Romney is a fucking disgrace. I have my own 'conspiracy theory' that he threw the election to Obama. Total Rino

 

He abso-lutely-fucking did....Romney had Obama's ass the first 2 debates, then let Obama hand Romney's ass to him...Romney is another big government hack fuck that is getting rich off the people through over seas deals.

 

Wont fly right now with the protests!

 

Shooter can't think of a better way to honor the life of Justice Ginsburg than to replace her vacancy with a black female.

Frying despicables is just a side benefit.

 

I can’t think of a better way to discuss the political fallout from an unfortunate death than to discuss it in a memorial thread.

Oh wait.

 

"Whoever gets to pick SCOTUS new justice has no effect on subby or me we reside in TGWN."

"as a previous Trudeau stated, when you sleep next to an elephant you are curious of its movement."

So, @Ed Itor, which is the more accurate state... We have to effect, or are we an elephant about to crush you in your sleep?

 

@Ed Itor,

"Tell you what how about we ignore each other."

I'm gonna take a wild stab in the dark here, and say that @submissively speaking was doing just fine ignoring you until you decided to be so "inclusive"...

 

1. Laws that your SCOTUS pass end at your borders so unless we come into your country they do not apply to us.
2. You affect us in your actions such as trade, military actions and trade agreements, but we are doing to you what we did in the latter 20th century to the UK. Pulling away from your influence.

 

No she didn't, she might like thinking that I was talking for her when I wasn't. I pointed out a fact that being in Canada we are not directly influenced by your elections, political parties or Supreme Court as stated above.

 

Ed, you absolutely are impacted by decisions made by SCOTUS. You’re burying your head in the sand if you think you aren’t.

 

There was, but the majority leader of the senate stated that he was never going to allow anything that Obama did pass through. She knew that. He lost the senate two years into office. Say what you want about Obama, he had an extremely tough presidency because he didn’t have the house or the senate. For the record, I’m not the liberal everyone things I am.

 

You stated that she was supposed to be impartial yet you say she wanted to stay on until someone she was comfortable with was available.
Not once have I stated that she was bad as I didn't know her, she seemed to have a great sense of humour but when someone dies their fans make it sound as if they were a saint or higher.
Our SC members are also supposed to be impartial but political appointees seldom are though they are no longer life positions but retire at 75. Our appointment on process is also different.

 

Well our courts are different. She was a moderate justice who sided mostly with the liberal leanings. She was impartial in that she didn’t always vote one specific way. Yes she couldn’t step down with the way the senate was.

as for sainthood, she was that in life to a lot of women and the gay community. Watch the movie about her Thst was made while she was alive!

 

@Geminpa
Then it's to bad there wasn't some one competent to fill her shoes back then.

 

I already answered that.

 

Many women brought that about through out the sixties and on.
You belittle them & their battle for the people.

 

I did my research.

 

Yes, she who graduated number 1 from her law school and couldn’t find a job. Because she was a woman. She made so many changes throughout her career. Say what you want about her, but she was a trailblazer and every woman lawyer looked up to her and admired her.

 

Ed, you make no sense whatsoever.

 

It's seems you don't remember that your killary was way a head in the polls and was a shoe in to win

 

And that has what to do with nominating someone to the supreme court?

 

So we should hold him to his words, but not the republicans who actually let almost a full year go by without a nominee? Quote them also, since fair is fair right. Make them uphold exactly what they did in 2016 since fair is fair right. So funny how you guys all think you know the law, and so funny how you guys all rewrite history to serve your purposes. There is a tide coming, watch out because women have quietly been planning.

 

And that is what is wrong today...'fair', who cares about fair, the U.S. and and the Constitution doesn't endorse 'fair', just as it doesn't endorse socialism.

Over the past 140 years the opposing party in the executive can nominate who ever they want, it most never had the other party majority in the Senate to confirm.

The left is throwing a tissy fit..oh fucking well, and what will happen if Trump wins for another 4 years?...just be happy that Trump will nominate a woman to replace the late RGB.

Now, we all know that the women that Trump is considering, have all been previously confirmed with bi-partisan support...so, lets see what happens this time.

 

But yet, it was Ok when you guys didn’t allow Obama to fill a seat in March of 2016. Such hypocrisy.

 

It's only hypocrisy if that is how you want to see it.....Under the Constitution, Trump is obligated to nominate someone, the Senate does not need to confirm anyone if the Senate so chooses not to...

Elections have consequences

---Barrack Hussien Obama

 

He didn’t break tradition, the two term law wasn’t in effect yet. And no, no one expects a nominee to not happen if Trump wins again. All anyone is asking is fair play. Republicans blocked Obama’s right to pick in March of 2016 saying it was an election year. You guys freaking forget that all the time.

 

Senate rules Geminpa.

Had Harry Reid not changes the Senate rules, it would have taken 60 votes for a judicial confirmation...now that he did it, it only takes 51.

The leftists have been playing politics for the past 4 years, know they cry and scream like the spoiled children that are...because they want their activist man or woman on the bench...we;ll, that' not how it works.

 

You are still missing the point. It was ok in 2016 to not allow Obama a nomination because it was an election year, but now it’s ok.

it doesn’t matter who changed the numbers, they went changed in the last 4 years. 4 years ago a sitting or resident was denied the right to fill a vacant seat in the Supreme Court. Now 4 years later we are in that position again and the same people will not be denying this president the right.

 

No, I fully understand your point, and what you're saying is not wrong, at face value.

In '16 the leftists thought Hillary had the election in the bag, as a matter of fact the entire world did.

None of that matters tho, what matters is the Senate is not obligated to confirm, only POTUS is obligated by law to nominate.

Had Hillary won, this Nation would have a majority of liberal/leftist/activist/law writing Justices sitting on the bench of SCOTUS.

It's just the way it, that's how a Constitutional Republic operates.

Yeppers, the left is howling at the moon right now because they still have not accepted the election results in '16....just as I suspect they wont much care for the legitimate results in '20.

Harry Reid changed the Senate rules to suit the left in '13...cuz Hillary had the election in the bag, and again...their shenanigans backfired on them.

 

Tradition is not law. Anyone at the time could run, just because no one did doesn’t mean they couldn’t. The law went into effect of two terms after he ran. And if you do some research, you will see that back in those days and in the beginning of the democracy, the parties were actually switched a bit in their thinking, issues and policies. So a democrat back then might have actually been a Republican today.

 

And you, pussy in boots resort to naming calling instead of having a discussion.

 

No...not 'anyone at the time could run', there were set requirements to run for POTUS, just as there is today Geminpa.

 

I meant, someone who was already president could run for the third term. The conversation was about FDR running for the third term, and I stated that anyone could do it , meaning run for that third term as back then the law was 4 terms. His third run is when the law changed.
Sorry for the confusion.

 

Actually dear, prior to the 22nd, there were no term limits for POTUS