Kamala Harris' Supreme Court hearing participation could be unprecedented

[ducks]

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/kamala-harris-supreme-court-hearing-120727423.html

[Bogie]

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/kamala-harris-supreme-court-hearing-120727423.html


what did the article say moron?

[TimDunkem]

You are obsessed with Kamala.

[Will Hunting]

You are obsessed with Kamala.
His Fox News/OAN overlords have programmed him to hate any black female in a position of power (except Coondace Owens).

[TimDunkem]

His Fox News/OAN overlords have programmed him to hate any black female in a position of power (except Coondace Owens).
I'm sure he'd have no problem peeing in front of them or their children though.

[Winehole23]

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/kamala-harris-supreme-court-hearing-120727423.htmlA curiosity. Looks like the situation is so rare that no political norm exists.


Goldstein pointed to the fact that few SCOTUS nominations have taken place during presidential campaigns and that Supreme Court nominees testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee is relatively new. The first SCOTUS nominee to testify before the committee was in 1925 when President Calvin Coolidge nominated Attorney General Harlan Fiske Stone to fill a vacancy. Additionally, there have been few instances where a vice presidential candidate is both a senator and on the committee.

[DMC]

what did the article say moron?
post a link or video ducks you racist piece of shit

Shit or go blind, horse mouth

[koriwhat]

His Fox News/OAN overlords have programmed him to hate any black female in a position of power (except Coondace Owens).

racistWill strikes again! racists will be racists even when they constantly deny being racist. lol

[DMC]

Will is a notorious anti-Semite.

[koriwhat]

the dems cry foul over a legal process just because they didn't run the senate during the last term of the obama admin and don't run it now either.

these same fools want to talk about taking the high road and letting the people decide the SC seat. the people already decided and that's why acb was nominated and now going through the process.

the left that spies, cheats, and applauds chaos in the streets now wants to act like they play by the rules. lol

[koriwhat]

Will is a notorious anti-Semite.

i've noticed his hatred of black americans more than anything. it's quite disgusting.

[DMC]

i've noticed his hatred of black americans more than anything. it's quite disgusting.

He also plagiarizes Gordon Wood.

[ducks]

what did the article say moron?

I let the article talk
I do not need to type it out of you

[Spurtacular]

Additionally, there have been few instances where a vice presidential candidate is both a senator and on the committee.
"I don't see any historical parallels that I can find to Sen. Harris' situation," Goldstein told ABC News in an interview.

:lol Jew doesn't see parallels.

TheGreatYacht

[Will Hunting]

i've noticed his hatred of black americans more than anything. it's quite disgusting.
:lol Yelp says you’re the racist buddy, not me. If only Yelp knew about you wanting to sterilize Mexican women :lol

[Spurtacular]

You are obsessed with Kamala.

He should be concerned with a Harris regime.

Biden will quite possibly be dead within three years.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol Jew doesn't see parallels.

TheGreatYachtWhat parallels do you see, derp?

[DMC]

What parallels do you see, derp?

Can't talk about yourself without wanting to control the narrative?

:lol

[Bogie]

Shit or go blind, horse mouth

keep pretending people haven’t figured you out tubs

[Spurtacular]

What parallels do you see, derp?

Moar questions.

[Bogie]

I let the article talk
I do not need to type it out of you

so you actually have no idea what it says

[koriwhat]

:lol Yelp says you’re the racist buddy, not me. If only Yelp knew about you wanting to sterilize Mexican women :lol

lmao fuck yelp and fuck bitchass racist dudes like yourself racistWill.

you truly going to sit here and act like coon isn't a derogatory racist term? you might not agree with candace owens but calling her a coon isn't cute at all.

you're a blatant racist and tbh most white libs are.

[ChumpDumper]

Can't talk about yourself without wanting to control the narrative?

:lol?

[Spurtacular]

Can't talk about yourself without wanting to control the narrative?

:lol

:cry Only you're calling me that, Spurtacular :cry

:lmao Derp

[Spurtacular]

lmao fuck yelp and fuck bitchass racist dudes like yourself racistWill.

you truly going to sit here and act like coon isn't a derogatory racist term? you might not agree with candace owens but calling her a coon isn't cute at all.

you're a blatant racist and tbh most white libs are.

Is coon a racist term, ChumpDumper?

[Spurminator]

Everything about this SC hearing will be unprecedented.

[Spurtacular]

Everything about this SC hearing will be unprecedented.

Tell us why's that, Sadbert?

[ChumpDumper]

Is coon a racist term, ChumpDumper?Depends on how it's used.

I think Will has used racially charged terms and language that I wouldn't use. I certainly have used similar terms for effect. If you want to call us racist, that's your opinion.

You will be afraid to answer this question.

