Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dead

progressive hunter

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
19,735
Reaction score
6,460
Points
360
Ginsburg is to women's rights what Thurgood Marshall was to women's rights

What did she do for women's rights?
she advocated to have 9 Supreme Court woman justices
that's sexist how about 9 justices who can correctly interpret the intent of the Constitution namely the bill of rights?
no interpretation needed,,,it states its intent in clear english,,,
interpreting it has led us into the mess we are in,,,
True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted
thats bullshit,,, just read it,, its in simple english,,,,,,

but youre right,, the left wing democrats and republicans have butchered it,,,
That's why gay marriage is a right and illegals have a right to be in America
the feds have no authority to be involved in marriage,,,

if you read the constitution you would know that,,,
I'm not disagreeing with you but the feds under obama did get involved
Someone like you or I don't need it interpreted but leftists have comprehensions problems with it.
deal with that problem,,dont compound it by doing what they did,,,

under the 1st amendment any two people have a right to assemble/marry who they want,,,

and YES if ten people want to marry its none of my business,,,
again your fighting the wrong argument with the wrong person
You said it was none of the feds business who people married I said under the obama years he made it federal business there is no right to marry but people made it a federal issue therefore some need it interpreted for its original intent.
how can something that doesnt exist be interpreted???

IT DOESNT EXIST,,,

THIS IS WHY i DONT WANT a conservative as SCOTUS pick and want a constitutionalist,,,
You're right it doesn't exist until Obama made it an issue and bastardized the constitution
The federal income tax is another thing that was added and interpreted incorrectly
The second amendment has been bastardized and interpreted incorrectly
best I can see about the gay marriage issue is they said it was a right which makes sense if you read the first amendment along with the rest of the constitution,,,

as for income tax,, it was done by amendment so its legal just very wrong,,,,
so it needs another amendment to remove it,,,

and yes the dems and repubes have destroyed the 2nd A because they interpreted it instead of reading it,,,
Actually the 16th amendment is not constitutional if you read the history of it
And since the constitution has been misinterpreted takes us back to what I originally said
"True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted"
IT'S NEEDS TO BE INTERPRETED TO GET IT BACK TO IT'S ORIGINAL INTENT.
yes the dems and repubes tried interpreted it instead of reading it,,,

no interpretation needed,,, just read it,, its in simple english,,,

what history if the 16th did I miss???
AGAIN IF the constitution has been butchered and bastardized from it's true intent
It must be interpreted by original constitutional scholars to get us back to it's true intent.
easier to just read it,,, its in simple english,,,
 

basquebromance

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
60,071
Reaction score
8,323
Points
2,070
MSNBC reporter (not pundit) Garett Haake just called Amy Coney Barrett, "Amy Barrett Conan", and that she is the frontrunner to replace RBG

Trump just said he will most likely pick a woman
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
78,315
Reaction score
9,303
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
Ginsburg is to women's rights what Thurgood Marshall was to women's rights

What did she do for women's rights?
she advocated to have 9 Supreme Court woman justices
that's sexist how about 9 justices who can correctly interpret the intent of the Constitution namely the bill of rights?
no interpretation needed,,,it states its intent in clear english,,,
interpreting it has led us into the mess we are in,,,
True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted
thats bullshit,,, just read it,, its in simple english,,,,,,

but youre right,, the left wing democrats and republicans have butchered it,,,
That's why gay marriage is a right and illegals have a right to be in America
the feds have no authority to be involved in marriage,,,

if you read the constitution you would know that,,,
I'm not disagreeing with you but the feds under obama did get involved
Someone like you or I don't need it interpreted but leftists have comprehensions problems with it.
deal with that problem,,dont compound it by doing what they did,,,

under the 1st amendment any two people have a right to assemble/marry who they want,,,

and YES if ten people want to marry its none of my business,,,
again your fighting the wrong argument with the wrong person
You said it was none of the feds business who people married I said under the obama years he made it federal business there is no right to marry but people made it a federal issue therefore some need it interpreted for its original intent.
how can something that doesnt exist be interpreted???

