Replies

• Make_My_Day Posts: 7,927 Senior Member

  March 2016 #2

  He's probably a good judge, Harvard and **** Laude and all that, but he's not pro-gun and makes the moderate decisions, so I won't blame Republicans if they keep their promise not to hear or confirm anyone.

  JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
  

  THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!

  0 · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
• Big Al1 Posts: 8,818 Senior Member

  March 2016 #3

  If Oblunder wants him I sure as hell don't!!

  0 · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
• NN Posts: 25,236 Senior Member

  March 2016 #4

  Big Al1 wrote: »

  If Oblunder wants him I sure as hell don't!!

  :agree:

  0 · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
• shootbrownelk Posts: 2,035 Senior Member

  March 2016 #5

  I'm sure those two hammered out a deal of some sort. A lifetime job for some anti-2nd amendment opinions and siding with the other lefties.

  0 · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
• Armoredman Posts: 362 Member

  March 2016 #6

  He is said to have a very anti 2A record, voted to let DC keep "gun-free" along with some others, reports are from Brietbart and other smaller outfits.

  0 · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
• horselips Posts: 3,628 Senior Member

  March 2016 #7

  Just another radical progressive activist judge in moderate's clothing. I'm not fooled, I hope McConnell isn't either.

  0 · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
• tennmike Posts: 27,457 Senior Member

  March 2016 #8

  I wouldn't trust Garland to guard the contents under an outhouse even if his lips were sewn shut. Anti 2A among other things; one of those that believe the Constitution is a 'living breathing document' that can be interpreted any way he wants no matter what the actual words of Constitution say. Don't need any judge on SCOTUS that will subvert the Constitution; we got 2 like that already.

    “I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
  ― Douglas Adams
  

  0 · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
• snake284 Posts: 22,429 Senior Member

  March 2016 #9

  tennmike wrote: »

  I wouldn't trust Garland to guard the contents under an outhouse even if his lips were sewn shut. Anti 2A among other things; one of those that believe the Constitution is a 'living breathing document' that can be interpreted any way he wants no matter what the actual words of Constitution say. Don't need any judge on SCOTUS that will subvert the Constitution; we got 2 like that already.

  
  Actually you got more than two, you got four. Don't need 5. Don't really need one. And I don't think even the Devil can kill Ginsberg. She survived one of the most deadly cancers out there. Thomas and Kennedy are both getting old. John Roberts is iffy some times. He did stand up for the 2A but he flunked out on Gay Marriage and Obummer care. I guess one out of three is about as good as we can hope for from him.
  
  When Obummer starts telling everybody how the Senate should do what's right and confirm his choice I get sick in the stomach listening to his BS! He tells it like we need to drop our pants and let the devil cut off our family jewels. He had no intention of picking a conservative for the court. NO way no form. He picked a devil in disguise just like most of us here expected. Now the Senate must remain firm. Also we need a Republican in the White House.

  Daddy, what's an enabler?
  Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.

  0 · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter