Three Things To Remember When The Democrats Start Whining About President Trump's Supreme Court Appointment

[RingOfFire]

RIP Ruth Ginsburg bla bla bla...

1. Ginsburg was asked by Democrats to step down when Obama was in office so they could ensure she would be replaced by another liberal. She refused. So now President Trump gets to pick a conservative instead of Obama picking a liberal. Thank you Ms. Ginsburg. You did not die in vain! And I have to give you credit where credit is due, your timing is brilliant.

2. The Democrats eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees while Obama was in office. They thought they were being really clever even though they were warned by the Republicans not to do it because it would come back to bite them. Guess what? It came back to bite them. Now, thanks to the Democrats, President Trump and the Republicans can exercise their constitutional right to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice any time they want and the Democrats are powerless to stop it. Nice work Democrats! You shot yourselves in the foot!

3. What do you suppose Chuck Schumer would do if he was in the same position as Mitch McConnell now and there was a Democrat in the White House? Would he be saying "For the good of the country we need to wait and let the next president pick the replacement for Ginsburg?" YEAH RIGHT!

The Democrats have NO ONE TO BLAME BUT THEMSELVES and their stupid attempts to destroy the democratic process for this appointment. They made their bed and now they will have to lie in it. They NEVER seem to learn their lesson. LIBERALISM, SOCIALISM AND COMMUNISM DO NOT WORK!

You can't destroy the democratic process and then demand democracy when things don't go your way. It doesn't work like that.

President Donald J. Trump will once again add yet another historical achievement to his winning record, a record three Supreme Court Justice appointments in his first term! Yet again he beat the Democrats like a rented mule at their own game.

[Liam_Hayden]

#2 is incorrect. Reid and the Democrats eliminated it for all except SCOTUS appointees, but they would have undoubtedly done as you say had a seat opened up while they were still in control of the Senate. The GOP eliminated it when it became clear that they would not get more than a few Dem votes no matter whom they nominated.

The simple truth is that in an election year, if a vacancy occurs there is a 90% chance of approval is the Senate is the same party as POTUS, but only a 20% chance if the Senate is held by the opposition.

[RingOfFire]

Correct! And you won the prize. I was amazed no one else noticed this.

The basis for my saying it was the Dems who are responsible for this is that the Republicans only did it because the Dems were, as you say, prepared to stop ANY nomination. The Republicans warned them that if they persisted, this would happen, and it did. The part that was an error though was that the SCOTUS nuclear option didn't happen under Obama. I was careless when I wrote it. But the point is still valid.

[Liam_Hayden]

Well as I stated you would have been correct had the Democrats controlled the Senate in 2016.

[Archerer]

How do you explain the republicans stopping Obama from voting in when the election was 9 months away, and now it's only 1 months away?

The republicans have not shown any willingness to compromise, by the way. They have reversed and progress and continue to...

[RingOfFire]

Easy to explain. It has already happened 29 times in the country's history.

When Obama was in the White House, the Republicans controlled the Senate. But now the president and the senate are both of the same party. That means there is a presumption that the voters wanted it that way to allow them to be able to confirm Supreme Court justices. That is the president. That is the established precedent.

The US Constitution says the president "*SHALL* nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States..."

It is the president's constitutional DUTY to do this, not just an option. There is nothing in the Constitution that says he must not do it just because it is an election year.

“There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.”
-Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court

[Archerer]

I am not disagreeing I am just stating the hypocrisy

[RingOfFire]

It is not hypocrisy. I just explained the difference between this time and the time Obama was in office.

[Archerer]

The US Constitution says the president "*SHALL* nominate

[Archerer]

It is the president's constitutional DUTY to do this, not just an option. There is nothing in the Constitution that says he must not do it just because it is an election year.

Your words, not mine

[RingOfFire]

I don't get your point. In the first part of my response to you I explained that there is a difference between the party alignment now and when Obama appointed his nominee and that is why it is not hypocrisy. That isn't about the president's duty it's about the Senate. The Senate has an option to consent to the presidents nominee or not.

[Archerer]

I'm not surprised a republican is incapable of seeing the hypocrisy.

[RingOfFire]

I'm not surprised that a Democrat abandoned reason when confronted with facts they did not want to hear.

[Archerer]

I'm Canadian, neither republican nor democrat

[Liam_Hayden]

Easy. Opposition Senate. then, same party Senate now. It takes both.

