Skip to content

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Champion Of Gender Equality, Dies At 87

Political Discussion
115 15 1.4k
  • 119670844_10159883715116336_5681566068703881383_n.png?_nc_cat=1&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=4ayxZdwXvWEAX9iqsul&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=b566ba6dedddc376db3a52b9e498a079&oe=5F8DFF37

  • @diehardbrownsfan said:

    119670844_10159883715116336_5681566068703881383_n.png?_nc_cat=1&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=4ayxZdwXvWEAX9iqsul&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-2.xx&oh=b566ba6dedddc376db3a52b9e498a079&oe=5F8DFF37

    EXACTLY.

       btw, this "can't have a litmus test" is crap. You think obaMao didn't have a litmus test on his picks? hell yes he did.

    but the left demands "no litmus" test on their candidates. But you let a conservative originalist be appointed.

    all "litmus test" hell breaks loose.

    hell with that crap.

    https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/ready-horowitz-no-more-stealth-nominees-use-the-conservative-litmus-test-on-scotus-candidates

  • and so it goes - the attacks on Amy Barrett has started.

    https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2020/09/21/the-attacks-on-amy-coney-barrett-have-begun/

  • You fell for the con cal.

    Plain and simple

  • You fell for the con cal.

    Plain and simple

    @mld-woody said:

    You fell for the con cal.

    Plain and simple

    Says the Biden voter. Please.

    WSS

  • no con.

    The results are outstanding - the list of good/great things

    the Trump Admin has accomplished FOR AMERICA FIRST,

    are in the hundreds.

    Let us know when YOU can name just one thing obaMao/biden accomplished FOR AMERICA in eight years, woodpecker.

    we'll wait.

  • hey, get this:

    Joe Biden in 1992: No nominations to the Supreme Court in ...

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/joe-biden...

    Feb 23, 2016 · On the Senate floor on June 25, 1992, then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) urged President George H. W. Bush not to name a nominee to the Supreme Court until after the November election.

  • guess what? LOL

    Schumer in 2007: Don't confirm any Bush Supreme Court nominee

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/schumer-in-2007...

    Feb 15, 2016 · Chuck Schumer said in July 2007 that no George W. Bush nominee to the Supreme Court should be approved, except in extraordinary circumstances, 19 months before a new president was set to be...

  • @mld-woody said:

    You fell for the con cal.

    Plain and simple

    Says the Biden voter. Please.

    WSS

    @westside-steve said:

    Says the Biden voter. Please.

    WSS

    Ha ha ha

    That lazy troll attempt was lazy

    When I get remotely close to Cal and others in the blind, ignorant and embarrassing support of a shit candidate please let me know

  • Cal you can't even name one thing Trump has actually done that's positive

  • opposite parties, of course.

    and obamao was a lame duck pres.

    lefties don't go by the actual definitions of words because it

    doesn't fit their twisted emotional knee jerk narrative.

    So, they just use words incorrectly, as if they had different meanings.

  • Cal you can't even name one thing Trump has actually done that's positive

    @mld-woody said:

    Cal you can't even name one thing Trump has actually done that's positive

    you first. go ahead, we'll wait.

  • @westside-steve said:

    Says the Biden voter. Please.

    WSS

    Ha ha ha

    That lazy troll attempt was lazy

    When I get remotely close to Cal and others in the blind, ignorant and embarrassing support of a shit candidate please let me know

    @mld-woody said:

    Ha ha ha

    That lazy troll attempt was lazy

    When I get remotely close to Cal and others in the blind, ignorant and embarrassing support of a shit candidate please let me know

    So you never stated you were voting for Biden?

    (Not that I wholly trust word that comes out of your beak but...)

    And frankly as bombastic as Cal can be I think you're possibly worse because at least he looks up some of this shit and for much of the time your only opinion is whatever you think will piss him off.

    So did you or didn't you say you were voting Biden? You could probably lie and no one would ever know the difference.

    WSS

  • @mld-woody said:

    Ha ha ha

    That lazy troll attempt was lazy

    When I get remotely close to Cal and others in the blind, ignorant and embarrassing support of a shit candidate please let me know

    So you never stated you were voting for Biden?

    (Not that I wholly trust word that comes out of your beak but...)

    And frankly as bombastic as Cal can be I think you're possibly worse because at least he looks up some of this shit and for much of the time your only opinion is whatever you think will piss him off.

    So did you or didn't you say you were voting Biden? You could probably lie and no one would ever know the difference.

    WSS

    @westside-steve said:

    So you never stated you were voting for Biden?

    (Not that I wholly trust word that comes out of your beak but...)

    And frankly as bombastic as Cal can be I think you're possibly worse because at least he looks up some of this shit and for much of the time your only opinion is whatever you think will piss him off.

    So did you or didn't you say you were voting Biden? You could probably lie and no one would ever know the difference.

    WSS

    - It wouldn't matter if you trust what I say or not, you're just going to make up something to make like you feel you've "won" a back and forth... every... time...

