Borrowing a quote of Mitch from u/WU_HAN_FRU that's down thread that should be seen further up:
The members of the minority party in the Judiciary committee have repeatedly and egregiously abused the hearing process. Therefore, at noon eastern time tomorrow, the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett will go before the full Senate.
Looks like Mitch is going for it tomorrow and the Dems can suck it.
Eh, maybe, the Senate has a ton of rules and it may be faster to go through the full process quickly rather than let them drag things out with rules-lawyering or claiming some arcane impropriety.
That would make tomorrow an amazing day, beyond amazing. But at best we'll get senate approves ACB, though I would love for the social media one as well.
You're going to say, "No, please, (stop) No more winning, we can't take it anymore." But, no, we're going to keep on... Winning, Winning, Winning. - DJT
100% definitely know what you’re talking about after having lived through the RINO mantra of “lay there and take it, please may I have another” the last 15 years.
Except this time we’ve got our secret weapon, Trump. The MSM and left still can’t figure him out. He’s tenacious enough and full of piss and vinegar; I think he’s out for blood after 11/3. That’s my hope anyways.
I’m old enough to remember when Saddam Hussein was captured, they publicly announced his trial/execution would take place at some future date. While his kronies started whipping up some plan for disruption/mayhem on that date, the new Iraqi government tried and hanged him something like the next night.
Terrorists were like <pikachu face>. Many keks were had.
Give Schumer and his gang 24 hour notice that the senate will move up the confirmation to this Saturday. The dems right now are in a huddle to figure out what bogus crap they could come up with to smear ACB. Won't work.
I appreciate your reasonable approach. As a conservative, I wouldn't mind true liberals that were not like the current dem party and justices. RBG was appointed BECAUSE of her activism. Disgusting.
The fact that liberals are not okay with Christianity but okay with Islam bewilders me. Chrisitanity is about the only reason there are any lgbt LAWS in the first place. America was founded on Christian principles, and should be the bedrock of any judges judgement. Because say America goes the other direction and Islam becomes the "moral" compass on which all laws are based then what? Muhammad married an 8 year old, they can kill people that disagree with them, sacrificing animals is okay. Unless Islam has some "New Testament" Jesus like person that says "I am the Lamb of God. You dont have to sacrifice animals anymore." Then it should not be the moral compass.
Islam is even worse than that, logically. It claims to essentially BE the 3rd testament of the Judeo-Christian Bible. But it essentially lays out that the whole thing was wrong, and that Ishmael, not Isaac, was the favored son...creating an alternate history and favored people. It calls the Bible both the holy word of God, and also lie. And it says that Jesus is just a prophet but not the son of God. Ultimately it makes less sense than Harry Potter fanfiction, but with a lot more rape and beheading. Islamic pedos can go to hell.
Totally agree. Morality in American society and civic culture stems from the Ten Commandments and almost all Americans, even your most hardened atheist, neckbeard, TDS sufferer will have had his moral compass calibrated by those at some point in his life, whether he likes it or not.
There’s a reason our courts use Bibles for testimony and not Qurans.
To be completely fair, Roe Wade is unconstitutional - same as the ACA is unconstitutional. Instead of both being done federally, they should be done on the state level and most states will allow abortion on state level.
Abortion is objectively immoral. However, the Federal Government's legitimate authority to define illegal behavior is entirely restricted to international or interstate affairs. Thus, the Federal Government is not justified in criminalizing abortion and is indeed a "state's right"-sort of thing.
However, given that abortion is indeed objectively immoral and inherently violates the principles of the Constitution which each State is required to uphold, the Federal Government does have a responsibility to step in when a State fails to do this. A state failing to fulfill their obligation under the Constitution is therefore illegitimate and the Federal Government has the responsibility to govern de facto until such time when the State reasserts a legitimate governing body.
This is different than simply criminalizing it at a federal level.