IT DOESNT EXIST,,,

THIS IS WHY i DONT WANT a conservative as SCOTUS pick and want a constitutionalist,,,
You're right it doesn't exist until Obama made it an issue and bastardized the constitution
The federal income tax is another thing that was added and interpreted incorrectly
The second amendment has been bastardized and interpreted incorrectly
best I can see about the gay marriage issue is they said it was a right which makes sense if you read the first amendment along with the rest of the constitution,,,

as for income tax,, it was done by amendment so its legal just very wrong,,,,
so it needs another amendment to remove it,,,

and yes the dems and repubes have destroyed the 2nd A because they interpreted it instead of reading it,,,
Actually the 16th amendment is not constitutional if you read the history of it
And since the constitution has been misinterpreted takes us back to what I originally said
"True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted"
IT'S NEEDS TO BE INTERPRETED TO GET IT BACK TO IT'S ORIGINAL INTENT.
yes the dems and repubes tried interpreted it instead of reading it,,,

no interpretation needed,,, just read it,, its in simple english,,,

what history if the 16th did I miss???
AGAIN IF the constitution has been butchered and bastardized from it's true intent
It must be interpreted by original constitutional scholars to get us back to it's true intent.
easier to just read it,,, its in simple english,,,
not when it's been butchered and bastardized
 

basquebromance

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
60,071
Reaction score
8,323
Points
2,070
Ginsburg smoked cigars since she was 13, that's what eventually did her in, folks!
 

progressive hunter

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
19,735
Reaction score
6,460
Points
360
Ginsburg is to women's rights what Thurgood Marshall was to women's rights

What did she do for women's rights?
she advocated to have 9 Supreme Court woman justices
that's sexist how about 9 justices who can correctly interpret the intent of the Constitution namely the bill of rights?
no interpretation needed,,,it states its intent in clear english,,,
interpreting it has led us into the mess we are in,,,
True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted
thats bullshit,,, just read it,, its in simple english,,,,,,

but youre right,, the left wing democrats and republicans have butchered it,,,
That's why gay marriage is a right and illegals have a right to be in America
the feds have no authority to be involved in marriage,,,

if you read the constitution you would know that,,,
I'm not disagreeing with you but the feds under obama did get involved
Someone like you or I don't need it interpreted but leftists have comprehensions problems with it.
deal with that problem,,dont compound it by doing what they did,,,

under the 1st amendment any two people have a right to assemble/marry who they want,,,

and YES if ten people want to marry its none of my business,,,
again your fighting the wrong argument with the wrong person
You said it was none of the feds business who people married I said under the obama years he made it federal business there is no right to marry but people made it a federal issue therefore some need it interpreted for its original intent.
how can something that doesnt exist be interpreted???

IT DOESNT EXIST,,,

THIS IS WHY i DONT WANT a conservative as SCOTUS pick and want a constitutionalist,,,
You're right it doesn't exist until Obama made it an issue and bastardized the constitution
The federal income tax is another thing that was added and interpreted incorrectly
The second amendment has been bastardized and interpreted incorrectly
best I can see about the gay marriage issue is they said it was a right which makes sense if you read the first amendment along with the rest of the constitution,,,

as for income tax,, it was done by amendment so its legal just very wrong,,,,
so it needs another amendment to remove it,,,

and yes the dems and repubes have destroyed the 2nd A because they interpreted it instead of reading it,,,
Actually the 16th amendment is not constitutional if you read the history of it
And since the constitution has been misinterpreted takes us back to what I originally said
"True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted"
IT'S NEEDS TO BE INTERPRETED TO GET IT BACK TO IT'S ORIGINAL INTENT.
yes the dems and repubes tried interpreted it instead of reading it,,,

no interpretation needed,,, just read it,, its in simple english,,,

what history if the 16th did I miss???
AGAIN IF the constitution has been butchered and bastardized from it's true intent
It must be interpreted by original constitutional scholars to get us back to it's true intent.
easier to just read it,,, its in simple english,,,
not when it's been butchered and bastardized
more so when its been bastardized and butchered,,,

how do you interpret things like,

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,,,

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAWS,,,
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
78,315
Reaction score
9,303
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
Ginsburg is to women's rights what Thurgood Marshall was to women's rights

