Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

On the steps of the Supreme Court, Chuck Schumer said of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh: "You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you."

Based on what happened last week, Where is the outrage?!! Oh yeah, nobody covered it so nobody knows about the crazy person who took a gun to a SCOTUS justices house to shoot him.

Sundays # of mentions of "Kavanaugh":
ABC's This Week: 0 mentions
NBC's Meet The Press: 0 mentions
CBS's Face The Nation: 0 mentions
CNN SOTU: 0 mentions
Fox News Sunday covered

---

It's almost like people don't care about violent threats unless it's the other party making them.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

On the steps of the Supreme Court, Chuck Schumer said of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh: "You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you."

Based on what happened last week, Where is the outrage?!! Oh yeah, nobody covered it so nobody knows about the crazy person who took a gun to a SCOTUS justices house to shoot him.

Sundays # of mentions of "Kavanaugh":
ABC's This Week: 0 mentions
NBC's Meet The Press: 0 mentions
CBS's Face The Nation: 0 mentions
CNN SOTU: 0 mentions
Fox News Sunday covered

---

It's almost like people don't care about violent threats unless it's the other party making them.

---

drahthaar said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

On the steps of the Supreme Court, Chuck Schumer said of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh: "You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you."

Based on what happened last week, Where is the outrage?!! Oh yeah, nobody covered it so nobody knows about the crazy person who took a gun to a SCOTUS justices house to shoot him.

Sundays # of mentions of "Kavanaugh":
ABC's This Week: 0 mentions
NBC's Meet The Press: 0 mentions
CBS's Face The Nation: 0 mentions
CNN SOTU: 0 mentions
Fox News Sunday covered

---

It's almost like people don't care about violent threats unless it's the other party making them.

---

The response to the breaking of Federal statutes belongs to the Justice Dept and Merrick Garland, along with the FBI and all the alphabet groups tied in with national security. Crickets, when the protestors should have been arrested and charged, everyone of them, and security established. Merrick is giving the nation and the Congress, especially Mitch, the middle finger, which confirms the idea that he is not committed to the rule of law over personal ladder-climbing and thus not competent to sit on SCOTUS.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

On the steps of the Supreme Court, Chuck Schumer said of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh: "You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you."

Based on what happened last week, Where is the outrage?!! Oh yeah, nobody covered it so nobody knows about the crazy person who took a gun to a SCOTUS justices house to shoot him.

Sundays # of mentions of "Kavanaugh":
ABC's This Week: 0 mentions
NBC's Meet The Press: 0 mentions
CBS's Face The Nation: 0 mentions
CNN SOTU: 0 mentions
Fox News Sunday covered

---

It's almost like people don't care about violent threats unless it's the other party making them.

---

The response to the breaking of Federal statutes belongs to the Justice Dept and Merrick Garland, along with the FBI and all the alphabet groups tied in with national security. Crickets, when the protestors should have been arrested and charged, everyone of them, and security established. Merrick is giving the nation and the Congress, especially Mitch, the middle finger, which confirms the idea that he is not committed to the rule of law over personal ladder-climbing and thus not competent to sit on SCOTUS.

---

DOJ isn't looking good

---

drahthaar said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

On the steps of the Supreme Court, Chuck Schumer said of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh: "You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you."

Based on what happened last week, Where is the outrage?!! Oh yeah, nobody covered it so nobody knows about the crazy person who took a gun to a SCOTUS justices house to shoot him.

Sundays # of mentions of "Kavanaugh":
ABC's This Week: 0 mentions
NBC's Meet The Press: 0 mentions
CBS's Face The Nation: 0 mentions
CNN SOTU: 0 mentions
Fox News Sunday covered

---

It's almost like people don't care about violent threats unless it's the other party making them.

---

The response to the breaking of Federal statutes belongs to the Justice Dept and Merrick Garland, along with the FBI and all the alphabet groups tied in with national security. Crickets, when the protestors should have been arrested and charged, everyone of them, and security established. Merrick is giving the nation and the Congress, especially Mitch, the middle finger, which confirms the idea that he is not committed to the rule of law over personal ladder-climbing and thus not competent to sit on SCOTUS.

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.

---

---

Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.

---

---

Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.

---

True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...

---

J.B.Katz said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

On the steps of the Supreme Court, Chuck Schumer said of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh: "You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you."

Based on what happened last week, Where is the outrage?!! Oh yeah, nobody covered it so nobody knows about the crazy person who took a gun to a SCOTUS justices house to shoot him.

