Ginsberg Sells the Couch
Comments
-
Upset? Leftards lie and love to be lied to. I enjoy setting out the facts and then having the proudly ignorant ignore them. Why would someone put "knowledge" into their Tug handle and then go off the rails when dealing with some basic facts? That seems more like someone who is upset.
-
Yup,and read this and agree...Houhusky said:
I dont really find pushing through a nomination particularly hypocritical.Swaye said:Is Mitch McConnel a hypocrite? Um, fuck yes. They are almost all trash ass people. Never trust any of them. That said, winners win. I think the GOP shoving through a conservative probably hurts Trump's reelection chances, as it will energize the Dems base in a BIGLY way, but, a 6-3 majority (let's face it it's really 5-4 because Roberts is a turd) might be worth 4 years of Corn Pop shitting himself in the White House. 5.5-3.5 SCOTUS for a generation is probably a bigger deal then anything that happens the next 4 years.
Also, the crying from the left (and partially justified tbh) will be EPIC! This is must see TV. I mean fuck me, this election just got Thunderdome level exciting.
Do it Mitch. Do it.
p.s. If Susan Collins fucks us here, she will rot in fiery RINO hell with McCain and that Mormon loser...
edit: @CFetters_Nacho_Lover just sent me a twat where Murkowski has already bitched out, and Collins and Grassly are wavering. So, it appears nothing has changed with the GOP. Same cuck losers they have always been.
Anyone who thinks that unwritten rules ever mattered in the Senate is retarded. The "its an election year" was always an unneeded pussy excuse instead of just saying "elections have consequence" and doing exactly what the power provided.
Push the vote, the reward is so much more than any of the possible negatives.
Collins, Murkowski, Romeny, Grassly... only need one plus a pence tie break.
"But McConnell said not to confirm a judge prior to an election."
Yes, McConnell (and others) presented a version of this incredibly stupid argument several years back. He did it to save face. Albeit, his version of the argument was in the context of a lame duck presidency where the Senate was the opposing party, but never the less, it wasn't an argument I ever believed in. It was never logical, it never adhered to my principles, it wasn't necessary, and I certainly don't believe in applying it right now. Neither should you. Why anyone believed his silly argument is beyond me. So sure, call him a liar. That may be fair, but when you're done with that, let's explore the REAL argument...
ANY sitting president has a constitutional right to TRY and nominate someone he/she hopes the Senate would confirm, but the Senate ALSO has the constitutional right to reject any nominee they don't wish to confirm. It is a negotiation process. If there exists opposing parties on each side of the table (as was the case when Obama nominated Merrick Garland), then perhaps a nominee doesn't advance. It is THAT simple and never needed to be any more complicated than that.
When two opposing interests each control half the process, it makes perfect sense that agreement might not occur. In said scenario, the political solution of an election (which redefines those weilding power) increases the odds of resolving the standoff, as the two governing bodies (executive and senate) may be more likely to agree after they've been altered by the electorate. But again, even that doesn't guarantee confirmation. Kavanaugh, for example, came extremely close to not being confirmed. That wouldn't have meant that the senate was guilty of "refusing to give Trump what Trump was owed," which is how many people characterized the Merrick Garland debacle. Rather, it would have meant that Trump would simply have to pick a different nominee - one who was more palatable to the majority of the Senate. THAT is how negotiations work. Nothing about this is unnatural or unjust. Merrick simply didn't have the support of the Senate. Obama could have chosen a different pick. He was also able to gamble on holding off to see if his political party would win more power in the upcoming election. Both sides took the gamble. One side lost. There's nothing about that which is inherently immoral.
The only thing about this situation which was immoral was that McConnell publicly crafted a silly narrative to act as a cover story. Arguing that we shouldn't vote for a nominee before an election was never a sound argument. Call him a hypocrite if you want, but there was nothing unjust about Garland NOT getting confirmed and there is nothing unjust about us trying to confirm a new justice before political power changes. The Senate is not required to like a nominee. It's also not required to wait until after an election.
Let the negotiation process begin. -
TLDR translation: Two wrongs don't make a right.Goduckies said:
Yup,and read this and agree...Houhusky said:
I dont really find pushing through a nomination particularly hypocritical.Swaye said:Is Mitch McConnel a hypocrite? Um, fuck yes. They are almost all trash ass people. Never trust any of them. That said, winners win. I think the GOP shoving through a conservative probably hurts Trump's reelection chances, as it will energize the Dems base in a BIGLY way, but, a 6-3 majority (let's face it it's really 5-4 because Roberts is a turd) might be worth 4 years of Corn Pop shitting himself in the White House. 5.5-3.5 SCOTUS for a generation is probably a bigger deal then anything that happens the next 4 years.
Also, the crying from the left (and partially justified tbh) will be EPIC! This is must see TV. I mean fuck me, this election just got Thunderdome level exciting.
Do it Mitch. Do it.
p.s. If Susan Collins fucks us here, she will rot in fiery RINO hell with McCain and that Mormon loser...
edit: @CFetters_Nacho_Lover just sent me a twat where Murkowski has already bitched out, and Collins and Grassly are wavering. So, it appears nothing has changed with the GOP. Same cuck losers they have always been.
