Justice Ginsburg in the hospital twice in a fortnight

[The Black Forrest]

That would go against the site rules.



If you guessed republican, you are correct.



Mentioning him as a reference to the nuke rule sure. Mentioning about the "assassination" attempt? Not really.

I guess your friend must be an Anti Trump Republican,

He has commented on some of Trumps BS when it came to the science side of things. Overall?....he tends to be apolitical as he said it's irrelevant for his work and would get in the way of things.

[Greater Miami Shores]

I guess your friend must be an Anti Trump Republican,

He has commented on some of Trumps BS when it came to the science side of things. Overall?....he tends to be apolitical as he said it's irrelevant for his work and would get in the way of things.

Ok, according to your friend he is the way you say he is, according to your friend.

[Tarsonis]

Show the court on the doll where the 28 year old Kavenaugh hurt you.

That would go against the site rules.

I bet I can guess your friends political persuasion.

If you guessed republican, you are correct.

It's tangentially related if were talking about potential nomination shenanigans

Mentioning him as a reference to the nuke rule sure. Mentioning about the "assassination" attempt? Not really.

Assassination?

[The Black Forrest]

He has commented on some of Trumps BS when it came to the science side of things. Overall?....he tends to be apolitical as he said it's irrelevant for his work and would get in the way of things.

Ok, according to your friend he is the way you say he is, according to your friend.

Don't understand what you wrote.

[The Black Forrest]

That would go against the site rules.



If you guessed republican, you are correct.



Mentioning him as a reference to the nuke rule sure. Mentioning about the "assassination" attempt? Not really.

Assassination?

Are we being obtuse or a genuine question? Character assassination.......

[Tarsonis]

Oh like trying to replace Scalia with Garland wasn't going go dramatically shift the court to the left.

"Oh, Democrats wants to bitch about Republicans flatly denying a sitting President the ability to fill a Supreme Court vacancy for the first time in the history of the country, but they were totally planning to fill that Supreme Court seat with a nominee made by the sitting President just like every other vacancy ever! See, bothsame!"

You really got me there, bud.

You accuse the Republicans of stacking the court when that's exactly what the Democrats were doing. Garland would be fine for the like of Kenedy or Breyer. Scalia? He was the conservative anchor of the court. You can't replace him with a center leftist.

Whinge all you want about McConnel's move, but it's the kind of political move they're gonna be teaching about in polisci classes 80 years from now. It really was a brilliant political gamble.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Ok, according to your friend he is the way you say he is, according to your friend.

Don't understand what you wrote.

Your friend is a Republican, anti Kavanaugh and anti Trump and claims to be apolitical, which I doubt. But according to your friend he is apolitical.

[Tarsonis]

Assassination?

Are we being obtuse or a genuine question? Character assassination.......

Ohhhhh no I legit thought you were talking about an assassination attempt on RBG.

[The Black Forrest]

Don't understand what you wrote.

Your friend is a Republican, anti Kavanaugh and anti Trump and claims to be apolitical, which I doubt. But according to your friend he is apolitical.

That's what ever is in your head talking. I didn't say he was anti-trump. I said he has made statements of Trumps "scientific" claims. His statement of Kav doesn't make him anti-Kav. Just says he shows some classic signs such as for example the aggressive nature over questions of his drinking. As mentioned he said he would have to talk to him for an official ruling. Politics serves no purpose when working with people with addiction problems.

[The Black Forrest]

Are we being obtuse or a genuine question? Character assassination.......

Ohhhhh no I legit thought you were talking about an assassination attempt on RBG.

Ohhh No worries. What I write always seems obvious in my head.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Your friend is a Republican, anti Kavanaugh and anti Trump and claims to be apolitical, which I doubt. But according to your friend he is apolitical.

That's what ever is in your head talking. I didn't say he was anti-trump. I said he has made statements of Trumps "scientific" claims. His statement of Kav doesn't make him anti-Kav. Just says he shows some classic signs such as for example the aggressive nature over questions of his drinking. As mentioned he said he would have to talk to him for an official ruling. Politics serves no purpose when working with people with addiction problems.

I believe you about your friend being a Republican, if not I think you would not say he is. But you also said: He has commented on some of Trumps BS when it came to the science side of things. Overall?....he tends to be apolitical as he said it's irrelevant for his work and would get in the way of things. I find your friend being overall apolitical hard to believe. It is either apolitical or not. I bet your friend is an anti Trump Republican.

The Democrats tried to destroy Kavanaugh for political reasons against him. Kavanaugh showed anger which if he is innocent of the charges against him he should be angry at the Democrats. Whatever his drinking habits were when he was young are understandable at a young age. Many persons drank a lot when they were young.