What did she do for women's rights?
she advocated to have 9 Supreme Court woman justices
that's sexist how about 9 justices who can correctly interpret the intent of the Constitution namely the bill of rights?
no interpretation needed,,,it states its intent in clear english,,,
interpreting it has led us into the mess we are in,,,
True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted
thats bullshit,,, just read it,, its in simple english,,,,,,

but youre right,, the left wing democrats and republicans have butchered it,,,
That's why gay marriage is a right and illegals have a right to be in America
the feds have no authority to be involved in marriage,,,

if you read the constitution you would know that,,,
I'm not disagreeing with you but the feds under obama did get involved
Someone like you or I don't need it interpreted but leftists have comprehensions problems with it.
deal with that problem,,dont compound it by doing what they did,,,

under the 1st amendment any two people have a right to assemble/marry who they want,,,

and YES if ten people want to marry its none of my business,,,
again your fighting the wrong argument with the wrong person
You said it was none of the feds business who people married I said under the obama years he made it federal business there is no right to marry but people made it a federal issue therefore some need it interpreted for its original intent.
how can something that doesnt exist be interpreted???

IT DOESNT EXIST,,,

THIS IS WHY i DONT WANT a conservative as SCOTUS pick and want a constitutionalist,,,
You're right it doesn't exist until Obama made it an issue and bastardized the constitution
The federal income tax is another thing that was added and interpreted incorrectly
The second amendment has been bastardized and interpreted incorrectly
best I can see about the gay marriage issue is they said it was a right which makes sense if you read the first amendment along with the rest of the constitution,,,

as for income tax,, it was done by amendment so its legal just very wrong,,,,
so it needs another amendment to remove it,,,

and yes the dems and repubes have destroyed the 2nd A because they interpreted it instead of reading it,,,
Actually the 16th amendment is not constitutional if you read the history of it
And since the constitution has been misinterpreted takes us back to what I originally said
"True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted"
IT'S NEEDS TO BE INTERPRETED TO GET IT BACK TO IT'S ORIGINAL INTENT.
yes the dems and repubes tried interpreted it instead of reading it,,,

no interpretation needed,,, just read it,, its in simple english,,,

what history if the 16th did I miss???
AGAIN IF the constitution has been butchered and bastardized from it's true intent
It must be interpreted by original constitutional scholars to get us back to its true intent.
easier to just read it,,, its in simple english,,,
not when it's been butchered and bastardized
more so when its been bastardized and butchered,,,

how do you interpret things like,

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,,,

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAWS,,,
laws have been created around the misinterpreted constitution tha's why we need an original constitutional scholars to get us back to its true intent.
 

progressive hunter

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
19,735
Reaction score
6,460
Points
360
Ginsburg is to women's rights what Thurgood Marshall was to women's rights

What did she do for women's rights?
she advocated to have 9 Supreme Court woman justices
that's sexist how about 9 justices who can correctly interpret the intent of the Constitution namely the bill of rights?
no interpretation needed,,,it states its intent in clear english,,,
interpreting it has led us into the mess we are in,,,
True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted
thats bullshit,,, just read it,, its in simple english,,,,,,

but youre right,, the left wing democrats and republicans have butchered it,,,
That's why gay marriage is a right and illegals have a right to be in America
the feds have no authority to be involved in marriage,,,

if you read the constitution you would know that,,,
I'm not disagreeing with you but the feds under obama did get involved
Someone like you or I don't need it interpreted but leftists have comprehensions problems with it.
deal with that problem,,dont compound it by doing what they did,,,

under the 1st amendment any two people have a right to assemble/marry who they want,,,

and YES if ten people want to marry its none of my business,,,
again your fighting the wrong argument with the wrong person
You said it was none of the feds business who people married I said under the obama years he made it federal business there is no right to marry but people made it a federal issue therefore some need it interpreted for its original intent.
how can something that doesnt exist be interpreted???

