Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Michelle Obama.

It needs to be a woman so Dem's don't try and stall with a Meeeetooo! accusation

No one will buy it lol.

Robtard would

.

I just heard the rumor of Ted Cruz.


Ohh Imagine the Melt Down!!!!!!!!

In keeping with the US trend of reality TV show stars elevated to political power I hereby nominate Judge Judy

Originally posted by Impediment
.





Originally posted by Flyattractor
I just heard the rumor of Ted Cruz.


Ohh Imagine the Melt Down!!!!!!!!


I think Ted Cruz has already said he's not interested. But yeah, the lefties would go shit crazy (even more so than they already are) if he was the pick. He'd be a solid choice for sure.

Yeah she does.

Also looking at pics? I'd f*ck her.

https://s.hdnux.com/photos/74/30/25/15828301/4/920x920.jpg

Er I mean, I'd respect her.

Yes.

Tho if she gets onto the court I'm gonna call her "Amy Conan Barrett" cuz that just flows better.

Mitt Romey will vote for SCOTUS

Yes, bad sign for the democrats even if he does vote no. The fact he isn't opposing a vote being held.

Well, you might have been correct in thinking they'd get someone in.

The tears from this news will keep a smile on my face until christmas, this is going to be hillary clinton losing the election plus level of shenanigans and tears

If they get this seat filled and then Trump somehow wins and then Clarence Thomas decides to retire I feel like we will just lose California in a mass deluge of tears.

If Romney is a yes then that all but assures whoever Trump nominates will be accepted.

This was always going to go through**, anyone who thought Rightist were going to abide by their own rules and logic as they insisted in 2016, well, you were deluded.

**Mitch McConnell was asked a year+ ago of what would happen if a SC seat became vacant in election year 2020 and with his smug creepy smile said 'we would fill it'.

All this Trumper talk of "well, this is different!", it's just typical shit-weasel speak; pay it no mind. Precedent set though.

Originally posted by snowdragon
The tears from this news will keep a smile on my face until christmas, this is going to be hillary clinton losing the election plus level of shenanigans and tears



Mark my words. People will be laying down blocking senators from entering the building, room, halls where ever they have to to try and stop them from voting.

We will have memes for ages.

When people start losing their freedoms because the supreme court is too far to the Right and not more balanced as it should be, they'll be more inclined to not vote in those people and types of people who made that type of court possible.


But as mentioned, what Biden needs to do when the Dems end up taking the Senate either in 2020 or 2022, push congress to finally make Puerto Rico a state, it's deplorable that Puerto Ricans are treated as second-class citizens. He should also push to make DC it's own state, it's time.

Originally posted by Robtard
When people start losing their freedoms because the supreme court is too far to the Right and not more balanced as it should be, they'll be more inclined to not vote in those people and types of people who made that type of court possible.



What freedoms are we going to be losing?

Originally posted by snowdragon
What freedoms are we going to be losing?

You're a White hetero male, so probably none. Rejoice!

Originally posted by dadudemon
The Supreme Court should have 9-0 conservative* majority. Judicial activism at the federal level should never be a thing. It should always be about Original Intent and never judicial activism. Leave that for legislators.


*The political science definition of "conservative." Not the sexist, racist, xenophobic American definition. As in, conserving the law in the most minimalist approach without changing it unless there is a very valid reason. Roe vs. Wade should never have happened. That should have been a legislative change.

Judicial Activism has destroyed America

Originally posted by Robtard
This was always going to go through**, anyone who thought Rightist were going to abide by their own rules and logic as they insisted in 2016, well, you were deluded.

**Mitch McConnell was asked a year+ ago of what would happen if a SC seat became vacant in election year 2020 and with his smug creepy smile said 'we would fill it'.

All this Trumper talk of "well, this is different!", it's just typical shit-weasel speak; pay it no mind. Precedent set though. Yeah as soon as I heard of RBG's death I didn't even have to look up what the Senate was doing.

I knew the GOP was going to fill it.

That is one of the biggest problems we have with congress now for probably the last 10-12 years. Rather then legislate tough laws they pass it along to the courts or even the president.

Classic case deals with dreamers, DACA isn't legal it was only kept up in a court for moral reasons, in reality the Senate should have passed legislation to handle that problem.

Of course that's just one of MANY that our congress punts on.

Originally posted by snowdragon
That is one of the biggest problems we have with congress now for probably the last 10-12 years. Rather then legislate tough laws they pass it along to the courts or even the president.

Classic case deals with dreamers, DACA isn't legal it was only kept up in a court for moral reasons, in reality the Senate should have passed legislation to handle that problem.