Has koriwhat ever used racist terms?

Yes or no.

[Spurtacular]

Has koriwhat ever used racist terms?

Yes or no.

I don't recall him using "racist terms," but I wouldn't be surprised.

[Spurtacular]

Depends on how it's used.

I think Will has used racially charged terms and language that I wouldn't use. I certainly have used similar terms for effect. If you want to call us racist, that's your opinion.



So, is Will racist?

[Will Hunting]

:lol Derp still talking about me

Referring to Candace Owens as Coondace Owens is a lot less racist than endorsing a policy of involuntary hysterectomies on Mexican women.

[Blake]

:lol Yelp says you’re the racist buddy, not me. If only Yelp knew about you wanting to sterilize Mexican women :lol

:lmao

[Spurminator]

Tell us why's that, Sadbert?

You're a lonely single loser who will never touch a woman, that's why.

[Spurtacular]

You're a lonely single loser who will never touch a woman, that's why.

A popular cuckback for Chumpettes these days. Apparently something you guys strongly relate to. :lmao

[ChumpDumper]

So, is Will racist?Don't know. Ask him.

Are you racist?

Yes or no.

[boutons_deux]

Everything about this SC hearing will be unprecedented.

Just what I've read about this fringe person, if all of that is thrown at her, it will demonstrate that she's even less suitable than Kavanaugh

but of course, that's exactly why the Repugs and Christian Nationalists want her, she's gonna fuck up America for non-Repugs, non-Christians.

[ElNono]

There's nothing unprecedented about this. She's absolutely qualified for the post, and there's no legal reason not to confirm her if the Senate has the votes.

You might not like or agree with her political leaning or views on fundamental issues, but you can say that for a number of SCOTUS members.

I mean, if you're angry about this, you should direct your rage at RGB and the Democratic party/voters.

[ducks]

Just what I've read about this fringe person, if all of that is thrown at her, it will demonstrate that she's even less suitable than Kavanaugh

but of course, that's exactly why the Repugs and Christian Nationalists want her, she's gonna fuck up America for non-Repugs, non-Christians.
President Donald Trump might have finally found something frequent critic and Lincoln Project founder George Conway have common ground on: conservative Judge Amy Coney Barrett.

Both Trump on Saturday at the nomination ceremony and Conway on Twitter used the phrase "eminently qualified" in talking about Barrett's credentials for the Supreme Court.

Conway responded to a tweet asking: "Is it possible some GOP senators will vote *against* confirming her because they feel she is not qualified?"

Conway tweeted:

"No. Not a chance. She is eminently qualified to serve on the Supreme Court."

[ChumpDumper]

There's nothing unprecedented about this. She's absolutely qualified for the post, and there's no legal reason not to confirm her if the Senate has the votes.

You might not like or agree with her political leaning or views on fundamental issues, but you can say that for a number of SCOTUS members.

I mean, if you're angry about this, you should direct your rage at RGB and the Democratic party/voters.Yep, 2016 was the year to care about this.

[ducks]

It would have wasted time with garland
Not enough votes so why even bring it up?
The law says president can make a section
Then senate can take it up
Senate does not take most stuff if it has no chance to pass

[Spurminator]

There's nothing unprecedented about this. She's absolutely qualified for the post, and there's no legal reason not to confirm her if the Senate has the votes.

You might not like or agree with her political leaning or views on fundamental issues, but you can say that for a number of SCOTUS members.

I mean, if you're angry about this, you should direct your rage at RGB and the Democratic party/voters.

Everything about it is unprecedented. It doesn't matter whose fault you think it is.

Confirming a justice within 5 weeks (or less) of her nomination on a party line vote is something that has never been done. Most of the people voting to confirm her were screaming in opposition of an election year nomination just 4 years ago.

So yes, it's unprecedented. RBG should have retired, but the only reason that that's a big deal is because of these unprecedented times.

In my lifetime a Republican President nominated a moderate, even liberal-leaning judge because he was the most qualified option. Those days are over.

[Will Hunting]

There's nothing unprecedented about this. She's absolutely qualified for the post, and there's no legal reason not to confirm her if the Senate has the votes.

You might not like or agree with her political leaning or views on fundamental issues, but you can say that for a number of SCOTUS members.

I mean, if you're angry about this, you should direct your rage at RGB and the Democratic party/voters.
The fact that this should have been totally expected from the GOP doesn't change the fact it's unprecedented.

[Spurtacular]

Don't know. Ask him.

Are you racist?

Yes or no.

So, you can't make that determination for Will but you've made it for your enemies.

:lolK.

[spurraider21]

i've noticed his hatred of black americans more than anything. it's quite disgusting.
speaking of disgusting bigotry, what are your thoughts on islam and muslims?

