Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Monday, April 10, 2017

FEATURED QUESTION: The U.S. Supreme Court

After much ado and the invoking of the nuclear option (Dangerous precedent?), last week the United States Senate confirmed Neil Gorsuch to the United States Supreme Court.  He will be sworn in today. 

Many Trump supporters voted anti-Hillary on November 8, 2016, specifically because of the one vacancy already on the United Stated Supreme Court and because additional vacancies are likely because of the ages of some of the justices now seated on the court.

Please see Gorsuch may be decisive vote in divisive Supreme Court cases for information about the cases expected to come before the court. Hot topics for which Justice Gorsuch's opinion could well be decisive!


FEATURED QUESTION, in two parts: (1) How do you expect Justice Neil Gorsuch to rule on cases that come before the court? Do you believe that he will live up to the expectation of his changing the tone of the United States Supreme Court?   HERE is a partial list of Gorsuch's judicial opinions.
(2) Does the invoking of the nuclear option bode ill for our republic?

60 comments:

  1. I've learned not to prognosticate on how a SCOTUS Justice will rule [Roberts on the ACA....]. That said, I think Gorsuch is the right guy for the job.

    - CI

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Myron Breckenridge said

      Agreed!

      Delete
  2. The "Nuclear Option" is in reality the Harry Reid-Democrat Gambit.

    Their filibustering of a perfectly mainstream judge--who was given top ratings by the ABA and praised by liberal scholars and jurists-- was historically unprecedented.

    Ruth Bader Ginsberg was approved something like 96-3.

    The ranting, diaper rash Democrats "blew up the senate." Typical leftwingers. If they can't get their way, they whine, cry, scream and destroy everything around them, making themselves a 24/7 pain in the ass.

    If Kennedy retires, President Trump can appoint a real rightwinger, and there aint a damn thing the Demorats can do about it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe it was in reaction to McConnell denying Garland a vote.

      If you have a grasp of recent history you will have to admit that the idea of "blowing it all up" originated with Gingrich and the people (including especially the fringe right) have been suffering greatly but they have been so skull drilled by the likes of Breitfart that serious thought has been short circuited.

      Delete
    2. Maybe it had to with 36 total judges being subject to cloture before the Obama Admin and 36 judges since then.

      Clearly something was afoot.

      Yes Reid fanned the flames, but the latest spark was lit when the GOP decided to oppose any attempt at governance by the Obama Admin in the hopes of deep-sixing his presidency.

      But that is their choice. I'm disgusted they could not figure out a way out of this.

      Shades of "The Watchman's Rattle" by Rebecca Costa.

      Delete
    3. KIPLING'S LITTLE MAN

      _______ ~ or ~ _______

      Bolshevism Revisited

      A Leftist caught in doubt
      Lifts up his head to shout:

      Your treatment is unfair,
      You bully! How you dare
      To question my veracity
      With cruel, hard-eyed tenacity
      I do not know. My views
      Which boldly you accuse
      Of being falsely ranked
      In truth are sacrosanct.

      My thoughts are Holy Writ.
      Your thoughts are quite unfit;
      Based on selfish fears
      They inspire tears
      And dare to say the blame
      Lies squarely in the frame
      Of those whose failing lives
      Look to him who thrives
      And say: Your gold is mine,
      You greedy, bloated swine.
      You have more than you need.
      It's up to you to feed
      Me, the ill and weak,
      Else Heaven that you seek
      Will ever be denied.

      And I will see your hide
      Shredded, tanned and dried.
      And hung outside the gates
      Of each neighborhood that hates
      The needy and the poor,
      Who soon will storm your door
      And drag you from your bed
      And then lop off your head.
      While the masses you denied
      Will ever take great pride
      Your ignominious demise
      Was effected in the guise
      Of condign righteous wrath
      Giving Bourgeois digs a bath.

      With stolen food and goods
      We'll raze your neighborhoods
      And laugh to see you hurt
      Dying in the dirt.
      WE DO NOT CARE TO RISE:
      We live for your demise.
      We thrive on righteous hate.
      It is by now too late
      To make a plan to stop us
      End the Founder's opus.
      Our Marx destroyed your God.
      He's in - not on - the sod
      Feeding nematodes
      In their dark abodes.

      With mockery and shrill
      Sarcastic gibes we kill.
      We drool with sheer delight
      At the thought of endless night.
      Where everything that's witty,
      Charming, gracious, pretty
      Slumps to the nitty gritty,
      As we revel in the dung
      Corrupting all your young.

      For 'we are the little folk, we
      Too little to love or to hate.
      Leave us alone, and you'll see
      How quickly we'll drag down the state.'*


      ~ FreeThinke (2007)
      –––––––––––––––––
      * Rudyard Kipling

      Delete
    4. And here I'LL REPEAT what I just said to Ducky below, because it applies equally, and perhaps even more pertinently to the leftist attitude shamelessly displayed by Dave Miller.

      Your point of view completely ignores and tries to obviate the very idea of state sovereignty –– a longed for goal on the part of leftists who worship at the altar of ever-increasing CENTRALIZED POWER with DICTATORIAL CONTROL ever since they started gnawing away at the foundation of our Liberty, –– the Right of Self-Determination,–– the Right to exercise Freedom of Choice, –– Freedom of Assembly, –– and the God-given Right to Life, Liberty and the unfettered opportunity to PURSUE Happiness, however WE define it, and in a manner of OUR choosing –– NOT YOURS.

      People of your ilk work ceaselessly to destroy all that in favor of COERCED, RIGIDLY-ENFORCED STANDARDS of "FAIRNESS" and "DECENCY" –– as arrogantly and presumptuously defined by YOU.

      So, anyone whom YOU and your kind would support for political office –– or a judgeship –– would categorically seek to DESTROY everything that liberty-loving, independent-minded individuals CHERISH, so NATURALLY "we" would do anything possible (within the confines of the law) to THWART anyone YOU would favor –– and rightly so.

      In addition, even though it is considered politically incorrect even to notice these things, I have to say that MERRICK GARLAND is a JEW.

      We already have THREE Jews on the Supreme Court –– Breyer, Ginsburg and Kagan –– one from California, two from the Northeast I might add.

      Since leftists profess to adore "EQUALITY," doesn't it seem more than a bit odd that they would favor the appointment of FOUR Jews to the Supreme Court, when Jews make up only about TWO PERCENT of the population –– if that?

      And while we're a it, I'm a PROTESTANT CHRISTIAN, and the last time I looked ALL the Christians on the Supreme Court were Roman Catholics.

      What's with that? Shouldn't I be "outraged" and start marching in the streets and setting things on fire at not having "proportional representation" on the high court? ];^}>

      Even Neil Gorsuch was raised a Catholic, but he now attends an Episcopal church, and to all untents and purposes has become a Protestant. Glad he saw the Light! §;^D

      Delete
    5. Ducky,
      Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do...

      Your left turn signal is stuck on, Grandpa.

      Delete
    6. As far as the Garland blockade I only have two words and response. Biden rule.

      Delete
    7. That's your best game, Ed.

      Never mind the context the context of the Biden remark (Hint: He only suggested the nomination shouldn't take place in summer because confirmations in summer were rare but let that go) it isn't a rule and you seem to be implying that one senator's opinion supersedes the Constitution.
      Some strict constructionist you are.

      Remember the left is here to help you live the life of the mind.

      Delete
    8. Nice antisemitic rant to go with the poem from your favorite white supremacist, FreeThinke.

      Delete
    9. FT,
      the last time I looked ALL the Christians on the Supreme Court were Roman Catholics

      Really? I did some checking and see that you are correct.

      I thought that Justice Thomas was Protestant (Episcopalian) but read on Wiki: Thomas was reconciled to the Catholic Church in the mid-1990s.

      I haven't paid much attention to the religious alignments of those on the SCOTUS.

      Delete
    10. Perhaps it would have been a good idea if you –– and three-hundred-million others –– had done so.

      The mandatory ORDER to abandon any and all considerations of a person's RACE, ETHNICITY, RELIGION (or LACK THEREOF), POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY and CULTURAL BAKGROUND when considering that person for any kind of public office is just DAFT.

      The USA was FOUNDED for the most part by White Protestant Christians of English birth. It was THEIR mentality that gave us our founding documents, and the ideals towards which we were to aspire.

      I've heard all the arguments that the Founding Fathers were AGNOSTICIS or DEISTS –– not Christians ––, but nothing could change the milieu in which they were raised , nothing could change their heritage, or their cultural background which was most assuredly WHITE, ANGLO-SAXON, PROTESTANT in tone, whether they could be considered pious, churchgoing stiff-necked prudes or not.

      What people either don't realize –– or don't WANT to realize –– is this: Before the days of Political Correctness –– possibly the most evil of all the many evil leftist initiatives –– iimmigrants were EXPECTED TO –– and for the most part WANTED TO –– A_S_S_I_M_I_L_A_T_E. That means to make every effort to blend in wth and become part of the dominant FOUNDING culture.

      My maternal grandparents emigrated from Europe in the latter part of the nineteenth century. They had no money at all, and knew little-or-no English when they arrived, yet they survived and ultimately prospered, possibly BECAUSE they were eager, and determined to become "real" AMERICANS. They happened to have been PROTESTANTS by the way which was rare among Italian immigrants. They also DESPISED the Progressives and positively HATED FDR, because they knew these influences were gound to ruin and lay waste to the American Dream.

      Delete
    11. FT,
      The mandatory ORDER to abandon any and all considerations of a person's RACE, ETHNICITY, RELIGION (or LACK THEREOF), POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY and CULTURAL BAKGROUND when considering that person for any kind of public office is just DAFT.

      There is no Constitutional basis for that. In fact, our Constitution specifically prevents any religious test for those seeking or holding office.

      I submit that any who are in agreement with America's founding principles can indeed become Americans in every sense of the word.

      And let us not forget the diversity of Christians who settled the original 13 colonies. For example, Maryland was, from the start, a Roman Catholic colony. The colony of Virginia, of course, was Anglican.

      What people either don't realize –– or don't WANT to realize –– is this: Before the days of Political Correctness –– possibly the most evil of all the many evil leftist initiatives –– iimmigrants were EXPECTED TO –– and for the most part WANTED TO –– A_S_S_I_M_I_L_A_T_E. That means to make every effort to blend in wth and become part of the dominant FOUNDING culture.

      Agreed!

      -----------

      Maybe I'm incorrect, but I seem to recall that the Roman Catholics on the U.S. Supreme Court wrote a majority decision in Roe v. Wade. Maybe I'm wrong....

      Delete
    12. FT,
      Addendum: even if you're right, there's no turning back the clock.

      Delete
    13. FT,
      Perhaps it would have been a good idea if you –– and three-hundred-million others –– had done so.

      We don't get to vote on Supreme Court justices -- except in the sense that we vote for Presidents and U.S. Senators.

      Delete
    14. This is your kind of guy, FreeThinke:

      " Adolf Hitler didn't even sink to using chemical weapons during World War II"
      ---- Sean Spicer

      He probably picked up his Holocaust denial from Bannon.


      "He was not using the gas on his own people the same way...he brought them into the Holocaust centers."
      --- Sean Spicer

      He makes Treblinka sound like a resort in the Trump real estate portfolio.

      They defy reason.

      Delete
    15. Sean Spicer should have said "death camps." I'm sure that he wasn't using "Holocaust centers" in the sense of resorts.

      As for Spicer's comment about gas, he probably meant "not on the battlefield." That would be accurate phrasing.

      The above said, I think it is apparent that Spicer doesn't think well on his feet. Unsuited for his job? I think so.

      To be fair, the press corps is a pack of wolves. Who in his right mind would WANT to deal with them on a daily basis?

      Delete
    16. Spicer is a doofus.

      He should go to work for United Airlines. "Holocaust Centers" is right up there with clubbing a paying passenger and forcibly dragging him from a plane and calling it "Reaccomodation."