Of course that's just one of MANY that our congress punts on.

The only way the senate will pass such legislation is to remove the filibuster.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're a White hetero male, so probably none. Rejoice!

Everything is racist, sexist, and homophobic to you people.

Originally posted by snowdragon
What freedoms are we going to be losing?


Killing innocent defenseless unborn babies. Yeah, apparently that is the "right" we are gonna be losing lol.


Nevermind the fact that the right to life is the most fundamental of all rights. Nah, it's not that. If you support an unborn baby's right to life then it's obvious you just hate women lmao.


Robbie is just fear mongering and projecting of course.They are the two most overused tactics from the left. Everyone knows that it's the left that wants to get rid of individual rights and even the Constiturion itself that , in their minds, is just a piece of paper written by a bunch of racist old white men.


It's so adorable when leftists like Robbie suddenly pretend to care about our rights which are laid out in our founding documents; documents which we all know that they want to do away with.

Originally posted by snowdragon
That is one of the biggest problems we have with congress now for probably the last 10-12 years. Rather then legislate tough laws they pass it along to the courts or even the president.

Classic case deals with dreamers, DACA isn't legal it was only kept up in a court for moral reasons, in reality the Senate should have passed legislation to handle that problem.

Of course that's just one of MANY that our congress punts on.


One of my political science professors (wish I could dox him and put his name out there because he should have his own YouTube channel where he talks about all this stuff but he's too shy - prefers the classroom) went into details about this. He pointed out that the most powerful branch of government is he legislative branch and it is the most powerful by design: it technically represents the voice of the people so it should be the loudest.

If the legislative branch is united, they could literally rule over the entire country by changing the constitution, getting rid of the president, getting rid of the Justices, etc. They control it all. The Founders were counting on a lack of unity to keep the legislative branch in check. Because if 70 senators are united on almost all issues, they effectively become the leaders of the country immediately. That's enough for any constitutional changes, overrides of vetos, cloture votes, any legislation changes, etc.

Originally posted by wxyz
Everything is racist, sexist, and homophobic to you people.

Your deflection aside, you probably don't have to worry about the Supreme Court ruling what you can and can't do with our own body or who you can or can't marry, as two examples.

Originally posted by Newjak
Yeah as soon as I heard of RBG's death I didn't even have to look up what the Senate was doing.

I knew the GOP was going to fill it.

McConneel in 2016: "The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let's give them a voice. Let's let the American people decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be."


^It was all about letting the voters have a say in regards to the nect SC justice in 2016 as the reason why McConnell would not even allow Obama's pick to go to a vote. See, pay no mind to KMC Trumper's shit-weasel speak.

Originally posted by Robtard
Your deflection aside, you probably don't have to worry about the Supreme Court ruling what you can and can't do with our own body or who you can or can't marry, as two examples.

I live in Canada, I don't have to worry.

But anyways, just fear mongering from the Left.

Abortion and marriage equality won't be touched.

Originally posted by Robtard
McConneel in 2016: "The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let's give them a voice. Let's let the American people decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be."


^It was all about letting the voters have a say in regards to the nect SC justice in 2016 as the reason why McConnell would not even allow Obama's pick to go to a vote. See, pay no mind to KMC Trumper's shit-weasel speak. I mean it also wouldn't surprise me the GOP also used some these other points people have been saying.

It's the modern GOP's MO to throw out whatever they can and see what their base will eat up.

Originally posted by Robtard
McConneel in 2016: "The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let's give them a voice. Let's let the American people decide. The Senate will appropriately revisit the matter when it considers the qualifications of the nominee the next president nominates, whoever that might be."


^It was all about letting the voters have a say in regards to the nect SC justice in 2016 as the reason why McConnell would not even allow Obama's pick to go to a vote. See, pay no mind to KMC Trumper's shit-weasel speak.

He's referring to the representatives as the "American People." The American people's voice is represented by the congressional members. That's what he's saying.

And, no, the American people are NOT perfectly capable of having informed opinions on things such as "good judges which could help maintain the integrity and interpretation of the US Constitution and the US Laws." The average American is woefully ignorant and uninformed on law, people who work in the judicial system, and legal precedence. That's why we have representatives who are supposed to be experts in these areas: people who dedicate their fulltime to knowing this stuff so they can best represent the interests of the people.

But we all know that they do not actually end up representing the interests of the people. That's based on actual solid and published science.

Originally posted by Newjak
I mean it also wouldn't surprise me the GOP also used some these other points people have been saying.
It's the modern GOP's MO to throw out whatever they can and see what their base will eat up.


Pretty much, Trump does it often, says something redic to test the waters with his base.

