sackem Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 8 minutes ago, WestHardinfan1 said: screw DICK Durbin...... and the horse he rode in on. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild74 Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 She was hounded by Spartacus, who demanded to know if she had hired LGBT people to work for her. She responded, to paraphrase, that she didn’t know the sexual identity or orientation of people who worked for her. It’s unclear to me, why Spartacus was so interested in the gender identity/orientatation/LGBT status of employees of hers. And he seemed surprised she didn’t know about it. In spite of activists and militant types, there are people who are “gay” who are quietly going about their lives. Not everyone loudly broadcasts such information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannyZuco Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 Spartacus is a dip wad. Is there a law that says you have to hire so many LGBTs, or any other thing? As far as I know, you can't discriminate against them, but if you hire them, you don't have to know their sexual orientation. What a waste of oxygen Spartacus is? I doubt he will ever be hanging from a cross though. (like in the movie) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild74 Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 Should Trump Add Six Or More Seats To The Supreme Court Right Now?..../hotair.com ^ | 3/18/2019 | ED MORRISSEY Posted on 3/18/2019, 3:16:07 PM by caww Eh, why not? ...Sens. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand told POLITICO they would not rule out expanding the Supreme Court if elected president... But what if the current President plays that game first? So why wait on this terrible idea? Let’s do it now. Trump should announce that he has nominated 6 justices to the Supreme Court to expand it to 15 seats. With a 53-seat majority in the Senate, Mitch McConnell could get them all confirmed by the end of the summer at the latest....After all, the best defense is a good offense, right? Thanks to several Democrats who ought to know better, it’s now being seen as a legitimate move. If Trump tries it, Congress would move heaven and earth to block him from succeeding at his court-packing plan, and that would be a bipartisan effort...but this would generation an outrage of an order of multitude higher. Legislation to limit the Supreme Court to nine seats might even pass on unanimous votes, or at least far more than would be needed for a veto override. That assumes that Trump would veto such a bill. He’d get exactly what he wants — a way to make sure that the current composition of the court endures, plus a strengthening of an institutional norm as his legacy. At the very least, it would expose his potential 2020 challengers as the idiots and blowhards they are for floating this idea in the first place, and that is in itself priceless (Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. P Posted March 18, 2019 Share Posted March 18, 2019 He should mention that he's considering it, let the media go ape#### over it... then he should come back and say it's a terrible idea, let the media go ape#### over it, then say he's changed his mind... etc. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild74 Posted May 29, 2019 Share Posted May 29, 2019 McConnell says Republicans would fill 2020 Supreme Court vacancy The Hill ^ | May 28, 2019 Posted on 5/28/2019, 7:59:24 PM by SMGFan Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Tuesday that Republicans would fill a Supreme Court vacancy even if it occurs during the 2020 presidential election. McConnell was asked by an attendee during a speech at the Paducah Chamber luncheon in Kentucky what his position would be on filling a Supreme Court seat during 2020 if a justice died. "Oh, we'd fill it," McConnell said to laughter from the audience. The Senate GOP leader has viewed confirming judicial nominees as his top priority and the party's best chance at having a long-term impact given the divided Congress. McConnell used his official launch video for his 2020 Senate reelection campaign to highlight his work on helping confirm President Trump's two Supreme Court nominees, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch (Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild74 Posted May 29, 2019 Share Posted May 29, 2019 37 minutes ago, btex said: Not a shocker, he is one of the most partisan politicians in DC They are all partisan and I would ram the nominee down the dimwits throats as hard as I could 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild74 Posted May 29, 2019 Share Posted May 29, 2019 Good deal Mitch after the way the dimwits treated Kavanaugh you are doing the right thing to the reprobate party Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNameIsDalton Posted May 29, 2019 Share Posted May 29, 2019 Of course he is. Why wouldn’t he? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAWG91 Posted May 29, 2019 Share Posted May 29, 2019 This isn't news. Just a continuation of a 100+ year old senate tradition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAWG91 Posted May 29, 2019 Share Posted May 29, 2019 3 hours ago, ScreamingEagle said: The hypocritical turtle strikes again. Wrong. Im no fan of this man. Not at all. But on this issue, he's been consistent. When a lame duck potus has a senate controlled by the OPPOSITION party during an election year, the senate doesnt confirm scotus judges. Trump is a Republican. The senate is controlled by Republicans. And last but not least, Trump will not be a lame duck until the 2024 election. There you have it. It's not complicated. This is so sad you guys have to stoop to such low levels to try and score political points i kinda feel sorry for you, kinda, not really. Desperation aint pretty. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNameIsDalton Posted May 29, 2019 Share Posted May 29, 2019 2 hours ago, DAWG91 said: Wrong. Im no fan of this man. Not at all. But on this issue, he's been consistent. When a lame duck potus has a senate controlled by the OPPOSITION party during an election year, the senate doesnt confirm scotus judges. Trump is a Republican. The senate is controlled by Republicans. And last but not least, Trump will not be a lame duck until the 2024 election. There you have it. It's not complicated. This is so sad you guys have to stoop to such low levels to try and score political points i kinda feel sorry for you, kinda, not really. Desperation aint pretty. Thats all I’ve seen from the left on here or otherwise. Desperation. They had such high hopes for Mueller, the FBI, and all the people that ended up getting in trouble for tax issues. Lol. Its got to be a punch in the gut. Their best shot in 2020 is gay judge, an idiotic woman, a self proclaimed socialist, and dang near 80 year old man who has been in government since Carter. Christ that party needs a hero Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild74 Posted June 10, 2019 Share Posted June 10, 2019 Justices reject challenge to 'In God We Trust' on U.S. money 6/10/2019, 9:58:31 AM · by jazusamo · 29 replies The Washington Times ^ | June 10, 2019 | Alex Swoyer The Supreme Court rejected a case Monday brought by an atheist who wanted to scrub “In God We Trust,” the U.S. motto, from the nation’s currency, claiming it was an entanglement of state and religion. Michael Newdow, an activist who previous challenged reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in schools, had set his sights on money, but lost at the district, circuit and now Supreme Court levels. On behalf of a group of atheists, Mr. Newdow argued America’s money lacked an reference to God until 1864, when it was added in. He said that amounted to an endorsement of religion. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarthDawg77 Posted June 10, 2019 Share Posted June 10, 2019 3 minutes ago, Wild74 said: Justices reject challenge to 'In God We Trust' on U.S. money 6/10/2019, 9:58:31 AM · by jazusamo · 29 replies The Washington Times ^ | June 10, 2019 | Alex Swoyer The Supreme Court rejected a case Monday brought by an atheist who wanted to scrub “In God We Trust,” the U.S. motto, from the nation’s currency, claiming it was an entanglement of state and religion. Michael Newdow, an activist who previous challenged reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in schools, had set his sights on money, but lost at the district, circuit and now Supreme Court levels. On behalf of a group of atheists, Mr. Newdow argued America’s money lacked an reference to God until 1864, when it was added in. He said that amounted to an endorsement of religion. He can send all of his offensive money to me if he doesn’t like it! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild74 Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 FOX NEWS FLASH Published 36 mins ago Washington Post op-ed warns of 'radical-right' Supreme Court blocking progressive action By David Montanaro | Fox News Facebook Twitter Flipboard Comments Print Email Washington Post op-ed warns of consequences of 'radical-right' Supreme Court A new Washington Post op-ed is questioning the role of conservative justices on the Supreme Court, warning of barriers being created that 'prevent progressive political action.' Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano responds. A Washington Post op-ed is warning about the Supreme Court turning into a "radical right" body, threatening progressive causes. "Are we ready for a constitutional order in which the Supreme Court no longer stands for equality and progress -- or no longer is merely indifferent to those aims, as it has been more recently -- but becomes a bulwark of retrogression and reversal? That was the Supreme Court of 100 years ago, and it could be back sooner than any of us ever believed," wrote Ron Klain, a former senior aide to former Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. Klain noted that voters who felt the court was the most important issue in 2016 supported President Trump by a margin of 3 to 2, questioning whether the "next decade could feature a radical-right court that would not only narrow past gains but also erect barriers to prevent progressive political action." He asked whether liberals will realize the importance of the 2020 presidential election to the makeup of the court or if it's "already too late." WATCH: JON STEWART CALLS OUT LAWMAKERS OVER 9/11 VICTIMS' COMPENSATION FUND IN EMOTIONAL HOUSE TESTIMONY Video RUTH BADER GINSBURG MAKES PUBLIC APPEARANCE, FIRST SINCE SURGERY Responding on "Fox & Friends" Thursday, Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano said "elections have consequences" and President Trump nominated the type of "traditionalist" justices he promised during his campaign. He also pointed out Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's recent comments about the court's "sharp divisions" and her anticipation of a slew of close decisions. CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP "Translation: expect a lot of 5-to-4 decisions on the next two Mondays with Justice Ginsburg dissenting," Napolitano predicted. He said the fear from liberals about the court boils down to the potential overturning of Roe v. Wade, which he called the "most abominable decision since Dred Scott v. Sandford." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild74 Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 The writer who is obviously a left wing hack progressive socialist seems to think that interpreting the constitution is a bad thing, verses making laws like sodomite marriage and abortion is a good thing that good little progressive do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 They’re basing all that on Roberts siding against the Libs. I wish I had that much faith in Roberts vote. Since he had the opportunity to stop Obamacare, but didn’t, I’ve lost all respect for him. Just another RINO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild74 Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 20 minutes ago, Hagar said: They’re basing all that on Roberts siding against the Libs. I wish I had that much faith in Roberts vote. Since he had the opportunity to stop Obamacare, but didn’t, I’ve lost all respect for him. Just another RINO. Funny and not so funny Kennedy done us in on sodomite marriage and Roberts on Obama Care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 2 hours ago, Wild74 said: Funny and not so funny Kennedy done us in on sodomite marriage and Roberts on Obama Care. Kennedy was ostensibly a moderate. Roberts was allegedly a conservative. If Trump wants a conservative on the Court, he’ll nominate me, you, WH1, CarthDawg or Trublue. Doing right ain’t got no end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarthDawg77 Posted June 19, 2019 Share Posted June 19, 2019 https://www.foxnews.com/politics/second-house-democrat-staffer-charged-in-scheme-to-doxx-republicans-amid-kavanaugh-confirmation-fight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild74 Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 Conservative Supreme Court justices reverse precedent on property rights cases The Hill ^ | June 21, 2019 Posted on 6/21/2019, 10:05:39 AM by SMGFan The Supreme Court on Friday ruled 5-4 to overturn a decades-old precedent on property rights, a decision that marks a victory for conservatives. The previous 1985 ruling that found that an individual whose property is taken by a local government cannot file a federal suit under the Fifth Amendment until that challenge fails in state court. But on Friday the justices ruled along ideological lines to reverse that precedent, finding that the requirement “imposes an unjustifiable burden,” conflicts with other similar rulings and “must be overruled.” “A property owner has an actionable Fifth Amendment takings claim when the government takes his property without paying for it,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “That does not mean that the government must provide compensation in advance of a taking or risk having its action invalidated: So long as the property owner has some way to obtain compensation after the fact, governments need not fear that courts will enjoin their activities,” Roberts continued. But it does mean that the property owner has suffered a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights when the government takes his property without just compensation, and there may bring his claim in federal court.” Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh joined Roberts on the majority decision. Justices Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor – the liberal members of the court – dissented. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KirtFalcon Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 Great ruling ... we need a couple of more conservative justices to replace libtards to really swing the court back to normal .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte1076 Posted June 21, 2019 Share Posted June 21, 2019 I'd have to read the full decision, but I would hope that there is a provision in there that allows for "full market value" (or maybe even higher) for any property affected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild74 Posted June 24, 2019 Share Posted June 24, 2019 https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/partisan-gerrymandering-supreme-court-cases-maryland-north-carolina/ They are looking at GOP gerrymandering but California is a bastion of dimwit gerrymandering Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild74 Posted June 27, 2019 Share Posted June 27, 2019 https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-says-gerrymandering-claims-beyond-reach-of-federal-courts A victory for the states Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now