It's kind of a subtle distinction, and I wasn't trying to be obnoxious. Your post was a lot closer than most people's. I just wish people would take the time to consider the various levels of government, and to learn to recognize certain types of responsibilities so they can figure out what level of government should handle it.
Not a chance. No justice has openly talked about doing it.
and I would like to leave that how it is, honestly
No, it's a very dangerous precedent that needs to be removed. I'm pro-choice but I can't tolerate that the court pulls a constitutional law out of their ass. 9 (or at least 5) unelected unaccountable judges should not have the power to write the constitution! That abomination that is R v W needs to be erased if you want to have the legislative power in the hands of the people. It's a matter of democracy.
Whether or not blacks are targeted, abortion is inhumane. Targeting a specific racial group is worse than inhumanity. The abortion industry being one of the single biggest donors to the Democrat party is even worse than that. The encouragement of abortions to obtain biological material to sell to China is the worst.
That's the first, and likely only, time I will ever hear a claim of a theological argument for allowing abortions.
It's also incredibly suspicious that you hand-wave a theological argument and also present a social engineering argument.
It's also incredibly insulting you assume my viewpoint is based on either fanaticism or is 'purely emotional'.
What's true for you is true for you
And there it is.
Subjective morality is a prerequisite to justifying abortion. Keep lying about studying 'higher level theology' at the same time as using subjective morality to justify whatever you want. No serious theologian has ever argued for subjective morality.
So excuse me while I call you a faggot and tell you to fuck off with your 'hard analysis' and 'compromises'.
Is your other sales tactic to try and slip in some insults you thought I'd be too stupid to notice?
What exactly am I parroting? The conclusion that I, and millions of others like me, have come to? And because we happen to agree on the conclusion, I'm somehow parroting them, or some default basic bitch reasoning you assume those millions of people all share?
You didn't ask me about my reasoning. Yet you assume I haven't 'researched'. Or contemplated. Or debated. You assume I'm ignorant, but you know absolutely nothing about me other than my conclusion on this one topic, which, presumably, makes me ignorant, unresearched and a dirty plebe.
You didn't explain your reasoning (other than an entirely irrelevant social engineering argument), only presented your conclusion, and in your ego from your '20 year spiritual journey' you believe it to be so unimpeachable that I wouldn't be able to help but asking about it.
You literally just parroted your conclusion and expected me to be drawn like a fly to honey.
What does limited government mean to you? Because if you ask me if I want limited government, then the answer is a resounding 'yes'.
With that being said, in the domain of what the government should be doing, I want it to be thorough in those areas. 'Limited government' doesn't mean inept or incomplete, it means not taking on the responsibilities that shouldn't be taken on by the government.
One such legitimate domain of government includes the definition of what is criminal. I want everything that is criminal to be criminalized, not leaving anything out because "oh that's too many laws", or "it wouldn't sit well with the criminals if we criminalized their actions".
I don't give a shit about what your arbitrary amount of people feel about it, either. The goal is to make America great, not aspire to the mediocrity and degeneracy that what you're proposing has already brought us to.
By criminalizing abortion at 3 months, you're implicitly defining human life as starting at exactly 3 months, by the way. And you also can't measure a span of time when the exact moment of conception isn't known, yet you're willing to exert legal consequences over a period of time that a person cannot possibly have an exact answer for. Can't imagine a judge that's not an activist who would uphold that standard.
Family planning and sex education are 100% irrelevant to the immoral nature of abortion. If/how/how much to do that is an entirely unrelated question.
Are you making the claim that the 'thing' being aborted is not a 'human' until it is viable? No one's arguing for prosecution of people for miscarriages.
No I think it’s human and I think it’s gross to abort it, but at the end if the day it’s the mother’s choice bc it is not independent. I guess that’s the definition for when rights kick in, when you at least have a chance of surviving on your own
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm trying to understand.
You believe them to be alive, actual human beings, but because they cannot survive on their own, that somehow the implied 'guardianship' of the mother legitimizes ending their life?
Are you saying because they're not independent, they don't have a right to not be aborted/killed?
