Kamala Harris' Supreme Court hearing participation could be unprecedented

[koriwhat]

LOL



from that to "more power to them"

you've come a long way

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

, 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?

, 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 s to me." those who follow islam = muslims

you said " 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

[koriwhat]

Dumpster idgaf about you whatsoever so ing go eat and kick the can down the road already you obsessed obese- in loser!

[ChumpDumper]

Dumpster idgaf about you whatsoever so ing go eat and kick the can down the road already you obsessed obese- in loser!

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











from that to "more power to them"

you've come a long way

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 re ! just like now, they will confirm because it's in their best interest which it wasn't during obummer's last term. 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 re ! just like now, they will confirm because it's in their best interest which it wasn't during obummer's last term. 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]

works every time

[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! 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]

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

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

[spurraider21]

good! 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 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 cir stance 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 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 cir stance 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 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 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 en led 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 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 en led 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"