vote.  Biden is swimming in cash and spending like a sailor on shore leave... the clown is broke.  Oh dear God... but schadenfreude feels SO FUCKING GOOD!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, maineman said:

well duh.

 

I am assuming they both will, kinda like I am assuming the sun is gonna come up tomorrow.

 

Are you really operating on the assumption that the clown will win and the GOP will retain the senate?

 

This is not 2016.  The clown is not some unknown quantity that we can take a flyer on. What the heck?  How bad can he be???  That might have been a reasonable approach until COVID came to town.  Now?  Not so much.

 

 In 2016 at this point,  he was rapidly closing the gap between him and Hillary.. and she had yet to get above 50% in any major poll.  Today, Biden is above 50% in nearly EVERY poll and rather than the clown charging, he is backsliding and failing to close the gap and make a winning closing argument.  COVID is spiking all over clown land.  When you look at the polling cross tabs, you see that he has LOST seniors... he has LOST suburban women.. he has LOST college educated folks... The ONLY demographic he is reliably ahead in is white men without a college degree.  There ain't enough of you guys to put him back in office even if ALL of you vote.  Biden is swimming in cash and spending like a sailor on shore leave... the clown is broke.  Oh dear God... but schadenfreude feels SO FUCKING GOOD!

Those same polls that served you so well in 2016?

 

You mean those polls?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BodySlam said:

 

 

 

It's definitely a rung above.  The system is designed to convict those who can't defend themselves regardless of their guilt.  The thing is, when every start law school they have their eyes on a position as an associate position at a big global firm.  Few of them get those.  They take jobs at mid-level firms.  Some will take contract positions.  Some will try to start their own firm.  Then you get down to prosecutors.  Do you know any prosecutors?  They graduate with $120k in debt so they can earn $55k a year.

 

 

Nothing.  I'm on Amy Coney Barrett's side.

Again.. what does this post have to do with my post?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2020 at 11:12 AM, XavierOnassis said:

Not true: she is 15% more annoying that the woman that screams "Hey Culligan Man!" She is a member of the species 'shrillicus earhurticus'

Truly annoying is Kamal Harris's voice! Barret does not even compare.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, maineman said:

nah... you know deep in your heart, that when Mitch didn't apply the same fucked up rule he used to deny Merrick Garland his seat and now jams ACB down our throats at the last minute that there would be a price to pay.  I have no idea how big a price Chuck and Nancy are willing to put on payback.... but I certainly think that four more senators and four more justices would not be TOO much to exact.

So not having the senate what hope did you have for Garland to be confirmed anyway?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, RayDonavin said:

So not having the senate what hope did you have for Garland to be confirmed anyway?

Are you saying that the only SCOTUS justices who ever get senate confirmation are nominated by a president of the same party as the senate majority?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, maineman said:

Are you saying that the only SCOTUS justices who ever get senate confirmation are nominated by a president of the same party as the senate majority?

I'm saying the nomination for a SCOTUS is unlikely to be seated if the party doing the nomination does not have the presidency and the senate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RayDonavin said:

I'm saying the nomination for a SCOTUS is unlikely to be seated if the party doing the nomination does not have the presidency and the senate.

history does not bear that out..... and, beyond that... the numbers of SCOTUS justices who have been OVERWHELMINGLY confirmed by HUGE majorities of both parties does not bear that out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, maineman said:

history does not bear that out..... and, beyond that... the numbers of SCOTUS justices who have been OVERWHELMINGLY confirmed by HUGE majorities of both parties does not bear that out.

Well in the current times of the demrats pushing socialism and selling out to the Chinese communist party things are a bit different than whatever happened historically. It is interesting that Barret who is extremely qualified probably won't get any votes from the wannabe communists.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, maineman said:

history does not bear that out..... and, beyond that... the numbers of SCOTUS justices who have been OVERWHELMINGLY confirmed by HUGE majorities of both parties does not bear that out.

How about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh?

 

Were they confirmed with bipartisan Senate votes?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, maineman said:
12 minutes ago, RayDonavin said:

I'm saying the nomination for a SCOTUS is unlikely to be seated if the party doing the nomination does not have the presidency and the senate.

history does not bear that out..... and, beyond that... the numbers of SCOTUS justices who have been OVERWHELMINGLY confirmed by HUGE majorities of both parties does not bear that out.

