It's impressive tbh.
Guy hops off his main account and into an alt immediately. He's on the clock with just 1 hour of sleep....at the compputer.
When was the last time Derp logged out and got a breath of fresh air?
It's impressive tbh.
Guy hops off his main account and into an alt immediately. He's on the clock with just 1 hour of sleep....at the compputer.
Fox news anchors vs. Rachel Madcow
She fits perfectly for the red team.
WTF? My point was agreeing with Winehole that an unattractive woman can be an effective supreme court justice. Sotemayor proves his point.
Poor blakehole can only get fat uggos.
Sotemayor and Kagan were godawful picks. Their only qualifications were that they are women and that they would vote to uphold Obamacare.
What specifically made them "godawful picks"?
They're thoroughly unimpressive intellectually, and they're ideologues who have no commitment to the Cons ution.
There's your bone. Won't be playing 20 questions. Make a point now if you have one.
my issue with the kagan pick is she didnt have any judicial experience. i dont doubt that she was incredibly knowledgeable on the law, but i think having served as an appellate judge should be a pre-requisite.
the only other justice in recent history who didnt have any experience on the bench was Rehnquist
dont see how anybody could realistically object to sotomayor as being qualified... at that point its just about having purely political/partisan disagreement with her jurisprudence, and thats not really a legitimate ground to object to a nominee
Glaring. Agree.
That's not specific.
That's you folding, derp.
There's a reason she wrote a (lame) children's book and not a (valuable) law book.
You've been BlakeBlaking with regularity lately. You're relegating yourself.
Trump's Supreme Court front-runner already let the cat of the bag,
says the court is us vs. them
Here’s Amy Coney Barrett playing pundit and defending McConnell’s decision to block President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, after Justice Scalia’s death.
Bad enough, but note the big tell:
An Obama nominee would “dramatically flip the balance of power."
So much for those “balls and strikes” of Chief Justice John Roberts, huh?
She lays it all out there; it’s a “balance of power.”
So much for even respecting the pretense of not prejudging cases.
It’s all “us vs. them.”
Even Justice Neil Gorsuch, who got that stolen seat, hasn’t played that game.
I guess that’s why it’s likely to be Barrett.
She’s willing to go there, on the record.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/202...-is-us-vs-them
"The arguments will be"
Desperate
Soooo I guess according to Mitt Romney's standards, she's out.
She pretty much disqualified herself by tilting her hands in an utterly bias way."The Cons ution gives the President the power to nominate and the Senate the authority to provide advice and consent on Supreme Court nominees. Accordingly, I intend to follow the Cons ution and precedent in considering the President’s nominee. If the nominee reaches the Senate floor, I intend to vote based upon their qualifications," Romney wrote.
Snakey boy, I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy.
I know Romney will vote for her regardless of her saying that. No desperation here. They will vote.
Another pep talk.
The GOP doesn't need Romney, though it would be tighter without him.
He already sees what way the wind is blowing and is not going to blow his fleeting Repub credit on this Democrat L.
He would especially be stupid to make this his hill to die on while representing the most socially conservative state in the union.
Trump gets three nominations to the court.
You guys should direct your spittle at that to RBG and her cancer riddled hubris. Trump didn't have to get #3.
Probably back when you were dying of COVID
Was that after you doxed someone for making fun of your fat ass?
You could at least spell her name right. I guess I've had my limit of discussion about judicial ability.
I find it inane and insulting. You?
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)