To Replace Ginsberg Before the Election, Or Hold Off Until After the Election?

[Nostra]

I'll bite. Give us the link so we can see for ourselves how full of shit you are.

Already did, Dumbass. That's why I posted the I have provided a link already.

Learn to read.

I've played this rodeo a dozen times. You say you posted a link, but refuse to post it again, and instead play "go fish", knowing if I find it, it will be completely different than what you claimed.

And that gives you time to "RUN AWAY' once again.

Your laziness isn't my problem.

No reason for me to go thru the thread and repost a link I have already provided because you are too stupid, or lazy, to look for yourself.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nominate Barrett on Monday. Why wait? Chuck and Nancy wouldn't.......

I can go either way, Z. Wait till after the funeral to show a little class, but lose precious days and get no respect from the Left for it anyway, or,

Announce it on Monday ASAP partly showing the vitalness of filling her empty seat, partly to utilize every day available to you and partly because moving that fast is not only what THEY'D do, but doing so before she's even laid to rest is as cold and calculating as they are and the ruthlessness (sorry) of it for Trump to forge ahead giving them the finger will just drive the Left right up the wall as they see the inexorable collapse of yet one more thing parlaying out against them!

BONUS: when they rail about it in the media how Trump practically kicked her casket out of his way to appoint someone in her place, it'll just score brownie points with all his supporters driving his popularity even higher!


View attachment 390677

Normally a Jew is buried within 24 hours of his or her death. Since RBG hasn't been buried, the Democrats must be planning to make a big show of it.

Either that or they hope they can stall Trump, or later make a point that Trump was heartless by trying to replacer her before she was buried.

 

[Nostra]

And millions of people will lose their healthcare due to "pre-existing conditions" A protection the Trump administration is seeking to have the supreme court overturn, as the last legacy of Obmacare.

Link?

Read a damn newspaper.

So you admit you are full of shit. That was easy.

And millions of people will lose their healthcare due to "pre-existing conditions" A protection the Trump administration is seeking to have the supreme court overturn, as the last legacy of Obmacare.

Link?

Read a damn newspaper.

So you admit you are full of shit. That was easy.

The case to overturn obamacare, and get rid of all protections against pre-existing conditions is scheduled for thre USSC on November 9th (so Trump doesn't have to argue throwing out pre-existing condition protections before the election)

As I said, if you don't know that, you should read a damn newspaper.

Weird how you have no link, huh?

Supreme Court to Hear Case to Overturn Obamacare in ...
www.cagw.org › thewastewatcher › supreme-court-hear...

Supreme Court to Hear Case to Overturn Obamacare in November.

From YOUR link, you raving idiot.

Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) had agreed it would take up the case Texas v. United States

Since when does Texas = Trump, Moron.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So now the Trumplicans are on the verge of getting what they want to please the Bible pounders, an abortion ban, unless at least two conservative justices surprise us. The Trumplicans will pay for their pandering to the religious fanatics. In the meantime, many women will die as a result of this sheer idiocy.

And millions of people will lose their healthcare due to "pre-existing conditions" A protection the Trump administration is seeking to have the supreme court overturn, as the last legacy of Obmacare.

Link?

DO you know what your pos is recing for the SC ?? Know her fn record?

English, do you speak it?

I'll try Do you know what Trumps POS recommendation is capable of?? Womens rights down Health care down climate control in the shitter Hopefully you understand... and pro fn life?? Your ah has had 200000 deaths so far but he's not concerned ?

What makes you think he's not concerned? He followed all the advice of our experts. What more do you want him to do?

 

[meaner gene]

I've played this rodeo a dozen times. You say you posted a link, but refuse to post it again, and instead play "go fish", knowing if I find it, it will be completely different than what you claimed.

And that gives you time to "RUN AWAY' once again.

Your laziness isn't my problem.

You can't provide a link. When you asked me for a link, I provided it (to your peril). But you can't/won't link, because you know you're just bullshitting, and stalling for time playing :look for something you refuse to even describe"

What does the link look like?

You can't even tell me that.

 

[Indeependent]

So now the Trumplicans are on the verge of getting what they want to please the Bible pounders, an abortion ban, unless at least two conservative justices surprise us. The Trumplicans will pay for their pandering to the religious fanatics. In the meantime, many women will die as a result of this sheer idiocy.

And millions of people will lose their healthcare due to "pre-existing conditions" A protection the Trump administration is seeking to have the supreme court overturn, as the last legacy of Obmacare.

Link?

DO you know what your pos is recing for the SC ?? Know her fn record?

English, do you speak it?

I'll try Do you know what Trumps POS recommendation is capable of?? Womens rights down Health care down climate control in the shitter Hopefully you understand... and pro fn life?? Your ah has had 200000 deaths so far but he's not concerned ?

What makes you think he's not concerned? He followed all the advice of our experts. What more do you want him to do?

What more do you want him to do?
Change the R to a D.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The appointment should be made by whomever is elected this November – by Biden if elected, by Trump if reelected – following the precedent established by Republicans after Scalia’s death.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm also wondering why one right winger here ignores the flagrant flip-flop of Moscow Mitch, pansy Lindsay, and several other Trumplicans from 4 years ago, and instead obsesses on some stance Biden had 30 years ago, ignoring the circumstances of each.

