Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide"

[Stormy Daniels]

In fact, giving voice to everyone in the country is part of the EC's purpose.

The EC exists to guarantee mob rule by avoiding mob rule by making sure that the whole mob is heard so that the voice of the mob will not be heard. The DOUBLETHINK is strong with you morons.

 

[Uncensored2008]

In fact, giving voice to everyone in the country is part of the EC's purpose.

The EC exists to guarantee mob rule by avoiding mob rule by making sure that the whole mob is heard so that the voice of the mob will not be heard. The DOUBLETHINK is strong with you morons.

???

Less populous states saw little value in trading rule from England for rule from Boston or Philadelphia. The Electoral College is the means of ensuring that the less populated states are not disenfranchised. By making presidential elections a function of the many states, the founding fathers brilliantly ensured that all states have a voice in the process.

When the Marxist democrats call to eradicate the EC, they simply seek to disenfranchise the majority of the nation, placing all power in the hands of California and New York.

 

[Faun]

So? The people had already picked Obama to replace vacancies from 2013 and through 2016.

And how did that work out for Obama?

He got robbed of a Supreme Court seat. But given politics is a pendulum and what goes around, comes around, I have no doubt Democrats will get their chance to do it to Republicans some day. Could even happen as soon as the 116th Congress should Democrats gain 2 seats in November.

For him to be "robbed", he would have to have had some sort of proprietary right to it, and he didn't. Ultimately, that seat belongs to the people of the United States, not any particular judge whose ass might get planted there.

I have no doubt that Democrats would do anything and everything they could to fuck over Republicans, regardless of what Republicans did and with a whole lot less observation of the letter of the rules, so for you to pretend that they're innocent victims of some outrageous, unprecedented eeeeevil is somewhat less than convincing.

The Constitution grants the president the authority to appoint USSC replacements and the people elected Obama to do that. So yes, he was robbed.

No, fucknut, the Constitution grants the President the authority to NOMINATE judges, and it grants the Senate the right to confirm them or not. So no, he got exactly what the Constitution prescribes, and he wasn't "robbed" because you arrogant pusbags thought he was entitled to run the country singlehanded, and it turned out he wasn't.

LOL

You should look in the mirror if you’re looking for a fucknut. Despite your ignorance, the Constitution authorizes thd President to appoint replacements, just as I said.

It’s a 4 step process... (1) a seat opens up; (2) the president nominates a replacement; (3) if the Senate confirms the nominee; (4) the president appoints them to the bench...

He [the president] 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 (2), and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate (3), shall appoint (4)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.​

Annotations added

 

[Uncensored2008]

And how did that work out for Obama?

He got robbed of a Supreme Court seat. But given politics is a pendulum and what goes around, comes around, I have no doubt Democrats will get their chance to do it to Republicans some day. Could even happen as soon as the 116th Congress should Democrats gain 2 seats in November.

For him to be "robbed", he would have to have had some sort of proprietary right to it, and he didn't. Ultimately, that seat belongs to the people of the United States, not any particular judge whose ass might get planted there.

I have no doubt that Democrats would do anything and everything they could to fuck over Republicans, regardless of what Republicans did and with a whole lot less observation of the letter of the rules, so for you to pretend that they're innocent victims of some outrageous, unprecedented eeeeevil is somewhat less than convincing.

The Constitution grants the president the authority to appoint USSC replacements and the people elected Obama to do that. So yes, he was robbed.

No, fucknut, the Constitution grants the President the authority to NOMINATE judges, and it grants the Senate the right to confirm them or not. So no, he got exactly what the Constitution prescribes, and he wasn't "robbed" because you arrogant pusbags thought he was entitled to run the country singlehanded, and it turned out he wasn't.

LOL

You should look in the mirror if you’re looking for a fucknut. Despite your ignorance, the Constitution authorizes thd President to appoint replacements, just as I said.

It’s a 4 step process... (1) a seat opens up; (2) the president nominates a replacement; (3) if the Senate confirms the nominee; (4) the president appoints them to the bench...

He [the president] 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 (3),[/COLOR] and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate (3), shall appoint (4)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.​

Annotations added

With Garland, the Senate didn't consent.