IT DOESNT EXIST,,,

THIS IS WHY i DONT WANT a conservative as SCOTUS pick and want a constitutionalist,,,
You're right it doesn't exist until Obama made it an issue and bastardized the constitution
The federal income tax is another thing that was added and interpreted incorrectly
The second amendment has been bastardized and interpreted incorrectly
best I can see about the gay marriage issue is they said it was a right which makes sense if you read the first amendment along with the rest of the constitution,,,

as for income tax,, it was done by amendment so its legal just very wrong,,,,
so it needs another amendment to remove it,,,

and yes the dems and repubes have destroyed the 2nd A because they interpreted it instead of reading it,,,
Actually the 16th amendment is not constitutional if you read the history of it
And since the constitution has been misinterpreted takes us back to what I originally said
"True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted"
IT'S NEEDS TO BE INTERPRETED TO GET IT BACK TO IT'S ORIGINAL INTENT.
yes the dems and repubes tried interpreted it instead of reading it,,,

no interpretation needed,,, just read it,, its in simple english,,,

what history if the 16th did I miss???
AGAIN IF the constitution has been butchered and bastardized from it's true intent
It must be interpreted by original constitutional scholars to get us back to its true intent.
easier to just read it,,, its in simple english,,,
not when it's been butchered and bastardized
more so when its been bastardized and butchered,,,

how do you interpret things like,

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,,,

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAWS,,,
laws have been created around the misinterpreted constitution tha's why we need an original constitutional scholars to get us back to its true intent.
THATS why I want a constitutionalist not a conservative for SCOTUS,,,
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
78,315
Reaction score
9,303
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
Ginsburg is to women's rights what Thurgood Marshall was to women's rights

What did she do for women's rights?
she advocated to have 9 Supreme Court woman justices
that's sexist how about 9 justices who can correctly interpret the intent of the Constitution namely the bill of rights?
no interpretation needed,,,it states its intent in clear english,,,
interpreting it has led us into the mess we are in,,,
True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted
thats bullshit,,, just read it,, its in simple english,,,,,,

but youre right,, the left wing democrats and republicans have butchered it,,,
That's why gay marriage is a right and illegals have a right to be in America
the feds have no authority to be involved in marriage,,,

if you read the constitution you would know that,,,
I'm not disagreeing with you but the feds under obama did get involved
Someone like you or I don't need it interpreted but leftists have comprehensions problems with it.
deal with that problem,,dont compound it by doing what they did,,,

under the 1st amendment any two people have a right to assemble/marry who they want,,,

and YES if ten people want to marry its none of my business,,,
again your fighting the wrong argument with the wrong person
You said it was none of the feds business who people married I said under the obama years he made it federal business there is no right to marry but people made it a federal issue therefore some need it interpreted for its original intent.
how can something that doesnt exist be interpreted???

IT DOESNT EXIST,,,

THIS IS WHY i DONT WANT a conservative as SCOTUS pick and want a constitutionalist,,,
You're right it doesn't exist until Obama made it an issue and bastardized the constitution
The federal income tax is another thing that was added and interpreted incorrectly
The second amendment has been bastardized and interpreted incorrectly
best I can see about the gay marriage issue is they said it was a right which makes sense if you read the first amendment along with the rest of the constitution,,,

as for income tax,, it was done by amendment so its legal just very wrong,,,,
so it needs another amendment to remove it,,,

and yes the dems and repubes have destroyed the 2nd A because they interpreted it instead of reading it,,,
Actually the 16th amendment is not constitutional if you read the history of it
And since the constitution has been misinterpreted takes us back to what I originally said
"True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted"
IT'S NEEDS TO BE INTERPRETED TO GET IT BACK TO IT'S ORIGINAL INTENT.
yes the dems and repubes tried interpreted it instead of reading it,,,

no interpretation needed,,, just read it,, its in simple english,,,

what history if the 16th did I miss???
AGAIN IF the constitution has been butchered and bastardized from it's true intent
It must be interpreted by original constitutional scholars to get us back to its true intent.
easier to just read it,,, its in simple english,,,
not when it's been butchered and bastardized
more so when its been bastardized and butchered,,,

how do you interpret things like,

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,,,

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAWS,,,
laws have been created around the misinterpreted constitution tha's why we need an original constitutional scholars to get us back to its true intent.
THATS why I want a constitutionalist not a conservative for SCOTUS,,,
Did I once say anything about a conservative?
 

progressive hunter

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
19,735
Reaction score
6,460
Points
360
Ginsburg is to women's rights what Thurgood Marshall was to women's rights

