Supreme Court

Partisan Poppycock Does Not Trump the Constitution on SCOTUS Picks

The restrictions imagined by Republicans in 2016 or by Democrats now are nothing but self-serving nonsense.

|

The process for filling a Supreme Court vacancy is straightforward: The president chooses a new justice "with the advice and consent of the Senate." Any other conditions, including those imagined by Republicans in 2016 or by Democrats now, are nothing but self-serving nonsense.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.), who has promised a vote on President Donald Trump's nominee to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg by the end of the year, has been accused of forsaking the supposed norm he defended in 2016, when he blocked consideration of Merrick Garland, Barack Obama's choice to replace Antonin Scalia. Yet McConnell's position now is arguably consistent with the one he took then. That does not mean it makes any sense.

While most Democrats and some Republicans remember McConnell as saying the Senate should not consider a Supreme Court nomination in a presidential election year, his stance was more ambiguous. He also said a president should not be allowed to fill a vacancy close to such an election when the Senate is controlled by the other party.

"Who ought to make the decision, a lame-duck president on the way out the door, or the president we're in the process of electing right now?" McConnell asked on CNN four days after Garland's nomination. "What is the tradition?"

McConnell cited two purported traditions. "It's been 80 years—80—since a vacancy created in a presidential election year was filled," he said. "You have to go back to 1888, Grover Cleveland in the White House, to find the last time a vacancy created in a presidential year was filled by a Senate of a different party from the president."

McConnell made similar comments on three other Sunday talk shows that day. He now argues that the latter "tradition" is the important one. "Since the 1880s," he said last Friday, "no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president's Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year."

That's true only if you don't count Anthony Kennedy's confirmation in 1988. And Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, picked William Brennan for a recess appointment to the Supreme Court shortly before the 1956 presidential election, when Democrats controlled the Senate. Brennan was confirmed the following year, when Democrats were still in charge of the Senate.

Eisenhower's decision suggests the "tradition" emphasized by McConnell was more historical happenstance than venerated norm. The broader rule that Democrats are suddenly keen to defend—no new justices when voters are about to pick a president—was violated by William Taft, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan, all of whom nominated justices who were confirmed in presidential election years.

History aside, what can be said in favor of the modified McConnell Rule or the broader version that Democrats are now advocating in their eagerness to prevent Trump from picking a third justice? Both sides claim they are defending democracy.

"In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia's death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president's second term," McConnell says. "We kept our promise."

According to McConnell, things are different now. "Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary," he says. "Once again, we will keep our promise."

As Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) sees it, the relevant voters are not the ones who cast their ballots in 2016 and 2018 but the ones he hopes will choose Joe Biden over Trump in November. "We're not close to an election," Schumer said on Sunday. "We're in an election. And to try and decide this at this late moment is despicable and wrong and against democracy."

If "democracy" is the main consideration in choosing Supreme Court justices, why not simply elect them? The Constitution prescribes a decidedly different method, and no amount of partisan poppycock can change it.

© Copyright 2020 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Advertisement

NEXT: Math Puzzle

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Start making cash online work easily from home.i have received a paycheck of $24K in this month by working online from home.i am a student and i just doing this job in my spare HERE? Read More

    1. STAY AT HOME & WORK AT HOME FOR USA ]
      H̲o̲m̲e̲ ̲B̲a̲s̲i̲c̲ ̲J̲o̲b̲s̲….. ̲E̲v̲e̲r̲y̲b̲o̲d̲y̲ ̲c̲a̲n̲ ̲e̲a̲r̲n̲ ̲u̲p̲t̲o̲ ̲$1̲5̲k̲ ̲e̲v̲e̲r̲y̲ ̲m̲o̲n̲t̲h̲ ̲f̲r̲o̲m̲ ̲h̲o̲m̲e̲ ̲b̲y̲ ̲w̲o̲r̲k̲i̲n̲g̲ ̲o̲n̲l̲i̲n̲e̲. ̲I̲ ̲h̲a̲v̲e̲ ̲r̲e̲c̲e̲i̲v̲e̲d̲ ̲$1̲7̲2̲9̲4̲ ̲l̲a̲s̲t̲ ̲m̲o̲n̲t̲h̲ ̲b̲y̲ ̲d̲o̲i̲n̲g̲ ̲t̲h̲i̲s̲ ̲e̲a̲s̲y̲ ̲a̲n̲d̲ ̲s̲i̲m̲p̲l̲e̲ ̲j̲o̲b̲ ̲o̲n̲l̲i̲n̲e̲ ̲f̲r̲o̲m̲ ̲h̲o̲m̲e̲. ̲I̲t̲s̲ ̲a̲n̲ ̲e̲a̲s̲y̲ ̲a̲n̲d̲ ̲s̲i̲m̲p̲l̲e̲ ̲j̲o̲b̲ ̲t̲o̲ ̲d̲o̲ ̲o̲n̲l̲i̲n̲e̲ ̲a̲n̲d̲ ̲e̲v̲e̲n̲ ̲a̲ ̲l̲i̲t̲t̲l̲e̲ ̲c̲h̲i̲l̲d̲ ̲c̲a̲n̲ ̲d̲o̲ ̲t̲h̲i̲s̲ ̲j̲o̲b̲ ̲f̲r̲o̲m̲ ̲h̲o̲m̲e̲. ̲E̲v̲e̲r̲y̲b̲o̲d̲y̲ ̲c̲a̲n̲ ̲g̲e̲t̲ ̲t̲h̲i̲s̲ ̲j̲o̲b̲ ̲n̲o̲w̲ ̲b̲y̲ ̲j̲u̲s̲t̲ ̲c̲o̲p̲y̲ ̲t̲h̲i̲s̲ ̲s̲i̲t̲e̲ ̲i̲n̲ ̲b̲r̲o̲w̲s̲e̲r̲ ̲a̲n̲d̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲n̲ ̲f̲o̲l̲l̲o̲w̲ ̲i̲n̲s̲t̲r̲u̲c̲t̲i̲o̲n̲ ̲t̲o̲ ̲g̲e̲t̲ ̲s̲t̲a̲r̲t̲e̲d̲…….. ↠↠↠

      H̲E̲R̲E̲►COPY THIS WEBSITE……… Read More

    2. I Make Money At H0me.Let’s start work offered by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financially rewarding Job I’ve had . Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earning $9534 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k last month . . I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hr

      Heres what I do……………………………………………… More INformation Here

    3. Start making cash online work easily from home.i have received a paycheck of $24K in this month by working online Abq from home.i am a student and i just doing this job in my spare ?Visit Here

  2. Elections have consequences. Trump won.

    1. “Elections have consequences.” Such as, enough Republicans were ELECTED, and so, they could road-block in 2016. And now, enough Democrats were ELECTED, and so, they can now road-block in 2020. What’s good for the ganger, is good for the goose!

      1. Democrats are a minority in the Senate at the moment dummy.

        1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…NGf after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

          Here’s what I do…>> Click here

      2. You can’t block shit, moron. The votes to confirm are already there. The nominee will be confirmed, and it’s going to happen pretty quickly too.

        You might as well go ahead now and bend over, grease yourself up, and get yourself mentally prepared to have that ginormous “L” rammed right up your big fat ass.

      3. “ganger”

        lol retard

        1. Tulpa the ID thief at work! “Libertarians for identity theft!”

          Tulpa, who writes more typos than you can shake a stick at!

          1. Your meds, squirrel. Take your meds. You’re just a nuisance without them.

          2. Did he totally trick you? That Tulpa is brilliant, and really adds something special to every discussion.

            1. Cite?

                1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

                  Here’s what I do…>> Click here

              1. Oh, shit. You got me. I can’t cite even one instance of your adding something special to a discussion.

              2. the nerve

          3. More likely, you have multiple personality disorder

            1. Manic depressive; when he’s depressed he ain’t here; when he’s manic he’s all over the place. Wish I had a Marlin Perkins dart gun loaded with lithium.

      4. This just isn’t correct. That’s the whole point. In a divided government (2016), the Senate could thwart a nomination.

        When the Senate is held by the same party as the Presidency (2020), they can confirm the nomination.

        Call it hypocrisy if you’d like (Team Blue). Draw distinctions if you’d like (Team Red). There’s some truth to both.

        But the idea that this is, in anyway, surprising, nefarious, or unconstitutional is absurd. It’s just about having sufficient power to get a desired result—like everything else with government.

        1. Literally no one is saying the current Republican power play in unconstitutional. But if you want to pretend that sufficient power is the only applicable standard, prepare to defend court packing.

          1. I wouldn’t say “literally no one.” But you’re probably mostly right, because most lefties don’t care about the Constitution—so that’s not their go-to argument.

            Their argument is about “fairness”—which amounts to complete adoption of whatever position they hold at that moment.

            And yeah—we are at total “fuck you other side” points. It’s time for peaceful secession, or violent secession. I’d prefer the former. I’m preparing for the latter.

      5. Have someone loosen up your necktie for you (it if isn’t a clip-on). You’re clearly suffering from oxygen deprivation to the brain.

      6. US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this link and then go through instructions to get started………Click For Full Detail.

      7. Not hardly Foolish One. You’re still the minority in the Senate.
        Since you don’t understand how the govt works, I would suggest you take a refresher course at your local middle school.

    2. Actually, he lost the election but won the slave era anti-democratic vote of 538 party hacks in the Electoral College, which betrays our founding principles of 1776 of equality and consent of the governed.

      But the article is off base. The hypocrisy of the Republicans is not based on the Constitution but on their claim that it is not just to have a sitting President choose a SC Justice in an election year. The problem is they are using a double standard, which is not about the Constitition, but their own failure to own up to their own standards.

      1. ruffsoft
        September.23.2020 at 8:22 pm
        “Actually, he lost the election but won the slave era anti-democratic vote of 538 party hacks in the Electoral College, which betrays our founding principles of 1776 of equality and consent of the governed.”

        Aw, you poor little lefty piece of shit. Are you still butt-hurt that the hag was told to fuck off?
        Hint: The EC is there to keep fucking pieces of lefty shit from organizing mob rule.
        Suck it, lefty shit.

