Comparing Robert Bork To Obama’s Eventual Nominee

How come Democrats do not run on seating more anti-Constitution judicial activists on the SCOTUS?
Because the media and the Washington establishment like things as they are.
House conservatives dumped John Boehner then replaced him with a clone. That nest of traitors in the Senate did not bother to go through the motions. They always embraced McConnell the way snakes embrace rats when it is time for dinner. Joseph Farah puts McConnell and the Senate in perspective. It is all about reelecting establishment snakes:

Do you see the loophole here? It’s as big as the Grand Canyon.​

XXXXX

What he says above would mean he could very well hold hearings on confirming Obama’s lame-duck nomination between Jan. 1 and Jan. 20.​

XXXXX

By waiting until after the election to do Obama’s bidding again, he would be taking the heat off of establishment Republicans until after the election. Then there’s another two years before voters will have any way to express their outrage.​

Inside McConnell's ambiguous Scalia email
Posted By Joseph Farah On 02/17/2016 @ 7:35 pm

Inside McConnell’s ambiguous Scalia email

One more time:
REPEAL THE XVII AMENDMENT.
 
Joseph Farah puts McConnell and the Senate in perspective.
Briefly stated:

nick_anderson_current_cartoon_2016-02-18_5_.jpg
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ca...ck_anderson_current_cartoon_2016-02-18_5_.jpg
 
The rendering is good, but I doubt if establishment Republicans have that much political courage:

I am sure when Democrats tanked Robert Bork in 1987 someone among them—probably even Biden—must have known that what goes around comes around.​

Republicans have been waiting 30 years for payback for the shameful rejection of Bork; that day has arrived. Time to pay up, Dems.​

The Supreme Court Controversy In One Sentence

The Supreme Court Controversy In One Sentence

bork was rejected because he was an extremist nutter. he turned out to be even worse than we suspected he was.

thanks anyway. :cuckoo:

You're such a Leftist Moonbat sometimes
 
The Senate will fight President Ted Cruz to the death even though he is a senator. On the other hand, the Senate will embrace Senator Marco “Amnesty for Illegals” Rubio.
The details in Julia Hahn’s piece is probably too late to get to voters in South Carolina, but it will take hold after SC when Rubio swears he does not support amnesty for illegals:

Exclusive: On Eve of South Carolina Vote, Nation’s ICE Officers Detail How Marco Rubio Betrayed Them
by Julia Hahn
19 Feb 2016

Exclusive: On Eve of South Carolina Vote, Nation's ICE Officers Detail How Marco Rubio Betrayed Them - Breitbart
 
"Comparing Robert Bork To Obama’s Eventual Nominee"

...is idiocy until such time as that nominee is announced.

WOOOOSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHH!

Lemme 'splain that which somehow eluded you:

It's not about the nominee.

It's about the process.

The Democrat Party has skillfully dmonstrated how it must be done now they're about to learn how it feels.
 
As Bork was a willing accomplice in Nixon's attempts to cover up his WaterGate crimes, he should have been in prison.

However, by now everyone understands that Republicans consider criminality to be a resume-builder.

And Democrats, not being whiny little bitches, will have no trouble if a nominee is treated like Bork. Of course, the Republicans will treat the nominee totally differently and then lie about it, as this thread demonstrates.
 
The details in Julia Hahn’s piece is probably too late to get to voters in South Carolina, but it will take hold after SC when Rubio swears he does not support amnesty for illegals:
I only read the headlines about yesterdays elections. That is all I needed.

If Rubio made a comeback I can say he is the only one in the top three that provides a fallback position for conservatives. Speaking for myself, I did not vote for McCain or Romney, nor will I vote for Rubio should he get the nomination. I will vote for congressional seats.

Here is my fallback: Rather than see establishment Republican Rubio continue killing this country by inches, I’d rather see Democrat Hillary Clinton win and add to the deep hatred for the presidency the current piece of scum in the White House set in motion. I guarantee both scenarios. There is no other choice for conservatives.

Parenthetically, Marco Rubio has his nose further up the United Nations’ ass than does Hillary Clinton if that is possible. Do not expect media mouths to ask Amnesty for Illegals Rubio about it.

Finally, the New World Order crowd, United Nations Refuges, and illegal aliens will be the only winners should Rubio or Clinton get their hands on the presidency.
 
S. Res 334 states that it was “the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” The resolution obviously was meant to stop another recess appointment by President Dwight Eisenhower. But it also established the unwritten rule that presidents shouldn’t nominate judges to the court in their final year, except in the most dire of circumstances.

Read more: http://ihavethetruth.com/2016/02/21/the-55-year-old-senate-secret-that-could-prevent-obama-from-forcing-a-supreme-court-nomination/#ixzz40q0MM1w1
 
Marco Rubio has his nose further up the United Nations’ ass than does Hillary Clinton if that is possible. Do not expect media mouths to ask Amnesty for Illegals Rubio about it.
Rubio attacks Donald Trump because he dare not attack Ted Cruz on foreign policy.



