The Many Faces of US Politics...

[Gabriel_Hurl]

Been told what to do by a woman - he won't like that

[whitey]

I guess I don't get the nuances of your question

I would imagine Liberals would want a Democratic President to appoint Liberal judges

How is wanting a a Republican President to appoint Conservative judges an extreme view or an endorsement of Trump?

There were plenty of people on the left calling for RBG to retire early in Obama's second term. Why did she stick around? Was she waiting for her replacement to be picked by the first woman President?

On top of that she had made blatantly political statements which should disqualify her from voting on anything to do with Trump. Maybe she could head off to New Zealand on vacation with that crew from Liverpool who just got deported. She might keep them in line

I'm not talking about the politics and hypocrisy of who does what and where or when.

I'm asking you why a conservative Supreme Court, which you support, and which has been a focus of the US right (very effectively so) for the past 35 years, should be seen as a positive for the US?

Would a left wing court be seen as positive for the US?

If Hillary has won, that's what we would have had

[Dolph1]

Would a left wing court be seen as positive for the US?

Game over for civilized society in the USA if that happens. The Obama disaster years was bad enough.

Thank god for President Trump.

[Eamonnca1]

How is wanting a a Republican President to appoint Conservative judges an extreme view or an endorsement of Trump?

I wouldn't have a problem with a Republican President appointing Supreme Court Justices if he were legitimately elected. Trump was not legitimately elected. Over two million more people voted for Hillary than voted for Trump. He is not a legitimate president, he is a Russian agent, and the less control he has over the institutions the safer we're going to be.

[J70]

I guess I don't get the nuances of your question

I would imagine Liberals would want a Democratic President to appoint Liberal judges

How is wanting a a Republican President to appoint Conservative judges an extreme view or an endorsement of Trump?

There were plenty of people on the left calling for RBG to retire early in Obama's second term. Why did she stick around? Was she waiting for her replacement to be picked by the first woman President?

On top of that she had made blatantly political statements which should disqualify her from voting on anything to do with Trump. Maybe she could head off to New Zealand on vacation with that crew from Liverpool who just got deported. She might keep them in line

I'm not talking about the politics and hypocrisy of who does what and where or when.

I'm asking you why a conservative Supreme Court, which you support, and which has been a focus of the US right (very effectively so) for the past 35 years, should be seen as a positive for the US?

Would a left wing court be seen as positive for the US?

If Hillary has won, that's what we would have had

So you have nothing to offer? No defense of Citizens United and the like? No defense of workplace arbitration? No defense of gerrymandering? No defense of the coming ban on access to abortion? No defense of allowing companies to opt out of having their health insurance plans cover contraception? These are all important matters on the right.

On the other hand, to name a couple, if Hillary had won, LBGTQ rights would definitely be protected.

There would be restrictions on the wanton environmental exploitation and destruction that Trump and his henhouse foxes seem determined to inflict on US public and other lands and waters.

The Supreme Court might push back on the tipping of the balance completely in favour of corporations when it comes to worker rights and protections and their ability to combine cases.

There might be some hope of some sanity on the gun front.

[Dolph1]

How is wanting a a Republican President to appoint Conservative judges an extreme view or an endorsement of Trump?

I wouldn't have a problem with a Republican President appointing Supreme Court Justices if he were legitimately elected. Trump was not legitimately elected. Over two million more people voted for Hillary than voted for Trump. He is not a legitimate president, he is a Russian agent, and the less control he has over the institutions the safer we're going to be.

This has just made my day! 

NURSE!!!! He's run out of meltdown pills again!!!



Very very sad person in 2016 who takes same pills.

[whitey]

How is wanting a a Republican President to appoint Conservative judges an extreme view or an endorsement of Trump?