[Page]

I will offer my youthful blood to be transfused into her. Hell, she can even have one of my kidneys.

[The Black Forrest]

That's what ever is in your head talking. I didn't say he was anti-trump. I said he has made statements of Trumps "scientific" claims. His statement of Kav doesn't make him anti-Kav. Just says he shows some classic signs such as for example the aggressive nature over questions of his drinking. As mentioned he said he would have to talk to him for an official ruling. Politics serves no purpose when working with people with addiction problems.

I believe you about your friend being a Republican, if not I think you would not say he is. But you also said: He has commented on some of Trumps BS when it came to the science side of things. Overall?....he tends to be apolitical as he said it's irrelevant for his work and would get in the way of things. I find your friend being overall apolitical hard to believe. It is either apolitical or not. I bet your friend is an anti Trump Republican.

Again that is whatever is in your head talking again. One of the things he mentioned was Hydroxychloroquine and shock trump made a few BS statements about it. He has made many BS statements over issues involving science. It’s not a hard thing to grasp. Saying somebody doesn’t know what they are talking in matters of science doesn’t make you anti-whoeveritis. Well.....then again maybe in your world.

As to him being apolitical or not? Do you understand the lack of value politics has when trying to help people with addiction problems?

[Greater Miami Shores]

I believe you about your friend being a Republican, if not I think you would not say he is. But you also said: He has commented on some of Trumps BS when it came to the science side of things. Overall?....he tends to be apolitical as he said it's irrelevant for his work and would get in the way of things. I find your friend being overall apolitical hard to believe. It is either apolitical or not. I bet your friend is an anti Trump Republican.

Again that is whatever is in your head talking again. One of the things he mentioned was Hydroxychloroquine and shock trump made a few BS statements about it. He has made many BS statements over issues involving science. It’s not a hard thing to grasp. Saying somebody doesn’t know what they are talking in matters of science doesn’t make you anti-whoeveritis. Well.....then again maybe in your world.

As to him being apolitical or not? Do you understand the lack of value politics has when trying to help people with addiction problems?

You left out the full quote:
The Democrats tried to destroy Kavanaugh for political reasons against him. Kavanaugh showed anger which if he is innocent of the charges against him he should be angry at the Democrats. Whatever his drinking habits were when he was young are understandable at a young age. Many persons drank a lot when they were young. My last back and forth post.

True Story, the first time I got drunk, I was 8 years old, my dad found me drinking Beer.

[The Black Forrest]

Again that is whatever is in your head talking again. One of the things he mentioned was Hydroxychloroquine and shock trump made a few BS statements about it. He has made many BS statements over issues involving science. It’s not a hard thing to grasp. Saying somebody doesn’t know what they are talking in matters of science doesn’t make you anti-whoeveritis. Well.....then again maybe in your world.

As to him being apolitical or not? Do you understand the lack of value politics has when trying to help people with addiction problems?

You left out the full quote:
The Democrats tried to destroy Kavanaugh for political reasons against him. Kavanaugh showed anger which if he is innocent of the charges against him he should be angry at the Democrats. Whatever his drinking habits were when he was young are understandable at a young age. Many persons drank a lot when they were young. My last back and forth post.

I didn’t leave it out. You modified it after I pressed quote. Your changes won’t appear in my response.

Kav was defensive over his drinking. He wasn’t simply because he drank at a younger age.. He still drinks today. He admitted to it.

The Kav affair really doesn’t pertain to RBG. As mentioned it’s valid if you mention him in the nuke option discussion since it was used for him.

[Page]

Again that is whatever is in your head talking again. One of the things he mentioned was Hydroxychloroquine and shock trump made a few BS statements about it. He has made many BS statements over issues involving science. It’s not a hard thing to grasp. Saying somebody doesn’t know what they are talking in matters of science doesn’t make you anti-whoeveritis. Well.....then again maybe in your world.

As to him being apolitical or not? Do you understand the lack of value politics has when trying to help people with addiction problems?

You left out the full quote:
The Democrats tried to destroy Kavanaugh for political reasons against him. Kavanaugh showed anger which if he is innocent of the charges against him he should be angry at the Democrats. Whatever his drinking habits were when he was young are understandable at a young age. Many persons drank a lot when they were young. My last back and forth post.

The problem isn't that he liked to drink, the problem is he committed perjury. He denied under oath ever being black out drunk while his former classmates bear witness to the fact that Kavanaugh was totally shitfaced on multiple occasions. It's the perjury that matters, not the thing that he lied about, just as it was in the case of Bill Clinton.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Raising the possibility or even moving a motion to that effect does not establish a precedent.

