Chip Bok for September 22, 2020

Sorry Bok, neither party would actually act the way you portray them, therefore, YOU are the hypocrite.

Neither one of those critters is acting like the humans they’re supposed to represent. I’m actually with the donkey on this one… but only if it’s retroactive to Obama’s administration.

Let me draw a picture for you bok. I’ll use a crayon and type slow so you will understand. It is not the democrats that said you can’t fill a justice seat during an election year. It isn’t the democrats that said let the people decide with the election. It isn’t the democrats ramming a new justice through. It isn’t the democrats going against the precedent set by the republicans. There is no bothsideism here, there is only out and out hypocrisy by the republicans.

Vote out every crooked lying republican this November 3rd. Make America sane again.

Bok, the new expression for “telling an obvious lie”.

If politicians, i.e. Republicans*, all evidence would have been displayed at Trump’s impeachment trial.

Trump would have been convicted.

.

And, less blood would not be on the hands of Chip and the other Trump Disciples.

More fodder for the Trumpanzees. They’re lapping up the Angel of Death tearing apart the nation.

Baghdad Bok pushing the Republican propaganda. I love how the Republicans accuse Democrats of wanting to do the things they, in fact, do. Quite the projection.

If the Garland nomination was allowed to proceed, there would be no issue right now. It is as simple as that.

It’s your duty to act consistently. If you set precedent by not allowing a hearing or vote in the last year of the term, then you need to stick by it. Otherwise, you SHOULD be called out for your blatant hypocrisy. But Chip thinks all that matters is if his team wins by any means.

Yes, Virginia, there is a Sanity Claus and he brought you a lump of coal.

But…but the Dems were soooo mean to Kavanagh they made him cry.

Do any of you actually believe that the dems wouldn’t be doing the same thing right now if they were in control of the White House and Senate? Nevermind, of course you do. Sigh.

but republicans are hypocrites…

So lets find all of the Bok cartoons about how McConnell should allow a vote on Merick Garland.

Politicians aren’t the only hypocrites

The rule is: do whatever it takes, no matter how base and/or vile, while you can.

At one point Merrick Garland was considered acceptable by Senate Republicans. So the thing to do is re-nominate Garland.

Problem solved.

I’m an ex-GOP. The GOP has proven themselves, over the years, liars & hypocrites because they think they have an inherent right to rule and anyone else holds power illegitimately!

Tell me again the advantage and how the US prospers and grows from our divisive, mutually exclusive, opposing party system as it causes friends, neighbors, and even family to distrust/disrespect each other in this era of ID politcs.

“If politicians were not hypocrites”. Hhmmm…that leaves reality wide open. Let’s see. If politicians were not hypocrites, I’d, um, well first I’d commute to work on my Unicorn. Then I’d taking flying lessons from Pig Personal Aviation, followed by putting Humpty Dumpty back together, and ice-fishing in Hell….Really, the possibilities are endless. Oh, wait. He said, “IF”. SHOOT! oh well. Oh well. (Of stage: “Never mind, Marigold!”)

Weird? That’s what both parties were saying back in 2016. What’s weird is that nobody seems to remember those days anymore… except maybe a distorted version of them…

Election Year appointments since 1900

On March 13, 1912, President William Taft, a Republican, nominated Mahlon Pitney to succeed Justice John Marshall Harlan, who died in October of 1911. The Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Justice Pitney five days later on March 18, 1912.

On January 28, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, nominated Louis Brandeis to succeed Justice Joseph Rucker Lamar, who died on January 2, 1916. The Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Justice Brandeis on June 1, 1916.

Only a month later, on July 14, 1916, President Woodrow Wilson nominated John Clarke to replace Justice Charles Evans Hughes, who resigned from the Court on June 10, 1916. Justice Clarke was confirmed by the Senate on July 24, 1916.

On February 15, 1932, President Herbert Hoover, a Republican, nominated Benjamin Cardozo to succeed Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who retired from the Court on January 12, 1932. A Republican-controlled Senate confirmed Justice Cardozo on February 24, 1932.

On January 4, 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, nominated Frank Murphy to succeed Justice Pierce Butler, who died on November 16, 1939. A Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Justice Murphy on January 16, 1940.

On November 30, 1987, President Ronald Reagan, a Republican, nominated Justice Anthony Kennedy to succeed Justice Louis Powell, who retired on June 26, 1987. A Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Justice Kennedy on February 3, 1988, by a vote of ninety-seven to zero.

Think about it, if the GQP Senate is pushing thru a vote BEFORE the election, it can only be because they fear what is coming ON Election Day, if they were certain of a win, what’s the rush?

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/supreme-court-why-no-justice-has-beenconfirmed-in-the-fall-of-a-presidential-election-year/ This will answer your questions and correct your statements. There is nothing unusual about what the Constitution instructs be done.

Bok keeps redefining “weird!”

Trump wants to nominate a religious weirdo so they can move right wing religion attitudes into the courts. The republicans plan to be the permanent ruling party by hook or by crook.

Here is a straight forward un-hypocritical statement.

“No one should be sur­prised that a Re­pub­lican Sen­ate ma­jor­ity would vote on a Re­pub­lican Pres­i­dent’s Supreme Court nom­i­na­tion, even dur­ing a pres­i­den­tial elec­tion year. The Con­stitu­tion gives sen­a­tors the power to do it. The vot­ers who elected them ex­pect it. Go­ing back to George Wash­ing­ton, the Sen­ate has con­firmed many nom­i­nees to the Supreme Court dur­ing a pres­i­dential elec­tion year. It has re­fused to con­firm sev­eral when the Pres­i­dent and Sen­ate ma­jor­ity were of dif­fer­ent par­ties. Sen­a­tor [Mitch] Mc­Connell is only do­ing what De­mo­c­rat lead­ers have said they would do if the shoe were on the other foot.”