Bowsite.com

Without you, and despite all of the hate many of the CF'ers here have thrown at you, (and I've got several issues with you myself), Merrick Garland would be a SCOTUS Justice instead of Neil Gorsuch and we'd have lost all of the recent SCOTUS decisions!

I think it’d be hilarious if trump nominated garland just to show their dumb hypocrisy.

I’d love to see their reaction if he nominated garland.

The Rock

Dick Durbin to Democrats: Sacrifice Your Senate Seats to Vote Against Trump's Supreme Court Nominee, Whoever It Is

Interesting that the left understands that the game of electioneering is secondary to securing actual policy victories, many on the right continue to insist on the contradictory claims that 1, only winning offices matter, and it doesn't matter if winning candidates sell the movement out after winning, and 2, that to prove our personal "principles" and integrity, we should give the Presidency to Hillary Clinton and the Supreme Court to the left...

Tomorrow's headlines on CNN

I heard that position tonight also. Rand Paul may have some beef with him. I suspect there is some strategy in play. Get this acceptable guy thru before the upcoming election and after the election...and hopefully after gaining more Senate seats....pick that finalist lady as Ruthie G's replacement.

Man, that really hurt to say...lol.

Agreed, but only as long as the President operates within the confines of the power granted to that office in the Constitution...

I think Sotomayor will be the next one to be replaced. She was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes when she was 11 and is now already past her life expectancy.

Then HE has a LOT of dirt on those who wish to sling mud upon him. It will be interesting to see. I’m quite sure every scenario has been played out well before the announcement, and he could also just be a pawn to get to the next (read that as real) pick.

Trump Defies McConnell with SCOTUS Pick

Sucks to be them...

Time will tell I guess.

Terry

Give us an example on the conservative side that matches the violent ANTIFA demonstrations against conservative speakers.

For anyone to think only the left is a hate group or that a few like antifa represent all of those who are left is disingenuous or ignorant. Should I lump you in with neo-Nazis. Both antifa and neo-nazis are extremes and have no place in our society IMO.

But please carry on soaking up that right-wing Hannity talking points and regurgitating it here.

I would not be critical of Hannity when you are using this source. These are not even close to the violence we witnessed on campuses.

Violence from either side is unacceptable, but Maxine, Fonda as examples of encouraging actions against people. Do not compare some obscure whack job to these public figures.

http://www.peoplesworld.org/article/tea-party-activism-tied-to-extremists-turning-violent/

Obviously you are googling for negatives, that is why you keep getting the NYT as your source.

Poll: CNN Least Trusted Cable News Network Fox News most trusted, watched

AP BY: Jack Heretik Follow @JackHeretik January 10, 2017 10:53 am

Television viewers prefer Fox News for political coverage above all other cable news networks and trust CNN the least among them, according to a recent poll.

The Rasmussen poll shows that, when Americans were asked what channels they turn to "at least occasionally" for political news, Fox News took the top spot with 42 percent saying they watch the channel. Competitors CNN and MSNBC fell short with 35 percent and 19 percent, respectively.

The poll also asked how viewers trust the political news from each of the cable networks. Fox News again took the top spot, with 50 percent of respondents saying they trust the network's political news. Fourty-three percent of MSNBC viewers said the same, and only 33 percent of those who tune into CNN said they trust the news network.

Rasmussen Reports also found that 75 percent of likely American voters watch cable news "at least occasionally" for some of their news reception.

For the poll, Rasmussen contacted 1,000 likely voters on Jan. 2.

The WSJ reported on the violence at the Trump rallies, and most of it was started by hooligans looking for trouble. I have not been a fan of FOX or Breitbart, until recently. I admit they are definitely right leaning, but I have become more so after dealing directly with people on the left.

For example, immediately after the killings in the newspaper offices, a liberal colleague posted on FB that it looked like it has begun, but only one side was shooting. I admonished him publicly for drawing a conclusion without the facts being released.

After it became apparent this was a disgruntled nut upset about losing a lawsuit and it had nothing to do with politics, I was told I took my colleague's statement out of context. I was later un-friended from his FB, thankfully.

I also debated immigration policy, and because I do not believe in open borders was immediately called a racist, again by admitted democrat/socialists. I do not observe conservatives result to calling folks names, I see them stick to the issues and try to win based on logic. Yes, Jeff at times would prove that last statement wrong:) We all witness other conservatives asking Jeff to tone it down, myself included.

I consult several sources, and have colleagues who send me articles from the NYT. It is easy to rip apart most of their junk as it is based on emotion and not rational thought process, IMHO.

You are conducting yourself superbly here, amen to that. We just happen to be on opposite sides. Again, I will ask of any specific examples of a campus suffering significant financial loss due to any conservatives rioting. At least we are willing to show our faces. Thanks.

What I like about Trump best, and please note that I consider him a very crass individual, is his style has made challenging the extreme political correctness in our country an OK thing to do. Hopefully this is the beginning of the end to a madness that has permeated public discourse for too long, and at too high a sacrifice for the values originalists cherish, that all people are created equal and that our own efforts are what is most important to the outcomes we experience.

Yes we are on opposite sides but you sound like a reasonable guy. I’m ok with just disagreeing. If that means you or JTV “wins” I’m good with that too. That’s now why I post.

The fact that the media responded to the nomination of a Supreme Court justice by obsessively covering Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Russia and NATO proves that Trump has checkmated them with Brett Kavanaugh.

Liberals know they can’t stop Kavanaugh’s confirmation, so they’d just as soon not hear any news about it at all. Please cheer us up with stories about Paul Manafort’s solitary confinement!

But there was one very peculiar reaction to the nomination. The nut wing of the Democratic Party instantly denounced Kavanaugh by claiming that his elevation to the high court would threaten all sorts of “rights.”

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., tweeted: “Our next justice should be a champion for protecting & advancing rights, not rolling them back — but Kavanaugh has a long history of demonstrating hostility toward defending the rights of everyday Americans.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., tweeted: “If Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed to the Supreme Court it will have a profoundly negative effect on workers’ rights, women’s rights and voting rights for decades to come. We must do everything we can to stop this nomination.”

If only these guys could get themselves elected to some sort of legislative body, they could pass laws protecting these rights!

Wait, I’m sorry. These are elected United States senators. Of all people, why are they carrying on about “rights”? If senators can’t protect these alleged “rights,” it can only be because most Americans do not agree that they should be “rights.”

That’s exactly why the left is so hysterical about the Supreme Court. They run to the courts to win their most unpopular policy ideas, gift-wrapped and handed to them as “constitutional rights.”

What liberals call “rights” are legislative proposals that they can’t pass through normal democratic processes — at least outside of the states they’ve already flipped with immigration, like California.

Realizing how widely reviled their ideas are, several decades ago the left figured out a procedural scam to give them whatever they wanted without ever having to pass a law. Hey! You can’t review a Supreme Court decision!

Instead of persuading a majority of their fellow citizens, they’d need to persuade only five justices to invent any rights they pleased. They didn’t have to ask twice. Apparently, justices find it much funner to be all-powerful despots than boring technocrats interpreting written law.

Soon the court was creating “rights” promoting all the left’s favorite causes — abortion, criminals, busing, pornography, stamping out religion, forcing military academies to admit girls and so on.

There was nothing America could do about it.

OK, liberals, you cheated and got all your demented policy ideas declared “constitutional rights.” But it’s very strange having elected legislators act as if they are helpless serfs, with no capacity to protect “rights.”

It’s stranger still for politicians to pretend that these putative “rights” are supported by a majority of Americans. By definition, the majority does not support them. Otherwise, they’d already be protected by law and not by Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s latest newsletter.

On MSNBC, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said people storming into the streets and making their voices heard about Kavanaugh is “the remarkable part about a democracy.”

Actually, that isn’t democracy at all. Liberals don’t do well at democracy. Why don’t politicians run for office promising to ban the death penalty, spring criminals from prison or enshrine late-term abortion? Hmmm … I wonder why those “I (heart) partial-birth abortion!” T-shirts aren’t selling?

Unless the Constitution forbids it — and there are very few things proscribed by the Constitution — democracy entails persuading a majority of your fellow Americans or state citizens to support something, and then either putting it on the ballot or electing representatives who will write it into law — perhaps even a constitutional amendment.

Otherwise, these “rights” whereof you speak are no more real than the Beastie Boys’ assertion of THE RIGHT TO PARTEEEEEEEE!

Gay marriage, for example, was foisted on the country not through ballot initiatives, persuasion, public acceptance, lobbying or politicians winning elections by promising to legalize it. No, what happened was, in 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court suddenly discovered a right to gay marriage lurking in the state’s 223-year-old Constitution — written by the very religious John Adams. (Surprise!)

After that, the people rose up and banned gay marriage in state after state, even in liberal bastions like Oregon and California. The year after the Massachusetts court’s remarkable discovery, gay marriage lost in all 11 states where it was on the ballot.

Everywhere gay marriage was submitted to a popular vote, it lost. (Only one state’s voters briefly seemed to approve of gay marriage — Arizona, in 2006 — but that was evidently a problem with the wording of the initiative, because two years later, the voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage.)

Inasmuch as allowing people to vote resulted in a resounding “NO!” on gay marriage, liberals ran back to the courts. Still, the public rebelled. The year after the Iowa Supreme Court concocted a right to gay marriage, voters recalled three of the court’s seven justices.

A handful of blue state legislatures passed gay marriage laws, but even in the Soviet Republic of New York, a gay marriage bill failed in 2009.

And then the U.S. Supreme Court decided that was quite enough democracy on the question of gay marriage! It turned out that — just like the Massachusetts Constitution — a gay marriage clause had been hiding in our Constitution all along!

Conservatives could never dream of victories like this from the judiciary. Even nine Antonin Scalias on the Supreme Court are never going to discover a “constitutional right” to a border wall, mass deportations, a flat tax, publicly funded churches and gun ranges, the “right” to smoke or to consume 24-ounce sugary sodas.

These are “constitutional rights” every bit as much as the alleged “constitutional rights” to abortion, pornography, gay marriage, transgender bathrooms, the exclusionary rule and on and on and on.

The only rights conservatives ever seek under the Constitution are the ones that are written in black and white, such as the freedom of speech and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Mostly, we sit trembling, waiting to see what new nonexistent rights the court will impose on us, contravening everything we believe.

So when you hear liberals carrying on about all the “rights” threatened by Kavanaugh, remember that by “rights,” they mean “policy ideas so unpopular that we can’t pass a law creating such rights.”

I agree with what you said but I am astounded that there are not more liberals who speak out against the violence or even the words of Fonda and Waters. Should we assume they are OK with it?

To me it is akin to the criticism against the vast majority of Muslims that we heard when most remained silent on the terrorism. I remember discussions centered on did this mean they supported it, or were to afraid to speak out?

I would like to see tons more left leaners distance themselves from this behavior. I remember Tim McVay, I was glad he got what was coming to him, and I remember just about everyone I knew calling him a nut job, immediately. I do see a double standard.

I don't buy that for a second.

Maybe you are the deep state swamp of Bowsite?