Sundays # of mentions of "Kavanaugh":
ABC's This Week: 0 mentions
NBC's Meet The Press: 0 mentions
CBS's Face The Nation: 0 mentions
CNN SOTU: 0 mentions
Fox News Sunday covered

---

It's almost like people don't care about violent threats unless it's the other party making them.

---

Posters on this thread care intensely about this sick, stupid crank being investigated but are loudly proclaiming there was no legitimate reason to investigate an attack on our Capitol that included death threats to Mike Pence and other members of Congress and resulted in the death and injury of members of the Capitol police force.

One thing that concerns me about Republican "rule," which I fear is coming, is ultra-partisan enforcement for all types of crimes, from grift, corruption and enabling foreign powers, like retired Gen. John Allen did on behalf of Qatar, to attacks on protesters whose causes the Proud Boys don't respect, like gay pride marches or (justified) demonstrations addressing police violence.

I'm in favor of a strong, well-trained police force. I support the rule of law and its enforcement (something Republicans no longer support in certain sectors), and police are an essential component. (So are impartial judges.)

But I do not want officials I pay with my tax dollars to protect and serve EVERY member of my community to only protect and serve the white and middle class people in it and believe they can beat up and even kill Blacks and low-income or homeless or mentally ill people with impunity. It would be helpful if people across the political spectrum decried unwarranted violence by police, including breaking down people's doors and then shooting an innocent taxpayer (as happened to Breonna Taylor) and specious stops for burned out taillights or expired tags that somehow end up with someone in the stopped car dead.

The "prolife" party ought to be "proflife" enough to support basic human rights over bully policing and honest enough not to scream and hollar about investigations into violence against judges they consider "theirs" while snickering about threats to the lives of Pence (because he didn't do Trump's bidding) and Pelosi (because Trump Republicans hate her for being articulate and effective when their leader is neither).

And, indeed, Kavanaugh is yours and was put on the court by a well-executed, long-standing campaign to skew it hard-right, which has now made it much more of a political fixer for hard-right Republican policies and far less a neutral arbiter of constitutional rights and the rule of law.

---

4th and Inches said:

---

On the steps of the Supreme Court, Chuck Schumer said of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh: "You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you."

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.

---

---

Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.

---

True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...

---

Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.

---

---

Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.

---

True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...

---

Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.

---

So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.

EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.

Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.

---

---

Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.

---

True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...

---

Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.

---

So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.

EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.

Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.

---

TWD 74 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.

---

---

Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.

---

True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...

---

Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.

---

So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.

EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.

Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.

---

Issue in 2016 was not about finding the right ideological fit. McConnell controlled a clear majority of the Senate and could prevent a vote on the floor, which he made clear from the beginning he would do regardless of who Obama nominated. Mitch had the political power and had no interest in relinquishing it. Comparisons to Reagan are inaccurate as the republicans had a clear majority of the US Senate throughout his 8 years in office. Reagan's problem with 2 failed Scotus nominations was 1. Bork said to much, and was too cerebral and some key Republican Senators didn't fully trust him. 2. GInsburg had to drop out when it came out that he was doing a lot of weed in the late 60's, early 70's.

---

TWD 74 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

On the steps of the Supreme Court, Chuck Schumer said of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh: "You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you."

---

I would imagine Schumer was aware of his making a Biblical reference: Hosea 8:7. "For they sow the wind, and shall reap the whirlwind." Not a call to violence at all, but a depiction of the consequences of sinful acts (for ancient Israel--Idolatry) which would be far greater than the initial action.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

On the steps of the Supreme Court, Chuck Schumer said of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh: "You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you."

Based on what happened last week, Where is the outrage?!! Oh yeah, nobody covered it so nobody knows about the crazy person who took a gun to a SCOTUS justices house to shoot him.

Sundays # of mentions of "Kavanaugh":
ABC's This Week: 0 mentions
NBC's Meet The Press: 0 mentions
CBS's Face The Nation: 0 mentions
CNN SOTU: 0 mentions
Fox News Sunday covered

---

It's almost like people don't care about violent threats unless it's the other party making them.

---

The response to the breaking of Federal statutes belongs to the Justice Dept and Merrick Garland, along with the FBI and all the alphabet groups tied in with national security. Crickets, when the protestors should have been arrested and charged, everyone of them, and security established. Merrick is giving the nation and the Congress, especially Mitch, the middle finger, which confirms the idea that he is not committed to the rule of law over personal ladder-climbing and thus not competent to sit on SCOTUS.

