Trump demands that liberal SCOTUS justices recuse themselves

[Mick]

Yep. And in the Biden Rule, Biden specifically stated that it applied during a Presidential election "year." March is obviously within a year of November of the same year.

Democrats are so mind blowingly stupid. Biden said no hearings in a Presidential election year specifically because there was going to be a divisive election. Then Democrats go duh, what does that have to do with Garland. They're the dumbest people on the planet

Yes, and Biden did say "election year" on the floor of the Senate. Between their lying and low IQs these left wingers totally get owned. It's who they are.

 

[Mick]

1. Biden was talking about a hypothetical situation in June....assuming that didn't happen the very next day...yes, he was talking about something that might happen in the coming months, making it close to the election.

Yep, it was hypothetical and he was making preparations for it. He also said "if it happens tomorrow" and said "election year". Are you unable to stop lying on this forum? This is a serious question. It gets to a point that the lying is so rampant and insidious that it becomes who a person is and a mental illness. You no longer can control it. You seem to be at that point.

2. When did Scalia die? Oh...February? 11 months till election.

February to November is 11 months? Wow. ROFL

And, no, they couldn't consider a nominee in February because there WASN'T one. It's still the "election year" as Biden called it.

 

[Mick]

So I presume Scalia ruined himself and harmed the nation when he criticized Obama?

Scalia criticized the RULING and POLICY, not the MAN. Ginsburg bashed the President, the man. Sotomayor bashed her colleagues, without evidence, the men.

Basic concepts at play. You are unable to grasp.

 

[Jack4freedom]

It did as long as he was Judiciary chairman. He could choose not to have hearings. Think, dimwit.


McConnell never said he had to hold back because it was rule, simpleton. The fact you are dumb enough to not understand what is being at issue here tells us all we need to know. Under Biden's Judiciary committee it WAS the personal rule of the chairman.

Don't like getting humiliated, do you? Maybe you should stop reading alt-left propaganda.

One does not have to read anything but the definition of the word RULE to know that Biden‘s statement was not a rule. As I previously stated, you have obviously been indoctrinated in Ailes/Hannity/Limbaugh speak and can not any longer discern the difference between truth and lies/distortions. I realize that you are compromised but it’s really pretty simple. In order for something to be a RULE in the US Senate, there must be a vote.

 

[Mick]

Yeah, whatever Orangie says goes.....Right champ....Recuse everyone who disagrees with his sleazy tactics....That’s the ticket....lol

Just recuse those who have shown, through words, that they are biased against him and his administration. We expect our justices to fair-minded. These clowns have shown through their owns while on the court that they cannot be.

 

[Mick]

One does not have to read anything but the definition of the word RULE to know that Biden‘s statement was not a rule. As I previously stated, you have obviously been indoctrinated in Ailes/Hannity/Limbaugh speak and can not any longer discern the difference between truth and lies/distortions. I realize that you are compromised but it’s really pretty simple. In order for something to be a RULE in the US Senate, there must be a vote.

No, there doesn't. It was McConnell's rule that justices shouldn't be considered during election years. He mimicked and followed Biden's rule. And you see, there wasn't. I know, low IQ left wingers can't figure out that chairmen and majority leaders control what comes up for vote (sets their own rules). You've been so rotted out with left wing nonsense you can't even think.

Practice what you preach, small mind.

 

[kaz]

One does not have to read anything but the definition of the word RULE to know that Biden‘s statement was not a rule. As I previously stated, you have obviously been indoctrinated in Ailes/Hannity/Limbaugh speak and can not any longer discern the difference between truth and lies/distortions. I realize that you are compromised but it’s really pretty simple. In order for something to be a RULE in the US Senate, there must be a vote.

So all you can come up is to quibble over whether a rule can be informal or has to be formal? It can be either. You went to government schools, didn't you?

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Here's some interesting data. I know you like facts.

My posts were liked (with the various variations) 23.9% of the time.

Your posts were liked (with the various variations) 8.4% of the time.

So that makes me almost three times as believable as you. Fun fact, huh Bugsy? You're welcome

Translation: Dittoheads like to ditto. Duh.

;-)

 

[kaz]

Translation: Dittoheads like to ditto. Duh.

;-)

Um ... no idea what that means. Can you translate that from broken English into coherent language?

