What Does SC Justice Anthony Kennedy's Retirement Mean for America?

1. 83

   My Esotericposted 6 years ago

   Clearly, Donald Trump will nominate the most extreme conservative he can find to replace Kennedy and Sen Mitch McConnell will do everything he can to get him appointed.
   
   At stake, of course, is Kennedy's own legacy.  I suspect he is quite aware that the important decisions he sided with the liberal justices on will come under severe attack by conservatives and in all likelihood will be reversed.  Why? Because precedence does not matter to the conservatives on the court as seen in their overturning a many "settled law" cases, the latest of which was regarding unions.
   
   So, the question is, which of the following Kennedy's decisions will be overturned in the next two or three Supreme Court terms?
   
   - 1972 Roe v Wade 7 - 2 decision.  While not a decision made by Kennedy, it was upheld by him in many subsequent decisions
   
   -   1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirmed in principle the Roe v. Wade decision recognizing the right to abortion under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
   
   -  1996 case Romer v. Evans, invalidating a provision in the Colorado Constitution denying homosexuals the right to bring local discrimination claims.
   
   -  2003, he wrote the Court's opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which invalidated criminal laws against homosexual sodomy on the basis of the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution (on the other hand, In the 2000 case of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, Kennedy voted, with four other justices, to uphold the Boy Scouts of America's organizational right to ban homosexuals from being scoutmasters.)
   
   -  2010 Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the Court held that a public law college's policy requiring that all student organizations allow any student to join was constitutional.
   
   - 2013 United States v. Windsor the Court held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act was held unconstitutional. In the majority opinion on this case, Kennedy wrote, "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
   
   -  2015 Obergefell v. Hodges held that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry nationwide. The closing paragraph of Kennedy's said "No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were"
   
   -  2002 Atkins v. Virginia and Roper v. Simmons, Kennedy agreed that the execution of the mentally ill and those under 18 at the time of the crime was unconstitutional.
   
   -  2008 Kennedy v. Louisiana the Court held that the Eighth Amendment bars Louisiana from imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child where the crime did not result, and was not intended to result, in the victim's death."
   
   -  2008 Boumediene v. Bush the Court found that the Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006 was unconstitutional in that it did not provide Lakhdar Boumediene's, an inmate at Guantanamo Bay,  with an adequate substitute for habeas corpus. The Court also held that even enemy combatants have a right to habeas corpus
   
   Conservatives opposed each one of the above then and still do now.  Will they survive the next court?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      It means we're marching backwards in our quest to have a great country.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         No , What it means exactly is a return from the worst pollution known to the supreme  courts  , the mass liberalization of the supreme courts , Obama law  !  One man or one ideology should never get as close to changing the structure , the very foundation of the US constitution again .  His intent was to destroy the US constitution  , to relegate the US constitution  to the position  of becoming a cleaning rag .  This Kennedy replacement changes the courts FOR THE BETTER , for the next fifty years .
         
         US constitution Integrity ,  Win ------Obama Destruction Loss .

         replyreport
         1. 83

            My Esotericposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I take it from your comments that you oppose the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments and wish them all reversed.  Well you will get your wish for two of them, maybe three depending on whether they allow conservative states to reimpose the Poll Tax to keep blacks and women from voting. The conservative SC DID nullify the 14th and 15th amendments almost in total during the late 1880s, something I gather you want to have happen again.
            
            THAT is what "returning to a conservative court" means - a return to the civil rights prior to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               Accusing someone who disagrees with you of being opposed to the 13th amendment is beneath civility and over the top.

               replyreport
               1. 83

                  My Esotericposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  And why is that Live?  That kind of extreme conservationism is opposed to the 13th amendment.  His 19th century counterparts voted against the 13th amendment en mass, why wouldn't he today? 
                  
                  Since there was nothing the kind of people he wants on the Supreme Court COULDN'T invalidate the 13th amendment, they didn't.  But, if they could have found a way, they would have.
                  
                  Just because it is the 21st century doesn't mean some people think that the 13th amendment was a mistake.  And given the totality of his rhetoric, I have to surmise he is one of them.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     His nineteenth century Republican counterparts? Are you certain?
                     
                     Find one American who isn't some mentally unstable soul who advocates slavery and you'd have a point. I remember during the election. One of my waitresses started crying because her church leaders insisted that if Trump were elected she'd shortly become a slave.  I couldn't decide what was worse. This woman's irrational fears or the disgusting sot who planted them.  Which made me think of Jesus' warning of the penalty for willfully leading people astray.
                     
