Amy Coney Barret appointed to the Supreme Court

She doesn't have a (D) after her name.

 

That's what you said last time, but this time the dictatorship will be for really real, right?

 

I guess our disagreement is the definition of ram.

"Ramming through," indicates there was resistance. There's no need to apply force when everyone agrees.

 

I do not know this particular case but based on what takes place normally, what you stated sounds about right. Thanks

 

Why must there be resistance?

Those who resisted no doubt would resist the entire constitution it seems to me. Barrett is pro constitution.

Even the resisters agreed to abide the constitution. She is, but they are not.

 

Not from me it isn't - and not sure what other sources your are referring to.

The two "new guys" hate the founding principles - as per the DOI - document which sets out how Law and the Constitution is to be interpreted .. in conjunction with the principles of the Republic .. principles of republicanism.

Human garbage are these two .. Establishment wonks - agenda driven insiders - who care not for you .. or this nation.

 

Our republic will still stand proud as when we had the congress the last time with power over legislation. Say when was that?

 

I like to point out that in both cases, the Senate rules were followed. The Senate is not doomed to consent, it has the clause where it can consent. It also has rules covering when they do not consent.

There is the chance that Garland got Borked.

 

It isn't actually. I was referred to as "deference to the choice of a President". Democrats F'ed that up when the Borked Bork. Do try to keep up.

 

I fear what Joe said was truthful when he said "we have the greatest election fraud game".. and what that will mean is that as results start coming in, democrats will be frantically mailing in invalid votes to "overcome" the "red haze" they've been marketing.

 

Looks like you are prone to losing. I'm happy that you support Trump.

 

I dare you to actually define what you mean here. Lots of time....

 

it’s why the dems in the senate even refused to debate a police reform bill. Sad

 

Just so you know, no matter what they have told you, echoing Trump's nonsense does not make you look smart.

Anyway... off topic.

 

Hey ... its me .. did you forget .. and you are requesting a Sermon ? Lovely

Don't know much about either of the two.. but what I do know ... is SC Justices are "Selected" not "Elected" - regardless of the degree of purple in House and Senate .. or who is sitting in the Oval Orifice.

The criteria on which this selection process vets its up and cummers - is not on the basis of adherence to the founding principles .. nor the principles of Republicanism .. it is on the basis of other things that we need not delve into - but can if you like.

The "GOP" in general - including its current Ring Leader - Circus Front Man if you will - has no use for the aforementioned.. and if you havn't figured that out yet .. you are not believer in the Principles of Republicanism either .. nor the founding principles .. nor the teachings of Jesus w/r to this issue -

"Do not do to others that which you hate - The rest is all Commentary - now go and learn !?" Rabbi Hillel Teacher of Jesus -110 BC - 10 AD
.

 

What "last time" are you talking about? Make up nonsense much?

 

You could not refute me so you did what Democrats always do, go on the attack.

 

Ramming something through means there was resistance. If there's no resistance, no force is needed. Would you ram your way through an open door?

 

Me a loser? Reagan won two times. Bush 43 won two times. Trump won. And I believe he will win this November too.

I am quite used to winning.

 

I see your point. Clearly you do not see my point. Ramming then is the wrong word. Amy is a Sitting Justice due to the fact she is sworn into office.
Democrats should have correctly assessed her. They refused. That is not our fault.

 

Ramming is not the correct term to use.

 

I predict more gnashing of teeth and wailing in the wind after Trump wins again. It happened last time.

 

I do recall asking what you meant the first time the you claimed that ACB and Gorsuch were "establishment wonk central and who "hated the rounding principals (typo I assume on your part) and the rule of law". That is what you wrote, no? (I pasted it in for reference. so you couldn't claim otherwise).

SO, somewhere, hiddenly deeply in your response was the answer? Really? How do either of these two you took a swipe at either for their hatred of the founding principles or the rule of law? You certainly failed to quantify any for either in the last response. So simply put, you attempted wall of failure words instead of an answer. Plain to see. Why take so long to just admit other than snark, you had no point at all?

 

There never was a merit to why Bork was Borked. Democrats laid on Bork a very cheap stunt. And now they wail loudly and gnash their teeth in rage. It is kind of amusing to watch them whine when they started this process to begin with.

 

I doubt you had much to do with it.

I never said that ACB was rammed through. It was certainly rushed, but not the fastest confirmation in our history. It's near the top, though.