Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy retiring

[shoful 13,304]

6 minutes ago, Meruk Holland said:

What?

[Adakam 2]

7 hours ago, GypsyVida said:

Hillary would've lost anyway because no one likes or trusts her.

She was liked by 3 million people more than Trump

[Whispering 18,865]

11 hours ago, shoful said:

Perfect! Now my man Trump will reign. This country will once be Great Again! 

(Please direct your negative left side opinions at someone else unless you want to have an educated debate)

Yep, your man will nominate a judge who will in turn take away your rights. How Great will that be? 

[MJHolland 12,725]

19 hours ago, SolidSnake said:

Don't blame third party voters. Blame the DNC for choosing an unelectable candidate for a majority of rural states. Insulting third party voters shows a lack of nuance and political knowledge. Those votes would not have gone to hillary anyway. 

Hahahah, how can you say Clinton was unelectable when she got a majority of the votes? Literally it came down to thousands of votes spread across three states who probably voted they was they did bc Clinton was sabotaged by the FBI

And the DNC did pick Clinton. She was democratically elected. She won the primary by 2 million votes. Even if EVERY SUPERDELEGATED voted to Sanders, she STILL would have won. 

Youre delusional to the highest degree. Trump won on a fluke because the FBI, third party voters, and Bernie Bros suppressed turnout. 

[MJHolland 12,725]

15 hours ago, FATCAT said:

 

Everyone is to blame. Voters that wasted a vote, voters that voted for Trump, voters that didn't vote.

Now is not the time to point fingers. We need to act. Blue Wave in November, or we're all ****ed.

The Senate is on lockdown and Dens are ver

 

9 hours ago, SKANK said:

 

Not only is that untrue, but it is exactly the kind of defeatism that cripples Democrats.

Firstly, they have to stick together and vote as a block. Three Dems defected for the Neil Gorsuch nomination, that can't happen again. Secondly, Jeff Flake (Senate Judiciary Committee member who could cast a deciding vote against Trump's SCOTUS pick being brought up for nomination) said a few days ago that he would hold up Trump's judicial appointments because of tariffs. There need to be marches and riots Flake's district. Thirdly, since John McCain is likely not voting on this, they just need one more vote. Susan Collins is a Republican with gubernatorial ambitions in a blue state who has a history of supporting Roe v. Wade. If the Dems can put a spotlight on her, forever linking her vote to a vote ending Roe v Wade, they'd have her. Fourthly, it was only two years ago McConnell said that there should be no Supreme Court nominations during an election year. Now it's an election year, and he will attempt to hold a vote. If the Democrats can't turn that into a PR nightmare for him and his entire party, they don't deserve to hold public office.

Before the last Presidential election John McCain said that were Clinton elected his party would not allow her to appoint any Supreme Court justices. The Right is ruthless about politics, while The Left is busy expending its ruthlessness getting Rosanne Barr off of TV.

They need to smear the judge as callously as the Right would. The need to call for demonstrations, marches, and riots over a stolen Supreme Court seat. They need to demand that the vote not be held until after the Midterm election. They need to raise hell.

Honey, the left invented Judge smearing and sabotage (see borking a nom). 

In reality, McConnell will jam through another SCOTUS nom without a sweat. Republicans across the board run on two things — cutting taxes and being pro-life. 

Flake and Collins will not care about protests if Trump nominates another Gorsuch. SCOTUS votes are never remembered be voters, and Collins’ base voters wanted her to vote that way anyway. 

Plus Dems are more likely to lose a Senate seat than to pick one up — there will be no blue wave folks. 

Dems should put up a hell of a fight for opticis’ sake, but this fight is over. 

[Born To Slay 10,996]

10 hours ago, SKANK said:

 

Not only is that untrue, but it is exactly the kind of defeatism that cripples Democrats.

Firstly, they have to stick together and vote as a block. Three Dems defected for the Neil Gorsuch nomination, that can't happen again. Secondly, Jeff Flake (Senate Judiciary Committee member who could cast a deciding vote against Trump's SCOTUS pick being brought up for nomination) said a few days ago that he would hold up Trump's judicial appointments because of tariffs. There need to be marches and riots Flake's district. Thirdly, since John McCain is likely not voting on this, they just need one more vote. Susan Collins is a Republican with gubernatorial ambitions in a blue state who has a history of supporting Roe v. Wade. If the Dems can put a spotlight on her, forever linking her vote to a vote ending Roe v Wade, they'd have her. Fourthly, it was only two years ago McConnell said that there should be no Supreme Court nominations during an election year. Now it's an election year, and he will attempt to hold a vote. If the Democrats can't turn that into a PR nightmare for him and his entire party, they don't deserve to hold public office.

Before the last Presidential election John McCain said that were Clinton elected his party would not allow her to appoint any Supreme Court justices. The Right is ruthless about politics, while The Left is busy expending its ruthlessness getting Rosanne Barr off of TV.

They need to smear the judge as callously as the Right would. The need to call for demonstrations, marches, and riots over a stolen Supreme Court seat. They need to demand that the vote not be held until after the Midterm election. They need to raise hell.

If McCain abstains, wouldn't they only need one GOP defect if the entire caucus stays together. Then the majority would be 50-49?

but yeah, I totally agree. Chuck Schumer needs to out his foot down this time.

[MJHolland 12,725]

10 hours ago, SKANK said:

 

Not only is that untrue, but it is exactly the kind of defeatism that cripples Democrats.

Firstly, they have to stick together and vote as a block. Three Dems defected for the Neil Gorsuch nomination, that can't happen again. Secondly, Jeff Flake (Senate Judiciary Committee member who could cast a deciding vote against Trump's SCOTUS pick being brought up for nomination) said a few days ago that he would hold up Trump's judicial appointments because of tariffs. There need to be marches and riots Flake's district. Thirdly, since John McCain is likely not voting on this, they just need one more vote. Susan Collins is a Republican with gubernatorial ambitions in a blue state who has a history of supporting Roe v. Wade. If the Dems can put a spotlight on her, forever linking her vote to a vote ending Roe v Wade, they'd have her. Fourthly, it was only two years ago McConnell said that there should be no Supreme Court nominations during an election year. Now it's an election year, and he will attempt to hold a vote. If the Democrats can't turn that into a PR nightmare for him and his entire party, they don't deserve to hold public office.

Before the last Presidential election John McCain said that were Clinton elected his party would not allow her to appoint any Supreme Court justices. The Right is ruthless about politics, while The Left is busy expending its ruthlessness getting Rosanne Barr off of TV.

They need to smear the judge as callously as the Right would. The need to call for demonstrations, marches, and riots over a stolen Supreme Court seat. They need to demand that the vote not be held until after the Midterm election. They need to raise hell.

Also, this 

[lairofhk 936]

This is really, really bad. ****'s gonna get even worse now. Honestly, f*ck him for retiring. A really, really low move at this point in time. 

[Whispering 18,865]

1 hour ago, Born To Slay said:

If McCain abstains, wouldn't they only need one GOP defect if the entire caucus stays together. Then the majority would be 50-49?

but yeah, I totally agree. Chuck Schumer needs to out his foot down this time.

This is a pipe dream. All GOP members will vote for Trump's choice. 

A few Red state Dems will do the same to get elected in November. They won't be the deciding vote. 

[NathanC 938]

Look, 3rd party voters trying to argue about their choices while trump is alreay in office with now a soon to be super majority conservative SC... when your rights are overturned, lets see you keep blabbing about Hillary... 

stop feeding that troll Solidsnake...

[Eggsy 8,280]

15 hours ago, Adakam said:

She was liked by 3 million people more than Trump

thanks!! It still boggles my mind how people dont understand still that she won the popular vote by a large margin.. Its the delegates that screwed her over.. At least how they are divided. 

[PartySick 173,489]

On 6/27/2018 at 3:13 PM, Whispering said:

Nope, not at all...that's the point. I vote with my head, not in "protest". I don't throw my vote away and then turn around and complain constantly about the consequences of people like that who don't vote or protest vote.

Along with many here, I fully understood that the Supreme Court was in jeopardy and what that meant for our generation. Everything will not be fine. 

I agree tbh. Trump was not a normal candidate and he isn't a normal president. He's an obvious danger and I shake my head at anyone who didn't vote for the best chance to defeat him. Save the third party votes and write-in's for 2020. At least if Hillary were if office we wouldn't have the thought of "is there even going to be a vote in 2020?" in the back of our minds.

More of the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> break everything and turn the clock back by decades.

Besides, Hillary was objectively the best choice and would make an excellent president just like Obama and quite a few Democrats despite them being "elites" (aka "experienced" or "professionals"). I wouldn't choose a Wendy's cook to perform surgery just like I want someone who knows what tf they're doing in office.

[shane_c 480]

Democrat senators could have made a deal with moderate Republicans (Collins, Murkowski, McCain...) to save the filibuster for future nominations in exchange for letting Gorsuch be confirmed. They (Collins...) wanted to do it. Then Trump would need 60 votes now to get someone confirmed. But the left insisted that Democrats filibuster Gorsuch so it got nuked. 

The left is complaining about something that they actually caused themselves. 

[Born To Slay 10,996]

1 hour ago, shane_c said:

Democrat senators could have made a deal with moderate Republicans (Collins, Murkowski, McCain...) to save the filibuster for future nominations in exchange for letting Gorsuch be confirmed. They (Collins...) wanted to do it. Then Trump would need 60 votes now to get someone confirmed. But the left insisted that Democrats filibuster Gorsuch so it got nuked. 

The left is complaining about something that they actually caused themselves. 

They would just nuke it now tho

[shane_c 480]

54 minutes ago, Born To Slay said:

They would just nuke it now tho

They wouldn't have the votes because those moderate republicans would have agreed not to vote to nuke it.

They did it before years ago, and it was some of the same senators (Collins, McCain...) "Gang of 14". You can Google it.