[Spurtacular]

speaking of disgusting bigotry, what are your thoughts on islam and muslims?

Actually, he was speaking of racism not bigotry, philo.

[ElNono]

Everything about it is unprecedented. It doesn't matter whose fault you think it is.

Confirming a justice within 5 weeks (or less) of her nomination on a party line vote is something that has never been done. Most of the people voting to confirm her were screaming in opposition of an election year nomination just 4 years ago.

So yes, it's unprecedented. RBG should have retired, but the only reason that that's a big deal is because of these unprecedented times.

In my lifetime a Republican President nominated a moderate, even liberal-leaning judge because he was the most qualified option. Those days are over.

Feels, ethics and/or morals have no bearing here... it's not illegal, it's well within the rules, the candidate is qualified, end of story.

You know why the Dems didn't nominate one 4 years ago? They didn't control the Senate, period.

You're simply mad because RGB gambled and lost.

[spurraider21]

Actually, he was speaking of racism not bigotry, philo.
i can rephrase it to arabs instead of muslims if that will help you cope

[Spurtacular]

i can rephrase it to arabs instead of muslims if that will help you cope

You had to make a faulty equation to cope.

[DMC]

speaking of disgusting bigotry, what are your thoughts on islam and muslims?

If the nominee was a muslim woman, they would be praising her on the left.

[DMC]

Feels, ethics and/or morals have no bearing here... it's not illegal, it's well within the rules, the candidate is qualified, end of story.

You know why the Dems didn't nominate one 4 years ago? They didn't control the Senate, period.

You're simply mad because RGB gambled and lost.

denzelboom.gif

But I don't think she gambled. I think she was addicted to her stature and power in the court and had no intention of ever leaving.

[DMC]

The fact that this should have been totally expected from the GOP doesn't change the fact it's unprecedented.

Why is it unprecedented? People have been nominated for the supreme court before. White woman have been nominated. I mean, sure, everything is unprecedented at some level... I guess.

[ElNono]

denzelboom.gif

But I don't think she gambled. I think she was addicted to her stature and power in the court and had no intention of ever leaving.

Not really. She gambled Shillary was going to win, and then she gambled she should make it to the next Dem administration. She lost both bets.

[Isitjustme?]

:lol Yelp says you’re the racist buddy, not me. If only Yelp knew about you wanting to sterilize Mexican women :lol

Whats the story here? :lol

[LkrFan]

His Fox News/OAN overlords have programmed him to hate any black female in a position of power (except Coondace Owens).

:lol

[Will Hunting]

Whats the story here? :lol
Someone left a Yelp review on his tattoo parlor’s page about how he’s a racist, and he’s been raging about it ever since blaming me for it.

[Isitjustme?]

Someone left a Yelp review on his tattoo parlor’s page about how he’s a racist, and he’s been raging about it ever since blaming me for it.

:lol :lol

[Spurminator]

Feels, ethics and/or morals have no bearing here... it's not illegal, it's well within the rules, the candidate is qualified, end of story.

You know why the Dems didn't nominate one 4 years ago? They didn't control the Senate, period.

You're simply mad because RGB gambled and lost.

I think you may be confused on the word "unprecedented."

Emotions, qualifications and rules don't factor in. This has either happened before ("precedent") or it hasn't ("unprecedented.") If you can find another example of Senators from a party blocking a nomination for 9 months and then the same Senators confirming a justice within 5 weeks of an election, that's an argument against "unprecedented."

I really didn't think that would be a controversial statement.

[Winehole23]

(some people use it as a near synonym for "improper", with a distinct tone of indignation.)

[koriwhat]

:lol Derp still talking about me

Referring to Candace Owens as Coondace Owens is a lot less racist than endorsing a policy of involuntary hysterectomies on Mexican women.

how about your cute takes on the N-word racistWill? you really going to sit here and play like you're not a blatant racist.

lol you taking a crude joke to heart and playing it up like it was super serious when i already acknowledged the joke and spoke on it. why don't you bring up my rebuttal instead of pushing fake news like always you fucking racist?!

you're spineless, a coward, and a racist and that's why you're trying to back peddle out of all this now. :tu

[Will Hunting]

you're spineless, a coward, and a racist
:lmao yeah, you're definitely not taking this seriously at all

[koriwhat]

There's nothing unprecedented about this. She's absolutely qualified for the post, and there's no legal reason not to confirm her if the Senate has the votes.

You might not like or agree with her political leaning or views on fundamental issues, but you can say that for a number of SCOTUS members.

I mean, if you're angry about this, you should direct your rage at RGB and the Democratic party/voters.