It's clear that McConnell used a 'let the people decide by exercising their voting rights' in the upcoming 2016 election as his reason, even though the election was still some time away.

"Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court." -McConnell 2016



Don't bother with the shit-weasel speak from Trumpers saying otherwise or trying to spin the situation as being different. They know they're shit-weasel speaking.

I don't know which is more disgusting:

Leftists and their sick obsession with protecting such a disgusting, demonic practice as abortion and calling it a "woman's right", or so-called "Conservatives" who don't seem to have a problem with it, either.

If you support abortion, you have no right calling yourself a Conservative.. period. It is not just some minor, side issue to Conservatives.. it is a very real problem especially in the United States. People thought a lot of people lost their lives on 9/11... well, since then, millions of unborn babies have been slaughtered inside their mothers' wombs... smh.


You wanna support mass infantacide, fine, (though you'll probably end up regretting it on Judgment Day, and yeah, that is a real thing) but don't go around calling yourself a Conservative please. At best, you are a libertarian... you are no Conservative.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
I don't know which is more disgusting:

Leftists and their sick obsession with protecting such a disgusting, demonic practice as abortion and calling it a "woman's right", or so-called "Conservatives" who don't seem to have a problem with it, either.

If you support abortion, you have no right calling yourself a Conservative.. period. It is not just some minor, side issue to Conservatives.. it is a very real problem especially in the United States. People thought a lot of people lost their lives on 9/11... well, since then, millions of unborn babies have been slaughtered inside their mothers' wombs... smh.


You wanna support mass infantacide, fine, (though you'll probably end up regretting it on Judgment Day, and yeah, that is a real thing) but don't go around calling yourself a Conservative please. At best, you are a libertarian... you are no Conservative. durwank

^piss off, pooty.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
^piss off, pooty. durwank

Originally posted by Robtard
Pretty much, Trump does it often, says something redic to test the waters with his base.

It's clear that McConnell used a 'let the people decide by exercising their voting rights' in the upcoming 2016 election as his reason, even though the election was still some time away.

"Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court." -McConnell 2016



Don't bother with the shit-weasel speak from Trumpers saying otherwise or trying to spin the situation as being different. They know they're shit-weasel speaking. I agree with this sentiment.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're a White hetero male, so probably none. Rejoice!

Your a rich Mexican. Your fine

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
Your a rich Mexican. Your fine

*You're

*Not Mexican or rich

*You're

Originally posted by Robtard
*You're

*Not Mexican or rich

*You're

Originally posted by Robtard
*You're

*Not Mexican or rich

*You're

Originally posted by Robtard
*You're

*Not Mexican or rich

*You're

You're the most money-having person I know.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!


Originally posted by BrolyBlack

Originally posted by wxyz
I live in Canada, I don't have to worry.

But anyways, just fear mongering from the Left.

Abortion and marriage equality won't be touched. Canada Texas?

Originally posted by wxyz
I live in Canada, I don't have to worry.

But anyways, just fear mongering from the Left.

Abortion and marriage equality won't be touched.

Oh, we're still playing this game, eon. Okay.


Despite the Right constantly going after both...

I live in Ontario, not Alberta.

And some people on the Right definitely do want to reopen those debates but others like me realize they've been settled.

uh huh Eon...

Nah, they haven't been settled, bro. Not in the United States anyway. Perhaps in Canada they have.

Conservatives like myself will never back down on the abortion issue and stop pointing out how abortion is murder. Nor will we ever stop trying to get Roe v Wade overturned ... ever.

https://apnews.com/a1d560b72e64b254f399b031f2050474

If Trump picks this person Dumbs are going to have a hard time attacking her.

What are people hoping or fearing that the new Supreme Court will rule? I guess the question of abortion is a big one for people.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
https://apnews.com/a1d560b72e64b254f399b031f2050474

If Trump picks this person Dumbs are going to have a hard time attacking her.

Read about that, I think that would be a very smart political move by Trump

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Nah, they haven't been settled, bro. Not in the United States anyway. Perhaps in Canada they have.

Conservatives like myself will never back down on the abortion issue and stop pointing out how abortion is murder. Nor will we ever stop trying to get Roe v Wade overturned ... ever.

I just don't see it happening in the U S.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
https://apnews.com/a1d560b72e64b254f399b031f2050474

If Trump picks this person Dumbs are going to have a hard time attacking her.

Guarantee that people will come out the woodwork and accuse her of sexual misconduct and/or racism.

Anyone else calling "bullshit" on the dying wish thing?


None of us were there, easy enough to fabricate. I know I sure wouldn't talk shop on my death bed. I don't care how much you loved your work, we all retire for a reason.

I am, there is no proof it happened.

Also the Obama Admin pleaded with her to retire and she refused because she was an extremely vain woman.

FYI

If the democrats had a vacancy on the Supreme Court, two months before the election. Make no mistake, they would fill it.

All the people belly aching about this are liars.

Originally posted by wxyz
I just don't see it happening in the U S.


It may not, but that doesn't mean that Conservatives like myself will ever stop fighting to have it overturned.

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
FYI

If the democrats had a vacancy on the Supreme Court, two months before the election. Make no mistake, they would fill it.

All the people belly aching about this are liars. They would yes but they also aren't the ones who tried to say that is the way it should be.

You're holding them up to a standard that the Republicans imposed on the process.

At this point people are just asking for consistency from the GOP which is always hard to find.

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2019/08/28/why-are-hispanic-catholics-pro-life-what-politics-cant-explain


2019 article.


Don't think pro-life is strictly a conservative issue. There is more support for pro-life among the latino community then just about any other community out there.


This is why Roe vs Wade may be overturned yet. As immigration changes demographics, it may also bring with it more support for pro-life policies.

https://i.imgur.com/FdoHGIA.jpg

Originally posted by Newjak
They would yes but they also aren't the ones who tried to say that is the way it should be.

You're holding them up to a standard that the Republicans imposed on the process.

At this point people are just asking for consistency from the GOP which is always hard to find.


TBF, Republicans/Trump Party are very consistent at hypocrisy and not following the very rules they insist upon as seen here.

ZCnCKCFhKBc

Originally posted by Newjak
They would yes but they also aren't the ones who tried to say that is the way it should be.

You're holding them up to a standard that the Republicans imposed on the process.

At this point people are just asking for consistency from the GOP which is always hard to find.

They aren't being inconsistent though.

Democrats aren't just pointing out the "flip" Republicans did, they are actively spouting the same rhetoric Republicans used to justify what they did 4 years ago. So how would they not also be hypocrites?

Originally posted by Surtur
https://i.imgur.com/FdoHGIA.jpg

They will be, because Trump picking a new SCOTUS will be the UNDENIABLE DEATH of Trump's Administration and the Republican Party as a whole, so I can't wait to make fun of them!

It won't be the death of anything.

And dems can try to pack the courts if they win the WH and the Senate, but then the repubs will just pack it even more when they take power again.

Democrats haven't learned from Harry Reid's filibuster mistake even after all this time.

Originally posted by Lestov16
They will be, because Trump picking a new SCOTUS will be the UNDENIABLE DEATH of Trump's Administration and the Republican Party as a whole, so I can't wait to make fun of them!


Well, look at it from his perspective.


He can wait until post election, and maybe lose. Or he can burn all bridges and just make the pick now, giving his ego a going away present. A "legacy", that will give the middle finger for decades.

Originally posted by Robtard
TBF, Republicans/Trump Party are very consistent at hypocrisy and not following the very rules they insist upon as seen here.

ZCnCKCFhKBc

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
FYI

If the democrats had a vacancy on the Supreme Court, two months before the election. Make no mistake, they would fill it.

All the people belly aching about this are liars.

Your pretend scenario does not override or equalize what is actually happening, Broly.

Could the Republicans expand the size of the court and put in even more Republicans?


Not sure how that works, but keep hearing about it as an option for Democrats once they win the white house.

Originally posted by Robtard
Your pretend scenario does not override or equalize what is actually happening, Broly.

And?

Originally posted by cdtm
Could the Republicans expand the size of the court and put in even more Republicans?


Not sure how that works, but keep hearing about it as an option for Democrats once they win the white house. They could, as could Democrats, but Democrats shouldn't do that, leave it at 9.

Should they end up with control of all three branches of government come this next election or in 2022/3, they need to focus on packing the courts (but that's a standard move when in power with either party) and they absolutely need to push to make Puerto Rico and Guam US states, those people are second class US citizens right now and they deserve seats in Congress.

As an added bonus for doing the right thing, with four extra seats in the Senate, Republicans will be harder pressed to win the majority ever again.

Originally posted by cdtm
Could the Republicans expand the size of the court and put in even more Republicans?


Not sure how that works, but keep hearing about it as an option for Democrats once they win the white house.

If dems win the WH and senate they could theoretically do it.

Same goes for repubs.

Originally posted by Surtur
It won't be the death of anything.

And dems can try to pack the courts if they win the WH and the Senate, but then the repubs will just pack it even more when they take power again.

Democrats haven't learned from Harry Reid's filibuster mistake even after all this time.