      2. Ahem, horseshit. The Electoral College is to prevent populism, the tyranny of the masses, from unduly influencing elections. But, by all means, keep on repeating nonsense about it being about keeping Black folks from having a voice in government. As for your argument about standards, disagreeing with the article and restating ignorant points doesn’t help you advance your views. The article is not, as you claim, off-base; either party would engage in the same behavior and make the same choice.

      3. Are you really not paying attention, or just desperate to make your stupid anti-electoral college point?

    1. Progs are gonna prog.

      I wonder which one is Tony?

  3. Seeing the Dems whine makes this year seem a little better. The sun is brighter, the air is fresher.

    1. It will be less exciting if McConnell retracts his “principles” and the Democrats use this as justification for court packing. It is a worrying sign when the court system is being seen as a tool for partisan manipulation.

      1. The democrats have been threatening to pack the court for the last four years. They’re going to do it if they can.

        1. Yeah, anyone thinking they weren’t already planning this once they regained power is an idiot. They’ve been openly saying they are going to do it for years now.

          1. That is not going to work in front of the moderate majority of the American public who has a natural tendency toward the status quo. Court packing would only make it through Congress if there was a compelling reason to make it understandable in front of the American voter.

            McConnell’s abuse of his position to manipulate court nominations is an escalation that could be used to justify court packing whereas before no such justification existed. When South American democracies turn into dictatorships the rule of law is the first institution to be discarded. If Americans choose this route, Trump and McConnell are the ones who are willing to lead us there.

            1. That is not going to work in front of the moderate majority of the American public who has a natural tendency toward the status quo.

              You’re a fool if you honestly think that matters anymore. The people getting facetime with the media now aren’t cautious moderates; they’re highly partisan firebrands for whom it’s their way or they’re going to burn it to the ground. And the media is the institution driving this narrative.

              McConnell’s abuse of his position to manipulate court nominations is an escalation that could be used to justify court packing whereas before no such justification existed.

              There’s no “manipulation” here whatsoever. It’s the inevitable consequence of Harry Reid’s short-term thinking stupidity. There’s nothing McConnell has done the last four years that that isn’t perfectly legal, Constitutional, or out of bounds of the nomination and confirmation process, and wasn’t already set in motion by his Democratic predecessor.

              If you want to be pissed at anyone, be pissed at Harry Reid for getting rid of the one tool in the toolkit that they could have used to block nominations, which they did plenty often to qualified individuals when Bush was in office.

              If Americans choose this route, Trump and McConnell are the ones who are willing to lead us there.

              No, the Democrats openly declaring “We’re going to pack the court if we don’t get our way,” is what’s going to lead us there. I really wish you overgrown children would take some responsibility for once in your lives.

              1. I agree that Reid is partly responsible for this nonsense. However, I am interested if you can explain to me why it is ok for McConnell to approve a court nomination after refusing to approve one in identical circumstances four years, but maintain that court packing is not ok.

                1. I agree that Reid is partly responsible for this nonsense.

                  No, he’s entirely responsible for it.

                  However, I am interested if you can explain to me why it is ok for McConnell to approve a court nomination after refusing to approve one in identical circumstances four years, but maintain that court packing is not ok.

                  If the Democrats and Republicans are supposed to be implacable enemies now, why should the latter give any kind of advantage to the former?

                  Your side made “Fuck you, that’s why” into government policy; now you get to choke down the taste of your own shit-laced medicine.

                  1. I’m not sure what “side” you think I am on, but that is not the point. You did not answer my question. What is wrong with court packing?

                    1. I’m not sure what “side” you think I am on

                      This same passive-voiced shit? Low effort!

                    2. Clearly the left.

                    3. Blargrifth
                      September.23.2020 at 2:42 pm
                      “I’m not sure what “side” you think I am on, but that is not the point…”
                      Amazing how many lefty shits show up here claiming to be ‘neutral’, as if ‘neutral’ meant they still haven’t accepted the results of that election early four years back.
                      Hint, sock of some other lefty posting here: You been busted.

                2. Wanna inquire into the infield-fly rule at the same time?

                3. Did you read the story? It spells it out quite clear. McConnell was clear it was because the Senate and Presidency were held by different parties, and in his opinion the Republicans captured the Senate in 2014 ( and it’s a good argument) to check the exact thing that happened in 2016. The Republicans now hold both the Senate and the Presidency and in 2018 actually added Senate seats while losing House seats. The party ran on supporting Trump nominees, ergo, this doesn’t violate what McConnell said or did in 2016 unless your a simple minded partisan. Personally I think McConnell should have voted on Garland and allowed his nomination to be turned down. But this situation isn’t contrary to his stance in 2016.

                  1. The House and Presidency are of different parties and the Republican controlled Senate, in fact, got 15 million fewer votes than the Democrats. Do we want democracy or tyranny of the minority?

                    1. Screw your democracy. How about government according to the Constitution?

                    2. “The House and Presidency are of different parties and the Republican controlled Senate, in fact, got 15 million fewer votes than the Democrats. Do we want democracy or tyranny of the minority?”

                      The latter. Lefty shitbags like you are the reason for the constitution.
                      Fuck off and die a slow, painful death, scum.

                    3. Black Lives Matter, Antifa terrorizing citizens trying to lead lives in liberty, pursue happiness are a numerical minority and attempting tyranny. We don’t want pure democracy, we want the system that was set up, states separate from federal government, and a democratic republic. You seem to want a populist democracy, a tyranny of the masses, if the masses can be indoctrinated to beliefs that you find palatable.

                    4. Do you believe you when you lie ??
                      The Republicans picked up a couple of seats in the 2018 election so just how did the Dims get 15M more votes ?
                      The other fact of course is that Senators are elected by EACH STATE, not by the country as a whole.
                      You urgently need a refresher course in US Govt. See if your local high school can fit you in.

                4. It wasn’t an identical circumstance, so you are essentially begging the question here.

                  1. The Republican claim was not to choose a Justice in an election year but to let the people decide. What was true in 2016 is equally true in 2020 but more so since the claim was made 9 months before the election whereas now we are about 5 weeks away and clearly, all polls show that the people want Trump OUT.

                    1. Your whining is both predicable and amusing.
                      Fuck off and die a slow, painful death. The world will be a better place and your family will be proud.

                    2. ‘clearly, all polls show that the people want Trump OUT.’

                      All polls that you read -this is called bias. Both slection and confirmation.

                      As for the rest, welcome to politics, and what either party would do; any claim to the opposite is biased.

                5. That’s how “having the votes” works.

                6. Not identical. Details, like elections, have consequences.

            2. “McConnell’s abuse of his position…”

              You lost me; seems perfectly compatible with Article III.

        2. If Trump pulls out a win and Republicans hold the Senate, imagine the screaming if they start contemplating packing the court. Every Democrat making noise about it now will spin 180 degrees and unify in their opposition.

          1. Not that I think they should do it, but if they do manage to miraculously hold on to the Senate, Trump needs to troll the left by musing whether the Republicans should pack the court, since the Democrats have already threatened to do so when they regain power.

        3. Maybe every time they threaten to do it, the R’s should nominate a new justice. When the USSC hits 10 justices, they’ll get the message and shut up about it.

      2. Like you would openly disagree with whatever justification was cited for court packing???

        Yeah, sure.

  4. http://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1308539516525969408?s=19

    It is not enough to simply be against Marxism. We must be actively anti-Marxist.

    1. All who do not adore the Trumptatorshit are Marxists!

      All who do not adore the Nadless Nardless are Marxists!

      DOWN with Marxism!

      1. Fuck off, retard.

        1. Brilliant, humorous post, oh witty one! Or did mommy help you write it?

          1. he is right. The founder of BLM are openly marxist dummy. The anti racist movement was built on marxist traditions dummy. Your ignorance doesn’t trump reality.

            1. Moron logic! I bet you that I could find 3 or 5 or 50 USA Armed Services members who have Marxist sympathies. Now, according to JesseSPAZ “logic”, the USA Armed Services are Marxist!

              Which would you more likely find at a BLM protest, Oh Brilliant One?

              “Police Back Off!”

              …or…

              “Government Ownership of the Means of Production”?

              1. “I bet you that I could find 3 or 5 or 50 USA Armed Services members”

                The founder of BLM<

                Ahahah SQRLSY is a shit eating retard who sucks Marx’s dust rotten cock.

                1. The founder of the Pythagorean Theorem was a mind-controlling cultist.

                  https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/1996/03/13/pythagoras-the-cult-of-personality-and-the-mystical-power-of-numbers/92ef23a9-fad2-4c12-8089-ddd0aaf8c4a7/

                  All who believe the Pythagorean Theorem are cultists! According to moron non-logic, that is…

                  1. “ganger”

                    lol retard

                    1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new…NGf after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

                      Here’s what I do…>> Click here

              2. Social justice and equality of outcome are bedrock neo Marxist principles. If you agree with them, you are a neo Marxist.

              3. It’s not an either/or proposition, Mary.

            2. So, the correct factual statement is that some of the founders of Black Lives Matter are Marxists.

              Claiming that makes the entire anti-racist movement “built on Marxist traditions” is what is called an exaggeration or smear.

              1. oh no you called it a smear!

                a shame everyone laughs at you and your takes!

                1. Yet I’m so deep in your head you’ve named yourself after me.

                  1. Mockery is not the highest form of compliment.

              2. Identifying people as units of identity classes in perpetual opposition to one another is fundamentally marxist

                1. Identifying people as units “who have no value” (in the eyes of Nadless Nardi the NAZI) is EVIL!

                  1. You have no value Squirrelly, kill yourself. Which would be the only valuable thing you could ever do.

                  2. Shitsy Shitler, drinking Shitsy Kool-Aid in a spiraling vortex of darkness, cannot or will not see the Light… It’s a VERY sad song! Kinda like this…

                    He’s a real Kool-Aid Man,
                    Sitting in his Kool-Aid Land,
                    Playing with his Kool-Aid Gland,
                    Has no thoughts that help the people,
                    He wants to turn them all to sheeple!
                    On the sheeple, his Master would feast,
                    Master? A disaster! Just the nastiest Beast!
                    Kool-Aid man, please listen,
                    You don’t know, what you’re missin’,
                    Kool-Aid man, better thoughts are at hand,
                    The Beast, to LEAVE, you must COMMAND!

