'If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire #@%#@%#@& thing down.'

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cathoholic

Guest
The left continuing to show just what many of them are all about . . . .
Published 5 hours ago

SCOTUS battle prompts threats, calls for arson: ‘Burn Congress down’​

‘If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire #@%#@%#@& thing down.’​

By Sam Dorman | Fox News

Almost immediately after news of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, some verified Twitter users threatened arson and apparent violence in order to block Republicans from replacing her before the elections.

“If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire f------ thing down,” author Reza Aslan tweeted. He later responded to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s vow to hold a vote on President Trump’s nominee. “Over our dead bodies, literally,” he tweeted.

Author Aaron Gouveia similarly blasted McConnell’s statement, saying: “F— no. Burn it all down.”

A Canadian political science professor called for arson . . . .

. . . McConnell has maintained, however, that Garland’s confirmation was unique in that the Senate and executive branch were controlled by different parties. That isn’t the case in the wake of Ginsburg’s death.

The incredibly high stakes prompted what appeared to be panicked reactions from many on Twitter. Writer Beau Willimon threatened: “We’re shutting this country down if Trump and McConnell try to ram through an appointment before the election.”

A member of Wisconsin’s ethics commission, Scott Ross, ordered Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., to “burn it all down” if he couldn’t stop McConnell. . . .

. . . “If McConnell jams someone through, which he will, there will be riots,” warned GQ writer Laura Bassett.

Fox News host Greg Gutfeld responded to the controversy by criticizing anyone who might mock people for worrying about political terrorism. . .
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
There will be riots outside the Senate but I think they will go forth. The issue is who will be nominated. I am scared of a woman, remember Sandra Day O’Connor was supposed to be a conservative woman and that turned bad so I hope they get this nomination right.
 
Last edited:
We’ll see if Twitter removes these people’s accounts for making political terroristic threats.

.

Also:

@gam197 . . .
I hope they get this nomination right.
Click to expand...
You are correct. They MUST get this thing right.

Sooner or later Trump will be out of politics and when he is, the national left will use (abuse) their power to carry out their vindictivness and their institutionalized envy against not just Donald Trump but his family too.

We will need good people on the Supreme Court.
 
Last edited:
Now it is incumbent on President Trump to replace RBG, to do otherwise would set a precedent that threatening violence is an acceptable method of achieving political goals. We will not be intimidated by thugs.
 
Last edited:
WingedHussar . . .
Now it is incumbent on President Trump to replace RBG, to do otherwise would set a precedent that threatening violence is an acceptable method of achieving political goals. We will not be intimidated by thugs.
Click to expand...
Bold mine.

Excellent points WingedHussar.

"Fill that seat!"
 
Last edited:
Yes, once the left threatens violence he has a duty to stand up to the bullies
 
I’m sorry. Thinking like a Catholic would, and while the Left is rabid, they would have much less ammo if McConnell hadn’t pulled that Garland BS. That was 9 months prior to an election, this, 7 weeks. Yes, I would like to see another Conservative judge put on the Court, but the optics look horrible for McConnell. Both Left and Right have gotten into this annihilation dynamic, and the Gospel verse, an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind, comes to mind.
 
Dominating SCOTUS is good optics, and cowering before leftwing bullies is not.
 
I know the left is making that comparison but they are deliberately avoiding a crucial difference: back in 1996 the President was on the opposite political party from that of the Senatorial majority. Such is not the case now. The alignment of the democratic moment is extremely important.
 
I hope not but could be. There has been many cities that have experienced mobs burning buildings this year. I’ve come to think of ANTIFA and their burnings as the militant wing of the Democrat party.
 
Should Trump and the rightist GOP just act as hypocrites in nominating a supreme court justice when 4 years ago they fought against the Democrats doing just that?

How can folks spin this in any other way?
 
There is plenty of precedent for presidents to nominate someone in an election year regardless of whether or not they had the votes in the Senate. Even Obama did it. But Trump should not?


Key quote from the article (emphasis mine):
Twenty-nine times in American history there has been an open Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential election year, or in a lame-duck session before the next presidential inauguration. (This counts vacancies created by new seats on the Court, but not vacancies for which there was a nomination already pending when the year began, such as happened in 1835–36 and 1987–88.) The president made a nomination in all twenty-nine cases . George Washington did it three times. John Adams did it. Thomas Jefferson did it. Abraham Lincoln did it. Ulysses S. Grant did it. Franklin D. Roosevelt did it. Dwight Eisenhower did it. Barack Obama, of course, did it. Twenty-two of the 44 men to hold the office faced this situation, and all twenty-two made the decision to send up a nomination, whether or not they had the votes in the Senate.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
This is the fact that the perpetually outraged Dems are omitting. For the umpteenth time, it has been stated ,Obama was a Dem .The Republicans controlled the senate.Now the Republicans have the potus and the senate.
Add to that if you think for one nano second the Dems wouldn’t do the same,your kidding yourself. Especially given the bs they have doled out for four years.C’mon man!
 
Last edited:
Feanor2 said:
The very definition of hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
LOL! Biden was the one who, in 1992, when there was an R president, that a SCJ should not be nominated in an election period.

The Senate had an R majority in 2016, so the point was moot; McConnell simply said the R majority would not confirm a nominee.

The Ds fought this only enough to make it clear they did not agree, but they could do nothing, and they probably hoped there would be a D majority in the Senate after the election, which they also assumed Hillary would win.

“Elections have consequences…”
 
Feanor2 . . .
How can folks spin this in any other way?
Click to expand...
Because there exists a different set of circumstances. You know that.

4 years ago there were DIFFERING parties controlling the Senate and the White House.

Now there are IDENTICAL parties controlling the Senate and the White House.

Obama once said: “elections have consequences”.

(Edit. @Annie. You beat me to it. I responded to Feanor THEN went back to read other posts. Was not trying to copy you. I guess we just were thinking alike there!)

If you were not aware of that, now you know the differences.

That’s the difference.

There are other differences too, but this is the crux of the issue. Identical parties.

"Fill that seat!"

Edit#2:

@Jeanne_S too! Was not trying to copy you either.)
For the umpteenth time, it has been stated ,Obama was a Dem .The Republicans controlled the senate.Now the Republicans have the potus and the senate.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top