Bill Barr's DOJ changed the rules to allow election interference and investigations

[Nostra]

How dare Trump fill a spot on the SC as required by the Constitution.

Show me in the constitution where that is a "REQITEMENT"

You can't because you lied it was required.

Here ya go, Stupid.

I always get a hoot out of exposing your ignorance...............


Article II

• Section 2
  • Clause 2
  • He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Funny how meaner gene has to ignore this post since he can't spin it away.

 

[meaner gene]

Okay. Now explain how being a wise Latina woman is a qualification for the Supreme Court.

As there are no constitutional requirement for a justice on the supreme court, someone can add anything as a qualification.

 

[BS Filter]

No you did not. She never said that was her qualification.

She most certainly did. It's recorded on video.

This is where selective video clips taken out of context to twist an argument fail.

I haven't posted a video clip, so how do you know it's out of context?

 

[BS Filter]

Okay. Now explain how being a wise Latina woman is a qualification for the Supreme Court.

As there are no constitutional requirement for a justice on the supreme court, someone can add anything as a qualification.

So you believe being a Latina woman makes her wise?

 

[BluesLegend]

Evidence was just released that Obama, Biden, and Hillary colluded with Russia to interfere both BEFORE and AFTER a presidential election...then some flaming lib starts this thread.

 

[meaner gene]

YOu are saying the NY DA hasn't seen Trump's tax returns yet, but anonymous sources in that office have leaked the contents of Trump's tax returns to the Fake News NYTs?

How does that work, Stupid?

That's where the leak came from. Prove me wrong.

I can prove you lied, by posting your own words.

They have not seen his returns, as your link proves. Man, you really are stupid.

So which is it. Did they have his returns and leak them like you posted before, or never had them as you just posted.

One way or the other, you lied about where the tax return leaks came from.

 

[meaner gene]

I haven't posted a video clip, so how do you know it's out of context?

Because you quote was just a fraction of a clip of a snippet.

 

[meaner gene]

Okay. Now explain how being a wise Latina woman is a qualification for the Supreme Court.

So you believe being a Latina woman makes her wise?

Only if you believe that being wise, makes her a Latina woman.

Read it in context, and not by taking a fraction of a clip of a snippet.

 

[Coyote]

I really hope so...I've never seen such corruption of our normally non-political institutions in my life time. If the only thing a Biden win accomplishes is the cleaning up and de-politicizing, and the restoring of norms, rules of behavior...it will be more than enough.

Cleaning up Trump's filthy swamp.

To me, if they pack the court w/10 or more SCOTUS I'd be ecstatic.

I'm extremely conflicted on that frankly. I'm so angry at what McConnell did, denying Obama his right to fill a vacancy, then flipping it around in 2020 that I want to say - why SHOULDN'T the Dems do this? Y'all started a precedent of upping the ante you deserve the fall out from it. But the thing is, I don't think it's good for the country. Very conflicted.

Mitch didn't deny Barry's right to anything, Dummy.

Barry nominated someone. That's where his rights end.

And the Dems would be perfectly within their legal rights to pack the courts.

The question, as always, is just because you can - should you?

McConnel said yes. YOU lot said HELL YES (but - change the rules again in 2020).

Don't whine if you lose and the Dems do this.

Precedents. Elections have consequences. And all that crap you spout every other week to justify setting bad precedents for political power gains.

Show me where McConnell said he wants to "pack the courts". He has never said anything about wanting to add justices to the SC.

Show me where I said he wanted to.

You can't keep up with what you posted just minutes ago?

And the Dems would be perfectly within their legal rights to pack the courts.

The question, as always, is just because you can - should you?

McConnel said yes.

Thanks for proving to us once again that, not only can you not read, you miss the general point.

Just because you can do something (in a discussion involving multiple actions setting precedents) - should you?

McConnel by his actions, has clearly said yes.

Now it's "by his actions"??????????????????????

When did Mitch pack the SC, Dummy?

Your lies are piling up here.

Not my fault you have reading issues dude. The fact that you remove part of the quote kinda indicates the thinness of the ice under your feet.

The question, as always, is just because you can - should you? The "change the rules in 2020" ought to clue you in as to context, but that was apparently a bridge too far. Now go take your nap or do something equally productive.

McConnel said yes. YOU lot said HELL YES (but - change the rules again in 2020).

 

[BS Filter]

I haven't posted a video clip, so how do you know it's out of context?

Because you quote was just a fraction of a clip of a snippet.

I haven't provided anything, so how do you know what I have?

