riflebear said:

---

wuzzybear said:

---

George Truett said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

---

Trump's rush to confirm is a gift to Biden.

Now, Biden can combine COVID with SCOTUS. Whomever Trump chooses will strike down Obamacare.

So now Biden can say not only has Trump failed miserably to deal with COVID, but now by his pick he's going to take away healthcare for 20 million Americans PLUS take away protection for preexisting conditions for millions of others in the midst of a pandemic.

---

Was King David's plot to have Bathsheba's husband Uriah killed a gift to God? Then why did David become king to begin with.

This is a gift from God, not Trump. Barrett is orthodox Catholic with 7 kids, 2 of which are adopted Haitians and one with special needs. So she MUST be the choice bc I wanna microwave 10 bags of popcorn and watch the Dems insult, attack, excoriate, denigrate, and annihilate her with that on her resume. She was an honored professor of political science at Notre Dame and she has that suburban mom look going on too. Everything the Rep want for a nominee is contained with her.

So let the show begin cuz you know if your alzheimer candidate who has never done anything in 48yrs yet still his net worth is multi-millions from a govt job, gets run over by the squad you are still get your house burned down, your children raped and beat, and your guns won't defend you cuz they will have been confiscated.

I'M READY FOR THIS FIGHT YESTERDAY. QUITE THE CONTRARY, IT IS TRUMP'S RESPONSIBILITY TO NOMINATE AND THE SENATE TO CONFIRM CUZ IF THE ELECTION GOES TO SCOTUS HOW WILL THEY DECIDE ANYTHING AT 4-4. It also is a great barrier to keep your antifa party from stealing the elections via mail fraud. So, yeah, bring it !!!

The American people voted for a Rep prez and a Rep senate which means they WANT this process to go forward now. What don't you understand about that? Didn't work in '16 due to 2 separate parties occupying those branches. Me thinks you are just another in a long line of Trump haters and not Biden supporters.

---

I'm starting to think Lagoa might be the better pick. Cuban mother of 3 whose Father left Cuba to bring them to America. The Dems would go crazy trying to figure out how to attack her with their identity politics game. Plus they just nominated her with over 80 votes in the Senate. That is extremely rare these days.

Either way I agree with you that it would be so much fun to see the Dems try to personally attack her. I did hear that the GOP might not be able to get a hearing before Nov 3rd which would be the worst case scenario.

We must get those Dem senators on TV disrespecting a smart suburban Mom scotus pick. If they can't then the GOP and Trump could be in trouble.

---

Totally agree. Should Trump let them attack white privilege and conservatism or just conservatism? They are both good.

Ski8103 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

i would say she is right.

---

The courts should be used to shape an individual's idea of the kingdom of God?

---

I'm going to guess that mean a place of justice, love and truth.

Don't be a bigot.

---

Then why didn't she say that instead, since you obviously know her well?

---

You'll have to take this from someone that has stepped inside of a church.

The lady has adopted 2 children from Haiti and is the mother of a special needs child. Feel free to attack her for attending church. Like nearly every political leader in Washington.

---

Yeah, we've all heard. I'm sure she's decent enough (not that that matters to Republicans at all) but being an adoptive mother doesn't mean you'll be a decent Supreme Court Justice.

---

What about:

-Attend Notre Dame Law School (full ride)
-Executive editor of their law review
-Graduated first in her class
-Clerked for Silberman and Scalia
-Spent 3 years working for law firms
-15 years teaching at George Washington and Notre Dame (received 3 professor of the year awards)
-Published in Cornell, Columbia, Virginia, Notre Dame and Texas law reviews
-Spent the last 3 years on the Seventh Circuit Court

Yep. Her resume sucks.

---

She couldn't be much more qualified for the job. She is exceptional and beyond qualified.

---

Amy Barrett is more than qualified for SCOTUS; if nominated, which I think is about 99% certain, you will not hear the Democrats say that she is unqualified. You will also not see them attack her personally as they did Kavanaugh because that opening will not be available.

You will here them complain bitterly about the process and about Barrett's philosophy.

FTR, because I post fairly frequently on political issue with a left of center perspective: Donald Trump is president and has the right to nominate someone to fill the opening. The Senate has a constitutional duty to advise and consent. I think the framers intended that advise and consent role to be limited to an evaluation of the nominee's judicial temperament, academic qualifications and personal characteristics. i have no problem with Trump nominating her and the Senate confirming her--elections have consequences.

I have an enormous problem with the fact that the US Senate, formerly the "greatest deliberative body in the world" is run by a complete partisan hack and that his minions lie through their teeth. The remedy, however, is to vote out Senators, not to prevent qualified SCOTUS nominees.

---

Chuck Schumer isn't Majority Leader anymore. Did you get confused?

---

No,

And he has never been majority leader. Do you stay confused?

cinque said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

i would say she is right.

---

The courts should be used to shape an individual's idea of the kingdom of God?

---

An individual's idea of the kingdom of God should be used to shape the courts. Isn't this how it always is?

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

i would say she is right.

---

The courts should be used to shape an individual's idea of the kingdom of God?

---

I'm going to guess that mean a place of justice, love and truth.

Don't be a bigot.

---

Then why didn't she say that instead, since you obviously know her well?

---

You'll have to take this from someone that has stepped inside of a church.

The lady has adopted 2 children from Haiti and is the mother of a special needs child. Feel free to attack her for attending church. Like nearly every political leader in Washington.

---

Yeah, we've all heard. I'm sure she's decent enough (not that that matters to Republicans at all) but being an adoptive mother doesn't mean you'll be a decent Supreme Court Justice.

---

What about:

-Attend Notre Dame Law School (full ride)
-Executive editor of their law review
-Graduated first in her class
-Clerked for Silberman and Scalia
-Spent 3 years working for law firms
-15 years teaching at George Washington and Notre Dame (received 3 professor of the year awards)
-Published in Cornell, Columbia, Virginia, Notre Dame and Texas law reviews
-Spent the last 3 years on the Seventh Circuit Court

Yep. Her resume sucks.

---

She couldn't be much more qualified for the job. She is exceptional and beyond qualified.

---

Amy Barrett is more than qualified for SCOTUS; if nominated, which I think is about 99% certain, you will not hear the Democrats say that she is unqualified. You will also not see them attack her personally as they did Kavanaugh because that opening will not be available.

You will here them complain bitterly about the process and about Barrett's philosophy.

FTR, because I post fairly frequently on political issue with a left of center perspective: Donald Trump is president and has the right to nominate someone to fill the opening. The Senate has a constitutional duty to advise and consent. I think the framers intended that advise and consent role to be limited to an evaluation of the nominee's judicial temperament, academic qualifications and personal characteristics. i have no problem with Trump nominating her and the Senate confirming her--elections have consequences.

I have an enormous problem with the fact that the US Senate, formerly the "greatest deliberative body in the world" is run by a complete partisan hack and that his minions lie through their teeth. The remedy, however, is to vote out Senators, not to prevent qualified SCOTUS nominees.

---

Thought experiment: RGB has just passed away and President Clinton and Majority leader Schumer are set to nominate and confirm. Does that change your reasoning in any way?

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

riflebear said:

---

wuzzybear said:

---

George Truett said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

---

Trump's rush to confirm is a gift to Biden.

Now, Biden can combine COVID with SCOTUS. Whomever Trump chooses will strike down Obamacare.

So now Biden can say not only has Trump failed miserably to deal with COVID, but now by his pick he's going to take away healthcare for 20 million Americans PLUS take away protection for preexisting conditions for millions of others in the midst of a pandemic.

---

Was King David's plot to have Bathsheba's husband Uriah killed a gift to God? Then why did David become king to begin with.

This is a gift from God, not Trump. Barrett is orthodox Catholic with 7 kids, 2 of which are adopted Haitians and one with special needs. So she MUST be the choice bc I wanna microwave 10 bags of popcorn and watch the Dems insult, attack, excoriate, denigrate, and annihilate her with that on her resume. She was an honored professor of political science at Notre Dame and she has that suburban mom look going on too. Everything the Rep want for a nominee is contained with her.

So let the show begin cuz you know if your alzheimer candidate who has never done anything in 48yrs yet still his net worth is multi-millions from a govt job, gets run over by the squad you are still get your house burned down, your children raped and beat, and your guns won't defend you cuz they will have been confiscated.

