Trump narrows Supreme Court picks to at least three

My pick would be Amy Coney Barrett.

Amy Coney Barrett, she will be picked over for a male candidate.

I wouldn't be so foolish as to make a prediction Ron. I said "I" would pick her. She is a woman, a mother of 7, and she understands that life begins with the zygote.

I will be watching to see what happens, tomorrow.

I will be watching to see President Trump exercise the office to which the American people elected him.

Quick question Steve: What happens if trump picks a white man for the job, will President Trump exercise the office to which the American people elected him?

Of course Ron. Since abortion is such an important issue though, a woman would be better.

Trump will pick a man for the job.

He might.

Then WTF are you talking about then "FAKE" adam? Sick with your choice "Amy Coney Barrett." It want be long now...

I don't believe ANY prediction from you

You don't have to believe ANY prediction from me. Just stand-by, it won't be long now, just Eight more hours and counting. If I am WRONG, I will be the first to give you a congratulation shout out to you on your prediction.

I don't need your congratulations Ron nor would I believe them.

Believe who Adam?

Them Ron.

What them "FAKE" ass Adam? WTF are you talking about?

Believing "them" Ron.

"THEM!!!" You don't even know who them are. WOW!!! Who are THEM Adam FAKE Ass? complete your thoughts unintelligible · incomprehensible · incoherent · unclear · indistinct · mumbled · muttered · muffled · hesitant · faltering · hesitating · halting · stumbling · stuttering · stammering · confused · garbled · muddled · rambling · disjointed · jumbled.

Did you see that video report of Trump narrows Supreme Court picks to at least three?

Time is getting short for Trump to make a call.

Keep track of your questions Ron and you will avoid confusion.

Hey Steve, my pick for Nomination to The Supreme Court will be Brett Kavanaugh. Pay Attention.

This apart of the good old boys net-work, don't you get it Adam or Steve?

Hey ADAM, I KNEW IT!!!
You are not apart of the GOOD OLE BOYS Network and you don 't know 💩 Adam "FAKE."

YOUR WORDS: Of course Ron. Since abortion is such an important issue though, a woman would be better. WOW!!!


Now that is FUNNY. Thanks for the laugh. WOW!!!

I think your Supreme Court pick is fine Ron and I understand your misogyny.

I have no misogyny or prejudice against women, like so many things that you have tried to insert into this conversation, this understanding of my misogyny is just "SMOKE" and just more of your Bull 💩 accusations, that's all.

Sorry Adam.

Of course you are a misogynist Ron. You have no respect for any woman that doesn't toe your line.

And since you prefer to address Adam...

I am glad you brought out his FAKE ass, one more time again Steve.

Back to you, No Steve, you just bought Trump's confusion and "SMOKE" and you was not paying attention again, you caught all of Trump's Bull 💩, when you saw a woman as a possibility for Supreme Court Nominee. Now I know you did not take into account what history Brett Kavanaugh has on record already. Trump picked a nominee that said congress should make a law where he can't be under investigation while in office.

Trump is looking out for Trump and not any thing you was thinking, how disappointing. "WOW!!!"

As much as YOU people talk about it Ron, NONE of you have given a reference to where that opinion was given. Not to worry, Adam to the rescue.

But after Kavanaugh emerged on President Trump's shortlist for the Supreme Court, a suggestion the judge made in a 2009 law review article swiftly took center stage:

"Provide sitting presidents with a temporary deferral of civil suits and of criminal prosecutions and investigations," Kavanaugh proposed.

I thought I'd quote the entire passage, so people could see it in context:

Having seen first-hand [from working in the White House] how complex and difficult [the Presidency] is, I believe it vital that the President be able to focus on his never-ending tasks with as few distractions as possible. The country wants the President to be "one of us" who bears the same responsibilities of citizenship that all share. But I believe that the President should be excused from some of the burdens of ordinary citizenship while serving in office.

