Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Boomhauer on September 18, 2020, 07:37:47 PM
-
https://www.npr.org/2020/09/18/100306972/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-champion-of-gender-equality-dies-at-87
I know threads here speculated on whether she would retire or die in office. May she Rest In Peace.
-
Her replacement will not occur until after the election.
-
Holy crap. That's going to make the next couple of months interesting....
I didn't agree with her politically, philosophically, or morally. But she stuck to her principles, I'll give her that. May her family find comfort and peace.
-
Holy crap. That's going to make the next couple of months interesting....
I didn't agree with her politically, philosophically, or morally. But she stuck to her principles, I'll give her that. May her family find comfort and peace.
QFT. All of it.
-
Whoa, holy crap is right!
Firstly, RIP. I was one of those who wished that she would have simply retired and enjoyed her remaining years away from politics, but maybe the bench was her enjoyment.
On the politics, this is going to be a wild ride. My first thought is that it is going to rally the dems like nothing else could. Whether that's enough to overcome republican votes for Trump, who's to say? I'm certainly going to up my worry regarding riots, etc. after the election if Trump wins. Or to be precise, wins on election night, because this will absolutely spin up the "don't accept a Trump victory" crowd.
Edit: Not sure if we should maybe start a second topic to separate death from politics, but I just read that she made this statement prior to her death:
Justice Ginsburg dictated a statement before her death: "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."
Not "until after the election", but "until a new president is installed". That is going to stir a hornets nest.
-
Might boost turnout of both sides. Going to be delicate because all campaign speeches for the dems will be done standing on her coffin.
-
Her replacement will not occur until after the election.
Justice Ginsburg dictated a statement before her death: "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed." https://t.co/XLzhPiLSng
— Justin Miller (@justinjm1) September 18, 2020
https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2020/09/18/breaking-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-has-passed-away-at-age-87/
-
Cool. Lets fill it. Now.
-
Might boost turnout of both sides.
For sure. Prior to COVID19 I was sure of a record turnout election. For awhile I wavered on that but now I think that's a pretty solid bet again.
-
Justice Ginsburg dictated a statement before her death: "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed." https://t.co/XLzhPiLSng
— Justin Miller (@justinjm1) September 18, 2020
I guess raw hatred of Trump wasn't enough to keep her going after all.
-
I guess raw hatred of Trump wasn't enough to keep her going after all.
She didn't just mean after the election but if Trump wins wait until 2025. Of course the dems will be screaming "you have to obey her last wishes"
-
May she rest in peace. We ain't gonna have no peace here. :facepalm:
Trump's fault, obviously.
-
Cool. Lets fill it. Now.
President Trump is already on it
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-put-nominee-replace-justice-ruth-bader/story?id=73107862
-
The Tinfoil in me thinks she hung on until precisely the right moment to cause the most disruption
-
Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
R.I.P
that being said, things got even more interesting - I'm buying more ammo
-
The sources describes the list of potential nominees as very short and including at least one woman. U.S. Circuit Judge Amy Coney Barrett
>:D . This.
It's funny and kind of sad she stayed on under the assumption Clinton would get to name her replacement.
-
RIP, RBG. Sympathy and condolences to your family.
I'm quite sure that the Democrats already have affidavits, depositions, and sworn statements attesting to the most grotesque and perverse criminal behaviors imaginable from Trump's nominee to replace Ms. Ginsburg; they just have to wait for Trump to officially nominate someone so they'll know whose name to fill in on those affidavits, depositions, and sworn statements.
RINOs may be a problem - Murkowski, Collins, and Romney may decide against voting for any Trump nominee before the election or in a (potential) lame duck session afterwards. If McConnell and Graham don't push a Trump nominee forward, a LOT of GOP voters will regard this as a deep betrayal of trust and either stay home for the election or (shudder) vote Biden, just out of spite for being backstabbed (again!) by the GOP leadership. And if things DO move forward, look for antifa/BLM to make things sporty again.
And of course, ABCNBCCBSCNNMSNBC will be hysterical for the next month and a hall no matter what.
Bumpy road ahead . . .
-
I didn't agree with her politically, philosophically, or morally. But she stuck to her principles, I'll give her that. May her family find comfort and peace.
That sums it up for me. I didn't agree with her views and opinions, but I respected her as a person. I hoped that she would retire gracefully and spend her last days enjoying her family, but I guess that wasn't the way she wanted to go out. So be it.
R.I.P.
-
Rest In Peace, Ms. Ginsberg.
Something in me says that President Trump has precalculated every contingency possible for every date of her passing and has everything pretty much automated.
I don't want to stretch the analogy, but sometimes he actually reminds me of Patton.
OK, OK, don't press me on that one too much. But sometimes....
Terry, 230RN
-
Something in me says that President Trump has precalculated every contingency possible for every date of her passing and has everything pretty much automated.
It was only a few days ago that the Trump admin talked about their new "short list" for a new justice. Given today's news, it made me think that the higher seats of gov already had information that she was in her final days and were preparing. Both parties.
-
Mitt Romney is about to betray every one who ever voted for him by blocking her replacement.
-
Mitt Romney is about to betray every one who ever voted for him by blocking her replacement.
That will make four Rs that won't vote until after the election. I think that already puts the kibosh on a new justice before the election. Not to mention it doesn't seem there will be time anyway. We're talking like 50 days, and we saw how long all the investigations dragged on last time, with the help of some milquetoast republicans.
-
A 4-4 supreme court could make things interesting in a contested election.
-
Cool. Lets fill it. Now.
-
Former CNN contributor Reza Aslan is taking the news of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death well:
If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire *expletive deleted*ing thing down.
— Reza Aslan (@rezaaslan) September 19, 2020
https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2020/09/18/reza-aslan-if-they-even-try-to-replace-rbg-we-burn-the-entire-fcking-thing-down/
-
I was not expecting this at all.
-
https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2020/09/18/reza-aslan-if-they-even-try-to-replace-rbg-we-burn-the-entire-fcking-thing-down/
Bold threat, considering they've been at it since may.
Also, any takers on him getting bounced from Twater for that obvious terrorist threat?
-
She did work that she truly believed in, and was looked up to by a great many. May she rest in peace.
-
I think her career as a lawyer arguing before the SC was more admirable than her time as a justice. You don't go 5 for 6 there without being very good at what you do.
This may not change the electoral math. How many dems come out now that weren't before? You have to find an electoral pool that is smart enough that they understand the impact of a SC justice but dumb enough they didn't 100% know that Ginsberg was going to die or retire in Trump's second term and were just not going to the polls. Our best hope is the dems overplay their hand which is kinda what they are known for. Trump needs to STFU for awhile. No tweets. Ya, we're screwed.
So, can we survive a Harris presidency? I think so. The most flaming progressive appointment wouldn't change the make up the court. Seeing that the dems overreach(again) and pack the court. With luck it drives them out of all power in 2-4 years.
Biggest danger is swing Senate races. This means nothing even with president Harris if they don't take the Senate. They know it.
-
RIP. She has had to endure more cancer then I have so I can't say anything besides thoughts for her family.
If Trump is really the one people think he is he should start vetting Garland so we can see heads explode.
-
The Tinfoil in me thinks she hung on until precisely the right moment to cause the most disruption
Or she was a double agent, trying to recreate one of the conditions that helped Trump win in '16. Seriously, though, it's eerie. The Dems again nominated an aging, ailing, establishmentn candidate. They're hemorrhaging black votes worse than before (and I think Hispanic ones, too), and they're doubling down on the environment>jobs rhetoric. They've gone from "Trump is a racist" to "everything is racist." They just refuse to learn.
It was only a few days ago that the Trump admin talked about their new "short list" for a new justice. Given today's news, it made me think that the higher seats of gov already had information that she was in her final days and were preparing. Both parties.
I heard that, too, and I assume that has already been held up as Trump hoping she would die as soon as possible. ;/
-
Rest in Peace, Justice Ginsberg.
Senate Majority Leader McConnell has stated today that the Senate will hold a vote on President Trump's nominee for Justice Ginsberg's replacement.
-
Rest in Peace, Justice Ginsberg.
Senate Majority Leader McConnell has stated today that the Senate will hold a vote on President Trump's nominee for Justice Ginsberg's replacement.
Collins and Murky have already said nyet to a pre-election vote. Romney probably will run with them. Grassley too.
If Trump somehow exceeds the margin of fraud in the election I can totally see a lame duck session vote. Otherwise it'll be January before there's a vote.
-
Collins and Murky have already said nyet to a pre-election vote.
Murkey is actually pushing "retaliation", saying dems will abolish the filibuster and increase the number of justices "when we're in power next session". They never seem to think that the other side will ever be the majority again (Hi Harry Reid!).
I don't want to see the court expanded no matter who does it. There is no end to that.
-
I just read something wasn't thinking of regarding delaying an appointment until after the election: What if we have a 2000 style fight over the election and we only have eight justices with a 4-4 split?
-
I just read something wasn't thinking of regarding delaying an appointment until after the election: What if we have a 2000 style fight over the election and we only have eight justices with a 4-4 split?
Not to worry, Roberts will cave to the left.
=(
-
Not to worry, Roberts will cave to the left.
=(
There is that.
-
Not "until after the election", but "until a new president is installed". That is going to stir a hornets nest.
Treating the "dying wish" of an unelected judge as if it should suspend the regular, constitutionally-established workings of our government for up to 52 months is obviously unreasonable. Which is why Democrats will now regard it as unassailable truth.
-
Mitt Romney is about to betray every one who ever voted for him by blocking her replacement.
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has already stated that she won't vote for a replacement before the next presidential term.
There is an appropriate descriptive term for her, but I'm not supposed to use it here.
-
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has already stated that she won't vote for a replacement before the next presidential term.
There is an appropriate descriptive term for her, but I'm not supposed to use it here.
Collins, Murkowski, Graham, and Grassley
-
Another death to just note in passing.
ustice Ginsburg dictated a statement before her death: "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."
I wonder if she really said that, or if someone else made it up after the fact.
-
Wow
The woman at the beginning of this video is taking it well
*Loud* Language warning
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k9GdwnbcYo
-
Wow
The woman at the beginning of this video is taking it well
*Loud* Language warning
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k9GdwnbcYo
Same video starts this one, but Mr Reagan has a bunch more:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suiVdH9CVH8
-
Just checked - RBG was nominated by Clinton on 6/14/93.
The Senate confirmed her on 8/3/93, 50 days after her nomination.
She was sworn in 8/10/93, 57 days after her nomination.
So there's ample precedent to move quickly to seat her replacement.
-
Collins and Murky have already said nyet to a pre-election vote. Romney probably will run with them. Grassley too.
Maybe some cracks in what everyone is expecting Romney will do? I said maybe
https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2020/09/19/mitt-romney-spox-says-claim-the-senator-wont-vote-on-a-scotus-nominee-until-next-year-is-grossly-false/
-
Same video starts this one, but Mr Reagan has a bunch more:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suiVdH9CVH8
1:33.
Oh look! Voters.
-
Same video starts this one, but Mr Reagan has a bunch more:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suiVdH9CVH8
That's the first I've seen of that video of Trump. Somehow it's not making the rounds on Twitter. Wonder why?
-
Interesting discussion: Amy Barrett has already gone through confirmation hearings. I don't know much about all of the 25 or whatever people on the list, but for those who I do know about, she's certainly high on my list.
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2020/09/19/fill-the-seat-will-chamberlain-notes-that-amy-coney-barrett-has-already-gone-through-senate-confirmation-hearings/
-
Interesting discussion: Amy Barrett has already gone through confirmation hearings. I don't know much about all of the 25 or whatever people on the list, but for those who I do know about, she's certainly high on my list.
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2020/09/19/fill-the-seat-will-chamberlain-notes-that-amy-coney-barrett-has-already-gone-through-senate-confirmation-hearings/
The Dems will point out, IMO correctly, that hearings for an Appellate Judge =/= hearings for a Supreme Court Justice.
I'm a little concerned the seat will be filled and it'll start a political hurt feelings cascade that will end with a 432 person SCOTUS in 2028.
-
Interesting discussion: Amy Barrett has already gone through confirmation hearings. I don't know much about all of the 25 or whatever people on the list, but for those who I do know about, she's certainly high on my list.
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2020/09/19/fill-the-seat-will-chamberlain-notes-that-amy-coney-barrett-has-already-gone-through-senate-confirmation-hearings/
I don’t know enough about Barrett’s decisions in detail. She is portrayed as an originality though, assuming accurate that would be good for me. One potential problem I do have is that there appears to be a lack of firearm/gun law decisions to judge her by. A quick search didn’t reveal any, but it doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
We cannot have a 4-4 court in this election. It is almost guaranteed that there will be disputes that may go to SCOTUS and Roberts is way to squishy to depend on not caving to the purported popular opinion.
-
The Dems will point out, IMO correctly, that hearings for an Appellate Judge =/= hearings for a Supreme Court Justice.
Why correctly? Is it any less important for appellate level judges to rule based on the law and the Constitution than for Supreme Court justices? Are appellate level judges with skeletons in their closets acceptable at the appellate level but not at the SCOTUS level?
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/us/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-no-fan-of-donald-trump-critiques-latest-term.html
Her colleagues have said nothing in public about the presidential campaign or about Mr. Obama’s stalled nomination of Judge Merrick B. Garland to the Supreme Court. But Justice Ginsburg was characteristically forthright, offering an unequivocal endorsement of Judge Garland.
“I think he is about as well qualified as any nominee to this court,” she said. “Super bright and very nice, very easy to deal with. And super prepared. He would be a great colleague.”
Asked if the Senate had an obligation to assess Judge Garland’s qualifications, her answer was immediate.
“That’s their job,” she said. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.”
-
The Republicans are stupid if they fail to get this done before the election.
They will gain zero friends and zero votes waiting for the next term to appoint a replacement. It's almost a lock they will lose votes and demoralize the base.
Do you think there are that many leftists sitting on the sidelines who are all of a sudden going to get activated because of this? I think not, they are ramped up on antitrumpium and hatred to the max already.
Ram this judge through and celebrate, fire up the base and Trump supporters to get out and vote for more winning.
It's obvious many on the right don't like to win.
-
Trump said he's putting a name out next week and it will be a woman.
-
The Republicans are stupid if they fail to get this done before the election.
They will gain zero friends and zero votes waiting for the next term to appoint a replacement. It's almost a lock they will lose votes and demoralize the base.
Do you think there are that many leftists sitting on the sidelines who are all of a sudden going to get activated because of this? I think not, they are ramped up on antitrumpium and hatred to the max already.
Ram this judge through and celebrate, fire up the base and Trump supporters to get out and vote for more winning.
It's obvious many on the right don't like to win.
If Republicans had the Dem will to ram legislation through with accompanying psyops as the media provides the Dems would be forever marginalized.
We can’t get good, hard charging candidates through at the state level to graduate to congressional levels. I know in my state politics is a good ol boys club founded by old money and that’s why squishies like Lindsay Graham keep their power
-
Pretty good video on the subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHm5w8egcs8&ab_channel=TheRageaholic
-
Pretty good video on the subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHm5w8egcs8&ab_channel=TheRageaholic
A quote noted in that video, made by Ginsburg, related to this same situation with Obama and Garland.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg “The president is elected for four years, not three years".
Rs should probably use that one at least as much as the Biden quote from 2016 that cites what the constitution says.
-
The Republicans are stupid . . .
Could have stopped right there - they have a knack for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and a policy of preemptive surrender. =(
-
He might be nominating a Cuban-American lady.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/19/what-you-need-to-know-about-barbara-lagoa-418437
Could only be more perfect if she was Mexican-American. =D
-
He might be nominating a Cuban-American lady.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/19/what-you-need-to-know-about-barbara-lagoa-418437
Could only be more perfect if she was Mexican-American. =D
Cool. Another wise Latina.
-
Cool. Another wise Latina.
<sjw>You mean Latinx, right?</sjw>
:rofl: :rofl:
-
<sjw>You mean Latinx, right?</sjw>
:rofl: :rofl:
I thought it would be Latinxx. (For a man, Latinxy.)
-
Could have stopped right there - they have a knack for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and a policy of preemptive surrender. =(
Because that is what controlled opposition does. They are not stupid.
-
Regarding Amy Barrett and guns, I normally wouldn't link to a Slate article, but Slate believes Barrett would cause the streets to run red with blood. That's a thumbs up in my book.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/amy-coney-barrett-ginsburg-scotus-future.html
It’s quite possible, perhaps even likely, that within a year of her confirmation, Americans will be forbidden from terminating a pregnancy in 21 states—but permitted to purchase assault weapons and carry firearms in public in every state.
-
So Barrett is good on guns but not so good on the much larger number of social issues that I care about.
-
It’s quite possible, perhaps even likely, that within a year of her confirmation, Americans will be forbidden from terminating a pregnancy in 21 states—but permitted to purchase assault weapons and carry firearms in public in every state.
So they're saying the SCOTUS with ACB would repeal the NFA? BRING IT ON!
Oh, wait -- they're using their definition of "assault weapon" -- i.e. anything that shoots more than one bullet per week.
-
So Barrett is good on guns but not so good on the much larger number of social issues that I care about.
The dogma lives loudly within her. :P
-
So Barrett is good on guns but not so good on the much larger number of social issues that I care about.