:tu


Most of the people voting to confirm her were screaming in opposition of an election year nomination just 4 years ago.

lol you act like just because the dems want it so bad that the repugs have to bend over and give it to them. last time i checked the senate 4 yrs ago was still ran by the repugs. gain the senate and do as you wish but not having a majority means you can't call the shots! why do you libs cry so damn much about unfairness yet yall dodge your whole spy party? :lmao


So, you can't make that determination for Will but you've made it for your enemies.

:lolK.

like clockwork


speaking of disgusting bigotry, what are your thoughts on islam and muslims?

more power to them but do i have to trust them? nah... and i don't but that doesn't mean i wish ill-will on any that follow that "faith". any other bullshit questions you shit lawyer?

[koriwhat]

His Fox News/OAN overlords have programmed him to hate any black female in a position of power (except Coondace Owens).

you made a mountain out of a molehill and you know it too. kamala = indian mother + jamaican father. i'm sorry if you can't grasp simple things racistWill.

you're just mad because no one ever called you out before for your blatantly racist ways. you're a fucking weak ass loser racistWill and it's glaringly obvious.

as well, i don't watch fox news nor oan but keep up the fake news racistWill. :tu

[koriwhat]

Someone left a Yelp review on his tattoo parlor’s page about how he’s a racist, and he’s been raging about it ever since blaming me for it.

you did it racistWill. own it bitch boy!

[Will Hunting]

you made a mountain out of a molehill and you know it too. kamala = indian mother + jamaican father. i'm sorry if you can't grasp simple things racistWill.

you're just mad because no one ever called you out before for your blatantly racist ways. you're a fucking weak ass loser racistWill and it's glaringly obvious.

as well, i don't watch fox news nor oan but keep up the fake news racistWill. :tu
:lol so you are taking this seriously

[clambake]

Someone left a Yelp review on his tattoo parlor’s page about how he’s a racist, and he’s been raging about it ever since blaming me for it.
LOL

[koriwhat]

:lmao yeah, you're definitely not taking this seriously at all

idc how you view how i'm taking this. you dodge everything because you are exactly what i just called you... you're spineless, a coward, and a racist racistWill.

[koriwhat]

and the only reason you do what you do racistWill is because you're anonymous behind your alt. if you weren't you'd be a good little boy and probably never say a damn thing here on ST.

[ChumpDumper]

idc how you view how i'm taking this. you dodge everything because you are exactly what i just called you... you're spineless, a coward, and a racist racistWill.I just thought I'd pile on since you're not being serious.

[spurraider21]

more power to them but do i have to trust them? nah... and i don't but that doesn't mean i wish ill-will on any that follow that "faith". any other bullshit questions you shit lawyer?
damn you've gone through a massive shift in your views on islam in recent months.

good on you :tu

[Will Hunting]

idc how you view how i'm taking this. you dodge everything because you are exactly what i just called you... you're spineless, a coward, and a racist racistWill.
lol dodge

lol racist

lol calf tats

[koriwhat]

damn you've gone through a massive shift in your views on islam in recent months.

good on you :tu

not at all.. i've repeated the same thing numerous times. you're just a brain dead lawyer who can't comprehend shit in black & white archived forever. go do a search or better yet ask the real worker at your office to do it; the paralegal.

[koriwhat]

lol dodge

lol racist

lol calf tats

the lol's are indicative of you dodging what i said. you're a blatant racist with no spine so you make a joke of the claims that are solid and can be backed up with a search. you and i know you've posted cute takes on the N-word, you've called a black woman coondance owens instead of candance, etc...

you really trying to act like you support black lives when you done nothing but try to tear them down with derogatory terms? hmm...

[Will Hunting]

the lol's are indicative of you dodging what i said. you're a blatant racist with no spine so you make a joke of the claims that are solid and can be backed up with a search. you and i know you've posted cute takes on the N-word, you've called a black woman coondance owens instead of candance, etc...

you really trying to act like you support black lives when you done nothing but try to tear them down with derogatory terms? hmm...
:lol you think me saying n!gger or coon on the internet is some kind of GOTCHA! moment.

[spurraider21]

not at all.. i've repeated the same thing numerous times. you're just a brain dead lawyer who can't comprehend shit in black & white archived forever. go do a search or better yet ask the real worker at your office to do it; the paralegal.
LOL

more power to them but do i have to trust them? nah... and i don't but that doesn't mean i wish ill-will on any that follow that "faith". any other bullshit questions you shit lawyer?
:lmao


those who follow islam are scum to me.


nah, i hate all of islam and that includes that pedophile book of theirs too.