---

DOJ isn't looking good

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

On the steps of the Supreme Court, Chuck Schumer said of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh: "You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you."

Based on what happened last week, Where is the outrage?!! Oh yeah, nobody covered it so nobody knows about the crazy person who took a gun to a SCOTUS justices house to shoot him.

Sundays # of mentions of "Kavanaugh":
ABC's This Week: 0 mentions
NBC's Meet The Press: 0 mentions
CBS's Face The Nation: 0 mentions
CNN SOTU: 0 mentions
Fox News Sunday covered

---

It's almost like people don't care about violent threats unless it's the other party making them.

---

The response to the breaking of Federal statutes belongs to the Justice Dept and Merrick Garland, along with the FBI and all the alphabet groups tied in with national security. Crickets, when the protestors should have been arrested and charged, everyone of them, and security established. Merrick is giving the nation and the Congress, especially Mitch, the middle finger, which confirms the idea that he is not committed to the rule of law over personal ladder-climbing and thus not competent to sit on SCOTUS.

---

I wouldn't go so far as to call him incompetent as a judge, but otherwise I agree.

---

TWD 74 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

On the steps of the Supreme Court, Chuck Schumer said of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh: "You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you."

---

I would imagine Schumer was aware of his making a Biblical reference: Hosea 8:7. "For they sow the wind, and shall reap the whirlwind." Not a call to violence at all, but a depiction of the consequences of sinful acts (for ancient Israel--Idolatry) which would be far greater than the initial action.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

TWD 74 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.

---

---

Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.

---

True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...

---

Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.

---

So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.

EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.

Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.

---

Issue in 2016 was not about finding the right ideological fit. McConnell controlled a clear majority of the Senate and could prevent a vote on the floor, which he made clear from the beginning he would do regardless of who Obama nominated. Mitch had the political power and had no interest in relinquishing it. Comparisons to Reagan are inaccurate as the republicans had a clear majority of the US Senate throughout his 8 years in office. Reagan's problem with 2 failed Scotus nominations was 1. Bork said to much, and was too cerebral and some key Republican Senators didn't fully trust him. 2. GInsburg had to drop out when it came out that he was doing a lot of weed in the late 60's, early 70's.

---

Obama didn't even try. He didn't come back with a more Moderate candidate. He didn't even try to cross the aisle to put pressure on McConnell. He cried to the media. Sam, you can rationalize all you want, but Obama provided one name and then took his ball and went home. Those the facts.

---

Garland was the moderate pick. Once McConnell held his ground, any judge with Supreme Court ambitions would have been a fool to accept the nomination.

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

TWD 74 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.

---

---

Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.

---

True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...

---

Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.

---

So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.

EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.

Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.

---

Issue in 2016 was not about finding the right ideological fit. McConnell controlled a clear majority of the Senate and could prevent a vote on the floor, which he made clear from the beginning he would do regardless of who Obama nominated. Mitch had the political power and had no interest in relinquishing it. Comparisons to Reagan are inaccurate as the republicans had a clear majority of the US Senate throughout his 8 years in office. Reagan's problem with 2 failed Scotus nominations was 1. Bork said to much, and was too cerebral and some key Republican Senators didn't fully trust him. 2. GInsburg had to drop out when it came out that he was doing a lot of weed in the late 60's, early 70's.

---

Obama didn't even try. He didn't come back with a more Moderate candidate. He didn't even try to cross the aisle to put pressure on McConnell. He cried to the media. Sam, you can rationalize all you want, but Obama provided one name and then took his ball and went home. Those the facts.

---

Garland was the moderate pick. Once McConnell held his ground, any judge with Supreme Court ambitions would have been a fool to accept the nomination.

---

Nooooo!

Garland was not an acceptable Moderate pick, McConnell told him in no uncertain terms. Obama never got off Garland. He did what you just did - Argue that Garland is Moderate. That was and is a non-starter, Obama didn't have the votes. He was not in a position to argue the finer points of Garland to sway a few needed votes. He was DOA and the Senate told him Time for a new name,

Simply saying he is Moderate and complaining was ridiculous and for the Dem's criminal as he gave up a SCOTUS nomination. That will go down as one of the biggest Presidential mess ups in history. Surprising since Obama was a former Senator, he should have known how the game is played. But, as I said he came to believe he was special...