Really? Amazing how quickly SOME of these appointments were confirmed.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/12/fact-check-supreme-court-nomination-during-voting/5880544002/

"

  • 1988: President Ronald Reagan nominated Justice Anthony Kennedy on Nov. 30, 1987. The Senate confirmed Kennedy on Feb. 3, 1988.
  • 1940: President Franklin Roosevelt nominated Justice Frank Murphy on Jan. 2. The Senate confirmed him 12 days later.  
  • 1932: President Herbert Hoover nominated Justice Benjamin Cardozo on Feb. 15, and the Senate confirmed him Feb. 24.  
  • 1916: President Woodrow Wilson nominated Justice John Clark on July 14. He was confirmed July 24.  
  • 1916: Wilson nominated Justice Louis Brandeis on Jan. 28. The Senate confirmed him June 1.  
  • 1912: President William Taft nominated Justice Mahlon Pitney on Feb. 19, and he was confirmed March 13.  
  • 1892: President Benjamin Harrison nominated Justice George Shiras on July 19. The Senate confirmed Shiras on July 26. 
  • 1888: President Grover Cleveland nominated Justice Melville Fuller on April 30. He was confirmed July 20.  
  • 1796: President George Washington nominated Oliver Ellsworth on March 3. The Senate confirmed Ellsworth the next day.  
  • 1796: Washington nominated two men on Jan. 26. One of them declined, and the other, Justice Samuel Chase, was confirmed Jan. 27. "
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, RayDonavin said:

Well in the current times of the demrats pushing socialism and selling out to the Chinese communist party things are a bit different than whatever happened historically. It is interesting that Barret who is extremely qualified probably won't get any votes from the wannabe communists.

and I doubt that the four new Biden justices will get any votes from the GOP.  We don't care.

 

Payback is a bitch... if you had not stolen the Garland seat, you'd have avoided the deluge.  But now... it's coming.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, superds77 said:

Really? Amazing how quickly SOME of these appointments were confirmed.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/12/fact-check-supreme-court-nomination-during-voting/5880544002/

"

  • 1988: President Ronald Reagan nominated Justice Anthony Kennedy on Nov. 30, 1987. The Senate confirmed Kennedy on Feb. 3, 1988.

Kennedy was nominated more than 11 months before the 1988 election... and, the Senate confirmed Kennedy unanimously - even though the senate was held by democrats.   Joe Biden was the chair of the judiciary committee who gave a REPUBLICAN president a SCOTUS justice in the last year of his presidency.  Sad that Mitch couldn't be as gracious to Obama as Biden was to Reagan. 

 

Payback is a bitch.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, maineman said:

and I doubt that the four new Biden justices will get any votes from the GOP.  We don't care.

 

Payback is a bitch... if you had not stolen the Garland seat, you'd have avoided the deluge.  But now... it's coming.

So you would subvert the constitution to destroy it by putting legislate from the bench leftist scum on the SCOTUS? You are scum. The president has every right to putting Barret on and Obama had every right to nominate but he had no power to seat Garland.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Doug1943 said:

Anyone who is interested in this nomination, ought to look at this guy's take on it: https://www.twilightpatriot.com/2020/09/

 

I think he's pretty interesting, with some unconventional views ... and I'd be interested in everyone's take on him.

I disagree with his prediction of only 50 or 51 democratic senators.  I think it's gonna be 53.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, maineman said:

I disagree with his prediction of only 50 or 51 democratic senators.  I think it's gonna be 53.

What would show us that the left is not filled with hate would be some votes for Barret from them. But we know they are nothing less than leftist scum led by low lifes like Schumer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, maineman said:

nah... you know deep in your heart, that when Mitch didn't apply the same fucked up rule he used to deny Merrick Garland his seat and now jams ACB down our throats at the last minute that there would be a price to pay.  I have no idea how big a price Chuck and Nancy are willing to put on payback.... but I certainly think that four more senators and four more justices would not be TOO much to exact.

 

Yes, well, they are owed not only a matching of what would have been

had McConnell not fucked over the Constitution, but punitive justice

seats to compensate.  We are owed 11 seats by virtue of the Garland

immorality, and two more in punitive seats.  Sounds fair to me. 

 

However, I would prefer they address the elimination of the Electoral College first.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RayDonavin said:

So you would subvert the constitution to destroy it by putting legislate from the bench leftist scum on the SCOTUS? You are scum. The president has every right to putting Barret on and Obama had every right to nominate but he had no power to seat Garland.

And Biden will have the right - AND THE POWER - to nominate four more.

 

Y'all should have thought a little bit further into the future than the tips of your dicks.  The Merrick Garland SCOTUS Improvement bill will be SWEEEEEEEEEEEEET!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...