We should ban islam altogether! Fuck that ideology, those that subscribe to it, and bitches like you that bend over for it.


just a reminder.... FUCK ISLAM!

from that to "more power to them"

you've come a long way :tu

[koriwhat]

:lol you think me saying n!gger or coon on the internet is some kind of GOTCHA! moment.

it's not a gotcha moment... it's you're a racist moment racistWill! you're also spineless and a coward too. :tu

[koriwhat]

LOL

:lmao

from that to "more power to them"

you've come a long way :tu

so now it's islam vs muslims? do you know the difference or do you have to check with your paralegal on the matter?

shit, i'm not really for catholicism either but whatever.

[ChumpDumper]

so now it's islam vs muslims? do you know the difference or do you have to check with your paralegal on the matter?

shit, i'm not really for catholicism either but whatever.The Jewish Muslims are the ones to watch out for.

[spurraider21]

so now it's islam vs muslims? do you know the difference or do you have to check with your paralegal on the matter?
you said "those who follow islam are scum to me." those who follow islam = muslims

you said "fuck that ideology, [and] those who subscribe to it." those who subscribe to it = muslims

now its "more power to them." you've shown great growth and change, and i'm here for it :tu

[koriwhat]

CumDumpster idgaf about you whatsoever so fucking go eat shit and kick the can down the road already you obsessed obese-fuckin loser!

[ChumpDumper]

CumDumpster idgaf about you whatsoever so fucking go eat shit and kick the can down the road already you obsessed obese-fuckin loser!:lol works every time

[ElNono]

I think you may be confused on the word "unprecedented."

Emotions, qualifications and rules don't factor in. This has either happened before ("precedent") or it hasn't ("unprecedented.") If you can find another example of Senators from a party blocking a nomination for 9 months and then the same Senators confirming a justice within 5 weeks of an election, that's an argument against "unprecedented."

I really didn't think that would be a controversial statement.

I can dig up the list if you'd like, but this isn't the first or second, or third SCOTUS nominee being confirmed in an election year. Nothing unprecedented about it.

If you're going to qualify it in the number of months or weeks, then you're just reaching. Everything can be "unprecedented" under that.

[spurraider21]

I can dig up the list if you'd like, but this isn't the first or second, or third SCOTUS nominee being confirmed in an election year. Nothing unprecedented about it.

If you're going to qualify it in the number of months or weeks, then you're just reaching. Everything can be "unprecedented" under that.
i think the totality of it plays in... blocking one for 9 months followed by ramming one through in 5 weeks (effectively the same senate... same leadership). when we talk about the situation being unprecedented, it certainly ties back to what happened in 2016... obviously its not literally unprecedented that we have a vacant seat

there have been plenty of nominations withdrawn, or justices that frankly didnt get the votes during confirmation (bork). but not ones that were held up and not even brought to hearings.

[Bogie]

LOL

:lmao









from that to "more power to them"

you've come a long way :tu


I would say I can’t believe Joey fell for that set up, but of course he did.

[Spurminator]

I can dig up the list if you'd like, but this isn't the first or second, or third SCOTUS nominee being confirmed in an election year. Nothing unprecedented about it.

If you're going to qualify it in the number of months or weeks, then you're just reaching. Everything can be "unprecedented" under that.

It's like saying the 2000 election was unprecedented.

Did we elect a President? Yes. Did that President win the electoral college? Yes. Was everything technically legal under the law, and expected given the makeup of the Supreme Court? Yes. Was it one of several times that the winning candidate lost the popular vote? Yes.

But on the whole, 2000 was a close Presidential election that ended with a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling on one state's recount procedures. It would certainly be fair to call that an unprecedented election.

Same applies here.

[DMC]

Not really. She gambled Shillary was going to win, and then she gambled she should make it to the next Dem administration. She lost both bets.

Cool narrative from her but the result was she held on to power. Justices playing politics with seats like that, I hope she suffered.

[DMC]

It's like saying the 2000 election was unprecedented.

Did we elect a President? Yes. Did that President win the electoral college? Yes. Was everything technically legal under the law, and expected given the makeup of the Supreme Court? Yes. Was it one of several times that the winning candidate lost the popular vote? Yes.

But on the whole, 2000 was a close Presidential election that ended with a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling on one state's recount procedures. It would certainly be fair to call that an unprecedented election.

Same applies here.

The Supreme Court portion is unprecedented. The election, no so much.

[koriwhat]

blocking one for 9 months followed by ramming one through in 5 weeks (effectively the same senate... same leadership)

and? that same senate is majority repugs and they own the senate so what exactly were you expecting? you think they have to confirm because the left cries about it? think again retard! just like now, they will confirm because it's in their best interest which it wasn't during obummer's last term. fuck the dems in office!

[spurraider21]

and? that same senate is majority repugs and they own the senate so what exactly were you expecting? you think they have to confirm because the left cries about it? think again retard! just like now, they will confirm because it's in their best interest which it wasn't during obummer's last term. fuck the dems in office!
in 2016 those republicans laid out very specific reasons for why they could not bring Garland to a vote. they are now tossing each of those specific reasons into the wastebin

[benefactor]

:lol works every time
:lol

[koriwhat]

in 2016 those republicans laid out very specific reasons for why they could not bring Garland to a vote. they are now tossing each of those specific reasons into the wastebin

good! fuck the dems... it's funny how ypu're upset that the repugs changed their minds this time arpind but you don't concern yourself with the blatant cheating and two-faced dems. it's quite telling of your bias.

[koriwhat]

:lol

it's funny because CumDumpster is bound to get a reply to "move along" occassionally. sometimes the retards need a reminder and CumDumpster is head retard.

as for you don't you got someone on facebook to stalk rn?

[spurraider21]

good! fuck the dems...
if you want me to be honest, i dont think the republicans have actually been inconsisntent. they've been very consistent in their actual approach which is to use whatever inch of power they have to fuck the dems at all costs. they've just been out there lying about what their approach is "fairness... election year... etc"... so they've been very consistent with their actual intent, entirely inconsistent with their public intent


it's funny how ypu're upset that the repugs changed their minds this time arpind but you don't concern yourself with the blatant cheating and two-faced dems. it's quite telling of your bias.
what circumstance are you talking about where the dems have been as openly inconsistent and where i supported them for it?

[Chucho]

Why is Candace Owens a coon?

Because she doesn't support the Black narrative?

[koriwhat]

Why is Candace Owens a coon?

Because she doesn't support the Black narrative?

because racists will be racist and racistWill is a blatant racist.

[koriwhat]

if you want me to be honest, i dont think the republicans have actually been inconsisntent. they've been very consistent in their actual approach which is to use whatever inch of power they have to fuck the dems at all costs. they've just been out there lying about what their approach is "fairness... election year... etc"... so they've been very consistent with their actual intent, entirely inconsistent with their public intent


what circumstance are you talking about where the dems have been as openly inconsistent and where i supported them for it?

it's not about "supporting them for it" but more so your lack of interest in what they want to do which is voter fraud with mail-in ballots and wanting to scrap the entire EC. as well they want to now place more judges than 9 in the SC but here you are crying about other shit you have no clue about but pretend to be well versed on.

[spurraider21]

it's not about "supporting them for it" but more so your lack of interest in what they want to do which is voter fraud with mail-in ballots and wanting to scrap the entire EC. as well they want to now place more judges than 9 in the SC but here you are crying about other shit you have no clue about but pretend to be well versed on.
would like to see some evidence of statistically significant voter fraud. i think the government should provide additional funding to the USPS for purposes of the election. this isn't an "inconsistency" by the democrats... they've generally supported making voting easier, and that's been a trend. so if anything, that's just them being consistent

as it relates to the EC, how is that an inconsistency? its not like they pretended to love it and suddenly shifted course when convenient. there have been large contingencies against the EC for a long time. i've been anti-EC for as long as i can remember.

you're just saying that you dont like mail-in voting and you like the electoral college. you're entitled to those opinions, but those dont equate to "inconsistencies" of the democrats

re: adding more judges... yeah, i've generally in favor of forbearance, ie not abusing every inch of political power for political gain, because all you'd be be doing is giving the "other side" the moral right to do exactly the same thing when positions are reversed. but when factoring what happened with Scalia's seat followed by RBG's... its clear the republicans are already doing the very thing i'm opposed to. if they're going to use every inch of their power to shit on the dems, then the dems have the moral right to do the same if they wind up with the same power.

[ElNono]

i think the totality of it plays in... blocking one for 9 months followed by ramming one through in 5 weeks (effectively the same senate... same leadership). when we talk about the situation being unprecedented, it certainly ties back to what happened in 2016... obviously its not literally unprecedented that we have a vacant seat

there have been plenty of nominations withdrawn, or justices that frankly didnt get the votes during confirmation (bork). but not ones that were held up and not even brought to hearings.

It boils down to who held control of the Senate, regardless of what was said or not said. You think it stinks? Sure. Is it unprecedented? Not really.

[koriwhat]

would like to see some evidence of statistically significant voter fraud. i think the government should provide additional funding to the USPS for purposes of the election. this isn't an "inconsistency" by the democrats... they've generally supported making voting easier, and that's been a trend. so if anything, that's just them being consistent

as it relates to the EC, how is that an inconsistency? its not like they pretended to love it and suddenly shifted course when convenient. there have been large contingencies against the EC for a long time. i've been anti-EC for as long as i can remember.

you're just saying that you dont like mail-in voting and you like the electoral college. you're entitled to those opinions, but those dont equate to "inconsistencies" of the democrats

nah i'm saying the EC is foundational to our republic... voting in person is foundational to our republic... and you keep making excuses is foundational to a spineless political bias. keep making excuses...