I'M READY FOR THIS FIGHT YESTERDAY. QUITE THE CONTRARY, IT IS TRUMP'S RESPONSIBILITY TO NOMINATE AND THE SENATE TO CONFIRM CUZ IF THE ELECTION GOES TO SCOTUS HOW WILL THEY DECIDE ANYTHING AT 4-4. It also is a great barrier to keep your antifa party from stealing the elections via mail fraud. So, yeah, bring it !!!

The American people voted for a Rep prez and a Rep senate which means they WANT this process to go forward now. What don't you understand about that? Didn't work in '16 due to 2 separate parties occupying those branches. Me thinks you are just another in a long line of Trump haters and not Biden supporters.

---

I'm starting to think Lagoa might be the better pick. Cuban mother of 3 whose Father left Cuba to bring them to America. The Dems would go crazy trying to figure out how to attack her with their identity politics game. Plus they just nominated her with over 80 votes in the Senate. That is extremely rare these days.

---

I think I agree with you here, riflebear. Yes, Barbara Lagoa was passed through by a vote in the Senate of 80-15 to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals just last September. How would the Senators that voted in favor of her last September justify changing their vote to NO for the Supreme Court?

This would indeed put great pressure on the Dems. How could the "Party of Inclusion and woke" vote against the daughter of Cuban immigrants? This scenario would be fun to watch.

---

None of the people on that Federalist Society of judges puts pressure on Democrats

---

Cinque no response to Barrett's actual resume I posted on the previous page?

Or is her Catholic faith the only thing that disqualifies her?

---

She has an inspiring vitae but that in no way makes her sui generis within a sea full of qualified women.

---

Who is your choice?

---

Biden's pick.

---

doesnt he have to be president to get a choice? Its kind of a rule

Booray said:

---

Ski8103 said:

---

Booray said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

i would say she is right.

---

The courts should be used to shape an individual's idea of the kingdom of God?

---

I'm going to guess that mean a place of justice, love and truth.

Don't be a bigot.

---

Then why didn't she say that instead, since you obviously know her well?

---

You'll have to take this from someone that has stepped inside of a church.

The lady has adopted 2 children from Haiti and is the mother of a special needs child. Feel free to attack her for attending church. Like nearly every political leader in Washington.

---

Yeah, we've all heard. I'm sure she's decent enough (not that that matters to Republicans at all) but being an adoptive mother doesn't mean you'll be a decent Supreme Court Justice.

---

What about:

-Attend Notre Dame Law School (full ride)
-Executive editor of their law review
-Graduated first in her class
-Clerked for Silberman and Scalia
-Spent 3 years working for law firms
-15 years teaching at George Washington and Notre Dame (received 3 professor of the year awards)
-Published in Cornell, Columbia, Virginia, Notre Dame and Texas law reviews
-Spent the last 3 years on the Seventh Circuit Court

Yep. Her resume sucks.

---

She couldn't be much more qualified for the job. She is exceptional and beyond qualified.

---

Amy Barrett is more than qualified for SCOTUS; if nominated, which I think is about 99% certain, you will not hear the Democrats say that she is unqualified. You will also not see them attack her personally as they did Kavanaugh because that opening will not be available.

You will here them complain bitterly about the process and about Barrett's philosophy.

FTR, because I post fairly frequently on political issue with a left of center perspective: Donald Trump is president and has the right to nominate someone to fill the opening. The Senate has a constitutional duty to advise and consent. I think the framers intended that advise and consent role to be limited to an evaluation of the nominee's judicial temperament, academic qualifications and personal characteristics. i have no problem with Trump nominating her and the Senate confirming her--elections have consequences.

I have an enormous problem with the fact that the US Senate, formerly the "greatest deliberative body in the world" is run by a complete partisan hack and that his minions lie through their teeth. The remedy, however, is to vote out Senators, not to prevent qualified SCOTUS nominees.

---

Chuck Schumer isn't Majority Leader anymore. Did you get confused?

---

No,

And he has never been majority leader. Do you stay confused?

---

It's not hard to confuse Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid. They're almost interchangeable.

LOL

Democrat Socialists would choose a Blue haired genderless warlord from the Chaz

riflebear said:

---

LOL

Democrat Socialists would choose a Blue haired genderless warlord from the Chaz

---

Nestor's daddy is right. You got power, Republicans. Club Dems over the head with it. I just hope there's nobody who could gum up the works for you.

