SCOTUS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW, if Obama's nominee did not deserve a vote because it was three years since Obama had won his last election, shouldn't we wait for a president with a clear mandate, rather than one who lost the popular vote by millions and only got in because of about 100,000 votes in MI, PA, and WI?

Makes sense to me.

Obama lost the popular vote against Clinton in the 2008 Dem party. I guess we need to retroactively vacate all his judiciary appointments.

[Anonymous]

I think that as Zika sweeps through the US, the pro-life sentiment will abate. Always easy to try to choose for someelse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, please keep in mind that many of us voted for Trump with exactly this knowledge. HRC appointing justices would have been a true disaster for this country, one from which we may not have recovered.

Yeah it would have been very hard for you to recover from women keeping reproductive rights

It's the children who are being murdered that I'm more concerned about. You know, those little women-to-be who are killed before they ever have the opportunity to express an opinion about these "rights."

+1.

Idiots. What have you done to help unwanted children? Do you complain about the death penalty? Or those people are not as important as the children you do not see?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW, if Obama's nominee did not deserve a vote because it was three years since Obama had won his last election, shouldn't we wait for a president with a clear mandate, rather than one who lost the popular vote by millions and only got in because of about 100,000 votes in MI, PA, and WI?

Makes sense to me.

Obama lost the popular vote against Clinton in the 2008 Dem party. I guess we need to retroactively vacate all his judiciary appointments.

Primaries are not the equivalent of a general election. Primaries are about parties and those are private. Parties can do what they want, and if members don't like it they can leave and start another party or organize and put new leadership in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTW, if Obama's nominee did not deserve a vote because it was three years since Obama had won his last election, shouldn't we wait for a president with a clear mandate, rather than one who lost the popular vote by millions and only got in because of about 100,000 votes in MI, PA, and WI?

Makes sense to me.

Obama lost the popular vote against Clinton in the 2008 Dem party. I guess we need to retroactively vacate all his judiciary appointments.

Primaries are not the equivalent of a general election. Primaries are about parties and those are private. Parties can do what they want, and if members don't like it they can leave and start another party or organize and put new leadership in.

Aside from primaries not being at all parallel, the primaries are a mixed bag, some being caucuses and some being popular vote, some being only Dems and some being open. Added to all that, it is apparently not at all clear who won the popular vote; it depends how you count: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

In any case, I don't really expect the Dems to block votes on all Trump's nominees. Some may be so far-fetched that a few Republicans will join Dems in voting them down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although I agree with you in concept, OP, Trump is a one-term president. He is already 70 himself.

Replacing Scalia should happen immediately, if not 9 months ago. Replacing the others will probably happen sometime in the next 3 years. The Republicans started a dumb precedent, though, of writing off the last year of the president's term.

And, to be contrarian, "liberal" or "conservative" picks rarely work out as intended. Pick a wise justice and leave the rest up to them.

This is so true. Many Presidents have seen justices rule in ways the Prez never imagined. Chief Justice Roberts on the ACA is an example.

Brennan is a better example. Appointed by a Republican as a "conservative" jurist. LOL

You have your history wrong on Brennan. Look it up. Eisenhower appointed Brennan, a Catholic Democrat, for political reasons, but never thought he was conservative. This was before the SC itself was as political as it is today -- another nasty legacy of Roe v Wade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although I agree with you in concept, OP, Trump is a one-term president. He is already 70 himself.

Replacing Scalia should happen immediately, if not 9 months ago. Replacing the others will probably happen sometime in the next 3 years. The Republicans started a dumb precedent, though, of writing off the last year of the president's term.

And, to be contrarian, "liberal" or "conservative" picks rarely work out as intended. Pick a wise justice and leave the rest up to them.

This is so true. Many Presidents have seen justices rule in ways the Prez never imagined. Chief Justice Roberts on the ACA is an example.

Brennan is a better example. Appointed by a Republican as a "conservative" jurist. LOL

You have your history wrong on Brennan. Look it up. Eisenhower appointed Brennan, a Catholic Democrat, for political reasons, but never thought he was conservative. This was before the SC itself was as political as it is today -- another nasty legacy of Roe v Wade.

How about Bush v. Gore?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, please keep in mind that many of us voted for Trump with exactly this knowledge. HRC appointing justices would have been a true disaster for this country, one from which we may not have recovered.

Yeah it would have been very hard for you to recover from women keeping reproductive rights

It's the children who are being murdered that I'm more concerned about. You know, those little women-to-be who are killed before they ever have the opportunity to express an opinion about these "rights."

+1.

Idiots. What have you done to help unwanted children? Do you complain about the death penalty? Or those people are not as important as the children you do not see?

A true liberal protests against killing murders and protests for killing babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BTW, if Obama's nominee did not deserve a vote because it was three years since Obama had won his last election, shouldn't we wait for a president with a clear mandate, rather than one who lost the popular vote by millions and only got in because of about 100,000 votes in MI, PA, and WI?

Obama didn't want to compromise by nominating someone more to the Senate's liking and got his ass handed to him. Trump isn't going to nominate anyone that the Senate doesn't like.

Do you see the difference, or are you really that stupid?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that as Zika sweeps through the US, the pro-life sentiment will abate. Always easy to try to choose for someelse.

This. All those microcephalic babies that the moms would be forced to give birth to would lead such amazing lives. Evangelicals are lunatics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, please keep in mind that many of us voted for Trump with exactly this knowledge. HRC appointing justices would have been a true disaster for this country, one from which we may not have recovered.

Yeah it would have been very hard for you to recover from women keeping reproductive rights

It's the children who are being murdered that I'm more concerned about. You know, those little women-to-be who are killed before they ever have the opportunity to express an opinion about these "rights."

"Children"are not being murdered, idiot.

Really? Children aren't being murdered? Explain this:

[Anonymous]

Even if that photo were real and not a fake, that's still not a child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even if that photo were real and not a fake, that's still not a child.

It's real.

If it's not a child, what is it?

[Anonymous]

The US Supreme Court has greatly exceeded its constitutional authority. We must demand that our congressmen commence to impeaching activist justices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even if that photo were real and not a fake, that's still not a child.

Google Images; "Partial birth abortion," where you'll find US sanctioned genocide of children.

Abortionists make Hitler look like a choir boy.