P@triot
Diamond Member
Exactly! So why do you Democrats only appoint radical activists rather than impartial Justices who will uphold the U.S. Constitution?!?Lol what I want... that’s the thing about Judges, they’re supposed to rule impartially.

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Exactly! So why do you Democrats only appoint radical activists rather than impartial Justices who will uphold the U.S. Constitution?!?Lol what I want... that’s the thing about Judges, they’re supposed to rule impartially.

minimum 30 years, if the left has taught the country anything its how to appoint juristsMeh. The pendulum will swing back eventually. Hopefully before it’s too late.
Roberts will be the only hope left for impartiality. And I only say that because the office of Chief Justice seems like it’s weighed on him to vote neutrally in the past.Actually, it might. We'll see. The decision on the travel ban yesterday was expected and was based in law. The decision on the baker was a skillful punt of the question back to Colorado. We'll see.Lol what I want... that’s the thing about Judges, they’re supposed to rule impartially. not the way they or I want. But that doesn’t count for the SC anymore.Gorsuch was as much of a constitutionalist judge as you'll realistically be able find. Be honest, you want activist judges... as long as you agree with them.Yes through blocking Gorsuch until the Senate and Presidency were one party, and through changing the rule to a simple majority vote, republicans have paved the way for the SC to be a group of activist judges.The Constitution says a majority is all that's needed. Garland didn't have a majority. Gorsuch did.
Capische?
Kennedy takes a dump on his own legacy, letting the dotard replace him with a sycophant
minimum 30 years, if the left has taught the country anything its how to appoint juristsMeh. The pendulum will swing back eventually. Hopefully before it’s too late.
Progressives saved your ass from illegal warrantless search and seizure of you historical cell phone locations. You're welcome.Why do you sad losers care more about hurting liberals - who are Americans the people protected by the constitution and bill of rights - rather than getting and explaining good policy?
We are cheering for getting good policies.
If progessives has there way we would have no bill of rights
Let’s hope Ginsburg gorks now too!![]()
The left will keep her on life support hoping for a senate swap in 2018.
But it's not going to happen.
AZ and MO will go GOP.
They will likely have 52-53 when done.
Then Ruth can die (like she should) in pain (I hope) and we'll replace her with someone that makes Robert Bork look like a leftist.
deanrd must be crapping his welfare purchased britches.
Figure out why he didn't.Kennedy takes a dump on his own legacy, letting the dotard replace him with a sycophant
I do wish he would have held on till after Nov so the new congress could have had a part in it.
Is this her?Justice Anthony Kennedy to Retire From Supreme Court
YES!!!!!!!!! President Trump gets his 2nd SC nominee! WOO HOO! Liberal heads EXPLODE!
Excellent news, European Patriots today are happy for our American Patriotic Brothers and Sisters, get a good Right-Wing Judge to replace and also a man or a woman in their early 40s and also hope the below ugly Communist departs very soon, then another Right-Wing Judge to replace again a man or a woman in their early 40s, I add which one is the oldest on the Conservative section whoever that is get them to retire and then The Donald can replace them with a younger Judge and then with that you can have 6-3 Decisions for a very long time and with this you can have that Right-Wing Court for 20-30 years.
The ugly Communist below is actually already dead, she has been dead for twenty years, they embalmed her and they keep her animated by Witchcraft and offerings of aborted babies to Satan or whatever.
I have to say they did a great embalming job!
View attachment 201465
She sometimes gives off the odor of decomposition so they have to spray:
View attachment 201466
and he was only able to do that by adding 2 more seats to the bench [look that up to be sure], imagine if trump did that?...lol...trump may leave office with a 7-2 benchWe still live with he horrible legacy of FDR's left wing asshole court.
Kennedy takes a dump on his own legacy, letting the dotard replace him with a sycophant
I do wish he would have held on till after Nov so the new congress could have had a part in it.
Figure out why he didn't.Kennedy takes a dump on his own legacy, letting the dotard replace him with a sycophant
I do wish he would have held on till after Nov so the new congress could have had a part in it.
minimum 30 years, if the left has taught the country anything its how to appoint juristsMeh. The pendulum will swing back eventually. Hopefully before it’s too late.
We still live with he horrible legacy of FDR's left wing asshole court.
Roberts will be the only hope left for impartiality. And I only say that because the office of Chief Justice seems like it’s weighed on him to vote neutrally in the past.Actually, it might. We'll see. The decision on the travel ban yesterday was expected and was based in law. The decision on the baker was a skillful punt of the question back to Colorado. We'll see.Lol what I want... that’s the thing about Judges, they’re supposed to rule impartially. not the way they or I want. But that doesn’t count for the SC anymore.Gorsuch was as much of a constitutionalist judge as you'll realistically be able find. Be honest, you want activist judges... as long as you agree with them.Yes through blocking Gorsuch until the Senate and Presidency were one party, and through changing the rule to a simple majority vote, republicans have paved the way for the SC to be a group of activist judges.The Constitution says a majority is all that's needed. Garland didn't have a majority. Gorsuch did.
Capische?
Roberts will be the only hope left for impartiality. And I only say that because the office of Chief Justice seems like it’s weighed on him to vote neutrally in the past.Actually, it might. We'll see. The decision on the travel ban yesterday was expected and was based in law. The decision on the baker was a skillful punt of the question back to Colorado. We'll see.Lol what I want... that’s the thing about Judges, they’re supposed to rule impartially. not the way they or I want. But that doesn’t count for the SC anymore.Gorsuch was as much of a constitutionalist judge as you'll realistically be able find. Be honest, you want activist judges... as long as you agree with them.Yes through blocking Gorsuch until the Senate and Presidency were one party, and through changing the rule to a simple majority vote, republicans have paved the way for the SC to be a group of activist judges.The Constitution says a majority is all that's needed. Garland didn't have a majority. Gorsuch did.
Capische?
EDIT - she was nominated to SCOTUS by Clinton my badwe can only hopeThis will put the left over the edge...
Bracing for a Supreme Court Retirement Bombshell
I read your article and it's well worth reading. It claims that it's an antique courtesy that a justice retire in the administration of the party that chose him (or her) and within the first two years of a president's term. Wow. Payback by Kennedy, generously. He's 81 and was rumored even last year to be on the edge of retirement.
Ginsberg says she won't while Trump is prez, but she IS 85, and pretty clearly failing right now: my guess is that the matter won't be left to her, but to nature. Soon, soon.
fwiw, she was appointed by Reagan, what a disaster that pick has been; but she should be retiring now as wee, based an "antique courtesy"
It's remarkable how short-sighted politicians can be.I thought it was stupid of the Democrats to get rid of the option in the first place for all nominations except the Supreme Court. Once it was gone, there was nothing stopping the GOP from getting rid of the exception for the Supreme Court
.