This is not something I necessarily thought in the 1980s or 1990s. Like many Americans at that time, I believed that the President should be required to shoulder the same obligations that we all carry. But in retrospect, that seems a mistake. Looking back to the late 1990s, for example, the nation certainly would have been better off if President Clinton could have focused on Osama bin Laden without being distracted by the Paula Jones s*xual harassment case and its criminal-investigation offshoots. To be sure, one can correctly say that President Clinton brought that ordeal on himself, by his answers during his deposition in the Jones case if nothing else. And my point here is not to say that the relevant actors—the Supreme Court in Clinton v. Jones, Judge Susan Webber Wright, and Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr—did anything other than their proper duty under the law as it then existed. But the law as it existed was itself the problem, particularly the extent to which it allowed civil suits against presidents to proceed while the President is in office.

With that in mind, it would be appropriate for Congress to enact a statute providing that any personal civil suits against presidents, like certain members of the military, be deferred while the President is in office. The result the Supreme Court reached in Clinton v. Jones—that presidents are not constitutionally entitled to deferral of civil suits—may well have been entirely correct; that is beyond the scope of this inquiry. But the Court in Jones stated that Congress is free to provide a temporary deferral of civil suits while the President is in office. Congress may be wise to do so, just as it has done for certain members of the military.Deferral would allow the President to focus on the vital duties he was elected to perform.

Congress should consider doing the same, moreover, with respect to criminal investigations and prosecutions of the President.In particular, Congress might consider a law exempting a President—while in office—from criminal prosecution and investigation, including from questioning by criminal prosecutors or defense counsel. Criminal investigations targeted at or revolving around a President are inevitably politicized by both their supporters and critics. As I have written before, "no Attorney General or special counsel will have the necessary credibility to avoid the inevitable charges that he is politically motivated—whether in favor of the President or against him, depending on the individual leading the investigation and its results." The indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the federal government, rendering it unable to function with credibility in either the international or domestic arenas. Such an outcome would ill serve the public interest, especially in times of financial or national security crisis.

Even the lesser burdens of a criminal investigation—including preparing for questioning by criminal investigators—are time-consuming and distracting. Like civil suits, criminal investigations take the President's focus away from his or her responsibilities to the people. And a President who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as President.

One might raise at least two important critiques of these ideas. The first is that no one is above the law in our system of government. I strongly agree with that principle. But it is not ultimately a persuasive criticism of these suggestions. The point is not to put the President above the law or to eliminate checks on the President, but simply to defer litigation and investigations until the President is out of office.

A second possible concern is that the country needs a check against a bad-behaving or law-breaking President. But the Constitution already provides that check. If the President does something dastardly, the impeachment process is available. No single prosecutor, judge, or jury should be able to accomplish what the Constitution assigns to the Congress. Moreover, an impeached and removed President is still subject to criminal prosecution afterwards. In short, the Constitution establishes a clear mechanism to deter executive malfeasance; we should not burden a sitting President with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions. The President's job is difficult enough as is. And the country loses when the President's focus is distracted by the burdens of civil litigation or criminal investigation and possible prosecution.

See Steve, Trump has put into play that good ole boy’s network and it has no place for women In politics. I thought you knew who Trump is. WOW!!!

It's more likely Trump was concerned about your hatred for any woman that's PRO LIFE.

Trump was personally concerned about my hatred for any woman that's PRO LIFE. If that was true, then I am a very powerful man, Adam "FAKE."

There are many more like you Ron that hate all pro-life women. The President is a pragmatist.

You was wrong about TRUMP'S pick for The Supreme Court get over that, put you panties back on and get out of hear with that Hate Bull 💩. That is the smoke Trump administration wants out here while they have done nothing to prevent the next Russian cyber attack.

Fool don't you see, this country was under attack by Putin and you don't want to talk about that, do you?

I wasn't wrong about Trump's pick. What an idiot.

Fool don't you see, this country was under attack by Putin and you don't want to talk about that, do you?

Now is that question to far over your head or don't you care that our elections can be can be manipulated by the Russians, do you care about that?

I wasn't wrong about Trump's pick. What an idiot.

Sunday, July 15th 2018 at 2:05PM
Steve Williams | delete | block member

Steve, are you calling The President of The United States of America an idiot? Are you willing to go as far to make that kind of insult, then to admit you was wrong! How low will you go Steve?

You was wrong on that call and you know it! Did you take your Meds?

I would never call the President an idiot Ron. I wasn't wrong about Trump's pick because I never predicted Trump's pick.

I wouldn't be so foolish as to make a prediction Ron. I said "I" would pick her. She is a woman, a mother of 7, and she understands that life begins with the zygote.