Liberalism on social issues has gotten us baby chop shops, normalization of pedophilia, “bake the *expletive deleted*ing cake”, 11 year olds deciding their gender, rioting in the streets, and a bunch of screaming freaks trying to hold the country hostage. Normal America is getting sick of bowing down to this *expletive deleted*it.
-
A few years ago, a lot of people were calling for the Republican Party to drop the "social issues," and just focus on economics. Then Breitbart popularized the phrase, "politics is downstream from culture." Now, I hear a lot of talk about how we can't win the political battle if we lose the culture. So we won a lot of political arguments, but we'll lose everything now, unless we can turn back the cultural tide.
So it seems like the "social issues" are vital to a healthy politics.
-
Keep getting the impression that the media is acting like RBG was the first woman on the court
-
Keep getting the impression that the media is acting like RBG was the first woman on the court
Or at least the only one.
-
Protecting children from not only being aborted but from being used, abused and taken advantage of by adults is a hallmark of any good civilized nation.
Replacing Justice Ginsberg with a judge who can be trusted to protect children would be the most apropos and just decision President Trump can make.
-
You are right Ron.
Killing innocent people, in or out of the womb is a monstrous evil.
-
Well this is certainly interesting...
Nancy Pelosi is threatening to bring an impeachment action against President Trump...
As a move to stop the Supreme Court nomination process.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-dems-impeachment-supreme-court
WT Flying F???
-
Well this is certainly interesting...
Nancy Pelosi is threatening to bring an impeachment action against President Trump...
As a move to stop the Supreme Court nomination process.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-dems-impeachment-supreme-court
WT Flying F???
It's expected because it's Nancy Pelosi. Then again, she seems to be showing signs of suffering mental issues similar to Joe Biden.
-
Well this is certainly interesting...
Nancy Pelosi is threatening to bring an impeachment action against President Trump...
As a move to stop the Supreme Court nomination process.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-dems-impeachment-supreme-court
WT Flying F???
Is she stupid enough to do this? I hope so! >:D
-
Well this is certainly interesting...
Nancy Pelosi is threatening to bring an impeachment action against President Trump...
As a move to stop the Supreme Court nomination process.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-dems-impeachment-supreme-court
WT Flying F???
With the preface that I obviously will prefer a Trump nominee to a Biden nominee, I can't help but shake my head at both parties and how they conveniently embrace the constitution, or disregard the constitution, to suit themselves.
While yes, an R admin and R senate are different than a D admin and R senate, the Rs were still pushing against an Obama nominee in his last year while fighting for a Trump nominee in his last few months (of this term). And of course the dems are also flip flopping in the opposite direction.
Hopefully I'm not making a liar out of myself, but I'm pretty sure that my view during Garland was that Obama should be able to nominate him, and the R majority senate then had the ability to say no. I don't think I was in favor of the "Obama will be out of office next year" argument.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg actually said it best in 2016: "A President serves four years, not three." A President should be able to execute the role of his office until his last day in office.
-
With the preface that I obviously will prefer a Trump nominee to a Biden nominee, I can't help but shake my head at both parties and how they conveniently embrace the constitution, or disregard the constitution, to suit themselves.
While yes, an R admin and R senate are different than a D admin and R senate, the Rs were still pushing against an Obama nominee in his last year while fighting for a Trump nominee in his last few months (of this term). And of course the dems are also flip flopping in the opposite direction.
Hopefully I'm not making a liar out of myself, but I'm pretty sure that my view during Garland was that Obama should be able to nominate him, and the R majority senate then had the ability to say no. I don't think I was in favor of the "Obama will be out of office next year" argument.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg actually said it best in 2016: "A President serves four years, not three." A President should be able to execute the role of his office until his last day in office.
All the cries of hypocrisy are hollow. It's all politics and anyone who is even the slightest bit aware knows it's all politics.
I don't want the Supreme Court having the kind of power it wields, but it does. As a result, I want to make sure people who don't hate me or at least don't want me dead are the ones controlling it.
-
All the cries of hypocrisy are hollow. It's all politics and anyone who is even the slightest bit aware knows it's all politics.
I don't want the Supreme Court having the kind of power it wields, but it does. As a result, I want to make sure people who don't hate me or at least don't want me dead are the ones controlling it.
Yes.
-
With the preface that I obviously will prefer a Trump nominee to a Biden nominee, I can't help but shake my head at both parties and how they conveniently embrace the constitution, or disregard the constitution, to suit themselves.
While yes, an R admin and R senate are different than a D admin and R senate, the Rs were still pushing against an Obama nominee in his last year while fighting for a Trump nominee in his last few months (of this term). And of course the dems are also flip flopping in the opposite direction.
Hopefully I'm not making a liar out of myself, but I'm pretty sure that my view during Garland was that Obama should be able to nominate him, and the R majority senate then had the ability to say no. I don't think I was in favor of the "Obama will be out of office next year" argument.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg actually said it best in 2016: "A President serves four years, not three." A President should be able to execute the role of his office until his last day in office.
Huh? Obama did nominate him. The Senate declined to consent.
-
Huh? Obama did nominate him. The Senate declined to consent.
I know, but "decline to consent" is kinda wishy washy. Hold the hearings then take a vote. Which is what most here at APS want done right now for their guy (gal). Unless everybody here would be cool with "decline to consent" if the current senate had a D majority.
-
Im fine with the rejection of a hearing for Garland.
I'm fine with ramming an originalst conservative judge through before the election.
The leftists are not fine people we just disagree with.
They fundamentally oppose the United States as it stands and are actively working to supplant the majority heritage population.
This is blood sport and being nice will get you nothing but the destruction of the American way.
-
They fundamentally oppose the United States as it stands and are actively working to supplant the majority heritage population.
Is this your code for 'America is for Anglo-Saxon whites only'? It certainly comes across that way.
-
Is this your code for 'America is for Anglo-Saxon whites only'? It certainly comes across that way.
It's pragmatism MillCreek.
If you continue to flood the country with foreigners you will have a permanent Democrat majority.
There is not one single group of immigrants that doesn't vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, NOT ONE. Even several generations later their voting patterns are Democrat. I'm pretty sure even the Irish, Italians and Poles are still majority Democrat.
Massive immigration is the way empires are destroyed and collapse.
We may not want to be tribalistic but we are increasingly surrounded by those who are, wake up.
-
I know, but "decline to consent" is kinda wishy washy. Hold the hearings then take a vote. Which is what most here at APS want done right now for their guy (gal). Unless everybody here would be cool with "decline to consent" if the current senate had a D majority.
I'm pretty sure a refusal to even hold a vote is the farthest thing from wishy-washy. It's a very firm no. Also, you make a distinction without a difference, especially where the constitution is concerned. Goodness knows I could be wrong, but I don't think there's any rule stating the Senate must hold hearings. It says the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court..." Barack Obama nominated a candidate which failed to receive "the Consent of the Senate." He could have nominated someone further to the right than Garland, but he thought he'd be better off trying to pressure the Senate into caving. He chose poorly.
-
I used to respect Jonah Goldberg's opinion on stuff, but he has become just one example of Republican TDS. This is not the first I have read over the last few days of people you would have considered "staunch republicans" that would now rather have a left wing justice chosen by Biden instead of a conservative justice they would otherwise sing the praises of, except that Trump appointed them. Talk about "shoot yourself in the foot" syndrome.
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2020/09/21/jonah-goldberg-proposes-a-deal-democrats-could-make-to-prevent-rbgs-replacement-before-the-election/
-
And note that Obama failed to make the nomination based the advice of the Senate.
The refusal to give a committee hearing or floor vote is pretty clear advice they won't consent to the nomination.
-
:rofl:
Ninth Circuit Court Overturns Death Of Ruth Bader Ginsburg
https://babylonbee.com/news/ninth-circuit-court-overturns-death-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg
Genius Trump Nominates Joe Biden To Supreme Court Forcing Dems To Accuse Him Of Sexual Assault
https://babylonbee.com/news/genius-trump-nominates-joe-biden-to-supreme-court
-
Is this your code for 'America is for Anglo-Saxon whites only'? It certainly comes across that way.
Call it what they do. White. Which is what this country was, prior to opening the floodgates of immigration to the 3rd world.
The majority of the legal and illegal immigrants swamping our country are not compatible with our native, Western society. It's time to stop pretending that "diversity" in the way the left couches it is a good thing.
The old staggered approach to immigration worked. Allow a set number in, close the doors, allow those to assimilate. Repeat every couple of decades.
-
Is this your code for 'America is for Anglo-Saxon whites only'? It certainly comes across that way.
Not to mention the left has made it abundantly clear that demographically changing the USA is part of their plan.
Every year we get stories on the news about what year the white Americans will finally become a minority majority in the country. They can't wait.
They are telling us the plan and yet here we are, arguing about whether flooding your country with not-Americans who oppose it's ideals and founding principles is a good idea or not.
-
Is this your code for 'America is for Anglo-Saxon whites only'? It certainly comes across that way.
I don't care, and neither should you. We should stop behaving as if white racism is a significant problem in this country. It's not. We should stop caring whether someone on our side says something that sounds racisty. We're all racists so far as the other side is concerned, so why worry?
Hey, it's not easy for me to stop caring, either. But I plan to.
-
I don't care, and neither should you. We should stop behaving as if white racism is a significant problem in this country. It's not. We should stop caring whether someone on our side says something that sounds racisty. We're all racists so far as the other side is concerned, so why worry?
Hey, it's not easy for me to stop caring, either. But I plan to.
(https://images.app.goo.gl/x87FVMq1huvbahPD7)
-
We don't have to beat the immigration issue and Ron is a white supremacist issue to death in this thread about The Notorious RGB. We all know I believe western civilization is superior to our other options. We also know western civilization has been primarily a white man project so ipso facto Ron is a white supremacist. It's a neat rhetorical trick, I'm sure if I looked into it there is a name for the fallacy in the formulation. I'm not going to devote the time to thinking it through because I just don't care.
There is a reason I left the quotes I have in my signature there for so many years.
We all live in various states of cog dis about many things in our lives. The facts are right there in front of our faces but we don't want to believe it is true. Or we reject out of hand a presupposition because we know the natural outworking of that presupposition will be uncomfortable for us and require a change.
If somebody can convince me I'm wrong about the goals of the leftists and the end result of unfettered immigration please start a thread and enlighten me. Same goes with for the tribal nature of groups (ethnicity,race,ideology). I would love to be wrong but from my observations I'm sadly seeing things as they really are, not as I wish them to be.
-
Been protests at Mitch McConnell's house here in town.
-
I just heard it on the radio, but I'm sure it's over the interwebz by now, but I heard a clip of Mitt Romney, who has (surprisingly to me) said that he will absolutely vote on a nominee because Trump is following the Constitution.
-
I just heard it on the radio, but I'm sure it's over the interwebz by now, but I heard a clip of Mitt Romney, who has (surprisingly to me) said that he will absolutely vote on a nominee because Trump is following the Constitution.
Crap, I just posted that in a separate thread. Should have put it here. It came through my Fox app on my phone, but I can't find it yet on Foxnews.com
-
Yes, Mitt Romney will vote on a nominee, but he will vote against. He's playing the issue both ways.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_0qMu8b8hQ
McConnell TORCHES Dems For Threatening to Destroy the Country to Stop Next SCOTUS Confirmation
The main thing to remember is that when the Senate majority and the President are not from the same party, rejecting a late term nominee is typical. When they are both the same party, approving a late term nominee is also typical. The traditional thing to do was to reject Garland. The traditional thing to do is approve Trump's nominee now.
-
The traditional thing to do was to reject Garland. The traditional thing to do is approve Trump's nominee now.
The tradition is window dressing, cover to hide behind for politicians who are too scared to admit they are using the power of their majority to do what they want.
It can (and will) be discarded when convenient.All the cries of hypocrisy are hollow. It's all politics and anyone who is even the slightest bit aware knows it's all politics.
-
The tradition is window dressing, cover to hide behind for politicians who are too scared to admit they are using the power of their majority to do what they want.
It can (and will) be discarded when convenient.
At one point, there were traditions and deference that governed our institutions.
Even while the left was shredding them, the right still observed them. Look at the battles over Judge Bork and Justice Thomas. Look, shortly afterward at the votes over Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer. (Also note that I didn't characterize them as "battles". And there's a reason for that.)
The right TRIED to continue the tradition of deference to the executive and a simple requirement of the appointee being qualified. They EVEN PURSUED the tack of forgiving the first breakS from tradition instead of an immediate Tit for Tat strategy.
What did the left do? Took that as weakness and forged further ahead. Now we have idiots OSTENSIBLY on the right, like that moron David French, pulling "BOTH SIDES!!1!!1!1eleventy!!!" crap.
No. One side tried to pursue tradition and comity in the face of the other breaking them. You want the old order back? The AGGRESSORS (the left) have to fall back and give up ground that they have taken. Otherwise, there is absolutely no reason to trust the left.
-
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/22/politics/amy-coney-barrett-trump-supreme-court/index.html
CNN is reporting that Barrett is leading the pack of nominees.
-
There's no hypocrisy in saying that you'll only approve a nominee in an election year if the president is of your party. Why would we expect the Senate to do otherwise? It's not as if a 9th justice is constitutionally required anyhow.
It will be funny, if God forbid the Democrats have the Senate at the tail end of Trump's second term, and a vacancy occurs.
-
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/22/politics/amy-coney-barrett-trump-supreme-court/index.html
CNN is reporting that Barrett is leading the pack of nominees.
WELL if CNN is reporting it...
.... then it's probably going to be Lagoa
-
There's no hypocrisy in saying that you'll only approve a nominee in an election year if the president is of your party.
Why not this? If that's the stance someone takes and they stick to it, no hypocrisy there either.
-
Why not this? If that's the stance someone takes and they stick to it, no hypocrisy there either.
It doesn't really matter to me. Making up names to call it is just more politics.
The Republicans should nominate a new SC judge and should confirm them because they have the Presidency and a majority in the Senate. More or less because they can under the Constitution and that is what has been done in the past. The Democrats would not hesitate to do the same.
-
So far, everything I am reading about Barrett indicates she is very bright and a skilled legal scholar, which is good.
-
So far, everything I am reading about Barrett indicates she is very bright and a skilled legal scholar, which is good.
Which means that she molested someone, kicks dogs, eats BBQ children, and once yelled at her mother, making her totally unfit to be a justice.
-
Which means that she molested someone, kicks dogs, eats BBQ children, and once yelled at her mother, making her totally unfit to be a justice.
You forgot that in the third grade, she told another little girl that her mother dresses her funny.
-
Post-Kavanaugh, should they even have hearings, or just vote on her?
-
Post-Kavanaugh, should they even have hearings, or just vote on her?
Might be good to see them attack a woman on CSPAN.
-
Which means that she molested someone, kicks dogs, eats BBQ children, and once yelled at her mother, making her totally unfit to be a justice.
I misread this as 'chicken', and thought 'well, what is wrong with that?'.
-
Post-Kavanaugh, should they even have hearings, or just vote on her?
I can't recall for sure, but aren't hearings somewhat new-ish over the last ~200 years?
-
Why not this? If that's the stance someone takes and they stick to it, no hypocrisy there either.
Cute.
-
Might be good to see them attack a woman on CSPAN.
I'm not ready to hear all the grandstanding from Harris.
-
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/22/politics/amy-coney-barrett-trump-supreme-court/index.html
CNN is reporting that Barrett is leading the pack of nominees.
Does anyone know how she is on guns?
-
Does anyone know how she is on guns?
https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/judge-barretts-dissent-in-second-amendment-case/
https://heavy.com/news/2018/07/amy-coney-barrett-gun-control-second-amendment/
Everything I've read makes me think Barbara Lagoa might bebetter
-
My sister thinks that birth control and gay marriage will be outlawed now that RBG isn’t there to protect womens rights🙄 Mind you the only Supreme Court case she could name if her life depended on it is Roe vs Wade and she has virtually no clue about how government or rights work.
-
My sister thinks that birth control and gay marriage will be outlawed now that RBG isn’t there to protect womens rights.
Tell her Trump is going to change the country's name to The United States of Gilead.
-
Tell her Trump is going to change the country's name to The United States of Gilead.
And just accidentally call her "Of[husband's or boyfriend's name]," then look embarrassed and apologize. =)
-
Selective quotations -- pick what fits the narrative du jour:
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2020/09/22/cruz-blocks-rgb-resolution-objecting-to-mention-of-her-dying-wish-keep-seat-open-for-next-president/
From the article:
Democrats, who in 2016 urged Garland’s confirmation, have ripped into Republicans for hypocrisy, while blasting the GOP for not honoring Ginsburg’s dying request – as relayed to her granddaughter – that “I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”
Yet it wasn't all that long ago that Mrs. Ginsberg said, "The President serves for four years, not three." And the Constitution says that
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Getting down to basics, in legal and statutory language the word "shall" is mandatory, whereas the word "may" is optional. Therefore, it is Trump's Constitutional duty to nominate a replacement for RBG. Failure to do would, in strict fact, amount to nonfeasance of his duty.
-
Principles? Nah, will to power baby.
https://twitter.com/ITGuy1959/status/1307877608487628802
I wonder if any network/cable channels will even allow this to get airplay?
-
My sister thinks that birth control and gay marriage will be outlawed now that RBG isn’t there to protect womens rights🙄 Mind you the only Supreme Court case she could name if her life depended on it is Roe vs Wade and she has virtually no clue about how government or rights work.