Anyone who thinks that unwritten rules ever mattered in the Senate is retarded. The "its an election year" was always an unneeded pussy excuse instead of just saying "elections have consequence" and doing exactly what the power provided.
Push the vote, the reward is so much more than any of the possible negatives.
Collins, Murkowski, Romeny, Grassly... only need one plus a pence tie break.
"But McConnell said not to confirm a judge prior to an election."
Yes, McConnell (and others) presented a version of this incredibly stupid argument several years back. He did it to save face. Albeit, his version of the argument was in the context of a lame duck presidency where the Senate was the opposing party, but never the less, it wasn't an argument I ever believed in. It was never logical, it never adhered to my principles, it wasn't necessary, and I certainly don't believe in applying it right now. Neither should you. Why anyone believed his silly argument is beyond me. So sure, call him a liar. That may be fair, but when you're done with that, let's explore the REAL argument...
ANY sitting president has a constitutional right to TRY and nominate someone he/she hopes the Senate would confirm, but the Senate ALSO has the constitutional right to reject any nominee they don't wish to confirm. It is a negotiation process. If there exists opposing parties on each side of the table (as was the case when Obama nominated Merrick Garland), then perhaps a nominee doesn't advance. It is THAT simple and never needed to be any more complicated than that.
When two opposing interests each control half the process, it makes perfect sense that agreement might not occur. In said scenario, the political solution of an election (which redefines those weilding power) increases the odds of resolving the standoff, as the two governing bodies (executive and senate) may be more likely to agree after they've been altered by the electorate. But again, even that doesn't guarantee confirmation. Kavanaugh, for example, came extremely close to not being confirmed. That wouldn't have meant that the senate was guilty of "refusing to give Trump what Trump was owed," which is how many people characterized the Merrick Garland debacle. Rather, it would have meant that Trump would simply have to pick a different nominee - one who was more palatable to the majority of the Senate. THAT is how negotiations work. Nothing about this is unnatural or unjust. Merrick simply didn't have the support of the Senate. Obama could have chosen a different pick. He was also able to gamble on holding off to see if his political party would win more power in the upcoming election. Both sides took the gamble. One side lost. There's nothing about that which is inherently immoral.
The only thing about this situation which was immoral was that McConnell publicly crafted a silly narrative to act as a cover story. Arguing that we shouldn't vote for a nominee before an election was never a sound argument. Call him a hypocrite if you want, but there was nothing unjust about Garland NOT getting confirmed and there is nothing unjust about us trying to confirm a new justice before political power changes. The Senate is not required to like a nominee. It's also not required to wait until after an election.
Let the negotiation process begin.
-
WestlinnDuck said:
Like I said - Are you six months old? The issue was dems trying to and actually stealing an election. So, the dems successfully stole the 1960 election for JFK with fraudulent Chicago dem machine votes. The tried and failed in 2000. Actual facts and history don't seem to be an important part of your life. Like facts actually matter to leftards. Keep rooting for the away team.GrundleStiltzkin said:
2000 was litigated, the process worked.WestlinnDuck said:
Really? The dems trying to steal an election in Florida in 2000? Stealing an election in 1960 in Illinois? Using the CIA, FBI, DOJ and the US House of Representatives to unseat a President? Are you 6 months old?GrundleStiltzkin said:
Mitch’s maneuver 4 years ago was one of canniest, duplicitous political moves of my lifetim. I called it a gamble then, but I was wrong. He wasn’t going to lose anything, only win or draw.GreenRiverGatorz said:
I wouldn't count them out. Besides democrats trying to hold Mitch to a purity standard that he may or may not have set himself, there's no legitimate reason to not have a nominee. A justice died, time to pick a new one. Whether there's 40 months left in a term, or 2, it shouldn't matter.Goduckies said:Collins and Murkowski are our, probably Mittens too, so will happen after the election probably
No idea what this Illinois thing is.
Wash your hands old timmer.
Now if you will excuse me, I have some fires to start in the name of equity. -
Trump must appoint because we need a fully empaneled supreme court as this will likely be a contested election.
-
WestlinnDuck said:
Upset? Leftards lie and love to be lied to. I enjoy setting out the facts and then having the proudly ignorant ignore them. Why would someone put "knowledge" into their Tug handle and then go off the rails when dealing with some basic facts? That seems more like someone who is upset.
I never refuted any of your claims. I said you seem upset and you are confirming my take. You're seeing leftist ghosts all around you man. -
He's trying desperately to find some grand moral high ground here, rather than just accepting the power play.theknowledge said:WestlinnDuck said:Upset? Leftards lie and love to be lied to. I enjoy setting out the facts and then having the proudly ignorant ignore them. Why would someone put "knowledge" into their Tug handle and then go off the rails when dealing with some basic facts? That seems more like someone who is upset.