                    A helpful book is to be found here: M. Scott Peck, Glimpses of the Devil
                    https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1439167265/reasonmagazinea-20/

                    Hey Shitsy Shitler…
                    If EVERYONE who makes you look bad, by being smarter and better-looking than you, killed themselves, per your wishes, then there would be NO ONE left!
                    Who would feed you? Who’s tits would you suck at, to make a living? WHO would change your perpetually-smelly DIAPERS?!!?
                    You’d better come up with a better plan, Stan!

                    1. If EVERYONE who makes you look bad, by being smarter and better-looking than you, killed themselves, per your wishes, then there would be NO ONE left!

                      At least he wouldn’t have to worry about you dishing up his bowel movements for Sunday brunch.

                    2. Fuck off, retard.

                2. Like classifying anyone who protests a rioter?

                  Like calling people who have zero affiliation with the Black Lives Matter organization “BLM rioters”?

              3. What your call the “anti racist movement” demands equality of outcome. That is what makes the entire movement Marxist. It’s not an aberration, it’s at the core.

                1. That is one sect of anti-racism. Anti-racism more broadly is — wait for it — being against racism.

                  1. You used the correct term, sect. As for the rest, anytime people are educated (I use the term loosely) to believe that others whom they have neither met nor spoken to are inherently bigoted, with no current evidence presented, the description aberrant does apply.

            3. BLM is a slogan used by people who want reform so police don’t kill as many black people. It’s about black lives. If someone trademarks the name or starts an organization with that name it doesn’t mean they represent all or any BLM supporters. I don’t know why someone would start an organization claiming to represent BLM. They’re only doing the movement a disservice by allowing cons like you to bad mouth it.

              1. Fuck off, you pathetic piece of shit.

              2. BLM, the organization has been around as long as the movement shythead. Remember their little slogan in Minnesota in 2015 …
                “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon”.
                And the three co-founders of BLM are avowed Marxists, as per their own home page …. which they recently scrubbed once it was publicized far and wide, thus trying to hide their true intentions, which are (1) destruction of the traditional family unit of a father-mother-children (2) dissolution of the US Govt (3) conversion of the American economy from capitalistic to marxist.

    2. You know who else was fervently anti-Marxist?

      1. Not you?

      2. Everybody other than communists and fascists is anti-Marxist, communism and fascism being the ideological offspring of Marx.

        1. Bzzzt. Wrong answer. Fascism is different, and has often been in opposition to Marxism.

          1. “Bzzzt. Wrong answer. Fascism is different, and has often been in opposition to Marxism.”

            Bzzt. Here’s your $3 watch for showing how un-schooled idiots can make asses of themselves on the ‘net.
            Hint: Trotsky opposed Stalin, and if you had a brain, you might take that as a starting point for some study.
            I’ll be happy to help, but for someone as lame as you, I’ll need a $3K no refundable retainer, and the hourly rate is $450.

      3. Bob Hope?

    1. ‘‘Tis the season. Let’s celebrate the downward spiral of partisan division in this country!

      1. Your tears at the thought people proudly defend themselves is noted

        1. Would you have supported the folks at the temple on the other side of the McCloskeys’ wall if they had shot him when he trespassed on their property to destroy their honeycombs?

          1. Does cherry-picking pay a living wage?

    1. It’ll take the judge 30 seconds to revoke her license.

  5. https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/22/politics/democratic-strategy-barrett-nomination-religion/index.html

    Democrats weigh how to handle Trump’s potential Supreme Court pick after past flap over Barrett’s faith

    From there:

    ‘”Indeed, Barrett’s past writings are bound to come up. In the hearing, Democrats and Republicans questioned her about a 1998 law article she had co-written, which said: “The Catholic Church’s opposition to the death penalty places Catholic judges in a moral and legal bind.”
    “It seems to us, then, that the proper approach to this kind of case morally and legally — is for the observant Catholic judge to recuse himself after trial and before the sentencing hearing,” the article said. “It would probably be appropriate to give the parties prior notice that he intends to do so if the trial ends in conviction.”‘

    She is morally opposed to doing her job, but still wants to hold the job! Kinda like pharmacists who don’t want to give you your birth control pills, when you already did all the proper ass-kissing and permission-seeking with the gate-keeping physicians! You must PAY me, so that I can stand in your way, and then perform moral grand-standing, and NOT do my job!

    1. Are you saying that, if the death penalty is an option, judges *must* be willing to give death sentences?

      Because that’s not how judicial discretion works. It’s why mandatory minimums exist – because discretion in sentencing is the norm.

      1. “Are you saying that, if the death penalty is an option, judges *must* be willing to give death sentences?”

        In theory at the VERY least! The voters and the political machinery have blessed the death penalty, and a morally superior religiously-motivated judge is going to say, “But I am too pure and clean, to EVER bless the death penalty?” Not even for a dangerous mass murderer? If so, said judge should NOT be on the job, drawing pay for job duties that he or she will not perform! Step aside, and let the willing do the work!

        Ideologically motivated (for whatever reason) judges can find an endless list of things that they are “too clean” to mess with… Money, rape, politics, hunger, the environment, yada yada… I have to recuse myself if it involves ANY of these things! But I still consider myself to be ENTITLED to this job!

        1. this is stupid even for you. Many judges do not sentence to death.

          1. Name me ONE SCOTUS judge that has recused himself of herself for being opposed to the death penalty? ONE? With citation?

            1. “SQRLSY One
              July.2.2020 at 5:11 pm
              Port-a-potties ARE buffets”

              lol

            2. There had never been an obligation, even when there has been the opportunity, for a judge to sentence a defendent to death.

              1. There had never been a de facto obligation, even when there has been the opportunity, for a POTUS (Commander in Chief of the Armed Services) to whole-heartedly prosecute a war against an enemy combatant state. ESPECIALLY (de facto) now that the POTUS routinely ignores the USA Constitution, and “separation of powers” provisions! Like taking budget allocations from Congress, for USA military bases-funding, and diverting it to anti-illegal-humans wall-building!

                Well anyway, are you OK with a POTUS (Commander in Chief of the Armed Services) who is an ideologically committed opponent of commanding armed forces in combat? Because we are looking at a strong possibility of the equivalent, with this highly-likely nominee to SCOTUS! What would pro-death-penalty right wingers say if she was going to be appointed by a Democrat POTUS?

    2. Oh, come on. The Democrats will find someone she sexually assaulted, sometime, somewhere, with some witnesses, all of which they can’t remember exactly.

      They already have a casting call out.

      https://babylonbee.com/news/democrats-post-job-listing-for-supreme-court-nominee-accusers

    3. the last time a USSC Justice oversaw a sentencing phase of the death penalty was when?

      1. “scotus and the death penalty” Google search

        About 6,720 results (0.50 seconds)

        Is lazy moron too stupid, too lazy, to Google? Or both? The SCOTUS has addressed matters concerning the death penalty MANY times!

        A POTUS has never shot and killed someone? So then you’d be OK with a POTUS Commander in Chief of the Armed Services, who is a committed, ideological pacifist? That’s your logic, idiot! Since a given POTUS candidate has never shot and killed someone… And since it is not generally a duty of the POTUS to shoot and kill enemy soldiers… Then a committed, ideological pacifist will make a FINE Commander in Chief of the Armed Services!

        Double duh!

        1. ““scotus and the death penalty” Google search

          About 6,720 results (0.50 seconds)

          Is lazy moron too stupid, too lazy, to Google? Or both? ”

          I would say you’re both since the question was “the last time a USSC Justice oversaw a sentencing phase of the death penalty was when?”

          1. Last time a sitting POTUS shot and killed an enemy soldier was when? So then you’d be OK with a POTUS Commander in Chief of the Armed Services, who is a committed, ideological pacifist? That’s your logic, idiot!

            Is this too complicated for you?

            1. Do you often ask questions without knowing what you’re asking?

              1. No! It is called a “rhetorical question”.

                noun
                a question asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer.
                “the presentation was characterized by impossibly long sentences and a succession of rhetorical questions”
                Definitions from Oxford Languages

                Example: I asked of Tulpa, “Is this too complicated for you?”, knowing full well that the issue of HONESTY is what entirely eludes brain-washed right-wing nut-jobs and trolls!

                1. “No! It is called a “rhetorical question”

                  No actually, it isn’t lololol

                2. SQRLSY One
                  July.2.2020 at 5:11 pm
                  Port-a-potties ARE buffets

                  lol

                3. Squirrelly, were you born this stupid or did you receive special training at the DNC AcademyForMorons ?

        2. I wouldn’t be ok with that – but I wouldn’t say that he did not have the right to not want to use military force.

          Why are you such a violent hawk all of a sudden?

          1. Sure, agreed, any truly decent human would NOT want to jump to war, or the death penalty, for trivial reasons. Granted!

            But truly horrible, dangerous criminals (think mass murderers) are a hazard to humanity, as long as they are alive. They could always escape, or some crazy judge could let them loose! So the death penalty is a good tool to have on hand. War is ugly, too, but having your whole nation enslaved to a despot is worse! So again, we need this tool to be at hand.

            At the highest levels of power, the power-wielders, while needing to have decent instincts as you have implied, also need to be comfortable with answering the ugliest of the ugly ones, with ugliness in kind.

          2. All of a sudden? He’s been whacky ever since he got away from his stupid lung-flute routine 4 yrs. ago.

    4. By the way fuckwit, she also talks of recusal, something judges are supposed to do when conflicted. For example Sotomayor refused herself from a case her first year.

      You really are fucking dumb.

      1. As I wrote above…

        Ideologically motivated (for whatever reason) judges can find an endless list of things that they are “too clean” to mess with… Money, rape, politics, hunger, the environment, yada yada… I have to recuse myself if it involves ANY of these things! But I still consider myself to be ENTITLED to this job!