In legal terms Biden's speech was obiter dictum, it is not binding and does not establish a precedent. In particular, it was never moved or voted on by the Senate, which is the body you're claiming had precedent when it refused to hear Garland's case.

You're defending this idea that Biden created the precedent just by saying it, because that's what McConnell said. The man is a lying creep and you should not make a habit of defending partisan hackery from his mouth.

not legal precedent political precedent.

Precedents for Senate action are set by Senate action. Maybe if you want to stretch it, actions by the House or by State legislatures.

Biden gave a speech in the Senate. That is nowhere near enough to justify "they did it first" when it comes to acts by McConnell as Leader of the Senate.

The dog act was McConnell's not Biden's and going with McConnell's justification is childishly weak of you.

[Greed and Death]

They likely could have blocked Kavanuagh, and now with Ginsburg's replacement it will be needed more than ever.

Oh, are we pretending now that having abused the shit out of the filibuster to hold multiple judicial appointments open and outright stealing a Supreme Court seat for the first time in history, McConnell would have just quietly allowed the Democrats to stop him from filling them due to his profound sense of fair play and unshakable respect for the institutions and good functioning of government, if only Harry Reid hadn't been so mean?

The only mistake Democrats made was not doing...exactly what McConnell did and just shredding the filibuster and blue slip entirely and ramming through lifetime appointments just as quickly as they could schedule votes.

More likely the political cost of doing the opposite of what they did 4 years ago would be too costly for the other republicans to go along with it. With Kavanaugh the rape allegations would also make the costs too high.

Gorsuch was the perfect person to bait the Democrats into their final filibuster.

[Tarsonis]

You left out the full quote:
The Democrats tried to destroy Kavanaugh for political reasons against him. Kavanaugh showed anger which if he is innocent of the charges against him he should be angry at the Democrats. Whatever his drinking habits were when he was young are understandable at a young age. Many persons drank a lot when they were young. My last back and forth post.

The problem isn't that he liked to drink, the problem is he committed perjury. He denied under oath ever being black out drunk while his former classmates bear witness to the fact that Kavanaugh was totally shitfaced on multiple occasions. It's the perjury that matters, not the thing that he lied about, just as it was in the case of Bill Clinton.

Except for that one tiny problem. The question was not "have you ever gotten shit faced," the question was "have you ever been blackout drunk." which is much more specific. His peers can say what ever they want, but ultimately the only person who can tell you if he.blacked out or not is Kavenaugh.

[Greed and Death]

The problem isn't that he liked to drink, the problem is he committed perjury. He denied under oath ever being black out drunk while his former classmates bear witness to the fact that Kavanaugh was totally shitfaced on multiple occasions. It's the perjury that matters, not the thing that he lied about, just as it was in the case of Bill Clinton.

Except for that one tiny problem. The question was not "have you ever gotten shit faced," the question was "have you ever been blackout drunk." which is much more specific. His peers can say what ever they want, but ultimately the only person who can tell you if he.blacked out or not is Kavenaugh.

It is a hard question to get someone for perjury for because you generally do not remember being blackout drunk.

[Aclion]

protip: The reason democrats didn't replace Scalia is because they realized that a supreme court pick on the line would raise turnout in the election, and since democrat voters are less reliable about actually showing up, high turnout benefits them.
Republicans should ram through a pick under the same reasoning.

[Sundiata]

Her health is in my prayers.

[Tarsonis]

protip: The reason democrats didn't replace Scalia is because they realized that a supreme court pick on the line would raise turnout in the election, and since democrat voters are less reliable about actually showing up, high turnout benefits them.
Republicans should ram through a pick under the same reasoning.

.....what?

[Greed and Death]

protip: The reason democrats didn't replace Scalia is because they realized that a supreme court pick on the line would raise turnout in the election, and since democrat voters are less reliable about actually showing up, high turnout benefits them.
Republicans should ram through a pick under the same reasoning.

The democrats tried to replace Scalia. The GOP controlled Senate didn't consider him.

[Aclion]

protip: The reason democrats didn't replace Scalia is because they realized that a supreme court pick on the line would raise turnout in the election, and since democrat voters are less reliable about actually showing up, high turnout benefits them.
Republicans should ram through a pick under the same reasoning.

.....what?

Not making the pick would make the pick an election issue, which would turn out democrats who are otherwise not very motivated. Unlike the democrats in 2016 republicans don't actually gain from making the pick an election issue, their base is already chomping at the bit. therefore they should make the pick now(really as soon as a seat become open).