RAIDERS, SHARKS, WARRIORS
"i don't believe in mysteries but still i pray for my sister, when speaking to the higher power that listens, to the lifeless vision of freedom everytime we're imprisoned, to the righteous victims of people of a higher position" - planet asia, old timer thoughts
"God is Universal he is the Ruler Universal" - gangstarr (rip guru), robbin hood theory
"don't gain the world and lose your soul, wisdom is better than silver and gold" - bob marley, zion train
Sponsored Links |
|
You’re kidding right? Sending death threats to dem leaders, doctors who perform abortions, claiming Obama wasn’t even a citizen, staging a riot and storming a county clerk office in 2000 to intimidate people recounting votes, making up lies about pedophilia rings to the point where someone showed up at a pizza place with a gun, etc etc
Whining about voter suppression? Honestly, you’re going to tell me that whining about that problem is worse than creating the problem (lest I remind you there’s actual settled court cases and audio of gop reps admitting to these tactics).
Both sides are horrible in this. Debating the degrees of how bad each side is just distracts from the core problem. We are lead by two corrupt parties that profit off our bitter divisions. Cable media profits when they ran the flames. Social media profits when they force engagement and fights.
Yes, Dems definitely changed things that allowed Republicans to do what they're about to do. But Republicans rationale is they are doing it because they can. Cool. So if Democrats win all 3 of the White House, the Senate, and the House they will be able to change the number because they can. Same rationale.
If you don't think they should, maybe Republicans should not do this simply because they can.
A bad example considering the last time that didn't happen was in 2016 when the Senate refused to even consider the nomination of the President. If this is the way it should have gone, then why weren't you upset at the Senate for not doing it as the Constitution states it should be done in 2016?
But I bet you are against gerrymandering though, aren't you???
Packing the court, adding phony states is just like gerrymandering……adjusting political entities to get what you want.
So if packing the court is OK and gerrymandering is not…who is the hypocrite here????
And for the record (again) Merrit Garland should have had hearings. The repubs should not have refused.
Sponsored Links |
|
Writing letters by wackos……that's the same as your "peaceful protests." Claiming BO wasn't a citizen……any business burned down over that???
How many cities had riots this year???? They were all dems.
Has there ever been violent protests over SC justices from the right like there was for Bork, Thomas, and Kava??? If so, I never saw it.
Any repubs screaming outside of dems homes, yelling at them in the streets and restaurants??? If so I've missed those.
Which party has caused cities the most $$$ this summer??? Get back to me on that one.
Voter suppression………show me. All anyone has to do is a few months before an election, call the local county election supervisor and ask "What do I have to do or need to vote in the November election?" Then when they tell you…just go do it. People too stupid to figure it out or too lazy to do it are quick to cry suppression. It only exists if you let it exist.
You're kidding right???
Can we limit this thread to just talking about RBG and have the general SC discussion in the new SC thread?
Oh, packing the court and gerrymandering are both wrong. But if one side does it, then it's OK for the other side to do it too unless both sides agree to stop and make things equal again.
And as for your admission Garland should have had a hearing. It's easy to say it should have happened when you're about to get everything you want. Your sentiment won't stop Republicans from nominating and adding a 6th Justice now despite their blatant hypocrisy.
The fact that it didn't happen is why I'm perfectly OK with adding Justices to the court by Democrats. If Republicans don't want court packing, they should probably not try to pack the court with a nominee less than 2 months from an election.
It has not changed from 9 justices in 150 years.
This is a very bad precedent to be setting and it will make things far worse than it is now.
The court has been liberal for 50 years or more and conservatives had to sit put and live with it. No one was looking for repub admins to pack the court conservative.
Some of you are apoplectic over this. Why is this change so hard for some of you to take?? What will happen with a conservative court that will change your life as you know it??? What is the big concern here???
Bolded………I said it when it occurred.
And no matter what happen with Garland and will happen with Ruthie croaking…that is not a reason to change the structure of our society and, by setting precedent, opening the door to the opposite party doing the same thing. It is a very bad idea.
Look, I know you are all PO'd over Garland not being heard and this one being pushed thru but that is how the cards fell…and this has been done numerous times in the past…numerous times. Nothing new here. But you do not change the structure of the country over something like bad luck happening to you party.
And don't forget……all of this could have been avoided if Ruthie would have simply retired during the BO admin. She was certain Hilly would win in 2016 and decided to wait a few more years. So her poor planning is really what led to all this. She could have easily retired at 82, gotten all the legal giant accolades, done some speeches and enjoyed being adored for the rest of her life. She could have picked her own replacement. But she didn't. Instead, she died as a fragile old woman with people waiting for her to kick the bucket. And no one wants to talk about this.
Sponsored Links |
|