So, she's like virtually everyone else on the left.
You know, they're so convinced that Trump is simply going to declare himself dictator for life it makes me wonder why they're crying so much about the Supreme Court...
-
Principles? Nah, will to power baby.
https://twitter.com/ITGuy1959/status/1307877608487628802
I wonder if any network/cable channels will even allow this to get airplay?
I like the Elizabeth Warren clips, just because she's such a naggy, self-righteous lecturer.
-
So, she's like virtually everyone else on the left.
You know, they're so convinced that Trump is simply going to declare himself dictator for life it makes me wonder why they're crying so much about the Supreme Court...
RBG was suppose to strike the Sith Lord down with her rainbow colored lightsaber of wokeness if he did that.
-
I got to admit, I had Obama Derangement Syndrome (I probably listened to him talk no more than 60 seconds in the 8 years he was President).
But what I had is nothing compared to Trump Derangement Syndrome.
-
Oh, so you were the one rioting during his inauguration.
Thanks for that... :rofl:
-
I got to admit, I had Obama Derangement Syndrome (I probably listened to him talk no more than 60 seconds in the 8 years he was President).
But what I had is nothing compared to Trump Derangement Syndrome.
I remember people considering the idea that Obama would try to stay in power, but it was just idle comments and I didn't think he would do it. The left seems to have little restraint on those crazier ideas. Either that or the crazier ones are the ones with the loudest voices.
-
I've heard screechs about "OMG HE'S GOING TO INVALIDATE THE ELECTION TO STAY IN ABOUT!!!" about ever president since Jimmy Carter.
Panicky tinfoil asshats.
-
I remember people considering the idea that Obama would try to stay in power, but it was just idle comments and I didn't think he would do it. The left seems to have little restraint on those crazier ideas. Either that or the crazier ones are the ones with the loudest voices.
I remember being a little worried that Bill Clinton wouldn't leave.
-
Great -- now we have culture wars within MAGA.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/22/trump-barrett-lagoa-supreme-court-420045
-
Great -- now we have culture wars within MAGA.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/22/trump-barrett-lagoa-supreme-court-420045
The media love to highlight divisions on the right.
It's the same deal with religious people. They pillory us for not being able to agree on anything, and then an hour later they complain that we're all easily led, and don't want to think for ourselves. I mean, right now we shouldn't even have an opinion, right? Our puppet-master Trump hasn't given us one yet.
-
Dems have come up with the perfect strategy regarding an SCJ hearing. :rofl:
https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2020/09/23/great-idea-brian-fallon-gives-senate-dems-easy-solution-for-scotus-confirmation-hearing-woes-gop-might-be-all-for-it/
-
I see no reason for the Senate to have any sort of hearing at all. Just bring the nomination to a vote. Let the D's boycott the vote. All the Senate needs is 51 Senators to vote.
-
I see no reason for the Senate to have any sort of hearing at all. Just bring the nomination to a vote. Let the D's boycott the vote. All the Senate needs is 51 Senators to vote.
Dear Chuck Schumer, thank you for trashing Bork, Thomas, and any other judicial nominee. Your "norm" is war.
Oh, and thanks Harry Reid!
-
So with Roberts ending up being a crypto-leftist, who will be the next justice to reveal themselves as a lefty to keep the right from actually establishing a more originalist court?
-
Serious question: Do neighbors not have rights in these situations? I would be one pissed neighbor, and I wouldn't be pissed at Cocaine Mitch.
https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2020/09/24/watch-libs-are-outside-of-mitch-mcconnells-house-this-morning-protesting-the-peaceful-transition-of-power-at-the-supreme-court/
-
Serious question: Do neighbors not have rights in these situations? I would be one pissed neighbor, and I wouldn't be pissed at Cocaine Mitch.
https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2020/09/24/watch-libs-are-outside-of-mitch-mcconnells-house-this-morning-protesting-the-peaceful-transition-of-power-at-the-supreme-court/
Leftists don't care. NO ONE has rights so long as they are ANGRY. If they are angry, then they can do whatever they want.1
These people lack empathy. They don't care what other people think. They don't care what other people feel. Those other people are WRONG, and therefore, bad. Bad people don't deserve to be treated with civility.
1: (So far, it's short of murdering people, but many of them think that's fine, too. They just want to do it in a way that they don't feel like they were responsible. Like burning down a building full of people. "It was their fault for not getting out when they knew we were ANGRY!")
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8765709/Trump-says-Supreme-Court-needs-nine-judges-decide-presidential-election.html
The President will not commit to leaving the White House if he disagrees with the election results and says he must have nine justices on SCOTUS before the election so that SCOTUS can decide the election.
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8765709/Trump-says-Supreme-Court-needs-nine-judges-decide-presidential-election.html
The President will not commit to leaving the White House if he disagrees with the election results and says he must have nine justices on SCOTUS before the election so that SCOTUS can decide the election.
His actual quote doesn't sound quite the same.
'I think having a 4-4 situation is not a good situation,' Trump said.
'Just in case it would be more political than it should be I think it's very important to have a 9th judge,' he said.
-
So with Roberts ending up being a crypto-leftist, who will be the next justice to reveal themselves as a lefty to keep the right from actually establishing a more originalist court?
Kavanaugh would be my bet. In spite of his confirmation experience.
-
His actual quote doesn't sound quite the same.
This.
There are things the media claims Trump said, and there is what Trump actually said.
-
Kavanaugh would be my bet. In spite of his confirmation experience.
I have heard he is not as conservative as people made him out to be. Perhaps his confirmation experience affected how much he would shift to the left, but that is hard to predict.
-
His actual quote doesn't sound quite the same.
Perhaps a list of quotes would be better:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/24/politics/trump-election-warnings-leaving-office/index.html
-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8765709/Trump-says-Supreme-Court-needs-nine-judges-decide-presidential-election.html
The President will not commit to leaving the White House if he disagrees with the election results and says he must have nine justices on SCOTUS before the election so that SCOTUS can decide the election.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_DYUarsXOE
Here is the question about the "transition of power". The foolish part of the question is there is no transition if he wins which Trump said. I wouldn't expect Trump or any President to say yes during a reelection campaign.
-
And, in "the left continues to prove that they're a true class act," Trump and the first lady were booed by protestors as they paid respects to RBG...
-
The Left is very clever and Trump is very clever.
If the Left coordinates a "win" using election fraud they can beat Trump over the head with his own words over and over, stymieing any attempt to actually look at the legitimacy of the election.
Trump gives up no ground willingly.
He ran on giving no quarter but only his guys have gone to jail.
"Lock her up" is a fading memory.
-
the only way they're going to win is by a rigged election
Anyone who believes this, on either side, is crazy.
Polling isn't perfect but it's very clear that this country is divided and that either candidate has a decent chance of getting enough (legitimate) votes to win.
That was the case in the last election and I don't see much difference now.
-
The Left is very clever and Trump is very clever.
If the Left coordinates a "win" using election fraud they can beat Trump over the head with his own words over and over, stymieing any attempt to actually look at the legitimacy of the election.
Trump gives up no ground willingly.
He ran on giving no quarter but only his guys have gone to jail.
"Lock her up" is a fading memory.
I don't think the Left is clever. They do and say monumentally stupid stuff all the time that is quickly forgotten. They are just persistent, well funded, and the media gives them lots of cover.
-
It's just like watching "Professional Wrestling" on TV.
Arch villains, good guys, bad guys, old characters leave new characters introduced, fast plot shifts and season long cliffhangers.
Story lines that never go anywhere or are resolved, you have characters changing sides and alliances.
Enjoy the show.
-
It's just like watching "Professional Wrestling" on TV.
Arch villains, good guys, bad guys, old characters leave new characters introduced, fast plot shifts and season long cliffhangers.
Story lines that never go anywhere or are resolved, you have characters changing sides and alliances.
Enjoy the show.
I think seeing "Jake the Snake" throw a giant python on a sweaty steroid user is a lot more fun than this nightmare. =|
-
It's just like watching "Professional Wrestling" on TV.
Arch villains, good guys, bad guys, old characters leave new characters introduced, fast plot shifts and season long cliffhangers.
Story lines that never go anywhere or are resolved, you have characters changing sides and alliances.
Enjoy the show.
Ya don't say?
(https://i.insider.com/537a707d6bb3f7be14245ef3?width=600&format=jpeg)
-
Ya don't say?
(https://i.insider.com/537a707d6bb3f7be14245ef3?width=600&format=jpeg)
Why do you think he's been so successful at playing the media? He already played their games, much more successfully in his "other life".
