DK Firearms

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies at 87

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Gulf Coast States

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • wildrider666

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Sep 26, 2012
    Messages
    8,753
    Points
    113
    Location
    Panama City Beach, Fl
    Mitch McConnell in 2016:

    March 16, 2016, with Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland, McConnell stood his ground: It is important for the Senate to "give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy" by waiting until the next president takes office. "The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration," McConnell said. "The next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice."

    What would the 2016 Senate position have been if it was a Dem/left Majority in line with a Dem President? There is no way in hell the same answer would have been given. Dem/left Senate would have shoved Garland into the Seat as fast as they could. You know that, yet you complain when the Republicans do exactly what the dems/libs "would have done". Senate majority made a decision then and another one now, both in support of their base and who is in the Oval Office. Your much smarter than trying to call foul over this issue that falls strictly within the Power of Senate no matter which party has the majority. All the shit (IMHO) the dems/lib have done in the last three plus years and now they want a "reasonable accommodation" till after the election? Not a chance but they will try every means of delay and obstruct, which is their way. How many days till the House files a Civil suit in the biased D.C. Courts?
     
    Last edited:

    Snake-Eyes

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Joined
    Jun 22, 2013
    Messages
    3,468
    Points
    113
    Location
    Florida
    Mitch McConnell in 2016:

    March 16, 2016, with Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland, McConnell stood his ground: It is important for the Senate to "give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy" by waiting until the next president takes office. "The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration," McConnell said. "The next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice."

    Who cares. If we are going to pull up conflicting quotes from years ago, we will be here all century going over the mountain of double-standards from the democRat leadership. GoodForMeNotForThee Pelosi and Schumer under the Obama regime vs the Trump administration would fill a library...

    Do the democRats actually expect the POTUS to "not" nominate a Justice?
    Ah, so they expect the POTUS to do his job but the Senate is supposed to delay its job, just in-case the dem ticket steals it?

    No. F off with that shit.

    The dems have caused gridlock and chaos since BEFORE Trump was elected. The dems have caused so much delay in the US government, it's a miracle this administration has managed to accomplish so much. Can you imagine how much better off this Nation would be if the POTUS wasn't constantly fighting off the democRat coup attempts?

    The dems impeached the POTUS on a sham charge of ambiguous interpretation of hearsay of a PHONE CALL. Not an action or event; a damn phone call.

    The fact that the two-faced hypocrite crybaby idiots in the democRat organization are pissing and moaning against the nomination means it's the Exactly Correct thing to do.
     

    fl57caveman

    eclectic atavist
    GCGF Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Joined
    Jan 23, 2015
    Messages
    12,438
    Points
    113
    Location
    n.w. florida
    this has happened to 22 other potus at different times, some late in their term


    they all nominated jurists.

    let the games begin. obumba would do it, so let's get it on...….
     
    Last edited:

    LowRiderRed

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Oct 31, 2012
    Messages
    1,787
    Points
    83
    Location
    Santa Rosa
    Lindsay Graham:

    The South Carolina Republican and other GOP senators blocked the confirmation of Merrick Garland, Barack Obama’s nomination for the Supreme Court, in February 2016, Obama’s final year in the White House. Graham swore he would do the same for a Republican president.

    If there’s a Supreme Court opening in the “last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait ’til the next election” to confirm a new justice, Graham swore in a 2018 Atlantic interview featured in the ad.

    If he ever contradicted that vow, “I want you to use my words against me,” Graham challenged the media and the public.
     

    Ricochet

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages
    1,271
    Points
    113
    Location
    Florida
    Lindsay Graham wilts like a daisy when the heat is on.
    His word has no value.
    And "in the Atlantic" of all places, who just admitted putting out a complete fabricattion on a PR fairy tale story about POTUS disrespecting vets.

    Fairies, daisies and snowflakes wilting on a meltdown to another victorious Trump term.
     
    Last edited:

    Snake-Eyes

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Joined
    Jun 22, 2013
    Messages
    3,468
    Points
    113
    Location
    Florida
    I just consider his previous statement as wrong, and I'll be glad to see him correct his erroneous position.

    Regardless, this POTUS and senators were elected to do what's best for the Nation. They have the numerical advantage to hold off the traitorous schemes of the democRat scourge. They should move quickly and confident that they are doing what is right. The voters will vote as they will.

