The coup Repubs don't want to talk about.

With the appointment of the extremist religoid AC Barrett, Trump will have been given the opportunity to name one third of the Supreme Court justices in a single term. In addition, even if he loses in Nov., he will have appointed roughly 25% of the judges serving on the federal bench. All this by a man who lost the popular vote by nearly 3M ballots and has had a historically low average approval rating throughout his entire presidency.

Was this the result of benign good fortune for conservatives? No, it was not.

It was due to the deceitful, conniving actions of the feckless hack known as Mitch McTreason.

History will record his decision to block the nomination of Merrick Garland and the subsequent decision, in direct contradiction of the rationale used to block Garland, to ram through ACB's confirmation as.....taken together.......the most disgraceful abuse of power by a Senate majority leader since the US declared its independence.

But that is not all. He also systematically blocked Obama's judicial nominees, leaving far more vacancies for an incoming president to fill by design, in order to facilitate the packing of the federal bench with right wing ideologues. Some of which who were forced to withdraw their names for consideration due to their appalling lack of qualifications for the job.

All of which made possible by an anachronistic institution designed to address circumstances the nation faced 240 years ago that are, not surprisingly, outdated. One that leaves open the theoretical possibility the prez will never again be elected by a majority of the country's citizens.

Trumpette's like to make the comical accusation the constitutionally designed process of impeachment used to address Trump's illegal acts and abuses of power was a coup. This, while an actual one has transpired at the hands of someone with nothing but contempt for the wishes of the majority.

 

Ah the sound of democrats whining. It is music to my ears.
Extremist us merely Democrat blather for anyone who doesn't share their views on abortion.

 

That reads like a Joe Biden speech, rambling all over the place without completing many thoughts during the process. I get that you are outraged about something; but the specifics as to what and why are a bit nebulous. Is it outrage that the Constitution functions as per intended design? Is it because the political Left's leadership tried and failed to destroy Trump via various quasi-illegal schemes that have consistently backfired on them and their leftist loyal media outlets?

 

Liberals support the constitution until it doesn't suit their agenda, then its "an anachronistic institution designed to address circumstances the nation faced 240 years ago" and "outdated". Liberals always make me laugh when they try and accuse republicans of being unconstitutional. I'm not saying the republicans actually don't act unconstitutionally sometimes, but the hypocrisy is amazing.

 

Feel free to make the case that is so. Given that the founders, in the infinite wisdom assigned to their design many want to leave untampered with for all of time, chose to give the vote only to property owning men. And given that at the time, there were no political parties in America.
Why can't we just admit they had a brilliant concept for the design of our government but not everything they did possessed the foresight to account for the way things are 240 years later?

 

So . . . that is a yes. Well that certainly explains the resulting three and three quarters of a year political temper tantrum of various segments of the Dem Party.

 

You do recognize, do you not, there have been dozens of adjustments to the original document to make it more relevant to modern times, right? Voting rights have changed. Matters not covered in the Constitution like the number of justices on the SC have changed.
We live in a dynamic country. Things are not as they were at the founding. Why pretend they are?

 

Apparently huge numbers of leftists; that is, those with a fetish for liberal activist judges, don't have much respect for the Constitutional Amendment process either. No wonder some of them are ANGRY now that vast numbers of liberal activist judges will no longer be able to invent law on the fly without being shut down in the process. It makes sense.

 

If you'd like to discuss activist judges in more detail than your talking point allows for, start another thread. I'd be glad to contribute.

This thread is about how the will of the minority is being allowed to hijack that of the majority due to outdated institutions and the duplicity of McTreason.

 

Activist judges=judges that make decisions I don't like.

 

Actually the Constitution is specifically designed to protect both the minority from the tyranny of majority rule and the majority from the tyranny of minority rule. That used to be taught in high schools and colleges.

 

And its failed.

 

Then perhaps you'd like to explain how the will of a solid majority who do not want Roe overturned, do not want the ACA overturned, favor stricter gun control laws, and favor a path to citizenship for qualified immigrants is not reflected by the opinions of a majority of SC justices.

 

You'd think that someone capable of grasping the concept would also grasp its MEANING; in that it means one group shall not permanently rule over the other rather than that a group is guranteed never to lose.

 

Because your polls are biased crap

 

Guess you shouldn’t have run Hillary in 2016. You guys picked her...

 

Precisely, When reading the federalist papers, it's pretty easy to read between the lines the subtle fear the founding fathers had, where they didn't want women, blacks, and the disadvantaged to be electors, they wanted 'men of property' ( 'learned men', the dog whistle term for white male property owners) to be electors, who, obviously, would be far more likely to protect the interests of the founding fathers, who are all slave owners and white men of property. This is precisely why we need to abolish the electoral college. The argument of 'giving smaller states a boost' shouldn't be used to diminished states that are 1000 times larger, down to their size, either. The country now is far removed from what America was in the 18th century.

 

Can you qualify your claim that Barrett is an extremist?

 

Democrats earned a Conservative SCOTUS. When Reid nuked the Senate on Obama's urging so the Kenyan could stack the lower courts with radicals, they couldn't expect the GOP to give them a rubber stamp in the SCOTUS, particularly after the suspicious death of Scalia. Every week a sh*thole Obama judge tries to push the country in the direction of fascism. Thank goodness for Trump and McConnell preventing the Democrat Communists from stealing our rights and our stuff, even though it's costing a fortune. Keeping the rights the Obama judges had their eyes on to rip away from us is certainly worth the cost.

 

Yes there were political parties in America. There always have been. There were Federalists and Jeffersonian Democrats

 

Both sides are hypocrites on this matter. In 2016 the Democrats were demanding that confirmation hearings be held prior to the election, going as far as calling for members of the Republican party to be removed from their seat for refusing to do their constitutional duties.

And member of the Republican parties claimed that their refusal to confirm Obama's appointments was because it was wrong to appoint supreme Court justices and an election year.


Now you have both sides switching their views because of who is doing the appointing.

 

Imagine my surprise to see you deny reality when it does not conform to your wishes.

 

It means nothing of the kind. How silly of you to think so.

 

um Reid went nuclear in 2013....he had plenty of time to fill spots up but decided not to. You all changed the rules, Mitch merely followed them

The American people voted the GOP the majority in the Senate in 2015....there was a reason for that

 

No he can't....I have repeatedly asked Dems to show me one of her "extremist" opionions since being on the Court....they have not.

What Dems are really saying is that she is a Catholic...and highlighting their bigotry against people that belong to that Church. It's not much different then what they did in the 40s and 50s with their Klan, it's just they are more open about it now