Ted Cruz will defend the Constitution. That includes defending America’s sovereignty —— ALL OF IT NOT JUST SOME OF IT. Marco Rubio dare not make the same claim if he wants to hang on to the media and establishment Republicans. If he ever told voters how he stands on surrendering “some” of America’s sovereignty to the United Nations —— as will Hillary Clinton —— those voters he snows under would drop him like a used condom:

On Sunday’s “Fox and Friends” on Fox News Channel, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said in an interview that fellow GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump “really needs to step up and outline his foreign policy vision.”

Rubio also said the GOP front-runner cannot just rely on “experts he won’t name” when it comes to foreign policy.

“I think Donald, now that the race has narrowed, really needs to step up and outline his foreign policy vision,” Rubio said. “And it can’t be that he relies on experts he won’t name. I mean, presidents have to know on day one about the difficult issues that confront this country on the global stage. And presidents have to be uniters.”

Rubio: Trump ‘Really Needs to Step Up’ on Foreign Policy
by Trent Baker
22 Feb 2016

Rubio: Trump 'Really Needs to Step Up' on Foreign Policy - Breitbart

You can listen to Rubio’s clever misdirection in the video, or read the transcript:



http://www.cfr.org/united-states/marco-rubios-foreign-policy-vision/p36511

Rubio talks about foreign policy without saying anything. His remarks are designed to win over the power and the money that have been betraying this country since the Council on Foreign Relation was founded in 1921.

Rubio’s touchy-feely crapola is a variation of the same platitudes everybody else recites by rote. His attacks on the sewer rat are a joke because they are both global government internationalists.

Rubio’s comments about a strong military sound good, but his foreign policies will end with Americans fighting for the United Nations. That is no different than Taqiyya the Liar or Hillary Clinton. That has been the federal government’s goal since the UN opened for business.

Nothing changes when Rubio stops talking. He is still in favor of amnesty for illegals, taking in United Nations refugees and permanent open-borders.
 
Here it comes again: Republicans and Conservatives have to vote together!

I cite Rubio in the following excerpt. No matter. Line up every establishment Republican with Democrats and they are so close a sunbeam could not slip through.

Here is my fallback: Rather than see establishment Republican Rubio continue killing this country by inches, I’d rather see Democrat Hillary Clinton win and add to the deep hatred for the presidency the current piece of scum in the White House set in motion. I guarantee both scenarios. There is no other choice for conservatives.
I do not often disagree with American Thinker articles. This one is a glaring exception:

The Republican Party and the conservative movement are in the midst of a very uncivil war. Stop it! Stop it now! I don’t care who is to blame. Because as sure as half my readers will mentally accuse me of all sorts of terrible things, we can look forward to a four year dark age ruled by the Clinton crime family. Go Donald, Ted, or Marco---or John or Ben, or someone else. One of you had better be able to unite us or, once we sober up, we will never forgive you -- even if it is our own fault.

True conservatism is in danger of being destroyed by needless disputes over the cancerous issue of illegal immigration.

March 5, 2016
Time to End the Conservative Circular Firing Squad on ‘Amnesty’
By Mike Razar

Articles: Time to End the Conservative Circular Firing Squad on ‘Amnesty’

There is a full-court press in progress aimed at convincing conservatives they will get a Democrat if it they do not vote for the Republican. That party line was worn-out when they tried it for McCain, and Romney. It ain’t going to work this time either.

Speaking for myself, I will not vote for a Republican who will double-cross conservatives again. Bush the Younger is the poster boy for the Establishment. He did absolutely nothing for conservatives in eight years. He had the Congress for several of those years yet did not shutdown one unnecessary DEMOCRAT PARTY bureaucracy. He increased the number of federal employee.

Veto is one of the few powers a president has over Congress. Apparently, Bush never heard this:


It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. Calvin Coolidge

With the exception of Stem Cell Research, Bush signed everything the Democrats wanted. Here is one of his “bipartisan” double-crosses:

Bush Education Bill Becomes Ted Kennedy Bill — Bob Novak tells what happened.

Bush Education Bill Becomes Ted Kennedy Bill

The Department of Homeland Security was his biggest failure on a long list of failures because he did not have the guts to veto it. DHS has since grown into a Frankenstein monster controlled by Democrats.

NOTE: Bush the Younger had one saving grace. He took the fight to Muslim territory in Iraq. Democrats have been reversing it ever since. (Republicans never reverse anything Democrats do to the country.)

Finally, I do not give a rat’s ass for the aforementioned full-court press. As far as I am concerned, it is better to increase hatred for a Democrat president than it is to blame myself for being stupid enough to vote for a Karl Rove Republican.

At some point Democrat party ideology must come tumbling down. It ain’t going to happen with a McCain, a Romney, a Rubio, a Bush, a Christie, or a Kasich.


bg030416dAPR20160304024531.jpg
http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/bg030416dAPR20160304024531.jpg

Donald Trump is not looking any better. I have not heard him promise anything that will hasten liberalism’s end. Trump simply beating Hillary Clinton is not good enough for me. Any Republican asshole can beat her —— with conservative votes in the bank. Take this to the bank as well —— he ain’t getting mine.

