Biden the village idiot

[Guest]

I am fine with letting it play out as well...number one issue will always remain the economy...and there are laws against protesting a SC justice...but then again libbies don't much care for laws...

Well, keep in mind you are a male and a conservative.

if you weren’t an incel, your significant other might have a different take

:)

good luck with that. My con cousin’s wife’s swing vote in a swing state (NC) goes Dem this year unequivocally since she has 3 daughter’s, 18 through 26, and they live in a swing state.

she voted Bush twice, Obama once, romney once, trump once and Biden ….

there is a senate seat in NC Dems can flip

<golf clap> for cons

[Guest]

Why are there laws against protesting against the Master’s of Gilead, but 1st amendment applies everywhere else?

See how easy it will be to argue that the SC in its current form is archaic and needs either reform or expansion?

But that comes later. Right now a supermajority doesn’t want Roe touched, so if it turns out that Alito’s draft prevails we shall certainly see how it plays out.

The court bought and paid for by the Federalist Society was always going to do this eventually, so please know how much I appreciate them handing this down this summer, months before an election, especially given how the red states are licking their chops and making threats ….

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...ck-the-courts/

SCOTUS members are appointed by vote of the Legislative Braanch, after having been nominated by the Executive Branch. Indeed, there isn’t even a requirement that to be a Lawyers to e a Justice on the SCOTUS.That and the factt that they are life long terms strongly indicates the Framers intent to keep Politics out of the decisions of the SCOTUS. What parties want, whaat the majority of citizens think should be done are not heavily weighted involving the criteria by SCOTUS. And therefore, there isn’t any reason to protest. Their decisions are solely based on the Law, and the application to concerns and questions regarding adhering to the Constitution.

progressives simply are ignorant and rebellious to a system that has worked for hundreds of years . All because it doesn’t fit their ideology. Too bad. Pass a Constitutional Amendment ,that’s the clear solution right in front of their eyes.

[Guest]

Asked on Monday whether the White House could make public the models that the administration has consulted, press secretary Jen Psaki said: "I'm happy to see if there's more specific data we can make available. But what I can assure you of is that Dr. Jha is a very experienced public health expert. He talks to a range of officials internally and externally. And that's what he's basing it on."

Party of science.......this guy made a number up to scare people so Biden can get more covid funds and use the proceeds for social justice programs

[Guest]

SCOTUS members are appointed by vote of the Legislative Braanch, after having been nominated by the Executive Branch. Indeed, there isn’t even a requirement that to be a Lawyers to e a Justice on the SCOTUS.That and the factt that they are life long terms strongly indicates the Framers intent to keep Politics out of the decisions of the SCOTUS. What parties want, whaat the majority of citizens think should be done are not heavily weighted involving the criteria by SCOTUS. And therefore, there isn’t any reason to protest. Their decisions are solely based on the Law, and the application to concerns and questions regarding adhering to the Constitution.

progressives simply are ignorant and rebellious to a system that has worked for hundreds of years . All because it doesn’t fit their ideology. Too bad. Pass a Constitutional Amendment ,that’s the clear solution right in front of their eyes.

Biden said democrats control all three branches of government last night....funny that he thinks he controls judicial and shocking since he has been going around town saying democrats dont control the senate, even though they do. Perhaps he counts manchin as a DINO

[Guest]

SCOTUS members are appointed by vote of the Legislative Braanch, after having been nominated by the Executive Branch.

Which is EXACTLY what the Justice nominations and confirmations are treated like political footballs.

Thank you for explaining to the readers why this must change. I couldn’t have been as succinct myself. :)

Indeed, there isn’t even a requirement that to be a Lawyers to e a Justice on the SCOTUS.

irrelevant completely to the point at hand since that doesn’t lead to the conclusion you made

That and the factt that they are life long terms strongly indicates the Framers intent to keep Politics out of the decisions of the SCOTUS.

Then the framers screwed up since the SC, as you explained, is chosen by the most extremely POLITICAL people in the land.

You already made that point for me above. So you really can’t argue that the SC “represents” the public the way you claim the framers wanted.

example. 98+ % of all the people (POTUS plus 100 senators) are all dues paying, card carrying members of one of only two major political parties in this country.

