Former MSNBC host calls on Justice Sotomayor to step down from SCOTUS

Bullseye. The 14th Amendment is the most abused law in our nation's history. It's amazing what some judges have twisted it to say. This Court's majority is finally afters years of abuse getting it back within the borders.

 

What's really abused is the spaces between the letters in the constitution. They were not meant to fill in your own constitution.

 

Rights should be a national issue, not a states issue.

Do you know why?

 

I NEVER got the vaccine…so nobody forced anyone. EVERYONE had the right to say no, but had to deal with the consequences. I quit a job over it, and found a new one.

 

That doesn't excuse what Mitch did.

Sorry.

 

He did the same thing as the Democrats that came before him. In an election year, when the opposition party of the President controls the Senate, they wait until after the election to hold the hearings.

 

More simplisticism.

One doesn't formulate policy on simplistic reasoning, rant words, weasel words.

By the way, no one is excluded in the taxpayer bellyachers club.

Welcome to the club.

It's called democracy.

 

you're conflating real lawyering with an expression that characterizes the worst of lawyering.

No, I would expect people on the SC to be HONEST, and that is expected of ALL lawyers.

No, I'm not saying that at all, what I'm saying is that appointees to the SC SHOULD TELL THE TRUTH TO CONGRESS. Others are indicted for perjury but these corrupt souls get a free pass

See above. You're barking up the wrong tree.

 

I did not say that. I said, "one man's 'following the constitution' is another man's 'advocacy'. "

That's flipping the argument, as in 'right back atcha, pal'.

What gives YOU the right to make that argument? What, we can't make the same argument?

We sure as hell can, and are.

Capiche?

 

No Democrat deprived a Republican President the right to appoint a SC justice.

You're pettifogging on the nuke option, i.e.,, one can still have the nuke option, and allow the prez to make his choice.

in other words, your point is beside the point I'm making.

 

I got the vaccine, and got covid. I was only sick for a few days. I attribute my high resistance to covid because of the vaccine.

Before the vaccine was made available, a friend of mine got covid and died.

In my view, the risk of death is far greater if you don't get the vaccine.

 

You're on a roll. Carry on.

 

You didn't answer my question. Do you know why same-sex marriage and abortion should be state's issues?

 

My respect. I got the vaccine because I'm ancient with multiple health issues.

 

Facts:

29 election year nominees

19 times the same party controlled the Senate and White House. Only 1 time did they not move forward to confirmation due to bipartisan effort to keep them off the court due to scandal.

10 times the White House and Senate were held by opposition parties. Only 1 time did they move forward to confirmation.

This is how the Senate has treated Supreme Court nominees during election years. The opposition president does not get to seat a judge of their choosing when the public is actively working on an updated election to determine who they want to choose who fills Supreme Court seats.

This is why Obama nominated someone he felt was on the more moderate side. He thought it might have been a shot in the dark chance that he'd get confirmed. It's also why Democrats didn't fight very hard for it. They mocked Republicans because they thought Hillary had the election on the bag and she promised to nominate are far more liberal nominee when she won.

But she lost. And now eight years later you're still "pettifogging" the history of Supreme Court nominees during election years. I get feelings are very hurt from being duped by Democrats about the history, but it's been 8 years. You can give them a pass for lying to you now. You can predict with 93% certainty whether or not a nominee will be confirmed by the Senate in an election year based only on which party controls the Senate and White House. This is because when there's a split in government both parties have decided to leave the vacancy for the voters.

 

Additionally, both Schumer and the Senile God of the leftists, Big Guy Joe Biden, are both on record saying they deny nominees from a Republican president based solely on the fact that they controlled the Senate and it was an election year. They would have done the same exact thing if the shoe were on the other foot. They is no way they would have allowed any chance of a Republican nominee being confirmed under the same circumstance. And we all know you would love them for it.

 

Name one Democrat Senate Majority Leader who deprived a Republican president a hearing and a vote on his appointment to the SC.

I'll be waiting.

 

Well I'm sure they told the truth. Ask any judge they will tell you that they respect stare decisis, but that doesn't mean letting a clearly unconstitutional decision stand if it comes up again. That's crazy. Even your lefty judges wouldn't do that.

 

Based on your recent posts in this thread, it's pretty clear we're not making the same argument.

I wish we were.

 

So the hurt feelings are because they didn't waste his time before refusing to confirm him? That makes a lot of sense now. Thanks for the clarification.

 

What they told Congress was disingenuous, and that's putting it generously.

They were deliberately giving the distinct impression that Roe wouldn't be harmed.

They are intelligent, they knew how their words would be taken, and if they had any other meaning, they should have qualified it, because if an response ever beckoned for qualification, in the face of Roe, republicans of whom who knew how important that issue was to democrats, a response that goes 'I would respect stare decisis on the matter of Roe, if ever a response beckoned for qualification, given this fact, that was it.

And that you do not understand something so simple boggles the mind, either you are blinded by partisanship or you are naive as hell, or both. Take your pick.

They did this in order to curry favor with democrats, whose vote they needed to be placed on the court. Now cut the crap.

 

Based on your response to:

"one man's 'following the constitution' is another man's 'advocacy'.

It is clear you haven't a clue of what I'm talking about.

I wish you did.

 

Answer the question, please.

You made a point which was off the mark. Proof of that fact is that you cannot answer the question.

And the reason you cannot answer the question is because there never has been a Democrat Senate Majority Leader in history
who ever deprived a Republican president of a hearing and a vote on his SC appointments.

And since you cannot reconcile that point, whatever point you think you are making is beside the point and irrelevant.

 

So you think it's legitimate for SC nominees to promise beforehand which cases they won't touch.

In that case, we don't need judges. Any low IQ MSNBC host could take their place and do exactly the job you seem to require.

 

I don't know the answer to your irrelevant question. I know it may illicit an emotional response for some, but it has no impact on the ultimate outcome. I care more about the facts and outcomes than the emotional responses.

The proper thing was to give Garland a hearing, but it wasn't required and wouldn't have mattered. Part of advice and consent includes telling someone to go screw. And based on Garland's conduct as Attorney General, the nation was done a huge service by blocking him. And if Republicans were going to treat him like Democrats treat male nominees they did him a huge favor.