Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Orwellian definition of court packing
Date:	10/12/2020 8:31:25 AM (updated 10/12/2020 9:22:44 AM)

Once again the Democrats and the gov't media are perfectly coordinating in redefining the definition of court packing and the Constitution to suit their partisan political desire for power.  To wit, now they are saying what the GOP Senate did in 2016 and what they will do in 2020 are "packing the court" and are unconstitutional.  Sadly, most leftists are totally ignorant of the truth about either issue.  The term court packing came about when FDR proposed to expand the court by allowing him to appoint a justice for every justice over the age of 70.  He tried this because SCOTUS rightly deemed many of things he was trying to do to be unconstitutional.  Adding justices to the court, as the Democrats did with the DC Court of Appeals is packing.  Fulfilling the Constitutional duty to nominate and advise and consent isn't....except if you are a mind numbed left wing nut Democrat.  This change in tactic tells us that this is not polling well for them and in their desparation they are working in close coordination with the govt media to be Orwellian in their language.

As for what the Senate did in 2016 that was not only Constitutional it was with precendence.  The President nominates and the Senate advises and consents.  Obama nominated, the Senate controlled by the opposing party rejected that nominee.  The voters then spoke in 2016 with the election of President Trump and again in 2018 with the Senate remaining under the control of the GOP because they wanted him and the GOP-controlled Senate to nominate future justices.  As required by the Constitution, President Trump nominated ACB and the Senate will confirm......as Obama said, elections have consequences and Trump is still the President and the Senate is still controlled by the GOP.  Hopefully they will do their duty.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Orwellian definition of court packing
Date:	10/12/2020 9:06:56 AM (updated 10/12/2020 9:08:33 AM)

"Obama nominated, the Senate controlled by the opposing party rejected that nominee." Now that is an outright lie and you know it. What was the vote to reject him? Moscow Mitch didn't have the balls to allow a vote....he rejected him not the Senate. The Right controlled the Senate so why was he afraid of allowing a vote?

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	Orwellian definition of court packing
Date:	10/12/2020 9:14:36 AM

Check out Senate protocol and operation.  Leaders decide.  There was no doubt in committe or full Senate.   Case closed.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Sorry Goofy, but you are wrong
Date:	10/12/2020 9:20:48 AM (updated 10/12/2020 9:40:18 AM)

The GOP controlled the Senate and the GOP rejected the nominee.  Stop picking nits about the method they used.  No point in bothering with hearings and a vote that they knew would fail.  There is no requirement in the Constitition that the Senate vote on a nominee.  They are required to advise and provide consent or not. 

A little history here for you just because I know how illiterate you are.  There have been a grand total of 37 unsuccessful nominees to SCOTUS in the history of the country.  Of these, 11 were rejected in a roll call vote, 11 were withdrawn by the President and the remaining 15 never got a vote before the end of the session.  So more nominees never got a vote than were rejected and more nominees never got a vote than withdrew.  As I stated quite accurately and cogently, Obama nominated and the Senate rejected and did so with plenty of prior precedence. 

But hey, when you get your knowledge from the gov't media it is no wonder you are ignorant of history and illiterate when it comes to the how government actually works.  You make this so easy Goofy I am not sure why you keep coming back for more humiliation.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Sorry Goofy, but you are wrong
Date:	10/12/2020 10:24:45 AM

Calm down...you are enabling me to control your emotions.

Play with the facts is a fact of life with you. Moscow Mitch was adamant that he wasn't going to allow a vote. Period.

"But even before Obama had named Garland, and in fact only hours after Scalia's death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void.

In a speech that August in Kentucky, McConnell would say: "One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.' "

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Sorry Goofy, but you are wrong
Date:	10/12/2020 10:58:04 AM (updated 10/12/2020 11:11:50 AM)

Hmmmmm....me calm down?  You are one that was shouting that I lied.  But you are correct, Cocaine Mitch did indeed get the joy of telling Odipsh!t that he wasn't filling the seat.  Now, do you want to apologize for claiming I lied or are you too dense to realize just how wrong you are?  Wait...don't answer that......we already know the answer.

Name:	RHH -	Reply
Subject:	Sorry Goofy, but you are wrong
Date:	10/12/2020 11:28:06 AM

Argue however you wish MM. Normal people recognize the hypocrisy when they see it. It's a pure Machiavellian power move and it may cost Linsey Graham his senate seat (but I doubt it).

