Left Should Blame Obama For Trump Supreme Court Majority

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: kaylaluv
Oh right, like the conservatives in Congress were going to let him do that. He had every right to replace Scalia, but they stopped him, remember?

Nope, this is all on conservatives and Trump, who is kissing conservative ass.

Democrats are the origin of the don't nominate in a POTUS election year.

Yep, they talked about it, the Republicans did it.

Which group actually thwarted the Constitution?

Neither. It was not about thwarting the Constitution, but the will of the people. The will of the people was not thwarted, the direction they chose is the direction we are going. If in 2016 they wanted to continue Obama's path they would have voted for someone who would have done so.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: IAMTAT

This is actually evidence that Mueller and by extension, Obama, have nothing on Trump.

If they did, they'd have leaked it or released it to avoid having Trump determine who will be on the Court.

Mueller is hiring more prosecutors to handle the number of cases......nothing on trump?.....just another trumpian lie....if fact, liberals should just start using the name of trump in place of the word lie.......there are people that track the number of daily provable lies that trump tweets out, and says on his "EGO TOUR" around America...

Remind me to send Barack a fruit basket for being so thoughtful.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: kaylaluv
Oh right, like the conservatives in Congress were going to let him do that. He had every right to replace Scalia, but they stopped him, remember?

Nope, this is all on conservatives and Trump, who is kissing conservative ass.

Democrats are the origin of the don't nominate in a POTUS election year.

Yep, they talked about it, the Republicans did it.

Which group actually thwarted the Constitution?

Neither. It was not about thwarting the Constitution, but the will of the people. The will of the people was not thwarted, the direction they chose is the direction we are going. If in 2016 they wanted to continue Obama's path they would have voted for someone who would have done so.

Nope

The will of the People made Obama the President for a four-year term not three, and it is the President's right and duty (and the will of the people who elected him) to nominate to the Supreme Court during his term.

That is clear.

The Republican Senate did not disapprove of Merrick Garland because of any logical reason ... they refused to fulfill their Constitutional duty and advise and consent.

If you truly feel that the will of the people should determine the selection of Justices, I'm sure you're in favor of waiting until after the November elections and the seating of the new Senate ... right?

why is filibustering a constitutional right
but McConnell delaying a vote evil incarnate?

Obama sneered to McCain once about elections having consequences. well, back at you. you guys lost the senate, deal with it.
Ginsburg should have retired when the dems still had a majority but she wanted to hold on.

here's a story from back in the day
Nixon tried to appoint two moderate Southerners, Hainsworth and Carswell, to SCOTUS but they were voted down by the democrats. so he appointed a young and unknown solicitor and the dems, feeling the heat for obstructionism, voted him in.
William Renquist, who served for many years, and was very conservative.

a reply to: ElGoobero

The Senate confirmed a Nixon nominee.

The McConnell Senate refused to advise and consent which is their only duty in the matter.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

I want to bottle and sell leftist tears to Trump cultists. Make a fortune.

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: TinfoilTP

I want to bottle and sell leftist tears to Trump cultists. Make a fortune.

Why when they are so free and abundant?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: IAMTAT

I blame McConnell first, second and third for stealing the initial SCOTUS nomination. Then fourth I blame McConnell again for holding up all of Obama's lower court picks forcing the Democrats to implement the nuclear option so that Obama could nominate judges in the first place. Finally, all the way down at fifth I blame Democrats filibustering Gorsuch and playing their hand too early.

At no point does any of the nonsense you just typed in your OP factor into any of my blame though.

All caused by the Biden maneuver.
So , still a Democrat's fault

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: kaylaluv
Oh right, like the conservatives in Congress were going to let him do that. He had every right to replace Scalia, but they stopped him, remember?

Nope, this is all on conservatives and Trump, who is kissing conservative ass.

Democrats are the origin of the don't nominate in a POTUS election year.

Yep, they talked about it, the Republicans did it.

Which group actually thwarted the Constitution?

Neither. It was not about thwarting the Constitution, but the will of the people. The will of the people was not thwarted, the direction they chose is the direction we are going. If in 2016 they wanted to continue Obama's path they would have voted for someone who would have done so.

Nope

The will of the People made Obama the President for a four-year term not three, and it is the President's right and duty (and the will of the people who elected him) to nominate to the Supreme Court during his term.

That is clear.

The Republican Senate did not disapprove of Merrick Garland because of any logical reason ... they refused to fulfill their Constitutional duty and advise and consent.

If you truly feel that the will of the people should determine the selection of Justices, I'm sure you're in favor of waiting until after the November elections and the seating of the new Senate ... right?

Again , you can thank Joe Biden for that...
Lets hear your "Thank You Joe"

a reply to: Gothmog

Which nominee did Joe Biden refuse to bring before the Senate for advise and consent again?

The left is very stupid. Ever since the 2000 Ralph Nadir gift to George Bush they haven’t learned that they’ll always be waylaid by some super left wing nut who will give the election to the right-wing screwballs as Jill Stein and the Green party did it again.
It’s the very ignorant people who support the cant win ego candidates of Stein and Nader and Bernie, as well.

One created the Iraq war holocaust and the Jill Stein candidacy gave up this madman Donald Trump.

The green party is the worst thing that has happened to the American political specter.

They will do it again in 2020 without a doubt.

Some left-wing nut like Bernie Sanders or a Jill Stein or a Ralph Nader will cost the stupid democrats the election AGAIN.

They never learn

a reply to: Willtell

Yep.

Stupid, scattered, fractured efforts, corrupted by identity politics, special interests and causes celebres at its very worst.

a reply to: Arnie123

When you see a neutral point of view as "extreme" then it's safe to say that you yourself are so extremely left or right that a neutral point of view can still be considered "extreme" even though you are the one who us extreme.

Look at the front page right now, which point of view is more popular around here? Left, centrist or right? And you wonder why I only seem to talk about it in threads like this one, it's because this site is right wing by and large and is becoming more and more extreme (ignorant) by the day in a certain direction.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Arnie123

When you see a neutral point of view as "extreme" then it's safe to say that you yourself are so extremely left or right that a neutral point of view can still be considered "extreme" even though you are the one who us extreme.

Look at the front page right now, which point of view is more popular around here? Left, centrist or right? And you wonder why I only seem to talk about it in threads like this one, it's because this site is right wing by and large and is becoming more and more extreme (ignorant) by the day in a certain direction.

...and so naturally, by default, because of that white-knight in you, you feel the need to bolster the numbers and reinforce the radical s# we've seen since this Presidency unfolded.

Speaking of which, you say extreme day by day? No, its not. Thats just you asserting self opinion as fact. The Mods do a pretty good job of clean up.
Secondly, if we were to walk in your perceived views and accept that this site is extreme day by day by "more extreme" in a certain direction..What Direction?

i await teh tap Dance.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Willtell

Yep.

Stupid, scattered, fractured efforts, corrupted by identity politics, special interests and causes celebres at its very worst.

The most successful dragon killing democrats were Clinton and Obama, essentially liberal moderates.

Trump was and is the prince of darkness, a demonic character who with his SCOTUS picks alone will set back social progress 50 years

Couldn’t the stupid progressives see that? Couldn’t they put down their leftist dogma for the sake of the SCOTUS picks that will indeed bring us backward?

Can’t the fools who vote for Jill Stein and Nader see that?

Well it’s too late now

The elitist progressives, Nader and Bernie are both millionaires, btw, they will never lose their Obamacare

Susan Sarandon will never have to go get a hanger to get an abortion

a reply to: Willtell

I can only tell you something that I *know* ... every action has an opposite reaction.

The more one-sided things become, the more dynamic the correction to equilibrium becomes.

I don't think Mr. Trump is the Prince of Darkness ... but I do think a 5600 year old chaos deity may be croaking in his ear.

a reply to: Arnie123

What Direction?

Look at the front page any given day and you'll have your answer. The extremist views on these boards are only a mirror image of the extremist views in the media. Neither are helping anything and places such as ATS (at least lately) only snowball the extremism into greater and greater heights (or depths depending on how you look at it).

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: IAMTAT

Obama was either COMPLETELY clueless...or was so confident that loser Hillary would be the next POTUS, that he didn't ask Ginsburg to gracefully retire during his term, so as to be able to nominate a nice, young, leftist, replacement for her chair.....Folks, you know I'm right.

No, you're not. Ginsburg could easily have told Obama to go pound sand. She's not stupid. Obama has a right to his opinion, but a President's powers do not include dictating to SCOTUS members when they ought to retire.

Right.
Obama just dictated what insurance grown-adult Americans MUST buy.

That's what dictators do...

If the balance of the SCOTUS becomes too extreme, then an act of Congress can change the number of justices so that balance can be restored.

Size of SCOTUS

Given the current climate, that would take a Democratic POTUS, a Democrat majority in the House, and at least 60 Democratic votes in the Senate.

Therefore, technically, the voters could change the composition of the Court if that is their intention. However, only a small fraction of the electorate understands that concept. And a similar percentage actually understands how the SCOTUS fits into the federal government process.

-dex