The circus for Supreme Court replacement has already started

[rjs330]

At least when you make an absurd statement, you make it obvious.

How cannot possibly be corrupt if it's a Constitutional right?

 

[rjs330]

So that whole “make the world safe for democracy” thing was just rhetorical?

I believe that phrase came from Woodrow Wilson for his support for declaration of war against Germany. Wilson is a darling of many on the left.

It was probably just a catchy phrase.

 

[rjs330]

Pelosi actually said she would consider impeachment hearings for Trump and Barr in order to keep the Congressional calendar so full that they would not be able to vote on a Supreme Court Justice. When I mentioned this to my son he said it's long overdue, and of course it is. They are tag team menace to democracy, and we can't even remember all their crimes because they commit new ones every day and the old ones get lost in the archives.

It could backfire but if they timed it just right after a lot of people had cast early votes but before the Senate was able to confirm anyone I would be really happy.

And you think the Senate utilizing their constitutional rights involving the Supreme Court is corrupt?

And then you turn around and support this?

Kind of hypocritical if you ask me.

 

[rjs330]

Do what you want is the only rule.

That only is acceptable if you abide by the Constitution. The rule of law is what matters.

Do what you want regardless is what the Democrats like to do.

 

[Pommer]

I believe that phrase came from Woodrow Wilson for his support for declaration of war against Germany. Wilson is a darling of many on the left.

It was probably just a catchy phrase.

Oh, okay then.
We should just trust our rulers then.

 

[Bobber]

Which makes it even more important to get this judge in place before the election. Cause the there will be an all out assault on the election if Trump wins and it is close.

I would seem imperative to actually get that ninth judge on the bench immediately. If the issue of the election went to the Supreme Court and you ended up with a decision of 4-4 what good is that?

 

[Pommer]

I would seem imperative to actually get that ninth judge on the bench immediately. If the issue of the election went to the Supreme Court and you ended up with a decision of 4-4 what good is that?

President Pelosi, then.

 

[JSRG]

I would seem imperative to actually get that ninth judge on the bench immediately. If the issue of the election went to the Supreme Court and you ended up with a decision of 4-4 what good is that?

In that case, whatever decision was made by the lower court stands.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Which makes it even more important to get this judge in place before the election. Cause the there will be an all out assault on the election if Trump wins and it is close.

America sees the dirty pool the Republicans are playing. If a Justice is rammed through in six weeks, there will be no need for any 'assault' on the election. The election itself will ensure that the Republicans won't see control of the other two branches of government for decades.

 

[Nithavela]

America sees the dirty pool the Republicans are playing. If a Justice is rammed through in six weeks, there will be no need for any 'assault' on the election. The election itself will ensure that the Republicans won't see control of the other two branches of government for decades.

They don't have to. Whoever rules the supreme court rules the country.

 

[Pommer]

They don't have to. Whoever rules the supreme court rules the country.

Roberts would have to move to the left of where Ginsburg was, or be content with being the last Chief Justice of the United States of America.
I think him intellectually spry enough to do that.

 

[grasping the after wind]

At a guess, the US is is not fully prosecuting smugglers and those who employ the 'slave' labour to the full extent of the law. Instead targetting the small guys, the immigrant s themselves.

I don't know that the US is actually doing what you are guessing at. The existence of sanctuary cities and states would make it impossible for US authorities to prosecute said smugglers as they are being abetted by those local governments in avoiding US authorities. If you are correct though , just how does that explain the meaning of moderately persecuted?

 

[grasping the after wind]

[

Ah yes. Prosecuted, not persecuted. My bad.

I hope you can see how that's an easy mistake to make. Yes, English is STILL my second language and I'm still learning.

Moderately prosecuted makes no sense either. If what you are trying to say is that the bulk of human traffickers are not being pursued for the crime of human trafficking then the term moderately prosecuted is not a good one. The term connotes that the slavers are being prosecuted but that the prosecutors are not asking for them to be sentenced to the full extent of the law. What you seem to want to convey is that they are not being robustly pursued by the US authorities. To be prosecuted they must first be apprehended. Apprehending an illegal alien that is engaged in human trafficking becomes next to impossible if there is a local or a state government shielding that human trafficker from federal authorities in defiance of federal law enforcement.

 

[KCfromNC]

That's not the rule!

Depends on who you ask. For example, many Republicans think that we shouldn't fill Supreme Court seats during elections -

What every Republican senator has said about filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year

 

[Nithavela]

Roberts would have to move to the left of where Ginsburg was, or be content with being the last Chief Justice of the United States of America.
I think him intellectually spry enough to do that.

Being able to rationalise destroying the country?

 

[Bobber]

America sees the dirty pool the Republicans are playing. If a Justice is rammed through in six weeks, there will be no need for any 'assault' on the election. The election itself will ensure that the Republicans won't see control of the other two branches of government for decades.

Why do you call it the dirty pool the Republicans are playing?

Didn't Judge Ginsburg say herself in 2016 about nominating a then SC judge "There's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being the president in his last year" ????

And when asked whether the Senate should have taken up the vote on the then Garland what did she say? "That's their job."

If that therefore is legal protocol then wouldn't anything at the current time declaring it "dirty" actually be the thing that is dirty itself?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Why do you call it the dirty pool the Republicans are playing?

Because they are on the record in 2016. And now most of them appear to be positioning themselves as big fat hypocrites. Particularly given the vast differences in time before the election.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Whoever rules the supreme court rules the country.

I doubt that.

 

[rjs330]

Oh, okay then.
We should just trust our rulers then.

That's up to you. You get to vote on who are your representatives just like the rest of us. If you don't like them then vote them out, campaign against them or run for office yourself.

We all have a say in who governs us.

 

[rjs330]

America sees the dirty pool the Republicans are playing. If a Justice is rammed through in six weeks, there will be no need for any 'assault' on the election. The election itself will ensure that the Republicans won't see control of the other two branches of government for decades.

No YOU see dirty pool. The rest if us see the Constitution in action. The rule of law in action.

And you are dreaming if you really believe that. The Democrats are already scheming like crazy on how they can accuse the Republicans of stealing the election. Big tech is also involved in working on ways to sway the election.