Page 36 of 199

Re: The Supreme Court

Posted: Tue July 10, 2018 1:09 am
by 96583UP
THE PICK HAS BEEN LEAKED!
Spoiler: show
Image

Re: The Supreme Court

Posted: Tue July 10, 2018 1:11 am
by BurtReynolds
Please be Barron Trump please be Barron Trump...

Re: The Supreme Court

Posted: Tue July 10, 2018 1:11 am
by 96583UP
IT'S A WHITE GUY HE MUST BE EVIL

Re: The Supreme Court

Posted: Tue July 10, 2018 1:13 am
by Simple Torture
96583UP wrote:oh shit his intro music is also metamorphosis
1. Of The Girl's Right To Choose
2. Do The Evolution Must Be Taught Alongside Creationism In Schools
3. Jeremy Vs. Board of Education
4. W.M.A.s Can Also Be Discriminated Against

And then the Periscope feed cut out.

Re: The Supreme Court

Posted: Tue July 10, 2018 1:22 am
by 96583UP
<insert right-wing stereotype here>

Re: The Supreme Court

Posted: Tue July 10, 2018 1:25 am
by BurtReynolds
A literal swamp monster.

Re: The Supreme Court

Posted: Tue July 10, 2018 1:30 am
by McParadigm
Wow the guy who thinks it shouldn’t be possible to investigate presidents no way

Re: The Supreme Court

Posted: Tue July 10, 2018 1:30 am
by 96583UP
bow to your owner

Re: The Supreme Court

Posted: Tue July 10, 2018 1:45 am
by B
So, how bad is this guy?

Re: The Supreme Court

Posted: Tue July 10, 2018 1:53 am
by 96583UP
Hmmmm, let's see:

1. He is not a trans
2. He is not a woman
3. He is not gay
4. He is not black

SO HE'S OBVIOUSLY NOT QUALIFIED

Re: The Supreme Court

Posted: Tue July 10, 2018 2:41 am
by B
96583UP wrote:Hmmmm, let's see:

1. He is not a trans
2. He is not a woman
3. He is not gay
4. He is not black

SO HE'S OBVIOUSLY NOT QUALIFIED
He doesn't have to BE those things as long as he doesn't shit on gay, trans, black women.

Re: The Supreme Court

Posted: Tue July 10, 2018 2:56 am
by elliseamos
McParadigm wrote:Wow the guy who thinks it shouldn’t be possible to investigate presidents no way
Yet made his name/career writing the Starr report?

Re: The Supreme Court

Posted: Tue July 10, 2018 3:02 am
by Jammer XCI
96583UP wrote:Hmmmm, let's see:

1. He is not a trans
2. He is not a woman
3. He is not gay
4. He is not black

SO HE'S OBVIOUSLY NOT QUALIFIED
Shut up, the adults are talking now.

Re: The Supreme Court

Posted: Tue July 10, 2018 3:38 am
by Green Habit

Re: The Supreme Court

Posted: Tue July 10, 2018 8:21 am
by BurtReynolds
Shocking upset!

Image

Re: The Supreme Court

Posted: Tue July 10, 2018 9:20 am
by Birds in Hell
BurtReynolds wrote:Shocking upset!

Image
:hooray:

Re: The Supreme Court

Posted: Tue July 10, 2018 10:04 am
by Bi_3
Green Habit wrote:
Yeetus that fetus!

Re: The Supreme Court

Posted: Tue July 10, 2018 1:48 pm
by McParadigm
Any thoughts from our resident Court followers about the fact that this future Supreme Court Justice introduced himself to the public with a blatant lie whose only purpose was to sycophantically flatter the president’s ego?

Coming out of the gate with a propaganda-level falsehood on your way to the highest court in the land seems....not great?

Re: The Supreme Court

Posted: Tue July 10, 2018 2:26 pm
by ---
McParadigm wrote:Any thoughts from our resident Court followers about the fact that this future Supreme Court Justice introduced himself to the public with a blatant lie whose only purpose was to sycophantically flatter the president’s ego?

Coming out of the gate with a propaganda-level falsehood on your way to the highest court in the land seems....not great?
Maybe it's just me, but the 300+ opinions he authored during his fifteen years on the appeals court seem more likely to be instructive about what to expect than anything uttered during an introductory exercise whose whole point is to flatter and wheedle and deliver exactly nothing of substance.

Re: The Supreme Court

Posted: Tue July 10, 2018 2:51 pm
by McParadigm
--- wrote:
McParadigm wrote:Any thoughts from our resident Court followers about the fact that this future Supreme Court Justice introduced himself to the public with a blatant lie whose only purpose was to sycophantically flatter the president’s ego?

Coming out of the gate with a propaganda-level falsehood on your way to the highest court in the land seems....not great?
Maybe it's just me, but the 300+ opinions he authored during his fifteen years on the appeals court seem more likely to be instructive about what to expect than anything uttered during an introductory exercise whose whole point is to flatter and wheedle and deliver exactly nothing of substance.
Maybe it’s just me, but they aren’t mutually exclusive, it is a revealing behavior, and we don’t have limited space to discuss.