Jump to content
The Smoakhouse Forums

Senate confirms Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court, cements 6-3 conservative majority


Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said:

And, just to throw this in...this swearing in ceremony should be seen as the day that the GOP lost a permanent majority of the female vote forever. At least that is my feeling. 

Hopefully,  there will be a couple more days where you get your liberal feelings hurt in President Trump's second term as he replaces Breyer and possibly Sotomayor  .... maybe even Thomas ....

Edited by KirtFalcon
yo mama
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's 5 to 4.....Roberts is compromised.......and now irrelevant.......

Judge Roberts you just lost your swing vote and power

Salt mines are open fellas.  The liberal meltdowns on reddit and Twitter are GLORIOUS 

Posted Images

Just now, KirtFalcon said:

Hopefully,  there will be a couple more days where you get your liberal feelings hurt in President Trump's second term as he replaces Breyer and possibly Sotomayor  ....

Clarence Thomas will be the next to go, and Joe will even things out by choosing a Black woman with views that are polar opposite of his. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/9/2018 at 1:18 PM, LOL said:

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett

On 11/12/2018 at 9:10 AM, LOL said:

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett. 

On 1/29/2019 at 9:30 AM, LOL said:

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett. 

ezgif-7-a6fe4d74e48f.gif

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BarryLaverty said:

I wasn't aware that each Justice was supposed to be assigned a party loyalty. I always thought that they should rule based on law and jurisprudence. 

You are kidding me with this :poop: right?  The entire argument from the left is that we can't lose a liberal judge to a conservative judge.  

I agree with your statement, but the stance of the Democratic party on this nomination has everything to do with Party Loyalty and nothing to do with Constitutional Law.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BarryLaverty said:

The Supreme Court becomes not 'conservative' or 'liberal' in its leanings, but strictly partisan by party politics, then its power needs to be diminished, in my opinion. 

So taking in this method of thinking, we should dissolve the government as well?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said:

Clarence Thomas will be the next to go, and Joe will even things out by choosing a Black woman with views that are polar opposite of his. 

This one? ...

FB_IMG_1594431035121.jpg.6e389a68163109270bbf143d7b5fc3e0.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BarryLaverty said:

I wasn't aware that each Justice was supposed to be assigned a party loyalty. I always thought that they should rule based on law and jurisprudence. 

In your opinion, who was the first SCOTUS justice that was appointed for partisan purposes? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said:

choosing a Black woman

If that's the case, hopefully that's not the only qualification he uses. Now, it's different if she's qualified for the job. But just choosing a black woman because he feels like he has to is a different story.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Monte1076 said:

If that's the case, hopefully that's not the only qualification he uses. Now, it's different if she's qualified for the job. But just choosing a black woman because he feels like he has to is a different story.

The democrat party.....where they are all inclusive, except old white man Joe was REQUIRED...HAD TOO...MUST pick a VP that is a WOMEN of COLOR.......no one else apply.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, gamewatcher63 said:

The democrat party.....where they are all inclusive, except old white man Joe was REQUIRED...HAD TOO...MUST pick a VP that is a WOMEN of COLOR.......no one else apply.

Isn't that kind of funny? How the "woke" left, SJWs and some Liberals talk about "inclusion and diversity", but that doesn't really seem to include most straight white men or Conservatives? How inclusive and diverse!

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Monte1076 said:

If that's the case, hopefully that's not the only qualification he uses. Now, it's different if she's qualified for the job. But just choosing a black woman because he feels like he has to is a different story.

Why do you think Clarence Thomas was chosen? Be honest. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Unashamed said:

1603801314340.jpg

 

mental illness plays a role.  

I see Barry & Jett.  Are all the others liberal posters also?

 

😂😂🤣😂😂

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said:

I meant to be nominated as a Justice, not what happened yesterday. 

Lateral move. He was nominated after the death of Thurgood Marshall, who was also a black man. And based on Thurgood Marshall's record, he seemed eminently qualified when he was nominated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said:

Why do you think Clarence Thomas was chosen? Be honest. 

Racist.......he was chosen because he was the best candidate for the position........

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RETIREDFAN1 said:

Racist.......he was chosen because he was the best candidate for the position........

How so? He had barely a year as a judge at any level. He was chosen because he was Black, to replace Thurgood Marshall (!), and because he had 'conservative' views and was staunchly GOP. It was seen then as a deeply cynical and partisan move by Bush. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, BarryLaverty said:

How so? He had barely a year as a judge at any level. He was chosen because he was Black, to replace Thurgood Marshall (!), and because he had 'conservative' views and was staunchly GOP. It was seen then as a deeply cynical and partisan move by Bush. 

Exactly....because he was the best candidate for the position......like I said........

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BarryLaverty said:

How so? He had barely a year as a judge at any level. He was chosen because he was Black, to replace Thurgood Marshall (!), and because he had 'conservative' views and was staunchly GOP. It was seen then as a deeply cynical and partisan move by Bush. 

So a person with more experience automatically makes a better judge? 

Like a politician with 47 years in politics would make a better president than one with only 4? 

Or a teacher is better at teaching our youth because they teach at the government monopoly school? 

Hey! I see the pattern, my superior public education is paying off! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, trashyhound said:

So a person with more experience automatically makes a better judge? 

Like a politician with 47 years in politics would make a better president than one with only 4? 

Or a teacher is better at teaching our youth because they teach at the government monopoly school? 

Hey! I see the pattern, my superior public education is paying off! 

You got all those right. Good for you for a change. 
 

Hey, shouldn't a first year doctor also be better than a skilled, experienced one? 
Do you have any more of those comparisons that can fit in some more alt right jargon like 'government monopoly' school? Those are nifty. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, KirtFalcon said:

This one? ...

FB_IMG_1594431035121.jpg.6e389a68163109270bbf143d7b5fc3e0.jpg

Watch out!! This pic will get @CarthDawg77turned on!! 😱😂😁

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Hagar said:

I see Barry & Jett.  Are all the others liberal posters also?

 

😂😂🤣😂😂

🤔 Bunny...top row, 2nd from right.

🤔 Joan Jett...bottom row, 2 from left. 

🤔 Peepee...bottom row, 2nd from right. 

🤔 Bloh Bloh...bottom left corner.

It's a tossup for the rest of the snowflakes on here. 😂🤣😂

1603801314340.jpg.5b5cebc9e9e52dbe09b4af760a1e7623.jpg

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BarryLaverty said:

You got all those right. Good for you for a change. 
 

Hey, shouldn't a first year doctor also be better than a skilled, experienced one? 
Do you have any more of those comparisons that can fit in some more alt right jargon like 'government monopoly' school? Those are nifty. 

Lol, butt hurt again I see. Sorry to say you didn't get anything right. Again! 

No sir, I say it depends on the person. A new doc can be better than a doc in the business.  47 years of nothing is not better than 5 minutes and accomplishing something. Can a new teacher be better than an old one? I say yes, but according to you seniority is all that matters. 

  • Like 1
  • Roll Eyes 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...