 

[Faun]

Thing is the people already decided when the GOP hijacked the process under Obama. Like that act or not it put the direction of the court FIRMLY in the hands of the voter.
Voters chose and the left lost so why hold up more nominees when the people have already spoken?

And spare me the popular vote or Russia Russia Russia bullshit.

So? The people had already picked Obama to replace vacancies from 2013 and through 2016.

So the GOP had reason to think the people might have rethought that decision by then. And they had the power to find out. As it turned out, they were correct.

Nice excuse. Should Democrats take control of the Senate in January, that can be their excuse for refusing to hold confirmation hearings for Trump’s nominees should Ginsberg or Breyer’s seat open up.

Well, goody for you. I'm glad to hear that you've got a nice little fantasy all lined up where you get to come out ahead. It should be a comfort to you through the long, lonely years in which you can't accomplish a fucking thing in real life.

Meanwhile, I'm laughing my ass off at your dark "threats" about how you're going to get us and our little dogs too . . . eventually . . . someday . . . it could happen . . . so we should give you everything you want, as soon as you demand it, just in case . . . because . . .

Those are some serious drugs you’re on. None of that’s beyond your dementia, but I suppose that makes you feel better about yourself. So there’s that.

 

[Faun]

He got robbed of a Supreme Court seat. But given politics is a pendulum and what goes around, comes around, I have no doubt Democrats will get their chance to do it to Republicans some day. Could even happen as soon as the 116th Congress should Democrats gain 2 seats in November.

For him to be "robbed", he would have to have had some sort of proprietary right to it, and he didn't. Ultimately, that seat belongs to the people of the United States, not any particular judge whose ass might get planted there.

I have no doubt that Democrats would do anything and everything they could to fuck over Republicans, regardless of what Republicans did and with a whole lot less observation of the letter of the rules, so for you to pretend that they're innocent victims of some outrageous, unprecedented eeeeevil is somewhat less than convincing.

The Constitution grants the president the authority to appoint USSC replacements and the people elected Obama to do that. So yes, he was robbed.

No, fucknut, the Constitution grants the President the authority to NOMINATE judges, and it grants the Senate the right to confirm them or not. So no, he got exactly what the Constitution prescribes, and he wasn't "robbed" because you arrogant pusbags thought he was entitled to run the country singlehanded, and it turned out he wasn't.

LOL

You should look in the mirror if you’re looking for a fucknut. Despite your ignorance, the Constitution authorizes thd President to appoint replacements, just as I said.

It’s a 4 step process... (1) a seat opens up; (2) the president nominates a replacement; (3) if the Senate confirms the nominee; (4) the president appoints them to the bench...

He [the president] 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 (3),[/COLOR] and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate (3), shall appoint (4)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.​

Annotations added

With Garland, the Senate didn't consent.

Even before Garland, they had already declared Obama would not get to appoint any replacement to the Supreme Court.

But no worries, karma is strong in politics. What goes around, comes around; and I have no doubt the day will come when the shoe will be on the other foot and then Democrats can invoke the McConnell rule.

 

[Uncensored2008]

For him to be "robbed", he would have to have had some sort of proprietary right to it, and he didn't. Ultimately, that seat belongs to the people of the United States, not any particular judge whose ass might get planted there.

I have no doubt that Democrats would do anything and everything they could to fuck over Republicans, regardless of what Republicans did and with a whole lot less observation of the letter of the rules, so for you to pretend that they're innocent victims of some outrageous, unprecedented eeeeevil is somewhat less than convincing.

The Constitution grants the president the authority to appoint USSC replacements and the people elected Obama to do that. So yes, he was robbed.

No, fucknut, the Constitution grants the President the authority to NOMINATE judges, and it grants the Senate the right to confirm them or not. So no, he got exactly what the Constitution prescribes, and he wasn't "robbed" because you arrogant pusbags thought he was entitled to run the country singlehanded, and it turned out he wasn't.

LOL

You should look in the mirror if you’re looking for a fucknut. Despite your ignorance, the Constitution authorizes thd President to appoint replacements, just as I said.

It’s a 4 step process... (1) a seat opens up; (2) the president nominates a replacement; (3) if the Senate confirms the nominee; (4) the president appoints them to the bench...