Why does this logic not apply to infants? Why is child neglect a crime, shouldn't the babies be expected to be able to survive on their own? Doesn't guardianship imply an expectation to preserve their life? Why is this suddenly reversed in one specific case?
Because infants can survive without the mother. Non viable babies cannot.
The flip side of guardianship is dominion, the mother has both in this case. Legally it makes the most sense to make this compromise on the issue as there is a valid philosophical (and practical) delineation between an unborn child who can survive outside the womb versus one who cannot.
Again, I personally find all abortion disgusting and abhorrent but I also don’t think that everything bad needs to be banned. For instance, gay sex or smoking pot or driving 100 on a road with no traffic are all bad choices but imo should be legal.
There are very few people making these argument. No one making these arguments is being taken seriously. This is a flagrant straw man misrepresenting the people disagreeing with you.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on Thursday affirmed that he has secured enough votes to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court.
How can you not have the votes?? Shes one of the the most qualified people in the country. She slayed all of the bullshit partisan hacks without so much as a reference card.
Harry Reid started the era of one party only appointments and discouraged bi-partisanship. I am happy to see the Republicans show the Dems what their failure to make compromises looks like. Donald Trump needs to end sanctuary cities, reverse illegal immigration and maybe, only maybe, Democrats will for once come to the negotiating table in good faith.
I see Collins and Murkowski going along with ACB because she's a woman , I'm having the feeling that Mitch is saying we have the votes but it might not be unanimous. I don't see Romney on board, this is the time for him call his no name thumbs down on the grandstand. But compared to No Name, it won't matter and he'll just exposed himself as an even bigger prick, she's getting confirmed and this will take whatever motivation anyone had to vote for Biden.
Hurry up chump!!!
THEN FUCKING VOTE, MITCH
If I had a dime every time I heard "We've got the votes"... just DO IT <insert Shia LeBeouf>
Took me a minute...I thought you were talking about the branch of Islam lol
Not sure the two are entirely different.
If it looks like a duck
both are into self flagellation
<BIDEN> WILL NOT DIVIDE US!
hahahaha
HOLD UP
Your not supposed to actually do anything you are supposed to leverage it for personal gain...forever and forever and forever...
Remember when 8chan kept finding his “he will not divide us” flags and taking then down with drones?
Isn't it still in the Judiciary Cmmte? If so, then it's Graham who needs a fire lit under him as the chairman.
Nah the more they grill amy the more angry dems get. They want her in like 85% in a nation wide poll.
Too long. Do it now.
Based Cartman
Think we'll see any video of it?
Lol
Borrowing a quote of Mitch from u/WU_HAN_FRU that's down thread that should be seen further up:
Looks like Mitch is going for it tomorrow and the Dems can suck it.
Eh, maybe, the Senate has a ton of rules and it may be faster to go through the full process quickly rather than let them drag things out with rules-lawyering or claiming some arcane impropriety.
She was cold by May
They been "Weekend at Bernieing" her ass for like 2 years now.
2017
They would have had 10
Yes!
Wilford Brimley has entered the chat
You're back!!!!!!
Breyer is almost knocking on death's door too
Just imagine what tommorow's headlines could be:
"Senate approves ACB"
"Ajit Pat announces clarification of Section 230; moves to remove social media liability immunity"
"Hunter Biden arrested in early morning raid"
Well the last one is wishful thinking...but get the salt collectors ready...
We're going to need salt warehouses on Nov 4, but only if we get enough Pedes out there to vote!
BTW, expect Sullivan to try to convict Flynn and add some conspiracy theory in it right before the election.
That would make tomorrow an amazing day, beyond amazing. But at best we'll get senate approves ACB, though I would love for the social media one as well.
Cumala knows how to suck it.
she can suck a whole bag of dicks at once
She can suck golf balls through a garden hose.
Chrome off a trailer hitch.
bwahah.. thanks I hate it
They voted today to do it October 21st or something around that time.