How many registered independents are there ? How many disgusted non voters are there who abandoned partisan politics but still want reproductive rights ? You going to tell them it’s through political engagement that they can get the SC taking care of them? Isn’t that opposite of what you are claiming ?

What parties want, whaat the majority of citizens think should be done are not heavily weighted involving the criteria by SCOTUS.

I honestly have no earthly idea what ^^^^ means you will have to explain further

And therefore, there isn’t any reason to protest.

Translation of ^^^^ : you are uncomfortable that others feel there is and are you exercising their 1st amendment rights to peaceful protest.

you think only you have a god given, I mean constitutional, right to free speech? Think again.

Their decisions are solely based on the Law,

if that were true, they wouldn’t take months to secretly circulate drafts and horse trade.

like when the Chief Justice changed his vote on obamacare at last minute after voting differently after oral argument.

Which LAW (there must be at LEAST two based on your “take” ) was he SOLELY basing that on, huh?

#tooeasy

and the application to concerns and questions regarding adhering to the Constitution.

but again, the vote on Roe was 7-2 and it was a CONSERVATIVE majority court. Wasn’t that SC decision solely based in law too, consistent with your assertion above ?

please explain your way out of this MESS!

progressives simply are ignorant and rebellious to a system that has worked for hundreds of years . All because it doesn’t fit their ideology. Too bad. Pass a Constitutional Amendment ,that’s the clear solution right in front of their eyes.

^^^^ same tired blah blah woof woof .

constitutional amendment not required ! Simple up or down vote in Congress and a sig by potus and voila !

unless, of course, it gets reversed AGAIN by SC because now that this court has thrown stare decisis out the window !

Whee!

huge slide in public confidence in SC from Ginsburg to Barrett !

read all about it !

https://news.yahoo.com/poll-confiden...122402500.html

Yep. Gonna be an appetite to do something about this among the supermajority who support roe

[Guest]

Cubans on boats are turned away, but you can pay a smuggler and viola......you are in America and just have to wait a year and you can become a citizen. Damn....Biden making this easy for the smugglers to make a profit, rape some girls, etc...I am sure they will show up to their asylum hearing though......not!

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/12/ameri...tam/index.html

[Guest]

You are simply beyond understanding how our Government works.
I’ll try one more time but I have my doubts.
Everything that passes through Congress is a “ political football”. That’s the sytem. Opposing views, debate, consensus , compromise. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t; The underlying reality is that the people are heard. The choosing of a SCOTUS follows the same path.

To ensure that the people would have representation in the Government, one of the branches without legal requirements, allows the common man to potentially have a voice. Just a a President of the United Sates could be an ordinary citizen , not even having to have taken part in an election. All part of the brilliance of the Framers.

SCOTUS hasn’t screwed up, and isn’t screed up. Political Parties are not part of the Constitution, the Three Branches of Government are.They still stand.Their purpose and role is intact.

SCOTUS interprets and rules on Laws as they apply to the US Constitution. They hear the arguments if citizens have the desire to challenge them for their adherence to the Constitution.

Protesting against the decisions of the SCOTUS is fruitless and silly. There are Courts of Law to present your grievances with their decisions. That is the traditional and proper place for those grievances to be heard. That’s where your First Amendment Rights apply. Just like Laws prevent you from yelling “ Fire” in a crowded theatre , Laws prevent the threatening and intimidation of Justices.

[Guest]

You are simply beyond understanding how our Government works.
I’ll try one more time but I have my doubts.
Everything that passes through Congress is a “ political football”. That’s the sytem. Opposing views, debate, consensus , compromise. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t; The underlying reality is that the people are heard. The choosing of a SCOTUS follows the same path.

To ensure that the people would have representation in the Government, one of the branches without legal requirements, allows the common man to potentially have a voice. Just a a President of the United Sates could be an ordinary citizen , not even having to have taken part in an election. All part of the brilliance of the Framers.

SCOTUS hasn’t screwed up, and isn’t screed up. Political Parties are not part of the Constitution, the Three Branches of Government are.They still stand.Their purpose and role is intact.

SCOTUS interprets and rules on Laws as they apply to the US Constitution. They hear the arguments if citizens have the desire to challenge them for their adherence to the Constitution.

Protesting against the decisions of the SCOTUS is fruitless and silly. There are Courts of Law to present your grievances with their decisions. That is the traditional and proper place for those grievances to be heard. That’s where your First Amendment Rights apply. Just like Laws prevent you from yelling “ Fire” in a crowded theatre , Laws prevent the threatening and intimidation of Justices.

Well look at the con! Bleating about this again?

Look at the great defender of the first amendment! Con has no problem that the SC allowed anti-abortion protestors to get right in the face of clients of clinics, for example. That was fine but now you poosy Republicans are blubbering about “special laws” to deprive us of free speech.

I guess you think Biden’s DOJ is going to roll up the protestors outside Kavanaugh’s house ?

beahahahahah

Glenn Youngkin …he’s a con right ? He’s wildly unpopular already. That’s why he hasn’t and won’t send in state police.

poor con.

Cry some more.

gonna be a huge appetite to expand the court ! They are hated ! Their favorability has tanked since Ginsburg died and the Gilead Queen came on.

well done cons <golf clap>

[Guest]

Well, keep in mind you are a male and a conservative.

if you weren’t an incel, your significant other might have a different take

:)

good luck with that. My con cousin’s wife’s swing vote in a swing state (NC) goes Dem this year unequivocally since she has 3 daughter’s, 18 through 26, and they live in a swing state.

she voted Bush twice, Obama once, romney once, trump once and Biden ….

there is a senate seat in NC Dems can flip

<golf clap> for cons

no worries...your wife is quite satisfied...as soon as the furor dies down and people see through the libby lies about the consequences of the SCOTUS decision whatever it may be the economy will still be number one...maybe her reprobate daughters will need formula at that point and she'll change her tune

[Guest]

Well look at the con! Bleating about this again?

Look at the great defender of the first amendment! Con has no problem that the SC allowed anti-abortion protestors to get right in the face of clients of clinics, for example. That was fine but now you poosy Republicans are blubbering about “special laws” to deprive us of free speech.

I guess you think Biden’s DOJ is going to roll up the protestors outside Kavanaugh’s house ?

beahahahahah

Glenn Youngkin …he’s a con right ? He’s wildly unpopular already. That’s why he hasn’t and won’t send in state police.

poor con.

Cry some more.

gonna be a huge appetite to expand the court ! They are hated ! Their favorability has tanked since Ginsburg died and the Gilead Queen came on.

well done cons <golf clap>

^^^^ talk about word salad...

[Guest]

Well look at the con! Bleating about this again?

Look at the great defender of the first amendment! Con has no problem that the SC allowed anti-abortion protestors to get right in the face of clients of clinics, for example. That was fine but now you poosy Republicans are blubbering about “special laws” to deprive us of free speech.

I guess you think Biden’s DOJ is going to roll up the protestors outside Kavanaugh’s house ?

beahahahahah

Glenn Youngkin …he’s a con right ? He’s wildly unpopular already. That’s why he hasn’t and won’t send in state police.

poor con.

Cry some more.

gonna be a huge appetite to expand the court ! They are hated ! Their favorability has tanked since Ginsburg died and the Gilead Queen came on.

well done cons <golf clap>

lets dissect your little missive

#1 it is against an already enacted federal law to try and intimidate members of the court to sway decision making- usually this is called jury or witness tampering ,in this case it is tampering with the judges- no difference
the only thing biden is rolling on is a bicycle in Delaware
Youngkin wont send the State Police because this is under the purview of the Federal Govt- so its Garlands jurisdiction
you better hurry up if you want to pack the court( which is wildly unpopular except for the loony far left) because the midterms are coming and you may not have the chance considering Bidens track record

speaking of records-Biden has a few
1 Million Covid deaths (most deaths under Biden)
record Border crossings
100,000 drug OD deaths
record inflation (food, fuel ,Housing)
and now people cant feed their babies

some congresswoman went to an illegal immigrant shelter and found tons of baby formula stocked there, yet there is very little on store shelves for Americans- that should play well in the coming months
we have inflation at 40 year highs and this admin keeps printing $$$$$

the midterms will have some great ads

[Guest]

no worries...your wife is quite satisfied...as soon as the furor dies down and people see through the libby lies about the consequences of the SCOTUS decision whatever it may be the economy will still be number one...maybe her reprobate daughters will need formula at that point and she'll change her tune

