Obama to Announce Supreme Court Nominee at 11 a.m. Today

[rightwinger]

And when did Merrick vote against, say....Heller.

He is NOT going to get a second chance.

Not gonna happen.

So he's not going to get a second chance to do....what?

Remember, your ilk are condemning him for a vote...he didn't even make.

He is NOT going to get a second chance to REVERSE Heller, no way. no how.

The issue was previously before him he could have easily adopted a DISSENTING OPINION affirming our right to bear arms. He didn't .

So you're condemning the man for a ruling he didn't make, a position he didn't take.

Again, the Senate ought not confirm a man who is another scumbag like John Roberts.

.

Was Roberts scum when he supported Citizens United and Heller?

 

[Contumacious]

I have already proven that FDR abolished the Constitution and adopted fascism as our socioeconomic system

Except that you haven't.

Perhaps 'proven' doesn't mean what you think it means. The word you're looking for is 'typed'.

Except that I have and you can't handle the truth.There is no worse blind man than he who wishes not to see.

Or that I don't accept you typing a claim as proof of anything beyond your ability to type.

Show me the evidence. Don't tell me about it.

You lack the intellectual capability to determine what is or isn't evidence.

.

Laughing....is that your latest excuse for failing miserably to back up your claims?

Farting.......


You are a dyed-in-the-wool socialist fanatic, convincing you is out of the question.


.

 

[Skylar]

Except that you haven't.

Perhaps 'proven' doesn't mean what you think it means. The word you're looking for is 'typed'.

Except that I have and you can't handle the truth.There is no worse blind man than he who wishes not to see.

Or that I don't accept you typing a claim as proof of anything beyond your ability to type.

Show me the evidence. Don't tell me about it.

You lack the intellectual capability to determine what is or isn't evidence.

.

Laughing....is that your latest excuse for failing miserably to back up your claims?

Farting.......


You are a dyed-in-the-wool socialist fanatic, convincing you is out of the question.


.

When and if you ever find evidence to support your position, feel free to show us. But so far all you've managed are an increasingly sad series of excuses why you can't.

 

[Contumacious]

He is NOT going to get a second chance.

Not gonna happen.

So he's not going to get a second chance to do....what?

Remember, your ilk are condemning him for a vote...he didn't even make.

He is NOT going to get a second chance to REVERSE Heller, no way. no how.

The issue was previously before him he could have easily adopted a DISSENTING OPINION affirming our right to bear arms. He didn't .

So you're condemning the man for a ruling he didn't make, a position he didn't take.

Again, the Senate ought not confirm a man who is another scumbag like John Roberts.

.

Was Roberts scum when he supported Citizens United and Heller?

The Founding Fathers wanted the Supreme Court to be a bulwark of liberty -

It is their job to defend each proviso bearing in mind that their job is to act as mere machines when interpreting the Constitution.

 

[Contumacious]

Except that I have and you can't handle the truth.There is no worse blind man than he who wishes not to see.

Or that I don't accept you typing a claim as proof of anything beyond your ability to type.

Show me the evidence. Don't tell me about it.

You lack the intellectual capability to determine what is or isn't evidence.

.

Laughing....is that your latest excuse for failing miserably to back up your claims?

Farting.......


You are a dyed-in-the-wool socialist fanatic, convincing you is out of the question.


.

When and if you ever find evidence to support your position, feel free to show us. But so far all you've managed are an increasingly sad series of excuses why you can't.

When and if you ever decide to be HONEST feel free to let me know so we can resume our discussion. But so far all you've managed are an increasingly sad and dishonest series of excuses why you can't.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The Founding Fathers wanted the Supreme Court to be a bulwark of liberty -

It is their job to defend each proviso bearing in mind that their job is to act as mere machines when interpreting the Constitution.

Simple question for you - Is the FAA constitutional? Yes or no, and that's all we need as an answer.

 

[Skylar]

Or that I don't accept you typing a claim as proof of anything beyond your ability to type.

Show me the evidence. Don't tell me about it.

You lack the intellectual capability to determine what is or isn't evidence.

.

Laughing....is that your latest excuse for failing miserably to back up your claims?

Farting.......


You are a dyed-in-the-wool socialist fanatic, convincing you is out of the question.


.

When and if you ever find evidence to support your position, feel free to show us. But so far all you've managed are an increasingly sad series of excuses why you can't.