        If you can’t or won’t do the job, let a better qualified candidate do it! But that requires HUMILITY to step aside, and you have NO idea what “humility” is, arrogant, Perfect One!

        1. “SQRLSY One
          July.2.2020 at 5:11 pm
          Port-a-potties ARE buffets”

          Lol

          1. Does your mommy help you to write your BRILLIANT lies?

            1. Now you’re so embarrassed you’re lying about what you wrote again!!!

              1. Out-of-context quotes (as bad as yours) are lies!

                “I am angry at Tulpa because it is an evil asshole”.

                Re-quote:

                “I am … an evil asshole”.

                Now Tulpa the lying moron will go on and on, quoting the above! Evil is as evil does! The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, and Tulpa doesn’t fall far from the Evil One, who is known as the Father of Lies!

                1. You love eating literal human excrement. You admitted it, and are now angry that you’re being called on it. Your best course of action is suicide.

                  Apologize to everyone here and go do it.

                2. Shitsy Shilter is a lying asshole! Give me a CITE, lying asshole? Brainless wonder!

                  “You (Shitsy Shitler) love eating literal human excrement.”
                  “You (Shitsy Shitler) love eating literal human excrement.”
                  “You (Shitsy Shitler) love eating literal human excrement.”
                  “You (Shitsy Shitler) love eating literal human excrement.”
                  “You (Shitsy Shitler) love eating literal human excrement.”
                  “You (Shitsy Shitler) love eating literal human excrement.”
                  “You (Shitsy Shitler) love eating literal human excrement.”
                  “You (Shitsy Shitler) love eating literal human excrement.”
                  “You (Shitsy Shitler) love eating literal human excrement.”
                  “You (Shitsy Shitler) love eating literal human excrement.”

                  Look everyone! I am now 10 times as much of a BRILLIANT writer as Shitsy Shitler is!

                  1. Give me a CITE, lying asshole? Brainless wonder!

                    “SQRLSY One
                    July.2.2020 at 5:11 pm
                    Port-a-potties ARE buffets”

                    1. https://reason.com/2020/07/02/empowered-by-excessive-regulations-permit-karen-harasses-her-neighbors-and-calls-the-cops/

                      SQRLSY One
                      July.2.2020 at 5:11 pm
                      Port-a-potties ARE buffets, for Tulpa-Satan-Mary-“.”-Mary’s Period! Port-a-potties are ALSO where she likes to hungrily slurp down her yeast-infected twat juices! She TOLD us so!

                      MarxistRedRock!

                    2. MarxistRedRockUnderDweller is a liar! What a surprise!

                      Evil One is the “Father of Lies”, and MarxistRedRockUnderDweller sucker of Tulpa-twat, is a lying slave to the Evil One! What a surprise!

                    3. What, Shitsy, you jealous because you think Tulpa’s trying to get in on your excrement stash?

                  2. It’s endlessly cited. Now go back to eating out of your shit bucket.

                    1. Simple things amuse simple minds! And lies amuse liars!

    5. As opposed to RBG, who morally opposed the death penalty but didn’t act on it because she wanted power?

  6. Make 6,000 dollar to 8,000 dollar A Month Online With No Prior Experience Or Skills Required. Be Your Own Boss AndChoose Your Own Work Hours.Thanks A lot Here>>>ReadMore.

  7. There weren’t any restrictions “imagined” by Republicans in 2016. They held the senate and therefore controlled the process. It was based on the “biden rule” from 1992 where the senate and the executive are split. But now that Republicans hold the senate and the white house, they control the process. Tough titties.

    The democrats could filibuster the Republicans, but Harry Reid killed that under Obama, at Obama’s direction… a process McConnell said the democrats would come to regret. And here we are.

    1. Here’s a better breakdown of the biden rule. What we’re conveniently calling the McConnell rule. Also good reasons to oppose Barrett as a judge.

      https://youtu.be/WXdvK7Qxyto

      1. Who is this “we” you speak of?

        Oh, you mean that Sullum is using this dishonest representation of the truth to play the “both sides” card.

        Yeah, objectively pro-pedophilia Sullum is dishonest like that.

      2. Mar 24, 2016, 3:20 PM
        Joe Biden
        Joe Biden. AP Photo/Cliff Owen
        Vice President Joe Biden slammed Senate Republicans Thursday for citing the “Biden Rule” as reasoning for why they won’t hold a hearing for Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court pick.

        In a Thursday speech, Biden called Republicans “frankly ridiculous” for relying on comments he made in 1992 about the dangers of holding Supreme Court confirmation hearings in the midst of presidential elections. Biden said the so-called rule that supposedly prevents Supreme Court nominations in an election year “doesn’t exist.”

        He said that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and others in the GOP Senate leadership have quoted “selectively” from the remarks he made in 1992 on the floor of the Senate as chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Those comments came after what the vice president called the “bruising and polarizing” confirmation process involving Justice Clarence Thomas.

        In the part of Biden’s 1992 speech that has been oft-cited by McConnell and other Republicans, Biden said then-President George H.W. Bush shouldn’t name a nominee if a vacancy arose until after that year’s November election.

        “Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all,” he said. “Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.”

        On Thursday, Biden said that statement, taken out of context, glosses over his main gripe from the time — that Bush nominated Thomas, an “extreme candidate,” in 1991 without consulting his committee just four days after Justice Thurgood Marshall retired.

        “They completely ignore the fact that, at the time, I was speaking of the dangers of nominating an extreme candidate without proper Senate consultation,” he said. “They completely neglected to quote my unequivocal bottom line, so let me set the record straight as they say: I said and I quote ‘if the president consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections, then his nominees may enjoy my support as did Justice Kennedy and Justice Souter,’ end of quote.”

        [So the Biden rules was really: if a President nominates someone I don’t like–someone like Justice Thomas–during an election year, I’m going to argue he shouldn’t do that.]

        From a Business Insider article

    2. Obama in 2016:
      “When there is a vacancy on the SCOTUS, the President is to nominate someone, the Senate is to consider that nomination… There’s no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off-years. That’s not in the Constitution text.”

  8. There is no ‘rule’ and there never has been. These are all purely political decisions and that’s it.

    Democrats and their supporters who are currently arguing (moaning, bitching, wailing, whatever) that the Republicans should wait until after the election are being disingenuous and hypocritical. Does anyone honestly think that they would do the same courtesy to their opponents if the tables were turned, and they ran the White House and Senate?

    1. But FEELINGS are the most important thing, and the 21st century foundation for our legal system, right?

    2. The hypocrisy is cyclic and on both sides. Whatever is good for “us” right now is to be vociferously argued for, but the second the other side might benefit from it, we must just as vociferously argue against it. Even though that means a 180 degree flip flop of our position. Witness democrats like Tim kaine going nuclear in the senate for scotus in anticipation of a democratic majority and president…oops, neither happened and when Republicans did just that, it was a travesty. Democrats up and down the line are planning to pack the court, but if trump wins and senate majority holds, they will 100% be against that idea and will scream if trump tries it. Republicans didn’t t even hold hearings on Obama’s nominee, and that will come back to bite them in the future e.g., a trump win but Democrats winning the senate and senate refusing to even discuss future trump appointments for , well, anything.

      So stop acting like your guys are always consistent and never flip flop and are never hypocrites.

      1. So everybody stop acting…

        Left out a word and no edit button

  9. It’s hilarious the Democrats want to keep people from realizing the obvious: voting down Garland was a formality. The Democrats didn’t have the votes to get him passed. Now, the GOP DOES have the votes to get their guy passed.

    And I bet you all the money in the world if the Democrats had enough votes to block the nominee, they would.

    It’s not “changing the rules”, it’s “having the votes you need.”

    1. You are probably right, however, the issue was that the Senate refused to even let it get to a vote. The process is such that they would have rejected Garland and Obama would have nominated someone else and so on. It’s very simple.

      1. While I think they should have let it go to a vote (especially with the benefit of hindsight, given the ensuing shit storm), I’d ask:

        (1) Did it really matter? There was no way Garland was getting confirmed.

        (2) I don’t think a vote is required, from a constitutional perspective—the Senate just needs to “advise” and (more importantly) “consent.” I don’t think those things necessarily require a “vote.”

        Again—I wish they would have just called a vote and shot it down. But I’m 99.9% certain that, even if they had, we’d be in an identical position right now.

        “Garland was qualified! This vote was pure partisan BS! You stole the seat!”

        Nuclear option still invoked for Gorsuch. “You stole the seat AND violated norms!”

        Kavanaugh still drug through the mud. RBG still dies. Last minute nomination fight still occurs. Same destination.

        1. Democrats don’t learn about “biting you in the ass” very readily…

          Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine is joining those predicting that his fellow Senate Democrats will force through changes to the chamber’s rules to ensure confirmation of a potential Supreme Court pick next year.

          Should the Virginia Democrat and ticket mate Hillary Clinton win next month, he could make pivotal procedural decisions in such a “nuclear option” standoff after Jan. 20, since the vice president also serves as president of the Senate and has the option to preside.

          The “nuclear option” describes efforts to change the Senate’s rules to decide on an issue with a simple majority of senators and bypass the customary procedure requiring a two-thirds vote to overcome filibuster threats.

          In an interview with The Huffington Post on the campaign trail in Ohio, Kaine offered up what he called a “prediction” about what may play out if the nomination of President Barack Obama‘s Supreme Court pick, Judge Merrick Garland, isn’t considered during the post-election lame duck session.

          “We will change the Senate rules to uphold the law, that the court will be nine members,” Kaine said, pointing out that he will be serving in the Senate at least into January.

          “I was in the Senate when the Republicans’ stonewalling around appointments caused Senate Democratic majority to switch the vote threshold on appointments from 60 to 51. And we did it on everything but a Supreme Court justice,” Kaine said. “If these guys think they’re going to stonewall the filling of that vacancy or other vacancies, then a Democratic Senate majority will say, ‘We’re not going to let you thwart the law.’”