I never refuted any of your claims. I said you seem upset and you are confirming my take. You're seeing leftist ghosts all around you man. -
I accept the power play. McConnell was an idiot for pretending otherwise. Just follow the Constitution. President nominates and the Senate either approves or not. No Constitutional requirement for a vote. The Constitution is the high moral ground. What I objected to was the denial that dems try to steal elections.
-
We need more judges on SCOTUS that these harpies will approve.
-
Both absolutely hideous cunts. Liberal women are so fucking gross they might as well be men.NorthwestFresh said:We need more judges on SCOTUS that these harpies will approve.
-
The Civil War just got a lot more difficult for the GOP.
-
Obama agrees that Trump should put forth a nominee for the Senate to consider.
The Senate should follow his advice.
-
The leftists are a bunch of shit talking noon ballers with underwear hanging out of their gym shorts.NorthwestFresh said:The Civil War just got a lot more difficult for the GOP.
Show up at open run and run that smack.
Then wait your turn to get back on the court. Forever.
-
The worst part is that all the gen x and late millennial spinsters are just going to get worse.NorthwestFresh said:We need more judges on SCOTUS that these harpies will approve.
-
CuntWaffle said:
Both absolutely hideous cunts. Liberal women are so fucking gross they might as well be men.NorthwestFresh said:We need more judges on SCOTUS that these harpies will approve.
-
-
No shit?Sledog said:Trump needs to appoint tomorrow. They've propped her up for years to prevent him getting to appoint.
-
Trump will get a judge in, and within 3 years max, said judge will cast a deciding vote on a case that pisses off the President and party who supported the appointment, and we’ll all be reminded what “life-tim” appointment really means.UW_Doog_Bot said:Trump will get a judge in, liberals will cry, and then he'll win the election anyway.
#judgedwyerprinciple -
Thats what's funny about everyone melting downcreepycoug said:
Trump will get a judge in, and within 3 years max, said judge will cast a deciding vote on a case that pisses off the President and party who supported the appointment, and we’ll all be reminded what “life-tim” appointment really means.UW_Doog_Bot said:Trump will get a judge in, liberals will cry, and then he'll win the election anyway.
#judgedwyerprinciple
Justice Roberts is chuckling -
Ginsberg should have retired after the 2012 election. She was 78, Democrats controlled the Senate, and Obama would have seated whoever he appointed. Instead, the idiots on the Left kept rolling the dice with her barely functioning after the GOP took back the Senate in 2014. Complete lack of foresight, but then again, every day brings a new outrage for the Left. They aren’t what you’d call planners.
-
Is there any doubt after this year that if given the chance the Dems would force a nominee through in the same situation?
#filltheseat -
Also, I think if the seat is already filled it will de energize an already low energy Democratic presidential campaign. Everyone already knew these were the stakes for the next President. This only removes them and allows more victimhood rhetoric.
-
Installing a supreme court justice who will without a doubt repeal the Affordable Care Act and the medicaid expansion when the case is literally being heard in November will without a doubt lose the election for him.UW_Doog_Bot said:Also, I think if the seat is already filled it will de energize an already low energy Democratic presidential campaign. Everyone already knew these were the stakes for the next President. This only removes them and allows more victimhood rhetoric.
But... the damage is done. At least half of my adult life will be living under a far-right court.
-
Oh you poor dear. Vote Democrat.incremetal_progress said:
Installing a supreme court justice who will without a doubt repeal the Affordable Care Act and the medicaid expansion when the case is literally being heard in November will without a doubt lose the election for him.UW_Doog_Bot said:Also, I think if the seat is already filled it will de energize an already low energy Democratic presidential campaign. Everyone already knew these were the stakes for the next President. This only removes them and allows more victimhood rhetoric.
But... the damage is done. At least half of my adult life will be living under a far-right court.
-
Right-leaning, sure, but far right? I don't see it.incremetal_progress said:
Installing a supreme court justice who will without a doubt repeal the Affordable Care Act and the medicaid expansion when the case is literally being heard in November will without a doubt lose the election for him.UW_Doog_Bot said:Also, I think if the seat is already filled it will de energize an already low energy Democratic presidential campaign. Everyone already knew these were the stakes for the next President. This only removes them and allows more victimhood rhetoric.
But... the damage is done. At least half of my adult life will be living under a far-right court. -
Reza, you don't want any of this.NorthwestFresh said:
Oh you poor dear. Vote Democrat.incremetal_progress said:
Installing a supreme court justice who will without a doubt repeal the Affordable Care Act and the medicaid expansion when the case is literally being heard in November will without a doubt lose the election for him.UW_Doog_Bot said:Also, I think if the seat is already filled it will de energize an already low energy Democratic presidential campaign. Everyone already knew these were the stakes for the next President. This only removes them and allows more victimhood rhetoric.
But... the damage is done. At least half of my adult life will be living under a far-right court.
Name the 7-11. Any time. Any place. The Throbber will be there.
And he'll put your fucking fire out.
-
A very touching tribute by Democrats in NYC to remember RBG.
-
Always must be nice to have a reason to come out of the basement. Looks like a nice day.
