Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Sure we are reading the Constitution literally...after all, money IS free speech according to the Citizen's United decision. So if folks decide to fill coffers after this event, well..seems like SCOTUS would feel vindicated!The Dems who interpret the Constitution to fit their ideology, now are wanting to read it literally?
Thomas was confirmed, and you have the wrong Jew.Bork and Ginsburg. Ronald Reagan Supreme Court candidates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaNope, modern history.The Dems who interpret the Constitution to fit their ideology, now are wanting to read it literally?
"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House, and at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, with three Democrats -- Joe Biden, Al Gore and Paul Simon -- not voting at all because, presumably, they were busy running for president that year."
Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year
REAGAN NOMINATES ANTHONY KENNEDY TO SUPREME COURT
By LINDA GREENHOUSE, Special to the New York Times
Published: November 12, 1987
WASHINGTON, Nov. 11— President Reagan, stung by the failure of two nominations to the Supreme Court in the last three weeks, today nominated Judge Anthony M. Kennedy and expressed the hope that he could be confirmed quickly in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation"
REAGAN NOMINATES ANTHONY KENNEDY TO SUPREME COURT
After Bork and Thiomas, Dems killed those day
Ginsberg confirmed 96-3. Like I said Dems poisoned the process with Bork and then Thomas
Douglas H. Ginsburg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sure we are reading the Constitution literally...after all, money IS free speech according to the Citizen's United decision. So if folks decide to fill coffers after this event, well..seems like SCOTUS would feel vindicated!The Dems who interpret the Constitution to fit their ideology, now are wanting to read it literally?
Sure we are reading the Constitution literally...after all, money IS free speech according to the Citizen's United decision. So if folks decide to fill coffers after this event, well..seems like SCOTUS would feel vindicated!The Dems who interpret the Constitution to fit their ideology, now are wanting to read it literally?
If Unions can advertise so can Corporations.
Sure we are reading the Constitution literally...after all, money IS free speech according to the Citizen's United decision. So if folks decide to fill coffers after this event, well..seems like SCOTUS would feel vindicated!The Dems who interpret the Constitution to fit their ideology, now are wanting to read it literally?
If Unions can advertise so can Corporations.
It's not about advertising.
Link or you're lying!
I doubt they'll get as much as the Right has raised off Benghazi.
Sure we are reading the Constitution literally...after all, money IS free speech according to the Citizen's United decision. So if folks decide to fill coffers after this event, well..seems like SCOTUS would feel vindicated!The Dems who interpret the Constitution to fit their ideology, now are wanting to read it literally?
If Unions can advertise so can Corporations.
It's not about advertising.
Yes it is about advertising.
Even Justices Roberts shook his head no when President Obama said it was about money at one of his State of Union Addresses.
Rules of giving to campaigns still remain and are restricted to a certain amount.
Citizens United v. FEC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries.[1][5] The Supreme Court reversed this decision, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from making independent expenditures and "electioneering communications".
Here is the text from the email:
Breaking news from the GOP debate stage:
In tonight's debate, the Republican presidential candidates were asked whether or not President Obama should nominate a new justice to the Supreme Court. They said Congress should block, delay, or otherwise refuse to allow the President to fill this vacancy.
There's no excuse for this, You. It's putting partisan politics above theConstitution and the rule of law, and it's appalling to hear from any public official -- let alone someone who thinks he should be the next President of the United States.
And they're not alone. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell -- who is responsible for scheduling votes in the Senate -- has already said that "this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President."
But no matter what Mitch McConnell says, President Obama is going to fulfill his constitutional obligation to nominate a successor to fill thevacant seat on the Supreme Court -- and that nominee deserves a fair hearing in the Senate.
Add your name to call on Republicans to follow the Constitution instead of obstructing the confirmation of our next Supreme Court justice:
I stand with President Obama and Democrats -- will you join me?
Thanks,
Democrats
The OP will now show us where he sees the word "fundraising" in the original email, not in the spin on his RW site.
Of course it is.Sure we are reading the Constitution literally...after all, money IS free speech according to the Citizen's United decision. So if folks decide to fill coffers after this event, well..seems like SCOTUS would feel vindicated!The Dems who interpret the Constitution to fit their ideology, now are wanting to read it literally?
If Unions can advertise so can Corporations.
It's not about advertising.
I'm not sure about the Constitution, but I do know that not giving Obama's nomination a fair hearing is the keynote of the Republican 'Mission Statement'.Here is the text from the email:
Breaking news from the GOP debate stage:
In tonight's debate, the Republican presidential candidates were asked whether or not President Obama should nominate a new justice to the Supreme Court. They said Congress should block, delay, or otherwise refuse to allow the President to fill this vacancy.
There's no excuse for this, You. It's putting partisan politics above theConstitution and the rule of law, and it's appalling to hear from any public official -- let alone someone who thinks he should be the next President of the United States.
And they're not alone. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell -- who is responsible for scheduling votes in the Senate -- has already said that "this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President."
But no matter what Mitch McConnell says, President Obama is going to fulfill his constitutional obligation to nominate a successor to fill thevacant seat on the Supreme Court -- and that nominee deserves a fair hearing in the Senate.
Add your name to call on Republicans to follow the Constitution instead of obstructing the confirmation of our next Supreme Court justice:
I stand with President Obama and Democrats -- will you join me?
Thanks,
Democrats
The OP will now show us where he sees the word "fundraising" in the original email, not in the spin on his RW site.
ROFL! That's funny. Democrats never put partisan politics above the law, do they? Obama followed the Constitution to the letter, didn't he?
Here's a bit of news for you: Nothing in the Constitution says the Senate has to give Obama's nomination a fair hearing.