This cartoon pretty much sums up an establishment Republican listening to conservatives about anything:


signe_wilkinson_current_cartoon_2016-03-05_5_.jpg
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ca...e_wilkinson_current_cartoon_2016-03-05_5_.jpg
 
Why do all the pro-Bork articles being submitted fail to mention his betrayal of the DoJ, his superiors and the American people during his most famous action, the betrayal of the American people and his lack of integrity and ethics when he was called upon to show that integrity and ethics during the Saturday Night Massacre? He became the most despised man in America during that show of cowardice and betrayal.

This was my only problem with Bork. If he had any integrity at all, he would have followed Richardson's and Ruckelshaus' examples and told Nixon no and gladly been fired. But instead, he just did what he was told.

It would have been something if Nixon ended up firing the entire DoJ because he couldn't find anyone to do the dirty work of firing Cox, but with men like Bork in DC, hewould have always found someone.
 
Loretta Lynch asks not to be considered for Supreme Court vacancy...

Attorney General Lynch asks not to be considered for Supreme Court vacancy
Tue Mar 8, 2016 - U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch asked not to be considered as a nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last month, the Justice Department said on Tuesday.
Lynch, 56, was rumored to be under consideration by Democratic President Barack Obama. She is held in high regard within the administration, received bipartisan support for her nomination as attorney general and would be the first black woman to serve on the Supreme Court. "Given the urgent issues before the Department of Justice, she asked not to be considered for the position," the department said in a statement. In recent weeks, other names have emerged on Obama's short list, including Sri Srinivasan, Jane Kelly and Paul Watford, all of whom serve as federal appeals court judges.

r

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch testifies before a House Appropriations subcommittee on the Justice's Department budget in Washington​

In an interview with Fox News last week, Lynch responded to speculation she was being vetted for the job. "I haven't had those conversations. I'm very happy with my job," Lynch said. Justice Department spokeswoman Melanie Newman said that while Lynch was deeply grateful for the support of those who suggested her as a high court nominee, "she is honored to serve as attorney general, and she is fully committed to carrying out the work of the Department of Justice for the remainder of her term."

The process of filling the spot that was held by Scalia, one of the court's most conservative justices, has ignited a partisan battle in Washington. Republicans who control the U.S. Senate do not want to see the court shift ideologically to the left and have said they will not hold a vote on Obama's nominee. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the winner of the Nov. 8 presidential election.

Attorney General Lynch asks not to be considered for Supreme Court vacancy
 
Joe Biden is not a member of the Obama administration. The VP is a member of the legislative branch, not the executive branch.

Shhhhhhh!

You're breaking Plugs heart!

You'd better refresh your civics. You just failed Question #1 on Article 1.
Article 1 is about the Legislative branch. It says that the VP is the president of the Senate.


Yes it does, but the question is "Who are the members of the legislative branch?" If you read Article l thoroughly it lays out the composition, a Senate and it's powers and duties, House of Representatives, it's powers and duties. It tells how these members of the legislature are selected and the qualifications necessary to make them eligible for their particular offices. (Some amendments will happen later). But the only mention of the V.P. is his duty to preside over the Senate "but (he) shall have no vote unless they be equally divided." No mention anywhere of any mechanism by which he becomes an actual member of either body, and the very next clause states "The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States." This indicates his affiliation with the Executive Branch, which when you read on to Article ll will be reconfirmed.
 
Joe Biden is not a member of the Obama administration. The VP is a member of the legislative branch, not the executive branch.

Shhhhhhh!

You're breaking Plugs heart!

You'd better refresh your civics. You just failed Question #1 on Article 1.
Article 1 is about the Legislative branch. It says that the VP is the president of the Senate.


Yes it does, but the question is "Who are the members of the legislative branch?" If you read Article l thoroughly it lays out the composition, a Senate and it's powers and duties, House of Representatives, it's powers and duties. It tells how these members of the legislature are selected and the qualifications necessary to make them eligible for their particular offices. (Some amendments will happen later). But the only mention of the V.P. is his duty to preside over the Senate "but (he) shall have no vote unless they be equally divided." No mention anywhere of any mechanism by which he becomes an actual member of either body, and the very next clause states "The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States." This indicates his affiliation with the Executive Branch, which when you read on to Article ll will be reconfirmed.
You're fucking really dumb. The VP is the President of the Senate. That means he is a member of the legislative branch.

Fucking dumbass.
 
You'd better refresh your civics. You just failed Question #1 on Article 1.

Thank you.

I did that and, y'know....there's not a word in there about breaking anyone's heart.

Also not a word concerning whether a plagiarizing idiot might be in any way ineligible for either the vice presidency or The Supreme Court.

Maybe you have an earlier edition - a draft that the party somehow failed to get enacted?
 

Forum List

Back
Top