He [the president] 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 (3),[/COLOR] and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate (3), shall appoint (4)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.​

Annotations added

With Garland, the Senate didn't consent.

Even before Garland, they had already declared Obama would not get to appoint any replacement to the Supreme Court.

But no worries, karma is strong in politics. What goes around, comes around; and I have no doubt the day will come when the shoe will be on the other foot and then Democrats can invoke the McConnell rule.

In about 30 years, you very well could be right.

But most likely I'll be dead by then, so not a huge worry.

 

[Faun]

The Constitution grants the president the authority to appoint USSC replacements and the people elected Obama to do that. So yes, he was robbed.

No, fucknut, the Constitution grants the President the authority to NOMINATE judges, and it grants the Senate the right to confirm them or not. So no, he got exactly what the Constitution prescribes, and he wasn't "robbed" because you arrogant pusbags thought he was entitled to run the country singlehanded, and it turned out he wasn't.

LOL

You should look in the mirror if you’re looking for a fucknut. Despite your ignorance, the Constitution authorizes thd President to appoint replacements, just as I said.

It’s a 4 step process... (1) a seat opens up; (2) the president nominates a replacement; (3) if the Senate confirms the nominee; (4) the president appoints them to the bench...

He [the president] 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 (3),[/COLOR] and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate (3), shall appoint (4)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.​

Annotations added

With Garland, the Senate didn't consent.

Even before Garland, they had already declared Obama would not get to appoint any replacement to the Supreme Court.

But no worries, karma is strong in politics. What goes around, comes around; and I have no doubt the day will come when the shoe will be on the other foot and then Democrats can invoke the McConnell rule.

In about 30 years, you very well could be right.

But most likely I'll be dead by then, so not a huge worry.

I stand a solid chance of seeing that, but that matters not as it will happen whether or not it happens in my lifetime. Politics is a pendulum and it always swings back at some point. Just like Reid pulling the nuclear option came back to bite Democrats in the ass, this will someday bite Republicans.

Could happen soon if Democrats take the Senate in the upcoming election. You might just get to see it after all.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, fucknut, the Constitution grants the President the authority to NOMINATE judges, and it grants the Senate the right to confirm them or not. So no, he got exactly what the Constitution prescribes, and he wasn't "robbed" because you arrogant pusbags thought he was entitled to run the country singlehanded, and it turned out he wasn't.

LOL

You should look in the mirror if you’re looking for a fucknut. Despite your ignorance, the Constitution authorizes thd President to appoint replacements, just as I said.

It’s a 4 step process... (1) a seat opens up; (2) the president nominates a replacement; (3) if the Senate confirms the nominee; (4) the president appoints them to the bench...

He [the president] 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 (3),[/COLOR] and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate (3), shall appoint (4)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.​

Annotations added

With Garland, the Senate didn't consent.

Even before Garland, they had already declared Obama would not get to appoint any replacement to the Supreme Court.

But no worries, karma is strong in politics. What goes around, comes around; and I have no doubt the day will come when the shoe will be on the other foot and then Democrats can invoke the McConnell rule.

In about 30 years, you very well could be right.

But most likely I'll be dead by then, so not a huge worry.

I stand a solid chance of seeing that, but that matters not as it will happen whether or not it happens in my lifetime. Politics is a pendulum and it always swings back at some point. Just like Reid pulling the nuclear option came back to bite Democrats in the ass, this will someday bite Republicans.

Could happen soon if Democrats take the Senate in the upcoming election. You might just get to see it after all.

There is literally zero chance of the democrats taking the senate.

Your allies will lose 5 or more seats in the senate.

Further, the GOP has no intention of waiting, the Kennedy replacement will be confirmed in September.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And how did that work out for Obama?

He got robbed of a Supreme Court seat. But given politics is a pendulum and what goes around, comes around, I have no doubt Democrats will get their chance to do it to Republicans some day. Could even happen as soon as the 116th Congress should Democrats gain 2 seats in November.

For him to be "robbed", he would have to have had some sort of proprietary right to it, and he didn't. Ultimately, that seat belongs to the people of the United States, not any particular judge whose ass might get planted there.

I have no doubt that Democrats would do anything and everything they could to fuck over Republicans, regardless of what Republicans did and with a whole lot less observation of the letter of the rules, so for you to pretend that they're innocent victims of some outrageous, unprecedented eeeeevil is somewhat less than convincing.

The Constitution grants the president the authority to appoint USSC replacements and the people elected Obama to do that. So yes, he was robbed.

No, fucknut, the Constitution grants the President the authority to NOMINATE judges, and it grants the Senate the right to confirm them or not. So no, he got exactly what the Constitution prescribes, and he wasn't "robbed" because you arrogant pusbags thought he was entitled to run the country singlehanded, and it turned out he wasn't.

LOL

You should look in the mirror if you’re looking for a fucknut. Despite your ignorance, the Constitution authorizes thd President to appoint replacements, just as I said.

It’s a 4 step process... (1) a seat opens up; (2) the president nominates a replacement; (3) if the Senate confirms the nominee; (4) the president appoints them to the bench...

He [the president] 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 (2), and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate (3), shall appoint (4)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.​

Annotations added

and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate (3), shall appoint

And without consent, sorry...…..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

For him to be "robbed", he would have to have had some sort of proprietary right to it, and he didn't. Ultimately, that seat belongs to the people of the United States, not any particular judge whose ass might get planted there.

I have no doubt that Democrats would do anything and everything they could to fuck over Republicans, regardless of what Republicans did and with a whole lot less observation of the letter of the rules, so for you to pretend that they're innocent victims of some outrageous, unprecedented eeeeevil is somewhat less than convincing.

The Constitution grants the president the authority to appoint USSC replacements and the people elected Obama to do that. So yes, he was robbed.

No, fucknut, the Constitution grants the President the authority to NOMINATE judges, and it grants the Senate the right to confirm them or not. So no, he got exactly what the Constitution prescribes, and he wasn't "robbed" because you arrogant pusbags thought he was entitled to run the country singlehanded, and it turned out he wasn't.

LOL

You should look in the mirror if you’re looking for a fucknut. Despite your ignorance, the Constitution authorizes thd President to appoint replacements, just as I said.

It’s a 4 step process... (1) a seat opens up; (2) the president nominates a replacement; (3) if the Senate confirms the nominee; (4) the president appoints them to the bench...

He [the president] 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 (3),[/COLOR] and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate (3), shall appoint (4)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.​

Annotations added

With Garland, the Senate didn't consent.

Even before Garland, they had already declared Obama would not get to appoint any replacement to the Supreme Court.

But no worries, karma is strong in politics. What goes around, comes around; and I have no doubt the day will come when the shoe will be on the other foot and then Democrats can invoke the McConnell rule.

Even before Garland, they had already declared Obama would not get to appoint any replacement to the Supreme Court.


And they were right.

 

[Faun]

He got robbed of a Supreme Court seat. But given politics is a pendulum and what goes around, comes around, I have no doubt Democrats will get their chance to do it to Republicans some day. Could even happen as soon as the 116th Congress should Democrats gain 2 seats in November.

For him to be "robbed", he would have to have had some sort of proprietary right to it, and he didn't. Ultimately, that seat belongs to the people of the United States, not any particular judge whose ass might get planted there.

I have no doubt that Democrats would do anything and everything they could to fuck over Republicans, regardless of what Republicans did and with a whole lot less observation of the letter of the rules, so for you to pretend that they're innocent victims of some outrageous, unprecedented eeeeevil is somewhat less than convincing.

The Constitution grants the president the authority to appoint USSC replacements and the people elected Obama to do that. So yes, he was robbed.

No, fucknut, the Constitution grants the President the authority to NOMINATE judges, and it grants the Senate the right to confirm them or not. So no, he got exactly what the Constitution prescribes, and he wasn't "robbed" because you arrogant pusbags thought he was entitled to run the country singlehanded, and it turned out he wasn't.

LOL

You should look in the mirror if you’re looking for a fucknut. Despite your ignorance, the Constitution authorizes thd President to appoint replacements, just as I said.

It’s a 4 step process... (1) a seat opens up; (2) the president nominates a replacement; (3) if the Senate confirms the nominee; (4) the president appoints them to the bench...

He [the president] 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 (2), and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate (3), shall appoint (4)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.​

Annotations added

and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate (3), shall appoint

And without consent, sorry...…..

you read what I wrote, didn’t you?

I included that as one of the first 3 steps in the process, all of which are required for the 4th and final step of appointing a justice to the Supreme Court.

 

[Faun]

The Constitution grants the president the authority to appoint USSC replacements and the people elected Obama to do that. So yes, he was robbed.

No, fucknut, the Constitution grants the President the authority to NOMINATE judges, and it grants the Senate the right to confirm them or not. So no, he got exactly what the Constitution prescribes, and he wasn't "robbed" because you arrogant pusbags thought he was entitled to run the country singlehanded, and it turned out he wasn't.

LOL

You should look in the mirror if you’re looking for a fucknut. Despite your ignorance, the Constitution authorizes thd President to appoint replacements, just as I said.

It’s a 4 step process... (1) a seat opens up; (2) the president nominates a replacement; (3) if the Senate confirms the nominee; (4) the president appoints them to the bench...

He [the president] 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 (3),[/COLOR] and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate (3), shall appoint (4)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.​

Annotations added

With Garland, the Senate didn't consent.

Even before Garland, they had already declared Obama would not get to appoint any replacement to the Supreme Court.

But no worries, karma is strong in politics. What goes around, comes around; and I have no doubt the day will come when the shoe will be on the other foot and then Democrats can invoke the McConnell rule.

Even before Garland, they had already declared Obama would not get to appoint any replacement to the Supreme Court.


And they were right.

Well then you’ll be ok with it when a Democrat-led Senate shuts out a Republican President at some point in the future, potentially for years.

 

[Polishprince]

Well then you’ll be ok with it when a Democrat-led Senate shuts out a Republican President at some point in the future, potentially for years.

If the Democrat Party wins the Senate in November, that's exactly what we'll have.

Regardless of what President Trump were to do this evening.

Do you think if Trump waited until after November to name Mark R. Levin to the Supreme Court, he'll suddenly be acceptable to the Far Left?

Of course not, that's why the President is going to push this right through before Labor Day.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Democrats keep saying "no scotus until the people decide"

who cares what they say

the also said elections has consequences

so fuck em

I second that motion.

how easily they forget

 

[Silhouette]

Well then you’ll be ok with it when a Democrat-led Senate shuts out a Republican President at some point in the future, potentially for years.

"...at some point in the future...." That point would be just about the time dems scrape of the deviant sex cult from their coattails. And not a minute before.

 

[Faun]

Well then you’ll be ok with it when a Democrat-led Senate shuts out a Republican President at some point in the future, potentially for years.

If the Democrat Party wins the Senate in November, that's exactly what we'll have.

Regardless of what President Trump were to do this evening.

Do you think if Trump waited until after November to name Mark R. Levin to the Supreme Court, he'll suddenly be acceptable to the Far Left?

Of course not, that's why the President is going to push this right through before Labor Day.

So? Other seats are likely to open up in the near future. Democrats can shut the door to replacing them if they win. And thanks to McConnell, that door can remain shut for years, if need be, until a Democrat wins the White House.

 

[Faun]

Well then you’ll be ok with it when a Democrat-led Senate shuts out a Republican President at some point in the future, potentially for years.

"...at some point in the future...." That point would be just about the time dems scrape of the deviant sex cult from their coattails. And not a minute before.

Isn’t there a pervert thread you should be posting in? This isn’t one.

 

[Polishprince]

. And thanks to McConnell, that door can remain shut for years, if need be, until a Democrat wins the White House.

Nothing can be done about that now, what McConnell did in 2016 is water over the dam.

If libs want to act like children over things that can't be changed, I guess that's just tough shit. President Trump will fight fire with fire.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Thing is the people already decided when the GOP hijacked the process under Obama. Like that act or not it put the direction of the court FIRMLY in the hands of the voter.
Voters chose and the left lost so why hold up more nominees when the people have already spoken?

And spare me the popular vote or Russia Russia Russia bullshit.

You can say one thing about the Demorats they are masters at dragging their feet after a ass kicking and still ask for more. Since the Court has ruled that the States can purge voter list the Democrat voter will be removed since they have been dead for 11 years.