# Supreme Court



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

In 2016 the Republicans refused to have hearings about O Bama's Supreme court nominee 10 months before the election. Their cry was.....Let the people decide during the election. Leading the pack was O'Connel. Now they want to appoint someone 43 days before the election.

Hypocrites....Hypocrites.....Hypocrites.... uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Hypocrites....Hypocrites.....Hypocrites


 :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: Ignorance ignorance ignorance. :rollin: :rollin: :rollin:

The precedent was set in the 1800s. If the president and the senate are of different parties they wait to appoint a new judge. If the president and the senate are of the same party the appointment can be anytime from now to January 19. The republican senate followed precedent in 2016 and they will now.

The burn America left will go nuts. Even prominant democrats are saying there will be burning and looting, and they say it in a threatening manner. Very low life for a responsible adult.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

You are correct.....ignorance....ignorance.....ignorance

"This is what they do. I think both for Sen. McConnell and President Trump, their first value is power, and they're trying to jam the court with as many ideological judges as they can.

What has changed since 2016, when McConnell said the "American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice." 

"I don't know what's happened to make him stop trusting the American people. but apparently when it's to his advantage the people are not entitled to a say,"

The GOP "made a new precedent" to wait for a new president before confirming a nominee ahead of an election. "Well they made a new precedent, and that new precedent, which they all defended incredibly passionately, is to wait for the next president whoever that is to make the nomination."


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

The Supreme Court has had nine justices for more than 150 years. But the Constitution doesn't require nine; the number is set by Congress. And leading constitutional scholars told NPR that if Republicans do push through a new justice and then lose the Senate and presidency in the upcoming election, Democrats will face tremendous political pressure from the base to pack the courts and add on to the number of Justices.

Democratic leaders have long rejected the idea of packing the court, in large part due to fears of Republican retaliation. But with Ginsburg's death - and what many see as Republican hypocrisy in calling for a vote now after they refused to hold a hearing on Merrick Garland during the last year of Barack Obama's presidency - the once radical idea has started to gain traction.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Go back and read my post again Ken. McConnell didnt set any lrecedence it was set in 1880.

I have heard the democrats say they will pack the court. Perhaps if Trump wins and the republicans hold the house they should appoint 11 or 13 judges and set a limit on judges in the supreme court. When a democrat president appoint a person to the suoreme court the reoublicans generally go along with it and many vote for them. In general the republicans are much more civilized. They also dont riot and burn.

I think its funny how the left idolizes RBG as bteaking glass ceilings. She didnt, the first woman on the supreme court was Sandra D O'Connor--------- a republican. Whats not funny is the commandment you shall not kill. Being prtially responsible for the muder of million of unborn I think Hell has a new resident.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I know you are really anti abortion.....when do you consider an embryo a person?

I am guessing you are all for repealing Roe V Wade.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

When scientists at the Antarctic found a single cell organism in a rock they thought from space they were estatic because they found evidence of life from space. Its strange how they apply that differently when they want to kill an unborn child. Life begins at conception. Some young women believe it begins at the age of awarness and defined it as five years old. This was college age women who seen nothing wrong with killing a four year old child. Roe vs Wade was the beginning of modern barbarism.
I have a seriouse question for everyone- when did religeouse faith become a vice to democrats? Well, not all religeons, but Christian specifically. They are very tolerant of Muslims. Do they not relize Christians care for them and Muslims would kill them for a number of reasons. Its thing like abortion and homosexuality that makes Muslims hate us. Christians dont throw gay men off ten story buildings.

Even RBG said Roe vs Wade was weak and on shaky legal ground. Thats why it is such a hot button for democrats. Isnt it odd the lady who pushed abortion said we need it to iradicate the *****. Its no accident most Family Planning clinics are in minority neighborehoods. Yes Roe vs Wade should be held up to scrutiny and repealed on the basis of the constitution. We have ignored and even accepted some violations of the constitution.


----------



## Resky (Aug 13, 2012)

> They are very tolerant of Muslims. Do they not relize Christians care for them and Muslims would kill them for a number of reasons.


I would not put all Muslims into the same box. I don't know much about the Koran but I've heard a lot of Muslims declare the Koran does not support the Muslim terrorist hijackers view. I do know that the Koran worships the same God that Christians do and even mentions that Jesus was a messenger of god, But, the Koran believes Mohammad was the second messenger of God.