-
:facepalm:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death prompted ’40-something attorney and mother’ to become a Satanist to safeguard her daughters’ abortion rights
https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2020/09/24/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-death-prompted-40-something-attorney-and-mother-to-become-a-satanist-to-safeguard-her-daughters-abortion-rights/
-
Quick someone let her know that founder of the Church of Satan (and author of the Satanic Bible) was a pro-life:
>:D
:rofl:
-----------------------
"The staggering number of illegal abortions would diminish overnight, if the antiquated approach to birth control were replaced with a strict, government-controlled program, which made it mandatory for each person to adopt a method of contraception that would preclude the possibility of births due to "forgetfulness," ignorance, or irresponsibility.
Abortion is unnatural and unnecessary. Man is the only animal who practices such wanton killing of its young. And yet man considers himself emancipated and more highly evolved than any other species. Legalized abortion would have a disastrously demoralizing affect on our society, for it would further instill the notion that human life is one of the cheapest commodities in the world.
To anyone who would presume to "play god," nonchalantly turning thumbs down on any tiny person whose only crime is existing (as nature dictated he must), I say: either accept the blame and bear your cross, or else reject the barbaric religion which has distorted your reason and robbed you of the right to choose! How can these murderous deeds be rationalized? Does it not occur to the proponents of legalized abortion that their actions may result in the destruction of embryos which could mature into mighty leaders or great teachers?
How can we even consider the senseless annihilation of our unborn children, when it is due to the stupidity and negligence of their parents that they were created. I would defy all logic to execute a child for a murder committed by one of his parents, but to me it seems equally illogical to punish an unborn child for the action of his parents. Society must reject any religious creed if it requires that its adherents produce unwanted human life only to have it destroyed."
Anton LaVey, Letters from the Devil, March 21, 1971
"For example, the science of eugenics provides solutions for the issue of abortion. Satanically speaking, I am against abortion. Yet I do consider a problem of overpopulation. Therefore, I advocate compulsory birth control. Unborn babies did not ask to be conceived. Once conceived, they should have loving, responsible parents, even if adoptive. A stupid, irresponsible woman should not have the right to "decide" what she does with her own body when in all other things, her mind is being controlled by impersonal vested interests. An unborn child's father should influence the outcome of a pregnancy if it can be determined that he is more responsible than the mother. If he is stupid, insensitive and irresponsible, he should be sterilized. Irresponsible parents, male or female, should simply be kept from conceiving children.
The most vocal anti-abortion crusaders are fundamentalist Christians. Their entire plan and purpose originated with the same motivation that propagates any ethnic or religious grouping: to fill the world with more people like themselves. The women's movement favors abortion on the grounds that a woman's body is hers alone, to control as she chooses. Neither advocates mandatory birth control and selective sterilization, which--as a third side--could eliminate most of the entire issue. Of course, whenever an issue becomes more important than a solution, don't expect to stumble over a third side.
I respect someone who simply admits that he or she doesn't like kids--or dogs, cats, monkeys, zebras or potato bugs--for reasons of their own. It's when they cloak their reasons in the cant populist causes, that I become truculent."
Anton LaVey, Satan Speaks! 1998
-
Quick someone let her know that founder of the Church of Satan (and author of the Satanic Bible) was a pro-life:
>:D
:rofl:
-----------------------
"The staggering number of illegal abortions would diminish overnight, if the antiquated approach to birth control were replaced with a strict, government-controlled program, which made it mandatory for each person to adopt a method of contraception that would preclude the possibility of births due to "forgetfulness," ignorance, or irresponsibility.
Abortion is unnatural and unnecessary. Man is the only animal who practices such wanton killing of its young. And yet man considers himself emancipated and more highly evolved than any other species. Legalized abortion would have a disastrously demoralizing affect on our society, for it would further instill the notion that human life is one of the cheapest commodities in the world.
To anyone who would presume to "play god," nonchalantly turning thumbs down on any tiny person whose only crime is existing (as nature dictated he must), I say: either accept the blame and bear your cross, or else reject the barbaric religion which has distorted your reason and robbed you of the right to choose! How can these murderous deeds be rationalized? Does it not occur to the proponents of legalized abortion that their actions may result in the destruction of embryos which could mature into mighty leaders or great teachers?
How can we even consider the senseless annihilation of our unborn children, when it is due to the stupidity and negligence of their parents that they were created. I would defy all logic to execute a child for a murder committed by one of his parents, but to me it seems equally illogical to punish an unborn child for the action of his parents. Society must reject any religious creed if it requires that its adherents produce unwanted human life only to have it destroyed."
Anton LaVey, Letters from the Devil, March 21, 1971
"For example, the science of eugenics provides solutions for the issue of abortion. Satanically speaking, I am against abortion. Yet I do consider a problem of overpopulation. Therefore, I advocate compulsory birth control. Unborn babies did not ask to be conceived. Once conceived, they should have loving, responsible parents, even if adoptive. A stupid, irresponsible woman should not have the right to "decide" what she does with her own body when in all other things, her mind is being controlled by impersonal vested interests. An unborn child's father should influence the outcome of a pregnancy if it can be determined that he is more responsible than the mother. If he is stupid, insensitive and irresponsible, he should be sterilized. Irresponsible parents, male or female, should simply be kept from conceiving children.
The most vocal anti-abortion crusaders are fundamentalist Christians. Their entire plan and purpose originated with the same motivation that propagates any ethnic or religious grouping: to fill the world with more people like themselves. The women's movement favors abortion on the grounds that a woman's body is hers alone, to control as she chooses. Neither advocates mandatory birth control and selective sterilization, which--as a third side--could eliminate most of the entire issue. Of course, whenever an issue becomes more important than a solution, don't expect to stumble over a third side.
I respect someone who simply admits that he or she doesn't like kids--or dogs, cats, monkeys, zebras or potato bugs--for reasons of their own. It's when they cloak their reasons in the cant populist causes, that I become truculent."
Anton LaVey, Satan Speaks! 1998
When the Church of Satan is calling you out on your morality and ethics, you just might have a problem. =D
-
This seems like a reasonable and informed take:
https://www.celebitchy.com/681429/when_will_donald_trump_nominate_an_inevitable_qanon_rapist_for_rgbs_seat/
-
Trump should start campaigning on if he gets reelected he will expand the court to 13 judges in the next four years.
Just for the confusion it would sow on the left threatening him with doing it themselves and the epic media meltdown.
-
Perhaps a list of quotes would be better:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/24/politics/trump-election-warnings-leaving-office/index.html
Yeah, none of those things indicate what is being claimed. Another example of CNN claiming, without evidence, that Trump is a villain.
-
Trump should start campaigning on if he gets reelected he will expand the court to 13 judges in the next four years.
Just for the confusion it would sow on the left threatening him with doing it themselves and the epic media meltdown.
:laugh: All of the sudden it will be all his idea, and the Left will call you a liar when you say they were pushing it.
-
:facepalm:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death prompted ’40-something attorney and mother’ to become a Satanist to safeguard her daughters’ abortion rights
https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2020/09/24/ruth-bader-ginsburgs-death-prompted-40-something-attorney-and-mother-to-become-a-satanist-to-safeguard-her-daughters-abortion-rights/
Scroll down to get to the point where she thinks using the term "handmaid" makes people suspect, because it apparently only means one, specific thing now. :facepalm:
-
Scroll down to get to the point where she thinks using the term "handmaid" makes people suspect, because it apparently only means one, specific thing now. :facepalm:
And not a specific meaning in the context of the Roman Catholic group what's her name, the likely SC candidate, is part of. Issues, ETc, from down in your neck of the woods, talked about this yesterday:
2672. A Reuters Story about Amy Coney Barrett’s Religious Faith – Terry Mattingly, 9/23/20 (https://issuesetc.org/2020/09/23/2672-a-reuters-story-about-amy-coney-barretts-religious-faith-terry-mattingly-9-23-20/).
-
While this article does frame it (of course) as something that will be done by Donald Trump, it correctly identifies the scenario that I think people should be worried about.
The worst case, however, is not that Trump rejects the election outcome. The worst case is that he uses his power to prevent a decisive outcome against him. If Trump sheds all restraint, and if his Republican allies play the parts he assigns them, he could obstruct the emergence of a legally unambiguous victory for Biden in the Electoral College and then in Congress. He could prevent the formation of consensus about whether there is any outcome at all. He could seize on that unÂcertainty to hold on to power.
I don't worry about Trump not leaving if he loses, I worry about not being able to tell who legitimately won - a very close election with contested recounts in multiple swing states and enough fraud to call the results into question. It's pretty much a guarantee that a record number of ballots will be disputed & discarded this year just because people do a bad job with their mail in ballots. That's going to give both sides ammunition to claim that there were shenanigans. Armies of "poll watchers" are being assembled and I wouldn't be surprised to see fights break out between BLM & Boogalooers in front of polling places. If there's a riot in front of your polling place what's the procedure to get your vote in?
If enough votes get thrown out, enough fraud is revealed, and there's enough chaos in the streets on election day, is the country going to accept the results?