I wouldn't have a problem with a Republican President appointing Supreme Court Justices if he were legitimately elected. Trump was not legitimately elected. Over two million more people voted for Hillary than voted for Trump. He is not a legitimate president, he is a Russian agent, and the less control he has over the institutions the safer we're going to be.

m

The President is elected by the "Electoral College". It's one of the questions on the citizenship exam if you haven't taken it yet

Trump won the "Electoral College" vote. The system is the system

The entirety of Clinton's popular vote victory was garnished from the state of California. The whole point of the EC is that one or a small handful of states wouldn't be able to do dominate the Presidential Election but believe whatever you want

[Dolph1]

Trump was not legitimately elected. Over two million more people voted for Hillary than voted for Trump. He is not a legitimate president, he is a Russian agent, and the less control he has over the institutions the safer we're going to be.

Hey Sid/EamonnCa1

Democrat alternative fact alert

Election result according to the above
President Trump's 302 votes is less than Hillary Clinton's 224 Votes.

Let's call it Alternative Math

[whitey]

I guess I don't get the nuances of your question

I would imagine Liberals would want a Democratic President to appoint Liberal judges

How is wanting a a Republican President to appoint Conservative judges an extreme view or an endorsement of Trump?

There were plenty of people on the left calling for RBG to retire early in Obama's second term. Why did she stick around? Was she waiting for her replacement to be picked by the first woman President?

On top of that she had made blatantly political statements which should disqualify her from voting on anything to do with Trump. Maybe she could head off to New Zealand on vacation with that crew from Liverpool who just got deported. She might keep them in line

I'm not talking about the politics and hypocrisy of who does what and where or when.

I'm asking you why a conservative Supreme Court, which you support, and which has been a focus of the US right (very effectively so) for the past 35 years, should be seen as a positive for the US?

Would a left wing court be seen as positive for the US?

If Hillary has won, that's what we would have had

So you have nothing to offer? No defense of Citizens United and the like? No defense of workplace arbitration? No defense of gerrymandering? No defense of the coming ban on access to abortion? No defense of allowing companies to opt out of having their health insurance plans cover contraception? These are all important matters on the right.

On the other hand, to name a couple, if Hillary had won, LBGTQ rights would definitely be protected.

There would be restrictions on the wanton environmental exploitation and destruction that Trump and his henhouse foxes seem determined to inflict on US public and other lands and waters.

The Supreme Court might push back on the tipping of the balance completely in favour of corporations when it comes to worker rights and protections and their ability to combine cases.

There might be some hope of some sanity on the gun front.

Citizens United my hole.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-judiciary/308686-democrats-complained-about-citizens-united-until-the-cash%3famp

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/04/02/the-democrats-campaign-finance-hypocrisy/?utm_term=.032b0bda0f18

[J70]

I guess I don't get the nuances of your question

I would imagine Liberals would want a Democratic President to appoint Liberal judges

How is wanting a a Republican President to appoint Conservative judges an extreme view or an endorsement of Trump?

There were plenty of people on the left calling for RBG to retire early in Obama's second term. Why did she stick around? Was she waiting for her replacement to be picked by the first woman President?

On top of that she had made blatantly political statements which should disqualify her from voting on anything to do with Trump. Maybe she could head off to New Zealand on vacation with that crew from Liverpool who just got deported. She might keep them in line

I'm not talking about the politics and hypocrisy of who does what and where or when.

I'm asking you why a conservative Supreme Court, which you support, and which has been a focus of the US right (very effectively so) for the past 35 years, should be seen as a positive for the US?

Would a left wing court be seen as positive for the US?

If Hillary has won, that's what we would have had

So you have nothing to offer? No defense of Citizens United and the like? No defense of workplace arbitration? No defense of gerrymandering? No defense of the coming ban on access to abortion? No defense of allowing companies to opt out of having their health insurance plans cover contraception? These are all important matters on the right.

On the other hand, to name a couple, if Hillary had won, LBGTQ rights would definitely be protected.

There would be restrictions on the wanton environmental exploitation and destruction that Trump and his henhouse foxes seem determined to inflict on US public and other lands and waters.

The Supreme Court might push back on the tipping of the balance completely in favour of corporations when it comes to worker rights and protections and their ability to combine cases.

There might be some hope of some sanity on the gun front.