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL

Democrat Socialists would choose a Blue haired genderless warlord from the Chaz

---

Nestor's daddy is right. You got power, Republicans. Club Dems over the head with it. I just hope there's nobody who could gum up the works for you.

---

Barack Obama consulted with Orrin Hatch about the Merrick Garland pick. Hatch told him that Garland would be confirmed because he was a moderate and old enough that his tenure would be relatively short.

Ronald Reagan regularly worked with Tip O'Neill.

Clinton and Gingrich got things done.

The idea that one party won't work with another to achieve a reasonable compromise is just another phony excuse for the current Club of Trump that has taken over the GOP's body.

riflebear said:

---

Booray said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL

Democrat Socialists would choose a Blue haired genderless warlord from the Chaz

---

Nestor's daddy is right. You got power, Republicans. Club Dems over the head with it. I just hope there's nobody who could gum up the works for you.

---

Barack Obama consulted with Orrin Hatch about the Merrick Garland pick. Hatch told him that Garland would be confirmed because he was a moderate and old enough that his tenure would be relatively short.

Ronald Reagan regularly worked with Tip O'Neill.

Clinton and Gingrich got things done.

The idea that one party won't work with another to achieve a reasonable compromise is just another phony excuse for the current Club of Trump that has taken over the GOP's body.

---

Nancy hasn't met with a Trump in over a year so believe. They won't work with the GOP on a Covid aid package.

---

BS. Its the other way around.

POTUS invites you to meetings, not the other way around. Dems passed their aid package, the GOP can't say what they want. If they could, maybe the parties could meet in the middle. But the GOP just continues to be the party of no.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL

Democrat Socialists would choose a Blue haired genderless warlord from the Chaz

---

Nestor's daddy is right. You got power, Republicans. Club Dems over the head with it. I just hope there's nobody who could gum up the works for you.

---

The idea that one party won't work with another to achieve a reasonable compromise is just another phony excuse for the current Club of Trump that has taken over the GOP's body.

---

I greatly look forward to see what lengths your Democrats will go to to destroy Amy Coney Barrett or Barbara Lagoa. Will not be a good look right before the election. Thanks to Trump, the Republican Party has finally grown some balls. Full steam ahead!

#Payback4Kavanaugh

---

You will be very disappointed. Neither woman will be subject to personal attack. The way they judge (or in Barrett's case, will likely judge) will be.

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

i would say she is right.

---

The courts should be used to shape an individual's idea of the kingdom of God?

---

I'm going to guess that mean a place of justice, love and truth.

Don't be a bigot.

---

Then why didn't she say that instead, since you obviously know her well?

---

You'll have to take this from someone that has stepped inside of a church.

The lady has adopted 2 children from Haiti and is the mother of a special needs child. Feel free to attack her for attending church. Like nearly every political leader in Washington.

---

I understand that this is how you cover her but the critique of Judge Barrett is not about her attendance at church and you know that. Would you support a Muslim nominee who said it was her end to produce a nation ruled by Sharia law, or would you look at her record and see if she has any evidence of ever ruling in such a manner?

I'd like to see evidence that Barrett's faith is causing her rulings to vary from the Constitution. Absent that, and recognizing that her statement was probably aimed at lawyers or law students and not justices, this is a nothingburger.

quash said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

i would say she is right.

---

The courts should be used to shape an individual's idea of the kingdom of God?

---

I'm going to guess that mean a place of justice, love and truth.

Don't be a bigot.

---

Then why didn't she say that instead, since you obviously know her well?

---

You'll have to take this from someone that has stepped inside of a church.

The lady has adopted 2 children from Haiti and is the mother of a special needs child. Feel free to attack her for attending church. Like nearly every political leader in Washington.

---

I understand that this is how you cover her but the critique of Judge Barrett is not about her attendance at church and you know that. Would you support a Muslim nominee who said it was her end to produce a nation ruled by Sharia law, or would you look at her record and see if she has any evidence of ever ruling in such a manner?

I'd like to see evidence that Barrett's faith is causing her rulings to vary from the Constitution. Absent that, and recognizing that her statement was probably aimed at lawyers or law students and not justices, this is a nothingburger.

