Why Garland is a good choice

[ChiComCat]

What is crazy is assuming that having 9 people on the supreme court for the better part of 230 years was a coincidence and unintentional.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

What is crazy is assuming that having 9 people on the supreme court for the better part of 230 years was a coincidence and unintentional.

You should get on wiki

[ChiComCat]

What is crazy is assuming that having 9 people on the supreme court for the better part of 230 years was a coincidence and unintentional.

You should get on wiki

Excuse me, 147 years.  Seems like an act was passed about that being the number too.

[ednksu]

What is crazy is assuming that having 9 people on the supreme court for the better part of 230 years was a coincidence and unintentional.

You should get on wiki

Excuse me, 147 years.  Seems like an act was passed about that being the number too.

yeah when people stopped dying at 60 it kinda screwed things up.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

  

Facts and Sedition should be the new name of this board.

[ednksu]

 

Facts and Sedition should be the new name of this board.

what's it feel like to know, that deep down inside, everything you hold dear politically is a rough ridin' lie?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Charging everyone who disagrees with you and anyone who advocates on behalf of their constituency against the presidents whims with Sedition, makes McCarthyism seem reasonable.

It's very clear that Congress sets the number of judges and must consent to anone appointed. Your improper use of the word precedent doesn't change that, nor does you utter ignorance of history.

You people are rough ridin' crazy

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

 

Facts and Sedition should be the new name of this board.

what's it feel like to know, that deep down inside, everything you hold dear politically is a rough ridin' lie?

Rhetorical?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I haven't even taken a political position here. Just pointed out that the Senate has no obligation to do anything it doesn't want to.

You're the one accusing people of sedition.

[ednksu]

Charging everyone who disagrees with you and anyone who advocates on behalf of their constituency against the presidents whims with Sedition, makes McCarthyism seem reasonable.

It's very clear that Congress sets the number of judges and must consent to anone appointed. Your improper use of the word precedent doesn't change that, nor does you utter ignorance of history.

You people are rough ridin' crazy

Except this isn't occurring in your fantasy vacuum.  This is a concerted effort on your party's part to destroy the basic moorings of the NLRB.  It's your party damaging the district courts to an unprecedented level.  It's your party objecting to their constitutional duties under a bullshit excuse to prevent Obama from moving this country forward.  You have ZERO historical examples of this occurring before but the logical side has many examples of a nominee being put through.  Once again, everything you're spewing, is an utter lie.

[CNS]

4-4 vote today by the SCOTUS.  an extra justice would be nice.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[ednksu]

I haven't even taken a political position here. Just pointed out that the Senate has no obligation to do anything it doesn't want to.

You're the one accusing people of sedition.

Wrong again.  It has an obligation to consider the nominee, it has no obligation to rubber stamp said nominee.  They are refusing to do that basic responsibility for the only purpose of hurting the good functioning of the government.

[catastrophe]

4-4 vote today by the SCOTUS.  an extra justice would be nice.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

I dunno. A tie means the lower court's decision stands. Kind of makes sense to lean that way and doesn't really harm the legitimacy of the decision IMO.

[ednksu]

4-4 vote today by the SCOTUS.  an extra justice would be nice.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

I dunno. A tie means the lower court's decision stands. Kind of makes sense to lean that way and doesn't really harm the legitimacy of the decision IMO.

Irony is that it helps the unions and this guy could have probably been the 5th to hurt the unions.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Charging everyone who disagrees with you and anyone who advocates on behalf of their constituency against the presidents whims with Sedition, makes McCarthyism seem reasonable.

It's very clear that Congress sets the number of judges and must consent to anone appointed. Your improper use of the word precedent doesn't change that, nor does you utter ignorance of history.

You people are rough ridin' crazy

Except this isn't occurring in your fantasy vacuum.  This is a concerted effort on your party's part to destroy the basic moorings of the NLRB.  It's your party damaging the district courts to an unprecedented level.  It's your party objecting to their constitutional duties under a bullshit excuse to prevent Obama from moving this country forward.  You have ZERO historical examples of this occurring before but the logical side has many examples of a nominee being put through.  Once again, everything you're spewing, is an utter lie.

What is your foundation for these accusations? This is so crazy

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I haven't even taken a political position here. Just pointed out that the Senate has no obligation to do anything it doesn't want to.

You're the one accusing people of sedition.

Wrong again.  It has an obligation to consider the nominee, it has no obligation to rubber stamp said nominee.  They are refusing to do that basic responsibility for the only purpose of hurting the good functioning of the government.

Okay, edna.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

4-4 vote today by the SCOTUS.  an extra justice would be nice.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

I dunno. A tie means the lower court's decision stands. Kind of makes sense to lean that way and doesn't really harm the legitimacy of the decision IMO.

Irony is that it helps the unions and this guy could have probably been the 5th to hurt the unions.

FYI, the outcome is that people who don't want to be a part of a labor union and disagree with everything the union does are required to donate money to the union so the money can be donated to Democrat interests. This is the "justice" of Edna's "logical" party. Pathetic

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Let's talk about what a horrible concerted and partisan effort that embarrassment of a case is. In any other context it's racqueteering

[star seed 7]

The partisan part is if unions supported republicans your feelings on them would be completely opposite

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

 

[renocat]

President Oballah is using Ali's old rope the dopes move.  He has had a long talk with Garland and knows he is an obamawater drinker.  Now dumbass Senators from the inbred dcpublicians are falling for the rope a.dope.  Wang.  Obama will hit them in the chops.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I'm a little confused what the libtards like about this guy, other than the Senate hasn't taken him up for consideration. The article posted basically says he has no known views on social issues, which you'd think would make him a bigot until he officially toes the crazy line with them

[ednksu]

Charging everyone who disagrees with you and anyone who advocates on behalf of their constituency against the presidents whims with Sedition, makes McCarthyism seem reasonable.

It's very clear that Congress sets the number of judges and must consent to anone appointed. Your improper use of the word precedent doesn't change that, nor does you utter ignorance of history.

You people are rough ridin' crazy

Except this isn't occurring in your fantasy vacuum.  This is a concerted effort on your party's part to destroy the basic moorings of the NLRB.  It's your party damaging the district courts to an unprecedented level.  It's your party objecting to their constitutional duties under a bullshit excuse to prevent Obama from moving this country forward.  You have ZERO historical examples of this occurring before but the logical side has many examples of a nominee being put through.  Once again, everything you're spewing, is an utter lie.

What is your foundation for these accusations? This is so crazy

if you don't know about any of these examples you're a low information voter and it's a shame your vote counts the same as mine.  I mean these examples have spurred recent Supreme Court decisions.

[ednksu]

4-4 vote today by the SCOTUS.  an extra justice would be nice.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

I dunno. A tie means the lower court's decision stands. Kind of makes sense to lean that way and doesn't really harm the legitimacy of the decision IMO.

Irony is that it helps the unions and this guy could have probably been the 5th to hurt the unions.

FYI, the outcome is that people who don't want to be a part of a labor union and disagree with everything the union does are required to donate money to the union so the money can be donated to Democrat interests. This is the "justice" of Edna's "logical" party. Pathetic

quote me where I said anything voicing support for the party or unions pertaining to this case.  On wait, you can't because it's another one of your strawman lies.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Charging everyone who disagrees with you and anyone who advocates on behalf of their constituency against the presidents whims with Sedition, makes McCarthyism seem reasonable.

It's very clear that Congress sets the number of judges and must consent to anone appointed. Your improper use of the word precedent doesn't change that, nor does you utter ignorance of history.

You people are rough ridin' crazy

Except this isn't occurring in your fantasy vacuum.  This is a concerted effort on your party's part to destroy the basic moorings of the NLRB.  It's your party damaging the district courts to an unprecedented level.  It's your party objecting to their constitutional duties under a bullshit excuse to prevent Obama from moving this country forward.  You have ZERO historical examples of this occurring before but the logical side has many examples of a nominee being put through.  Once again, everything you're spewing, is an utter lie.

What is your foundation for these accusations? This is so crazy

if you don't know about any of these examples you're a low information voter and it's a shame your vote counts the same as mine.  I mean these examples have spurred recent Supreme Court decisions.

You've accused me of numerous things without any foundation. I'm not sure what specific supreme Court rulings have to do with confirming this garland guy (probably a "strawman"), but you are so "incoherent" it's difficult to see the trees through your streaming flow of consciousness.