[ElNono]

It's like saying the 2000 election was unprecedented.

Did we elect a President? Yes. Did that President win the electoral college? Yes. Was everything technically legal under the law, and expected given the makeup of the Supreme Court? Yes. Was it one of several times that the winning candidate lost the popular vote? Yes.

But on the whole, 2000 was a close Presidential election that ended with a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling on one state's recount procedures. It would certainly be fair to call that an unprecedented election.

Same applies here.

I would have to look up how many presidential elections where decided by a SCOTUS ruling. If that was the first one, then it would indeed be unprecedented. Otherwise, it wouldn't be. Not really that complicated.

[spurraider21]

nah i'm saying the EC is foundational to our republic... voting in person is foundational to our republic... and you keep making excuses is foundational to a spineless political bias. keep making excuses...
those are just things we disagree on, not things that represent "inconsistencies of the dems"

[ElNono]

Cool narrative from her but the result was she held on to power. Justices playing politics with seats like that, I hope she suffered.

You could say the same for Uncle Tom Thomas, and a cadre of justices before her... I don't think what she did was necessarily new, despite being extremely risky.

[ChumpDumper]

it's funny because CumDumpster is bound to get a reply to "move along" occassionally. sometimes the retards need a reminder and CumDumpster is head retard.

as for you don't you got someone on facebook to stalk rn?This one will work too.

[Spurminator]

The Supreme Court portion is unprecedented. The election, no so much.

If you're describing "The 2000 Election" as everything surrounding the election (the SC decision, the closeness of the deciding state combined with the closeness of the EC count) then it's fair to say it was unprecedented.

If you're describing "The 2000 Election" as the literal act of a President being elected in 2000, then no, it's not unprecedented.

[spurraider21]

It boils down to who held control of the Senate, regardless of what was said or not said. You think it stinks? Sure. Is it unprecedented? Not really.
i dont get why you're so hung up on the semantics of what is or isn't unprecedented. depending on how broadly or narrowly you look at the circumstances, you can call it precedented or unprecedented, so it can get pretty subjective there anyway.

because yeah if the moral of the story is that the majority party of the senate can and will do whatever they fuck they want within the edges of the confines of the constitutions, then fine. i mean technically if biden gets elected, republicans maintain control of the senate, and all 9 justices died in a big accident the day after inauguration, the senate can basically sit on all judicial nominations for the full 4 years and leave the court empty. is the importance there really whether or not it is precedented or unprecedented or whether or not its an unethical abuse of power?

in a vacuum, is confirming a justice weeks before an election "wrong?" probably not

in a vacuum, was sitting on the garland nomination for 9 months (as opposed to holding confirmation hearings and voting against his confirmation) wrong? probably (they have a duty to advise and consent... cant advise without hearings), but there's at least a hint of grey

in its totality though? any gray or justifications disappear when the same senate (same leadership) completely tosses aside their proffered rationale for the latter under identical, if not further exacerbated circumstances (significantly closer to the election)

[spurraider21]

If you're describing "The 2000 Election" as everything surrounding the election (the SC decision, the closeness of the deciding state combined with the closeness of the EC count) then it's fair to say it was unprecedented.

If you're describing "The 2000 Election" as the literal act of a President being elected in 2000, then no, it's not unprecedented.
actually that would be unprecedented. nobody was ever elected before in 2000

[Spurminator]

I would have to look up how many presidential elections where decided by a SCOTUS ruling. If that was the first one, then it would indeed be unprecedented. Otherwise, it wouldn't be. Not really that complicated.

I agree it's not complicated, and it doesn't seem like it's that complicated with the Barrett thing either.

You're getting hung up on semantics because I guess you think I'm downplaying that RBG's screw up might have avoided this whole thing. I agree she should have stepped down, but it still seems fairly obvious that this is a SCOTUS confirmation unlike any in our history.

You can pick and choose things that are the same about it, but on the whole, it's unprecedented, end of discussion.

[Spurminator]

actually that would be unprecedented. nobody was ever elected before in 2000

Eat a dick. :lol

[Will Hunting]

At the least, there's no question we're at an unprecedented level of minority rule.

- 2 of the last 3 presidents got elected while losing the popular vote
- soon to be 5 of the 9 SCOTUS justices will have been nominated by a president who lost the popular vote
- Democrat senators have represented a majority of the population every year since the 2000 election, but Republicans have had a majority in the senate for 12 of those 20 years

You can justify it however you want or write it off as a non-issue because it's in the constitution, but the undeniable reality is that what we currently have in this country is an increasingly small minority imposing its will on the majority because said minority happens to be concentrated in sparsely populated, overrepresented states.