Oh you think they are going to get power again after pulling this shit. THAT is phucking cute. Just adorable hysterical

Originally posted by Lestov16
Oh you think they are going to get power again after pulling this shit. THAT is phucking cute. Just adorable hysterical

If the Democrats grow some balls, throw bipartisanship out the window as Republicans always do when in power and bulldoze through to make PR and Guam US states, Republicans might not win the Senate again for a couple generations or more. Frankly, they deserve that after their hypocrisy here.

Originally posted by Robtard
They could, as could Democrats, but Democrats shouldn't do that, leave it at 9.

Should they end up with control of all three branches of government come this next election or in 2022/3, they need to focus on packing the courts (but that's a standard move when in power with either party) and they absolutely need to push to make Puerto Rico and Guam US states, those people are second class US citizens right now and they deserve seats in Congress.

As an added bonus for doing the right thing, with four extra seats in the Senate, Republicans will be harder pressed to win the majority ever again.


Puerto Rico couldn't do any worse. Their leadership are complete arseholes.


You heard about the leaked messages? They actually cracked jokes at widespread deaths.

Originally posted by cdtm
Puerto Rico couldn't do any worse. Their leadership are complete arseholes.


You heard about the leaked messages? They actually cracked jokes at widespread deaths.


Haven't and that's shit. But having shit leaders is no reason to keep Puerto Ricans as second-class US citizens.

Originally posted by Robtard
If the Democrats grow some balls, throw bipartisanship out the window as Republicans always do when in power and bulldoze through to make PR and Guam US states, Republicans might not win the Senate again for a couple generations or more. Frankly, they deserve that after their hypocrisy here.

Big IF

Originally posted by Robtard
If the Democrats grow some balls, throw bipartisanship out the window as Republicans always do when in power and bulldoze through to make PR and Guam US states, Republicans might not win the Senate again for a couple generations or more. Frankly, they deserve that after their hypocrisy here.


Democrats defeating Trump is one thing, but after that they truly must commit to systemic change. Trump already lied about his promise to bring America to prosperity. If America gets lied to TWICE, BY BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES, I REALLY DON'T KNOW if it will survive, so the Democratic politicians really have no choice but to evolve the system for the benefit of the people.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Oh you think they are going to get power again after pulling this shit. THAT is phucking cute. Just adorable hysterical

dur

Originally posted by BrolyBlack
dur

Why are you sending me photos of yourself? Nigga, I don't want to see you. You haven't even offered to buy me dinner.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Democrats defeating Trump is one thing, but after that they truly must commit to systemic change. Trump already lied about his promise to bring America to prosperity. If America gets lied to TWICE, BY BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES, I REALLY DON'T KNOW if it will survive, so the Democratic politicians really have no choice but to evolve the system for the benefit of the people.


Trumper and Trumpers lowered the bar so low, Dems will shine even if they half-ass it. This is the political climate Trumpers created, unfortunately.

One of your concerns is people not losing their insurance because of preexisting conditions, right? I can't see Democrats trying to undo that like Republicans have been with attacking the ACA and not having a better plan ready, as they claim to always have. edit: Though the ACA has been wounded over the last 3+ years.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Oh you think they are going to get power again after pulling this shit. THAT is phucking cute. Just adorable hysterical

Sooner or later they will. You're naive if you feel otherwise.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Democrats defeating Trump is one thing, but after that they truly must commit to systemic change. Trump already lied about his promise to bring America to prosperity. If America gets lied to TWICE, BY BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES, I REALLY DON'T KNOW if it will survive, so the Democratic politicians really have no choice but to evolve the system for the benefit of the people.

If the Democrats win potus, senate and house and we dont see a single payer or uhc I'm going third party for life!

Ralph Nader woulda rocked as a president

If Republicans fill RBG's seat before the election I can see an EZ democrat win, people will go nutso, it'll make me smile

Originally posted by Surtur
It won't be the death of anything.

And dems can try to pack the courts if they win the WH and the Senate, but then the repubs will just pack it even more when they take power again.

Democrats haven't learned from Harry Reid's filibuster mistake even after all this time.

They should only try to pack the court if they also do something along the lines of adding DC, PR, and Guam as states this making it much harder for the gop to win the senate. Without something like that it would be very pointless as you say.

Originally posted by Robtard
Haven't and that's shit. But having shit leaders is no reason to keep Puerto Ricans as second-class US citizens.

More a reason to make them a state, imo.


Maybe then they can clean house, get a good lobby, and head to Washington.


Hopefully with plenty of support from their new Americsn allies.