Uh oh. Looks like you should have ordered from Hurry Up Shrimp!
i admit i would have found the positive if there would have been nudes
You're going to say, "No, please, (stop) No more winning, we can't take it anymore." But, no, we're going to keep on... Winning, Winning, Winning. - DJT
Hallelujah!
... by the renewing of your mind.
God bless!
SUBSCRIBE
Frogfantasy? More like Frog Reality.
Even without executions for treason I can live with this. Barely.
100% definitely know what you’re talking about after having lived through the RINO mantra of “lay there and take it, please may I have another” the last 15 years.
Except this time we’ve got our secret weapon, Trump. The MSM and left still can’t figure him out. He’s tenacious enough and full of piss and vinegar; I think he’s out for blood after 11/3. That’s my hope anyways.
They're pushing the vote off too much. Need to have it earlier so the Dems don't do something crazy to force it to a later date!
Is that you Larry Elder?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
inhales
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
He was hacked out of his job!! What a shame.
LeArN tO cOdE!
Except CSPAN just suspended him and said he’ll be back. They even praised him as an unbiased commentator 🤡 🌎
He's great at getting hacked, maybe China will tell us through his hacked account.
Rekd
Yeah, this is hysterical
Please lawd!!!!!
As a Californian, I need this so badly.
MAKE STOCKS ADJUSTABLE AGAIN
RPG for thee!
10 round RPG magazines, plz.
Why stop at 10?
Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition.
PS also bc dont want to throw the back out, or get exhausted; it's alot easier to move <20lbs boxes constantly than 30lb or 50lb boxes :)
30+1 or go home! Better start lifting now, because that sucker weighs a ton
Disclaimer: this option is not recommended for CC unless you have the girth of Rosie O’Donnell
Fully-automatic 10,000 rounds/sec bullet clips for all!
SCOTUS - RBG + ACB = RPG
I may or may not have a SMAW i lost in a boating accident that I maybe once posted on Sunday Gunday on Reddit in /r/thedonald
Unfortunately nothing to launch except a practice round that I also lost in a boating accident
Its about damn time. Living in Jersey was starting to feel like Germany
Get out the vote for a constitutionalist President then! Knock door to door. Put up flyers, etc.
Try living in California
I cant imagine lol
Pleeeeeeaaasssee challenge the ny safe act!
Put Pedes, on the Supreme Court.
FTFY
Go Mitch, we know you are the turtle to clear the last hurdle.🐢
Getting higher than Yertle.
Cause you know ACB is fertile
:O
SLOW AND STEADY WINS THE RACE
Then confirm her tomorrow, not a day later.
22nd? I fail to understand the logic. The dems will find something and delay. They are desperate and will do anything,
I wish they’d pull a Saddam Switcharoo.
I’m old enough to remember when Saddam Hussein was captured, they publicly announced his trial/execution would take place at some future date. While his kronies started whipping up some plan for disruption/mayhem on that date, the new Iraqi government tried and hanged him something like the next night.
Terrorists were like <pikachu face>. Many keks were had.
Give Schumer and his gang 24 hour notice that the senate will move up the confirmation to this Saturday. The dems right now are in a huddle to figure out what bogus crap they could come up with to smear ACB. Won't work.
lol! "You broke your word! You can't do that!"
Saddam did nothing wrong.
Republicans always snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Maybe they are trying to make it happen closer to the elections, to fire up our base.
People are already voting though.
I'd settle for tomorrow but it should have been this past Monday.
I appreciate your reasonable approach. As a conservative, I wouldn't mind true liberals that were not like the current dem party and justices. RBG was appointed BECAUSE of her activism. Disgusting.
The fact that liberals are not okay with Christianity but okay with Islam bewilders me. Chrisitanity is about the only reason there are any lgbt LAWS in the first place. America was founded on Christian principles, and should be the bedrock of any judges judgement. Because say America goes the other direction and Islam becomes the "moral" compass on which all laws are based then what? Muhammad married an 8 year old, they can kill people that disagree with them, sacrificing animals is okay. Unless Islam has some "New Testament" Jesus like person that says "I am the Lamb of God. You dont have to sacrifice animals anymore." Then it should not be the moral compass.