                     Although I disagree with ahorseback on many issues, I find your accusation disgusting and beneath use in a civil dialogue.

                     replyreport
                     1. 83

                        My Esotericposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                        Live - I didn't say "Republican" counterpart I just said "counterparts" - this means fellow conservatives.  In 1864, his counterparts would be the Democrats who voted, to a man, against the 13th Amendment.  In 1984, the newly minted Republican party were social liberals, similar to the way Ds are today.
                        
                        Based on his rhetoric, there is no don't t in my mind that if ahorseback were alive in 1864,  we would have voted against the 13th amendment, just as all other conservatives did.
                        
                        Please don't be so naive as to think some of the 30% who blindly support Trump wouldn't be happy to return to the good ol' days.  I know that some of my wife's relatives wouldn't have an issue with it.  They wear their contempt for blacks on their sleeves and are proud of it.  They will drop the n-word in the blink of an eye and smile while they do, challenging you to object (which, of course, I do).
                        
                        So to claim someone has the same mindset about slavery as his counterparts did when it was legal is neither uncivil nor disgusting.  What is disgusting is to hold that kind of belief in the first place.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                           Oooohh that hurts ....., your" slip "of hate speech is showing , your re-writing of history is uniquely obvious too .  But before you as an uninformed master of garbage rhetoric go too far , know that my ancestors fought and bled from the north in the civil war for obvious reasons . So I'll tell you what you can do with your less than intelligent and false opinion of my voting habits  ....... otherwise keep up the delusional writing . It's very entertaining if it is inaccurate.

                           replyreport
            2. 90

               MizBejabbersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               ME, I remember when $1 was a lot of money, and money was something that we didn't have much of when I was a child. However, I remember that my father always scratched up $2 to pay the poll tax so he and my mom could vote. Poor people today had rather use that money for something more pleasurable. I, personally, would not mind paying a poll tax to vote if it was kept under $10.00 and the money went straight into a fund for the purchase and upkeep of a secure voting system. We citizens have the right to vote, but I think we have responsibilities also. Now I sit back and wait for the brickbats.

               replyreport
               1. 83

                  My Esotericposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  It would be nice if that were the purpose of the tax, but it wasn't.  The whole point was to keep blacks and other minorities from voting so that conservatives to stay in power. 
                  
                  That is why it was found unconstitutional.

                  replyreport
      2. 83

         My Esotericposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Unless Sen Collins and Sen Murkowski put country, and their ideals, above party, all of the above plus the 1964 Civil RIghts Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act (both already shadows of their former self) will probably die.
         
         It means returning America back to the days when it was an embarrassment to live here (although Trump has already done that with his MABA policies)

         replyreport
         1. 0

            ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Are you obstruction kings and queens serious , AS if all of our social advances  are now at the brink of intentional Trump destruction ?    Here's a NEW  idea for your dying party futures ;    Claim Trump accomplishments like this as  as Racist , misogynistic , bigoted , backwards , Islamophobic , nationalistic , sexist , ant- progressive ...............No not a new idea ...just the same message you've been repeating senselessly for years.

            replyreport
            1. 83

               My Esotericposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               I am guessing you think the McConnell rule was not obstructionist?
               
               Since the message is the TRUTH and #TerribleTrump is still here, it bears repeating over and over again.

               replyreport
         2. 96

            wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            How is the voting rights act a shadow of itself?

            replyreport
            1. 83

               My Esotericposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               It should be obvious to you.  Several Roberts' court decisions have made much of it ineffective.
               
               https://www.politico.com/magazine/story … act-121222

               replyreport
               1. 96

                  wildernessposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  While it IS sad, and contemptible, that voting areas are drawn to benefit one party or the other, I still see blacks and other minorities voting.  And I see constant court challenges to change those voting areas to benefit the other party pretty consistently. 
                  
                  The object of the amendment was not to provide political power to any subset of voters, but that's what it has become, hasn't it?

                  replyreport
                  1. 83

                     My Esotericposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     But do you see as many voting as you use to before conservative states started trying to stop them?

                     replyreport
   2. 90

      MizBejabbersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I'm afraid it may mean the end for any civil rights strides made in the 20th Century, especially for women. After the Civil War, women had to put their efforts for suffrage on hold while many of their male supporters put their efforts in getting the vote for Black Males.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         My Esotericposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         They were already put in reverse with the Rehnquist Court and sped up with the Roberts Court.  It literally makes me sick to my stomach to see my country in such a decline in morality and so susceptible a demagogue who only knows how to lie.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            If America's decline in morality REALLY "bothers you " , you should look at why it's okay with too many in our culture to use abortion as the newest  fad- form of birth control .   Rather than a  necessity or last resort for individual health and safety .  Real America doesn't want conservative or liberals in the court , they want constitutionalists ! Get over your basic ideological bias , open your minds just a bit .