Originally posted by snowdragon


If Republicans fill RBG's seat before the election I can see an EZ democrat win, people will go nutso, it'll make me smile

This isn't an "if", Trump will name his nominee this week and the Republicans will speedball it to a vote and they have the votes, unless some Republicans Senators who have remained silent rise up and side with the Democrats, but there's effectively a zero chance of that happening though. But I don't think Trump is going to win anyways.

Too bad Trump and Republicans didn't act this fast regarding the pandemic.

Originally posted by cdtm
More a reason to make them a state, imo.


Maybe then they can clean house, get a good lobby, and head to Washington.


Hopefully with plenty of support from their new Americsn allies.

Make them have to share some senators from another state tho.

Since no: the dems will not be allowed to add more seats to the senate like that.

And refresh my memory how many times has PR voted against statehood?

Originally posted by Surtur
Make them have to share some senators from another state tho.

Since no: the dems will not be allowed to add more seats to the senate like that.

And refresh my memory how many times has PR voted against statehood?

Yeah, that's not how it works. If they become states, they get their own new seats. If you really have a problem, you should be demanding the Carolinas and Dakotas and Virginias become single states each.

Your feelings don't matter here. See above. States get their own seats.

Who cares? Give them opportunity to vote again. Give Guam the chance too.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, that's not how it works.

Okie dokie no statehood then.

Oh well.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, that's not how it works. If they become states, they get their own new seats. If you really have a problem, you should be demanding the Carolinas and Dakotas and Virginias become single states each.

Your feelings don't matter here. See above. States get their own seats.

Who cares? Give them opportunity to vote again. Give Guam the chance too.


Are we even sure the votes were legit?


Because seriously, I can not overstate how bad these leaders are.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/19/us/puerto-rico-news-protests.html


Wouldn't put it past them to rig the vote, if this is representative of the leadership they're stuck with.

I'm a bit baffled by this, what were they supposed to do, realizing seperation of powers and federal and state powers......

Originally posted by Surtur
Okie dokie no statehood then.

Oh well. Well your feelings don't matter and won't dictate anything should a Dem majority Congress pick it up as a measure in 2021. You won't like these facts.

Originally posted by Robtard
Well your feelings don't matter and won't dictate anything should a Dem majority Congress pick it up as a measure in 2021. You won't like these facts.

I honestly would welcome them being that openly desperate

See, you guys are dumb as f*ck and do not think through your actions. So by all means, do it. Make them states, pack the courts, etc.

One thing tho: you decide to get violent if the other side eventually does the same? That ends in tragedy. So be careful.

Originally posted by cdtm
Are we even sure the votes were legit?


Because seriously, I can not overstate how bad these leaders are.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/19/us/puerto-rico-news-protests.html


Wouldn't put it past them to rig the vote, if this is representative of the leadership they're stuck with.

I can't access, wants me to subscribe.

Originally posted by Robtard
I can't access, wants me to subscribe.


Ah, I'm blocking scripts to get around the message wall.



Wikipedia appears to have the story:


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegramgate

Originally posted by Surtur
I honestly would welcome them being that openly desperate

You're already going "REEEEeeeeee!!11!" and we're just discussing a hypothetical, so I don't think you'll actually "welcome" it should it become a reality in 2021-4. You'll have meltdowns is the more likely outcome.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're already going "REEEEeeeeee!!11!" and we're just discussing a hypothetical, so I don't think you'll actually "welcome" it should it become a reality in 2021-4. You'll have meltdowns is the more likely outcome.

^I allow this pretend win

Originally posted by cdtm
Ah, I'm blocking scripts to get around the message wall.



Wikipedia appears to have the story:


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegramgate

Oh yeah. PR definitely needs to become a state and be better represented and by better people.

Originally posted by Surtur
^I allow this pretend win

Okay Surt, you "welcome" PR and Guam becoming states. Cool, happy.

How many times have they voted down statehood is someone gonna answer

Originally posted by Surtur
How many times have they voted down statehood is someone gonna answer

As noted "who cares, let them vote again." What you're doing is a silly distraction.

But if you're really curious, hyg: www.google.com

As far as Surt wanting Puerto Rico to "share" senators from other states, that would be against the Constitution as seen here:

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State. "

So yeah, good luck changing that with your feelings Surt, should PR and/or Guam become states, as they should be.

Originally posted by Surtur
I honestly would welcome them being that openly desperate

See, you guys are dumb as f*ck and do not think through your actions. So by all means, do it. Make them states, pack the courts, etc.

One thing tho: you decide to get violent if the other side eventually does the same? That ends in tragedy. So be careful.