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

TWD 74 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.

---

---

Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.

---

True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...

---

Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.

---

So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.

EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.

Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.

---

Issue in 2016 was not about finding the right ideological fit. McConnell controlled a clear majority of the Senate and could prevent a vote on the floor, which he made clear from the beginning he would do regardless of who Obama nominated. Mitch had the political power and had no interest in relinquishing it. Comparisons to Reagan are inaccurate as the republicans had a clear majority of the US Senate throughout his 8 years in office. Reagan's problem with 2 failed Scotus nominations was 1. Bork said to much, and was too cerebral and some key Republican Senators didn't fully trust him. 2. GInsburg had to drop out when it came out that he was doing a lot of weed in the late 60's, early 70's.

---

Obama didn't even try. He didn't come back with a more Moderate candidate. He didn't even try to cross the aisle to put pressure on McConnell. He cried to the media. Sam, you can rationalize all you want, but Obama provided one name and then took his ball and went home. Those the facts.

---

Garland was the moderate pick. Once McConnell held his ground, any judge with Supreme Court ambitions would have been a fool to accept the nomination.

---

Nooooo!

Garland was not an acceptable Moderate pick, McConnell told him in no uncertain terms. Obama never got off Garland. He did what you just did - Argue that Garland is Moderate. That was and is a non-starter, Obama didn't have the votes. He was not in a position to argue the finer points of Garland to sway a few needed votes. He was DOA and the Senate told him Time for a new name,

Simply saying he is Moderate and complaining was ridiculous and for the Dem's criminal as he gave up a SCOTUS nomination. That will go down as one of the biggest Presidential mess ups in history. Surprising since Obama was a former Senator, he should have known how the game is played. But, as I said he came to believe he was special...

---

I'm not complaining. Outgoing presidents typically don't get a Supreme Court nominee confirmed without a Senate majority. That's how the game is played.

---

Osodecentx said:

---

drahthaar said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

On the steps of the Supreme Court, Chuck Schumer said of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh: "You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you."

Based on what happened last week, Where is the outrage?!! Oh yeah, nobody covered it so nobody knows about the crazy person who took a gun to a SCOTUS justices house to shoot him.

Sundays # of mentions of "Kavanaugh":
ABC's This Week: 0 mentions
NBC's Meet The Press: 0 mentions
CBS's Face The Nation: 0 mentions
CNN SOTU: 0 mentions
Fox News Sunday covered

---

It's almost like people don't care about violent threats unless it's the other party making them.

---

The response to the breaking of Federal statutes belongs to the Justice Dept and Merrick Garland, along with the FBI and all the alphabet groups tied in with national security. Crickets, when the protestors should have been arrested and charged, everyone of them, and security established. Merrick is giving the nation and the Congress, especially Mitch, the middle finger, which confirms the idea that he is not committed to the rule of law over personal ladder-climbing and thus not competent to sit on SCOTUS.

---

DOJ isn't looking good

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

TWD 74 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.

---

---

Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.

---

True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...

---

Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.

---

So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.

EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.

Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.

---

Issue in 2016 was not about finding the right ideological fit. McConnell controlled a clear majority of the Senate and could prevent a vote on the floor, which he made clear from the beginning he would do regardless of who Obama nominated. Mitch had the political power and had no interest in relinquishing it. Comparisons to Reagan are inaccurate as the republicans had a clear majority of the US Senate throughout his 8 years in office. Reagan's problem with 2 failed Scotus nominations was 1. Bork said to much, and was too cerebral and some key Republican Senators didn't fully trust him. 2. GInsburg had to drop out when it came out that he was doing a lot of weed in the late 60's, early 70's.

---

Obama didn't even try. He didn't come back with a more Moderate candidate. He didn't even try to cross the aisle to put pressure on McConnell. He cried to the media. Sam, you can rationalize all you want, but Obama provided one name and then took his ball and went home. Those the facts.

---

Garland was the moderate pick. Once McConnell held his ground, any judge with Supreme Court ambitions would have been a fool to accept the nomination.

---

Nooooo!

Garland was not an acceptable Moderate pick, McConnell told him in no uncertain terms. Obama never got off Garland. He did what you just did - Argue that Garland is Moderate. That was and is a non-starter, Obama didn't have the votes. He was not in a position to argue the finer points of Garland to sway a few needed votes. He was DOA and the Senate told him Time for a new name,

Simply saying he is Moderate and complaining was ridiculous and for the Dem's criminal as he gave up a SCOTUS nomination. That will go down as one of the biggest Presidential mess ups in history. Surprising since Obama was a former Senator, he should have known how the game is played. But, as I said he came to believe he was special...