Islam is even worse than that, logically. It claims to essentially BE the 3rd testament of the Judeo-Christian Bible. But it essentially lays out that the whole thing was wrong, and that Ishmael, not Isaac, was the favored son...creating an alternate history and favored people. It calls the Bible both the holy word of God, and also lie. And it says that Jesus is just a prophet but not the son of God. Ultimately it makes less sense than Harry Potter fanfiction, but with a lot more rape and beheading. Islamic pedos can go to hell.
I have a Qur'an and slavery is mentioned favourably many times. Like, how you should treat your slaves, what happens to them when you die, etc.
In their own "bible" raping slaves is not only acceptable but doesn't count as adultery since they're considered property and not humans.
Totally agree. Morality in American society and civic culture stems from the Ten Commandments and almost all Americans, even your most hardened atheist, neckbeard, TDS sufferer will have had his moral compass calibrated by those at some point in his life, whether he likes it or not.
There’s a reason our courts use Bibles for testimony and not Qurans.
To be completely fair, Roe Wade is unconstitutional - same as the ACA is unconstitutional. Instead of both being done federally, they should be done on the state level and most states will allow abortion on state level.
You're closer, but still not quite correct.
Abortion is objectively immoral. However, the Federal Government's legitimate authority to define illegal behavior is entirely restricted to international or interstate affairs. Thus, the Federal Government is not justified in criminalizing abortion and is indeed a "state's right"-sort of thing.
However, given that abortion is indeed objectively immoral and inherently violates the principles of the Constitution which each State is required to uphold, the Federal Government does have a responsibility to step in when a State fails to do this. A state failing to fulfill their obligation under the Constitution is therefore illegitimate and the Federal Government has the responsibility to govern de facto until such time when the State reasserts a legitimate governing body.
This is different than simply criminalizing it at a federal level.
It's kind of a subtle distinction, and I wasn't trying to be obnoxious. Your post was a lot closer than most people's. I just wish people would take the time to consider the various levels of government, and to learn to recognize certain types of responsibilities so they can figure out what level of government should handle it.
Not a chance. No justice has openly talked about doing it.
No, it's a very dangerous precedent that needs to be removed. I'm pro-choice but I can't tolerate that the court pulls a constitutional law out of their ass. 9 (or at least 5) unelected unaccountable judges should not have the power to write the constitution! That abomination that is R v W needs to be erased if you want to have the legislative power in the hands of the people. It's a matter of democracy.
You have a brain. One day you will come around on just how deceptive 'pro choice' is.
The left's tactic of peer pressure is extremely effective, I agree, and understand the pressure they exert over people.
Whether or not blacks are targeted, abortion is inhumane. Targeting a specific racial group is worse than inhumanity. The abortion industry being one of the single biggest donors to the Democrat party is even worse than that. The encouragement of abortions to obtain biological material to sell to China is the worst.
That I know of.
That's the first, and likely only, time I will ever hear a claim of a theological argument for allowing abortions.
It's also incredibly suspicious that you hand-wave a theological argument and also present a social engineering argument.
It's also incredibly insulting you assume my viewpoint is based on either fanaticism or is 'purely emotional'.
And there it is.
Subjective morality is a prerequisite to justifying abortion. Keep lying about studying 'higher level theology' at the same time as using subjective morality to justify whatever you want. No serious theologian has ever argued for subjective morality.
So excuse me while I call you a faggot and tell you to fuck off with your 'hard analysis' and 'compromises'.
Is your other sales tactic to try and slip in some insults you thought I'd be too stupid to notice?
What exactly am I parroting? The conclusion that I, and millions of others like me, have come to? And because we happen to agree on the conclusion, I'm somehow parroting them, or some default basic bitch reasoning you assume those millions of people all share?
