HOW HAVE WE COME TO THIS? THE INCOMPETENCE, IRRATIONALITY, CRIMINALITY, AND BETRAYAL THAT HAS LEAD THE U.S. TO EDGE OF THE ABYSS. PART 1.

Since the Democrats are continuing their efforts to make things as easy as possible for TRUMP to add another Mediocre Legal Mind to the Supreme Court, furthering the FASCIST AGENDA THAT IS THE REAL GOAL OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, it is time to lay out the INCOMPETENCE, IRRATIONALITY, CRIMINALITY, AND BETRAYAL THAT HAS LEAD THE U.S. TO EDGE OF THE ABYSS.

#1- WHY DID THE REPUBLICAN PARTY BLOCK PRESIDENT OBAMAS CHOICE FOR THE SUPREME COURT MERRICK GARLAND?

The simple answer is to block a Well-Respected, Deserving, and Highly Regarded Legal Mind who would not blindly obey their Fascist Ideology. However, it was more than just that;

A TEST:
IT WAS TO SEE HOW MUCH, AND WHAT TYPE OF OPPOSITION REPUBLICANS WOULD FACE IF THEY DECIDED THAT REGAINING POWER AND KEEPING IT, COULD BE ACHIEVED THROUGH UNCONSTITUTIONAL METHODS. WITH A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION COMING UP, JUST HOW FAR COULD THEY PUSH THE DEMOCRATS (ESPECIALLY THOSE IN THE SENATE), INTO GIVING UP POLITICAL GROUND WITHOUT A FIGHT.

Again, here is the Text from SECTION 2 OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION:
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

That's it. There are no Qualifications, What-Ifs, Different Scenarios etc; TO DO CONSTITUTIONALLY WHAT MCCONNELL DID WOULD REQUIRE AMENDING THE DOCUMENT. THERE ARE NO PRECEDENTS THAT WOULD ALLOW THE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER TO DO WHAT HE DID. NONE. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A CASE WHERE A PRESIDENTIAL SUPREME COURT NOMINEE WAS DENIED A HEARING AND VOTE BEFORE THE U.S. SENATE.

I can understand why REPUBLICANS didn't object, (HONOR AND DUTY IS NOT PART OF BEING A REPUBLICAN THESE DAYS), BUT FOR SENATE DEMOCRATS TO ACCEPT THIS IS INEXCUSABLE. EVEN IF THEY ACCEPTED MCCONNELL'S EXPLANATION THAT THE NEXT PRESIDENT SHOULD MAKE THE CHOICE, A LAWSUIT TAKEN INTO COURT WOULD HAVE SET LIMITS AND GUIDELINES. LIKE THE FOLLOWING:

"THAT IN FUTURE ELECTIONS, SHOULD A VACANCY OPEN UP, THE COURT REQUIRES THAT THE SAME STANDARDS AND PRECEDENTS THAT HAVE BEEN SET IN THIS CASE MUST BE FOLLOWED." 

THIS TYPE OF RULING WOULD PREVENT CONTINUOUS PERSONAL PREJUDICES, PARTY POLITICS, AND CRIMINAL INTENT FROM TURNING THE PROCESS INTO A 3 RING CIRCUS.
LIKE MCCONNELL AND TRUMP ARE DOING NOW.

HOW LUDICROUS IS THIS? IF WE, AGAIN, ACCEPT MCCONNELLS EXPLANATION THAT THE NEXT PRESIDENT SHOULD MAKE THE CHOICE, THEN GIVING JUDGE GARLAND THE CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED HEARING BEFORE THE SENATE WOULD NOT HAVE CHANGED THE ULTIMATE OUTCOME. WITH A REPUBLICAN MAJORITY VOTING NOT TO APPROVE PRESIDENT OBAMAS CHOICE, (WHICH THEY CAN DO CONSTITUTIONALLY), THEY COULD HAVE FORCED A DELAY UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION. 

THIS WAS THE REAL TEST, AND SENATE DEMOCRATS FAILED MISERABLY. 

TO BE CONTINUED...

SO NOW WE KNOW: SENATE DEMOCRATS ARE TRUMP ALLIES.

 

I WONDER WHAT THEY'RE GETTING IN RETURN.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Senate Democrat: We can 'slow' Barrett's confirmation but 'can't stop' it.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Sunday that Democrats will be able to “slow” Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation process but “can’t stop” it.

During an appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” Durbin confirmed an ABC News report that Democrats are without a “silver bullet” for stopping Barrett’s confirmation before the Nov. 3 election.

“That’s true,” Durbin told host George Stephanopoulos.

President Donald Trump formally nominated Barrett on Saturday to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, moving one step closer to establishing a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

Durbin said the timing and even the outcome of the confirmation process could change if at least four GOP senators speak out against holding it ahead of Election Day. So far, Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine are the only Republicans who have done so.

Democratic strategists ― including, Adam Jentleson, who served as deputy chief of staff for former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) ― have outlined ways they believe Democrats could derail Barrett’s confirmation. 

