Dick the Taliban Durbin: Blocking Trump’s Supreme Court pick more important than red state Democrats getting re-elected

By Jim Campbell

July 8th, 2016

What else is he going to say?

“When you ain’t got nothing you got nothing to lose.”~ Bob Dylan

Dick Turban as he is know on this site is just another progressive fool.

We call him, Dick Turban

 

 

He can cry and moan all he wants but there is little he can do to stop the president’s momentum.

The Washington Examiner

by Daniel Chaitin

July 08, 2018

Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., was pressed on this “dilemma” that Democrats face as the 2018 midterms approach during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

A top Democrat in the Senate said his vulnerable colleagues from red states “understand” that fighting to stop President Trump’s Supreme Court pick is more important than getting re-elected in 2018.

What a top Democrat?

If this guy were any further left he would fall off the planet.

“Staying united to stop the Supreme Court pick could cost you red state senators.

Not fighting it as hard might allow the red state senators to get re-elected and get Democrats in control of the Senate.

That’s your dilemma,” host Chuck Todd posited on Sunday.

Durbin conceded that it is a dilemma “in one respect,” but made that case for how it is a trade off Democrats are willing to make.

“It is a dilemma in one respect, but not in another.

I will tell you, the men and women that I work with on the Democratic side really take this seriously.

Perhaps someone should ask him if he was so serious that he would give up his own seat as the U.S. Senator from Illinois.

*Of course that would require real reporters asking real questions and the ones we have won’t go there.

They understand it’s a historic decision.

It’s about more than the next election,” he said, adding that the issue is about setting the future course for the country.

President Trump will reveal in a prime-time announcement Monday his pick to succeed Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court.

Senate Democrats are urging Senate Majority Leader McConnell, R-Ky., to hold off on confirming Trump’s Supreme Court nominee until after the midterm elections and the completion of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, as the nominee may hear cases on the Supreme Court arising from the inquiry.

There are 10 Democratic senators up for re-election in 2018, including vulnerable red state Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin from West Virginia, Heidi Heitkamp from North Dakota, and Joe Donnelly from Indiana.

The three were the only Democrats who voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court in 2017.

 

THE END

 

 

About JCscuba

I am firmly devoted to bringing you the truth and the stories that the mainstream media ignores. Together we can restore our constitutional republic to what the founding fathers envisioned and fight back against the progressive movement. Obama nearly destroyed our country economically, militarily coupled with his racism he set us further on the march to becoming a Socialist State. Now it's up to President Trump to restore America to prominence. Republicans who refuse to go along with most of his agenda RINOs must be forced to walk the plank, they are RINOs and little else.
This entry was posted in Dick the Taliban Durbin: Blocking Trump's Supreme Court pick more important than red state Democrats getting re-elected and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Dick the Taliban Durbin: Blocking Trump’s Supreme Court pick more important than red state Democrats getting re-elected

  1. Rule of Law says:

    How sad is this situation? none of these Democrats have even asked what is good for America? What is good for U. S. Constitutional Law?

    These are the same Democrats that allowed Bill Clinton to openly lie to them and refused to impeach this womanizing asshole! The term “asshole” is a defined term in the U. S. and the Clinton’s and Democrats are guilty of being just that- ASSHOLES!

    Of course, the idea that all Senators and Congressmen toke the OATH to support and defend the Constitution.

    The oath of office of the President of the United States is an oath or affirmation required by the United States Constitution before the President begins the execution of the office. The wording is specified in Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight:

    Before he enters the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:— “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    The Oath to Uphold the Constitution

    Article VI clause 3 of the United States Constitution requires that all who hold office in the United States take an oath to uphold the United States Constitution: “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…”

    In compliance with this requirement, as they enter office, Members of Congress take the following oath of office:

    “I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

    Article II Section 1 of the United States Constitution defines and requires the President of the United States to take a specific oath as he assumes that office:

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” (United States Constitution Article II, Section 1, emphasis added)

    The United States Constitution, Article VI declares the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land,” and reinforces the requirement that judges are bound by it: “This Constitution…shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

    As immigrants to this nation obtain their United States citizenship, they are required to take the following oath:

    “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature.

    An oath is defined in Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary thus:
    “A solemn affirmation or declaration, made with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed. The appeal to God in an oath, implies that the person imprecates his vengeance and renounces his favor if the declaration is false, or if the declaration is a promise, the person invokes the vengeance of God if he should fail to fulfill it. A false oath is called perjury.”

    The requirement to agree under oath to uphold the Constitution is an unequivocal requirement to holding office. The oath of a new citizen is specific in the commitment to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution is the “supreme Law of the Land” for all citizens. Can the words of the Constitution have any other meaning than the common meanings which were well known at the time of its writing?

    The United States Constitution is The Charter of the Nation. It defines the framework of the government it establishes. It delegates authority to act in specific areas. It establishes the boundaries within which our national government may act. It is not a grant of unlimited power to act with unrestricted discretion. The primary purpose of our Constitution is to protect the people in their God-given unalienable rights.

    The value of a written constitution is beyond measure. Words have meaning, and those meanings may be known. They are not open to arbitrary and unilateral interpretation or redefinition by those who would modify the constitution to meet their whims. The words and the intended scope of the government was clearly established by those who framed the Constitution. There is an established and constitutional method for modifying the Constitution if it becomes necessary to do so. That process is defined in Article V of the U.S. Constitution. There is no other way to legally modify it. Until it is modified legally (by the method defined within Article V of the Constitution), the United States Constitution is obligatory upon all.

    —Scott N. Bradley

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.