Sunday, July 8th 2018 at 12:46AM
Steve Williams | delete | block member

Are these not your words Steve?

Those are my words Ron, can you read and comprehend them?

Are these your words?: I wasn't wrong about Trump's pick. What an idiot.

Sunday, July 15th 2018 at 2:05PM
Steve Williams | delete | block member

Then who was you calling an idiot if it wasn’t the president of the United States of America?

I was calling you an idiot Ron.

Why would you call me a idiot when I had nothing to do with Trump's Supreme Court Pick? Or are you still distraught over the FACT that I told you in advance that TRUMP will not pick a woman for his choice for the Supreme Court.

That sounds real foolish now. Get OVER IT Steve, you was WRONG and History is on my side, telling you what happened. THE FACT is clear as a bell, STEVE you are wrong as hell on this one, no woman was Trump picked for his Supreme Court, now that is a FACT, GOT IT? GET OVER IT!!! YOU WAS WRONG.

I think you're an idiot for, among other reasons, what you said to me right before I called you an idiot. I may have been wrong about the better supreme court pick, but you are still an idiot Ron.

So, is your sisters cat. I won't entertain this Bull 💩 useless name calling because you have no point at all so, you call me names out of desperation. You are an embarrassment Steve for your awkwardness · lack of self-consciousness · you are unease when you talk to me · You feel uneasiness · discomfort · discomfiture · edginess · shame · humiliation · mortification · ignominy · sheepishness · shyness · bashfulness · discomposure · flusteredness · perturbation · confusion · agitation · distress · chagrin because this subject was clear from the start, that you don't know TRUMP.

You Ron are the one that relies on insults, like "put you panties back on" and "Fool don't you see".

Steve you are disrespecting people you don't know to cover up your sad as tracks but all the while, showing the readership on Black In America your ignorance and your bias. WOW!!! Excuse Me.

What people Ron?

Think about it or did that go over your head as well?

I said you're an idiot Ron. I've disrespected no one but you.

No Steve, You disrespected yourself. You was WRONG now you are embarrassed. Heifer, Stop crying.

I have nothing to be embarrassed about Ron. It's your idiocy not mine.

You are sounding real child like now. Trump did not pick that woman like you thought would bet reasonable to be on the Supreme Court. Now since that did not happen, your feeling are hurt, like some school girl. Poor Steve, you must be feeling lost right now because your wisdom was not followed by TRUMP.


Don't worry about Trump, he would probably throw your ass under the bus, anyway.

Nothing has changed Ron. I still think Barrett is a better pick, just like you still oppose ANY pick. Idiot.

Trump don't give a damn what you think Steve, can't you see that?

As long as he keeps doing what I want him to do.

I know for a FACT, that this is NOT one of those moments. WOW!!!

There will be no woman nominee for the Supreme Court Justice of this country by Donald J Trump this pick, get over that NOW, you cry 😢 baby 👶. Trump is the world’s embarrassment and it is happening in real time, right in front of you and you still want to justify his actions shame on you.

I don't care about "moments".

I know you don't, then Stop crying, WOW!!! You was WRONG and now you are embarrassed. Stop crying Steve.

For god's sake woman, stop screaming!

You really need to hear the truth, over that BULL 💩 you are listening to. Pay attention and stop 🛑 crying, trumps is through with his pic for supreme court nominee and it was not a woman, bottom line.

If Trump is through with his pick then why are you still fretting about it Ron?

Because of you!!!

Trump don't give a damn what you think Steve, can't you see that? I know you do and you still trying to play it off
why?

No Ron, there is nothing at issue. I expressed a preference for a certain nominee, nothing more.

Steve, you know for a FACT at your expressed preference for a woman to be Trump's nominee Supreme Court never came to floriation because Trump don't give a damn about what you think, can't you see that, Steve?

It's true Ron, that my preference never came to floriation.

You know the answer to that question. you know better then that, don't you?

YES Steve, do you still have any doubt in your mind that your preference for Trump to pick a woman nominee for The Supreme Court never came to floriation?

There's no doubt in my mind that you never saw Merrick Garland's nomination come to floriation.

What! You got to be kidding me. Merrick Garland's nomination is not the subject of this blog. What is the matter with you. Trump don't give a damn about what you think and you know that.