---

I hate to admit it, but you make a pretty valid point here. This is why I actually think Barbara Lagoa might be a safer pick. Especially with the fact that the Senate confirmed her to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals back in September by a vote of 80-15. How could Senators justify voting YES last September and voting NO now? Surely the Democrats wouldn't try to destroy the daughter of Cuban immigrants. Would they?

quash said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BearTruth13 said:

---

cinque said:

---

BornAgain said:

---

i would say she is right.

---

The courts should be used to shape an individual's idea of the kingdom of God?

---

I'm going to guess that mean a place of justice, love and truth.

Don't be a bigot.

---

Then why didn't she say that instead, since you obviously know her well?

---

You'll have to take this from someone that has stepped inside of a church.

The lady has adopted 2 children from Haiti and is the mother of a special needs child. Feel free to attack her for attending church. Like nearly every political leader in Washington.

---

I understand that this is how you cover her but the critique of Judge Barrett is not about her attendance at church and you know that. Would you support a Muslim nominee who said it was her end to produce a nation ruled by Sharia law, or would you look at her record and see if she has any evidence of ever ruling in such a manner?

I'd like to see evidence that Barrett's faith is causing her rulings to vary from the Constitution. Absent that, and recognizing that her statement was probably aimed at lawyers or law students and not justices, this is a nothingburger.

---

I understand the point you are making here regarding focusing on actual record vs statements, and it's a good one. But just to clarify, nothing Barrett has said is analogous to your example. She implored law students to have a greater cause/motivation than money and prestige. In your example, I'd be concerned with the statement, even in the absence of any already existing evidence of ruling accordingly, because it signals a conviction that would eventually affect rulings. Barrett has said nothing that indicates her commitment to the law/Constitution would be compromised.

You greatly exaggerate how much these folks got things done working together. Tip and Reagan got along, but Tip opposed virtually everything Reagan did. Hatch was always clear he would not support anyone in 2016 and did not work with Obama at that time. His comments about Garland were not in that context. And, again, Repubs have long voted for Dem nominees. Clinton and Gingrich despised each other. Clinton went along with some of the Contract with America because he had to. And you also fail to mention that Trump worked with Dems to pass criminal justice reform and workforce training and made very reasonable offers on other significant issues, such as immigration and COVID relief, which Dems opposed.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL

Democrat Socialists would choose a Blue haired genderless warlord from the Chaz

---

Nestor's daddy is right. You got power, Republicans. Club Dems over the head with it. I just hope there's nobody who could gum up the works for you.

---

The idea that one party won't work with another to achieve a reasonable compromise is just another phony excuse for the current Club of Trump that has taken over the GOP's body.

---

I greatly look forward to see what lengths your Democrats will go to to destroy Amy Coney Barrett or Barbara Lagoa. Will not be a good look right before the election. Thanks to Trump, the Republican Party has finally grown some balls. Full steam ahead!

#Payback4Kavanaugh

---

Barrett won't be Kavanaughed. She hasn't been credibly accused of rape.

George Truett said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

George Truett said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

---

Trump's rush to confirm is a gift to Biden.

Now, Biden can combine COVID with SCOTUS. Whomever Trump chooses will strike down Obamacare.

So now Biden can say not only has Trump failed miserably to deal with COVID, but now by his pick he's going to take away healthcare for 20 million Americans PLUS take away protection for preexisting conditions for millions of others in the midst of a pandemic.

---

Biden can say alot of things... so many of them false, but he can say them...

---

What is false?

Trump has failed miserably in the COVID crisis. This is fact. Nearly 200,000 dead from COVID say so. The vast majority of Americans also say so.

SCOTUS will throw out Obamacare if another radical is seated. This will mean 20 million Americans will lose their healthcare AND tens of millions more will lose protection for preexisting conditions.

I know Trump is hoping to flip the script, but it's not going to work. It just makes his COVID failure worse.

---

Definition of a Radical: anyone who disagrees with GT.

Remember the famous words before passing Obamacare - you can keep your doctor.

cinque said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL

Democrat Socialists would choose a Blue haired genderless warlord from the Chaz

---

Nestor's daddy is right. You got power, Republicans. Club Dems over the head with it. I just hope there's nobody who could gum up the works for you.

---

The idea that one party won't work with another to achieve a reasonable compromise is just another phony excuse for the current Club of Trump that has taken over the GOP's body.

