Add AGEism To The List Of The Democrats' List of 'ISM's

[22lcidw]

Highly doubtful that it would happen, but I can think of no one more qualified than Obama for the Supreme Court.

I MIGHT agree with Barry that he is a Constitutional SCHOLAR, just neither a believer in nor a defender of the Constitution. Barry spent more time as President violating both the Constitution and the Rule of Law than he did standing up for, upholding, and defending the US Constitution.

Barry violated and was held accountable by the USSC for violating the Constitution several times as President, and his administration LOST more than his fair share of Constitutional challenges as President.

How many SC cases did that fat orange fool lose?

How many SC cases did that fat orange fool lose?

is there any chance Trump will be considered for SCOTUS?


NO?

they why bring him up?

Odd, but bringing up Obama's record with the SC doesn't seem to be an attempt to derail the thread.

Odd, but bringing up Obama's record with the SC

Considering the discussion is about seating a justice, his 'judicial' record is pertinent.

I have never heard of Trump being considered for the court.

There is no constitutional requirement that a Supreme Court Justice be a lawyer or have any legal experience whatsoever. So, Trump could be appointed to SCOTUS, but so could Pee-Wee Herman.

and still nothing to do with the OP.

Do you people read the OPs, or just bounce in with partisan rhetoric?

I was responding to your inquiry about Trump.

You wrote that you never heard of Trump being considered for the court. I merely responded that Trump could be appointed to SCOTUS because there are no Constitutional requirements to sit on SCOTUS. Hardly partisan rhetoric.

Doesn't matter. He's a partisan prick.

The Supreme Court is not as one way as you promote. If it was Progs in the same numbers it would be.

 

[BULLDOG]

Highly doubtful that it would happen, but I can think of no one more qualified than Obama for the Supreme Court.

I MIGHT agree with Barry that he is a Constitutional SCHOLAR, just neither a believer in nor a defender of the Constitution. Barry spent more time as President violating both the Constitution and the Rule of Law than he did standing up for, upholding, and defending the US Constitution.

Barry violated and was held accountable by the USSC for violating the Constitution several times as President, and his administration LOST more than his fair share of Constitutional challenges as President.

How many SC cases did that fat orange fool lose?

How many SC cases did that fat orange fool lose?

is there any chance Trump will be considered for SCOTUS?


NO?

they why bring him up?

Odd, but bringing up Obama's record with the SC doesn't seem to be an attempt to derail the thread.

Odd, but bringing up Obama's record with the SC

Considering the discussion is about seating a justice, his 'judicial' record is pertinent.

I have never heard of Trump being considered for the court.

There is no constitutional requirement that a Supreme Court Justice be a lawyer or have any legal experience whatsoever. So, Trump could be appointed to SCOTUS, but so could Pee-Wee Herman.

and still nothing to do with the OP.

Do you people read the OPs, or just bounce in with partisan rhetoric?

I was responding to your inquiry about Trump.

You wrote that you never heard of Trump being considered for the court. I merely responded that Trump could be appointed to SCOTUS because there are no Constitutional requirements to sit on SCOTUS. Hardly partisan rhetoric.

Doesn't matter. He's a partisan prick.

The Supreme Court is not as one way as you promote. If it was Progs in the same numbers it would be.

The right promoted the idea of a partisan court. Why do you think turtle boy blocked all those court appointments, including Garland for the SC? He intentionally kept those positions open until they could appoint reliably partisan right wing judges.

 

[easyt65]

The Democrats, Fake News Media, and snowflakes are specifically targeting this judge over age - thus Ageism.

It's really Ironic since the Democrat Party gave their nomination to an old, racist (throwback to the old sheet-wearing Democrats he used to run with), confused, dementia-ravaged dinosaur who doesn't know where he is half the time.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Highly doubtful that it would happen, but I can think of no one more qualified than Obama for the Supreme Court.

I MIGHT agree with Barry that he is a Constitutional SCHOLAR, just neither a believer in nor a defender of the Constitution. Barry spent more time as President violating both the Constitution and the Rule of Law than he did standing up for, upholding, and defending the US Constitution.

Barry violated and was held accountable by the USSC for violating the Constitution several times as President, and his administration LOST more than his fair share of Constitutional challenges as President.

How many SC cases did that fat orange fool lose?

How many SC cases did that fat orange fool lose?

is there any chance Trump will be considered for SCOTUS?


NO?

they why bring him up?