You added to this post and I only got the first line initially-

Not thinking what through, angry guy? Sure, that would be great and the right thing to do as Puerto Rico and Guam citizens are effectively second-class citizens right now.

The only one talking violence here is you... What other territories do you feel should become US states that the Republicans would initiate?

'Murica

Originally posted by Surtur
'Murica

Still waiting on your answer to my last reply to you . Whenever you're ready

Sounds great honestly

Ridiculous, honestly if they wanted to really go after her just look at her history of rarely siding with workers in cases.

That would take time and brains vs the crybaby emotional race type attack.

Brains is something this guy apparently lacks

See, I told you democrats were racist.

Fourth Amendment
In August 2018, Barrett wrote for the unanimous panel when it determined that the police had lacked probable cause to search a vehicle based solely upon an anonymous tip that people were "playing with guns" because no crime had been alleged. Barrett distinguished Navarette v. California and wrote, "the police were right to respond to the anonymous call by coming to the parking lot to determine what was happening. But determining what was happening and immediately seizing people upon arrival are two different things, and the latter was premature...Watson's case presents a close call. But this one falls on the wrong side of the Fourth Amendment."

February 2019, Barrett wrote for the unanimous panel when it found that police officers had been unreasonable to assume "that a woman who answers the door in a bathrobe has authority to consent to a search of a male suspect's residence." Therefore, the district court should have granted the defendant's motion to suppress evidence found in the residence as the fruit of an unconstitutional search.

Qualified immunity
In January 2019, Barrett wrote for the unanimous panel when it denied qualified immunity to a civil lawsuit sought by a defendant who as a homicide detective had knowingly provided false and misleading information in the probable cause affidavit that was used to obtain an arrest warrant for the plaintiff. (The charges were later dropped and the plaintiff was released.) The court found the defendant's lies and omissions violated "clearly established law" and the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights and thus the detective was not shielded by qualified immunity.

In Howard v. Koeller (7th Cir. 2018), in an unsigned order by a three-judge panel that included Barrett, the court found that qualified immunity did not protect a prison officer who had labeled a prisoner a "snitch" and thereby exposed him to risk from his fellow inmates.

Environment
In Orchard Hill Building Co. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 893 F.3d 1017 (7th Cir. 2018), Barrett joined a unanimous panel decision, written by Judge Amy J. St. Eve, in a case brought by a property developer challenging the Corps' determination that a wetland 11 mi (18 km) from the nearest navigable river was among the "waters of the United States." The court found that the Corps had not provided substantial evidence of a significant nexus to navigable‐in‐fact waters and remanded. As a result, the property was not protected from development under the Clean Water Act.

Consumer protection
In Dalton v. Teva North America, 891 F.3d 687 (7th Cir. 2018), a patient sued Teva Pharmaceuticals after her IUD broke during removal with a piece remaining in her uterus. Her doctor said she now required a hysterectomy. A district court found in the manufacturer's favor. The Seventh Circuit affirmed; in an opinion for a unanimous panel, Barrett cited the lack of expert testimony to support plaintiff's contention of a defect in the IUD, writing, "the issue of causation in her case is not obvious."

Coronavirus measures
In early September 2020, Barrett joined Wood's opinion upholding the district court's denial of the Illinois Republican Party's request for a preliminary injunction to block Governor J. B. Pritzker's COVID-19 orders.

Civil procedure and standing
In Casillas v. Madison Ave. Associates, Inc., 926 F.3d 329 (7th Cir. 2019), the plaintiff brought a class-action lawsuit against Madison Avenue, alleging that the company violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when it sent her a debt-collection letter that described the FDCPA process for verifying a debt but failed to specify in the letter that she was required to respond in writing to trigger the FDCPA protections. Casillas did not allege that she had tried to verify her debt and trigger the statutory protections under the FDCPA, or that the amount owed was in any doubt. In a decision written by Barrett, the panel, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, found that the plaintiff's allegation of receiving incorrect or incomplete information was only a "bare procedural violation" that was insufficiently concrete to satisfy the Article III's injury-in-fact requirement. Wood dissented from the denial of rehearing en banc. The issue created a circuit split.

In Shakman v. Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, 969 F.3d 810 (7th Cir. 2020), the court held, in a decision written by Barrett and joined by the other two members of the panel, that a Teamsters local did not have standing to appeal an order in the Shakman case because it was not formally a party to the case. The union had not intervened in the action, but rather merely submitted a memorandum in the district court opposing a motion, which the Seventh Circuit determined was insufficient to give the union a right to appeal.

Barrett is a constitutional scholar with expertise in statutory interpretation.

I totally read all of what you just posted.

Yep.

Every word.

https://media.tenor.com/images/b438bb80fc5487b8c5ec12a4ecb2882b/tenor.gif

Originally posted by Surtur
I totally read all of what you just posted.

Yep.

Every word.

https://media.tenor.com/images/b438bb80fc5487b8c5ec12a4ecb2882b/tenor.gif :lo: You are a really good friend to DDM if you did Surt, like the best!

https://i.imgur.com/3bewOnH.gif

Originally posted by Surtur
I totally read all of what you just posted.

Yep.

Every word.

https://media.tenor.com/images/b438bb80fc5487b8c5ec12a4ecb2882b/tenor.gif

https://i.imgur.com/xAQixiH.gif

This is why I think about...10 people per every 100,000 might actually know enough to vote. The other 99,990 should not have any right to vote.

Originally posted by Surtur
https://i.imgur.com/3bewOnH.gif

My head on Heidi Klum's body.

https://i.imgur.com/eQIEv2z.mp4


This is incredible



And disturbing.

U look like some kind of gay elf

Originally posted by dadudemon
https://i.imgur.com/xAQixiH.gif

This is why I think about...10 people per every 100,000 might actually know enough to vote. The other 99,990 should not have any right to vote.

You can't just take away the far-left's ability to vote.

Roe v Wade ruling itself is a prime example of judicial activism. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitition about having a right to kill an unborn child.

Now that conservatives want that horrible ruling to be overturned so it will be sent back to the states leftists claim that would be judicial activism when the ruling itself was judicial activism.

If Roe vs. Wade is overturned it will become a much larger fight again, I suppose at that point the Liberals will start considering federal legislation about it as well. I guess we'll see what happens. Legal abortion (both under all and under specific circumstances) is overwhelmingly popular in the US, so that would probably be a good policy for the Democrats, and also ensure that this "cultural war" will be the focus and capitalist elites won't have to change anything for working people int he US.

Originally posted by Artol
The US government ensuring that people can't and won't vote has a long tradition...

As did far older countries for far longer. We learned our lessons fast for such a young super power.

And ancient history. Everyone has the right to vote now.

Originally posted by Artol
If Roe vs. Wade is overturned it will become a much larger fight again, I suppose at that point the Liberals will start considering federal legislation about it as well. I guess we'll see what happens. Legal abortion (both under all and under specific circumstances) is overwhelmingly popular in the US, so that would probably be a good policy for the Democrats, and also ensure that this "cultural war" will be the focus and capitalist elites won't have to change anything for working people int he US.

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion will not suddenly become illegal, it will become an issue in each state legislature. Practically-speaking, not much will change for people. De facto abortion bans in red states will simply become de jure, and people will continue to travel to blue states to have abortions like they do now. The only significant change is that Republicans will no longer have abortion as an issue to turn-out voters, but Democrats will. It is a short-sighted and stupid power grab that is going to cost Republicans long-term prospects.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion will not suddenly become illegal, it will become an issue in each state legislature. Practically-speaking, not much will change for people. De facto abortion bans in red states will simply become de jure, and people will continue to travel to blue states to have abortions like they do now. The only significant change is that Republicans will no longer have abortion as an issue to turn-out voters, but Democrats will. It is a short-sighted and stupid power grab that is going to cost Republicans long-term prospects.

You're overall correct as usual, but you're not factoring in that Republicans will still use that boogeyman to rally in the low intellects, even if it's not really an issue anymore. They'll try and angle to make abortion illegal on a federal level "millions of babies being murdered in the evil liberal states", granted, they'll probably never actually go for it, but they'll use it.

But yeah, it will be a far less effective banner if Roe V. Wade is abolished.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're overall correct as usual, but you're not factoring in that Republicans will still use that boogeyman to rally in the low intellects, even if it's not really an issue anymore. They'll try and angle to make abortion illegal on a federal level "millions of babies being murdered in the evil liberal states", granted, they'll probably never actually go for it, but they'll use it.

But yeah, it will be a far less effective banner if Roe V. Wade is abolished.

I think they will try to keep the momentum going, but I do not think it will work. Once abortion is banned in red states, the enthusiasm will drop precipitously. When same-sex marriage became legalized federally, the will to continue fighting it in the states disappeared. The same thing will happen with abortion. Once red states ban it, the will of the rank-and-file Pro-Lifers to keep fighting will evaporate. Some die-hard ideologues will want to keep fighting the good fight, but the enthusiasm will not be there from voters. And the entire issue was manufactured by Republicans to mobilize voters. When that stops working, it stops being useful, and they will quietly abandon it.