What's new
By:
Filters

RBG walking the plank?

bigun said:
The president nominates someone and the senate votes on them
Click to expand...

It seems like it should be a bit more difficult than this. Why not nominate a baker's dozen to add and really fix it up good.
 
ConwayMuddy said:
It seems like it should be a bit more difficult than this. Why not nominate a baker's dozen to add and really fix it up good.
Click to expand...

Forgot tto add the house investigates, which is when you get people appearing out of nowhere (Usually women,against Republican nominates) takling about pubic hairs on coke cans, unwanted touching at parties, rape trains that nobody else in the circle of contacts knew anything about, but has caused great stress in their lives ever since :stirthepot:
 
Juztyn00 said:
Trump and Mcconnel have both said they would fill any vacancies on the SC. It would likely be Amy Coney Barrett as she was runner up to Kavenaugh. The Supreme Court is the large reason most of us voted for Trump. Kavenaugh only took so long because the GOP entertained stupid allegations. A woman nomination would be much harder to slander.

We cant be afraid of what Biden or the next Dem may do adding justices. They have already threatened to do so no matter what, we must do what’s best now and take that hurdle if it comes to it. Trump won’t win if he pussyfoots around with the nomination. Thats what the left wants.
Click to expand...

You've forgotten about "Nannygate" under Bill Clinton. Yes, it was for attorney general, but the same thing would apply for SCOTUS.
 
ConwayMuddy said:
Pardon my ignorance, but how does either party go about adding justices to the supreme court?
Click to expand...

Do you mean increasing the number of justices ? If so ...........................................

The answer is that under the Constitution, the number of Supreme Court Justices is not fixed, and Congress can change it by passing an act that is then signed by the President.
 
Juztyn00 said:
Trump and Mcconnel have both said they would fill any vacancies on the SC. It would likely be Amy Coney Barrett as she was runner up to Kavenaugh. The Supreme Court is the large reason most of us voted for Trump. Kavenaugh only took so long because the GOP entertained stupid allegations. A woman nomination would be much harder to slander.

We cant be afraid of what Biden or the next Dem may do adding justices. They have already threatened to do so no matter what, we must do what’s best now and take that hurdle if it comes to it. Trump won’t win if he pussyfoots around with the nomination. Thats what the left wants.
Click to expand...

Correct. It was a pick between a criminal Clinton or the meany Trash Talking Trump. I prefer a rude truth teller over an articulate LIAR.
 
SanDiegoCJ said:
Do you mean increasing the number of justices ? If so ...........................................

The answer is that under the Constitution, the number of Supreme Court Justices is not fixed, and Congress can change it by passing an act that is then signed by the President.
Click to expand...

Thanks :gary: I knew how a justice got the job, but didnt know if or how the number could be increased.
 
SanDiegoCJ said:
You've forgotten about "Nannygate" under Bill Clinton. Yes, it was for attorney general, but the same thing would apply for SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

Didn’t say impossible to slander her, just harder. The left will most definitely try. Barrett has a clean record, Trump only choose Kavenaugh over her because he had more experience and was arguably harder to nominate because he was male. I think they held back Barrett for this exact reason of a late term appointment being easier. I’d hope Trump has had his list well vetted.
 
Juztyn00 said:
Didn’t say impossible to slander her, just harder. The left will most definitely try. Barrett has a clean record, Trump only choose Kavenaugh over her because he had more experience and was arguably harder to nominate because he was male. I think they held back Barrett for this exact reason of a late term appointment being easier. I’d hope Trump has had his list well vetted.
Click to expand...

Probably also wanted to keep a woman nominee staged for a RBG replacement so that the mob could not complain about that aspect.
 
Juztyn00 said:
Didn’t say impossible to slander her, just harder. The left will most definitely try. Barrett has a clean record, Trump only choose Kavenaugh over her because he had more experience and was arguably harder to nominate because he was male. I think they held back Barrett for this exact reason of a late term appointment being easier. I’d hope Trump has had his list well vetted.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's harder at all. Both sides will dig and dig for some dirt and if they can't find anything they'll just make up something. We've all seen that shit.
 
SanDiegoCJ said:
I don't think it's harder at all. Both sides will dig and dig for some dirt and if they can't find anything they'll just make up something. We've all seen that shit.
Click to expand...

and this is probably one of the main reasons why we don't have many rational, honest people in public offices. Who wants their whole life analysed under a microscope looking for any flaw or past mistake (no matter how many decades old). I'd love to see the college professors and people who run news stories analysed as much as politicians are, and then fired out on the slightest thing they might have ever done wrong. I bet the "cancel culture" would slow down a good bit that way.
 
Last edited:
NOTHINGWILLCHANGELANCE said:
its an election year. the GOP can't put a conservative on that bench and not expect them to stack the bench with 2 more seats. imagine if the tables were turned for a minute. the right would absolutely increase by 2 scotus the next term they won.
Click to expand...

You mean how the right did that when trump was elected? :shaking:
 
D Nelly said:
Maybe my tinfoils a little tight but people like her are great examples of there being a whole different level of healthcare for the special ones
Click to expand...

That's not in doubt.

Nutrition, exercise, and lifestyle are the main determinants of health in old age, outside of genetics. Genetics is #1 of course (as it is with everything).

RBG has a personal trainer, a nutritionist, and a medical staff that has been caring for her for years and even decades. The rest of us get shuffled around like it doesn't matter. RBG wakes up to a perfect breakfast, then she does the perfect workout routine, in consultation with her Orthopedist, and her Nutritionist (probably an actual Dietician, the good one) consults with her Doctor...

The United States is a wealth-based meritocracy and RBG is at the top of that hierarchy.
 
dnsfailure said:
and this is probably one of the main reasons why we don't have many rational, honest people in public offices. Who wants their whole life analysed under a microscope looking for any flaw or past mistake (no matter how many decades old). I'd love to see the college professors and people who run news stories analysed as much as politicians are, and then fired out on the slightest thing they might have ever done wrong. I bet the "cancel culture" would slow down a good bit that way.
Click to expand...

College Professors can be actual domestic terrorists and still get hired, as long as they're on the Left side of the political spectrum.

The cancel culture wouldn't exist if conservatives had seriously paid attention to Academia over the last 60 years. But they didn't so race riots.
 
Social media reports that the old bat was complaining about a bad taste in her mouth, it was discovered that a stent collapsed in her bile duct... So a new one was inserted & reportedly back to playing the game of "spin the barstool til dizzydom"-
 
I saw headline for RGB rests comfortably and had a instantaneous joy thinking that she had passed and then crushing defeat as my brain read the words correctly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh