web analytics

Say’s it all

By Patrick Van Roy On September 20th, 2020

91 Responses to “Say’s it all”

  1. Never mind the 1500 Tweets, never mind the outrage from ordinary people when commentators such as Mr. Levin expose the plotting; his words will be just explained away as the rantings of a demagogue.

    After all blm rules; or we’ll burn you down!

  2. His words will be just explained away as the rantings of a demagogue

    Probably because that’s precisely what he is, a right wing shock jock polemical conspiracy theorist who thinks the ‘Democratic Party should be crushed’

  3. Levin is spot on.

    President Trump has said he will nominate a chick. No-one, man or woman, who might vote for him cares if he nominates a man or a woman. On the plus side, denying Dems to ability to fabricate rape and sexual assault charges nullifies most of their hearing strategy.

  4. Levin is an outraged constitutional lawyer, one of the best that actually practiced it who was talked into becoming a radio commentator by Limbaugh and Hannity. He also worked as a lawyer in the Reagan administration.

    The stones you cast are far off the mark. Not to mention that those views he’s spouting that you ridicule are held by more people than you believe them to be.

  5. The stones you cast are far off the mark.

    Eh? Levin is ‘an outraged constitutionl lawyer’ So what? He’s still a ‘right wing shock jock polemical conspiracy theorist who thinks the ‘Democratic Party should be crushed’.

    Not to mention that those views he’s spouting that you ridicule are held by more people than you believe them to be.

    The number of people who believe such polemics has no bearing whatsoever on their veracity.

  6. The veracity of them is not in question. If you ever listened to the man you’d know that, but you’ve never listened to or watched any of his shows you’re just echoing talking points you’ve read alongside some clip of him going off.

    You don’t speak from an informed opinion.

  7. The Levin on the radio is a screamer shock jock known for his rants

    The Levin on Fox TV on the weekend pretends to be a serious thinker

  8. So a person that served with Ed Meese, has written presentations that have won before the supreme court…. pretends to be a serious thinker

    Tonight he interviews the President on his TV Show. Two weeks ago it was AG Barr. Did you watch it Phantom?

  9. The left now claims that asserting the Constitution is right wing. That leaves the left in a dead end. Where do you go from there?

  10. What you don’t get which does surprise me Phantom because you were once a fan of Savage who even though he isn’t rightwing he used to do his show in the same style. He had fun with it.

    Limbaugh and Levin have two of the sharpest minds for analytical reasoning you could ever listen to, Hannity is just a cheerleader which is why I pay him no attention, but if you listen to those two not only will you get a good honest interpretation of events, but you’ll get a feel for what the silent majority is feeling and thinking.

    Do you think Limbaugh being number one for 30yrs is because of a fluke or marketing? Neither of them engage in conspiracies both will be the first to admit if they got something wrong. The other key to both their shows success is what they talk about and the views and opinions they give have been researched and are presented with ALL the facts not just the ones they want you to hear.

    The fact that they present their views and information in a style that annoys the left and with humor you don’t get the people who have put these two personalities in demand and on over 600 radio stations across the country along with Limbaugh’s status for 30 years is because they represent a hell of a lot people.

    This is not Sterns Audience, dismissing them as “shock jocks” is a fools statement and calling them conspiracy kooks is a statement of ignorance from not being willing to listen or watch for yourselves.

    your loss.

  11. The veracity of them is not in question

    The veracity of comments don’t matter????

    Jesus Christ, I’ve really heard it all now. That explains the personality cult. If the veracity isn’t in question please tell me what is?

    Dismissing them as “shock jocks” is a fools statement and calling them conspiracy kooks is a statement of ignorance

    Levin is a shock jock polemecist and a propogator of conspiracy theories.

    These are facts.

  12. Limbaugh has always been a conspiracy theorist

    When I heard Levin say that the country’s health care crisis didn’t need to be resolved ( in any way ), I tuned out for the most part. He’s a silly man.

  13. McDonalds is the biggest restaurant chain in the nation. But it’s not the best restaurant in the nation.

    Limbaugh has an audience, but he’s the biggest fish in a small pond ( AM radio, which is rapidly dying ).

    The average American adult never listens to Limbaugh, Hannity or Levin in a year. The radio ( which now includes podcasts ) audience is very fragmented.

    I won’t be surprised if Joe Rogan surpasses Limbaugh in popularity in the very near future. Rogan has a rapidly growing and fervent audience of young and mostly male listeners, Limbaugh would have virtually no young listeners.

  14. Phantom you live in a bubble, you have common sense which is why you’re not a full democrat, but when it comes to full view of anything you’ve never had on.

    Paul the reason the veracity doesn’t matter is the statements are true. That’s all the veracity anything needs.

    So tell me Phantom what conspiracy did Limbaugh ever sell, and question 2 since the healthcare system was broken and Obamacare was the fix…. why do you still have your private insurance. You say it was broken yet you haven’t gone to the fix. Your actions prove your own belief false yet you’re in such a bubble of one sided information even the simple fact that you kept the insurance you had you’ll swear the system was broke……

  15. You clearly have no idea what Limbaugh says or who he is.

    He’s been a conspiracy theorist for his entire career

    https://news.yahoo.com/limbaugh-and-trump-fuel-coronavirus-conspiracy-theories-202831981.html

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/10/27/ann-coulter-didnt-ditch-conspiracy-theories-after-bombers-arrest-most-false-flaggers-didnt/

  16. that’s what you’ve got with over 30yrs on the air a piece about corona which is in your opinion and that of the leftwing press is a conspiracy “theory” sorry Phantom more than half the country believe the dems are playing politics with the virus…. it ain’t a theory and a hit piece from the mouthpiece of the left Wapo….?

    C’mon 30 years and two weak pieces…. oh yeah big time conspiracy kook…. lol

  17. Monica missiles, many others

  18. Patrick

    Just for the record can you confirm that you’re cool with the GOP senate confirming a supreme court judge within a month and just a few weeks before the election, as Trump demands?

    And also that you were cool when the GOP senate refused to allow Obama to even nominate a supreme court judge in 2016 because the election was “only” six months away?

    Just for the record. I’m sure that there’s no question of double standards or total ****ing hypocrisy from the GOP. No way, ever.

  19. No I have no problem with either action Peter, and that is quite consistent of me. If it’s good for the People of the United States it can’t be wrong. It’s a very simple standard.

    It was good for the people to block Obama’s and it’s good to get Trumps on their as quickly as possible, because both moves benefit the middle class working man and therefore the country.

    An activist Judge is harmful to the nation, RBG was harmful to the nation with her rulings.

    These 9 Demigods need to be put on a 20yr term limit and need to be reset on their original Constitutional mandate before Marbury vs Madison.

  20. What you don’t believe Billy boy blew up an aspirin factory to distract from a stained dress…. wanna buy a bridge I did not have sex with that woman is whose version you’re buying…. oh that’s rich.

  21. Paul the reason the veracity doesn’t matter is the statements are true. That’s all the veracity anything needs.

    Pat, I listened to the clip a second time jjust to be sure and all it is is a visual adoption of what I’ve heard of his radio shows, belligerent invective devoid of analysis or scrutiny. It’s a variation of your ‘don’t miss this’Tucker Carlson videos.

    It’s nothing more than a propaganda piece that you agree with.

  22. In 2016 McConnell refused to let Obama nominate a perfectly qualified judge a full nine months ahead of the election, “because it’s an election year”. Now watch the spineless jerk roll over for Trump to tickle his tummy. The party of Lincoln has become a Trumpist cult:

    “The battle to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death is a pivotal moment for these whispering Republicans in the Senate. The prospect of a conservative-heavy Court persuaded many Trump-wary conservatives to support him in 2016. This election, Ginsburg’s death will likely energize Biden-wary Democrats—millions of dollars have been raised online since news of her death broke last night—but Trump will also hope for an enthusiasm boost. He’ll aim to shift the conversation away from his mismanagement of the coronavirus pandemic toward an ideological battle for the future of abortion rights and other contentious issues in American culture.

    The secretly apostate Republican senators have two choices: They can support a president they think is a threat to American democracy while also violating Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s invented 2016 rule about not confirming justices in an election year, or they can oppose Trump, enraging both him and their progressively cultish base while giving up what might be their last chance to secure a conservative majority for a generation…”

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/09/senate-republicans-supreme-court-vacancy/616415/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=masthead-newsletter&utm_content=20200919&silverid-ref=NjIzNTcxMzkyMDgxS0

  23. McConnell’s 2016 action, supported by virtually all Republicans, including Trump, was blatantly unconstitutional.

    And now four years later, McConnell flip flops on his own invented fake rule, and again most Republicans supporter his action.

  24. I’m not sure it was blatantly unconstitutional. It was deeply partisan, and extremely unethical. But the constitution states that the President will appoint people with the advise and consent of the Senate. The President must gain the advise and consent of the Senate, the Senate doesn’t have to provide it. It does not prescribe the nature of that advise and consent procedure. So while McConnell’s actions were despicable. partisan and unethical (and you can now add hypocritical to that) they likely weren’t unconstitutional.

    Neither will be the Democratic action to block it or respond to it. If the Democrats throw the kitchen sink at the nominee and dig up every personal, every professional action this person has had, or even if they just blatantly make shit up, then that will be unethical, partisan but constitutional. If the win the election and then they pack the court then they will just be playing the Republicans game, and the Republicans would have no moral or ethical ground to oppose them on it.

    “No I have no problem with either action Peter, and that is quite consistent of me.”

    Not it isn’t. You, like your fellow GOP hypocrites, are being totally inconsistent. Your arguments for opposing the Garland nomination in 2016 was that it was an election year and the Senate shouldn’t confirm a judge in an election year. You are now saying the opposite. You are now saying it is because you oppose Garland but support whoever Trump picks. That is probably closer to the actual truth. But either way it is not consistent. You were either a barefaced liar in 2016 or you are barefaced liar now. You can’t have been telling the truth in 2016 and telling the truth now.

  25. Pat’s Republicans didn’t even pretend to consider the Garland nomination

    No constitution would IMO go into painful detail I.e. “ you must have a vote in 30 days “.

    I think that what was done was not only unconstitutional, but that it was anti-constitutional. Open defiance of What the founders said to do

  26. I think to be fair to Patrick, he probably said in 2016 “we should do whatever we need to to ensure our people are on the court” and he is being consistent in that approach now.

  27. But he advanced the argument that it was all about the “Biden rule”. He is now saying the opposite. Yes it was all about Republicans good, Democrats bad. But he should have said that at the time instead of lying that it was about principle.

  28. “I think that what was done was not only unconstitutional, but that it was anti-constitutional. Open defiance of What the founders said to do”

    To be fair the Court itself, never mind the nomination process, is in open defiance of what the Founding Father’s wanted. They never wanted the politicised court.

  29. If they didn’t want a politicised Court they shouldn’t have made the process of membership by Presidential appointment.

  30. Both parties have long sought to politicize the court, to game the system By putting their buddies on the bench

    But we’ve never had open and complete defiance of the constitution as you have seen over the last four years under Trump/McConnell

    I would believe that most of the time, presidents and Senates have taken this responsibility’s and this process seriously.

    Not now

  31. I think the shift was that in the past the focus was on qualifications. About appointing the most qualified judge to the post. Now it is all about ideology and partisanship. Republicans have gone from appointing the most qualified judge to appointing the most qualified conservative judge. Democrats have gone from appointing the most qualified judge to the most qualified liberal judge.

  32. Back in the day, Nixon appointed Harrold Carswell to the Supreme Court. Carswell had years before made pro segregation comments in public, and was generally seen as not qualified.

    Confirmation was denied. Thirteen Republican Senators voted against confirmation.

    Those were the days when Senators took their responsibilities seriously.

  33. There was a lot more independent thought then in American politics. Conservative Democrats, liberal Republicans, people willing to compromise and reach out across the aisle. Now anyone not willing to publicly fellate Donald Trump is a RINO.

  34. Correct.

    Both parties are much worse.

    Neither party sincerely wants a big tent coalition, the type that Reagan and FDR would so carefully knit together.

