McConnell tells Senate Democrats to back off on Supreme Court

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mcconnell-tells-senate-democrats-back-194619072.html

In further evidence of Mitch McConnell's mental decline, he seems to think he's still in charge in the Senate.

But secondly he made an all time stupid statement.

McConnell essentially told Democratic colleagues to back off after Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) announced this week that his committee will subpoena two businessmen who extended personal hospitality to conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

“What he’s targeting here is private citizens with no legislative purpose. I think it’s completely and totally inappropriate,” McConnell said at a press conference Tuesday.

No legislative purpose? I think finding out if Supreme Court Justices are on the take serves a legislative purpose.

 

Hunter is a private citizen, the SC judge is not

 

To be fair, Durbin wants to subpoena the billionaires giving the lavish gifts to Alito and Thomas. They are private citizens. But there is still a very obvious legislative purpose.

 

Dems have always been very open about wanting to utilize any tactic to bully the SC into doing what they want. Illegal, immoral, or otherwise.

 

When you say he’s on the take, did he rule on anything these people “paid him money for”?

 

WHY does that matter?

 

Because being on the take infers that one is engaged in duplicitous behavior based upon gifts he’s been given. But if he hasn’t ruled on anything to benefit those who he’s gotten gifts from, then on what grounds do you assert he’s on the take?

Now if something comes before the court that would benefit the guy who gave him the 250k and he didn’t refuse himself then you’d have a point.

 

why would one hide it otherwise? that is why needs to be investigated

 

So the APPEARANCE of CORRUPTION is "acceptable"?

Right now it is too soon to KNOW if Corrupt Clarence has ruled in a manner that BENEFITS his billionaire Lords and Masters. They are NOT known for being OPEN about their dealings. An offshore holding company which in turn controls a US based corporation with a matter before the SCrOTUS is NOT going to 'fess up' that it is subsidiary of another holding company owned by any of the billionaire Lords and Masters.

It took THREE DECADES for us to find out about Corrupt Clarence, it might take another couple more YEARS befores these LINKS are UNCOVERED to his RULINGS.

 

Yeah, go after the justices. See how that works out for the Democrats' agenda...lol

 

So, in your opinion, it would be OK for a Supreme Court Justice to retaliate against a political party that dares to investigate possible unethical behavior?

Which would be unethical behavior.

 

Oh FFS

With whats being made public right now about Thomas and Alito taking money, stinks to high heaven and you know it. You may like the decisions that they make, but are those decisions being bought ?

FFS Thomas had someone buy his mom a HOUSE. And it was recently reported that he was given a million $$$ RV to use….

But Im sure if that was Sotomayer you would be OK with that right ?

 

Of course he wouldn't. Only what Democrats do is corruption and fascism. When Republicans buy SCOTUS judges it for the good of the country because they
know what is best. When they vote not to convict the Orange Stain in the Senate(twice) it's because it's a politically motivated witch hunt and EVIDENCE be damned.

 

My favorite fictional detective is, as my alias and profile picture tells you, is Nero Wolfe of West 35th street in New York.

In one of the books ("Gambit", 1962) Wolfe spends some time tearing pages out of a dictionary and burning them because the dictionary had the gall to say that "infer" and "imply" could be used interchangeably.

Take from that what you will.

 

Prove it. Otherwise, they were just talking about the weather on those trips. Frustrating , isnt it?

 

Prove it. Otherwise, they were just talking about the weather on those trips. Frustrating , isnt it?

 

Prove it. Otherwise, they were just talking about the weather on those trips. Frustrating , isnt it?

 

In time.
First, investigate, then indict. You know, due process.

 

Sure ya will. Just another nothing burger with ZERO evidence. Wasting tax dollars investigating nonsense. He was likely providing weather updates.

 

Why? Supreme Court rulings are all public and there are relatively few of them every year.

If corruption exists, even you should be able to track it down.

 

He's a meteorologist ? When and where did he get that degree ? I'm unaware of his credentials in that discipline. Who would pay for weather reports when weather.com exists ?

 

Hes really smart. His weather updates probably well organized. Just another left wing nothing burger with zero evidence trying to smear a black man in power.

 

Wow, playing the race card already ?!

 

You are the one accusing the powerful black man of wrong doing with ZERO EVIDENCE. Its good to call a spade when it's a spade.

 

It’s not a mental decline. McConnell expended a lot of time and resources to create this court. Of course he’s going to defend the process and players.