[DonCachondo]

@RingOfFire Your entire argument rests on the assumption that the senators never vote across party lines, which is far from truth. It may be closer to true now, in hyperpartisan times, than it usually is, but McConnell blocking the vote for Obama's nominee, based on that reasoning alone, was clearly in bad faith.

[jcnum10]

I got an idea.

Instead of Republicans and democrats trying to prove their parties are better than the other.

They can spend that time working together to ensure laws and policies are where they need to be.

Instead of making sure they can brag about their party having someone in that seat they can pick the best person for that position 🤷🏽‍♀️

[RingOfFire]

Right... and maybe stop wasting 3 and a half years falsely accusing the president of being a spy for the Ukranians then the Russians, creating false grounds for impeachment and dragging the country through a fake impeachment process and coming up with one fake story after another to try to undo the will of the voters who elected President Trump in 2016? How are the parties supposed to work together when one party is not interested in anything except making up false accusations and destroying the president that the people elected?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdS-ExZHy7A

[jcnum10]

Neither party is.
Stop pointing fingers and try to fix it.
The way both parties act reminds me of elementary school kids having an argument of who's daddy is tougher.
Or trying to blame the other person when they lose a game of dodgeball.
The 2 party system is the problem.

Both sides think everything the other does is wrong and everything their party does is perfect.
It's tiring and gets nothing accomplished🤷🏽‍♀️

[RingOfFire]

I think you are wrong. President Trump and the Republicans have shown an extraordinary willingness to compromise to get things done. But at every turn the Democrats have turned their backs on them. They don't want to give President Trump a chance to accomplish anything good for Americans, they just want him gone. In fact they have done everything in their power to sabotage every good thing he tries to accomplish. They don't want him to look good. In spite of that, he has probably accomplished more of what he promised he would than any other president in history.

I think that claiming both parties are equally as obstructive to accomplishing good things for the people is a way of avoiding the facts and making believe the Democrat party is not the villain.

[jcnum10]

Like the republicans did to Obama.

Like they do to AOC.

I don't agree with all she says but she has good points and statements at times as well.

They pretend she is crazy and even mentally challenged.

I am neither Democrat or republican but yet if you listen to either side.

They think they perfect and the other is evil and trying to destroy democracy.

[RingOfFire]

You don't have to think a side is "perfect" to support it. It's about which party is more likely to implement the ideology you support. When it comes to president, there is no Utopian middle ground. It's a binary choice. If you oppose one candidate then you are supporting the other. It's not up to me to point out the positive aspects of President Trump's opponents. They control the vast majority of the media and have plenty of opportunity to do it themselves. Instead they use that opportunity to sow discord, hatred and violence. I don't want that party in control of my country.

[Dargil]

"They can spend that time working together to ensure laws and policies are where they need to be."

Looking back at history books, before Ginn began to color and rewrite history, Nixon and Humphrey, for example, Republicans and Democrats both loved their country and just had different ideas on how to best advance the USA as a Federal Republic. Today's Democrats do not love their country. They think it is evil and want to dismantle and "fundamentally transform it into a European style socialist state. They love their devices but are anti capitalist. They want "free" healthcare and college education and want "the rich" to pay for it. They have been so totally deluded by our failed education system that they have no feel for economics or good government. There is no common ground between today's Democrats and Republicans.

"Defund the Police?

[Liam_Hayden]

Even though I despise the current leadership of the DNC, I tend to agree here. The Republicans could have worked with Mr. Obama on healthcare reform and then at least could have said they tried if he went it alone. It just seems to keep escalating, till now we have a situation where the two sides pretty much hate each other and there is no consensus on anything. It is all gamesmanship. Nothing like when Lyndon Johnson credited Ev Dirksen for his help in passing the CRA 1964, or even the respect between Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan.

[DonCachondo]

“Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out.” — George Carlin

[Bananaman177]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote an opinion piece advocating lowering the age of consent law to ten, and she argued that there was no evidence that early sexualization was in any way harmful for children.

Why doesn't anybody bring THAT up?

[goaded]

You just did, and it's bullshit. eu.usatoday.com/.../

[Bananaman177]

@goaded I can't read that article because I have an ad-blocker, but I already know what the trick is, they're doing a bait and switch with the Ginsberg piece, I read her article for myself with my own two eyes where she says there's no evidence that having sex is damaging to children as young as 10, and that's NOT the article they're holding up and saying, "see, see, nothing in here about children having sex! She doesn't even mention it!" Because it's a different article that they're referring to.