Odd, but bringing up Obama's record with the SC doesn't seem to be an attempt to derail the thread.

Odd, but bringing up Obama's record with the SC

Considering the discussion is about seating a justice, his 'judicial' record is pertinent.

I have never heard of Trump being considered for the court.

There is no constitutional requirement that a Supreme Court Justice be a lawyer or have any legal experience whatsoever. So, Trump could be appointed to SCOTUS, but so could Pee-Wee Herman.

and still nothing to do with the OP.

Do you people read the OPs, or just bounce in with partisan rhetoric?

I was responding to your inquiry about Trump.

You wrote that you never heard of Trump being considered for the court. I merely responded that Trump could be appointed to SCOTUS because there are no Constitutional requirements to sit on SCOTUS. Hardly partisan rhetoric.

Democrats and snowflakes are so desperate to take back the majority of the USSC they are bullying, badgering, pressuring (& threatening) an elderly American...

That is what this thrrad is about....this is the topic snowflakes keep attempting to divert attention away from.

What's a "thrrad"?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Highly doubtful that it would happen, but I can think of no one more qualified than Obama for the Supreme Court.

I MIGHT agree with Barry that he is a Constitutional SCHOLAR, just neither a believer in nor a defender of the Constitution. Barry spent more time as President violating both the Constitution and the Rule of Law than he did standing up for, upholding, and defending the US Constitution.

Barry violated and was held accountable by the USSC for violating the Constitution several times as President, and his administration LOST more than his fair share of Constitutional challenges as President.

How many SC cases did that fat orange fool lose?

How many SC cases did that fat orange fool lose?

is there any chance Trump will be considered for SCOTUS?


NO?

they why bring him up?

Odd, but bringing up Obama's record with the SC doesn't seem to be an attempt to derail the thread.

Odd, but bringing up Obama's record with the SC

Considering the discussion is about seating a justice, his 'judicial' record is pertinent.

I have never heard of Trump being considered for the court.

There is no constitutional requirement that a Supreme Court Justice be a lawyer or have any legal experience whatsoever. So, Trump could be appointed to SCOTUS, but so could Pee-Wee Herman.

and still nothing to do with the OP.

Do you people read the OPs, or just bounce in with partisan rhetoric?

I was responding to your inquiry about Trump.

You wrote that you never heard of Trump being considered for the court. I merely responded that Trump could be appointed to SCOTUS because there are no Constitutional requirements to sit on SCOTUS. Hardly partisan rhetoric.

Democrats and snowflakes are so desperate to take back the majority of the USSC they are bullying, badgering, pressuring (& threatening) an elderly American...

That is what this thrrad is about....this is the topic snowflakes keep attempting to divert attention away from.

What's a "thrrad"?

Democrats never learn their lesson. Breyer is being pressured to retire because of Ruth Bader-Ginsberg who held on too long and died during a Republican administration. She received the same pressure to get out, but screwed up. If Breyer died before January 2023, he will be OK. Anytime after that, the anticipated Republican control in the Senate can sit on the vacancy until they hopefully take back the White House in January, 2025.

 

[easyt65]

What's a "thrrad"?

I see you don't speak 'occasional PC Laptop Fat-Finger' - translation: Thread

 

[BULLDOG]

The Democrats, Fake News Media, and snowflakes are specifically targeting this judge over age - thus Ageism.

It's really Ironic since the Democrat Party gave their nomination to an old, racist (throwback to the old sheet-wearing Democrats he used to run with), confused, dementia-ravaged dinosaur who doesn't know where he is half the time.

Yet he was sharp enough to kick trump's ass.

 

[Couchpotato]

Highly doubtful that it would happen, but I can think of no one more qualified than Obama for the Supreme Court.

I MIGHT agree with Barry that he is a Constitutional SCHOLAR, just neither a believer in nor a defender of the Constitution. Barry spent more time as President violating both the Constitution and the Rule of Law than he did standing up for, upholding, and defending the US Constitution.

Barry violated and was held accountable by the USSC for violating the Constitution several times as President, and his administration LOST more than his fair share of Constitutional challenges as President.

How many SC cases did that fat orange fool lose?

How many SC cases did that fat orange fool lose?

is there any chance Trump will be considered for SCOTUS?


NO?

they why bring him up?

Odd, but bringing up Obama's record with the SC doesn't seem to be an attempt to derail the thread.

Odd, but bringing up Obama's record with the SC

Considering the discussion is about seating a justice, his 'judicial' record is pertinent.

I have never heard of Trump being considered for the court.

There is no constitutional requirement that a Supreme Court Justice be a lawyer or have any legal experience whatsoever. So, Trump could be appointed to SCOTUS, but so could Pee-Wee Herman.

and still nothing to do with the OP.

Do you people read the OPs, or just bounce in with partisan rhetoric?

I was responding to your inquiry about Trump.

You wrote that you never heard of Trump being considered for the court. I merely responded that Trump could be appointed to SCOTUS because there are no Constitutional requirements to sit on SCOTUS. Hardly partisan rhetoric.

Doesn't matter. He's a partisan prick.

The Supreme Court is not as one way as you promote. If it was Progs in the same numbers it would be.

The right promoted the idea of a partisan court. Why do you think turtle boy blocked all those court appointments, including Garland for the SC? He intentionally kept those positions open until they could appoint reliably partisan right wing judges.

The only judicial nomination that was “blocked” was Garland. And he wouldnt have gotten confirmed had they brought it to a vote anyway. President Obama left a huge number of judicial seats open by just not nominating people. President Trump didn’t make that mistake. You can be mad about that but at least be mad at the right person.....

 

[JLW]

Breyer needs to resign NOW. Like RBG, he thinks he is irreplaceable, He is not. His ego is getting in the way of what is good for the country.

As for these accusations of agism, that is a silly argument. Health and age matter in Supreme Court nominees. You rarely see Republicans or Democrats appoint anyone in their late 60s and above to any federal courtships. Republicans are the masters of stacking the court with federal judges in their 30s and 40s.

Agism has nothing to do with it. It is about judicial philosophy and control of the courts.

 

[easyt65]

Yet he was sharp enough to kick trump's ass.

Biden, not once, EVER, did he / has he in his 47 year career, bested Donald Trump.

Biden has been wrong on every Foreign Policy decision he has ever made, and he is keeping that streak in tact.

He attempted to take credit for Trump's successes - claiming vaccines did not even exist until he beczame President, despite the world watching former VP Biden getting his vaccine shots weeks before he became President.

The Presidents of Both Guatemala and Mexico have publicly declared the Cartel Drug / Human / Child Trafficking, Open Border, Inhumane illegal children Disaster is the fault of Biden's failed Immigration Policy that consisted in reversing every policy and ending all agreements with Mexico and South American nations THAT WERE WORKING.

Biden even Co-Conspirator Traitorous LOSER in Barry's Failed Coup Attempt.

If you are talking about the (stolen) election, Biden did NOT get 81 Million votes by himself, as the audits are beginning to show. Ga - 330,000 of 600,000 have no Chain of Custody required paperwork....which hundreds of thousands of votes brought in in the middle of the night in suitcases / which hundreds of thousands of votes brought out from under tables after the GOP pole monitors were sent home / which thousands of votes submitted from 1 tiny apartment probably would not have.

 

[BULLDOG]

Highly doubtful that it would happen, but I can think of no one more qualified than Obama for the Supreme Court.

I MIGHT agree with Barry that he is a Constitutional SCHOLAR, just neither a believer in nor a defender of the Constitution. Barry spent more time as President violating both the Constitution and the Rule of Law than he did standing up for, upholding, and defending the US Constitution.

Barry violated and was held accountable by the USSC for violating the Constitution several times as President, and his administration LOST more than his fair share of Constitutional challenges as President.

How many SC cases did that fat orange fool lose?

How many SC cases did that fat orange fool lose?

is there any chance Trump will be considered for SCOTUS?


NO?

they why bring him up?

Odd, but bringing up Obama's record with the SC doesn't seem to be an attempt to derail the thread.

Odd, but bringing up Obama's record with the SC

Considering the discussion is about seating a justice, his 'judicial' record is pertinent.

I have never heard of Trump being considered for the court.

There is no constitutional requirement that a Supreme Court Justice be a lawyer or have any legal experience whatsoever. So, Trump could be appointed to SCOTUS, but so could Pee-Wee Herman.

and still nothing to do with the OP.

Do you people read the OPs, or just bounce in with partisan rhetoric?

I was responding to your inquiry about Trump.

You wrote that you never heard of Trump being considered for the court. I merely responded that Trump could be appointed to SCOTUS because there are no Constitutional requirements to sit on SCOTUS. Hardly partisan rhetoric.