---

I'm not complaining. Outgoing presidents typically don't get a Supreme Court nominee confirmed without a Senate majority. That's how the game is played.

---

I disagree, they don't get a Justice as aligned with their Party's views. They have to pick someone more acceptable to both Parties which is a Moderate.

Do you know of any other President that was not able to fill a slot in the Modern Era and lost the selection to the other Party? I can't find any. But, admittedly I am not a Judicial guy as a non-lawyer.

I say it is more of an indictment against Obama not being able to or not willing to find any middle ground with the Senate and escalating it to the point where McConnell just said we will just wait.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

TWD 74 said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I skipped 2016 Presidential election but voted for others on ballot. Congress is much more important to me than a President.

---

---

Last time I read the Constitution Congress has the power to approve SCOTUS nominees, not the President.

---

True, except for Obama. It was in his contract that anything he put forward had to be accepted and approved as submitted. Every other President when not able to get a SCOTUS nominee through went back and found an acceptable candidate. But, Obama was special, he should not have had to to do that. If he wanted Garland, that was good enough...

---

Any nominee after Garland would have had a guaranteed rejection. I'm sure Obama saw no point in sacrificing two lambs when one would suffice.

---

So, just throw up your hands? That Sam, is pure BS speculation that there was NO candidate that could have gotten through. McConnel was able to do it on one nominee, he may have pulled it on two. But, there is a point where McConnell feels the heat. That is how compromise occurs.

EVERY President had to pull nominees and negotiate other candidates, that is how we get Moderates. Heck, Reagan had to put his 3rd choice Moderate-leaning Kennedy on to get him through. Every President at least tried. Obama just threw up his hands and whined.

Your comment is exactly why I cannot stand the current Liberal wing, if you do not do exactly what they want the first time, you are attacked rather than negotiating. Spoiled children.

---

Issue in 2016 was not about finding the right ideological fit. McConnell controlled a clear majority of the Senate and could prevent a vote on the floor, which he made clear from the beginning he would do regardless of who Obama nominated. Mitch had the political power and had no interest in relinquishing it. Comparisons to Reagan are inaccurate as the republicans had a clear majority of the US Senate throughout his 8 years in office. Reagan's problem with 2 failed Scotus nominations was 1. Bork said to much, and was too cerebral and some key Republican Senators didn't fully trust him. 2. GInsburg had to drop out when it came out that he was doing a lot of weed in the late 60's, early 70's.

---

Obama didn't even try. He didn't come back with a more Moderate candidate. He didn't even try to cross the aisle to put pressure on McConnell. He cried to the media. Sam, you can rationalize all you want, but Obama provided one name and then took his ball and went home. Those the facts.

---

Garland was the moderate pick. Once McConnell held his ground, any judge with Supreme Court ambitions would have been a fool to accept the nomination.

---

Nooooo!

Garland was not an acceptable Moderate pick, McConnell told him in no uncertain terms. Obama never got off Garland. He did what you just did - Argue that Garland is Moderate. That was and is a non-starter, Obama didn't have the votes. He was not in a position to argue the finer points of Garland to sway a few needed votes. He was DOA and the Senate told him Time for a new name,

Simply saying he is Moderate and complaining was ridiculous and for the Dem's criminal as he gave up a SCOTUS nomination. That will go down as one of the biggest Presidential mess ups in history. Surprising since Obama was a former Senator, he should have known how the game is played. But, as I said he came to believe he was special...

---

I'm not complaining. Outgoing presidents typically don't get a Supreme Court nominee confirmed without a Senate majority. That's how the game is played.

---

I disagree, they don't get a Justice as aligned with their Party's views. They have to pick someone more acceptable to both Parties which is a Moderate.

Do you know of any other President that was not able to fill a slot in the Modern Era and lost the selection to the other Party? I can't find any. But, admittedly I am not a Judicial guy as a non-lawyer.

I say it is more of an indictment against Obama not being able to or not willing to find any middle ground with the Senate and escalating it to the point where McConnell just said we will just wait.

---

Except that's not what McConnell said.

Same thing happened to LBJ.

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

TWD 74 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

On the steps of the Supreme Court, Chuck Schumer said of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh: "You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you."

