HERE ARE A COUPLE OF DEFINITIONS THAT MAY INTEREST THOSE WHO REALIZE THAT THE U.S. IS BEING SOLD OUT TO FASCIST STOOGES.

The Definitions relate to the current controversy of TRUMP APPOINTING ANOTHER SUPREME  COURT JUSTICE, AND HOW IT RELATES TO THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL DENIAL OF BARACK OBAMAS APPOINTEE MERRICK GARLAND A HEARING AND VOTE BEFORE THE SENATE.

I will expand upon these, but let's see if the DEMOCRATIC PARTY WILL STAND UP FOR THE CONSTITUTION, AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

SUBVERT- undermine the power and authority of (an established system or institution). 

"an attempt to subvert democratic government"

PRECEDENT- A precedent is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.

TO BE CONTINUED...

BLAST FROM THE PAST: THE HORRIFIC IMPLICATIONS OF REFUSING TO MEET AND EVALUATE THE PRESIDENTS NOMINEE FOR THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.

 

PART 1- http://searchingforreason.net : THE HORRIFIC IMPLICATIONS OF REFUSING TO MEET AND ... https://searchingforreasondotnet.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-horrific-implications-of-refusing.html?spref=tw

PART 2- http://searchingforreason.net : THE HORRIFIC IMPLICATIONS OF REFUSING TO MEET AND ... https://searchingforreasondotnet.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-horrific-implications-of-refusing_27.html?spref=tw

PART 3- http://searchingforreason.net : THE HORRIFIC IMPLICATIONS OF REFUSING TO MEET AND ... https://searchingforreasondotnet.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-horrific-implications-of-refusing_71.html?spref=tw

PART 4- http://searchingforreason.net : THE HORRIFIC IMPLICATIONS OF REFUSING TO MEET AND ... https://searchingforreasondotnet.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-horrific-implications-of-refusing_40.html?spref=tw

MORE FROM THE "FANTASY" WORLD OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

OF ALL THE GARBAGE BEING SPEWED ABOUT THE PROCESS IN FILLING RUTH BADER GINSBERG SEAT ON THE SUPREME COURT, ( I AM REFERRING TO TRUMP AND HIS FASCIST CRONIES), NONE IS MORE HILARIOUS THAN THE FOLLOWING;

Speaking with "Fox News Sunday," Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said Republicans are "performing our Constitutional duty and fulfilling the mandate that the voters gave us in 2016 and especially in 2018."

Trump campaign communications director Tim Murtaugh...in a statement on Sunday."Voters elected Donald J. Trump president in 2016 and gave Republicans an expanded majority in 2018, so the people already have spoken," he said. 

Does the Republican Party just count on Most Americans to be Dishonest and Uninformed, who desire to live in a Fascist Utopia? 

Before I address the Dubious Reasoning they use for violating Constitution Law, here are the results of the 2018 Mid-Term Elections.

2018 SENATE ELECTION RESULTS.

DEMOCRATS- 22 VICTORIES.  

REPUBLICANS- 11 VICTORIES.

INDEPENDENTS- 2 VICTORIES.

DEMOCRATS DEFENDED 24 SEATS.
20 WINS.        4 LOSSES.

REPUBLICANS DEFENDED 9 SEATS.
7 WINS           2 LOSSES.

INDEPENDENTS DEFENDED AND WON 2 SEATS. 

(They are grouped with the Democrats because

of Voting Patterns and Common Ground on Key Issues.)

IN THE END, REPUBLICANS WON 31.4% OF THE

SENATE SEATS BEING CONTESTED, MEANING THAT DEMOCRATS

AND THEIR ALLIES WON NEARLY 70%

As for the HOUSE OF REP., THE REPUBLICANS LOST 41

SEATS. This gave the Democrats Majority Control.

I AGREE 100%, THE PEOPLE SPOKE LOUD AND CLEAR.

BLAST FROM THE PAST: THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU ALLOW CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION TO BECOME CORRUPTED BY SELF-SERVING POLITICIANS, INCOMPETENT JURISTS, AND AMORAL LAWMAKERS.

REMEMBERING TRUMPS DISGRACE: ARTICLES AND POSTS FROM HIS IMPEACHMENT. BREAKING DOWN THE MUELLER REPORT: A BRIEF TIMEOUT. PART 3. IMPORTANT UPDATE..

FROM NPR NEWS- 6/27/2019.