---

I greatly look forward to see what lengths your Democrats will go to to destroy Amy Coney Barrett or Barbara Lagoa. Will not be a good look right before the election. Thanks to Trump, the Republican Party has finally grown some balls. Full steam ahead!

#Payback4Kavanaugh

---

Barrett won't be Kavanaughed. She hasn't been credibly accused of rape.

---

Sorry. I have to go buy some fireworks and the largest American flag I can find. Perhaps we can visit soon.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL

Democrat Socialists would choose a Blue haired genderless warlord from the Chaz

---

Nestor's daddy is right. You got power, Republicans. Club Dems over the head with it. I just hope there's nobody who could gum up the works for you.

---

The idea that one party won't work with another to achieve a reasonable compromise is just another phony excuse for the current Club of Trump that has taken over the GOP's body.

---

I greatly look forward to see what lengths your Democrats will go to to destroy Amy Coney Barrett or Barbara Lagoa. Will not be a good look right before the election. Thanks to Trump, the Republican Party has finally grown some balls. Full steam ahead!

#Payback4Kavanaugh

---

You will be very disappointed. Neither woman will be subject to personal attack. The way they judge (or in Barrett's case, will likely judge) will be.

---

We shall see. This new Socialist Democratic Party is Machiavellian. The end justifies the means. They don't care whose lives they destroy in their lust for power. They are downright evil and mean- spirited. They won't be able to contain themselves.

---

You live in an Alice in Wonderland world. At the very moment the GOP is backtracking on the adamant pledges they made when refusing to consider Merrick Garland, you have the gall to say that it is the Democrats who live by "the ends justify the means." That phrase is the exact definition of what Mitch McConnell has done with judicial nominees.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

cinque said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL

Democrat Socialists would choose a Blue haired genderless warlord from the Chaz

---

Nestor's daddy is right. You got power, Republicans. Club Dems over the head with it. I just hope there's nobody who could gum up the works for you.

---

The idea that one party won't work with another to achieve a reasonable compromise is just another phony excuse for the current Club of Trump that has taken over the GOP's body.

---

I greatly look forward to see what lengths your Democrats will go to to destroy Amy Coney Barrett or Barbara Lagoa. Will not be a good look right before the election. Thanks to Trump, the Republican Party has finally grown some balls. Full steam ahead!

#Payback4Kavanaugh

---

Barrett won't be Kavanaughed. She hasn't been credibly accused of rape.

---

Sorry. I have to go buy some fireworks and the largest American flag I can find. Perhaps we can visit soon.

---

You're trying too hard. Your anxiety is showing.

riflebear said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL

Democrat Socialists would choose a Blue haired genderless warlord from the Chaz

---

Nestor's daddy is right. You got power, Republicans. Club Dems over the head with it. I just hope there's nobody who could gum up the works for you.

---

The idea that one party won't work with another to achieve a reasonable compromise is just another phony excuse for the current Club of Trump that has taken over the GOP's body.

---

I greatly look forward to see what lengths your Democrats will go to to destroy Amy Coney Barrett or Barbara Lagoa. Will not be a good look right before the election. Thanks to Trump, the Republican Party has finally grown some balls. Full steam ahead!

#Payback4Kavanaugh

---

You will be very disappointed. Neither woman will be subject to personal attack. The way they judge (or in Barrett's case, will likely judge) will be.

---

Last time I checked attacking someone's Faith Is a personal attack.

---

No, it is saying that the person has let their faith unduly influence their legal thinking.

I don't agree with Feinstein but she was not attacking the faith, she was attacking the reasoning.

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL

Democrat Socialists would choose a Blue haired genderless warlord from the Chaz

---

Nestor's daddy is right. You got power, Republicans. Club Dems over the head with it. I just hope there's nobody who could gum up the works for you.

---

The idea that one party won't work with another to achieve a reasonable compromise is just another phony excuse for the current Club of Trump that has taken over the GOP's body.

---

I greatly look forward to see what lengths your Democrats will go to to destroy Amy Coney Barrett or Barbara Lagoa. Will not be a good look right before the election. Thanks to Trump, the Republican Party has finally grown some balls. Full steam ahead!

#Payback4Kavanaugh

---

You will be very disappointed. Neither woman will be subject to personal attack. The way they judge (or in Barrett's case, will likely judge) will be.

