http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/th...ral-courts

Republicans allowed Clinton his way, but were stymied under Bush. Under Obama Dems dropped the filibuster. Now the Senate has approved only 4 Trump nominees and isn't scheduling hearings.

They really need to get on the ball and fill the courts with Constitutionalist's.

And fast. Trump might be impeached tomorrow and it's certain the left is going to win every election going forward.

Seriously, they need to be doing this now. Arguably their most important work. And they shouldn't let the opportunity waste away.

We need never forget that the Democrat obstructionism started with Bork. They tried twice again, unsuccessfully with Thomas and Alito.

The article clearly presents the facts that the Democrats are the party of obstructionism. Regardless of what the proglodytes on this board will hysterically post.

(07-22-2017 11:34 AM)Paul M Wrote:  They really need to get on the ball and fill the courts with Constitutionalist's.

And fast. Trump might be impeached tomorrow and it's certain the left is going to win every election going forward.

Seriously, they need to be doing this now. Arguably their most important work. And they shouldn't let the opportunity waste away.

The key on everything is that the House is up for grabs in 2018. Odds are in their favor, but the odds were even stronger in the Democrats favor in 2010 and they lost. Its a long shot that they lose the Senate, but its possible. Arizona will be an open seat in addition to Flake's seat. Heller in Nevada isn't safe. If the Democrats hold all their seats and pick up those 3 in the southwest, they will have the majority again. And realistically with Collins, the Republicans need 51 to secure the most conservative judges. Odds are that the Republicans pick up seats, but if the Senate continues to fiddle, Republican enthusiasm and turnout will be down.

(07-22-2017 12:04 PM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  We need never forget that the Democrat obstructionism started with Bork. They tried twice again, unsuccessfully with Thomas and Alito.

The article clearly presents the facts that the Democrats are the party of obstructionism. Regardless of what the proglodytes on this board will hysterically post.

So you guys never obstructed Obama from appointing a judge. Gotcha.

(07-22-2017 12:04 PM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  We need never forget that the Democrat obstructionism started with Bork. They tried twice again, unsuccessfully with Thomas and Alito.

The article clearly presents the facts that the Democrats are the party of obstructionism. Regardless of what the proglodytes on this board will hysterically post.

XACLY!

this a serious battle outside of the 0 lore.....and it has to be won for the clear thinkers....

(07-22-2017 12:36 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(07-22-2017 12:04 PM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  We need never forget that the Democrat obstructionism started with Bork. They tried twice again, unsuccessfully with Thomas and Alito.

The article clearly presents the facts that the Democrats are the party of obstructionism. Regardless of what the proglodytes on this board will hysterically post.

So you guys never obstructed Obama from appointing a judge. Gotcha.

do you really want those stats (which would be deemed arbitrary from your posit) posted in front of all to see in zero's first term......

c'mon man.....step your smack attack up....you're better than that....

my mistake, you're now in 'hyde-land'.....it's tougher bending over, eh?

(07-22-2017 12:36 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(07-22-2017 12:04 PM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  We need never forget that the Democrat obstructionism started with Bork. They tried twice again, unsuccessfully with Thomas and Alito.

The article clearly presents the facts that the Democrats are the party of obstructionism. Regardless of what the proglodytes on this board will hysterically post.

So you guys never obstructed Obama from appointing a judge. Gotcha.

Yeah it's like 250 - 1 on Dem obstructions to Republican. Got it?

(07-22-2017 12:36 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(07-22-2017 12:04 PM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  We need never forget that the Democrat obstructionism started with Bork. They tried twice again, unsuccessfully with Thomas and Alito.

The article clearly presents the facts that the Democrats are the party of obstructionism. Regardless of what the proglodytes on this board will hysterically post.

So you guys never obstructed Obama from appointing a judge. Gotcha.

Their thought process on this is so stupid it's not even funny

Kind of a patriotic duty to oppose those bastards.

(07-22-2017 04:13 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-22-2017 12:36 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(07-22-2017 12:04 PM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  We need never forget that the Democrat obstructionism started with Bork. They tried twice again, unsuccessfully with Thomas and Alito.

The article clearly presents the facts that the Democrats are the party of obstructionism. Regardless of what the proglodytes on this board will hysterically post.

So you guys never obstructed Obama from appointing a judge. Gotcha.

Their thought process on this is so stupid it's not even funny

The Dems have been obstructing for decades and all you have is Garland. Anyone with half a brain can understand that. Which explains your confusion.

(07-22-2017 04:22 PM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  

(07-22-2017 04:13 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-22-2017 12:36 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(07-22-2017 12:04 PM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  We need never forget that the Democrat obstructionism started with Bork. They tried twice again, unsuccessfully with Thomas and Alito.

The article clearly presents the facts that the Democrats are the party of obstructionism. Regardless of what the proglodytes on this board will hysterically post.

So you guys never obstructed Obama from appointing a judge. Gotcha.

Their thought process on this is so stupid it's not even funny

The Dems have been obstructing for decades and all you have is Garland. Anyone with half a brain can understand that. Which explains your confusion.

There were legitimate reasons to obstruct Bork. He was obstructed for who he was. The Rs obstructed Garland not on merit but because they made the decision that a dem shouldn't be allowed to name a justice. How many hearings did Garland get?