Only able to attack ad hominem ? Shows my comment triggered you since you don’t have anything on point.

oh, were YOU the con who said voters care about economy and NOT abortion?

See yesterday’s Monmouth poll, MAGA breath ?

you won’t like it ! :)

[Guest]

Why are there laws against protesting against the Master’s of Gilead, but 1st amendment applies everywhere else?

See how easy it will be to argue that the SC in its current form is archaic and needs either reform or expansion?

But that comes later. Right now a supermajority doesn’t want Roe touched, so if it turns out that Alito’s draft prevails we shall certainly see how it plays out.

The court bought and paid for by the Federalist Society was always going to do this eventually, so please know how much I appreciate them handing this down this summer, months before an election, especially given how the red states are licking their chops and making threats ….

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...ck-the-courts/

because it is tampering- they are judicial decision makers
argue away
if you have a supermajority ,put it up for a vote, a ballot referendum- but then you would have to define when life begins and the left wants no restrictions, so that a problem
i am sure they are happy that you approve of their timing- I wasnt aware that Kagan, Sotamayor and Jackson were bought and paid for by the federalist society, or that they arranged for the timing of the death of RBG (who thought Roe was bad law herself)

[Guest]

Only able to attack ad hominem ? Shows my comment triggered you since you don’t have anything on point.

oh, were YOU the con who said voters care about economy and NOT abortion?

See yesterday’s Monmouth poll, MAGA breath ?

you won’t like it ! :)

typical libby maneuver telling lies to prove a point...never said they don't care I said the economy will remain the number 1 issue...triggered response?...just stating facts...sorry if the truth hurts

[Guest]

because it is tampering- they are judicial decision makers
argue away

sure. I think the thing you refer to would be prosecuted as “obstruction of Justice “

but go ahead ….show us any laws you know that mention [b] “judge tampering” [/quote]

prove me wrong with a simple fact (do you know how to use google?) and I will concede the point :)

[quote]
if you have a supermajority ,put it up for a vote, a ballot referendum /quote]

Bolded this because it again shows the abject ignorance of cons

[b] THERE ARE NO BALLOT REFERENDUM’s IN USA!

Read and weep, but looks like YOU LOSE :)

There is no provision for the holding of referendums at the federal level in the United States, which the Constitution does not provide for.

I hope everyone appreciates how difficult it is having a dialog with a con that is ^^^ ignorant

This is why rights need to be protected by reversing this yet again.

precedent HAS been set ….previous decisions don’t have to be respected.

i hope we live long enough to see a future court take away gun rights ….yah there is a growing appetite for that as con gun policies lead to dead children in school shootings

but then you would have to define when life begins and the left wants no restrictions, so that a problem

this is not at all a problem.

are you aware that mammalian embryos have been created by injecting the nucleus of a somatic skin cell into a denucleated egg cell?

that shows that a skin cell sloughed off has the POTENTIAL to form ….a human being IF it’s given an opportunity by deploying our modern technology ….

are you astute enough to know that you had better start running around collecting the cells that slough off my foreskin? Aren’t they too little snowflake babies that should be SAVED?

i am sure they are happy that you approve of their timing- I wasnt aware that Kagan, Sotamayor and Jackson were bought and paid for by the federalist society, or that they arranged for the timing of the death of RBG (who thought Roe was bad law herself)

The vote on row was 7-2 by a majority conservative court. You previously told us the SC decides cases according to the LAW, nothing else, so at the minimum -

we have a problem. The court is at least schizophrenic and at worst bought and paid for by the Federalists who got the court to disrespect their own precedent for the first time.