      Delete
    17. SF,
      You will find this comment of interest:

      on the night of the first Seder before this comment, we all discussed how the Nazis had invented Tabun and Sarin and then never used it. There was no disagreement as to how horrendous Assad (as a family) is.
      Or that SOLELY among the ME dictators have these weapons found use, and ONLY against civlians, and ONLY their own civilians.
      There was no need for Spicer to say anything but that, and it's a win....Spicer has to go.

      Delete
  3. From today's NYT (emphases mine):

    ...Had Judge Garland replaced Justice Scalia, the court would have immediately shifted to the left. A majority of its members would have been Democratic appointees for the first time in almost 50 years....

    [...]

    In losing the 2016 presidential election, Democrats may have given up the chance to change the balance of power on the Supreme Court for a generation. Judge Gorsuch is 49. If he serves as long as Justice Stevens, the last member of the court to retire, he will still be hearing cases in 2052. He would be 84, as old as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is now.

    Actuarial realities suggest that President Trump will have additional chances to move the court to the right. The court’s three oldest members are Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, 80, a moderate conservative who holds the decisive vote in many closely divided cases, and the court’s two senior liberals, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, 78, and Justice Ginsburg.

    Were Mr. Trump to replace any of the three, a court that generally leans right would have a rock-solid conservative majority.

    Were Mr. Trump to replace all three, the court’s remaining liberals — Justices Sonia Sotomayor, 62, and Elena Kagan, 56 — could find themselves writing lonely dissents for years to come....

    ReplyDelete
  4. The great thing now that all this "non-partisan" BS is over... the "impeachment" of judges will no longer be "taboo". Goodbye "Notorious RBG!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well of course, the DemonRats will embrace the tactic of trying to get Supreme Court Jusitices impeached, since it's the only thing they will be able to do to try to get their way again in that third "co-equal" branch of the government.

      And the D'Rats will have support from as far back as 350 B.C. To wit:

      "That judges of important causes should hold office for life is not a good thing, for the mind grows old as well as the body."

      ~ Aristotle (382- 322 B. C.)

      By the way getting rid of SOCTUS members has not always been taboo.

      "Abraham "Abe" Fortas (June 19, 1910 – April 5, 1982) was a U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice from 1965 to 1969.

      "... Fortas became a law professor at Yale University, and then an advisor for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Fortas worked at the Department of the Interior under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and during that time President Harry S. Truman appointed him to delegations that helped set up the United Nations in 1945.

      "In 1948 Fortas represented Lyndon Johnson in the hotly contested Democratic Senatorial Second Primary electoral dispute, and he formed close ties with the president-to-be. ...

      "Nominated by Johnson to the Supreme Court in 1965, Fortas was confirmed by the Senate, and maintained a close working relationship with the president. In 1968, Johnson tried to elevate Fortas to the position of Chief Justice, but that nomination faced a filibuster at least in part due to ethics problems that later caused Fortas to resign from the Court."


      ~ WIKIPEDIA

      So there HAVE been times when arrant Partisan Cronyism HAS been thwarted –– by the Right Wing no less.

      Delete
  5. amen to FJ! I'll take the small increments AOW! hugz! xoxox

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Were Mr. Trump to replace all three, the court’s remaining liberals — Justices Sonia Sotomayor, 62, and Elena Kagan, 56 — could find themselves writing lonely dissents for years to come"

    QUESTIONS:

    1) I believe that Gorsuch will uphold the Constitution and [laws]based upon it as opposed to those who would use their judicial power to make law(s) based upon political bias (see above).

    2)Yes, in this case the "nuclear option" may, very well, assure a Supreme Court supporting the Constitution for generations to come (see above).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope you're right, Jon, but as we've all learned from bitter experience Justices appointed by Republican presidents too often turn rogue once they're in power.

      Inly time will tell. As AOW said the other day, "Selecting a Supreme Court Justice can be too much like buying a pig in a poke."

      Delete
    2. @FT,

      "Republican presidents too often turn rogue once they're in power."

      Hey, no argument there but, at least, we have a chance whereas w/DemocRATS there would have been none whatsoever!

      Delete
  7. I, personally, have always believed in simple majority rule. Anything else smacks of game playing, and invites trickery, treachery, deviousness and naked, ugly power struggles. It also brings about unconscionable delays in gettng on with the nation's business.

