Printable View
One year to the day today... how did the DNC thought this entitled bitch would be a good candidate?
She jinxed herself. Over confident hildabeast.
12 point lead on Oct 23 according to fake polls. Then a weiner laptop.
DEMOCRATS WON'T MAKE THAT MISTAKE AGAIN.
Those 5 day copium binges are a doozy.
:lol is there a right wing conspiracy theory you don't believe, derp?
Delusional cunt tbh. Still pissed at how the Dems fucked over my boy Bernard Sanders.
You could have put Alfred E fucking Neuman in there and the left would have gone just as batshit over him as they did her. It's a "fill in the blank" loyalty to the party, and whomever the DNC pushes to the front (by fucking over other candidates) the left will kowtow to and feel righteous in the process.
All that can be said about it, now, is that 3 supreme court justices will have been planted before Trump gets ousted, and those three justices will do more harm for the ideals of the left than the last 5 GOP presidents combined and there's nothing Biden or anyone else not in the court can do about it other than continue to challenge it with new laws.
If the end (SCOTUS justices) justifies the means (electing a retarded candidate because he's your party's nominee) then what's your point with the Alfred E Newman example? The left would be right to vote for Newman because it's all about justices, right? So why the haughty self-righteousness from you as a Donald Trump voter who has no regrets because of the SC appointments?
:lmao big fonts.
I really don't. Honestly I have more respect for people who voted for Trump and keep their fucking mouths shut about it than for people like you who soldier for him for four years solid even though they may not have voted. Doesn't change my point at all.
None of this has anything to do with whether a party's candidate is a retard and whether or not you're a retard for supporting that party's candidate. Try to stay on topic. I know you've had a few to drink this Monday night and you're feeling fighty, but you're really all over the place.
Either candidates matter, and the left has no conviction because they would vote for Alfred E Newman in your hypothetical... Or candidates don't matter as long as you get your Supreme Court justices. Which is it? (I bet you won't answer.)
Plus there's a number of options, and they can try each one before having to arrive at expanding the court (which is an option too).
ie: There's nothing preventing Congress from passing a law formally legalizing, regulating and funding abortion services (under some "women's services" baloney because Susan Collins might get offended otherwise). Plenty of stare decisis to claim that's unconsitutional, and the SCOTUS cannot overrule Congress unless something is unconstitutional.
Same thing with an updated VRA, etc.
so funny it's all pathetic dudes here screeching about wanting abortion when yall will never ever have the decision to make either way. alone forever is yalls reality!
Imo it’s an easy justification.
The 1856 Act that created 9 SCOTUS justices did so because there were 9 circuit courts and we wanted a justice who oversees each circuit court. Now we have 13 Circuit Courts, so we’re really just following the precedent set in 1856 by making sure there’s one SCOTUS justice per circuit court. It’s the originalist approach :tu