 

[whitehall]

You almost gotta laugh. The left has been investigating the President for four years on the basis of a faked dossier compiled by a foreign agent and now they are afraid the Justice Dept. might investigate legitimate allegations of voter fraud

 

[meaner gene]

I haven't provided anything, so how do you know what I have?

Because you told us.

Bullshit. I watched Sotomayor tell the committee that she was qualified because she was a wise Latina.

She most certainly did. It's recorded on video.

You have it on video.

 

[BS Filter]

I haven't provided anything, so how do you know what I have?

Because you told us.

Bullshit. I watched Sotomayor tell the committee that she was qualified because she was a wise Latina.

She most certainly did. It's recorded on video.

You have it on video.

You've never seen the video, so you don't know what is on it. Duh!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bill Barr's DOJ changed the rules to allow election interference and investigations

That's outrageous!!!!

Only Obama's DOJ is allowed to interfere!!!!

Yeah, the Obama FBI screwed hillary pretty badly! But at least Trump fired Comey, due to his illegal and unethical actions of Comey towards Hillary!!!

Yeah, the Obama FBI screwed hillary pretty badly!

I agree!

Hillary's emails on Weiner's porn laptop.....no big deal, eh?

 

[j-mac]

" Even before Ginsburg's death, several Democratic presidential hopefuls had said they were open to the idea, including Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kamala Harris of California, now the vice presidential nominee."


" House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) took to Twitter on Saturday to join the chorus of Democrats supporting the idea of an increase in Supreme Court justices. "


Don't know why you feel you have to lie...

None of them has proposed any legislation (actually putting forth a proposal to do so)

You're asking Biden to comment on the wishes of others.

What next, have Biden comment on if he supports Ivanka getting a puppy?

Oh please....Are you telling me that Joe doesn't know, and isn't in on future agenda items?

You must really think we're stupid....

 

[meaner gene]

This is where the BS in your name comes from

You've never seen the video, so you don't know what is on it. Duh!

But you just said...

She most certainly did. It's recorded on video.

So which is it?

 

[j-mac]

Well, by that measure is there a Justice on the court that hasn't gotten "bi partisan" support?

If you consider a single vote to be bi-partisan, than you would be technically correct.

Oh, and how many for you is 'bi partisan'???

Here we go, give us a lesson on what you think of Democrats that don't march lockstep....

 

[meaner gene]

Oh please....Are you telling me that Joe doesn't know, and isn't in on future agenda items?

We know Bidens version of "the new green deal" isn't the same as AOC's version.

 

[meaner gene]

If you consider a single vote to be bi-partisan, than you would be technically correct.

Oh, and how many for you is 'bi partisan'???

Here we go, give us a lesson on what you think of Democrats that don't march lockstep....

From 10 to 40 or more republicans.
That's how many voted for democrat nominated supreme court justices.

 

[j-mac]

I really hope so...I've never seen such corruption of our normally non-political institutions in my life time. If the only thing a Biden win accomplishes is the cleaning up and de-politicizing, and the restoring of norms, rules of behavior...it will be more than enough.

Cleaning up Trump's filthy swamp.

To me, if they pack the court w/10 or more SCOTUS I'd be ecstatic.

I'm extremely conflicted on that frankly. I'm so angry at what McConnell did, denying Obama his right to fill a vacancy, then flipping it around in 2020 that I want to say - why SHOULDN'T the Dems do this? Y'all started a precedent of upping the ante you deserve the fall out from it. But the thing is, I don't think it's good for the country. Very conflicted.

Mitch didn't deny Barry's right to anything, Dummy.

Barry nominated someone. That's where his rights end.

And the Dems would be perfectly within their legal rights to pack the courts.

The question, as always, is just because you can - should you?

McConnel said yes. YOU lot said HELL YES (but - change the rules again in 2020).

Don't whine if you lose and the Dems do this.

Precedents. Elections have consequences. And all that crap you spout every other week to justify setting bad precedents for political power gains.

Show me where McConnell said he wants to "pack the courts". He has never said anything about wanting to add justices to the SC.

Show me where I said he wanted to.

You can't keep up with what you posted just minutes ago?

And the Dems would be perfectly within their legal rights to pack the courts.

The question, as always, is just because you can - should you?

McConnel said yes.

Thanks for proving to us once again that, not only can you not read, you miss the general point.

Just because you can do something (in a discussion involving multiple actions setting precedents) - should you?

McConnel by his actions, has clearly said yes.

Like Lucy with the football, you people are always changing what you said just mere posts earlier...

You said: McConnel said yes

Now you write that bull shit above about "by his actions" crap....Jesus, are there no more honest Democrats?