I'm not sure about the Constitution, but I do know that not giving Obama's nomination a fair hearing is the keynote of the Republican 'Mission Statement'.Here is the text from the email:
Breaking news from the GOP debate stage:
In tonight's debate, the Republican presidential candidates were asked whether or not President Obama should nominate a new justice to the Supreme Court. They said Congress should block, delay, or otherwise refuse to allow the President to fill this vacancy.
There's no excuse for this, You. It's putting partisan politics above theConstitution and the rule of law, and it's appalling to hear from any public official -- let alone someone who thinks he should be the next President of the United States.
And they're not alone. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell -- who is responsible for scheduling votes in the Senate -- has already said that "this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President."
But no matter what Mitch McConnell says, President Obama is going to fulfill his constitutional obligation to nominate a successor to fill thevacant seat on the Supreme Court -- and that nominee deserves a fair hearing in the Senate.
Add your name to call on Republicans to follow the Constitution instead of obstructing the confirmation of our next Supreme Court justice:
I stand with President Obama and Democrats -- will you join me?
Thanks,
Democrats
The OP will now show us where he sees the word "fundraising" in the original email, not in the spin on his RW site.
ROFL! That's funny. Democrats never put partisan politics above the law, do they? Obama followed the Constitution to the letter, didn't he?
Here's a bit of news for you: Nothing in the Constitution says the Senate has to give Obama's nomination a fair hearing.
I'm not sure about the Constitution, but I do know that not giving Obama's nomination a fair hearing is the keynote of the Republican 'Mission Statement'.Here is the text from the email:
Breaking news from the GOP debate stage:
In tonight's debate, the Republican presidential candidates were asked whether or not President Obama should nominate a new justice to the Supreme Court. They said Congress should block, delay, or otherwise refuse to allow the President to fill this vacancy.
There's no excuse for this, You. It's putting partisan politics above theConstitution and the rule of law, and it's appalling to hear from any public official -- let alone someone who thinks he should be the next President of the United States.
And they're not alone. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell -- who is responsible for scheduling votes in the Senate -- has already said that "this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President."
But no matter what Mitch McConnell says, President Obama is going to fulfill his constitutional obligation to nominate a successor to fill thevacant seat on the Supreme Court -- and that nominee deserves a fair hearing in the Senate.
Add your name to call on Republicans to follow the Constitution instead of obstructing the confirmation of our next Supreme Court justice:
I stand with President Obama and Democrats -- will you join me?
Thanks,
Democrats
The OP will now show us where he sees the word "fundraising" in the original email, not in the spin on his RW site.
ROFL! That's funny. Democrats never put partisan politics above the law, do they? Obama followed the Constitution to the letter, didn't he?
Here's a bit of news for you: Nothing in the Constitution says the Senate has to give Obama's nomination a fair hearing.
All career politicians will raise money off the dudes death... No doubt.Who believes that Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders have raised funds using Scalia's death?
Now....who believes that Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have?
Let's be honest, dummies. Just this once.
Here is the text from the email:
Breaking news from the GOP debate stage:
In tonight's debate, the Republican presidential candidates were asked whether or not President Obama should nominate a new justice to the Supreme Court. They said Congress should block, delay, or otherwise refuse to allow the President to fill this vacancy.
There's no excuse for this, You. It's putting partisan politics above theConstitution and the rule of law, and it's appalling to hear from any public official -- let alone someone who thinks he should be the next President of the United States.
And they're not alone. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell -- who is responsible for scheduling votes in the Senate -- has already said that "this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President."
But no matter what Mitch McConnell says, President Obama is going to fulfill his constitutional obligation to nominate a successor to fill thevacant seat on the Supreme Court -- and that nominee deserves a fair hearing in the Senate.
Add your name to call on Republicans to follow the Constitution instead of obstructing the confirmation of our next Supreme Court justice:
I stand with President Obama and Democrats -- will you join me?
Thanks,
Democrats
The OP will now show us where he sees the word "fundraising" in the original email, not in the spin on his RW site.
Link or you're lying!
I doubt they'll get as much as the Right has raised off Benghazi.
Link or you're lying.the GOP has raised millions off the American deaths at Benghazi.Link or you're lying!
I doubt they'll get as much as the Right has raised off Benghazi.
I never received any fundraising emails that mentioned Benghazi, and I get plenty of emails asking for money.Link or you're lying!
I doubt they'll get as much as the Right has raised off Benghazi.
Go rant against the Jews some more. Only a retard denies that the GOP has raised millions off the American deaths at Benghazi.
Here is the text from the email:
Breaking news from the GOP debate stage:
In tonight's debate, the Republican presidential candidates were asked whether or not President Obama should nominate a new justice to the Supreme Court. They said Congress should block, delay, or otherwise refuse to allow the President to fill this vacancy.
There's no excuse for this, You. It's putting partisan politics above theConstitution and the rule of law, and it's appalling to hear from any public official -- let alone someone who thinks he should be the next President of the United States.
And they're not alone. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell -- who is responsible for scheduling votes in the Senate -- has already said that "this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President."
But no matter what Mitch McConnell says, President Obama is going to fulfill his constitutional obligation to nominate a successor to fill thevacant seat on the Supreme Court -- and that nominee deserves a fair hearing in the Senate.
Add your name to call on Republicans to follow the Constitution instead of obstructing the confirmation of our next Supreme Court justice:
I stand with President Obama and Democrats -- will you join me?
Thanks,
Democrats
The OP will now show us where he sees the word "fundraising" in the original email, not in the spin on his RW site.
ROFL! That's funny. Democrats never put partisan politics above the law, do they? Obama followed the Constitution to the letter, didn't he?
Here's a bit of news for you: Nothing in the Constitution says the Senate has to give Obama's nomination a fair hearing.