---

I would imagine Schumer was aware of his making a Biblical reference: Hosea 8:7. "For they sow the wind, and shall reap the whirlwind." Not a call to violence at all, but a depiction of the consequences of sinful acts (for ancient Israel--Idolatry) which would be far greater than the initial action.

---

I must have missed the "You won't know what hit you." part of the Biblical reference. Schumer messed up if he wasn't trying to incite violence. Especially in the atmosphere in which he was speaking. If he wanted a Biblical reference, he needed to refer to the actual scripture to make that clear to a crowd that likely would have no idea there was anything Biblical involved.

If I missed some sarcasm, I apologize.

---

Quote:

---

"I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."

---

This is an obvious call to violence. But, Dems get away with it and then get away with actual violence. Entire Summer of 2020 as an example. You have to completely have your head in the sand, not to see this for what it was.





Trump did invite people attending his Jan. 6th rally to go to the Capital.

Quote:

---

"And after this, we're going to walk down, and I'll be there with you. We're going to walk down. We're going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them, because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong."

"We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time, far longer than this four-year period."

---

Is this a call to battle? Not nearly as much as Schumer, that's for sure.

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

TWD 74 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

On the steps of the Supreme Court, Chuck Schumer said of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh: "You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you."

---

I would imagine Schumer was aware of his making a Biblical reference: Hosea 8:7. "For they sow the wind, and shall reap the whirlwind." Not a call to violence at all, but a depiction of the consequences of sinful acts (for ancient Israel--Idolatry) which would be far greater than the initial action.

---

I must have missed the "You won't know what hit you." part of the Biblical reference. Schumer messed up if he wasn't trying to incite violence. Especially in the atmosphere in which he was speaking. If he wanted a Biblical reference, he needed to refer to the actual scripture to make that clear to a crowd that likely would have no idea there was anything Biblical involved.

If I missed some sarcasm, I apologize.

---

Quote:

---

"I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."

---

This is an obvious call to violence. But, Dems get away with it and then get away with actual violence. Entire Summer of 2020 as an example. You have to completely have your head in the sand, not to see this for what it was.





Trump did invite people attending his Jan. 6th rally to go to the Capital.

Quote:

---

"And after this, we're going to walk down, and I'll be there with you. We're going to walk down. We're going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them, because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong."

"We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time, far longer than this four-year period."

---

Is this a call to battle? Not nearly as much as Schumer, that's for sure.

---

Did the Trump quote come from the hearings? They showed all of it?

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

TWD 74 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

On the steps of the Supreme Court, Chuck Schumer said of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh: "You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you."

---

I would imagine Schumer was aware of his making a Biblical reference: Hosea 8:7. "For they sow the wind, and shall reap the whirlwind." Not a call to violence at all, but a depiction of the consequences of sinful acts (for ancient Israel--Idolatry) which would be far greater than the initial action.

---

I must have missed the "You won't know what hit you." part of the Biblical reference. Schumer messed up if he wasn't trying to incite violence. Especially in the atmosphere in which he was speaking. If he wanted a Biblical reference, he needed to refer to the actual scripture to make that clear to a crowd that likely would have no idea there was anything Biblical involved.

If I missed some sarcasm, I apologize.

---

Quote:

---

"I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."

---

This is an obvious call to violence. But, Dems get away with it and then get away with actual violence. Entire Summer of 2020 as an example. You have to completely have your head in the sand, not to see this for what it was.





Trump did invite people attending his Jan. 6th rally to go to the Capital.

Quote:

---

"And after this, we're going to walk down, and I'll be there with you. We're going to walk down. We're going to walk down any one you want, but I think right here. We're going to walk down to the Capitol, and we're going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women. We're probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them, because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong."

"We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time, far longer than this four-year period."

---

Is this a call to battle? Not nearly as much as Schumer, that's for sure.

---

Did the Trump quote come from the hearings? They showed all of it?

---

Not sure about at the hearing, this was a transcript of part of the speech he made Jan. 6th when inviting people to go to the Capitol.

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Funny thing about these hearings. Everything Barr says saying DOJ could not find evidence of large scale fraud is played as the truth and Trump was told.

But, everything he said about Russia-gate and other are untruths.

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Funny thing about these hearings. Everything Barr says saying DOJ could not find evidence of large scale fraud is played as the truth and Trump was told.

But, everything he said about Russia-gate and other are untruths.

---