Anthony Kennedy Announces Retirement

[WiregrassTiger]

I have seen him in a robe. He thinks that means he doesn’t have to wear anything underneath. It’s like a toga party to him. 

[Saniflush]

The confirmation should be delayed...just like what Mitch McConnell said 2 years ago.

However you forget that it will sail through thanks to Harry Reid in 2013.  

[The Prowler]

Just so everyone is clear...some of y'all are perfectly fine with a man, that's under investigation for participation in the biggest political crime in US history, being able to choose his own judge (judge that'll take a seat in his case) with less than 120 days until elections? When the last President (not under any investigations) was denied the right to nominate one, 9 months before elections.

Yes or no answer is fine. I don't want to hear any garbage Briebart/FoxNews/InfoWars/Sean Hannity/National Enquirer (these are the sources that some of y'all consider "not fake news"...seriously)

[Kaos]

Just so everyone is clear...some of y'all are perfectly fine with a man, that's under investigation for participation in the biggest political crime in US history, being able to choose his own judge (judge that'll take a seat in his case) with less than 120 days until elections? When the last President (not under any investigations) was denied the right to nominate one, 9 months before elections.

Yes or no answer is fine. I don't want to hear any garbage Briebart/FoxNews/InfoWars/Sean Hannity/National Enquirer (these are the sources that some of y'all consider "not fake news"...seriously)

You’re a moron.  
Im okay with Trump replacing Kennedy.  I’d be okay with him replacing Ginsburg, sota, Meyer and Kagan too.  

The biggest crime was perpetrated by Hillary. It’s being perpetrated by the “investigation” which is nothing more than naked fear from the status quo — both sides. 

Trump isn’t the enemy.  Fools like you are the real threat. 

[CCTAU]

Just so everyone is clear...some of y'all are perfectly fine with a man, that's under investigation for participation in the biggest political crime in US history, being able to choose his own judge (judge that'll take a seat in his case) with less than 120 days until elections? When the last President (not under any investigations) was denied the right to nominate one, 9 months before elections.

Yes or no answer is fine. I don't want to hear any garbage Briebart/FoxNews/InfoWars/Sean Hannity/National Enquirer (these are the sources that some of y'all consider "not fake news"...seriously)

As always, misleading and leaving out facts.
But hell yes I’m good with it. Shove your pen and phone up your ass!

[Snaggletiger]

I won't even address the investigation/butt-hurt attempt to oust Trump.  But here's an honest question with no bias toward either side.  What could the Russians have possibly done to influence this past election?  Rarely has there ever been two more polar opposite candidates.  Rarely has there ever been more pure hatred by the general public towards two candidates.  People were either firmly behind their choice and against the opponent, or they disliked both of them so much that they either abstained or wrote in someone else. 

Was there anything that another country could have done that made ANYONE in America go, "Well, I thought I liked Clinton, but I guess Trump is the better choice"?  In fact, whether they were influenced in some way or not, did you ever hear of anyone actually saying they changed their mind? 

[Token]

Yes

[WiregrassTiger]

As always, misleading and leaving out facts.
But hell yes I’m good with it. Shove your pen and phone up your ass!

His butt already hurts enough.

[Saniflush]

Just so everyone is clear...some of y'all are perfectly fine with a man, that's under investigation for participation in the biggest political crime in US history, being able to choose his own judge (judge that'll take a seat in his case) with less than 120 days until elections? When the last President (not under any investigations) was denied the right to nominate one, 9 months before elections.

Yes or no answer is fine. I don't want to hear any garbage Briebart/FoxNews/InfoWars/Sean Hannity/National Enquirer (these are the sources that some of y'all consider "not fake news"...seriously)

The lawyers on the board can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure nobody on the Supreme Court would be hearing any case like this.  

[Buzz Killington]

I won't even address the investigation/butt-hurt attempt to oust Trump.  But here's an honest question with no bias toward either side.  What could the Russians have possibly done to influence this past election?  Rarely has there ever been two more polar opposite candidates.  Rarely has there ever been more pure hatred by the general public towards two candidates.  People were either firmly behind their choice and against the opponent, or they disliked both of them so much that they either abstained or wrote in someone else.

Was there anything that another country could have done that made ANYONE in America go, "Well, I thought I liked Clinton, but I guess Trump is the better choice"?  In fact, whether they were influenced in some way or not, did you ever hear of anyone actually saying they changed their mind?

You know what the Russians did to "fix" the election?  They ALMOST got the truth about Billary and the Kill Clinton Foundation out in the open.

[wesfau2]

The lawyers on the board can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure nobody on the Supreme Court would be hearing any case like this. 

The assumption is that Trump will challenge the impeachment or attempt to pardon himself.  Those issues would likely end up in front of the Supremes.


/noDianaRoss

[Saniflush]

The assumption is that Trump will challenge the impeachment or attempt to pardon himself.  Those issues would likely end up in front of the Supremes.


/noDianaRoss

That I get and thank you for clarifying.  It sounded as if he was saying the Supremes were going to be hearing all the coke and hooker cases.

[Kaos]

The assumption is that Trump will challenge the impeachment or attempt to pardon himself.  Those issues would likely end up in front of the Supremes.


/noDianaRoss

The assumption by whom? 

Raging lunatics on MSNBC?  

[WiregrassTiger]

The lawyers on the board can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure nobody on the Supreme Court would be hearing any case like this. 

No offense but you’d be better off going to legalzoom.com than asking any questions of the lawyers here.

[wesfau2]

The assumption by whom?

Raging lunatics on MSNBC? 

Everyone who has considered the implications of an impeachment charge.

[Kaos]

Everyone who has considered the implications of an impeachment charge.

You're buying the lunatic narrative, wes.  I'm sorry, but you just are.  

[Snaggletiger]

Impeachment based on what?

[Kaos]

Impeachment based on what?

Weezy done said so.  

[WiregrassTiger]

Weezy done said so. 

I can understand what you’re talking about. Wes. His racist thoughts get old.


I’ll allow his suspension if you want.

[wesfau2]

You're buying the lunatic narrative, wes.  I'm sorry, but you just are. 

Jesus christ.

Engaging in the thought exercise of forecasting what Trump's reaction to articles of impeachment might be IS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT OR OTHER SUPPORT OF SAID IMPEACHMENT.