Mitch McConnell's Stolen Supreme Court Seat Is Already Fucking Up America

You know in 2016 there was some talk that if Hillary Clinton won election that the GOP Senate might hold open the Supreme Court seat until 2021 when (hopefully) a Republican might take office. But many didn't see how that would be doable both politically and practically.

Boy, that one little black president really fried their asses, didn't it?

There is no way that would have happened. That would have been a huge midterm election issue this year and Republicans would have rightly been slaughtered for it.

Probably the nicest thing you've said about them

I've never claimed Hillary or Bill are dumb. They clearly are very smart people and fantastic at weaseling their way out of any hot-potato political situation.

Plus they are both fantastic at killing people without getting caught. That takes brains to rack up dozens of kills over 25 years without getting caught.

Oh come on. Bill and Hillary Clinton aren't very good people but they aren't murderers.

It's a joke you stupid club footed moron.

One of Rush Limbaugh's comedy classics.
Right next to mocking Michael J. Fox's Parkinsons.
And demanding pot smokers be locked up in dungeons while he was eating Oxycontin like jellybeans.
Ahhh, what a kooky character.

hell even McCain, that supposedly great statesman, speculated aloud about that.

Why? Is it making you overjoyed? I don't want you to get too overjoyed. @Paladin might have an instant orgasm if too many people become too overjoyed, and I don't know if we're ready for a sandstorm.

I don't give a fuck about any of that. I was just explaining that the game of politics has changed since Bill's heyday.

Please resume being overjoyed.

We all knew Gorsuch was a Trump sycophant, limited legal mind and all, but when did Kennedy become such a monster? He's turned into the get off my lawn guy in his old age.

I don't think the ban in its current form is a big deal worth liberals shitting their pants over. The most controversial aspects, namely how it affected green card holders, had been removed after the first time the lower courts stuck it down.

And bad policy as it may be, Congress has delegated to the president the power to make that call. The majority justices are not wrong.

Let's actually get out the vote for better leaders rather than expecting the courts to clean up everything.

My father had quite a few dealings with his mother back when she was trying to run the EPA into the ground. Dad nearly shit himself when he was named nominee because he knew the apple didn't fall far from the tree.

Anne M. Gorsuch, Neil's illustrious mother, was the first agency director in U.S. history to be cited for Contempt of Congress after she refused to turn over records related to her mishandling of Superfund money.

My father hated dealing with her and had met Neil on a few occasions, referring to him as a weasel created from the same stock as his mother.

Another great Supreme Court decision today against unions!!! Score another for the good guys!!!!

So why do you support the anti-union position in this case from a legal perspective?

I know you're not a lawyer, but I would love to have the legal opinion of the so-called "Excellent history teacher" on this matter.

I do not believe a union should be able to take up union dues without the consent of a person.

Strong unions would have helped Arkansas be the opposite of what it is now, a low GDP mess dependent on federal tax redistribution.

Unions have their problems, and can get corrupt and go too far, no one's saying they're Disneyland, but before unions, things were as close to indentured servitude as you can get.
Anyone who wants to just rip unions away, and go back to those days is either naive, or a maniac.

So, you think you're entitled to a slice of the pie without having to pay for it?

Not public unions. Public unions have done nothing to help the labor movement.

Assuming for the sake of argument you're right, I've never seen conservatives in power draw the distinction.

This depends. Is Dayton entitled to all the protections of the union whether he pays or not? If he is, you have an argument. If he's not, then why should he pay?

I am not in a union at my workplace. Consequently, I do not participate in strike action, but nor do I have the right to have a union rep accompany me to work-related hearings, nor to argue my case if I am brought to tribunal. That is my choice.

If Dayton is not being offered a choice then it's marginally better if the union will represent him in all cases than if they take the cash and treat him differently, but it's still removing choice - essentially adding another workplace tax.

Public unions do not represent you if you are not in the union. Even if you’re having money taken from you to pay for the union.

Probably because you’re too busy to notice.

I really disagree with this new "let everyone be a free rider" ruling against public sector unions. It uses none of the regular justifications to over turn 41 years of settled law and looks like Republican appointees just advancing a political football to help their side.

It wasn't stolen fuck nuts.

You are absolutely wrong. They are key drivers who do just about all the heavy lifting of establish norms and baselines.

Often they did as nonmembers got the exact same salary, benefits, and working conditions as union members all of which were significantly better due to the union.

Amazing that so many just assume Garland had no brain of his own and would've just voted in accordance with the leftist screed via knee-jerk (he certainly is no Sotomayor).

Maybe Garland would've agreed that FED GOV/STATE GOV are not such terrible employers that demand the extreme solution of involuntary union contributions; such unions after all just a group seeking protection against being exploited and repressed by those mean taxpayers.