BREAKING NEWS: BazAres, Step off a Cloud and Landed Here!

[Baz Ares]

Hello!

I'm BazAres. You can call me Baz or B.A. if you wish. Or nothing at all. As these posts
work with an auto-post addressing systems. So that seems to handle this for us. Need a
little time to see what posting features I have here, and where the buttons and controls are.

I am simple and easy going. I deal in real facts. Based on real data from accredited sources.
I can make mistakes, I will correct myself with help, require same from others.
Those wth ALT-Facts, to meet your personal needs, please just move along. See there, just
simple and straight to the points. FYI: I am not afraid of humor.

So, What do you think about this below?

I know a SCOTUS seat was stolen from Obama by the GOP in 2016.
A question the Dems need to ask Judge Neil Gorsuch.

Q: Do you believe that GOP acted constitutionally and properly in preventing Obama’s
SCOTUS nominee, Garland, from receiving a hearing or an up and down vote?

This would be an embarrassing question. As he is a constitutional originalist. Oops!

A: "I agree with you"


If you got one. POST IT.

 

[oicu812]

with one more conservative on the bench, the balance of power is assured...

if barry had gotten his nominee, then the country would need 2 more conservatives to remain balanced...

 

[Baz Ares]

YA

with one more conservative on the bench, the balance of power is assured...

if barry had gotten his nominee, then the country would need 2 more conservatives to remain balanced...

Why do Cons own the SCOTUS?

No answer to the question asked? The question was not about bodies. It was about if it was constitutional,
as to what the GOP did?

btw. "balanced" means 4-4.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

A question the Dems need to ask Judge Neil Gorsuch.

Q: Do you believe that GOP acted constitutionally and properly in preventing Obama’s
SCOTUS nominee, Garland, from receiving a hearing or an up and down vote?

This would be an embarrassing question. As he is a constitutional originalist. Oops!




.

Helter Skelter

After Robert Bork got splattered with mud from the Chappaquidick Island Swimming School, anything goes. Gagging Garland was a mild revenge for that and the high-tech lynching of Clarence Thomas.

 

[Baz Ares]

Helter Skelter

After Robert Bork got splattered with mud from the Chappaquidick Island Swimming School, anything goes. Gagging Garland was a mild revenge for that and the high-tech lynching of Clarence Thomas.

The question was not about *edited* treatment. He did get a review.
The question was, is what the GOP did, was it constitutional?

It's really a Yes or No question for a FCO (Federalist Constitutional Originalist)
If Answer is Yes, explain.

 

[Baz Ares]

Test! @Baz Ares @connieb

Can someone @Mention me. Seem SOP does not wok here me.

 

[oicu812]

YA

Why do Cons own the SCOTUS?

No answer to the question asked? The question was not about bodies. It was about if it was constitutional,
as to what the GOP did?

btw. "balanced" means 4-4.

if it was unconstitutional, im sure it would have been addressed by barry...

yes, good for you...4 conservatives, plus 4 liberals equals a balance, add 1 libertarian who is likely to go either way, and we have 9...

4 good, 4 bad, 1 fence rider...

 

[oicu812]

The question was not about *edited* treatment. He did get a review.
The question was, is what the GOP did, was it constitutional?

It's really a Yes or No question for a FCO (Federalist Constitutional Originalist)
If Answer is Yes, explain.

if barry stood to gain anything from prosecuting im sure he would have...

did he prosecute?

was there an investigation ordered by obobo?

what was their findings, if any?

theres your answer...

 

[Baz Ares]

if it was unconstitutional, im sure it would have been addressed by barry...

yes, good for you...4 conservatives, plus 4 liberals equals a balance, add 1 libertarian who is likely to go either way, and we have 9...

4 good, 4 bad, 1 fence rider...

if barry stood to gain anything from prosecuting im sure he would have...

did he prosecute?

was there an investigation ordered by obobo?

what was their findings, if any?

theres your answer...

What does this have to do with the question? Obama can't sue, to force the senate to have a SCOTUS hearing.

 

[oicu812]

What does this have to do with the question? Obama can't sue, to force the senate to have a SCOTUS hearing.

thats nice...

whats that got to do with something being unconstitutional?

 

[Craig]

Test! @Baz Ares @connieb

Can someone @Mention me. Seem SOP does not wok here me.

@Baz Ares

Welcome...

 

[oicu812]

Ding! Ding! Ding! Here, I'm new here FFS!?
How does this look at a new, say post counting system work here?
Seems many get others NEW here posting, gets 1000's plus of checks here!?
Why is that? Or does PJ record all thread lookings?

Just learning here.

apparently not...you seem confused how forums in general function...

 

[Jen]

YA

Why do Cons own the SCOTUS?

No answer to the question asked? The question was not about bodies. It was about if it was constitutional,
as to what the GOP did?

btw. "balanced" means 4-4.

Cons do not own SCOTUS.
Why did you even ask?
Count them up...........Never mind. You obviously need help. I will do it for you: It is 3 cons now, 4 Leftists, and one swing voter.

Nobody went awry of the Constitution, so you can just settle down about that, bless your heart.

 

[Baz Ares]

Cons do not own SCOTUS.
Why did you even ask?
Count them up...........Never mind. You obviously need help. I will do it for you: It is 3 cons now, 4 Leftists, and one swing voter.

Nobody went awry of the Constitution, so you can just settle down about that, bless your heart.

So what you're saying, is that we really only need one SCOTUS Justice? The one Decider, then.
Would that be a Leftists, Middle (L/C) Moderate or a Cons? In your view, only a cons can sever?
Why do we need the other 8? When you like a swinger on the panel.

 

[oicu812]

Cons do not own SCOTUS.
Why did you even ask?
Count them up...........Never mind. You obviously need help. I will do it for you: It is 3 cons now, 4 Leftists, and one swing voter.

Nobody went awry of the Constitution, so you can just settle down about that, bless your heart.

as soon as gingsburg kicks, a rare opportunity will present itself to who will most likely be a republican..

its ALL good..

 

[oicu812]

So what you're saying, is that we really only need one SCOTUS Justice? The one Decider, then.
Would that be a Leftists, Middle (L/C) Moderate or a Cons? In your view, only a cons can sever?
Why do we need the other 8? When you like a swinger on the panel.

hyperbole and hogwash...

only YOU said those things..

try harder.

 

[Jen]

So what you're saying, is that we really only need one SCOTUS Justice? The one Decider, then.
Would that be a Leftists, Middle (L/C) Moderate or a Cons? In your view, only a cons can sever?
Why do we need the other 8? When you like a swinger on the panel.

No that's not what I was saying.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

What does this have to do with the question? Obama can't sue, to force the senate to have a SCOTUS hearing.

Robes Wuz Robbed!


Why can't a President bring that possible obstruction of his Presidential rights to the Supreme Court? In fact, I thought he would. It is a conflict of jurisdiction, which should be the only thing the "Justices" (pronounced "Just Us") have a right to decide on. Obama might have won based on SCROTUS's obsessive self-interest in pontificating to the people. Continuous 4 - 4 ties would make them look like a do-nothing Court.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

as soon as gingsburg kicks, a rare opportunity will present itself to who will most likely be a republican..

it's ALL good..

Bader-Bates

Ruthie is a mummified corpse. They can last for thousands of years.

 

[Baz Ares]

Robes Wuz Robbed!


Why can't a President bring that possible obstruction of his Presidential rights to the Supreme Court? In fact, I thought he would. It is a conflict of jurisdiction, which should be the only thing the "Justices" (pronounced "Just Us") have a right to decide on. Obama might have won based on SCROTUS's obsessive self-interest in pontificating to the people. Continuous 4 - 4 ties would make them look like a do-nothing Court.

Either way, you look at this issue here. Both sides have access to the best legal minds available.
Since the Dems did not do that, and the Cons have not in the past.
Seems not to be an option here.