This is how Snopes and all these other debunking sites do it, point to something completely different and pretend that's what everyone else is referring to.

Jew tricks are designed to work only on the lowest common denominator.

[goaded]

No, calling anything you disagree with "Jew tricks" is.

[Bananaman177]

@goaded I'm not calling "everything I disagree with" Jew tricks, I disagree with all kinds of things that aren't just cheap Jewish tricks, but when something IS a cheap Jewish trick, I call it out for what it is.

Bait-and-switch debunking is a cheap Jewish trick. And I disagree with it, but those are two separate things. It being a Jew trick and me disagreeing with it. You're conflating the two, another cheap Jewish Trick.

What a tangled web you're trying to weave. . . you'll be the only one caught in it, in the end.

[goaded]

Obviously, you're lying about not being able to read the article, but, just for you, here's an excerpt:

"The report goes on to recommend removing the phrasing of "carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years" and suggested replacing it with "a Federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense patterned after S. 1400 section 1633."

The wording of S. 1400, a Senate bill introduced in 1973 that never became a law, said a person would be found guilty of an offense if that person compelled someone to take part in sex by the use of force or threats, drugging or intoxicating a victim or if "the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.""

The original was saying you could marry a woman under 16 years old, and forcing yourself on her wouldn't be rape.

[Bananaman177]

@goaded I could read it if I disabled adblock. I could even disable it JUST for that one site and then quickly re-enable on the site once I was done with the article, right? So easy. . . The evil path always seems so easy, so convenient. Always right there at hand. You could take it up and put it back again just once, couldn't you? And of course, if once doesn't hurt. . . well. . .

Isn't that how you would counsel someone? Not even just a Goy, but anyone, right? I'm sure so.

[RolandCuthbert]

It is funny how you think this is about politics and not about integrity, principles or values.

Wow!

[RingOfFire]

If the topic was about lack of integrity, principles or values, the post would have been about the Democrat's and their fake news outlets' disgusting 4 year evil underhanded illegal anti-constitutional assault, vicious false propaganda attack and attempted coup of the President of the United States.

[RolandCuthbert]

It is interesting what you consider to be fake news. It is also interesting that trump supporter repeat trump's assertions, his conspiracy theories verbatim. And it is terrifying that the most protected man in the world refused to follow the basic guidelines to prevent him, his family, and his staff from getting a disease that could possibly kill him.

All for political gain.

But yeah, somehow this is the democrats fault. We all know what your definition of "democrat".

A person who refuses to support trump.

Again, this is not about principles or values. It is about whether you love the orange cheeto or not.

[Massageman]

Thanks for the insight - nice piece! Now, let's get that 5-4 !

[goaded]

It will be 6-3, mostly nominated by people who lost the popular vote, and who represent a minority of Americans.

[John_Doesnt]

I'm guessing you hate women's rights and love child rapists.

[nerobyrne]

I wonder if he can appoint someone who is in favour of child marriage, that would be right up his alley.

Honestly the very concept of appointing judges is messed up, so I just laugh at it.

[RingOfFire]

Exactly what do you have to back up your claim about child marriage, because if it is what I suspect it is it's nothing but one of ten thousand phony narratives cooked up by the temper tantrum Democrats who have nothing else to do to express their anger about losing the 2016 election than act like 2 year olds... GOING ON 4 YEARS LATER!

[nerobyrne]

@RingOfFire lol you think I care that Trump cheats on his wife with minors?
The Problem is that the President has too much power, not who's the President.

[RingOfFire]

Show your evidence or be ignored as a troll.

[nerobyrne]

@RingOfFire
Lol what, you want evidence that he has too much power?
Try the definitions of what it means to be president in USA

[RingOfFire]

In other words you have nothing. I accept your admission of defeat.

[nerobyrne]

Lol stay mad Boomer 🤣

[Liam_Hayden]

That actually sounds more like it would be up Joe Biden's alley. After all, he is the one who gropes anything with two X chromosomes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl4UtpahWjM

[Dargil]

Besides. Roberts turned out to be a gift to them.

[SuccessfulHornDog]

Truth !