        2. I agree with this. It would have been better for the country for them to just vote no, but politically it was probably better to just sit on the football.

      2. Obama always had the option of withdrawing and nominating someone else.

        Heck, Obama could even have negotiated with the Senate.

    2. When a simple majority of Congress can undo the 6-3 majority you might think Republicans would think twice about adopting the “fuck you, we have the votes position”.

      1. Yes, I’m sure the Democrats packing the Supreme Court with more picks won’t come back to bite them in the ass at all.

        Just like ending the filibuster on judicial appointments gave them a 1000-year judicial majority.

      2. If Trump pulls out a win and Republicans hold the Senate, imagine the screaming if they start contemplating packing the court. Every Democrat making noise about it now will spin 180 degrees and unify in their opposition.

      3. Democrats are going to pack the city of they think it’s to their advantage no matter what

        And packing the court would permanently end the sickening personal cult we have seen around people like RBG.

        In the long term, 100 justices would be a good thing for conservatives.

        So, knock yourself out.

      4. “When a simple majority of Congress can undo the 6-3 majority you might think Republicans would think twice about adopting the “fuck you, we have the votes position”.”

        You flunked civics last year in 6th grade, didn’t you?

      5. Yeah extortion is so Democratic. And anything the Democrats do in retaliation the Republicans can do later. Did you learn nothing from Reid destroying the filibuster on judges?

    3. Accomplishing the vote may have been a mere formality, but the politics of completing an actual vote might have mattered.

      McConnell made the political calculation that it was better to reject the appointment informally than to force each individual Senator to go on record.

      And, being the elected Majority Leader that was something entirely within his authority to decide.

      1. One thing NOT holding a vote, they essentially get Garland “on the hook” and preempted any additional nominees from Obama coming down the pipe to similarly be thwarted. So Republicans, by dithering indefinitely, avoided giving Democrats a chance to say “they rejected 11 nominees in 10 weeks!” or some such.

        1. That’s nonsense. Obama could have withdrawn Garland any time and made another nomination.

          1. Sure, but then that’s on him not on the Republicans.

  10. There are two simple rules, written in the constitution. The POTUS nominates, the Senates confirms (or not). All else is politics.

    The vacancy will be filled, and there is nothing Team D can do to stop it. Team D can protest all they want. If they think that threatening Americans with even more violence is going to help their cause, they should rethink that one. I don’t like being overtly threatened by anyone. Oh, you’re going to shut down DC? Well alright then, how about we cut your pay? Burn down more cities? More rioting and looting? Overtly threaten lawmakers in their homes?

    Team D will lose elections for certain. People don’t like that shit, and it doesn’t matter what party they belong to.

    1. That’s the crazy part that I don’t understand.
      Every normal person gets angry when they are threatened.
      People don’t like it when mobs set fires, destroy businesses, and threaten people at restaurants and in homes. At night.
      Even most black people don’t like white kids trashing inner city businesses.
      How do Dems think that is a winning strategy?

      1. They don’t. It’s not their strategy.

        Their Presidential electoral strategy is to put out a candidate who has name recognition and is middle of the road, backed by a black woman as VP candidate. Part of their electoral strategy (Biden’s not being Trump) is bolstered by Trump’s behavior every time he says something dumb, divisive, untruthful, or mean-spirited (which is just anoint every day).

        1. Their electoral strategy is to put up a senile, corrupt fool who hasn’t done a useful thing in his life and has become a sock puppet of the extreme left.

        2. So the select someone who arguably says dumber, more racist and more untruthful stuff? Did you see Biden claim that COvid has killed 150 million Americans and will kill 200 million by election day?

          1. Did not catch Biden saying that, but don’t disbelieve he said it.

  11. “The restrictions imagined by Republicans in 2016 or by Democrats now are nothing but self-serving nonsense.”

    And anyone who expects ethical behavior from either side hasn’t been watching.

  12. If it weren’t for partisan poppycock, Washington would have nothing to do. Perhaps a certain amount of Trump’s support comes from people who are realizing it’s always been nothing but partisan poppycock.

  13. Trump siad he’ll announce his nominee for SCOTUS on Saturday, and Romney said he’ll vote. So unless two more R Senators (in addition to Murkowski and Collins) break rank, it appears the full Senate will vote on and approve the nominee before the election.

    1. It is also possible that Murkowski, Collins and/or even Doug Jones will vote for Trump’s nominee, as the latter faces an uphill election battle against Tuberville in deep red Alabama.

    2. I think it’s hilarious how Cory Gardner is indicating he’ll vote. He knows the neurotic Democrat-leaning lunatics on the Front Range would never vote for him no matter what he did to appease them, so he’s going to vote to confirm as a final “fuck you” to all of them.

      With any luck, Denver will get trashed to shit again if Trump wins, and we might even get some spicy riots in Boulder and north Aurora for good measure.

  14. If we want to talk about norms: in polite society, constant bullshit is frowned upon, as is using violence to accomplish your goals.

    So much for norms.

  15. It was not a restriction, it was a rationale for the GOP Senate’s choice of how to handle the Garland nomination, which the Democrats are elliding the operative part (the GOP had and has the Senate majority) to accuse them of hypocrisy.

  16. Scalia died on February 13th and the 2016 election was November 8th. Nearly 9 months. It was almost 14 months between Scalia’s death and Gorusch being sworn in in April 2017. The 2020 election is 6 weeks away. Last time checked 9 months is a hell of a lot longer than 6 weeks. The GOP are hypocrites. Trump didn’t win the popular vote either. “Popular vote doesn’t matter because we have the electoral college. Are you saying you know better than the founding fathers?” Considering it was the 1780s and their thoughts on slavery I’m going to say we know a lot of things today that the founders didn’t. Since cons don’t seem to care about traditions, rules, or conventions except when it suits them if it was the other way and the EC and Senate favored Dems they would be screaming about abolishing both. I will always be for having a more representative Senate and method for electing president. The senate and EC overrepresents inbred shit kickers in Wyoming and evil Mormons in Utah and Idaho. The last thing our country needs is giving Mormons more say in things. If I was a republican in California or New York or a democrat in Texas or some godawful southern state I’d be pissed my vote doesn’t mean anything in presidential elections. Not all, but most undecided voters are goddamn morons and we’re giving their votes way more importance than they deserve. The fact an election can swing on a few votes in Iowa, Florida, or Pennsylvania is just nuts. Of course cons don’t want one person one vote with every vote counting equally because they’d have to abandon their extreme right wing views to win elections. It took the supreme court to force them to count everyone’s vote equally and to allow non whites to vote. Do you conservatives ever get tired of being on the wrong side of history? Romney is a Mormon piece of shit who belongs in a gas chamber. Not in a position where his pandering ass affects millions of lives. We’re essentially letting the goddamn evil Mormons legislate from the bench for the next few decades by having Romney be the vote that pushes the nominee through. He has to pander to the electorate that elected far right loon Mike Lee(who is on Trump’s SC list). I have to add that Mike Lee is just a horrible human being. His solution to climate change is to procreate more. He says that because mormon are trying to take over the country and force their bullshit, wrong beliefs on everyone. Mormons are treasonous extremists who are ruining the country and must be EXTERMINATED. Send all the mormons to the gas!

    1. In 2016 the Republicans had enough votes to block a Democrat’s nomination.

      In 2020 the Republicans have enough votes to confirm a Republican’s nomination.

      Everything else us just butt hurt [but Merrick Garland!!] weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth; but don’t let me stop you, keep signaling your fucking virtue!

      1. And in a some point in the near future Democrats will have the votes to add DC and Puerto Rico as new states and add more judges up and down the circuits.

        1. A constitutional convention in PR would be epic.

          But, since we are in bizzaro world now the response to those moves would be Texas splitting into multiple states and secession of non-coastal California. Possibly the same in Washington and Oregon as well.

          1. “Texas splitting into multiple states and secession of non-coastal California. Possibly the same in Washington and Oregon as well.”

            Why not?

            “If you can dream it you can do it.”
            Walt Disney

          2. Hell, why stop there?

            Break up Colorado into the Front Range and everyone else. The rest of Illinois can declare independence from Cook County. The areas east of I-5 can break off in Oregon and Washington state.

            To be honest, given how large our population is along with the odious 17th Amendment, we probably need to break up most of the states anyway in order to get better representation for various residents.

            1. I’m not advocating for a violent Civil War, but I’d be down for a “Glorious Secession” in which Teams Red and Blue just agree get divorced.

              1. Better check out Kurt Schlichter’s novels on that subject. There ain’t nothing “civil” about it, and he may well be right.

                But then again, if the USSR could dissolve more or less peacefully, with a little incursion here and there….and a tsar or two.

                1. Obama already gave us the czars, and we’ve already devolved into violent skirmishes. So heck, why not.

              2. No. Europe is over that way, if Team Blue wants to live in a country that embodies Socialist views. All splitting the country does is guarantee a conventional war with the Chinese on US soil, shortly thereafter.

                A lot of blood was spilt to win this land; it may be that a lot will need to be spilt to keep it.

                1. China has absolutely no means to engage in a land war in North America. That’s not even decent fiction it is so absurd, they’d have to begin such an endeavor by subjugating most all of East Asia first.

                  Not saying they wouldn’t start that though.

                  1. The very first thing a USSA would do, is sign a basing and mutual friendship agreement with the PRC. They don’t need to replicate the Invasion of Normandy, or even REFORGER, in order to have a credible deterrent on US soil.

                    True, the oceans belong to the US Navy, and will for awhile. Will the US start a war with China by blockading the USSA from sea trade? If not, then what stops China from propositioning whatever log resources it feels it needs to maintain for 30-60 days, whatever sized elements they want to base CONUSSA?

                    Take that credible deterrent a step further, with a building low-intensity conflict between the USSA and USA, and it is, IMHO, very likely that would result in conventional war between the US and Chinese troops/whoever the USSA could press into service.

                    1. And that should be “pre-positioning” instead, but you get the idea.

                    2. I suppose that would be one result if we are wargaming this thing. But I think a more likely result would be “better relationship as neighbors than roommates.”