    In other words, if your party loses the majority, you have to learn to take a back seat, sit down nd shut up, unless something truly extraordinary occurs that honestly demands full participation by all members of congress.

    We are in desperatte need of reviving the concept of The LOYAL Opposition –– a term I remember president Eisenhower using with fair frequency –– back in the lovely days before Our Country Lost Its Mind.

    Normally, I detest the cincept of "bipartisanship," because it ALWAYS seems to boil down to "Do it the DEMOCRAT'S WAY, or ELSE!"

    That members of the GOP rarely fail to acquiesce to these loud, insistent demands –– even when they are in the MAJORITY –– is a never ending source of dissatisfaction and resentment for me and the many others who have the firm convictions I do.

    "We" are the primary reason Mr. Trump got elected. I only hope that HE doesn't desert us now that he's in power.

    Only time will tell

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FT,
      That members of the GOP rarely fail to acquiesce to these loud, insistent demands –– even when they are in the MAJORITY –– is a never ending source of dissatisfaction and resentment for me and the many others who have the firm convictions I do.

      Either they are interested in fair play OR their interests mostly intersect with the interests of the Dems.

      Uniparty?

      Delete
  8. @FT - I, personally, have always believed in simple majority rule.

    ---------
    So you support abolition of the Electoral College?

    In the House more votes were cast for Dems than Repubs but due to gerrymandering we have another example of rule by the minority. Gorsuch is likely to defer to the states if a gerrymandering case comes before the court. Seems you have a dilemma.

    No, you will continue to whine that the Dems are responsible for the state of affairs which has our country ruled by fundamentalists, corporatists and war profiteers.
    We'll hear some puerile palaver demanding an "originalist" and then these same whiners will head for cover if you turn it around and ask where in the Constitution it states that corporations are people.

    Let' be honest. The call for originalism only means a court that rules the way you desire and as far as I can see that means going back to the days of the robber barons.

    It is most sad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Tis only you who is the sad one, Canardo.

      You who only see the world through a grimy distorting lens. You who see little but warts, moles, pimples, scars, birthmarks, blotchy irregularities in the complexions of your companions, wrinkles, bags under eyes, and sagging jowls.

      You who look at a beautifully furnished room searching for traces of dust, cobwebs, soiled upholstery, signs of wear on the carpets, scars in the paint and stains of the wallpaper.

      You are one who looks at a beautifully prepared, elegantly served dish and thinks only of cholesterol and how it much it might adversely affect your blood pressure or your precious digestion.

      You look at the wonders of a Gothic cathedral and think only of how those who built it with love, devotion and faith were cruelly exploited by their masters. You look at such an edifice and wonder how many died falling from great heights as they chiselled saints and gargoyles into the stone facade –– or the hypocrisy, venality and cynicism of so many in the ecclesiastical hierarchy.

      In short you've spent your entire conscious life looking only for the worm in every apple, the hole in every doughnut, the bad spot in every piece of fruit, and for any discernible trace of body odor or bad breath in every soul you encounter.

      You really ARE a sad little man, Canardo. I don't believe I've ever encountered a more pathetic, unremunerative, ultimately depressing specimen of humanity than you.

      Delete
    2. To address your twisted taunts and jibes more directly, Canardo:

      Your point of view in addition to being irrelevant to mine completely ignores and tries to obviate the very idea of state sovereignty –– a longed for goal on the part of leftists who worship at the altar of ever-increasing CENTRALIZED POWER with DICTATORIAL CONTROL ever since they started gnawing away at the foundation of our Liberty, –– the Right of Self-Determination,–– the Right to exercise Freedom of Choice, –– Freedom of Assembly, –– and the God-given Right to Life, Liberty and the unfettered opportunity to PURSUE Happiness, however WE define it, and in a manner of OUR choosing –– NOT YOURS.

      People of your wretched ilk work ceaselessly to destroy all that in favor of COERCED, RIGIDLY-ENFORCED STANDARDS of "FAIRNESS" and "DECENCY" –– as defined by YOU.