---

We shall see. This new Socialist Democratic Party is Machiavellian. The end justifies the means. They don't care whose lives they destroy in their lust for power. They are downright evil and mean- spirited. They won't be able to contain themselves.

---

You live in an Alice in Wonderland world. At the very moment the GOP is backtracking on the adamant pledges they made when refusing to consider Merrick Garland, you have the gall to say that it is the Democrats who live by "the ends justify the means." That phrase is the exact definition of what Mitch McConnell has done with judicial nominees.

---

and the Democrats are backtracking on what they said for years ago as well.

If you look at the fact that if you have a president and senate of the same party then seven out of nine were confirmed in an election year and when you look at when the president and the senate are of different parties then only two out of 10 were confirmed in an election year. 2016 and 2020 are not new cases pf this happening.

Gruvin said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL

Democrat Socialists would choose a Blue haired genderless warlord from the Chaz

---

Nestor's daddy is right. You got power, Republicans. Club Dems over the head with it. I just hope there's nobody who could gum up the works for you.

---

The idea that one party won't work with another to achieve a reasonable compromise is just another phony excuse for the current Club of Trump that has taken over the GOP's body.

---

I greatly look forward to see what lengths your Democrats will go to to destroy Amy Coney Barrett or Barbara Lagoa. Will not be a good look right before the election. Thanks to Trump, the Republican Party has finally grown some balls. Full steam ahead!

#Payback4Kavanaugh

---

You will be very disappointed. Neither woman will be subject to personal attack. The way they judge (or in Barrett's case, will likely judge) will be.

---

We shall see. This new Socialist Democratic Party is Machiavellian. The end justifies the means. They don't care whose lives they destroy in their lust for power. They are downright evil and mean- spirited. They won't be able to contain themselves.

---

You live in an Alice in Wonderland world. At the very moment the GOP is backtracking on the adamant pledges they made when refusing to consider Merrick Garland, you have the gall to say that it is the Democrats who live by "the ends justify the means." That phrase is the exact definition of what Mitch McConnell has done with judicial nominees.

---

and the Democrats are backtracking on what they said for years ago as well.

If you look at the fact that if you have a president and senate of the same party then seven out of nine were confirmed in an election year and when you look at when the president and the senate are of different parties then only two out of 10 were confirmed in an election year. 2016 and 2020 are not new cases pf this happening.

---

My point has consistently been that the nominee should have a hearing and a vote; I am not saying what that vote should be.

Democrats are not backtracking. They are saying the same procedure should apply every time. If you aren't going to consider someone nominated 9 months before an election, you should not consider someone nominated 6 weeks before an election.

Which is what Grassley, Graham and a host of others GOP senators said when they were blocking Garland.

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL

Democrat Socialists would choose a Blue haired genderless warlord from the Chaz

---

Nestor's daddy is right. You got power, Republicans. Club Dems over the head with it. I just hope there's nobody who could gum up the works for you.

---

The idea that one party won't work with another to achieve a reasonable compromise is just another phony excuse for the current Club of Trump that has taken over the GOP's body.

---

I greatly look forward to see what lengths your Democrats will go to to destroy Amy Coney Barrett or Barbara Lagoa. Will not be a good look right before the election. Thanks to Trump, the Republican Party has finally grown some balls. Full steam ahead!

#Payback4Kavanaugh

---

You will be very disappointed. Neither woman will be subject to personal attack. The way they judge (or in Barrett's case, will likely judge) will be.

---

We shall see. This new Socialist Democratic Party is Machiavellian. The end justifies the means. They don't care whose lives they destroy in their lust for power. They are downright evil and mean- spirited. They won't be able to contain themselves.

---

You live in an Alice in Wonderland world. At the very moment the GOP is backtracking on the adamant pledges they made when refusing to consider Merrick Garland, you have the gall to say that it is the Democrats who live by "the ends justify the means." That phrase is the exact definition of what Mitch McConnell has done with judicial nominees.

---

Boo boo!!! I am sure Merrick Garland would have made a fine judge. Maybe between 2021-2024 he will get another shot. And maybe not.

#Payback4Kavanaugh

Booray said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL

Democrat Socialists would choose a Blue haired genderless warlord from the Chaz

---

Nestor's daddy is right. You got power, Republicans. Club Dems over the head with it. I just hope there's nobody who could gum up the works for you.