You didn't ask me about my reasoning. Yet you assume I haven't 'researched'. Or contemplated. Or debated. You assume I'm ignorant, but you know absolutely nothing about me other than my conclusion on this one topic, which, presumably, makes me ignorant, unresearched and a dirty plebe.
You didn't explain your reasoning (other than an entirely irrelevant social engineering argument), only presented your conclusion, and in your ego from your '20 year spiritual journey' you believe it to be so unimpeachable that I wouldn't be able to help but asking about it.
You literally just parroted your conclusion and expected me to be drawn like a fly to honey.
Nice sales tactcs, Mr. Meansto Anend.
What does limited government mean to you? Because if you ask me if I want limited government, then the answer is a resounding 'yes'.
With that being said, in the domain of what the government should be doing, I want it to be thorough in those areas. 'Limited government' doesn't mean inept or incomplete, it means not taking on the responsibilities that shouldn't be taken on by the government.
One such legitimate domain of government includes the definition of what is criminal. I want everything that is criminal to be criminalized, not leaving anything out because "oh that's too many laws", or "it wouldn't sit well with the criminals if we criminalized their actions".
I don't give a shit about what your arbitrary amount of people feel about it, either. The goal is to make America great, not aspire to the mediocrity and degeneracy that what you're proposing has already brought us to.
By criminalizing abortion at 3 months, you're implicitly defining human life as starting at exactly 3 months, by the way. And you also can't measure a span of time when the exact moment of conception isn't known, yet you're willing to exert legal consequences over a period of time that a person cannot possibly have an exact answer for. Can't imagine a judge that's not an activist who would uphold that standard.
Family planning and sex education are 100% irrelevant to the immoral nature of abortion. If/how/how much to do that is an entirely unrelated question.
I align with viability.
Before then, the baby lives at the mothers discretion.
After that, it can live without her, so it’s an independent life.
Are you making the claim that the 'thing' being aborted is not a 'human' until it is viable? No one's arguing for prosecution of people for miscarriages.
No I think it’s human and I think it’s gross to abort it, but at the end if the day it’s the mother’s choice bc it is not independent. I guess that’s the definition for when rights kick in, when you at least have a chance of surviving on your own
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm trying to understand.
You believe them to be alive, actual human beings, but because they cannot survive on their own, that somehow the implied 'guardianship' of the mother legitimizes ending their life?
Are you saying because they're not independent, they don't have a right to not be aborted/killed?
Why does this logic not apply to infants? Why is child neglect a crime, shouldn't the babies be expected to be able to survive on their own? Doesn't guardianship imply an expectation to preserve their life? Why is this suddenly reversed in one specific case?
Because infants can survive without the mother. Non viable babies cannot.
The flip side of guardianship is dominion, the mother has both in this case. Legally it makes the most sense to make this compromise on the issue as there is a valid philosophical (and practical) delineation between an unborn child who can survive outside the womb versus one who cannot.
Again, I personally find all abortion disgusting and abhorrent but I also don’t think that everything bad needs to be banned. For instance, gay sex or smoking pot or driving 100 on a road with no traffic are all bad choices but imo should be legal.
There are very few people making these argument. No one making these arguments is being taken seriously. This is a flagrant straw man misrepresenting the people disagreeing with you.
Username checks out.
Left ;)
Crazy leftists for Trump? Former leftists for Trump? Left testicles for Trump? Leftists orgasm for Trump?
Inquiring minds need to know. Welcome, pede!
Haha, savage! Put those little bitches in their place, right after Amy did the same during the hearings!
So tomorrow she gets confirmed??? Hell yeah
No, not that I know of. I made that quote up, but that's what he SHOULD say.
Dude, seriously, not cool.
Sorry, I didn't think for a minute it would be that convincing. I'll give it a shitpost label next time.
KEK w/ turt
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on Thursday affirmed that he has secured enough votes to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Barring a shit stain McCain move by someone like Pierre....