And you act as if they are comparable.

You are arguing an eye for an eye as if that's a valid argument

You act as if Obama who had to deal with unprecedented obstructionism does not matter.



like I said: it takes being stupid stupid stupid to believe the cons talking points

Your argument is like saying the dems pinching you after you stole their milk money (Bork) on the playground justifies your coming back with a baseball bat and breaking every bone in their body when you two are adults 30 years later.

(07-22-2017 04:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-22-2017 04:22 PM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  

(07-22-2017 04:13 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-22-2017 12:36 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(07-22-2017 12:04 PM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  We need never forget that the Democrat obstructionism started with Bork. They tried twice again, unsuccessfully with Thomas and Alito.

The article clearly presents the facts that the Democrats are the party of obstructionism. Regardless of what the proglodytes on this board will hysterically post.

So you guys never obstructed Obama from appointing a judge. Gotcha.

Their thought process on this is so stupid it's not even funny

The Dems have been obstructing for decades and all you have is Garland. Anyone with half a brain can understand that. Which explains your confusion.

There were legitimate reasons to obstruct Bork. He was obstructed for who he was. The Rs obstructed Garland not on merit but because they made the decision that a dem shouldn't be allowed to name a justice. How many hearings did Garland get?

And you act as if they are comparable.

You are arguing an eye for an eye as if that's a valid argument

You act as if Obama who had to deal with unprecedented obstructionism does not matter.



like I said: it takes being stupid stupid stupid to believe the cons talking points

Your argument is like saying the dems pinching you after you stole their milk money (Bork) on the playground justifies your coming back with a baseball bat and breaking every bone in their body when you two are adults 30 years later.

nice skin graph.....jfc....tits on the boar all day....

I like it when the dippos post......

#reaffirmation

Oh look, Johnny shows up and instantly starts calling people names.

Shocking

(07-22-2017 07:01 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  Oh look, Johnny shows up and instantly starts calling people names.

Shocking

And he quotes Mother Jones. If it were a more reputable source, I might check it out. But Mother Jones has less credibility than CNN.

(07-22-2017 08:41 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-22-2017 07:01 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  Oh look, Johnny shows up and instantly starts calling people names.

Shocking

And he quotes Mother Jones. If it were a more reputable source, I might check it out. But Mother Jones has less credibility than CNN.

but infowars is okay according to you

plus didn't you b*tch about "attacking the source" in previous threads

and are you really saying because it's MJ relying a common knowledge story that said story never happened

it's ridiclious how removed from reality certain cons are

(07-22-2017 10:58 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-22-2017 08:41 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-22-2017 07:01 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  Oh look, Johnny shows up and instantly starts calling people names.

Shocking

And he quotes Mother Jones. If it were a more reputable source, I might check it out. But Mother Jones has less credibility than CNN.

but infowars is okay according to you

plus didn't you b*tch about "attacking the source" in previous threads

and are you really saying because it's MJ relying a common knowledge story that said story never happened

it's ridiclious how removed from reality certain cons are

reading your delirium is more fun than a tyke mixing cookie dough.....

(07-22-2017 04:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  There were legitimate reasons to obstruct Bork.

Your argument is like saying the dems pinching you after you stole their milk money (Bork) on the playground justifies your coming back with a baseball bat and breaking every bone in their body when you two are adults 30 years later.

The reason for obstructing Bork was that he believed in the Constutution. Dems couldn't have that.

But as I pointed out, and you were too lazy to read the entire article, as it outlines how the Dems made an attempt to disrupt Thomas and Alito. In the same time frame, Republicans showed deference to the Presidents' picks of Breyer, Ginsberg, Sotomayor and Kagan.

And during Bush 2 administration, Dems were blocking the nominees until a bipartisan deal was made to allow some and block others.

You need to look at the big picture before you open your mouth.

And just for clarity, the Democrats ARE OBSTRUCTING at this time. Does anyone think that is OK?

(07-23-2017 07:13 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  

(07-22-2017 04:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  There were legitimate reasons to obstruct Bork.

Your argument is like saying the dems pinching you after you stole their milk money (Bork) on the playground justifies your coming back with a baseball bat and breaking every bone in their body when you two are adults 30 years later.

The reason for obstructing Bork was that he believed in the Constutution. Dems couldn't have that.

But as I pointed out, and you were too lazy to read the entire article, as it outlines how the Dems made an attempt to disrupt Thomas and Alito. In the same time frame, Republicans showed deference to the Presidents' picks of Breyer, Ginsberg, Sotomayor and Kagan.

And during Bush 2 administration, Dems were blocking the nominees until a bipartisan deal was made to allow some and block others.

You need to look at the big picture before you open your mouth.

he wanted to undo the civil rights era, was one of only three nominees to ever be oppossed by the ACLU, and was a culprit in the Saturday Night Massacre. It takes complete partisan hackery to not see he was completely unfit. hell even 12% of republican senators joined the dems in blocking him.

and I love how to smirk at Obama having it done to him more than Trump, Bush, Bush II, reagan, and clinton combined.

I love how you are completely uneducated on the topic. according to a conservative paper it happens to trump on 23% of his picks compared to 69% of obama's

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/senate...le/2628180

is it acceptable when it's done to a black politician but not when it's done to a white politician? because that's the only takeaway I see here from you.