-
Well, looks like it'll be Barrett.
https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2020/09/25/cbs-and-cnn-report-president-trump-will-nominate-amy-coney-barrett-for-scotus/
-
Cue the sad trombone, the dems already had 30 women lined up to testily he did something naughty 30 years ago.
Guess on to Plan B
-
Plan B so far seems to be labeling her as some kind of Catholic cultist.
-
If enough votes get thrown out, enough fraud is revealed, and there's enough chaos in the streets on election day, is the country going to accept the results?
The losing side won't accept the results.
Of course, the Democratic Party never accepted the results of the 2016 election either.
-
The losing side won't accept the results.
Of course, the Democratic Party never accepted the results of the 2016 election either.
Or 2000. Some of them don't accept 2004.
-
(https://media4.giphy.com/media/12bpEjD05ac2IM/200.gif)
IT BEGINS: Lib questions Amy Coney Barrett’s adoption of two kids from Haiti
https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2020/09/25/it-begins-lib-questions-amy-coney-barretts-adoption-of-two-kids-from-haiti/
-
(https://media4.giphy.com/media/12bpEjD05ac2IM/200.gif)
IT BEGINS: Lib questions Amy Coney Barrett’s adoption of two kids from Haiti
https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2020/09/25/it-begins-lib-questions-amy-coney-barretts-adoption-of-two-kids-from-haiti/
Obviously racist troll shielding.
-
In their attempt to accuse Cocaine Mitch of working "to cripple the proper functioning of all three branches of government, not to mention faith in the very idea of one America," the Washington Post couldn't help but give him another awesome nickname.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/20/mitch-mcconnell-is-apex-predator-us-politics/
:rofl:
-
(https://media4.giphy.com/media/12bpEjD05ac2IM/200.gif)
IT BEGINS: Lib questions Amy Coney Barrett’s adoption of two kids from Haiti
https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2020/09/25/it-begins-lib-questions-amy-coney-barretts-adoption-of-two-kids-from-haiti/
I met someone a long time ago that told me she was operating a child-smuggling ring in Georgetown. Kids would repeatedly go to these parties where they would be smuggled. It was a horrifying experience for them, but when they went to another party at her house, it would happen all over again. Anyway, some guy told me that in 1982. Or maybe '83. I'm afraid to fly.
-
And just accidentally call her "Of[husband's or boyfriend's name]," then look embarrassed and apologize. =)
"From now on, my name is OfJesse."
(https://babylonbee.com/img/articles/article-7078-2.jpg)
https://babylonbee.com/news/amy-coney-barrett-holds-press-conference-in-handmaids-tale-uniform-just-to-mess-with-liberals
-
Emily Jashinsky makes a good point in saying that Barrett [and I would add, whomever Trump selects] will be like Trump's third running mate.
https://youtu.be/htLQc0Fo8W4
-
Dem attacks have started on Barrett, with the current tact being making her look somehow nefarious for adopting kids from Haiti, and questioning how she treats them.
https://twitchy.com/brads-313037/2020/09/26/talking-points-have-gone-out-another-democrat-operative-goes-after-amy-coney-barrett-adoptions-and-then-locks-down-after-blowback/
-
Dem attacks have started on Barrett, with the current tact being making her look somehow nefarious for adopting kids from Haiti, and questioning how she treats them.
https://twitchy.com/brads-313037/2020/09/26/talking-points-have-gone-out-another-democrat-operative-goes-after-amy-coney-barrett-adoptions-and-then-locks-down-after-blowback/
Meanwhile nothing about Robert's questionable adoptions out of Ireland. But based on Robert's rulings he is part of the swamp. Special treatment for fellow travellers, for everyone else the law.
-
Meanwhile nothing about Robert's questionable adoptions out of Ireland. But based on Robert's rulings he is part of the swamp. Special treatment for fellow travellers, for everyone else the law.
It sounds like they're focusing on the interracial aspect of Barrett's adoptions. Because, you know, she got the kids as slaves to pick the cotton and make it into fabric that they then have to sew into her judicial robes.
-
Dem attacks have started on Barrett, with the current tact being making her look somehow nefarious for adopting kids from Haiti, and questioning how she treats them.
https://twitchy.com/brads-313037/2020/09/26/talking-points-have-gone-out-another-democrat-operative-goes-after-amy-coney-barrett-adoptions-and-then-locks-down-after-blowback/
They started before that, with the handmaid stuff. ;/ (And not counting the attacks from a couple of years ago.)
(It's tack, not tact.)
-
(It's tack, not tact.)
Huked on Foniks strikes again.
-
Gramer nazis strike again.
-
Wow - the feminist take: ACB can't both be a good justice and good mother to her children. Suddenly "fulltime homemaker" is a positive for feminists.
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2020/09/26/hot-take-how-can-amy-coney-barrett-be-a-supreme-court-justice-and-a-loving-present-mom-to-her-kids/
I think they are going to go at least as crazy with ACB as they did with Kavenough, but they are going to lose a LOT of middle of the road people with their attacks on mothers and people who rescue kids from third world orphanages. Many people fell in with "let's get the frat boy". I don't think it will work the same here.
-
CNN reporting at the Supreme Court:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wiODbZtvl0
=D
-
CNN reporting at the Supreme Court:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wiODbZtvl0
=D
:lol:
-
Interesting article on ACB: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/09/27/amy-coney-barrett-supreme-court-nominee-feminist-icon-422059
-
I'm really hoping they go absolutely feral and vicious on her...
Could help get some fence sitters over to the Republicans.
Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/120234158_3625198530844601_3332380768086121877_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=5u6nmaR-EqUAX80xP_0&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=fd3f6870d5e1252718b0be3bc42fcd3b&oe=5F96280F)
-
(https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/120234158_3625198530844601_3332380768086121877_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=5u6nmaR-EqUAX80xP_0&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&oh=fd3f6870d5e1252718b0be3bc42fcd3b&oe=5F96280F)
=D
-
Needs a rabbit pulling the trigger.
-
Needs a rabbit pulling the trigger.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7f/ApocalypseMeow_vol1_Cover.jpg)
(yes, I know you were referring to her middle name)
-
It will work three ways.
A coney being all aim-y with a Barret!
-
It will work three ways.
A coney being all aim-y with a Barret!
:facepalm: =)
Democrats: 'Without Abortion, Women Might Have To Settle For Having 7 Kids And Sitting On The Highest Court In The Land' (https://babylonbee.com/news/democrats-without-abortion-women-might-have-to-settle-for-having-7-kids-and-sitting-on-the-highest-court-in-the-land)
https://babylonbee.com/news/white-house-pops-pink-smoke-grenade-to-reveal-gender-of-next-supreme-court-justice
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7f/ApocalypseMeow_vol1_Cover.jpg)
Cool anime!
-
The crawl from that CNN dreck was interesting...
"Judges must apply the law as written, they must not be policy makers."
That statement, at its heart an anti-revisionist statement, is going to drive the left absolutely stark raving mad. The left, for years, has depended on the courts to be their policy making organ to get through what they can't get through Congress.
When Gorsuch was going through his nomination process my rep, that toad Gerry Connolly, posted a facebook message that Gorsuch was "too radical" to serve on the court...
Dozens of messages posted to his feed absolutely tearing him apart for that assessment.
-
For some reason USA Today fact checked the Babylon Bee. (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/27/fact-check-only-satire-could-9th-circuit-overturn-ginsburgs-death/3548008001/)
Over this article. (https://babylonbee.com/news/ninth-circuit-court-overturns-death-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg)
-
I did not see this coming. :facepalm:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/sick-demeaning-leftists-erupt-over-amy-coney-barrett-acb-nickname
It's another sign of the way Leftism is a religion. They have so many holy personages. Ginsberg now. Obama a few years ago.
-
I did not see this coming. :facepalm:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/sick-demeaning-leftists-erupt-over-amy-coney-barrett-acb-nickname
It's another sign of the way Leftism is a religion. They have so many holy personages. Ginsberg now. Obama a few years ago.
The left is throwing anything and everything at Glorious ACB and hoping it sinks her nomination. They are desperate.
-
The left is throwing anything and everything at Glorious ACB and hoping it sinks her nomination. They are desperate.
This particular freakout doesn't seem that calculated. It just looks like unhinged hero worship.
-
I was figuring AOC is pissed about it as well, since she's not little miss unique anymore.
-
This particular freakout doesn't seem that calculated. It just looks like unhinged hero worship.
Exactly. They don't have any legitimate criticisms of The Glorious ACB, so they are flinging everything. If you see a kitchen sink fly by, you'll know why.
-
For some reason USA Today fact checked the Babylon Bee. (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/27/fact-check-only-satire-could-9th-circuit-overturn-ginsburgs-death/3548008001/)
Over this article. (https://babylonbee.com/news/ninth-circuit-court-overturns-death-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg)
Thank goodness they cited their sources so we can fact check them, or we might never have known the article is satire.