In a 5-4 decision along traditional conservative-liberal ideological lines, the Supreme Court ruled that partisan redistricting is a political question — not reviewable by federal courts — and that those courts can't judge if extreme gerrymandering violates the Constitution.

WHAT DO YOU GET WHEN YOU IGNORE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, AND ALLOW THE OPPOSITION TO CONTROL THE SELECTION PROCESS FOR A NEW SUPREME COURT JUSTICE?

OR

WHAT DO YOU GET WHEN YOU DO NOT CHALLENGE BOGUS RETURNS IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, HANDING THE WHITE HOUSE TO A SELF - CENTERED DEMAGOGUE?

ANSWER TO BOTH.

YOU GET DONALD TRUMPS CHOICE FOR THE SUPREME COURT.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

THE FOLLOWING IS TAKEN FROM JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGHS TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, REGARDING ACCUSATIONS MADE AGAINST HIM.

"This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about president trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record. Revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups. This is a circus. The consequences will extend long past my nomination. The consequences will be with us for decades."

WHAT AN INTELLECT!! FITS IN WITH TRUMP AND MCCONNELL PERFECTLY.

WHAT ELSE CAN WE TAKE FROM THIS?

#1. Anger-  Does this reference the Unconstitutional denial of President Barack Obamas choice for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, a chance to testify before the Senate, to be followed by a public vote? 

BUT YOU'RE BEING TREATED UNFAIRLY. REALLY?

#2. President Trump and the 2016 Election- You mean an election with Bogus Returns in at least 6 States that handed Donald Trump the White House, paving the way for him placing 2 Judges on the Supreme Court.

Do you mean "FEAR" of having the future course of Judicial Precedents decided by DONALD TRUMP, whose behavior while in the WHITE HOUSE is often considered to be IRRATIONAL AND VINDICTIVE? 

#3. Revenge on behalf of the Clintons- I assume you have the facts to back this up, since this is a direct accusation. Also, Do you mean that the Clintons planned and executed these plans directly, or are unwitting pawns that had no knowledge about the attempt to create this "Circus"?

IS THIS HOW A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE SHOULD CONDUCT HIMSELF IN THE FACE OF ADVERSITY?

So, What do I mean when I say: TODAYS DONALD TRUMP IS WHAT 
HE WAS ALLOWED TO BECOME...

Ask yourself the following question: OF THE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT;  EXECUTIVE, LEGISLATIVE, AND JUDICIAL, WHAT IS THE HIGHEST OFFICE/MOST POWERFUL POSITION THAT CAN BE OCCUPIED IN EACH BRANCH?

ANSWER.

EXECUTIVE-    PRESIDENT OF THE U.S.

LEGISLATIVE-  U.S. SENATE MAJORITY LEADER.
                     SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REP.

JUDICIAL-        ONE OF THE NINE MEMBERS OF THE
                       U.S. SUPREME COURT.

Now, in most recent history, what events have most influenced the
current state of each office. 

For that, let's go back a few years.

THE SUPREME COURT.

On FEB,13, 2016 SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA passed away.
THEN PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA, following procedures Set forth in the U.S.
CONSTITUTION, nominated JUDGE MERRICK GARLAND TO FILL THE VACANCY.       

The following passage is taken from the U.S. CONSTITUTION.

"...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..."

However, for the first time in U.S. HISTORY, THE U.S. SENATE DID NOT MEET TO QUESTION
THE NOMINEE, SO THAT THEY COULD "ADVISE" THE PRESIDENT, AND VOTE TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE OF THE JUDGE GARLAND NOMINATION. SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH MCCONNELL DECIDED THAT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IS NOT A DUTY OR OBLIGATION THAT THE U.S. SENATE HAS, BUT CAN BE FOLLOWED WHENEVER THEY FEEL LIKE IT. SO, HE REFUSED TO SEAT THE SENATE TO ACT ON THE NOMINATION.

GIVEN SENATOR MCCONNELLS LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, I DON'T EXPECT MUCH IN THE WAY OF FAIR AND INTELLECTUALLY JUSTIFIABLE REASONS FOR THE POLITICAL AGENDA HE PUSHES. HOWEVER, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTIES REFUSAL TO FILE SUIT, AND BRING THIS MATTER INTO COURT TO FORCE MCCONNELL AND OTHER REPUBLICANS TO OBEY THE OATH THEY TOOK TO "SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION," SHOWED AN INEXPLICABLE LACK OF MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL COURAGE. WHAT MESSAGE DO YOU THINK THIS SENT TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY? TO BAD, IT WAS ONLY THE BEGINNING.