[vy65]

At the least, there's no question we're at an unprecedented level of minority rule.

- 2 of the last 3 presidents got elected while losing the popular vote
- soon to be 5 of the 9 SCOTUS justices will have been nominated by a president who lost the popular vote
- Democrat senators have represented a majority of the population every year since the 2000 election, but Republicans have had a majority in the senate for 12 of those 20 years

You can justify it however you want or write it off as a non-issue because it's in the constitution, but the undeniable reality is that what we currently have in this country is an increasingly small minority imposing its will on the majority because said minority happens to be concentrated in sparsely populated, overrepresented states.

It gets even worse when you consider tax bases

[Will Hunting]

It gets even worse when you consider tax bases
The largest states at the time (New York, Pennsylvania, etc.) fucked up in a big way when they agreed to the 16th Amendment without modifying senate representation/the electoral college. That was really when this went from being a Republic of loosely affiliated states to one solidified nation with a federal government that holds most of the power.

Once the small states got the large states on the hook for being the ones that were responsible for the lionshare of federal income taxes without any increased senate representation, there was almost no leverage the large states had left to change that.

[vy65]

The largest states at the time (New York, Pennsylvania, etc.) fucked up in a big way when they agreed to the 16th Amendment without modifying senate representation/the electoral college. That was really when this went from being a Republic of loosely affiliated states to one solidified nation with a federal government that holds most of the power.

Once the small states got the large states on the hook for being the ones that were responsible for the lionshare of federal income taxes without any increased senate representation, there was almost no leverage the large states had left to change that.

I guess the "don't tread on me crowd" forgot the "no taxation without representation" slogan from the good ole days

[DMC]

If you're describing "The 2000 Election" as everything surrounding the election (the SC decision, the closeness of the deciding state combined with the closeness of the EC count) then it's fair to say it was unprecedented.

If you're describing "The 2000 Election" as the literal act of a President being elected in 2000, then no, it's not unprecedented.

There are elements that are unprecedented. Same with what you're referring to in your original point. Elements are unprecedented, but there have been justices nominated in election years.

Either way, precedent only matter in court cases. It doesn't matter in things like this. It's about like some color commentary about how no one has ever shot 21 FTs and had 14 assists in the 3rd game of the WCF.

[ElNono]

i dont get why you're so hung up on the semantics of what is or isn't unprecedented. depending on how broadly or narrowly you look at the circumstances, you can call it precedented or unprecedented, so it can get pretty subjective there anyway.

because yeah if the moral of the story is that the majority party of the senate can and will do whatever they fuck they want within the edges of the confines of the constitutions, then fine. i mean technically if biden gets elected, republicans maintain control of the senate, and all 9 justices died in a big accident the day after inauguration, the senate can basically sit on all judicial nominations for the full 4 years and leave the court empty. is the importance there really whether or not it is precedented or unprecedented or whether or not its an unethical abuse of power?

Pretty much.


in a vacuum, is confirming a justice weeks before an election "wrong?" probably not

in a vacuum, was sitting on the garland nomination for 9 months (as opposed to holding confirmation hearings and voting against his confirmation) wrong? probably (they have a duty to advise and consent... cant advise without hearings), but there's at least a hint of grey

in its totality though? any gray or justifications disappear when the same senate (same leadership) completely tosses aside their proffered rationale for the latter under identical, if not further exacerbated circumstances (significantly closer to the election)

I don't think anybody should expect any kind of graciousness or political correctness from the cesspool that's Congress. If you are, then you need to lose your naiveté right now (not addressed directly to you, just saying in general).

[ElNono]

I agree it's not complicated, and it doesn't seem like it's that complicated with the Barrett thing either.

You're getting hung up on semantics because I guess you think I'm downplaying that RBG's screw up might have avoided this whole thing. I agree she should have stepped down, but it still seems fairly obvious that this is a SCOTUS confirmation unlike any in our history.

You can pick and choose things that are the same about it, but on the whole, it's unprecedented, end of discussion.

Like I told sr21 before, anybody expecting any kind of ethical civility or decorum when it comes to the current incarnation of Congress needs a dose of reality.

This was absolutely predictable if RGB died, and we knew this way before she actually passed away.

[spurraider21]

Like I told sr21 before, anybody expecting any kind of ethical civility or decorum when it comes to the current incarnation of Congress needs a dose of reality.

This was absolutely predictable if RGB died, and we knew this way before she actually passed away.
the predictability of it doesnt negate the outrage and disgust

[ElNono]

the predictability of it doesnt negate the outrage and disgust

Sure. Like I said, I'm not talking about feelings here.

[ducks]

Amy Coney Barrett’s 65-page response to Judiciary Committee questionnaire released
The questionnaire spans 65 pages and was issued by the Senate Judiciary Committee