This is so true. When else -- other than ancient child sacrifice cultures -- have people celebrated ripping the bodies of babies to pieces as a "civil right"?
Posted on 08/12/2014 6:12:53 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Only two possibilities, my friends. One: He’s talking out of his ass here, trying to scare the shinola out of well-heeled liberals in order to make them reach for their wallets before the midterms. (See also “impeachment.”) Two: The fix is in.
Over/under on when Ginsburg calls it quits is summer 2015.
“What’s preventing us from getting things done right now is you’ve got a faction within the Republican Party that thinks solely in terms of their own ideological purposes and solely in terms of how do they hang on to power. And that’s a problem,” Mr. Obama said at the Tisbury, Mass., home of Roger H. Brown, president of the Berklee College of Music.
“And that’s why I need a Democratic Senate. Not to mention the fact that we’re going to have Supreme Court appointments.”
You can, if you like, take that as an early hint that Reid intends to nuke the rest of the filibuster if another Court vacancy opens up. Right now, the filibuster still exists for Supreme Court nominees, albeit not for lower-court nominations; in theory, if Ginsburg quit tomorrow, the GOP would need only 41 votes to block her successor — unless Reid suddenly changes the rules once again, that is. Even if, against all odds, Democrats retained control of the Senate, no one thinks they’ll be anywhere near 60 seats next year. And no one seriously believes that Mitch McConnell, as majority leader, would block an Obama nominee from an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. Which is to say, the only reason having an absolute Democratic majority might matter to O is if Reid’s already planning to get rid of the filibuster for SCOTUS appointments too and let Dems confirm the nominee with 51 votes.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Well, civil discourse could influence, Our course of history.
Headline: Justice Scalia tragically infected with Ebola. Six weeks to live, experts say.
This is so true. When else -- other than ancient child sacrifice cultures -- have people celebrated ripping the bodies of babies to pieces as a "civil right"?
Today.
Except, of course, Ted Kennedy, who had one Cardinal tripping over himself to preside at his funeral and slobber on Obama’s shoes, and another Cardinal to read a smarmy eulogy and a form letter from the Pope at his graveside.
Then there’s the then-governor of New York, David Paterson, described by Cardinal Dolan as “a Catholic who takes his Christian faith seriously.” All except the trivial part about not killing 57 million babies and counting.
Then there was pro-abortion USSC “Justice” William Brennan, the real “brains” behind Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. The priest at his funeral said that “Bill left this world a much better place” than when he came into it.
The corruption of the hierarchy and the clergy is on gaudy display every time some murderer of babies, living or dead, is lionized.
“Congress can increase the number of justices anytime. It only takes 51 Senators to increase the number of justices from 9 to 11. Then Obama can add Ayers and Holder.”..........
Can Congress also decrease the number or are we stuck with 9?
Second question, Can Congress also set term limits for the SCOTUS appointees? Might be a good place to start if they are planning on making changes.
Supreme Court is one of the branches of the Federal Government.
Once appointed, they can not be removed from office. It is a life time appointment
No, you don't understand, it it not meaningless.
The plank means something to the Republican voters who crafted it because that's what they believe. Other voters who read the platform may vote Republican because of what is stated there. It is the Republican brand.
Most Elected Republicans do share the belief system with their constituents, and if they don't they will be found out by TEApartiers, exposed, and replaced.
Here's a question for you Shark:
Republican platforms (every state has a different one) do they somehow go against your standards?
Then why are the Republicans who are elected constantly strive against them, never to face consequences thereof?
(e.g. McCain.)
It's meaningless because all it is is a bunch of words. There's no consequence for failure to uphold it. There's no consequence for fighting against it.
In that regard it's exactly like the Constitution — only mattering when the Powers That Be claim it does.
Most Elected Republicans do share the belief system with their constituents, and if they don't they will be found out by TEApartiers, exposed, and replaced.
Right; I don't believe this.
If it were true we'd never have gotten McCain or Romney as presidential nominees.
Republican platforms (every state has a different one) do they somehow go against your standards?
It doesn't matter because there's no intent to see them upheld, either by elected officials or by the electorate-in-general.
Then nothing matters, including every thought you've ever had, every "bunch of words" you've ever spoken.
It's meaningless because all it is is a bunch of words.
What should it be, a bunch of bear traps, machine guns and nuclear bombs?
If the activists, and the primary candidates don't expose and hold these RINOs accountable, who's fault is that?
By the way, the platforms are conservative... McCain and Romney et al are hardly shining examples of conservatives, nor are they even examples of "most elected Republicans" What do you think RINO means?
>> It’s meaningless because all it is is a bunch of words.
>
> What should it be, a bunch of bear traps, machine guns and nuclear bombs?
It’s like someone saying, promising something with absolutely no intent to follow through.
It’s like a cloud that never gives rain hovering over a droughted land.
> If the activists, and the primary candidates don’t expose and hold these RINOs accountable, who’s fault is that?
That would be the people, wouldn’t it?
> By the way, the platforms are conservative... McCain and Romney et al are hardly shining examples of conservatives, nor are they even examples of “most elected Republicans” What do you think RINO means?
And here you are proving yourself wrong again: if things really worked like you say and they were held accountable they wouldn’t be “most elected” would they?
So, what does this mean? It means that such are NOT in fact RINOs, but instead embody the actuality of the Republican party.
No, that would be the activists and primary candidates.
The "Republican Party" (voters) wrote the platforms. Do you disagree with the platforms?
And we see how much weight the platform holds.
Do you disagree with the platforms?
I'd have to re-read it; last time I checked I did but that's completely beside the point because those who claim the platform [Republicans] have little to no intent of upholding it.
IOW, it would be useless to say I'm 100% in line with the Republican platform
because even people who are essentially 0% behind it say the same thing.
You're on a losing argument here: claiming that the Republican platform means something when it is clear that it doesn't.
This is patently false.
Article III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
OK, you win, might as well just kill yourself now.
That's not what the winner does.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.