                      I’d predict Team Blue would end up like Canada. Maybe not great friends with Team Red—but not forming a military alliance with China and planning an invasion.

                2. Instead of splitting up the land, how about redistributing the people?

                  We keep hearing about how many activists want the US to be more like the Europe, especially those holy Scandinavians, or like Canada, or even like (gods help them) China or Venezuela. We could give everyone a few months to choose, and then a free one-way plane ticket to everyone not happy here. And we can probably recruit some people who embrace the core values of the USA the way it it to replace our losses.

      2. The reason the GOP controls the senate and the presidency is because inbred, backwards, far right shit kickers in Wyoming are way overrepresented. Republicans have to lie and use underhanded tactics like this because they know they’re in the minority in this country. If everyone’s vote counted equally they’d lose and they know. Normal, patriotic Americans are getting sick of their shit. First they try to delegitamize the election before it even happens because they know they’re going to lose. Now they pull a complete reversal of their position 4 years ago so they can install a young, far right religious kooks on the court. Obama tried to appoint an older moderate at least.
        If Mormons like Romney and Lee are going to do everything they can to destroy our country and force their BS religion on everyone then we all need to fight back. Since you cons appear to welcome the destruction of our country then you need to be stopped as well. In the gas chambers with the mormons you goddamn traitors. Send all the mormons to the gas chambers!

        1. Fuck off and die, scumbag.

    2. And you are certifiably insane by the way; if you came into my ER talking like that you’d be “certed” for involuntary admission to a psych hospital.

      1. You really think someone disagreeing with you is a good enough reason to violate their civil liberties? How libertarian of you…

        1. You have zero qualms proposing violating others rights or killing them. And, if your speech is taken seriously, you are a threat to others, potentially yourself. But, by all means, try your argument about opposing viewpoints.

    3. You know what else Mormons do? They use paragraph breaks.

      1. Well not that’s just beyond the pale.

      2. Sorry. I thought this was an internet comment section. Not a writing class.

        1. Up to you. I’ve been making the assumption you want other people to read your comments, but maybe you don’t.

          1. I’ll do my best. Sorry you have trouble reading. Maybe you should try children’s books or something? I don’t think an internet comment section is the best place to learn to read.

    4. A 400 word paragraph. Name that stimulant.

        1. Thanks for taking time away from fucking your cousin to give such excellent analysis Sevo! Bravo you inbred, looney, far right wing troll! Bravo!

      1. “if a paragraph is too long I’m incapable of reading it! All I can do is criticize it for being too long and not the substance or arguments in it.”

        1. Fuck off and die, scumbag.

    5. Cry some more, you pathetic little baby.

      1. SgtBone? So were you in the military? Or are you just a tool? I’m not crying. I’m pointing out how fucking looney and hypocritical conservatives have gotten in this country. When you have a lying imbecile like Trump with his dick down your throat I guess it’s bound to happen.

    6. If we start exterminating morons, you’ll be the first selection.

  17. What a bunch of bs. I hate articles that are saying “well…both sides are…”

    No- it’s clear that the Republicans are hypocrites. Why can’t you just say that? Hell, if Democrats had rightfully been given Garland’s confirmation (or hell, just a hearing) and then demanded that we wait this year then they’d be hypocrites, sure.

    But this is nothing more than Republican bs to accrue as much power as possible. They’ll say and do whatever at the expense of norms, traditions, and laws to simply accrue more power.

    It’d be better if you just call them out for it rather than doing this “hey, I’m impartial- I’m blaming both sides” bs.

    1. Plenty of blame to go around; you brought up the “nuclear option” in the first place [a Democrat], who “Borked” a judicial nominee [Democrats]; and let’s not forget the “high tech lynching” [Democrats, but hey, they have a lot of experience with lynching].

      1. Democrats are nothing if not ignorant.

    2. “Democrats had rightfully been given Garland’s confirmation”

      Rightfully?

      Yeah, that’s a strong element of a winning argument.

    3. But this is nothing more than Republican bs to accrue as much power as possible. They’ll say and do whatever at the expense of norms, traditions, and laws to simply accrue more power.

      Jesus, the projection in this post is off the charts.

      The Republicans aren’t breaking any “norms, traditions, or laws” here. You’re just pissed because you’ve just swallowed your own medicine and are shocked that it tastes like SQRLSY’s lunch.

      1. They’ll say and do whatever at the expense of norms, traditions, and laws to simply accrue more power.

        It’s startling, but not really surprising, the outright conservative utterances that will come out of a progressive’s mouth when it serves to conserve their own power. It’s almost like they don’t really care about actually conserving anything else.

    4. “…Hell, if Democrats had rightfully been given Garland’s confirmation…”

      Yes, the Ds should be ‘given’ a confirmation.
      Fuck off and die.

    5. Why did Garland deserve to be confirmed?

      1. Because he was an older moderate and the Senate always confirmed the president’s nominees prior. Even when they rejected a nominee they would eventually confirm one. Letting the supreme court sit at 8 for over a year was unprecedented. Now it’s a complete 180 by the GOP. 6 weeks is not the same as 8-9 months so Ted Cruz trying to call Dems hypocrites as well is only making him look even more like a partisan hack(didn’t think that was possible). They are hypocrites and anyone with a brain can see that. I’m not surprised you can’t you loser and sucker. You’re a Mormon loving traitor. Fuck you for letting you goddamn Mormon family destroy our country. Send soldiermedic76 and his Mormon family to the gas chambers!

        1. Cry some more little loser.

          1. Not crying. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of the GOP. If the conservative minority keeps forcing their views on the rest of us don’t be surprised when people won’t take it anymore. If Republicans have to overrepresent backwards, inbred, hillbillies in Wyoming to win national elections they’ll eventually regret it. By giving Romney the vote that pushes Trump’s nominee through you’re basically saying to the Mormons in Utah “keep electing batshit nutcases like Mike Lee and spineless cowards like Romney. Your crazy nonsense views are more important than other peoples!” The majority of the country doesn’t want you far right loons forcing your backwards views on us. Don’t be surprised when we won’t take it anymore…

            1. Something you LobotomizedLeftistLoons should consider before getting too antsy …. all us Conservatives/RedNecks have plenty of guns and ammo …. thanks to the tyranny years of ObozoTheClown, we’ve been stocking up every since. But if you really feel froggy …. then bring it on Snowflake. PS : Bring your own body bag.

        2. Were you born this ignorant or did you receive special training at the DNC AcademyForMorons ? You really need to get back on your psychotropic drugs … they will help you with your TDS. If they aren’t sufficient, check with you psych doc to see if suicide is right for you.

  18. It may be true that McConnel’s position was more nuanced. It was not a simple rule about last years of a presidency, but last years when opposition Senate. Let’s assume that were true. Did all of his Senate cronies make that nuanced caveat clear? No.

    We can rightly blame the media for amplifying the simplified version of McConnel’s “rule”, however, before we go down that road the same media should go back and review the tapes.

    That being said, the rule McConnel espoused is bunk. It makes no sense. Why the last year? Why not the whole darn presidency? He could argue that since the people voted in an opposition Senate they should always deny the president’s choices. The one year rule is arbitrary. Back in 2016 that was the main counter-argument. It was so strong that the outrage never leaked over to the opposition party part of his argument.

    If the Democrats were honest they would not say they are operating under the last’year rule but instead, this is pure tit-for-tat. They have a strong argument. By going with the last year logic they just look silly.

    1. It wasn’t more nuanced. He made a plain statement. And now that the winds have changed he’s blowing off what he said.

      Having said that, it is the Republican’s prerogative to appoint a Justice.

      1. He’s not blowing it off. He is doubling down on it.

        “I’m the Senate Majority leader and Senate rules say I get to decide.”

      2. He did make a clear statement and in it he stated when the president and senate control are from different parties. He clearly stated that, so he isn’t being a hypocrite you are for ignoring the clear distinction he stated in 2016. The story even gives examples of him stating the distinction multiple times.

        1. The senate has always confirmed a President’s nominee eventually. Even if a Bork or Miers gets rejected the senate eventually confirmed one of the President’s nominees. In 2016 they wouldn’t even hold hearings. They let the court sit at 8 for nearly 14 months. It was unprecedented. Now with less than 6 weeks till the election it’s hurry hurry hurry. The only reason the GOP has the senate is because inbred shit kickers like you elect Steve goddamn Daines. I like Tester(met him once). You also elected Gianforte who assaulted a reporter for christ sake(and now he’ll probably be your governor). I really hope Bullock beats Daines. I knew a guy who worked with Bullock. Seems like a smart guy.
          I’m rambling my point is the Senate and EC give backwards, inbred shit kickers like you way too much power. One person one vote would be fair, but Republicans don’t want fair. They just wanna win, and if that means stopping people from voting, flip floping, lying, and destroying the country they’ll do it.

          You’re a lying Mormon lover so I really shouldn’t engage you since you’ll say anything to make the Mormons look good. If you can name one Mormon who the Nazis killed for simply being Mormon I’ll make sure your family is treated fairly on the way to the gas chamber a. The thing is there probably is one or three or five Mormons killed for no reason and can probably be claimed as being killed for being Mormon. Problem is the lying Mormons try to say their members were persecuted for being Mormon in Germany when that isn’t true. Most just kept their head down and went with the flow(not judging or blaming them for that. Until you’re in a situation like that you don’t know what you’d do). The mormons that were killed were killed for resisting Nazism. Not because they were Mormon. Mormons have no problem lying to try and make themselves look like some suffering christ like figure. In reality they’re overrepresented in government. They’re doing everything to amass as much power as possible so they can force their wrong beliefs on everyone. Many of them are hypocries.

          Two Mormon politicians with sons burning in hell for killing themselves, and will join them in hell when they die are Gordon Smith and Jay Bybee. Gordon Smith(I’m so ashamed of my state for electing that monster twice) supported the Iraq war and encroachment of our civil liberties. Jay Bybee did the same thing AND signed John Yoo’s torture memos. I thought Mormons were against killing and forcing their beliefs on others? Then why the heck did those two do that? Why do Mormons lie to make themselves look better?

