Kevin's Watch

sgt.null wrote:peter - plus orange man bad.

I was disappointed to hear that Trump was subjected to jeering and catcalls when attending the casket of Ruth Bader Ginsberg earlier in the week. I don't think that she would have wanted this and he had as much right to express his respects as any other person with the dignity and formality which the occasion demanded.

Peter - you haven't access to American news then. Democrats have decided the best way to affect change is to throe tantrums and destroy stuff. And if they kill some cops or Trump supporters that's even better.

peter wrote:

sgt.null wrote:peter - plus orange man bad.

I was disappointed to hear that Trump was subjected to jeering and catcalls when attending the casket of Ruth Bader Ginsberg earlier in the week. I don't think that she would have wanted this and he had as much right to express his respects as any other person with the dignity and formality which the occasion demanded.

The jeering and catcalls is because Trump and the GOP are going against the final wishes of Ruth Bader Ginsburg "not to be replaced until after the election."

Trump and the GOP have basically pissed on her grave and legacy, and people are fed up with Trump and want him out of office.

That tends to happen when you go against the will of the American people in such a blatant fashion, upending decades of tradition and decorum in the process.

The government is able to rule because it has the consent of the people, which can be withdrawn. When the consent of the people is withdrawn, the government becomes illegitimate.

To be honest, with how political RBG was, especially with being openly against the Trump administration, the jeering and chants of "Vote him out!" would have made her smile and shed a tear.

Ur - please post where in the Constitution last wishes of anybody in government is. It wasn't RBG seat to bequeath. We aren't your socialist state yet. Trump is following the Constitution. Try reading it. I can link it for you if you like.

The will of the American people was a Republican president and senate. As Obama said, elections have consequences.

And then you admit RBG was naught but a partisan hack.

She could have retired and had the god-king Obama replace her. Bug her feminist needs outweighed common sense and she wanted a woman president to name a leftist female to replace her. So RBG hubris will give the courts a 6-3 conservative tilt. Good work.

Ur & WF - this is how your party attacks?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... -pick.html

Go ahead and defend this. Has your party any shame?

WF - attacking two children because they are black. If you are silent on this it makes you a racist and a coward. But we knew that about you. With a your projecting and naming everyone here what it seems you are.

Wos - are you OK with the left attacking someone because of her faith? Someone with a special needs child. Democrats would have counseled his mother to abort her child. Because Democrats are the ones behind eugenics, just like their hero Margaret Sanger who wanted to abort the black race out of existence.

Ur - you signed up for all of this. Knowing the history of the Democrats and their slavery. Indian murder, racist abortions. For what? For them to pay a school loan?

Do the Democrats pay their blood money 30 silver pieces at a time?

Doesn't matter. Peter asked if this is something RBG would have wanted and I provided a response, which you apparently weren't happy with.

Ur - you skipped the part where your new paymasters are attacking a woman for adopting children.

ur-Nanothnir wrote:The jeering and catcalls is because Trump and the GOP are going against the final wishes of Ruth Bader Ginsburg "not to be replaced until after the election."

Is there proof that that was her dying wish, or is all we have the heresay word of relatives who would be willing to lie to pursue an agenda? No proof? I did not think so.

Ginsberg's dying wish, even if true, does NOT overrule the Constitution. The Constitution says "the President shall nominate" and "the Senate shall advise and consent". I says nothing about "except in the case of the time being close to an election" or "a dying Justice wants to express a wish". Trump could have nominated someone after the election and the Senate could have rushed the confirmation before the end of the year, had they so desired.

Now...to be considerably more blunt about it...I don't give a fuck what RBG wanted. I care only about what the Constitution actually says.

As I have said, it is a shame that she died but the politicians in control of the White House and the Senate have the constitutional authority to nominate and confirm a SCOTUS Justice. You don't have to like it but you do have to live with it.

*************

I am not surprised that racist Democrats attack those innocent adoptees from Haiti. There are no depths to which they will not sink.

Incidentally, the very definition of the verb "to bork" means "to attack a political appointee in a hateful and viscious manner". It comes from Robert Bork, a Reagan nominee who received (at the time) over-the-top excoriation and being maligned by Democrat Senators such as Ted Kennedy and then-Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee--wait for it--Joe Biden.

The point is that Nano was right - it is allegedly what she said before she died.

However, in reality her wishes don’t play a role in the appointment of a successor.

That’s just a fact.

I think it is wrong to attack whatshername for any reason aamof. She seems a strongly religious person - so let’s hope that mean she has the ethical wherewithal to do what’s right and that she will serve the interests of justice and fairness.

That’s the best you can hope for.

Sky - Republicans don't attack Godless liberal justices for that lake of faith. Only democrats believe a religious litmus test should be used.

What Ur is forgetting about is article Six of the Constitution...

".. ; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

But since it involves Ur's new paymasters, he is willing to overlook it.

*bump*

I disagree. The Kavanaugh hearings saw four democrats who voted against him lose their closely contested races.

The Democratic senators who voted against Kavanaugh's confirmation then lost their seats during Tuesday's midterm elections included Sens. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, and Bill Nelson of Florida."

Let everyone see how ugly the Democrats really are.

They don't have the votes. Even losing Collins, Murkowski and Reek.
Democrats are going to grandstand. Kamala cant be bothered to meet with Barrett right now. Even though Kamala isn't doing much of anything else.

I wish they would just do and up and down vote as well. Just doubt it will happen

Ok. I dont get the political cartoon.