      So, anyone whom YOU and your ilk would support for political office or a judgeship would categorically seek to DESTROY everything that liberty-loving, independent-minded individuals CHERISH, so NATURALLY "we" would do anything possible (within the confines of the law) to THWART anyone YOU would favor –– and rightly so.

      Delete
    3. So, how did those evil Rethugs gerrymander a Senate majority? Majority of state governors?

      Its not conservatives' fault leftwingers herd themselves in densely-packed urban areas and stack their $h*t so high.

      Hillary's entire margin came from California, which is a leftwing extremist state, far out of the American mainstream.

      Delete
    4. FT..it is NOT MAJORITY RULE anymore, as you know..it's MINORITY RULE...the sick, the lazy, the demanding entitlement seeker, those who'd threaten children with legislation, ....I could go ON and on.
      MINORITY RULE is what's destroying America.

      Delete
  9. The Dems change the rules, we have to abide by them, then when we use them, they're SO unhappy! :-) Remember Biden saying no supreme court justice should be appointed months before an election because a new president deserves the right to choose? Ya, until it's a Republican.

    Thank GOD we got GOrsuch; the next fight will be even a worse bloodbath...imagine Pelosi and Schumer and all the little pinheads' hate as they denounce anybody who's not far left?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But their petulant ranting will be impotent. President Trump and the Senate GOP can now easily ram through a fire-breathing right winger, and there's not a damn thing Schumcky and the Pelositards can do about it.

      Delete
    2. What rules did the Dems break?
      They filibustered. Completely within the rules. The denial of a vote to Garland is the violation of the rules.

      Let's face it Curt, the absence of the filibuster means little at the moment. I think the Dems are banking on the Happy Hands administration being so inept that they take back the Senate at mid term and can then block whatever corporate pimp Trump proposes.

      I have a question for you.
      You and I both firmly agree that corporatism and money influence are big problems in today's government. Why are you excited that Happy Hands has installed a corporate pimp?

      My guess is that the right is hoping abortion and gay marriage get clawed back in preparation for the theocracy but I'm not sure.

      Delete
    3. Wrong, Ducky. Neither action was a violation of the rules.

      Delete
    4. Corporate pimp? Stop huffing the propaganda. He is a well-respected mainstream jurist.

      Read the ABA endorsement.

      Delete
    5. You're not only a malignant FOOL, you are a LIAR!

      NOW SIT DOWN, SHUT UP, and DON'T SPEAK UNLESS YOU ARE SPOKEN TO!

      Delete
    6. You think the refusal to vote on Garland didn't violate the spirit of the Constitution, Curt? If nothing else it was enough to caution the R's from whining about "changing the rules".

      The ABA endorsement doesn't say a freaking thing about his judicial temperament. You can get the endorsement and still be a corporate pimp.

      FreeThinke, stop trying to act butch.

      Delete
    7. No, Jim, refusing to vote on Garland didn't violate the spirit of anything. I can understand Dems getting mad about it, but the tantrum has gone on way too long, and their petulance and playing to the leftwing rabble is further poisoning the waters.

      Delete
    8. I mentioned Biden in my comment....Ducky, what don't you understand about Dems calling the shots, then getting riled because the next party calls the shots with the rules the Dems made?
      Garland was nominated too close to a presidential election, according to JOE BIDEN, DEMOCRAT.
      It was precedent and it stuck for them, why not the Republicans?

      Delete
    9. Z,
      What went around came back around.

      And the Dems cry, "Foul!"

      Pfffft.

      Delete
  10. Here's a good article from Ilya Shapiro of Cato:

    "The exercise of the "nuclear option" returns Senate procedures to what they were 15 years ago. The filibuster was simply not employed for partisan purposes against a nominee who had majority support before Harry Reid started filibustering George W. Bush's lower-court nominees in 2003"

    Hairy Reed is the father of lies and the root of the partisan evil that has seized the Senate.

    The Democrats' unilateral, hyper-partisan filibuster of a well-respected mainstream judge is historically unprecedented.