Citizens United my hole.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-judiciary/308686-democrats-complained-about-citizens-united-until-the-cash%3famp

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/04/02/the-democrats-campaign-finance-hypocrisy/?utm_term=.032b0bda0f18

So still nothing to say. Its all about watching the libtards squirm. Carry on...

[whitey]

i Just have you a defense of Citizens United-from the WAPO no less

When Democrats lose....it's money in politics to blame. Then they outraise the Republicans 2:1 and they still lose

Let me think.....ah I have it......they're losing due to voter suppression-but somehow miracously Obama wins twice and nery a word of voter suppression

I know......it must be the Russians. Gosh darn them they, forced the Democrats to have a coronation instead of a nomination and even went so far as to plant her classified emails in Anthony Wienars laptop

Ah....that muther bleepin Electoral College.....you know it's based on rascism and white supremacy.  Quick let's amend the constitution

[J70]

i Just have you a defense of Citizens United-from the WAPO no less

No you didn't. You posted articles on how the Dems are playing on the field created by Citizens United, therefore, it was the right Supreme Court decision. That's not a defense.

[whitey]

i Just have you a defense of Citizens United-from the WAPO no less

No you didn't. You posted articles on how the Dems are playing on the field created by Citizens United, therefore, it was the right Supreme Court decision. That's not a defense.

Keep twisting. Dems were against CU because they thought it gave an advantage to The Republicans. Instead it gave them an advantage. Outrage over Citizens united is a pile of utter nonsense.

Outrage outrage outrage over everything. Outrage over outrage or lack there of. Outrage over intensity and timeliness of outrage. Outrage over a dancing video. Outrage that Republicans were outraged at the outrage of a Congresswoman dancing when she was in college. Outrage over gender neutral pronouns. Outrage that I'm outraged that a man can go into a ladies bathroom. (I'm not BTW) Outraged over a Christmas tree on the stage of the nutcracker. Outrage that people aren outraged that the PTA cancelled the trip to the Nutcracker. Outrage over the enforcement of border laws. Outrage over kids in cages. Outraged that I didn't check to see that that the kids in cages outrage was perpetrated under Obama

[J70]

i Just have you a defense of Citizens United-from the WAPO no less

No you didn't. You posted articles on how the Dems are playing on the field created by Citizens United, therefore, it was the right Supreme Court decision. That's not a defense.

Keep twisting. Dems were against CU because they thought it gave an advantage to The Republicans. Instead it gave them an advantage. Outrage over Citizens united is a pile of utter nonsense.

Outrage outrage outrage over everything. Outrage over outrage or lack there of. Outrage over intensity and timeliness of outrage. Outrage over a dancing video. Outrage that Republicans were outraged at the outrage of a Congresswoman dancing when she was in college. Outrage over gender neutral pronouns. Outrage that I'm outraged that a man can go into a ladies bathroom. (I'm not BTW) Outraged over a Christmas tree on the stage of the nutcracker. Outrage that people aren outraged that the PTA cancelled the trip to the Nutcracker. Outrage over the enforcement of border laws. Outrage over kids in cages. Outraged that I didn't check to see that that the kids in cages outrage was perpetrated under Obama

Still no defense of or positive support in favour of a conservative Supreme Court.

You're spewing on about "outrage"; meanwhile your entire political outlook as espoused on this discussion board is based on your negative perception of the " mainstream media" and supposed liberal/Democratic hypocrisy. N'er a positive word in defense of the GOP or conservative principles in general. The very epitome of the politics of grievance.

[whitey]

Why would I need to defend a Conservative Supreme Court?

Whoever wins the election gets to decide who's on the court

I wouldn't expect you to defend a Liberal court if Hillary had won nor would I expect my Liberal friends to Be wringing their hands or gnashing their teeth either.

Elections have consequences and after Obama's 2 picks having a Republican pick 2/3 is no harm

I think it is a good thing if there is a balance on the court, but based on how disgracefully the Democrats behaved over Kavanaugh I think it would be great Karma if Trump stuck another conservative on the court. They now deserve to be railroaded in my opinion, because it's clear they will stop at absolutely nothing to gain and hold power (exactly like the Republicans)