The Supreme Court hearings...a farce.

And the key, of course, is that your complaint boils down to I hate her religion. Sorry but your complaint is neither constitutional sound nor proof of anything beyond your own biases.

 

You are missing my point, those states are examples of the diversity between the states and their needs. I am not a californian I am not a New York guy, if they want illegals driving, voting, if they want legal weed if they want a minimum wage of $50 bucks an hour keep it there don't force the rest of the states to go along with it.

 

What some people don’t understand is that the United States is basically 50 different nations United into one country. The federal government was never intended to govern all of those separate nations. The country was founded upon the concept of federalism That term confuses the uninformed. They think federalism is advocating more power centralized at the federal level.


Because of the 17th amendment, state legislatures basically lost their representation in Washington DC.

 

Yeah, i cut it off where your false premise ended. The rest was irrelevant.

Ignore me. What the **** do i care?

 

Yes.

 

Democrats nuked the Senate so they could stack the Districts and Appellate courts with radicals who could never have been confirmed to be the national dog catcher. Those stains on the judiciary have to be overturned with every Trump policy action that is challenged. Democrats left the GOP no choice but to ensure they could stop the unconstitutional rulings of the lower courts.

The 2013 travesty did earn Obama a legacy. He had the worst record before the Supreme Court since Zachary Taylor and probably the worst ever for a full term President. This is proof enough that the excrement left on the benches of Obama's lower courts didn't pass muster with the Supremes. Obama couldn't even get his own nominees to back him on many of his tailor made rulings that were appealed to the Supremes..

 

The time for you to advocate for a Constitutional Amendment was before you were slaughtered in 2016. Perhaps you could have done a better job of cheating in 2018.

 

Name some.

 

There was no 2016 slaughter. The Dems lost the presidency and lost seats in the Senate. It was worse for the Dems in state elections.

 

I consider 304 - 227 after Dems intimidated a couple of electors to betray the citizens they represented winning handily. Given that Trump didn't campaign in CA, NY, or IL during the General election, the Presidential race was a slaughter.

 

Exactly.

 

Incoherent. Nice. You are also welcome to my iggy list.

 

Her dodges didn't bother you? I'm not talking about her Ginsburg-esque responses regarding speculation on rulings.

Affirmative Action doesn't automatically equal poor test scores, you know. If you can prove that her academic mettle was lacking, do so. Oh, and you might want to temper your screed, as a certain "legacy" student who was documented as not having the grades got to Yale and Harvard and then became President. ooo, a brain teaser for ya!

Now that we're done with that dodge, PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW YOU EQUATE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WITH BARTLETT'S DOCUMENTED ADVOCACY AGAINST THE ACA AND ROE VS. WADE! And then tell us all how you believe she'll totally divorce herself from her religious cult-like "group" by her "originalist" thinking. We'll wait.

 

I didn't sit at home glued to the hearings. What particular dodges are you speaking of?

 

Not always and not exactly. For your education: https://lasentinel.net/the-catholic-church-played-major-role-in-slavery.html
https://www.americamagazine.org/fai...t-new-black-catholics-have-emphasized-history

 

How so? When? link the posts....show the logic, the facts. We'll wait.

 

So you're commenting on something you have no direct knowledge of. Then you want me to do your homework. Naa-unnh....google the transcript and get up to speed. Then we'll talk.

 

The main "dodging" was ACB dodging falling asleep while both sides gave campaign speeches instead of asking pertinent questions she could ethically and legally answer that didn't amount to "so how would you rule on this case?" Can't believe this thread is still alive, the ACB hearings -were- a farce, just not in the addled way the OP claims.

 

Quit stalling and provide some documentation to you assertions. If you can't, don't waste time and space.

 

You responded to the post in which I specifically said, "I have not seen anything reported". Since you have no evidence, I will just assume you made it up and cannot support your allegation.

 

The first 6 words of your sentence says it all. Let me know when you want an honest discussion or have the intellectual courage just to concede a point.

 

You said "I have not seen.." meaning you have been paying attention to some degree. So just a little more research, or supply to the readers what prompted your conclusion. We'll wait.

 

Still nothing from you to substantiate your allegation. We're done.

 

Sandy, your post here is such a childish take and painfully obvious denial of specifics that I almost couldn't type for laughing. You're not even trying.

 

Actually, I responded to YOUR DECLARATION. The chronology of the posts shows that. Seems YOU cannot even tell the reading audience EXACTLY what prompted your declaration. A simple question that you either can't or won't answer. So yeah, you are done. Adios.