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Sorry Goofy, but you are wrong
Date:	10/12/2020 12:01:20 PM (updated 10/12/2020 12:49:34 PM)

Now if Trump were a dem and nominated a left wing kook that you approved of  would you not be chanting "fill that seat"?  be honest.....  

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Sorry Goofy, but you are wrong
Date:	10/12/2020 12:10:21 PM

You call Obama "Odipsh!t" and then get angry and emotional with TDS when the truth is posted about Trump. Yes, you are so easy to control..."Odipshit"...great name from a self proclaimed man of high morals and ethics. MM... the Moral Midget....

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Why can't you respond to the right post?
Date:	10/12/2020 12:14:31 PM

I actually like the term Odipsh!t.  My brother used that term once and I really liked it.  Don't know what else you are going on about with respect to Trump. 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	But it isn't even remotely hypocritical
Date:	10/12/2020 12:20:33 PM

Go back to 2016 and will see that McConnel was very careful about his language.  He specifically pointed out that when you have an election coming and the WH and Senate are held by different parties there would be no consent.  Plenty of historical precedence for that as I already pointed out.  However, that is clearly not the case today and were the Democrats in control of the Senate I can assure you they would not approve of a Trump nominated POTUS candidate.  To claim otherwise would be completely dishonest.

The reality is we told you back in the day when Harry Reid changed the rules for approval of judges.  We told you taking away the filibuster would come back to haunt you and here we are.....so you have no one to blame for this than yourselves.  And the same goes with RBG.  She is the one you should be angry with because Obama tried to convince her to retire when he was President and the Senate was controlled by Dems.  But she said no and here we are.  Again, you have no one to blame but yourselves.

Name:	CRD -	Reply
Subject:	Sorry Goofy, but you are wrong
Date:	10/12/2020 3:02:42 PM

RHH,

I refer you to Senator Kennedy's (Louisiana) history lesson during today's confirmation hearing.  Please dissect that and get back to us.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Sorry Goofy, but you are wrong
Date:	10/12/2020 4:31:45 PM

I suspect it will not help him to understand history or real facts.  Look at my post where I pointed out what has actually happened in the past and he still spouts the talking points of the left and the govt media.  Facts, logic and reason are anathema to the left......they operate on pure emotion.  Sad....but true.

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Sorry Goofy, but you are wrong
Date:	10/12/2020 4:35:54 PM (updated 10/12/2020 4:42:58 PM)

And not the good emotions!  They may say it is done out of love, concern etc - but it is always with another sinister motive.

Name:	RHH -	Reply
Subject:	Sorry Goofy, but you are wrong
Date:	10/12/2020 5:11:41 PM

Regular folks recognize blatant hypocrisy when they see it. No consistency. Argue what you want when you want. The ends justify the means. For some it will influence how they vote. We shall see..

I do believe that the bigger travesty was what they did to Obama's nominee, Merick Garland, in February,with no hearing.

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Sorry Goofy, but you are wrong
Date:	10/12/2020 5:19:20 PM (updated 10/12/2020 5:20:46 PM)

Unlike what was done to Kavanaugh....... which was apparently not a travesty since he at least got a hearing.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Sorry Goofy, but you are wrong
Date:	10/12/2020 5:22:43 PM

Or Clarence Thomas.  The reality is that people like RHH suffer from TDS and refuse to understand history, how the process really works, what the Constitution says and on and on and on.  They love to claim that most people think like them but it simply is not true.  Most people understand that Trump is President and the GOP controls the Senate and that if the Democrats were in the same position they would do exactly the same thing.

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Sorry Goofy, but you are wrong
Date:	10/12/2020 5:32:30 PM

Sort of like how a few posters on here love to bitch about Trump not wearing a mask, but not a peep about DIFI or Pelosi or other demonrats who are actually pushing mandatory masks being caught without.

Not to mention watching footage at press briefings etc once the podium is empty and the liberal media think the cameras are off many of masks come off without the social distancing.  

Name:	willallie -	Reply
Subject:	Sorry Goofy, but you are wrong
Date:	10/12/2020 6:56:01 PM

Amen 

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	The classic
Date:	10/14/2020 9:40:30 AM

Yesterday, Cory Booker (D) asked Coney Barrett if she is against White Supremists....she is the mother of 2 black children.  They desperately want to catch her up, but she has answered honestly and with integrity.  All of the fears of Democrats are on display and they can't trip her up.  I think she will be a good addition to the court.

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	The classic
Date:	10/14/2020 1:48:45 PM

That smile when she held up the blank notepad was priceless.