Doesn't matter. He's a partisan prick.

The Supreme Court is not as one way as you promote. If it was Progs in the same numbers it would be.

The right promoted the idea of a partisan court. Why do you think turtle boy blocked all those court appointments, including Garland for the SC? He intentionally kept those positions open until they could appoint reliably partisan right wing judges.

The only judicial nomination that was “blocked” was Garland. And he wouldnt have gotten confirmed had they brought it to a vote anyway. President Obama left a huge number of judicial seats open by just not nominating people. President Trump didn’t make that mistake. You can be mad about that but at least be mad at the right person.....

PolitiFact - Fact-check: Why Barack Obama failed to fill over 100 judgeships

President Donald Trump often celebrates the large number of judicial appointments he’s been able to make. Federal judges

www.politifact.com

 

[BULLDOG]

Yet he was sharp enough to kick trump's ass.

Biden, not once, EVER, did he / has he in his 47 year career, bested Donald Trump.

Biden has been wrong on every Foreign Policy decision he has ever made, and he is keeping that streak in tact.

He attempted to take credit for Trump's successes - claiming vaccines did not even exist until he beczame President, despite the world watching former VP Biden getting his vaccine shots weeks before he became President.

The Presidents of Both Guatemala and Mexico have publicly declared the Cartel Drug / Human / Child Trafficking, Open Border, Inhumane illegal children Disaster is the fault of Biden's failed Immigration Policy that consisted in reversing every policy and ending all agreements with Mexico and South American nations THAT WERE WORKING.

Biden even Co-Conspirator Traitorous LOSER in Barry's Failed Coup Attempt.

If you are talking about the (stolen) election, Biden did NOT get 81 Million votes by himself, as the audits are beginning to show. Ga - 330,000 of 600,000 have no Chain of Custody required paperwork....which hundreds of thousands of votes brought in in the middle of the night in suitcases / which hundreds of thousands of votes brought out from under tables after the GOP pole monitors were sent home / which thousands of votes submitted from 1 tiny apartment probably would not have.

You keep telling yourself that. I'm sure batshit crazy idiots will agree with you.

 

[struth]

Highly doubtful that it would happen, but I can think of no one more qualified than Obama for the Supreme Court.

i can think of 1000s of actual judges that are more qualified

moreover we have not had a president in recent memory who has walked all over the US Constitution and lost more cases before the Court then obama

 

[easyt65]

You keep telling yourself that. I'm sure batshit crazy idiots will agree with you.

They should - the facts back it all up.

 

[BULLDOG]

You keep telling yourself that. I'm sure batshit crazy idiots will agree with you.

They should - the facts back it all up.

Of course they will. I have never known you to not agree with batshit crazy idiots.

 

[easyt65]

You keep telling yourself that. I'm sure batshit crazy idiots will agree with you.

They should - the facts back it all up.

Of course they will. I have never known you to not agree with batshit crazy idiots.

That's because you have never really read any of what I post, end up trying to speak FOR me...and failing miserably, and project / spew BS.

BTW, I have a new 4mo English Bulldog - she has learned to deposit her poop OUTSIDE. Instead of continuing to drop your here inside USMB, perhaps you need to be trained to take your OUTSIDE.

 

[BULLDOG]

You keep telling yourself that. I'm sure batshit crazy idiots will agree with you.

They should - the facts back it all up.

Of course they will. I have never known you to not agree with batshit crazy idiots.

That's because you have never really read any of what I post, end up trying to speak FOR me...and failing miserably, and project / spew BS.

BTW, I have a new 4mo English Bulldog - she has learned to deposit her poop OUTSIDE. Instead of continuing to drop your here inside USMB, perhaps you need to be trained to take your OUTSIDE.

Your crazy posts speak for themselves. BooBoo.

 

[bodecea]

Highly doubtful that it would happen, but I can think of no one more qualified than Obama for the Supreme Court.

OMIGOD! Can you just imagine all the trump fluffer heads?

 

[BULLDOG]

Highly doubtful that it would happen, but I can think of no one more qualified than Obama for the Supreme Court.

OMIGOD! Can you just imagine all the trump fluffer heads? View attachment 502117

Beyond all of Obama's other qualifications, that would be the sweetest.

 

[easyt65]

to be trained to take your OUTSIDE.

Your crazy posts speak for themselves. BooBoo.

Yes they do, and the fact that you can't factually, realistically, coherently respond to them speaks for itself.