            replyreport
            1. 83

               My Esotericposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               How many are you talking about 1, 2, 10?  And of course characterizing it as the "newest fad-form of birth control" is a lie. (I call it a lie because you are smart enough to know that isn't true)
               
               But since you don't think a woman has any right to control her own body, the ultimate liberty,

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  There you go making false assumptions and you know what that means !

                  replyreport
                  1. 83

                     My Esotericposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     What is false about that assumption? Seems to me "you should look at why it's okay with too many in our culture to use abortion as the newest  fad- form of birth control .  " says it all.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                        Take a look at the statistics , particularly among minorities , age groups and  income margins  , then check out Planned parenthoods - non existent record keeping .
                        
                        Of course , Try to do that without bias .

                        replyreport
   3. 81

      Don Wposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      It's not the first time the Supreme Court has been weighted towards one side of the political spectrum or the other, and I'm sure it won't be the last.
      
      Politically, the Republicans need to confirm a new Justice before the mid-terms, because there is a risk they could lose control of the Senate, or even both houses (though that's less likely). Either way they would be foolish to take that risk with a seat on the SCOTUS at stake.
      
      That timing could be useful to Democrats. The battle for SCOTUS is lost. But a confirmation before November (especially someone very conservative) could fire up and galvanise the Democratic base even more than it is already. Democrats can campaign on the fact that controlling one or both of the Houses would at least provide some means of resisting the state-sponsored ignorance, racism, sexism and general idiocy that has become the hallmark of the current administration.
      
      Certainly, come November, no one can say they didn't know what a Trump White House would be like. They have now seen it in all its horrific glory. If people on the left (and sensible people in the center and right) don't express their opposition in the voting booth, or don't help campaign (as much as they are practically able to) before November, then there will be no point crying about it afterwards. Social media activism is all well and good, but it needs to be converted into votes in the right places. The system designed by the founding fathers will take care of the rest.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         My Esotericposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         At least we have Sen Collins saying she won't vote for anybody who doesn't believe in precedence.  She voted for Gorsuch only because he promised her he believed in stare decisis - He Lied to her as it turns out, he doesn't.

         replyreport
   4. 84

      RJ Schwartzposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I'd like to hope that American politicians don't try to re-write history and change previous rulings.  I just want them to follow common sense and the Constitution.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         My Esotericposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         We have just seen that Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy didn't care about previous rulings.

         replyreport
2. 0

   ahorsebackposted 6 years ago

   Already the media of the left is planning their obstruction  of the replacement !

   replyreport
   1. 83

      My Esotericposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Actually, I haven't heard the media doing any such thing.  I have heard the real media REPORTING that some Ds are wanting to follow the McConnell rule of pushing the vote until after the next Senate is seated..
      
      Of course, McConnell's original action violated what the creators of the Constitution had in mind making him a TOTAL Hypocrite by putting party above country.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         RJ Schwartzposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         agreed - the media isn't calling for obstruction, but many D politicians are doing so.  Let's just hope we get a justice that follows the Constitution.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            My Esotericposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I think the Democrats, by and large, are backing off of that route and will try to convince a few pro-choice Republicans not to support someone who will void Roe v Wade
            
            I will repeat an answer I gave below to answer your question of "what we will see" because we have had them before:
            
            It was people who believed like Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch that fought hard not to have those things happen.  In fact, between 1880 and 1929, those types of justices:
            
            -  let states stop blacks from voting
            -  prevented state child labor laws from taking effect
            -  prevented labor from organaizing
            -  stopped the enforcement of the 14th amendment by finding all of the implementing laws unconstitutional
            -  declared blacks weren't human enough to be protected by the 14th amendment
            -  decided "separate but equal" was an entirely reasonable proposition
            -  decided women can't sure for wage discrimination in a class action
            -  and the list goes on and on and on
            
            There is no doubt in my mind which group of justices represent the values of America and it isn't the conservative ones.

            replyreport
3. 0

   ahorsebackposted 6 years ago

   It is pretty foolish to believe Trump "........will nominate the most conservative justice he can ....."being a capitalist and being a ideological centrist compared to say Reagan .   We need now ,more than ever, a strict constitutionalist  as the left has moved the courts way, way  left with Sotomayor and  Ginsberg ,.......
   
   A strict constitutionalist to hold to the original framework ? Yes !
   A pundit for constitutional fluidity ?  No!
   The constitution works people .

   replyreport
   1. 90

      MizBejabbersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      The original Constitution worked quite well at holding back women, children and people of Color. Under it, women, children and slaves were possessions subject to the will of White men just the same as farm animals.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         My Esotericposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         It was people with Ginsburg and Sotomayor's belief set that brought the end to slavery, raised women above being simple chattel, given women the right to vote, made certain the Bill of Rights applied to the States as well as the federal government, to name a very few.
         
         It was people who believed like Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch that fought hard not to have those things happen.  In fact, between 1880 and 1929, those types of justices:
         
         -  let states stop blacks from voting
         -  prevented state child labor laws from taking effect
         -  prevented labor from organaizing
         -  stopped the enforcement of the 14th amendment by finding all of the implementing laws unconstitutional
         -  declared blacks weren't human enough to be protected by the 14th amendment
         -  decided "separate but equal" was an entirely reasonable proposition
         -  decided women can't sure for wage discrimination in a class action
         -  and the list goes on and on and on
         
         There is no doubt in my mind which group of justices represent the values of America and it isn't the conservative ones.

         replyreport
   2. 83

      My Esotericposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Really?  What has Trump done (not said) to make you believe, ahorseback, that he more ideologically centrist than Reagan?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         Well figure it out dude , Is ANYONE of either party TODAY as ideologically strict now as was any of them twenty, forty,  a hundred years ago ?     Our constitution is not fluid ! The liberties espoused and framed by our constitution are endless and timeless , the created constitutional DNA  are then amended but NOT changed from basic human liberties , that which allows for the progressive  evolution of all people , Why do you think it's constantly worked from the beginning ? Like the first amendment , the second , societal , cultural evolution was built into the origonal constitution .   
         
         Answer , Trump is more centrist than Reagan AND yet follows the same political  advancements , look at North Korea ,   look at the impending immigration and possible end of illegal immigration and yet  amnesty , look at any of his economic advancements , look at the death of political correctness ,  denuclearization ,  trade negotiations and not trade stagnation ,.............
         Trump came into power as a your  party screamed for "hope and change " and didn't get it  AND Our party screamed "stop the political stagnation" ,remember that ?    Trump's not of one ideology he is of many . Unlike Reagan . Unlike Obama .

         replyreport
         1. 83

            My Esotericposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Why are you disagreeing with the writers of the Constitution when you say "Our constitution is not fluid!"?  All you have to do is read things like Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention to see how wrong you are.
            
            Trump is anti-constitution, he is anti-liberty, there is not one centrist thing about his mentally unstable being (I can't accredit him with a soul because I am not sure he has one.) 
            
            Tearing kids out of mother's arms is NOT centrist.  I am a centrist and I disavow him.
            
            BTW - you failed to mention anything Trump has done that is more centrist than Reagan.  WHY?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               You , like many of those in your party , have got to simply stop basing all of your political obstruction on your emotional based understanding of politics . Simple ! If you think about that for a couple of moments you would awaken to the epiphany that YES ...............".I emote my way through the jungle of political complexities !"...........
               
               Maybe it's your definition OF 'fluid' that confuses you .
               
               So , Do you change the DNA of your actual physical being when you go to the doctor for  cures to your ills ?
               
               No , you address the individual symptoms of the illness,   
               
               When you need to replace the garage door on your home when wifey drives through it on her way to the mall , do you burn down the remaining house and begin again , No,  you replace the door itself and perhaps address why the wife  drives through doors .
               
               The constitution is the unchanging DNA of  our overall national being ,  amend , add ,so you   continue that basis and build upon  liberties ,you  don't alter the foundation , you add to it .     
               
               Answer ;
               -More government  deregulation
               -North Korea  denuclearization
               -Annihilation of P.C. politics
               -Bypassing of media bias
               -More ?
               
               You can't attribute"..... Trump with a soul ? Trump is the unstable one ..."  Think about  those lines ,  Then you are the soulless one , the unstable one and not him.
               
               You're Emoting . Period.

               replyreport
               1. 83

                  My Esotericposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  I don't have a party.  I have supported in the past both Republicans and Democrats.  I'm only a registered Democrat because I want to vote in Florida primaries.  That said, I use to be a registered Republican when that party existed; but it died in 1994.  Hopefully, one day FL will get smart like California and allow me to vote in any primary I want.
                  
                  Using your description of DNA, then I will agree the underlying belief in individual liberty, something Trump doesn't believe in, is unchanging.  The belief that:
                  
                  - establishing  Justice
                  - insuring domestic Tranquility
                  - providing for the common defence
                  - promoting the general Welfare
                  - and securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
                  
                  is the purpose of the Constitution and our government.
                  