---

The idea that one party won't work with another to achieve a reasonable compromise is just another phony excuse for the current Club of Trump that has taken over the GOP's body.

---

I greatly look forward to see what lengths your Democrats will go to to destroy Amy Coney Barrett or Barbara Lagoa. Will not be a good look right before the election. Thanks to Trump, the Republican Party has finally grown some balls. Full steam ahead!

#Payback4Kavanaugh

---

You will be very disappointed. Neither woman will be subject to personal attack. The way they judge (or in Barrett's case, will likely judge) will be.

---

We shall see. This new Socialist Democratic Party is Machiavellian. The end justifies the means. They don't care whose lives they destroy in their lust for power. They are downright evil and mean- spirited. They won't be able to contain themselves.

---

You live in an Alice in Wonderland world. At the very moment the GOP is backtracking on the adamant pledges they made when refusing to consider Merrick Garland, you have the gall to say that it is the Democrats who live by "the ends justify the means." That phrase is the exact definition of what Mitch McConnell has done with judicial nominees.

---

and the Democrats are backtracking on what they said for years ago as well.

If you look at the fact that if you have a president and senate of the same party then seven out of nine were confirmed in an election year and when you look at when the president and the senate are of different parties then only two out of 10 were confirmed in an election year. 2016 and 2020 are not new cases pf this happening.

---

My point has consistently been that the nominee should have a hearing and a vote; I am not saying what that vote should be.

Democrats are not backtracking. They are saying the same procedure should apply every time. If you aren't going to consider someone nominated 9 months before an election, you should not consider someone nominated 6 weeks before an election.

Which is what Grassley, Graham and a host of others GOP senators said when they were blocking Garland.

---

he should have gotten a hearing... said that every time but a failure once should not create a failure twice.

Evety battleground dem senator who voted no on Kav is no longer a senator. The Gop senate grew in 2018. The people are speaking that they like what the senate has been doing...

Gruvin said:

---

Booray said:

---

Gruvin said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Booray said:

---

cinque said:

---

riflebear said:

---

LOL

Democrat Socialists would choose a Blue haired genderless warlord from the Chaz

---

Nestor's daddy is right. You got power, Republicans. Club Dems over the head with it. I just hope there's nobody who could gum up the works for you.

---

The idea that one party won't work with another to achieve a reasonable compromise is just another phony excuse for the current Club of Trump that has taken over the GOP's body.

---

I greatly look forward to see what lengths your Democrats will go to to destroy Amy Coney Barrett or Barbara Lagoa. Will not be a good look right before the election. Thanks to Trump, the Republican Party has finally grown some balls. Full steam ahead!

#Payback4Kavanaugh

---

You will be very disappointed. Neither woman will be subject to personal attack. The way they judge (or in Barrett's case, will likely judge) will be.

---

We shall see. This new Socialist Democratic Party is Machiavellian. The end justifies the means. They don't care whose lives they destroy in their lust for power. They are downright evil and mean- spirited. They won't be able to contain themselves.

---

You live in an Alice in Wonderland world. At the very moment the GOP is backtracking on the adamant pledges they made when refusing to consider Merrick Garland, you have the gall to say that it is the Democrats who live by "the ends justify the means." That phrase is the exact definition of what Mitch McConnell has done with judicial nominees.

---

and the Democrats are backtracking on what they said for years ago as well.

If you look at the fact that if you have a president and senate of the same party then seven out of nine were confirmed in an election year and when you look at when the president and the senate are of different parties then only two out of 10 were confirmed in an election year. 2016 and 2020 are not new cases pf this happening.

---

My point has consistently been that the nominee should have a hearing and a vote; I am not saying what that vote should be.

Democrats are not backtracking. They are saying the same procedure should apply every time. If you aren't going to consider someone nominated 9 months before an election, you should not consider someone nominated 6 weeks before an election.

Which is what Grassley, Graham and a host of others GOP senators said when they were blocking Garland.

---

he should have gotten a hearing... said that every time but a failure once should not create a failure twice.

Evety battleground dem senator who voted no on Kav is no longer a senator. The Gop senate grew in 2018. The people are speaking that they like what the senate has been doing...

---

Sometimes it's not possible to move forward unless and until wrongs are corrected.