When does human life begin, I don't really know. It could be at conception, at the first sign of a heart beat-don't know. What I do think is at the first sign/point the fetus can feel pain then there should be no abortion allowed. The question I need answered is when does the fetus feel pain. I'm sure it certainly is at the first sign of a heart beat.

Now as for replacing RBG, the Constitution demands it and there is nothing in the Constitution that says it has to wait until after an election nor that it cannot be put off until after the election. But the decision by the Constitution specifically says it is up the majority leader of the senate. Case closed.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I do know that the Koran worships the same God that Christians do


 That is a mistake made by some pastors who are universalists. These liberal Christians will tell you all paths lead to heaven, yet Jesus said no one comes to the father but by me. The Muslims believe in a nonexistent god, or worse sice Mohammed was decieved and we know only one capable of that magnitude of deception.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken...

I see the hypocricy in what Mc Connell stated. But you asked what is the difference now than in 2016... Well:

1. In 2016 there was going to be a new president no matter what... Clinton or Trump. BIG DIFFERENCE. Now it will be TRUMP or someone else. So it isn't like 2016.

2. Look how the Kavanaugh nomination went... It wasn't civil it was a witch hunt by the Dem's... which is sad.

3. What plainsman stated about how in the past when they were nominated they had opposite parties in president and senate.

But I do see the hypocricy by all of them. Just like Schummer and others stated in 2016... DO YOUR JOB... then MC Connell stating what you posted. Now they both just "flipped".

Here is something and I want it down on record now.... No matter what happens but if Trump nominates someone they will bring up some sort of "race card" against them. Will it be that the "appointee" dressed a certain way during Halloween, they used a "slur" or "derogatory comment", someone will come out of the deep woods and say... they did this or that to me. Just wait. Especially if it is Amy Conney Barret. :bop: They already attacked her for being Catholic... or she used the term Orthodox Catholic in a writing.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I have heard many state that Roe vs Wade is in no danger of getting repealed because they don't have the votes. EVEN if Trump appoints another justice. Remember this has been battled over for years and hasn't been repealed.

But what needs to be "amended" or adjusted about roe vs wade is all of the talk about allowing abortions up until the birth stuff or after live birth. I agree with resky on the point that we need to find a certain line of when is "too far" to allow an abortion to happen. Remember the "battle cry" was for the "physical health of the mother"... well now people are trying get "mental" health. Interesting how the goal posts keep moving. With Post Partum Depression.... they can abort up to a year? or like Plainsmans example... 5 years old? REALLY!!!! That isn't abortion it is murder. I can just see it now... a mother kills her 3 year old and claims it was an "abortion" when she shot the child. Yes i know that is stretching it but do you see the issue.

But I believe that there should be a line or time at which abortions are illegal unless there is physical harm or death that could happen to the mother. Kind of like what is the "guidlines" now are. But there just needs to be a strict law that states that time frame.

like plainsmans example of a "cell" and people going crazy that they found "life" on mars or from another planet. Yet some of the same people will say a baby who is 1 week from being born could or should be aborted if deemed so. REALLY???

Now back to the OP about the supreme court. I know there is a bill getting introduce to make it a law that only 9 justices and you cant get anymore.

also like I stated in another thread is that to be honest we need another judge just incase the results from this election are contested. Yes think about it. Right now people are already saying they "wont trust the vote" and will fight it tooth and nail (see democrats remarks...ie: Hilary clinton among others). Even with the push for "mass mail in voting" people are setting up to contest it...

So we need a full court to decide it. You cant have it a 4-4 vote... then who would be president? I honestly think it would be Pelosi... correct??? That should scare everyone... oke:

*SO I AM TORN ON THE WHOLE JUSTICE NOMINATION.... I am a yes/no... the main reason why the yes is because of the possible election issue. Otherwise it could wait until after the election. *

Also I dont know if it is true or not... But Biden came out and stated that he would nominate a BLACK woman. So who is playing the race, gender, etc card here. Who is pandering to people. I honestly think that is straight BS. I am not saying a black woman cant be a justice. I am saying if your first instinct is to say... BLACK WOMAN when considering for qualifications... you are the one being racist/sexist. Why not a black man, asian man, hispanic man, etc.... same goes for asian woman, hispanic woman, etc.

If what I stated is truth above about what biden said... think about how racist/sexist that comment really is. It should offend everyone.


----------



## oldfireguy (Jun 23, 2005)

There are 435 representatives, 100 senators, countless other former or wannabe politicians. Throughout our history many times that.
What they have "said" over time has changed.

One thing has stayed constant. The Constitution has not changed on how a Supreme Court vacancy is filled.

What does the Constitution say?

Maybe we should follow that direction.


----------



## Resky (Aug 13, 2012)

Plainsman said:


> That is a mistake made by some pastors who are universalists. These liberal Christians will tell you all paths lead to heaven, yet Jesus said no one comes to the father but by me. The Muslims believe in a nonexistent god, or worse sice Mohammed was decieved and we know only one capable of that magnitude of deception.


Plainsman, with all due respect you are wrong. Peaceful Muslims will tell you that both Christens and Muslims worship the same God. Difference is who was each faiths prophet they believe in. The Koran mentions Jesus but the Bible does not mention Muhammad because it was written before his time. Both the Koran and the Bible are based on faith because God never wrote a single word in either. They both were written by man so faith only is the path. The only thing that is concrete is there was a man named Jesus because Roman history has that documented in their writings. Ditto for Muhammad documented in history. This is off topic so I won't comment anymore on this. To each his own.

Bottom line on the subject of this thread, religion of any source has no business on the selection of a supreme court justice. I want someone that is a strict constitutionalist and leaves their faith at the front door. If this sounds like I'm in the agnostic camp then so be it.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

https://www.newsweek.com/amy-coney-barr ... le-1533293

Trump hasnt even nominated anyone yet and here is a "hit piece" on Amy Coney barret. Yeah and the media isn't the enemy of the people.


----------



## speckline (Dec 13, 2008)

Nominate a highly qualified constitutionalist Judge, debate the nominee in Senate, and ram it through without KY jelly!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman, with all due respect you are wrong. Peaceful Muslims will tell you that both Christens and Muslims worship the same God.


 Scholars debate it so its little use for us to do that we will just agree to disagree respectfully.

What throws me for a loop is the Muslims believe in Armegedon. The difference is they believe that their god will kill the Christian God.

As far as peaceful Muslims the Koran instructs them to be meek until they are of sufficient number and power to rise up and put infidels to the sword. There are devout Christians and devout Muslims. Then their are luck warm Christians and luck warm Muslims. Those peaceful Muslims you speak of are not the devout.

I have talked some with a Christian I know with a million dollar bounty on his life. He was a captain in the Pakistan military. He studied the Koran to the point of being an Islamic leader. After 15 years of studying the Koran, a year or so looking at the Bible, and studying secular histody he gave his life to Jesus. They burned his home and hunted him to kill him. He escaped to South Africa, but had to flee there when a million dollar bounty was put on him. He escaped then to the United States. He now speaks all arohnd the country warning people about the Muslim agenda. He said the Koran you see in America is not complete and the full Koran he studied is much more violent.

How can a god that directs his believers to kill infidels especially Jews and that killing a Jew will get you directly to heaven be the same God that says love your enemy and you need do nothing for him, that his son has done it all for you?


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Lindsey Graham.....Another typical conservative right wing LIAR. I guess it's OK to speak out of both sides of your mouth. After all.....Trump does it all the time.

He made a statement in 2016 on C-SPAN, saying "I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say 'Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.'"

In 2018, he said in a Yahoo News interview, "If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait to the next election." uke: uke: uke: uke: uke: uke:


----------



## Resky (Aug 13, 2012)

Most politicians do lie or as some claim change their minds as conditions change. But if a list is made for politicians that lie, then without question the top of the list would be Nadler, Schiff, and Schumer. Certainly there would be some Republicans on the list but these three would be at the top. oke:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

You are kidding right????? Do a google search....Trump has lied 20,000 times. Many more sources are saying this. Top of the list....the King of liars. :bop: :bop: :bop:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

20,000 times? Someone actually kept track. I call bs on such sillyness.

Resky you forgot Pelosi. When it comes to lies liberals have developed it into a fine art. Im amazed they can keel a straight face with some of their stories.

Since the 1880s 29 nominations have been made close to an election. That included 19 when they were of the same party and 17 were confirmed. Ten nominations were made when the president and control of the senate were of different parties and one was confirmed.

When Obama was president the republicans controlled the senate. They would not even bring it to a vote. Given the chance the democrats woukd have done the same. Now there is nothing the democrats can do to stop this confirmation. Given the chance the ddmocrats would do the same. If you disagree with that you have the same IQ as the average door knob.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

If the Democrats win Congress and President, you can look forward to....
1. increasing the number of Supremes.
2 ending the filibuster rule. 
3 Making Pourto Rico and D C states and electing 4 more Democratic senators..

And the Repugnant Party won't able to do a thing about it.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> If you disagree with that you have the same IQ as the average door knob.


Me personally?


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken...

So they want to end the rule they put in place.... the filibuster? Why because it doesn't suit them now?

Like I have stated I am torn on this one because of 2016. Even with the difference of being Trump could be re-elected. But I also foresee a full court will be needed to possibly "call" this election. With people already gearing up to dispute the results.

But this is bothering me.... The tantrums that are being thrown and TRUMP HASN'T EVEN NOMINATED ANYONE.

Now with calling BS on elected officials. Yesterday Schummer "envoked" the 2 hr rule. Which means they can only do certain things... look it up. He is doing this to not let the Senate bring the nomination to a floor vote.... HE HASN'T NOMINATED ANYONE YET!!! He also stopped a hearing/briefing on ELECTION INTERFERENCE and SECURITY.... so if they are so worried about the interference as they say they are... why did he do this. BTW... they can have the 2 hour rule and still allow other things to be heard if both the Majority and Minority agree to that hearing....ie: ELECTION INTERFERENCE and SECURITY. But today they are not planning to do the 2 hr rule because they want to hear about the Health and Services committee to bash Trump on his response to COVID. (I may have gotten the name of the committees mixed up but it will be in the link I post)

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/schumer-in ... -hearings/

So please tell me who is actually doing the work of or for the people??? Along with Pelosi holding budget extentions and COVID bills hostage because she isn't getting her way with mail voting, USPO money, green new deal stuff, illegal immigrants getting money, protecting her lawyer friends so they can sue for COVID related stuff, etc. Nothing to do with FUNDING for a shut down and helping citizens during COVID. And I know they got a deal done last night for the exention... but she held it hostage until the final hour.... again... who is working for the people and who isn't???


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Chuck......this is getting out of hand. Both sides are getting ridiculous. But what do the Republicans expect when they change the rules? They are basically saying "we don't trust the people" to keep them in power just 40 days from election day.

This is not going to turn out good for the country. Finger pointing won't do any good. But the ball is in the Republicans court. They can do the right thing and wait until after the election.

If they choose not to,then they can expect retaliation in kind.


----------



## Sasha and Abby (May 11, 2004)

The dems are having to answer now to their made up accusations against Justice Kav..... I hope it bites them in the *** for the pain they put the country and his family through...


----------



## Resky (Aug 13, 2012)

> If they choose not to,then they can expect retaliation in kind


If retaliation is the order of the day by either side then we no longer have real representation in congress. We will just have two sophomoric groups fighting for their cause and not ours.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

KEN W said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > If you disagree with that you have the same IQ as the average door knob.
> ...


No everyone in America. I disagree with you often, but we have both been around so long its like a family disagreement. :thumb:



> Given the chance the ddmocrats would do the same. If you disagree with that you have the same IQ as the average door knob.


 The democrats have done far worse already. Fake dossier, fake impeachment witnesses, fake witnesses to turn Cavanaughs life into a living hell. They support the burning and looting. and its going to bite them in the ***.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> But what do the Republicans expect when they change the rules? They are basically saying "we don't trust the people" to keep them in power just 40 days from election day.


 Ken we have discussed this already. They are not changing rules they are following a 140 year precedent. When followed 19 times 17 judges were confirmed. When not followed 10 times only one was confirmed.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Ken...

Like Plainsman stated and I have stated before.

The difference now compared to 2016 is this..... There was a different president that would have been elected! Obama had his 8 years already.... so it would have been Hillary or Trump. Now it is either the incumbent or Biden. So it is a different ball game.