30 years ago? What did Biden say in 2016? I posted the link.

 

[Nostra]

I've played this rodeo a dozen times. You say you posted a link, but refuse to post it again, and instead play "go fish", knowing if I find it, it will be completely different than what you claimed.

And that gives you time to "RUN AWAY' once again.

Your laziness isn't my problem.

You can't provide a link. When you asked me for a link, I provided it (to your peril). But you can't/won't link, because you know you're just bullshitting, and stalling for time playing :look for something you refuse to even describe"

What does the link look like?

You can't even tell me that.

You can't provide a link.

Yes, I can. I already have.

Your laziness isn't my concern, or my problem, Dumbass.

 

[meaner gene]

From YOUR link, you raving idiot.

Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) had agreed it would take up the case Texas v. United States

Since when does Texas = Trump, Moron.

You do play the fool all too well. Look at the other side of the equation (hint: united states) Who runs the US?

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20190709.772192/full/

In June, the Department of Justice (DOJ) partially agreed with the plaintiffs and declined to defend the constitutionality of the individual mandate and other key ACA provisions.

In March 2019, the DOJ changed its position to largely agree with the district court’s decision that the ACA should largely be invalidated.

As noted above, the DOJ does not fully agree with the scope of the district court’s ruling but asserts that much of the ACA should be invalidated.

 

[meaner gene]

No reason for me to go thru the thread and repost a link

You're the only one who knows what the link says.
You can look through your posts to find the one you're talking about.

As they say, your claim, you have to prove it.

 

[Quasar44]

I believe everyone here until I can find out otherwise You folks all believed Trump and look what you got

You have made hundreds of thousands thanks to T and you could lose everything if Biden wins
. Capital gains tax also going to jump

To 28.... I hate it But I just can't like this overbearing bullying loudmouth I see his face I need to change channels And funny ,I did meet him after a Boom Boom Mancini fight in Atlantic City in late 1990's

I can see hating Trumps personality and demeanor but his policies work

 

[meaner gene]

You sure spend a lot of time running away from posting a link.

But then you thought that in "texas v United States"

That Trump was the plaintiff, and not the defendant arguing to overturn Obamacare.

 

[Rawley]

The appointment should be made by whomever is elected this November – by Biden if elected, by Trump if reelected – following the precedent established by Republicans after Scalia’s death.

It's actually a combination of the President and the Senate.

 

[meaner gene]

Texas v. United States

Since when does Texas = Trump, Moron.

It doesn't. So here's a hint. Look at who represents the United States

 

[Nostra]

From YOUR link, you raving idiot.

Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) had agreed it would take up the case Texas v. United States

Since when does Texas = Trump, Moron.

You do play the fool all too well. Look at the other side of the equation (hint: united states) Who runs the US?

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20190709.772192/full/

In June, the Department of Justice (DOJ) partially agreed with the plaintiffs and declined to defend the constitutionality of the individual mandate and other key ACA provisions.

In March 2019, the DOJ changed its position to largely agree with the district court’s decision that the ACA should largely be invalidated.

As noted above, the DOJ does not fully agree with the scope of the district court’s ruling but asserts that much of the ACA should be invalidated.

So what you are saying is Trump is DEFENDING Obamacare.

You really are stupid beyond comprehension.

 

[meaner gene]

The appointment should be made by whomever is elected this November – by Biden if elected, by Trump if reelected – following the precedent established by Republicans after Scalia’s death.

It's actually a combination of the President and the Senate.

Trump has never asked the senate to advise.
The last president to ask the other party for advice was Bill Clinton. Which explains how his nominations were confirmed nearly unanimously.

 

[Nostra]

No reason for me to go thru the thread and repost a link

You're the only one who knows what the link says.
You can look through your posts to find the one you're talking about.

As they say, your claim, you have to prove it.

Yes, I know what the link says.

Yes, I can go through all the post to find it.

Yes, it was my claim..........and I did prove it.

Once again, your laziness isn't my problem Simpleton.

 

[Nostra]

The appointment should be made by whomever is elected this November – by Biden if elected, by Trump if reelected – following the precedent established by Republicans after Scalia’s death.

It's actually a combination of the President and the Senate.

Trump has never asked the senate to advise.
The last president to ask the other party for advice was Bill Clinton. Which explains how his nominations were confirmed nearly unanimously.

Trump has never asked the senate to advise.

Um yes he has. Every time he has nominated a SC Justice.
Good Lord you are dumb.

 

[meaner gene]

In June, the Department of Justice (DOJ) partially agreed with the plaintiffs and declined to defend the constitutionality of the individual mandate and other key ACA provisions.

In March 2019, the DOJ changed its position to largely agree with the district court’s decision that the ACA should largely be invalidated.

As noted above, the DOJ does not fully agree with the scope of the district court’s ruling but asserts that much of the ACA should be invalidated.

So what you are saying is Trump is DEFENDING Obamacare.

You really are stupid beyond comprehension.

You can't read can you?

The DOJ (aka Trump) is seeking to overturn Obamacare.

They're the US side of Texas v US.