          1. I am sorry for my mean comments earlier. So How many Mormons have abused you and what are their names? Maybe it is not too late to prosecute.

            1. You shouldn’t be.
              It’s obvious that this scumbag should be ‘abused’ with a running, rusty chainsaw.

              1. You’re a great example of why I’m right about rednecks like you Sevo. You’re a perfect example why inbred hillbillies need to be eliminated. All you can do is troll “lefties”and insult people. You’re far too inbred to present a coherent argument. Please, PLEASE if you ever get your cousin pregnant get an abortion! Allowing another tragedy like you to enter the world is just wrong.

                1. Congrats on your lobotomy! It seems to have been a blazin’ success.

            2. Wasn’t “abused” by Mormons. I have been lied to and fucked over by mormons. A bunch of them owe me money, but I’d rather they have it then me having to talk to them. Every Mormon I’ve ever met has been a scumbag. One of my first encounters with Mormons perfectly illustrates how messed up they are. When I was 7 my family and I would go on road trips each summer. We were camping in southern Idaho and I was playing on some sand dunes. Two kids who were probably 9 or 10 started playing with me. One of the first things they asked is where I went to church. I told them I don’t go to church. They then started talking about how they were LDS and how great it was and I should convert. I said thanks, but I’m good and tried to talk about something else. They kept saying how great Mormons were and I should convert. One of them described the process to join the church and kept saying “I would totally come to your babtism to support you!” I insisted I wasn’t interested, but the little tool kept saying “but dude I would come to your babtism!” My point is what kind of people teach their 9 to 10 year olds to be such goddamn zealots? I feel bad for the kids. They’re too young to understand how bonkers their religion is.

              I don’t get why people on here are saying “hey go easy on the Mormons. They’re really nice!” What they believe is fucking beyond dumb, and they should be ridiculed for believing such BS. The reason they’re so nice is because they want to convert you. See how nice they’re once it’s clear you’re not going to buy their bullshit. They literally try to convert everyone they come in contact with. If that wasn’t enough they literally breed like rabbits. Other people don’t use birth control, but they don’t end up with 12 fucking kids. Joseph Smith designed their religion to take over the country. He was a con artist and a pedophile. AND THEY WORSHIP HIM.

              Sorry I couldn’t find more paragraph breaks. I’ll try to do better before midterms.

              1. ‘A bunch of them owe me money, but I’d rather they have it then me having to talk to them,’ that’s on you, not them. If you expect people to do something, you need to tell them, remind them. It’s irrational to develop this as part of your bigotry.

  19. I agree there are no rules here other than the President nominates and the Senate confirms the nomination. What has changed is the politics. In past the nominees where considered and confirmed on qualifications. RBG was confirmed to the Supreme Court 93 to 3. If President Trump’s nominee is qualified and I believe that will be the case, that person should receive a similar vote. That will not happen. This is a problem because judicial philosophy should be left to the President. Democrats need to understand that if they want influence judicial philosophy they need to win elections.
    That chance comes every four years. So if your not enthusiastic for Biden, then be enthusiastic for SCOTUS.

    1. Totally agree; very straightforward and, as the man said, “elections have consequences.” Right up until inauguration.

    2. Yikes. The president should stay far as hell away from judicial philosophy. But we really should return to the days during which justices were assessed by their knowledge of the law and not their political tendencies.

      1. I believe that ship has sailed,

        1. You’re probably right. But it is a principle that deserves to be maintained as closely as possible. Respect for the separation of powers in the federal government has vacillated throughout American history, we need people to continue advocating for this principle for the chance that it will shift back toward its original position.

    3. “That chance comes every four years. So if your not enthusiastic for Biden, then be enthusiastic for SCOTUS.”

      Fucking lefty ignoramuses grasping at any straw they can find.

    4. I totally agree with you for once. Why are Republican nominees treated so very differently in the confirmation hearings?

      1. Because they don’t even hold heaings for the Dem nominees. Last Dem nominee to get a hearing was Kagen and I might be misremembering but I think it was Orrin Hatch talked to her like she was a little kid. It was super misogynistic. Funny thing is Hatch believes in Golden Plates, Magic Underwear, Native Americans magically coming from Israel, Animals and Plants in North America that don’t exist here, and all sorts of other trips in the Book of Mormon. Dumbass pieces of shit like him should be barred from congress. Giving anyone who believes the BS mormons believe power is just asking for trouble.

        1. *Tripe

          Trips should be tripe

        2. Right. Tie in your bigotry. It wasn’t the fact that she wasn’t a judge, and was known for advocacy, at all.

  20. All the fire and bluster over Justice Ginsberg’s replacement. How fast would they screech to a halt and pivot if Trump nominated Merrick Garland?

    Not that he would, obviously, but just the fact that he could moots so many of the arguments being given.

    Was fun looking back to 2016 to see Joe Biden explaining why the “Biden rule” didn’t exist: “Vice President Joe Biden slammed Senate Republicans Thursday for citing the “Biden Rule” as reasoning for why they won’t hold a hearing for Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court pick. In a Thursday speech, Biden called Republicans “frankly ridiculous” for relying on comments he made in 1992 about the dangers of holding Supreme Court confirmation hearings in the midst of presidential elections. Biden said the so-called rule that supposedly prevents Supreme Court nominations in an election year “doesn’t exist.”
    He went on to explain how he meant it to only apply when a Republican is in a position to nominate an repugnant candidate like that black guy George Bush nominated for the vacancy, and not at all when a god-like Democrat has graced the country with his nominee.

    The libertarian cynic in me just has to point out that the flip-flop charges of hypocrisy is more easily summed up as “politics as usual”. A favorite example is Sen. Obama’s passionate speech against raising the debt ceiling in 2006 “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure…Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.” Obama as President…essentially “nevermind! Raise the limit!” He explained: “I think that it’s important to understand the vantage point of a senator versus the vantage point of a president.”

    The ability of both parties to shoot themselves in their future foot is amazing, but Democrats seem particularly prone to ACTUALLY changing the ACTUAL rules as compared to Republicans, who seem more likely to use the rules to their advantage than actually change them, then being stunned to have them used against them when they are in the minority (e.g., going nuclear int the Senate; “I’ve got a pen and a phone” (ruling by Presidential dictates)’; “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”). At the cusp of the previous elections, envisioning a Democrat Senate and Presidency, VP Candidate Tim Kaine promised to go nuclear in the Senate for SCOTUS–so that a
    Republican minority could not hold up Pres. Clinton’s nominees. Then Democrats LOST and Republicans went ahead and went nuclear anyway. Thanks for that idea Sen Kaine!

    I wonder what the people demanding that their presumed Pres. Biden “pack the courts” and expand SCOTUS to 15 members will feel if Trump wins again and Mitch McConnel holds the Senate and Republicans expand the Court and Trump names 6 new members!?

    P.S. Speaker Pelosi and Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez: the President nominating a SCOTUS replacement is *not* an impeachable offense.

    1. These idiots get so high on their own farts that they think they’ll never have to taste their own medicine, and when the spoon ends up getting shoved in their mouth, they start bitching about the flavor.

  21. I am making a good pay from home 1900 Buckets/week, that is brilliant, beneath a year agone i used to be unemployed amid a monstrous economy. I pass on God consistently i used to be invested these bearings, and at present, I should pay it forward and impart it to everyone……………Visit Here

    1. You are as crazy as the squirrel and the Mormon hater.

  22. Does anyone remember back several years ago when McConnell tried to warn the democrats that the day would eventually come when they would regret getting rid of the judicial appointment filibuster? Because I sure as hell remember!

    So has anyone in the media asked Chuck Schumer or any of the other democrat blowhards yet if McConnell was that n fact right and they regret it now? If not, I don’t know why the hell not, because it’s the most obvious question in the world now.

    “Those who sow the wind shall reap the whirlwind.”

    1. I remember; Harry Reid, 2013.

      Now it’s just a matter of who can muster 51 votes; the rest is just butthurt, screaming and yelling.

      1. I remember Tim Kaine promising to go nuclear in the Senate on SCOTUS picks!

    2. I said at the time that, while I understood why he did it, that it was going to come back and bite the Democrats in the ass in a big way.

      Seven years, 3 Supreme Court justices, numerous District Court justices, and countless lower court appointments later, the Democrats have been hoisted on their own petard and, as is their wont, declaring that they are going to change the rules again once they get back in charge because they can’t stand the thought of sharing power or compromising.

      1. Just over 200 total, and coming upon 3 SCOTUS picks. Hubris has a way of preventing persons and group thinkers from seeing accurately the likely outcomes of their own behaviors and decisions. They’re like the Rev; they just KNOW that there day has arrived and there will be no looking back on “progress.”

        1. When Obama got elected and the Dems controlled both houses, they unironically thought that “40 more years!” was an inevitability rather than wishful thinking.

          1. If Obama wasn’t such an incompetent, corrupt, utterly lazy sack of shit, it may have turned out that way. Can you imagine what an LBJ would have accomplished in a similar situation?

            We are lucky that the squishy son of a whore would have rather played golf than to have transformed the country more than he ended up doing.

  23. The party not in power will always want the lame duck session to start the day after they lost the election. This recent nonsense is just the first step to get there.

    1. The Ds promised to impeach Trump the day after the election, and find the reason(s) to do so later.
      They did the former and never that later.

  24. [ USA ONLY ]Getting paid every month easily more than $15k just by doing simple job online. Last month i have exactly received $16839 from this online job just by giving this 2 hrs a day online. Now everybody on this earth can get this job and start earning more cash online just by follow instructions here……..for more info visit any tab this site Thanks a lot Copy Here……..Visit here

  25. Got an email from Daily Kos:

    “Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham and Donald Trump are all determined to have a new justice on the highest court in the land before Election Day, democracy and hypocrisy be damned. They are determined to do this even though there are only 41 days left until the election.

    “For some perspective; it took 50 days to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 66 days to confirm Neil Gorsuch, 72 days each to confirm John Roberts and Sonia Sotomayer, 89 days to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, and 106 days to confirm Clarence Thomas.

