Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: April 16, 2024, 7:48 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Supreme Court Nominee: Merrick Garland
#21
RE: Supreme Court Nominee: Merrick Garland
(March 16, 2016 at 5:54 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:
(March 16, 2016 at 5:52 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Obama could nominate Jesus and they'd throw a fit.

Just what we need, another Jew on the SCOTUS.  There are other people in the US besides Catholics and Jews.

STOP blaming that on democrats. We'd put a Hindu or Buddhist or an Atheist on SCOTUS, we cant, because the bigots on the right don't understand the meaning of "NO RELIGIOUS TEST". And those BIGOTS have been selling "Christian Nation" dominionism since Falwell hijacked the party.
Reply
#22
RE: Supreme Court Nominee: Merrick Garland
(March 16, 2016 at 5:56 pm)Brian37 Wrote:
(March 16, 2016 at 5:26 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: The SCOTUS is the most segregated group in America.  Only Catholics and Jews are allowed and Harvard and Yale graduates.  The KKK is more integrated than the SCOTUS.  Even that bigot Scalia said that it's too discriminatory.  If we're lucky Trump will nominate someone outside of the club for a change.  Ginsburg should croak any day and there's no way she's going to make it another five years.  If we get really lucky they will all croak today.

Nope sorry, the GOP is the party of bigots. Trump is running for that same party. 

If you want someone outside the same, the GOP obstructionists need to confirm his nomination. His short list DID include non Catholics and non Jews. He won't offer them to congress because it would be pointless. And right now the brats on the right hate everything he does. Obama could shit gold and they would call it fake.
Yeah, right.
Reply
#23
RE: Supreme Court Nominee: Merrick Garland
(March 16, 2016 at 5:58 pm)Brian37 Wrote:
(March 16, 2016 at 5:54 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Just what we need, another Jew on the SCOTUS.  There are other people in the US besides Catholics and Jews.

STOP blaming that on democrats. We'd put a Hindu or Buddhist or an Atheist on SCOTUS, we cant, because the bigots on the right don't understand the meaning of "NO RELIGIOUS TEST". And those BIGOTS have been selling "Christian Nation" dominionism since Falwell hijacked the party.
Where's that damn asteroid?
Reply
#24
RE: Supreme Court Nominee: Merrick Garland
Trump would nominate Roy Moore before he'd nominate a Buddhist or Hindu. And even if he wanted to, which is bullshit, even if he wanted to he'd STILL be dealing with the same bigoted congress dominated by the GOP sells hatred of gays and panders to the likes of Kim Davis.
Reply
#25
RE: Supreme Court Nominee: Merrick Garland
This isn't even just about Trump or this cycle.

Our country has lacked good civics lesions for far too long, and the cold war fearmongering since the 50s when "God" was plastered in the Pledge, and put on all currency, our right wing has forced even Democrats to pander to religion.

Now, if you think those things are harmless, then why are you now bitching about only Jews and Catholics being on the court? The reason the founders put "No religious test" in our oath of office, is so we would NOT end up looking like Sunnis and Shiites like in the East.

You ARE supporting the party of bigotry. You are supporting the dominionist party. NOT ME.
Reply
#26
RE: Supreme Court Nominee: Merrick Garland
(March 16, 2016 at 6:06 pm)Brian37 Wrote: This isn't even just about Trump or this cycle.

Our country has lacked good civics lesions for far too long, and the cold war fearmongering since the 50s when "God" was plastered in the Pledge, and put on all currency, our right wing has forced even Democrats to pander to religion.

Now, if you think those things are harmless, then why are you now bitching about only Jews and Catholics being on the court? The reason the founders put "No religious test" in our oath of office, is so we would NOT end up looking like Sunnis and Shiites like in the East.

You ARE supporting the party of bigotry. You are supporting the dominionist party. NOT ME.

No religious test?  So why are only Jews and Catholics on the SCOTUS?  It's time to end that segregated club.
Reply
#27
RE: Supreme Court Nominee: Merrick Garland
(March 16, 2016 at 5:52 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Obama could nominate Jesus and they'd throw a fit.

Fucker doesn't have a law degree.
Reply
#28
RE: Supreme Court Nominee: Merrick Garland
(March 16, 2016 at 5:54 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:
(March 16, 2016 at 5:52 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Obama could nominate Jesus and they'd throw a fit.

Just what we need, another Jew on the SCOTUS.  There are other people in the US besides Catholics and Jews.

Will you stop saying Jew, make up your mind are your for diversity or against it?

I don't care if our nominee for SCOTUS is a Jew or a Buddhist or an Atheist, I care about the laws that affect our economy and the laws that protect us from becoming a theocracy. I want a judge, no matter their label that is going to protect the anti monopoly concept the Constitution is. One that maintains separation of power, one that protects dissent, and one that does not give a shit what the religion of the person holding office is.

He is a liberal I could give one care less if he is Jewish. Again, we cant have more diversity because of the GOP.
Reply
#29
RE: Supreme Court Nominee: Merrick Garland
(March 16, 2016 at 7:34 pm)Minimalist Wrote:
(March 16, 2016 at 5:52 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Obama could nominate Jesus and they'd throw a fit.

Fucker doesn't have a law degree.
There's no Constitutional requirements for being on the SCOTUS.  The big wigs made up some phony qualifications to exclude everyone who isn't in their club.
Reply
#30
RE: Supreme Court Nominee: Merrick Garland
(March 16, 2016 at 7:34 pm)Minimalist Wrote:
(March 16, 2016 at 5:52 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Obama could nominate Jesus and they'd throw a fit.

Fucker doesn't have a law degree.

Tipping over change carts doesn't count?
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Innocence is not enough for the Supreme Court... Rev. Rye 7 508 May 27, 2022 at 6:20 pm
Last Post: GUBU
  Navalny’s speech from court Fake Messiah 3 220 February 5, 2021 at 5:36 am
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  Why you should fear Trump's pick for Supreme Court Judge Foxaèr 75 3988 October 31, 2020 at 10:52 am
Last Post: TaraJo
  Amy Coney Barnett officially confirmed as Supreme Court Justice Rev. Rye 33 1886 October 28, 2020 at 3:01 pm
Last Post: Rev. Rye
  Expanding The Supreme Court onlinebiker 94 3783 September 30, 2020 at 1:32 pm
Last Post: Secular Elf
  UK Supreme Court: Suspending Parliament was unlawful zebo-the-fat 6 583 September 25, 2019 at 1:16 pm
Last Post: GUBU
  Who do you want to be the Democratic nominee in 2020? CapnAwesome 71 3917 September 14, 2018 at 1:25 am
Last Post: Foxaèr
  The WLB's Next Supreme Court Pick? Minimalist 0 448 March 15, 2018 at 12:46 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  Supreme Court Cases (and other interesting cases) - A Thread! TheRealJoeFish 11 3584 June 2, 2017 at 11:58 am
Last Post: TheRealJoeFish
  The WLB loses Another Court Fight Minimalist 0 580 May 17, 2017 at 5:48 pm
Last Post: Minimalist



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)