The SCOTUS was my main reason for voting against Hillary by voting for Trump. Based on his performance thus far I will have no issues voting for Trump in 2020 but that is subject to change.
Nice way to absolve yourself of any guilt over the terrible things trump says and does... "gee, he got a right wing judge on the court". Never mind that any other republican president would have also nominated a right wing judge. Heck, if anything, you should campaign for McConnell for president... he blocked the very qualified Merrick Garland from the supreme court.
You honestly think the Republican Senate would have given Hillary an inch? We all know that rules and promises mean absolutely nothing to Congressional Republicans, especially McConnell/Ryan. I think we'd just now be getting around to talking about having a Merrick Garland vote.
The exit polls showed that nearly 80% of people that voted for Trump suggested that an important factor in their decision to vote for him was SCOTUS nominations. In fact, I think you can say that was one of the main reasons he won so in some ways Trump can thank Obama for putting 2 far left wing justices on the bench in Sotomayor and Kagan because that motivated Republicans to vote Democrats out of office in the House, Senate, and eventually the White House.
[Premium Post] This is a momentous day in American History. We are now much safer as a nation, and our President now has full authority to exercise his Executive Privilege to take steps to safeguard our citizens. This is a triumph for all reading this. Trump continues to impress with his accomplishments. GOOD DAY
I would agree with that if Kennedy hadn't previously taken religious views stated by participants in the case into consideration for the Wedding cake case. It is inconsistent to use freedom of religion based on statements by a participant in one case but not the other.
Guilt??? Why would I have any guilt? I did not care for Trump in 2016 because I figured he would move way to the left if elected but knew he at least promised to appoint a decent Constitution interpreting SCOTUS candidate when I knew Hillary would appoint someone who legislates from the bench. I have zero guilt. Trump has been a better President than I could have imagined. Unless takes a hard jump to the left, I will happily vote for him in 2020. I know you might be the person with the most significant case of Trump derangement syndrome on this forum so you are incapable of making a rational determination concerning anything about him, but I can promise you there are many people happy with the job he is doing. Heck, I know several never-Trumpers who voted for Johnson who are very happy with the job he is doing who will be voting for him if he keeps things up. The Democrats will have to nominate a serious candidate for 2020 or you/they will be in agony for 6+ more years.
Wow, what an insensitive tweet, and that's saying something. Just wagging his laughing jowls and his chortling little beak in the faces of American voters (yes, even the ones who support the GOP). The reasons to loathe the turtle continue to grow.
The Garland fiasco will absolutely come back to bite Republicans in the ass. You don't get to make up rules on the fly like that for your own personal gain and not have it come back on you. Either at the polls or through legislation. The reckoning will be harsh. In 2020 Mitch McConnell, even if Trump is reelected, will be in a serious fight for his job.
I want to think you're right, but I hardly recognize this country. Or I do: it's the country where 58% of Americans approved of shooting the 4 unarmed student protestors at Kent State, and the country where a strong majority of Republican voters had a positive view of Richard M. Nixon on the day he left the White House in disgrace.
You think so? I mean, you are missing a few things in your analysis. 1. The public voted for Republicans to do EXACTLY that. As i pointed out above nearly 80% of those who voted for Trump suggested that SCOTUS nominations played a significant part in their decision to vote for him. The Republicans ran on preventing more Obama SCOTUS nominations and they won. The people got what they wanted even if that wasn't what you wanted. 2. The "rule" was just going along with what Joe Biden thought was the right thing to do when he was in the Senate and faced with the prospect of potentially having the same type of situation happen. Maybe don't shoot your mouth off if you don't want it used against you. 3. Obama could have gotten a SCOTUS nomination considered if he had picked a more moderate candidate, you couldn't expect Republicans to even give a second look at an anti-2nd amendment justice like Garland. 4. You can't honestly say that if Democrats controlled the Senate that you'd be fine with allowing Trump to put another conservative on the bench in his last few months as president. It's just not believable.
I know you were and have been a trump supporter from the get-go. Funny all the "I didn't vote for him" right wingers on D&D... but in truth, y'all know you did. And what did you get for your vote? We'll see how Mueller's investigation shakes out...
Those who voted for him got the SCOTUS nomination they wanted put on the bench and exit polls showed that was a big part of why nearly 80% of those who voted for him did so. Also, I don't think DNC propaganda bots should be assuming the actions of humans. There's plenty of people who simply didn't vote due to unpalatable options and I was one of them.
[Premium Post] Oh look at Sizzle Chest suggesting to all that he is of superior moral fiber! Yet he's all too willing to look past Obama's scandals, including spying on Trump, Congress, American citizens, Merkel, and hostile media actors, weaponizing the IRS, politicizing the CIA, NSA, and FBI, and launching a coup attempt against Trump before Obama left office. Oh don't mind those things, we are the party of morality! I don't recognize my country anymore! What a crock of mierda. How foolish people look who try to mount their high horse when they themselves stink from having soiled their pants! GOOD DAY
I am far from a legal expert... this law professor seems a glimmer of good in today's USSC ruling... the last of which (Kennedy's statement about no future prejudice) hopefully will offer protection from any future discriminatory actions... Of course, with this significantly republican court, we will have to see...
It may be the reason conservatives voted for Trump but it isn't the reason for the low democratic turn out I think is the point. It had nothing to do with Obama's nominations and you can't get on Obama for putting up 2 'far left' justices and then applaud Trump for Gorsuch who is even further to the right than Scalia was. Trump went about as right as he could and should Ginsberg or Kennedy suddenly retire I bet you won't demand Trump to put up a moderate in their place, would you?
Heh... seems there were many on the right that complained about opposition to Gorsuch, since he was replacing a conservative judge, and it was fair to keep the existing "balance". Hopefully we won't have to see if a left-leaning judge has to be replaced... since I have no doubt there will be no "need to maintain the balance".
That's true, the low turnout among Democrats has to do with the fact that their base is comprised of people who are historically unreliable when it comes to showing up to vote. One of the major groups I'm talking about is young people, if you don't have a gimmick on the ballot to really get them hyped about voting, they just won't show up. When you have a depressed base with an awful candidate on the ballot, you get a poor turnout no matter who they are. You say it had nothing to do with Obama's nominations, but when you can point to to far left justices that he put on the bench it results in solid campaign ads. I'm sure Democrats will try to do the same with Gorsuch, we'll see if it is as effective. For the record, I never demanded that Obama nominate a moderate, I just pointed out that if he wanted his nominee to have ANY chance of confirmation they'd have to be a moderate and I said that based on the Republicans controlling who could be confirmed. When Democrats controlled that it led to Justice Kennedy, the ONLY true moderate on the court being his nominee. Since he went that far left with his nominee, it was confirmed. You have to compromise if you want something from the opposition party, Obama simply wasn't willing to do so to the extend required and thus he didn't get his nominee on the bench. If the Democrats took control over the Senate, I would expect the exact same thing to happen. Trump would REALLY have to compromise to get a SCOTUS nominee confirmed in a Democrat controlled Senate.