    Lowriderred, when you were searching for quotes from 2016, did you find the ones where Biden told the Senate to "do your job" and hold the hearings?
    No? Hunh. That's weird.

    How about the RECENT one where Biden pointed out that the People should elect the President, and the President should pick the nominee? It's probably one of the only times I'll agree with sleepy-Joe. The People DID elect the current President, and President Trump SHOULD appoint the nominee.
    AND the Senate should do its job.

    See? Even Biden's own words are in complete agreement with Trump and the Senate Majority.
     

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,923
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    After what Feinstein pulled during the Kavanaugh hearings I do not feel that the repubicans are bound by any informal senate practices assuming that such do exist.
    The whole game of a dying justice trying to hang on for several years just so the current president could not choose her successor is the ultimate in political fanaticism. Judges should not be chosen because they political activist or super conservatives. They must worship, love, and respect the constitution and the bill of rights first above all else.
    Ginsberg: https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/02/0...-like-the-south-african-constitution-so-much/
    “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the Constitution of South Africa,” says Ginsburg, whom President Clinton nominated to the court in 1993. “That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary. … It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the U.S. Constitution.”
     

    Raven

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    16   0   0
    Joined
    Mar 30, 2020
    Messages
    8,798
    Points
    113
    Actually, it has been, and Lincoln should have left it alone
    The international meaning of the word "State" is "Country", as in "When you get off the plane in Germany a big ass sign says "Welcome to the State of Germany". The UNITED STATES federal government was and is the first NATO. Wake up people. War is inevitable unless the States take back their states rights and handle their own business their own way
     

    Raven

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    16   0   0
    Joined
    Mar 30, 2020
    Messages
    8,798
    Points
    113
    Actually, it has been, and Lincoln should have left it alone
    Less than a hundred years after the States formed a Union (a Union in which it's written "Hey if you want to leave this Union at any point in time you want, you can.") Lincoln held a gun to the head of every Southern man and said "Nope, no you can't go anywhere. You and all that land of yours belongs to the Feds". Sounds an awful lot like SLAVERY to me Mr. F'n Lincoln! States rights folks.....
     

    Ricochet

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages
    1,271
    Points
    113
    Location
    Florida
    Less than a hundred years after the States formed a Union (a Union in which it's written "Hey if you want to leave this Union at any point in time you want, you can.") Lincoln held a gun to the head of every Southern man and said "Nope, no you can't go anywhere. You and all that land of yours belongs to the Feds". Sounds an awful lot like SLAVERY to me Mr. F'n Lincoln! States rights folks.....
    Absolutely true.
    When you don't have the choice to leave you are a slave and not a free man.
     

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,923
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    Less than a hundred years after the States formed a Union (a Union in which it's written "Hey if you want to leave this Union at any point in time you want, you can.") Lincoln held a gun to the head of every Southern man and said "Nope, no you can't go anywhere. You and all that land of yours belongs to the Feds". Sounds an awful lot like SLAVERY to me Mr. F'n Lincoln! States rights folks.....
    Question should we stop saying:
    1600695755469.png
     

    Raven

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    16   0   0
    Joined
    Mar 30, 2020
    Messages
    8,798
    Points
    113
    Question should we stop saying:
    View attachment 92681
    Say it all you want, just take it back to what the Founding Fathers intended and get rid of all the crap that wasn't authorized, like all the various departments of this and that and all the Alphabet Boys. The government above governments only job back then was to print a common currency and provide for an international common defense. All of which can be done by states now with the millions, if not billions, of dollars in state and local taxes collected by each state. The states aren't poor anymore. The original reasons for a federal department of anything are null and void
     

    FrommerStop

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Joined
    Apr 7, 2016
    Messages
    6,923
    Points
    113
    Location
    NWFL
    Say it all you want, just take it back to what the Founding Fathers intended and get rid of all the crap that wasn't authorized, like all the various departments of this and that and all the Alphabet Boys. The government above governments only job back then was to print a common currency and provide for an international common defense. All of which can be done by states now with the millions, if not billions, of dollars in state and local taxes collected by each state. The states aren't poor anymore. The original reasons for a federal department of anything are null and void
    Also a post office and the right to regulate interstate commerce.
    The commerce clause has become far reaching and is used to regulate firearms for example.
    The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress.[1] It is common to see the individual components of the Commerce Clause referred to under specific terms: the Foreign Commerce Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause,[2] and the Indian Commerce Clause.
     
    Top Bottom