What did she do for women's rights?
she advocated to have 9 Supreme Court woman justices
that's sexist how about 9 justices who can correctly interpret the intent of the Constitution namely the bill of rights?
no interpretation needed,,,it states its intent in clear english,,,
interpreting it has led us into the mess we are in,,,
True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted
thats bullshit,,, just read it,, its in simple english,,,,,,

but youre right,, the left wing democrats and republicans have butchered it,,,
That's why gay marriage is a right and illegals have a right to be in America
the feds have no authority to be involved in marriage,,,

if you read the constitution you would know that,,,
I'm not disagreeing with you but the feds under obama did get involved
Someone like you or I don't need it interpreted but leftists have comprehensions problems with it.
deal with that problem,,dont compound it by doing what they did,,,

under the 1st amendment any two people have a right to assemble/marry who they want,,,

and YES if ten people want to marry its none of my business,,,
again your fighting the wrong argument with the wrong person
You said it was none of the feds business who people married I said under the obama years he made it federal business there is no right to marry but people made it a federal issue therefore some need it interpreted for its original intent.
how can something that doesnt exist be interpreted???

IT DOESNT EXIST,,,

THIS IS WHY i DONT WANT a conservative as SCOTUS pick and want a constitutionalist,,,
You're right it doesn't exist until Obama made it an issue and bastardized the constitution
The federal income tax is another thing that was added and interpreted incorrectly
The second amendment has been bastardized and interpreted incorrectly
best I can see about the gay marriage issue is they said it was a right which makes sense if you read the first amendment along with the rest of the constitution,,,

as for income tax,, it was done by amendment so its legal just very wrong,,,,
so it needs another amendment to remove it,,,

and yes the dems and repubes have destroyed the 2nd A because they interpreted it instead of reading it,,,
Actually the 16th amendment is not constitutional if you read the history of it
And since the constitution has been misinterpreted takes us back to what I originally said
"True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted"
IT'S NEEDS TO BE INTERPRETED TO GET IT BACK TO IT'S ORIGINAL INTENT.
yes the dems and repubes tried interpreted it instead of reading it,,,

no interpretation needed,,, just read it,, its in simple english,,,

what history if the 16th did I miss???
AGAIN IF the constitution has been butchered and bastardized from it's true intent
It must be interpreted by original constitutional scholars to get us back to its true intent.
easier to just read it,,, its in simple english,,,
not when it's been butchered and bastardized
more so when its been bastardized and butchered,,,

how do you interpret things like,

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,,,

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAWS,,,
laws have been created around the misinterpreted constitution tha's why we need an original constitutional scholars to get us back to its true intent.
THATS why I want a constitutionalist not a conservative for SCOTUS,,,
Did I once say anything about a conservative?
they are the ones that have been interpreting it instead of reading it,,,
 

skews13

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
3,992
Reaction score
1,535
Points
360
What does keep your powder dry mean? ..McConnell said to Repub senators
View attachment 390611 It means kiss your ass goodbye. Your ass is grass.

Lock & Load, My Friends
The lawnmower is coming for you idiots Nov 3rd
You laugh??? Losing Mich Wisc Penn Az Fla you think you have a chance? And your lead in the Senate is no sure thing either? You guys remind me of Nero playing his fiddle while Rome burned
Joes already said everybody will be taxed
No. He didn't. He said o
Ginsburg is to women's rights what Thurgood Marshall was to women's rights

What did she do for women's rights?
she advocated to have 9 Supreme Court woman justices
that's sexist how about 9 justices who can correctly interpret the intent of the Constitution namely the bill of rights?
no interpretation needed,,,it states its intent in clear english,,,
interpreting it has led us into the mess we are in,,,
True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted
thats bullshit,,, just read it,, its in simple english,,,,,,

but youre right,, the left wing democrats and republicans have butchered it,,,
That's why gay marriage is a right and illegals have a right to be in America
the feds have no authority to be involved in marriage,,,

if you read the constitution you would know that,,,
I'm not disagreeing with you but the feds under obama did get involved
Someone like you or I don't need it interpreted but leftists have comprehensions problems with it.
deal with that problem,,dont compound it by doing what they did,,,

under the 1st amendment any two people have a right to assemble/marry who they want,,,

and YES if ten people want to marry its none of my business,,,
again your fighting the wrong argument with the wrong person
You said it was none of the feds business who people married I said under the obama years he made it federal business there is no right to marry but people made it a federal issue therefore some need it interpreted for its original intent.
how can something that doesnt exist be interpreted???

IT DOESNT EXIST,,,

THIS IS WHY i DONT WANT a conservative as SCOTUS pick and want a constitutionalist,,,
You're right it doesn't exist until Obama made it an issue and bastardized the constitution
The federal income tax is another thing that was added and interpreted incorrectly
The second amendment has been bastardized and interpreted incorrectly
best I can see about the gay marriage issue is they said it was a right which makes sense if you read the first amendment along with the rest of the constitution,,,

as for income tax,, it was done by amendment so its legal just very wrong,,,,
so it needs another amendment to remove it,,,

and yes the dems and repubes have destroyed the 2nd A because they interpreted it instead of reading it,,,
Actually the 16th amendment is not constitutional if you read the history of it
And since the constitution has been misinterpreted takes us back to what I originally said
"True but it's been butchered and bastardized by American leftists we now need it interpreted"
IT'S NEEDS TO BE INTERPRETED TO GET IT BACK TO IT'S ORIGINAL INTENT.
yes the dems and repubes tried interpreted it instead of reading it,,,

no interpretation needed,,, just read it,, its in simple english,,,

what history if the 16th did I miss???
AGAIN IF the constitution has been butchered and bastardized from it's true intent
It must be interpreted by original constitutional scholars to get us back to its true intent.
easier to just read it,,, its in simple english,,,
not when it's been butchered and bastardized
more so when its been bastardized and butchered,,,

how do you interpret things like,

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,,,

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAWS,,,
laws have been created around the misinterpreted constitution tha's why we need an original constitutional scholars to get us back to its true intent.
The true intent is to form a more perfect union.

The intended structure was the power of the people through representative government.

With the sole legislative powers granted to Congress.

Which through the people and the states, vote for to enact laws on their behalf, and if so desired, through amendments to the Constitution.

Which the original intent, is to amend the Constitution from it's original form through the Amendment process.

As so stated by the Constitution itself.

Which means any current Amendment in the Constitution can be repealed at any time by the people, or the states.

Any Amendment.
 

basquebromance

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
60,071
Reaction score
8,323
Points
2,070


NO CONFIRMATION...BEFORE THE INAUGURATION! NO CONFIRMATION...BEFORE THE INAUGURATION! NO CONFIRMATION...BEFORE THE INAUGURATION! NO CONFIRMATION...BEFORE THE INAUGURATION!

(Unless Trump picks AOC or Christine Flasey Ford)
 

basquebromance

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
60,071
Reaction score
8,323
Points
2,070
"if they can impeach him in an election year, he can pick a Supreme Court justice" - Hannity
 

progressive hunter

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
19,735
Reaction score
6,460
Points
360


NO CONFIRMATION...BEFORE THE INAUGURATION! NO CONFIRMATION...BEFORE THE INAUGURATION! NO CONFIRMATION...BEFORE THE INAUGURATION! NO CONFIRMATION...BEFORE THE INAUGURATION!

(Unless Trump picks AOC or Christine Flasey Ford)

I think thats what they call hypocrisy,,,
 

basquebromance

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
60,071
Reaction score
8,323
Points
2,070
if it's a woman, he should pick Britt Grant or Barbara Lagoa. Amy Barrett is against the death penalty, i wouldn't pick her

Britt is a close friend of Kavanaugh and the youngest in Trump's list

Barbara is Cuban American, so it would be a historic pick
 

basquebromance

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2015
Messages
60,071
Reaction score
8,323
Points
2,070
I have obtained "Biden’s Supreme Court list", in his own words!

"Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. (Such a smart cookie, with that Greek New Deal of hers!)"

" AOC. (I think it’s her cousin or something. Great-smelling hair.)"

" Camilla Parker-Bowles. (Oh wait, that’s Kinnock’s list – sorry!)"

"Come-On, Man! (If that is an actual person. If not, nevermind.)"

"Ruth Bader Ginsburg"
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top