But Durbin said Sunday that such plans could only temporarily stall the process.*

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

*THAT IS UNTRUE, AND HE KNOWS IT, AS DOES ANYONE ELSE WHO BOTHERS TO LOOK AT THE SITUATION WITH THE IDEA OF NOT BETRAYING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

TO GIVE A LITTLE PERSPECTIVE, THE FOLLOWING WILL GIVE YOU A LIST OF THE NUMBER OF TIMES THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WAS CHALLENGED IN COURT AS BEING UNCONSTITUTIONAL:

Constitutional challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AS YOU CAN SEE, IF YOU CHECK THE WIKIPEDIA PAGE, REPUBLICANS, AND THEIR ALLIES FILED NUMEROUS LAWSUITS CLAIMING THAT THE ACA WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THEY LOST TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

HOW MANY LAWSUITS DID THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY FILE CLAIMING THAT SENATOR MCCONNELLS REFUSAL TO GIVE MERRICK GARLAND, PRESIDENT OBAMAS CHOICE FOR THE SUPREME COURT, A MANDATED PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE U.S. SENATE WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL? 

ZERO.

IT WAS MORE IMPORTANT TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TO STOP AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE FOR EVERY AMERICAN,THAN IT WAS FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TO PRESERVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE THAT THE PRESIDENTS NOMINEE HAS TO BE GIVEN A HEARING AND A VOTE BEFORE THE SENATE.

A PRESIDENT FROM THEIR OWN PARTY.

 

TO BE CONTINUED...

YOU MEAN THE COURT BEING FILLED BY DONALD TRUMP FLUNKIES.*

Some Republicans push back after President Trump declined to commit to a peaceful transfer of power.*“If Republicans lose we will accept the result. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Joe Biden, I will accept that result,” Sen. Lindsey Graham said.

IN OTHER WORDS, "TREASON" IS NOW PART OF THE TRUMP/MOSCOW RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN.

-DAVID.

NOW WE WILL SEE IF DEMOCRATIC LEADERS CARE ABOUT ALL AMERICANS, OR IF THEY ARE TRUMP SUPPORTERS IN DISGUISE, COWERING BEFORE THEIR LEADER....

WITH TRUMPS NOMINATION OF AMY CONEY BARRET FOR THE SUPREME COURT, LET US SEE IF DEMOCRATS FILE SUIT TO PREVENT A SENATE CONFIRMATION HEARING, WHICH WAS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DENIED TO MERRICK GARLAND...

TO BE CONTINUED...

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

REMEMBER THIS BLAST FROM THE PAST: REMEMBER STRIKE 3?

WHAT PROGRESSIVES MUST LEARN: EDUCATE YOURSELF, PAY ATTENTION. AND SCRUTINIZE ALL ELECTION RESULTS.

So what should Progressives, Liberals , and other Groups that believe Government has a Moral Responsibility to Aid those in need, (which doesn't include returning FUNDS LOST THROUGH BAD INVESTMENTS TO THE WEALTHY, WHICH MEANS ALL TAXPAYERS ARE FOOTING THE BILL), to change the minds of those who are buying into the LIES AND FALSEHOODS BEING FED TO THEM BY SELF-CENTERED AND CORRUPT POLITICIANS.

#1-  Acknowledge that the Selfish, Self-Centered, and Dishonest also Vote, so Quit trying to Win over everyone through Fear of Confrontation.

#2-  Stop Allowing Republicans and Ultra Right Wing Candidates to Hijack the Moral High Ground, when its Media Campaign is Transparent, and Easily Refuted.   

#3-  By the Almost Incredible Inability to Stand Up to the Outright Lies and Misrepresentations that
are thrown around come Election Time, regarding Programs that Help the Poor and Disadvantaged.

#4-  When Statistics are Trotted Out about possible Fraudulent Activities in Social Programs, Research and Demand the Sources for such Claims, and Contrast Them with them with  Public Funds Lost Through; 

-  Corporate Bailouts. 

-  Tax Breaks that do not, or are not required

to Benefit the Taxpayer.

-  Funds Acquired Through Government Contracts,

that are Shifted to Foreign Markets with no Positive

Affects on the U.S. Economy.

-  Refusing to Raise Wages to a Minimal Level, which

Encourages Self- Sufficiency, and Decreases the 

Need for Government Aid.

... Other Policies that Push an Agenda that

Benefits a Narrow Set of American Citizens.  

#5-  Point Out to Voters, who have Benefited from 

Programs Instituted by the Progressive Agenda, that

what has been Won by Voting, can be Lost or Unfunded

by Not Voting.

MOST IMPORTANT:

MAKE SURE THAT ELECTIONS, AT ANY LEVEL, ARE SCRUTINIZED CAREFULLY FOR FRAUD. DO NOT TAKE THE RESULTS AT FACE VALUE, BECAUSE EVEN THE LOSERS AT THE POLLS MAY NOT HAVE THE FORTITUDE OR INCLINATION TO CHALLENGE  OUTCOMES THAT ARE FIXED. THAT IS WHAT THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION HAS TAUGHT US.

STRIKE 1.

- THE REPUBLICANS TOOK CONTROL OF THE SUPREME COURT WITHOUT A FIGHT BECAUSE THE MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL COWARDICE OF SENATE DEMOCRATS ALLOWED MAJORITY LEADER MCCONNELL TO EFFECTIVELY ELIMINATE THE ROLE OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IN FILLING A VACANCY ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.

STRIKE 2.

- DONALD TRUMP WAS HANDED THE WHITE HOUSE AFTER A FRAUDULENT ELECTION, WHICH WAS NOT CONTESTED BY ANY MEMBER OF THE U.S. SENATE, OR THE U.S. HOUSE OF REP.

WHAT IS STRIKE 3 GOING TO BE?

- ?