It'll happen. But we have enough loyal Rs to get to 50, and pence is the tie breaker. done deal.
Romney has just put out a statement on Facebook saying that he will vote to confirm ACB.
Right, McCain was also a "yes" on repeal Obamacare until the very last second.
What about those stupid cows Collins and Cowski.
Then vote please
Chill brosky, according to the other comments Mitch stated that they would be bringing the nomination to the floor tomorrow
It was a fake quote. He admitted as such.
How can you not have the votes?? Shes one of the the most qualified people in the country. She slayed all of the bullshit partisan hacks without so much as a reference card.
TFW you're about to crank out 3 SCOTUS justices in 4 years
Cocaine Mitch upon his throne
Free bleeding blue haired freaks go REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Turtle Powers: Activate!
Not until the votes are CAST, Mitch. You've been real good recently. Don't let us down.
FRIDAY IS A WORK DAY TOO.
Well maybe they think having an open seat will inspire more libs to Pokemoň Go to the polls.
All this concern trolling you people are doing is making me weary.
Grow some balls and stop whinging like a big gay doomer.
Are we still benefiting from the Democrats' "nuclear option"? If so, I'm loving how much it's completely screwed them.
Think about it...without the nuclear option we would be down to 6 justices and lose 4-2 anytime it mattered.
THE CONSITUTION IS BACK ON THE MENU BOIS
Better damn site have the votes. ACB owned those Dims.
Note that Murkowski and Collins - 2 female Republican senators - will be the only ones to vote against their fellow female nominee. Ironic.
Also, note that Murkowski voted for Ginsburg.
Collins voted for Kagan and Sotomayor.
Why don't those cunts switch parties already. They clearly aren't representing their constituents.
When is the actual vote? I'm tied of all these goofs yanking their knobs over how much they hate her. Just take the damn vote already.
22nd, next Thursday.
LETS GO ON OFFENSE. PUT THE PRESSURE ON THE SWING STATE DEMS TO VOTE YAY.
justdoit.gif
Vote is scheduled for next Thursday. Tired of winning yet??
I hope so. I won't consider anything a lock until Pierre Defecto casts his vote.
Well let's pull the trigger, get it done
They are waiting until next thursday. Why? Get it done now. Don't give the dems time to find a way to delay it further, if you have the votes, vote.
The salt must flow!
Let's stop wasting taxpayer money. Git 'er done, son"
I'll believe it after the RINOs vote.
Let me remind you all that we "had the votes" to overturn Obamacare until traitor McCain sunk it at the last second.
Love how dems are reeling from crackhead hunter and ACB mopping the floor with them is now page 6 news.
Was it ever in doubt?
Pierre Delecto is a sneaky snake. Don't trust him.
Call a 🗳 vote...get it done.
Harry Reid started the era of one party only appointments and discouraged bi-partisanship. I am happy to see the Republicans show the Dems what their failure to make compromises looks like. Donald Trump needs to end sanctuary cities, reverse illegal immigration and maybe, only maybe, Democrats will for once come to the negotiating table in good faith.
get this man some cocaine
do it tomorrow then
He said "I have the coke!" for the after confirmation party. Kavanaughs throwin a gangbang with Barretts nun friends.
Getter doonnnne!
I got a fever, and the only prescription is ACB confirmation.
If we don't, it's civil war.
Confirm ACB!
Then vote! Yeesh.
Seems suspicious. Too easy.
Cocaine Mitch: Ladies and Gentlemen... We got em!
Some say the "Reeeeeeees" all suddenly grew into a strange humming off in the distance.
I see Collins and Murkowski going along with ACB because she's a woman , I'm having the feeling that Mitch is saying we have the votes but it might not be unanimous. I don't see Romney on board, this is the time for him call his no name thumbs down on the grandstand. But compared to No Name, it won't matter and he'll just exposed himself as an even bigger prick, she's getting confirmed and this will take whatever motivation anyone had to vote for Biden.