When and if you ever decide to be HONEST feel free to let me know so we can resume our discussion. But so far all you've managed are an increasingly sad and dishonest series of excuses why you can't.

Accepting whatever you say without evidence isn't honesty. Its gullibility.

Show me the evidence.

 

[Contumacious]

The Founding Fathers wanted the Supreme Court to be a bulwark of liberty -

It is their job to defend each proviso bearing in mind that their job is to act as mere machines when interpreting the Constitution.

Simple question for you - Is the FAA constitutional? Yes or no, and that's all we need as an answer.

UN- Constitutional


Abolish the FAA

 

[dannyboys]

Obama has the 'right' to nominate a ******* dog turd. It's in the Constitution right?
The Senate, according to the Constitution has the 'right' when and if they want to consider Obama's dog turd.
If Obama hadn't been such a ******* asshole from day one the way he habitually bypassed and ignored Congress and the Senate then he may have been able to put his choice on the SC.

your kidding yourself if you think that the republicans would have ever been decent and willing to work with the president. in fact, your main criticism of him is born out of republican intransigence.

You seem to think that there is some requirement for Congress to "work with" a president. They are there to keep him in check. The branches are co-equal in order to handcuff the others when necessary.

They have a Constitutional obligation to fill Supreme Court vacancies

They have Constitutional authority to do so in their own good time.

And that is where the problem lies...

Up until now, "in their own good time" meant 3-6 months and actively vetting the Presidents nominee

Republicans are asking for 15 or more months to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. What happens if Trump wins and Democrats look to wait two years to approve his nominee?

Assuming Trump wins but loses the Senate?
That's very unlikely. Trump wins and Congress and the Senate stay REP.
Remember what Obama did when he had the same situation? Me too. I can' think of anything he accomplished when he literally controlled all three branches of government.
Watch Trump in the same circumstance.
THAT'S the LIBs worst nightmare.

 

[Contumacious]

You lack the intellectual capability to determine what is or isn't evidence.

.

Laughing....is that your latest excuse for failing miserably to back up your claims?

Farting.......


You are a dyed-in-the-wool socialist fanatic, convincing you is out of the question.


.

When and if you ever find evidence to support your position, feel free to show us. But so far all you've managed are an increasingly sad series of excuses why you can't.

When and if you ever decide to be HONEST feel free to let me know so we can resume our discussion. But so far all you've managed are an increasingly sad and dishonest series of excuses why you can't.

Accepting whatever you say without evidence isn't honesty. Its gullibility.

Show me the evidence.[/QUOTE

That will never be possible since you have been lobotomized by the government educational octopus.

.

.

 

[BluesLegend]

Obama will be denied a hearing on his SCOTUS nomination, period. The lawless punk hasn't earned any favors from the GOP senate.

 

[dannyboys]

Obama has the 'right' to nominate a ******* dog turd. It's in the Constitution right?
The Senate, according to the Constitution has the 'right' when and if they want to consider Obama's dog turd.
If Obama hadn't been such a ******* asshole from day one the way he habitually bypassed and ignored Congress and the Senate then he may have been able to put his choice on the SC.

your kidding yourself if you think that the republicans would have ever been decent and willing to work with the president. in fact, your main criticism of him is born out of republican intransigence.

You seem to think that there is some requirement for Congress to "work with" a president. They are there to keep him in check. The branches are co-equal in order to handcuff the others when necessary.

They have a Constitutional obligation to fill Supreme Court vacancies

They have Constitutional authority to do so in their own good time.

And that is where the problem lies...

Up until now, "in their own good time" meant 3-6 months and actively vetting the Presidents nominee

Republicans are asking for 15 or more months to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. What happens if Trump wins and Democrats look to wait two years to approve his nominee?

Reps are not "asking" **** all. They are telling the LIBs how it is.

 

[Contumacious]

You lack the intellectual capability to determine what is or isn't evidence.

.

Laughing....is that your latest excuse for failing miserably to back up your claims?

Farting.......


You are a dyed-in-the-wool socialist fanatic, convincing you is out of the question.


.

When and if you ever find evidence to support your position, feel free to show us. But so far all you've managed are an increasingly sad series of excuses why you can't.

When and if you ever decide to be HONEST feel free to let me know so we can resume our discussion. But so far all you've managed are an increasingly sad and dishonest series of excuses why you can't.

Accepting whatever you say without evidence isn't honesty. Its gullibility.

Show me the evidence.

That will never be possible since you have been lobotomized by the government educational octopus.

 

[Skylar]

Laughing....is that your latest excuse for failing miserably to back up your claims?

Farting.......


You are a dyed-in-the-wool socialist fanatic, convincing you is out of the question.


.

When and if you ever find evidence to support your position, feel free to show us. But so far all you've managed are an increasingly sad series of excuses why you can't.

When and if you ever decide to be HONEST feel free to let me know so we can resume our discussion. But so far all you've managed are an increasingly sad and dishonest series of excuses why you can't.

Accepting whatever you say without evidence isn't honesty. Its gullibility.

Show me the evidence.

That will never be possible since you have been lobotomized by the government educational octopus.

As I said.....when you ever manage to find evidence to back your claims, I'll be around.

Until then, you've only got excuses why you can't.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Simple question for you - Is the FAA constitutional? Yes or no, and that's all we need as an answer.

UN- Constitutional


Abolish the FAA

Okay, and so ends all future conversations since you lack all rational thought and historical understanding of our nation. TY...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Obama will be denied a hearing on his SCOTUS nomination, period. The lawless punk hasn't earned any favors from the GOP senate.

Doing as the Constitution requires is not a "favor"...

 

[BluesLegend]

Obama will be denied a hearing on his SCOTUS nomination, period. The lawless punk hasn't earned any favors from the GOP senate.

Doing as the Constitution requires is not a "favor"...

Well do something about it...oh wait you can't the senate has the Constitution on their side, tissue?

 

[easyt65]

Roberts is scum because he didn't vote your way?

I would not call Roberts 'Scum', but he did throw his reputation as a non-partisan Justice away in his ruling on Obamacare.

Justice Kennedy said it bluntly, that it was NOT the duty, responsibility, or role of the USSC to CHANGE the Government's Judicial Argument but that is what Roberts did.

The WH lawyer argued the punitive tax' being imposed on people who refused to buy the ACA was a 'FINE' - a negative incentive for NOT buying into the program. Kennedy pointed out that this should have been a SHORT case because such a 'FINE' was UN-Constitutional.

What SHOULD HAVE happened at this point, after the FINE was ruled Un-Constitutional, was the WH lawyers file for an appeal, change their argument, and present that argument at the next court case....if they had done so (which I can't imagine they would not have).

INSTEAD, as Kennedy pointed out, it was Chief Justice Roberts who CHANGED THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT FOR THEM, declaring WHAT THE GOVERNMENT MEANT TO SAY WAS that the punitive fine was actually a 'Tax'. As Kennedy pointed out, Roberts stepped way out of his lane to change the argument of a lawyer appearing before him for the benefit of that lawyer, an act which DID change the outcome of the court's decision.

Kennedy THEN pointed out the trial should have immediately been STOPPED, after the argument was changed from it being a 'fine' to a 'tax', because ACCORDING TO THE LAW a case regarding a Tax CAN NOT be heard until AFTER the 1st time the tax was imposed, which it had not been. STILL Roberts allowed the trial to continue...

Although it is most probably that the Obama administration would have eventually won, Roberts single-handedly went out of his way to prevent the WH's case from being dropped, as it initially should have been. Roberts single-handedly changed the govt's argument, allowed it to continue - even though it wasn't supposed to, and basically saved the ACA...or at least saved months to a year of the case going forward.

After Obama had insulted and verbally attacked the USSC (Remember how the USSC had refused to stand when he walked in to give one of his State of the union addresses after Obama had insulted / impugned the court earlier that week?), Roberts did go well above and beyond to ensure Obama's ACA was found Constitutional.

(There was a 'conspiracy theory at the time that the effort to adopt a foreign child by the Roberts was threatened if he did not do what he could to see the ACA passed this USSC test. While I don't believe it, the actions of Roberts did seem out of the norm for him, enough for Justice Kennedy to rail a bit about it in his arguments.)

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Well do something about it...oh wait you can't the senate has the Constitution on their side, tissue?

Actually they don't. The Constitution requires them to vote.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Trump will destroy Hillary in the General.
Looking at a 57 state sweep and maybe 80 Republican Senators