    Problem is that RBG was actually confirmed by the Senate in 42 days. She was nominated on June 22 and confirmed by a 96-3 vote on August 3. She didn’t get sworn in until August 10th, but that was not a Senate issue. I’m not going to fact-check the Kos on their other calculations, but I suspect they’ve fudged them all similarly.

    Meanwhile, I read an article on Sen McConnell, at least he got the RBG timeline correct and points out that the timeline is not Election Day, but end of the Senate term.

    “As of today there are 43 days until Nov. 3 and 104 days until the end of this Congress,” McConnell said. “The late iconic Justice John Paul Stevens was confirmed by the Senate 19 days after this body formally received his nominations — 19 days from start to finish.”

    “Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, another iconic jurist, was confirmed 33 days after her nomination,” he added. “For the late Justice Ginsburg herself it was just 42 days. Justice Stevens’ entire confirmation process could’ve been played out twice between now and Nov. 3 with time to spare. And Justice Ginsburg herself could’ve been confirmed twice between now and the end of the year, with time to spare.

    “The Senate has more than sufficient time to process a nomination,” McConnell concluded. “History and precedent make that perfectly clear.”

    Read elsewhere that since Trump has put out his short list of candidates long ago, any opposition research has been done, so there should be no real need to give anyone more time to prepare–that’s just stalling. Seems valid, too.

    1. Smart of you to keep abreast on what the enemy is planning.

      1. Massive vote fraud and more violence.
        Maybe a false flag attack.
        Maybe even assassination.
        The left won’t stop. They will only be stopped… or not.

    2. “Read elsewhere that since Trump has put out his short list of candidates long ago, any opposition research has been done, so there should be no real need to give anyone more time to prepare–that’s just stalling. Seems valid, too.”

      I’ve no idea why he’s waiting until Saturday to release the nomination. Is he waiting for Ginsburg to be interred? He doesn’t have much time. Nor do the Senators that Trump is relying upon. They have the last, vital bits of campaigning still to do.

      1. I agree, but he’s giving the names a few days out in public.
        It’s already come out that ACB has some troubling rulings to her credit, chief among them upholding lockdown measures

    3. “Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham and Donald Trump are all determined to have a new justice on the highest court in the land before Election Day, democracy and hypocrisy be damned…”

      It is the job of the POTUS to nominate SC justices, so lefty bullshit regarding ‘damage to democracy’ is, well, bullshit.

      1. Why did they let Scalia’s seat sit empty for 14 months if it’s their job to fill it? I know you won’t answer and just insult me Sevo because you’re a inbred right wing troll. Why do you just insult and troll people? Does your cousin belittle you and wear the pants in the relationship? You know theres couple counslers out there that are pretty open minded and probably willing to look the other way when it comes to your cousin fucking. Food for thought Sevo…

  26. The Senate is supposed to “advise and consent” on these nominations, IAW the Constitution. And they will. In their time, with the schedule they get to set.

  27. Pres. Obama to Eric Cantor on Republican input into the pending stimulus bill: “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won. So I think on that one I trump you.”

    Fast forward:

    [Reporter] “Sir, President Obama’s pick in 2016, Merrick Garland, didn’t get a chance to move forward. That was an election year. Why should your pick get a chance to move forward in an election year?” the reporter asked.

    [Pres. Trump] “Well, that’s called ‘the consequences of losing an election.’ He lost the election. He didn’t have the votes,” Trump responded. “When you lose elections, sometimes things don’t work out well.”

    1. An election that Trump got less votes. Also a stimulus bill at the beginning of a President’s term and a SCOTUS pick 6 weeks before an election are not the same thing. Especially when the party that is screaming “hurry hurry” now let a seat sit vacant for 14 months. If you can’t see the hypocrisy of the GOP you’ve got Trump’s Dick so far down your throat it must be cutting off oxygen.

      1. Fuck off and die, scumbag.

        1. “Fuck off and die, scumbag.”

          Do you kiss your cousin with that filthy mouth Sevo?

      2. Oh, and:
        “An election that Trump got less votes…”

        Yeah, that’s in the constitution to protect the nation from scumbags like you.
        Fuck off and die a slow, painful death,

        1. Constitution protected slavery too. Are pro slavery Sevo? It also originally gave the office of vice president to the candidate with the second most electoral votes. Times change. It’s no longer the 1780s. We shouldn’t be giving inbred shit kickers in places like Wyoming more say than other people. I look forward to your vulgar insult Sevo instead of a coherent argument.

          1. This is your argument? You should drop out of school, you’re not learning anything.

            1. People like KAR is how the old saying came about ….
              You can educate ignorance
              You can medicate crazy,
              But you can’t fix STUPID.

  28. STAY AT HOME & WORK AT HOME FOR USA ]
    H̲o̲m̲e̲ ̲B̲a̲s̲i̲c̲ ̲J̲o̲b̲s̲….. ̲E̲v̲e̲r̲y̲b̲o̲d̲y̲ ̲c̲a̲n̲ ̲e̲a̲r̲n̲ ̲u̲p̲t̲o̲ ̲$1̲5̲k̲ ̲e̲v̲e̲r̲y̲ ̲m̲o̲n̲t̲h̲ ̲f̲r̲o̲m̲ ̲h̲o̲m̲e̲ ̲b̲y̲ ̲w̲o̲r̲k̲i̲n̲g̲ ̲o̲n̲l̲i̲n̲e̲. ̲I̲ ̲h̲a̲v̲e̲ ̲r̲e̲c̲e̲i̲v̲e̲d̲ ̲$1̲7̲2̲9̲4̲ ̲l̲a̲s̲t̲ ̲m̲o̲n̲t̲h̲ ̲b̲y̲ ̲d̲o̲i̲n̲g̲ ̲t̲h̲i̲s̲ ̲e̲a̲s̲y̲ ̲a̲n̲d̲ ̲s̲i̲m̲p̲l̲e̲ ̲j̲o̲b̲ ̲o̲n̲l̲i̲n̲e̲ ̲f̲r̲o̲m̲ ̲h̲o̲m̲e̲. ̲I̲t̲s̲ ̲a̲n̲ ̲e̲a̲s̲y̲ ̲a̲n̲d̲ ̲s̲i̲m̲p̲l̲e̲ ̲j̲o̲b̲ ̲t̲o̲ ̲d̲o̲ ̲o̲n̲l̲i̲n̲e̲ ̲a̲n̲d̲ ̲e̲v̲e̲n̲ ̲a̲ ̲l̲i̲t̲t̲l̲e̲ ̲c̲h̲i̲l̲d̲ ̲c̲a̲n̲ ̲d̲o̲ ̲t̲h̲i̲s̲ ̲j̲o̲b̲ ̲f̲r̲o̲m̲ ̲h̲o̲m̲e̲. ̲E̲v̲e̲r̲y̲b̲o̲d̲y̲ ̲c̲a̲n̲ ̲g̲e̲t̲ ̲t̲h̲i̲s̲ ̲j̲o̲b̲ ̲n̲o̲w̲ ̲b̲y̲ ̲j̲u̲s̲t̲ ̲c̲o̲p̲y̲ ̲t̲h̲i̲s̲ ̲s̲i̲t̲e̲ ̲i̲n̲ ̲b̲r̲o̲w̲s̲e̲r̲ ̲a̲n̲d̲ ̲t̲h̲e̲n̲ ̲f̲o̲l̲l̲o̲w̲ ̲i̲n̲s̲t̲r̲u̲c̲t̲i̲o̲n̲ ̲t̲o̲ ̲g̲e̲t̲ ̲s̲t̲a̲r̲t̲e̲d̲…….. ↠↠↠

    H̲E̲R̲E̲►COPY THIS WEBSITE……… Read More

  29. I’d just like to congratulate the author on the countless hours of research that were no doubt required for him to uncover the fact that political parties engage in partisan politics, and thank him for sharing this keen insight with us.

    tl;dr version: No shit, Sherlock.

  30. i start my online bussiness with USA contries and…READ MORE

  31. Making extra cash by doing very easy and simple work online. Start making more than $18,000 every single month simply doing online work from home in your desired time. Easy to do online work and income from this are just amazing. Everybody can get this online job and start earning more cash online just by follow instructions on this page……..

    ➙➙➙Click For Full Detail.

  32. “with the advice and consent of the Senate”.

    Obama didn’t have the Senate’s consent. Trump does. End of argument.

    1. Nor does Biden; Trump does.

    2. McConnell and the GOP left Scalia’s seat open for 14 months. The election is less than 6 weeks away.
      End of argument.

      1. You’re correct …. and the Senate is going to confirm ACB. And that truly is the END OF ARGUMENT.

  33. Reason site give me a ???????????????????????????????? ???????? ???????????????????????????? $….READ MORE

  34. Start now earning every month extra $15k or more by just doing very easy and simple online job from home. Last month i have made $17942 from this job just by giving this only 2 hrs a day using my laptop. Everybody can now get this job and start earning more cash online just by follow details here……. ↠↠↠Visit here for full detail

  35. This is completely missing the difference between Constitution (big “C”) and constitution (little “c”). Not every rule that a country runs on is encapsulated in a written document. For a democracy to work, people need to be able to depend on a lot of process and practice that develops over time and becomes “norms”. This means that when a reason is given for a particular action (like blocking a nominee, pending an election), there has to be something precedential about that, or else you just plain have chaos that you can’t base a democracy on.

    1. Just plain NO.

      And it is a Republic if we can keep it.

  36. Just more proof that the Republican Party is becoming more and more irrelevant each year, and they know it. Better get ready for Democrats to be just as ruthless, since there are no more rules of decorum anymore.

    1. Your eyes have gotta be brown, because you’re totally full of shyt.
      The Republicans are only doing what the DimmieCraps have been doing for decades. I must admit, it takes us too long to learn the tactics of the enemy and to use those same tactics against them, but don’t be so stupid as to accuse us of inventing them. We’re not that devious, but we’re slowing learning by watching Dims.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.