But your posts are believed by less than 10% of even leftists. And yet you claimed that everyone believes you all the time. Ridiculous nonsense

 

[Spamature]

He says they’re biased against him and should not participate in “Trump-related cases.”

Meanwhile, Trump is fine with GOP Trump/GOP hacks sitting on such cases, including Clarence Thomas, whose wife actually works on behalf of Trump, even helping him with his governmental purges.

Trumplandia! Dear Leader Trump speaks! He demands that all judges be his lackeys!

Trump Launches New Attack On Supreme Court, Demands Liberal Justices Recuse

The president wants associate justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg to sit out any "Trump-related" cases.

m.huffpost.com

This is what happens when you let a criminal run free. It's now an all out assault on the rule of law.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

This is what happens when you let a criminal run free. It's now an all out assault on the rule of law.

A mob boss unrestrained by the rule of law.

This cannot end well.

 

[Spamature]

A mob boss unrestrained by the rule of law.

This cannot end well.

It's not even starting well. At this point it's either him or the republic because the two can't coexist in the same country.

 

[Mick]

This is what happens when you let a criminal run free. It's now an all out assault on the rule of law.

Yeah, an assault on the "rule of law" where the United States Senate actually makes the final decision on whether to confirm a nominee to the SCOTUS. When your guy doesn't have the advice and consent from the Senate and is denied a SCOUTS seat it's a criminal conspiracy to you guys. When the other guy does have the advice and consent of the senate and joins the court you also call it a criminal conspiracy.

You left wingers are always doing your crimes and blaming others. Korsuch and Kavanaugh are there legally and as directed by the Senate. Garland is not. Any other setup that says others would indeed be an assault to the rule of law.

Evil, evil stuff.

 

[kaz]

Yeah, an assault on the "rule of law" where the United States Senate actually makes the final decision on whether to confirm a nominee to the SCOTUS. When your guy doesn't have the advice and consent from the Senate and is denied a SCOUTS seat it's a criminal conspiracy to you guys. When the other guy does have the advice and consent of the senate and joins the court you also call it a criminal conspiracy.

You left wingers are always doing your crimes and blaming others. Korsuch and Kavanaugh are there legally and as directed by the Senate. Garland is not. Any other setup that says others would indeed be an assault to the rule of law.

Evil, evil stuff.

Bingo. The President nominates, the Senate confirms. Biden had the legitimate Constitutional power to state the Biden Rule. Mitch had the same power. Democrats are like bu-bu-bu no, Mitch is a Republican, it's not the same ...

 

[EatTheRich]

All these wingers, already pretending to forget about the Moscow Mitch decision refusing to even consider an Obama SCOTUS nominee.

Sane patriots remember.

Not illegal. Slimy but not illegal.

 

[Bugsy McGurk]

Not illegal. Slimy but not illegal.

Unconstitutional.

 

[EatTheRich]

Yep. And Biden said EXACTLY what Mitch did. No hearings. He didn't even say he'd have Democrats vote them down. He said no hearings until after the election.

Jack4freedom and Bugsy are being exposed for their double standards yet again

And Bush got his nomination because Biden was not making a rule, just saying that he thought it would be more fair to wait.

 

[EatTheRich]

Just recuse those who have shown, through words, that they are biased against him and his administration. We expect our justices to fair-minded. These clowns have shown through their owns while on the court that they cannot be.

What about those, like Kavanaugh, who have openly declared themselves biased on behalf of his administration and against the opposition party?

 

[EatTheRich]

Scalia criticized the RULING and POLICY, not the MAN. Ginsburg bashed the President, the man. Sotomayor bashed her colleagues, without evidence, the men.

Basic concepts at play. You are unable to grasp.

No, Ginsburg attacked policies and Sotomayor attacked judicial activism.

 

[Mick]

No, Ginsburg attacked policies and Sotomayor attacked judicial activism.

Ginsburg called Trump a fraud and said he should resign. That's unconscionable for a justice to even wade into. That's a personal atrack.

And Sotomayor ranted about the court's recent actions helping President Trump. Maybe the justices were trying to DO THE RIGHT THING? Unreal. Her absurd efforts to intimidate is judicial activism. It's trying to taint the court from within. These 2 absolutely should be recused. They've shown their true colors.

I can't decide who the greater liar is on this forum....you or middleview. Cretins.