-
I did not see this coming. :facepalm:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/sick-demeaning-leftists-erupt-over-amy-coney-barrett-acb-nickname
It's another sign of the way Leftism is a religion. They have so many holy personages. Ginsberg now. Obama a few years ago.
“Conservatives calling this woman ‘ACB’ make me sick,” moaned another. “She will never be RBG.”
??? I thought that was the point.
-
This particular freakout doesn't seem that calculated. It just looks like unhinged hero worship.
It's what they do. And they're good at it.
-
The left is throwing anything and everything at Glorious ACB and hoping it sinks her nomination. They are desperate.
This particular freakout doesn't seem that calculated. It just looks like unhinged hero worship.
Exactly. They don't have any legitimate criticisms of The Glorious ACB, so they are flinging everything. If you see a kitchen sink fly by, you'll know why.
It's what they do. And they're good at it.
I wasn't talking about an attack on ACB herself. They're freaking out about what her supporters are calling her. That's not the usual "throw everything we have at her" kind of attack. Those are people who really think Ginsberg was someone to whom we all owe proper reverence, and whose name and nickname must be spoken with due adoration. It's nuttiness, in other words.
-
Those are people who really think Ginsberg was someone to whom we all owe proper reverence, and whose name and nickname must be spoken with due adoration.
Like this?
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fa%2Fa0%2FLenin_statue_in_Kineshma%2C_next_to_the_Volga%2C_close-up_view.JPG&f=1&nofb=1)
-
Angel Eyes - Is that the one in Seattle?
-
Angel Eyes - Is that the one in Seattle?
No, this is the one in Seattle:
(https://fremont.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/lenin1-1050x700.jpg)
Interesting that someone put red paint on his left hand. Implying ol' Vladimir has blood on his hands?
-
Like this?
Pretty much.
-
ACB doesn't have her own thread yet so I figured I'd drop this here.
Apparently the chances of her infecting the President are pretty slim due to her having already had covid earlier this year.
-
Interesting that someone put red paint on his left hand. Implying ol' Vladimir has blood on his hands?
Yes. It has been the target of vandalism.
-
The city says they can't remove it because it's on private property which I find highly ironic given Lenin's, and communism in general, stance on private property and many of the city leaders stance on Confederate and Founding Fathers monuments. Put up a Robert E. Lee statue, or Washington even, on private property in downtown Seattle and I would bet good money the same people would be screaming for it's removal and find a way to do so.
Statue of Lenin (Seattle)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Lenin_(Seattle) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Lenin_(Seattle))
-
The city says they can't remove it because it's on private property which I find highly ironic due to Lenin's, and communism in general, stance on private property and many of the city leaders stance on Confederate and Founding Fathers monuments. Put up a Robert E. Lee statue, or Washington even, on private property in downtown Seattle and I would bet good money the same people would be screaming for it's removal and find a way to do so.
Statue of Lenin (Seattle)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Lenin_(Seattle) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Lenin_(Seattle))
Antifa would mostly peacefully destroy the George Washington statue, and any charges would be peacefully dropped.
-
The city says they can't remove it because it's on private property which I find highly ironic given Lenin's, and communism in general, stance on private property and many of the city leaders stance on Confederate and Founding Fathers monuments. Put up a Robert E. Lee statue, or Washington even, on private property in downtown Seattle and I would bet good money the same people would be screaming for it's removal and find a way to do so.
Statue of Lenin (Seattle)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Lenin_(Seattle) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Lenin_(Seattle))
Antifa would mostly peacefully destroy the George Washington statue, and any charges would be peacefully dropped.
Finally, a problem where DetCord is the correct answer.
-
Finally, a problem where DetCord is the correct answer.
It is private property. For now.
-
The city says they can't remove it because it's on private property which I find highly ironic given Lenin's, and communism in general, stance on private property and many of the city leaders stance on Confederate and Founding Fathers monuments. Put up a Robert E. Lee statue, or Washington even, on private property in downtown Seattle and I would bet good money the same people would be screaming for it's removal and find a way to do so.
Statue of Lenin (Seattle)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Lenin_(Seattle) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Lenin_(Seattle))
That’s exactly what happened to a Confederate veterans monument in the same city, also on private property.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Confederate_Veterans_Memorial
-
It is private property. For now.
I would argue that any statue of either Lenin or Marx is not private property, kinda by definition.
-
I would argue that any statue of either Lenin or Marx is not private property, kinda by definition.
No, no, no. You don't understand. If it actually belongs to a commie pinko, it's their property and allowed to be defined as their property. Sort of like how they can grab your smartphone out of your hand and smash it on the ground because property doesn't exist, but if you do the same to them, that's their personal property and you'd better reimburse them for it. Plus buy them a kombucha.
-
Put up a Robert E. Lee statue, or Washington even, on private property in downtown Seattle and I would bet good money the same people would be screaming for it's removal and find a way to do so.
Wouldn't that be considered hunting over bait? >:D
-
WOW
Keith Olbermann: People like Amy Coney Barrett ‘must be prosecuted and convicted and removed from our society’
https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2020/10/09/keith-olbermann-people-like-amy-coney-barrett-must-be-prosecuted-and-convicted-and-removed-from-our-society/
-
WOW
Keith Olbermann: People like Amy Coney Barrett ‘must be prosecuted and convicted and removed from our society’
https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2020/10/09/keith-olbermann-people-like-amy-coney-barrett-must-be-prosecuted-and-convicted-and-removed-from-our-society/
On what charges?
-
On what charges?
Being a counter-revolutionary and wrongthink.
-
WOW
Keith Olbermann: People like Amy Coney Barrett ‘must be prosecuted and convicted and removed from our society’
https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2020/10/09/keith-olbermann-people-like-amy-coney-barrett-must-be-prosecuted-and-convicted-and-removed-from-our-society/
That is one crappy toilet. We keep flushing and he keeps coming back up.
-
On what charges?
Christianity.
-
On what charges?
Resisting the glorious revolution.
-
Resisting the glorious revolution.
Don't know if I'd make that parallel. Pelosi and Harris ain't no William and Mary.
Olbermann's "LOCK HER UP!" line is only a sample of the insanity in that clip. I didn't think the Chinese would succeed in their attempt to convince people that the U.S. was to blame for the Wuhan virus, but the Democrats obviously think the lie has legs. :facepalm:
Anyone else notice that he put Kyle Rittenhouse and ACB in the same breath, as if they were related in some way? =|
-
Don't know if I'd make that parallel. Pelosi and Harris ain't no William and Mary.
Olbermann's "LOCK HER UP!" line is only a sample of the insanity in that clip. I didn't think the Chinese would succeed in their attempt to convince people that the U.S. was to blame for the Wuhan virus, but the Democrats obviously think the lie has legs. :facepalm:
Anyone else notice that he put Kyle Rittenhouse and ACB in the same breath, as if they were related in some way? =|
All Anti Revolutionaries
-
Man, the gaslighting on this court seat is getting ridiculous. There seems to have been a secret memo released to all the dems to call filling the seat "court packing". I guess to veer away from the actual court packing they want to do if Biden (Harris) gets in. Sadly, too many voters will fall for it.
-
Any time we encounter the argument that Trump shouldn't have nominated anyone to fill the vacant seat, I think we have to cite the Constitution as rebuttal. Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution says the President "shall" (the word "shall" is mandatory language -- it means he must do it. If he doesn't do it, he isn't doing his job):
"... and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, ..."
That's it. Game, set, match. By making a nomination, Trump was only doing his job. Now it's up to the Senate to approve the nomination, or to reject it. So any time you encounter someone saying (or posting) that Trump shouldn't have made a nomination, tell the person to read Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution and then explain why they think the President should ignore the Constitution and not do his job. And then remind them that Ms. Ginsberg herself said that the President serves for four years, not three. In other words, he is still supposed to carry out the duties of his office during the fourth year of his term, and nominating Supreme Court justices to fill vacancies is one of his duties.
-
Ginsburg's own words should be repeated over and over on this.
-
This new dem definition of "court packing" is getting ridiculous. Former senator Bob Kerrey just now said that not getting Garland in was "court packing".
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/e439b6a848a9762d24d971bd912abd73/tenor.gif?itemid=15577823)
-
The cult of RBG lives on
The cult of ‘former Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’ now has a wonderful place to call home (for just $6,900 a month) [photo]
https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2021/02/09/the-cult-of-former-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-now-has-a-wonderful-place-to-call-home-for-just-6900-a-month-photo/
-
Does the tenant have to remain until (s)he dies?
-
Does the tenant have to remain until (s)he dies?
Are the Clintons neighbors in this scenario?
-
I hope they are paying a licensing fee for her name.