                  The details are up to interpretation and modification which makes the Constitution a living document, not a dead one.
                  
                  - North Korea has not denuclearized and won't
                  - His deregulation is causing great harm to America and the world and many businesses
                  - His so-called annihilation is leading to anarchy, instability, polarization, and stagnation
                  - Regular media reports and still does, opinion pieces aren't news, conservative media does not report and is just a propaganda arm of the conservative party.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                     ALL of the above  is political and ideological toast . ANYONE who cannot see that the majority news media is totally ,ethically and honestly compromised in Trump reporting is either willfully  blind or ideologically blinded by brainwashing .
                     
                     Drip ...drip... drip... drip ...................Chinese [democratic]water torture.

                     replyreport
                     1. 83

                        My Esotericposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                        I am sorry ahorseback, it is you that is blind.  I see very little difference in news REPORTING by main stream media than I did in the 1960s.  Even Fox News' reporting is relatively balanced.
                        
                        What is different is all of the opinion shows that have developed.  Most, but not all, of those are biased, and in Fox opinion case, highly biased.  So much so, they are no better than the propaganda arm of the conservative party.
                        
                        You complain that all the things main stream media reports about Trump is bad which translates in your mind as biased against Trump.  Well, all they are doing is reporting what Trump says and does.  It is not their fault that most of the things Trump says and does are almost uniformly bad.
                        
                        What would have them do?  Not report all of the bad stuff and only report the good?  They certainly won't be reporting much, will they?
                        
                        Are you unhappy they are reporting about all of the children Trump had ripped out of their mother's arms or reporting that DHS doesn't have a clue or  plan on how to track down these children.  I take it that in your world, those things should not be tied to Trump even though he is directly responsible for them.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                           I am for trump , so it bothers me not that he thinks the same of our news media that I have for years . In the sixties this media was a smaller entity for one so you're wrong about seeing it as the same .   
                           
                           I could care less about "....children ripped from mother's arms ......"Why ?        Who cared about the families ripping apart BY these parents as they broke every law in the book to get here including extreme  child abuse by all american standards ?So What ,  Dragging unfed , unclothed ,shoeless children through mountain deserts as they die of starvation , exposure to extreme weather elements ,  stashing drugs in their backpacks , or trading the cost of passages in sex trades of these children with an immigration "mule " wasn't ".........ripping apart these kids lives "?
                           
                           You like all Trump obstructionist and haters have really got to get your political heads on straight , YOU lost the presidential election because of corruption both in party and in morals  ,  you cost yourselves untold amounts of future political capital and STILL continue to  impeach the very will of the American majority of voters [electoral college ].

                           replyreport
                           1. 83

                              My Esotericposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                              You are for Trump which means you have no issue with him either giving False statements or outright Lying almost every time he opens his mouth. Over 3000.  Do YOU lies as much as Trump does, I hope not.  Do yo insult everybody you see, so-called friends (he has none, I bet) and foe alike?  Do you take five positions on an issue in as many days?
                              
                              Well Your hero does!
                              
                              This "I could care less about "....children ripped from mother's arms ......" says a lot about you, ahorseback, it is sad to realize that.
                              
                              Are you saying the parents shouldn't have tried to get their kids out of harms way in their own country?? Is that what you mean?  It would have been much better they simply let their sons get killed and their daughters made into whores rather than trying to get them into the US where it use to be safe?
                              
                              America lost the election for three, and only three reasons. Count them 1) a flawed candidate who didn't know how to relate to white males but was immeasurably LESS FLAWED than Trump, 2) Comey, unwittingly I believe, biasing the election against her, and 3) a multiyear campaign by Putin to get Trump elected.
                              
                              America and the world are now beginning to pay a terrible price for that mistake.

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 Randy Godwinposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                 Mueller may nip this shit in the bud before Spanky's nominee becomes confirmed, Eso.  The excretion would hit the ventilator in that case.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    ahorsebackposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                                    Next week , next month , next year ...........You will all ask , "Who was Mueller , what did he do " ?
                                    
                                    Next ?

                                    replyreport
4. 0

   ahorsebackposted 6 years ago

   Esoteric ,Sorry , none of what you say means anything over here in the real world , As with your 'one more of a  thousand reasons to obstruct Trump' , you've all bounced from one meaningless reason to another for three or four years now .  While not one sticks for more than a few weeks . we've  "3,000" lies now" , the newest one is as weak as the first and now quite  forgotten,  "Russia Collusion".
   
   Keep up the awesome , if meaningless , obstruction ----only six more years .
   
   Liberals now entering -melt down phase .

   replyreport