    The Democrat's crocodile tears over how the the filibuster is the founders' "saucer that cools the tea" is also canned crap (as is all DemonCrap propaganda).

    There was no filibuster at the time of that quotation, and the modern filibuster is barely 100 years old.

    The Senate's "cooling saucer" effect was due to Senators being appointed by their states' government and sent to DC. They were not subject to the whims and passions of the people since they did not stand for direct elections... Until the howls of populists in the progressive era led to the 17th Amendment and senators' direct election.

    Rage-filled progressives' irrational religious belief that the arc of history perpetually bends their way leads to such destructive, petulant outbursts.

    Leftist destroy everything they get their hands on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. THANK YOU! I'm not prepared to go QUITE that far, myself having known any number of leftists who are in fact wonderful people, when you get to know them, but all the same THANK YOU!

      And AMEN!

      Delete
    2. FT. In my lexicon, leftists are way out past the progressives, who themselves are beyond the liberals. I have many liberal friends and family, and we get along wonderfully.

      Also, many of my friends when I lived in Latin America various different times were very much to the left, Che Guevara pictures on the wall, etc.

      Unlike here, down in South America that level of leftism is not only warranted, it is almost a moral obligation.

      Delete
    3. FT,
      myself having known any number of leftists who are in fact wonderful people, when you get to know them

      That may have something to do with what you said earlier:

      members of the GOP rarely fail to acquiesce to these loud, insistent demands –– even when they are in the MAJORITY.

      I suspect that many members of the GOP and members of the Democratic Party are personal friends.

      Delete
  11. The founders "saucer that cooled the tea"? The author is full of crap.

    Since it didn't get used until 1845 and even then very rarely I'd question the overblown contentions of the article.
    It came into prominence in the 1960's.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The historically-ignorant yappers on the left are the ones blathering on about the GOP destroying the "saucer that cooled the tea," so you may want to cool it. You're engaging in friendly fire, and the left hates dissent. You could find yourself ostracized and on the bad end of a furious tweetstorm. Being on the left today means falling in line and spouting the propaganda. We'd hate to see you made an example of.

      Delete
    2. Ducky,

      Your party is a rabble of wild-eyed, foaming at the mouth loonies. I hope the DemonCraps go further left. Heh heh heh...

      Delete
  12. Dangerous precedent. I say NO based on the idea that the libs and cons are at warand will be for the forseable future. Meaning, if the country wants evil in charge they will elect dems, if they want semi-evil in charge they will elect repubs, if they want something good then tea party.

    For me personally, if we get one or two more con judges then the wooden stake will have been driven into the hearts of libtards everywhere for at least the next 30 years and I will rejoice. I don't expect to be around that long. It will be up to future generations to protect themselves from the democrat evil.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Pardon my off-topic comment, but rational skeptic Rep Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) speaks out against more war and provides a ray of hope and a rare voice of reason from the unhinged Democrat Party:



    "But Gabbard, who sits on both the Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees, maintains those critics are ignoring the lessons of recent history that have left the United States mired in costly Middle Eastern conflicts for more than a decade.

    "I and thousands of my brothers- and sisters-in-arms went to war in Iraq based on false intelligence and lies from our leaders — our president, military and political leaders. We should have been skeptical then, and we weren’t,” she said. “The cost was thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars down the drain."


    The goggle-eyed loonies, hoarse-voiced vulgarians, bedlam escapees, rage-filled vandals and foaming rabid wombats on the left want to kick her out of the Democrat party and eject her from her duly-elected seat.

    Please everyone, pause and thank President Trump. None of this would have been possible without his election.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hate it that this had to come from a Democrat, but at least it's being said. Thank you for posting it.

      - CI

      Delete
    2. CI, It takes two wings to fly, and our Democratic Republic need healthy and rational competition and cooperation among the various factions.

      I pray for a restoration of sobriety and sanity in both major parties.

      Delete
    3. I hope for such as well......sadly, blind partisans on both sides of the spectrum believe that only their unhindered ideology spells the true hope for political success. Thus, the cycle continues......

      Delete
  14. Mathilda Roundheels said


    Back and forth conviction goes, where it stops nobody knows

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective