For the life of me, I can’t not comprehend how people can defend no knock raids and civil forfeiture laws.
They are both inherently unconstitutional, violating Americans 4th amendment rights.
We have far too many people in this country not taking their rights seriously, and that BS transcends political ideology.
We got people who claim to hate big government arguing in favor of big government laws that allows law enforcement to bust down doors in the middle of the night unannounced.
That’s freaking stupid. Stop telling people you love the constitution when you support policies that pisses all over it.
I actually agree with you. The "no knock" warrant is a violation of the 4th and should not be allowed. If cops broke into my house unannounced, shots will be fired. I never thought Reagan's forfeiture laws were constitutional either.
You support a double standard by this senate based purely on political motives to stack the SCOTUS. And actually I think you're proud of that.
Will you eventually find a rationalization that matters?
I did. If it's good for Republicans, even if they lie, then it's just fine with you.
Either it was a lie in 2016 that the voters should have say in the next SCOTUS appointment or it's a lie now that voters don't. One of those two things are a lie to get what they want.
And you support that.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
You support a double standard by this senate based purely on political motives to stack the SCOTUS. And actually I think you're proud of that.
Will you eventually find a rationalization that matters?
I did. If it's good for Republicans, even if they lie, then it's just fine with you.
Either it was a lie in 2016 that the voters should have say in the next SCOTUS appointment or it's a lie now that voters don't. One of those two things are a lie to get what they want.
And you support that.
What a laugh. Politicians say whatever to score points with the people, and they all lie.
Would you like to address the actual topic of the thread or would you like to divert attention elsewhere? Did any of the things you posted have any such impact on a government body as these SCOTUS nominees will have over the long haul or are you just reaching for far fetched examples that do not really compare?
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Would you like to address the actual topic of the thread or would you like to divert attention elsewhere? Did any of the things you posted have any such impact on a government body as these SCOTUS nominees will have over the long haul or are you just reaching for far fetched examples that do not really compare?
Oh, I actually think LBJ's "I will not send American boys 10000 miles to do something Asian boys should be doing" while he was directing the pentagon to plan the war in viet nam as one of the most consequential lies ever told.
The people had their say when they elected the officials who can vote to confirm the appointment. Obama didn't have the votes. It seems Trump does. The people vote on more than the president. When politicians have the power, they use it if they can.
It might actually be better for Biden if the appointment goes through before the election. People who wouldn't otherwise vote for Trump might vote for Trump if it means getting another conservative judge on the Supreme Court. But then a lot depends on how people weight getting rid of Trump versus the importance of a liberal/conservative leaning SC. I'm not sure you'll get both.
Unfortunately, Democrats seem to be better at using charisma than working the political system. Republicans have lousy personalities, but they know how to work the system. It might tie back to the "emotional IQ study," unfortunately, emotional IQ doesn't help a whole lot with actually getting things done.
Also, sadly, Republican voters frequently seem to care more about getting the things they want done than they do about who does it and how.
Emotional appeals (like a call for "fairness") don't work as well against "right-brained" (tend towards rationality over feelings) people.
You mess with the "Bull," you get the horns. Fiercely Independent.
Those who have read my posts know that I am very anti trump. But I do not hold trump nominating a SC candidate against him. It is what he should do. It is what Obama did and it was what Obama should have done.
I do hold it against the Senate. They have one standard for democrats and a different one for republicans. 9 months before an election is too close to the election while 45 days is not? Ridiculous. When should that cut-off be? I don't know but it should be consistent.
This is a 2 party system and they need to work together. What the republican senate is doing is acting in bad faith. And that is going to be a hammer blow towards destroying this country.
Am I perfect? No Am I trying to be a better person? Also no
So, the republicans were wrong for holding it up in 2016....so they should be wrong again and hold this one up? Even RBG said it was the presidents duty to put forth a nominee. The term is 4 years, not 3.
They should remain consistent rather than try to pull a fast one. If it was wrong to appoint a justice in 2016 because it was an election year, it's wrong now.
I know you understand this and couldn't possibly actually stand behind it.
I edited this to ask you something.
Did they do the wrong thing in 2016 and are doing the right thing now? Because Obama's term was four years as well. Or did they do the right thing in 2016 and are doing the wrong thing now?
Or is your actual question did they do the wrong thing to take advantage of the situation then and are doing the right thing o take advantage of the situation now?
So they should do the wrong thing to be consistent? Lol. It's politics, pure and simple. If the tables were turned, the dems would have done the exact same thing in both cases. They used the system to get someone of their leaning into the Supreme Court. The fake outrage is strong with this situation.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul. - John Muir
So they should do the wrong thing to be consistent? Lol.
So what they did the first time was wrong? You seem to keep avoiding this question.
Quote:
It's politics, pure and simple. If the tables were turned, the dems would have done the exact same thing in both cases. They used the system to get someone of their leaning into the Supreme Court.
Can you cite one such example? If you mean both parties nominate justices that lean in their political direction we agree. If your claim is they've ignored hearing one SCOTUS nominee in an election year then turned around and had hearings in the exact same set of circumstances you'll have to do better than, "they would have done the same thing in both circumstances.
Quote:
The fake outrage is strong with this situation.
It's not really outrage. It's actually an attempt to get those who support Republicans to man up and admit how wrong this is. And we can all see how that is going. Not only do they refuse to admit what a two sided lie they're telling, but they actually seem happy to make excuses for their behavior. And I'm neither outraged nor surprised by it. You may be one of one of the very few exceptions that has surprised me.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Why would anyone allow themselves to be blasted relentlessly over a job?
You are on to something here. We all bemoan the lack of quality candidates, but the relentless and underhanded attacks by so many on both sides almost certainly discourages decent candidates from throwing their name into the hat.
Poor lady. She'll be drug through the mud, accused of terrible things, derided, on and on.
Both sides do it, don't get me wrong here. For scotus, for POTUS........for anything.
Hmm, lets' see, Both sides? I disagree!
Let's see, we Know how they accused Kavanaugh, how they accused Clearance Thomas,
we know how they will accuse this nominee, We know how the left treated Sarah Palin
Can we cite examples of "Both sides doing it" meaning there are legitimate cases from the other side.
Let's see, Kamala Harris' attacked by the right? Elisabeth Warren? attacked by the right?
Both sides do it? I disagree
Barak Obama attacked by the right? SCOTUS POTUS anything?
Al Gore, attacked by the right? How about Geraldine Fereraro?
How about Jessie Jackson? attacked by the right?
How about Andrew Yang, How about Hillary Clinton? attacked by the right?
Oh, for conduct? how about for personhood? how about just making fun of, inteligience, or charactrisitcs?
Attacking policies and conduct doesn't count.
Both sides don't do it, the Right doesn't attack personalities like the left does.
What about AOC, sure think there could be a lot more attacking, Just imagine, AOC were a republican appointed for SCOTUS and the democrats had a hearing on it.
Did Buttigegg get attacked for his character by the right? (The Dude with the husband?)
NO, it's all the dang liberal democrats who can't abide peoples' personalities.
She's about as far right as they come for judges IMHO, but she doesn't think abortions should be illegal and just has issues with late term abortions. She was a law Professor at Notre Dame, I didn't know that. She clerked for Scalia, not good if she thinks like him, no not good at all. She has also spoke out about the ACA, say goodbye to Obamacare and pre-existing conditions coverage. smh
I guess if Trump is going to make the pick, it doesn't really matter who he picks. The left will just have to suck it up until we get into power with a super majority, then we can fix A LOT OF CRAP.
And if she Thinks like Scalia that "Is" a good thing.
Elana Keagan, nominated by Obama, took only 63, sixty some days. The Right didn't attack her with paid historical accusations of harassment, like similar to Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh were; by the left.
Appoint her TWICE AS FAST AS KAGAN,
At least Twice as fast as Kagan, should be the moniker.
Can Deshaun Watson play better for the Browns, than Baker Mayfield would have? ... Now the Games count.
Y'all get whatever you get. I don't care about your feelings, her feelings, or any trump supporters' feelings. GOPers are a plague on society with their backward crazy brand of politics in normal times IMHO, but now that your main guy is trying to drag us to a dystopian authoritarian fascist Trumpian regime, I have NOTHING for any of you but disgust...
Y'all get whatever you get. I don't care about your feelings, her feelings, or any trump supporters' feelings. GOPers are a plague on society with their backward crazy brand of politics in normal times IMHO, but now that your main guy is trying to drag us to a dystopian authoritarian fascist Trumpian regime, I have NOTHING for any of you but disgust...
Like we care?
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
...If your claim is they've ignored hearing one SCOTUS nominee in an election year then turned around and had hearings in the exact same set of circumstances...
Do you understand that the circumstances are far from being exactly the same?
...If your claim is they've ignored hearing one SCOTUS nominee in an election year then turned around and had hearings in the exact same set of circumstances...
Do you understand that the circumstances are far from being exactly the same?
...If your claim is they've ignored hearing one SCOTUS nominee in an election year then turned around and had hearings in the exact same set of circumstances...
Do you understand that the circumstances are far from being exactly the same?
Yes, this time they are in power. Sadly.
"They" were in power last time as well. Thank God.
The situation is NOT exactly the same...not even close.
The people voted it this way. The people gave the Senate this majority largely due to SC nominations. This is how democracy works.
...If your claim is they've ignored hearing one SCOTUS nominee in an election year then turned around and had hearings in the exact same set of circumstances...
Do you understand that the circumstances are far from being exactly the same?
That's great image to try and paint, but it's really not. I know what the Republicans claim makes it different but let's just use our brain for a second.
The Republicans said, "Let's let the voters decide". Would you like to see the video clip of Graham saying he would not ever hold hearings on a SCOTUS nominee after primary voting started?
You see, if the timing as the claim in 2016 was to let the voters decide, then it's exactly the same. No matter which election it is, voters decide between a Democrat or a Republican. No matter which election it is a president can be voted out or their party can be voted out.
I know the claim. "Well Obama couldn't run fro president again so it's different this time." That still doesn't mean Trump can't be voted out. You let the voters decide based on their vote. Whether they wish to have a Republican or a Democrat make that SCOTUS appointment. Trying to claim differently is only some excuse to make it sound better.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Judge Napolitano on Trump’s Supreme Court nominations
President Trump has been "utterly faithful" to his promises about the Supreme Court, Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano said Saturday.
"For Donald Trump, this is a moment of triumph. Three justices in the three and a half years -- all of a similar intellect and all of a similar attitude about the Constitution," the former judge said on "Fox & Friends Weekend."
TRUMP SET TO ANNOUNCE BARRETT AS SUPREME COURT PICK, AS DEMS VOW TO FIGHT
"Very few presidents have had this many nominees and Donald Trump is still in his first term," Napolitano added. "He has been utterly faithful to his promises with respect to the intellect and ideological orientation of the people that he has nominated."
The president is expected to announce his pick to fill the seat vacated by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Saturday afternoon, and multiple sources tell Fox News that Amy Coney Barrett is expected to be his nominee.
Napolitano says Barrett, who would be Trump's third Supreme Court nominee, is a "conservative intellectual, sort of in the Neil Gorsuch mold that President Trump has been promising he would nominate."
...If your claim is they've ignored hearing one SCOTUS nominee in an election year then turned around and had hearings in the exact same set of circumstances...
Do you understand that the circumstances are far from being exactly the same?
Do YOU UNDERSTAND that the circumstances are NOT far from the same as the situation
For the appointment of Elana Kagan in around 2010 Very similar to the Elana Kagan appointment,
Very Similar circumstances. Except this time the goal shoud be to confirm them, Twice As Fast.
Can Deshaun Watson play better for the Browns, than Baker Mayfield would have? ... Now the Games count.
Thousands march in Washington to pray and show Trump support
WASHINGTON – Thousands of people packed the National Mall in downtown Washington on Saturday to pray and show their support for President Donald Trump.
The march, which stretched from the Lincoln Memorial to the U.S. Capitol, was held just hours before Trump was set to announce he was nominating a conservative judge for the Supreme Court. https://www.news4jax.com/news/politics/2...-trump-support/
Now that the nomination has been made, what is the line(s) of attack going to be from the whack-jobs on the other side of the aisle?
Do they have someone willing to say she had an affair with her former boss, Anthony Scilla or will a previous babysitter come forward saying the nominee’s husband got her pregnant and forced her to have an abortion? Something the nominee fully supported.
Now that the nomination has been made, what is the line(s) of attack going to be from the whack-jobs on the other side of the aisle?
Do they have someone willing to say she had an affair with her former boss, Anthony Scilla or will a previous babysitter come forward saying the nominee’s husband got her pregnant and forced her to have an abortion? Something the nominee fully supported.
What will it be?
The Democrat call to arms, "think of the children".
Democrats began smearing Judge Amy Coney Barrett on Friday night before President Donald Trump even nominated her to become the next Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, which he is expected to do on Saturday afternoon.
Dana Houle, a Democrat activist who was once a chief of staff on Capitol Hill to a Democrat lawmaker, tweeted Friday night that he hopes Barrett is investigated over the children she and her husband adopted from Haiti. “I would love to know which adoption agency Amy Coney Barrett & her husband used to adopt the two children they brought here from Haiti,” Houle wrote.
![[Linked Image from s2.excoboard.com]](http://s2.excoboard.com/forums/25521/user/302752/484538.gif)
![[Linked Image from i.ibb.co]](https://i.ibb.co/fkjZc8B/Bull-Dawg-Sig-smaller.jpg)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/PortlandDawg/banner.jpg)
