brenthutch

Actually I would LOVE to see that. With self-identifying conservatives outnumbering self-identifying progressives/liberals by a greater than two to one margin, I would just make some popcorn and wait for the next election. Can you say “shellacking”?

The scorpion died

What McConnell did will increase the odds of loosing the Senate and may even cost him his election. Hardly self serving.

I think we can both agree there is plenty of hypocrisy to go around in DC. And it is not a “power grab” it is the constitutional exercise of the power given to them by their constituents. It is no different than the hypocrisy of Obama. He said on several occasions, he did not have the power to unilaterally impose DACA, but then he did. Pelosi also circumvented regular order to shove through Obamacare. Both sides do it, it just hurts more when your side loses.

I know some (many) of you are seeking vengeance for the way Garland was treated, I get it. However it is bad form to take it out on ABC. Your venom should be directed toward Mitch. Go make a donation to Amy McGrath’s campaign.

Bottom line.....rejected Mitch just wanted to save his members from the political blowback from rejecting a qualified, albeit left leaning jurist. The Rs in the Senate were not put there by their voters to shift the balance of the court to the left.

Zero experience as a judge.

The Senate rejected the nominee

But more experienced than Kagan

How is it a power grab? A Republican President and a Republican Senate were elected, a vacancy needed to be filled, the President made a nomination and the Senate will either confirm or reject the nominee. If the Dems win the Presidency and control the Senate, they can (and will) do the same. It is also worth mentioning the majority of Americans want her to ascend to the SC. From Gallup: “WASHINGTON, D.C. -- A slim 51% majority of Americans support federal judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the U.S. Supreme Court seat left vacant by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death last month.”

And rule via plebiscite is not in the Constitution.

No, I don’t think our country should be run via plebiscite.

Yes, I might not like it but it would be the law of the land, sort of like Heller for you lefties.

I thought we were talking about prepping

No, once it is changed (in a constitutional manor) it is still the constitution. Some folks might not like it but it has served us well for more than two hundred years.

See, nut jobs starting fires, not climate change.

No, it is because it is what is prescribed in the Constitution. If you don’t like it you can change it, as has been done seventeen times since the Bill of Rights.

Yes

Hi Jerry, Would you prefer that we would govern via plebiscite? Anything less would be ignoring “the will of the people” BH

One of the rolls of the EC is to prevent the tyranny of the majority. We have a federalist system for a reason. A solution that may work for 51% of the population living in cities may be awful for the 49% who don’t.

Since nobody could upset me, nobody could be terrified.

I never claimed it was going to happen, merely the threat is enough to drive gun sales to record levels.

It is not my opinion, I took it right off of the Biden/Harris website. The fact that there area record amount of guns flying off of shelves, across the country, is not my opinion either. https://www.theblaze.com/news/record-gun-sales-in-august

Uh because fire on a global scale is a good metric to show global warming has no impact on wild fires

From the Biden/Harris website: Get weapons of war off our streets. The bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that Biden, along with Senator Feinstein, secured in 1994 reduced the lethality of mass shootings. But, in order to secure the passage of the bans, they had to agree to a 10-year sunset provision and when the time came, the Bush Administration failed to extend them. As president, Biden will: Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Federal law prevents hunters from hunting migratory game birds with more than three shells in their shotgun. That means our federal law does more to protect ducks than children. It’s wrong. Joe Biden will enact legislation to once again ban assault weapons. This time, the bans will be designed based on lessons learned from the 1994 bans. For example, the ban on assault weapons will be designed to prevent manufacturers from circumventing the law by making minor changes that don’t limit the weapon’s lethality. While working to pass this legislation, Biden will also use his executive authority to ban the importation of assault weapons. Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Currently, the National Firearms Act requires individuals possessing machine-guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles to undergo a background check and register those weapons with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Due to these requirements, such weapons are rarely used in crimes. As president, Biden will pursue legislation to regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act.