But i agree the rhetoric by the Republicans back in 2016 is coming back to bite them in the *** because they didn't explain it good enough or people have short attention spans and only remember what they want. But the same thing can be said about what the Dem's said as well. So both are very Hypocritical.

now what I am really worried about is all the posturing by both sides (or at least what CNN is sayings) that nobody is going to agree with the outcome of the election. So we will need a full supreme court to decide a winner. This could be a huge issue is the seat is left vacant. :bop:

Also have you seen the hit pieces and talk heads already cutting down the "prospective" nominations. I have seen things about 2 of the possible nominations already.... one saying too religious, another saying too weak, another says too much for "corporations". THERE HASNT BEEN A NOMINATION... this will be another Kavanaugh but not with the #metoo attacks. Just wait and see.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Chuck.....probably right . will have to see. I just see Dems retaliating if they control everything. Election night will be a mess. May not know who wins for weeks.

Plainsman.....correct we disagree on a lot of things. One of my brothers is opposite me most of the time. Sometimes we really have to tone it down. His mind won't change and neither will mine. Too old and set in our ways. We basically don't talk politics when we are hunting or fishing together. Kind of like you and I. :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> I just see Dems retaliating if they control everything. Election night will be a mess. May not know who wins for weeks.


And this is the problem with our political system right now.... THIS GOES FOR BOTH SIDES!! It is all about pointing fingers instead of working together.

I will say this again and again (people who have read my posts have read this before)...

No matter what side of the political spectrum you are on.... Right, Left, Center..... you are in the minority. Yes let that sink in.... our nations has about 40% of the people's ideals fit with the left leaning... and another 40% fit with the right leaning.... then you have 20% in the middle. So no matter what... you are only 40%.... so your way of thinking is typically in the MINORITY. So when elected officals vote "PARTY LINES"... they are failing 60% of the people. That is what our elected officials forget.... :bop: :bop:

This goes for all sides. :beer:



> Plainsman.....correct we disagree on a lot of things. One of my brothers is opposite me most of the time. Sometimes we really have to tone it down. His mind won't change and neither will mine. Too old and set in our ways. We basically don't talk politics when we are hunting or fishing together. Kind of like you and I. :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:


Ken... i feel the same way... no hate or any ill will by me towards anyone I disagree with on this site and on these matters. As long as you like and care for the outdoors we are good... and don't cheer for the Packers... we are good... oke: :rollin:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... d=msedgntp

look another type of "hit piece" or at least making accusations.... AND SHE HASNT EVEN BEEN NOMINATED YET....

You see this is why I have an issue with media and others. Trump hasn't even nominated anyone and they are putting out these pieces about people.

Again... I want it down as I am saying this.... There will be something along the lines of "racist" coming with whom ever Trump nominates.... even the Cuban judge from FL. They will try to spin something with race against her. Just because race is a hot button issue now. Just like how the Republicans bring up Harris record while being the DA of CA and how she wasn't a "champion" for the black community. She put more in jail than she helped. oke: But just wait and see about any nomination... "race" will be a factor in the hearings/nomination process.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... d=msedgntp

This is an article basically shouting down CNN and its narrative that Trump wont accept results of an election.

But again... time will tell on this.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Chuck......my family are all Vikings fans. Except one of my gransons. For some reason he is a Packers fan. Whole bedroom is Packers. Only 12 years old.


----------



## speckline (Dec 13, 2008)

Smart kid Ken!!! :beer: oke: :thumb:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Chuck......my family are all Vikings fans. Except one of my gransons. For some reason he is a Packers fan. Whole bedroom is Packers. Only 12 years old.


Is he out of the will.... :rollin:

My mom got remarried and had a son 10 years to my younger. When my younger brother was growing up he was a packer fan.... we teased him saying he is out of the will. There is even a christmas card picture of him in a Farve jersey... well now he has seen the light and is a viking fan. But what was funny was when the Vikes signed farve. He stated he just knew that would happen back then... LOL

Is all in good fun ribbing and teasing between viking and packer fans.. :thumb:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Right now I have seen a couple of "Hit pieces" towards the nominee.

1. Her religious values.

2. She had an opinion on a case about campus sexual assault. The hit piece is about her going against "victims" of sexual assault on campus and the "reporting" of it. THis is a lie. She made a judgement that the accused gets due process or the right for due process. You know the innocent until proven guilty thing of our law system. Also think DUKE lacrosse team incident.

So yep it is starting already along with the people in the Senate already saying they wont meet with her and also some already saying they will vote NO. How do you like our elected people willing to at least hear her out. They could have the no vote in there mind. But to come out and say already that they will vote no... is showing how partisan they are and how they are not willing to work with the other party.

At least go thru the dog and pony show and then vote no. I would have alot more respect for them.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Schummer said he woukd not attend. His purpose was to make sure everyone knows he has no respect. He said RBG last request was to have the next president appoint someone who held her convictions. In other words someone who disrespected the constitution and legislated with the same convictions as the prince of Hell (whos sister is speaker of the house).


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Plainsman...

That "quote" or "request" by RBG has been proven to be not accurate or true. It is a relative who is spreading this. One who has addimately shown hatred towards TRUMP. But others in the family stated that they had never heard her say this.

Remember back when the Garland issue was going on RBG stated... "a president works for 4 years not 3". Saying that Obama's nominations should have at least gotten a hearing or been seen by the Senate.

Again I am torn on this subject because of the Garland issue. But honestly I think we need a full court to weigh in on the election results. One side is saying Trump won't accept the results. even though he said he would if it is a fair and honest election. The otherside hasn't come out and said they would accept the results and Hilary and others have said outright that Biden should dispute the results. So it could be a battle by either party.

especially with what has been coming out in MN with Omar and I just read that in PA observers are not getting allowed into places to see what is going on. Interesting.... :bop:

So again... we might need a full court to rule on this election. Let me put it this way... I dont want Pelosi in power while things are getting disputed. Which I think is what would happen... but not 100% sure. :bop:


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

I also feel we need a full court before election. There are going to be more election issues than ever this time around. We are gonna see a lot of results go to the courts. I suspect they will be finding uncounted ballots months after the election, on both sides. The longer period of time you allow for the acceptance of ballots the greater the chance of fraud. It's gonna be a real chit show.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> The New York City Board of Elections just admitted that 99,477 voters in Brooklyn were mailed absentee ballot return envelopes with the wrong address and the wrong names printed on them.


I just read this. I am not going to scream "fraud" or anything like this. But this shows you that almost 100K votes could have been misplaced.

It is why I think we need a full supreme court.

Here is a quick fact... NY has about a 55% voter registration which is 55% of its population. Its population is roughly 19.5 million. SO to make math easy... 11 million registered voters. If 100K ballots go missing that is roughly 1% of the votes go missing. JUST FROM WHAT HAPPENED IN BROOKLYN. Yes think about it.

Again this is why we need IMHO a full supreme court... and makes the whole Garland issue a moot point. It is all about holding up our elections integrity... NO MATTER WHO WINS. :bop:


----------



## oldfireguy (Jun 23, 2005)

In retrospect, It seems that in 2016:
1. Obama did nominate Garland to the Supreme Court.
That would be consistent with the Constitution.

2. The Senate rejected his nominee.
That too is consistent with the Constitution.

I guess they could have gone through a formal hearing process.....had "witnesses" falsely accuse him. They could have publicly smeared his name and embarrassed his family; denied him the presumption of innocence.
And finally, voted along party lines.

I am glad that Garland was spared such an ordeal. But then again, I can't recall the Republicans ever using such tactics on a SCOTUS nominee.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> NY has about a 55% voter registration which is 55% of its population. Its population is roughly 19.5 million. SO to make math easy... 11 million


 I think only about half of that population is of voting age so double that to about 2% of the ballots could be fraud.



> I am glad that Garland was spared such an ordeal. But then again, I can't recall the Republicans ever using such tactics on a SCOTUS nominee.


They never have because they respect the constitution. Everyone knew Obama would not appoint constitution judges rather left leaning activists and still I think the one vote was 90 to 10 for his appointment. Not only that they had the majority at the time and it would have been constitutional to vote down that nominee and they should have. This isn't just conservative vs liberal it's more like civilized vs. uncivilized. Include their platform and they are barbaric. Liberal men support abortion for the same reason a lion kills the young when it takes over a pride of lions. To bring the females into heat again. Barbaric!


----------