    - Cal doesn't look up anything haha. He just vomits up whatever the Blaze tells him to be afraid of or be angry at next. If you think he is putting any ounce of research or thought into that than geeez. No idea how anyone could realistically think that. I know you're going to irrationally support the little guy at every turn, but let's keep it realistic. 

    - If you think I'm basing my political beliefs on what pisses Cal or anyone else off here then you aren't very bright. I know most here will just blindly follow the letter R ... but not everyone puts that little thought behind their political beliefs. 

    Yes, I'm most likely voting for Biden. You're missing the point completely though if that is what you're harping on. You know exactly what you're doing here, it goes hand and hand with putting words in people's mouths. Or maybe I'm giving you too much credit? Entirely possible. 

  • @westside-steve said:

    So you never stated you were voting for Biden?

    (Not that I wholly trust word that comes out of your beak but...)

    And frankly as bombastic as Cal can be I think you're possibly worse because at least he looks up some of this shit and for much of the time your only opinion is whatever you think will piss him off.

    So did you or didn't you say you were voting Biden? You could probably lie and no one would ever know the difference.

    WSS

    - It wouldn't matter if you trust what I say or not, you're just going to make up something to make like you feel you've "won" a back and forth... every... time...

    - Cal doesn't look up anything haha. He just vomits up whatever the Blaze tells him to be afraid of or be angry at next. If you think he is putting any ounce of research or thought into that than geeez. No idea how anyone could realistically think that. I know you're going to irrationally support the little guy at every turn, but let's keep it realistic. 

    - If you think I'm basing my political beliefs on what pisses Cal or anyone else off here then you aren't very bright. I know most here will just blindly follow the letter R ... but not everyone puts that little thought behind their political beliefs. 

    Yes, I'm most likely voting for Biden. You're missing the point completely though if that is what you're harping on. You know exactly what you're doing here, it goes hand and hand with putting words in people's mouths. Or maybe I'm giving you too much credit? Entirely possible. 

    @mld-woody said:

    - It wouldn't matter if you trust what I say or not, you're just going to make up something to make like you feel you've "won" a back and forth... every... time...

    - Cal doesn't look up anything haha. He just vomits up whatever the Blaze tells him to be afraid of or be angry at next. If you think he is putting any ounce of research or thought into that than geeez. No idea how anyone could realistically think that. I know you're going to irrationally support the little guy at every turn, but let's keep it realistic. 

    - If you think I'm basing my political beliefs on what pisses Cal or anyone else off here then you aren't very bright. I know most here will just blindly follow the letter R ... but not everyone puts that little thought behind their political beliefs. 

    Yes, I'm most likely voting for Biden. You're missing the point completely though if that is what you're harping on. You know exactly what you're doing

    here, it goes hand and hand with putting words in people's mouths. Or maybe I'm giving you too much credit? Entirely possible. 

    image.thumb.png.c9ad73ffc11f9fd364c4b836e7c3e5b4.png

    2020-09-21_220638.jpg.cbd9974423d3a612859afa5859f0de52.jpg

  • back when Graham had something resembling a spine

    back  before Trump whipped the entire party (and it's followers)

  • https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2020/09/21/new-rnc-ad-democrats-endorsing-scotus-appointment-2016/

    A great, effective ad … but. The RNC takes us on a trip down Memory Lane to 2016, when Senate Democrats along with Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi lectured America on the necessity — nay, the constitutional mandate — to immediately fill Supreme Court vacancies. Can’t wait for the DNC’s response video about what Republicans were saying at the same time, though:

    See Also: Study: People do hide their true feelings about some things from pollsters — but not about Trump

    Not long ago, Joe Biden said that “the American people deserve a fully-staffed court of nine.”

    We agree.

    Fill the seat! pic.twitter.com/K8GpnAMEly

    — Ronna McDaniel (@GOPChairwoman) September 21, 2020

    The double inclusion of the same Joe Biden clip, declaring in 2016 that “the American people deserve a fully staffed court of nine,” is no accident. (Neither is the more recent clip of Kamala Harris.) The Trump campaign and the RNC plan to shove those words down the throats of Democrats and the media, probably every day. Here’s Kayleigh McEnany, telling CBS This Morning host Gayle King earlier today that she should ask Biden about his principles on filling Supreme Court vacancies:

    President Trump says he will soon nominate a justice to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.

    White House @PressSec @KayleighMcEnany joins us with details on the president's timeline, and what she says the president is looking for in a nominee. pic.twitter.com/3nPk4tCJez

  • back when Graham had something resembling a spine

    back  before Trump whipped the entire party (and it's followers)

    @mld-woody said:

    back when Graham had something resembling a spine

    back  before Trump whipped the entire party (and it's followers)

    Haha, he "had a spine" because he said something that was wrong with a ton of confidence.

    Reminds me of the typical dem. Most democrats have spines if you want to look at it that way.

  • President Trump will fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court