  35. But we’ve never had open and complete defiance of the constitution as you have seen over the last four years under Trump/McConnell

    Please list the complete defiance of the constitution……

  36. See Merrick Garland.

    Also, see the ” McConnell rule ” which they made up and enforced in 2016, and then discarded a few days ago.

  37. Seamus, on September 21st, 2020 at 12:50 PM Said: Edit Comment
    I think the shift was that in the past the focus was on qualifications. About appointing the most qualified judge to the post. Now it is all about ideology and partisanship. Republicans have gone from appointing the most qualified judge to appointing the most qualified conservative judge. Democrats have gone from appointing the most qualified judge to the most qualified liberal judge.

    You do know that a person does NOT have to be either a Judge or a Lawyer to be appointed Court?

    And the politicization of the court began after Marbury vs Madison.

  38. no Phantom take the time and explain why you believe those 2 things to be unconstitutional.

  39. “You do know that a person does NOT have to be either a Judge or a Lawyer to be appointed Court?”

    Yes I am aware. I think I commented on it recently (your Ted Cruz to the Supreme Court story). Though as I pointed out then while there are no requirements placed on a Supreme Court nomination every Justice has been a lawyer. Qualified and qualifications does not just mean formal qualifications however.

  40. true

  41. look what the republicans did with Garland was slimy, I’ve said that, but I did support it. It also pales in comparison to what they did with Kavanaugh.

  42. Funny I thought Brett Kavanaugh was appointed to the Supreme Court?

  43. The pick will be revealed either Friday or Saturday after RBGs Funeral.

    I hope it’s Amy Coney Barret. A good solid Constitutional Judge, A Woman, a mother of 7 kids (2 adopted), and A Catholic.

  44. His confirmation hearing was a disgrace.

  45. What does being a Catholic have to do with anything

    ” Good constitutional judge ” – one who rules the way that me and the lads like

  46. “His confirmation hearing was a disgrace.”

    It was. However it is was a legitimate objection, handled badly. Merrick Garland’s was an illegitimate objection, handled badly. So of the two Garland’s is still worse. Also the Democrats, legitimate or otherwise, didn’t prevent Kavanaugh’s appointment. The Republicans illegitimately prevented Garland’s appointment.

    “I hope it’s Amy Coney Barret. A good solid Constitutional Judge, A Woman, a mother of 7 kids (2 adopted), and A Catholic.”

    Who is apparently a part of the People of Praise, an ultra-conservative Catholic sect, that was the basis for Margaret Atwood’s Handmaid’s Tale. In fact the most senior female leaders in the sect, until it was renamed (due to its popularisation by Atwood’s novel) were actually called Handmaids. So I’m sure the Democrats will have a lot of fun with that.

    Barbara Lagoa politically makes a lot of sense. Ethnic minority, helps shore up the Cuban vote in Florida, etc…

  47. being a Catholic has a lot to do with it. A set of Catholic values is important for the court and since Scalia’s death needs to be placed back in the mix.

    ” Good constitutional judge ” – one who rules the way that me and the lads like

    Yes god forbid we actually have the system work as designed and follow the Constitution… such a radical position.

    You also didn’t answer the question…. the 2 things you say were unconstitutional were unconstitutional in what way? If you’re going to make the statement you should be able to defend it.

  48. Trump has the Cuban vote already.

    They ain’t voting for the party of AOC.

  49. “being a Catholic has a lot to do with it. A set of Catholic values is important for the court and since Scalia’s death needs to be placed back in the mix.”

    Five of the Supreme Court judges are Catholic (and one is an Anglican who was raised Catholic). So no it really doesn’t.

  50. The pick will be revealed either Friday or Saturday after RBGs Funeral.

    That would be decent and respectful, but Trump totally lacks those qualities so I expect he will announce his pick well before the funeral, maybe even today.

  51. “Trump has the Cuban vote already.”

    He has a big lead in the Cuban vote. But with Biden putting pressure on Trump in terms of the seniors vote then Trump needs every vote he can get. And given how tight Florida is then winning the Cuban vote by 40 points instead of 35 points could be telling.

  52. “Yes god forbid we actually have the system work as designed and follow the Constitution… such a radical position.”

    When are you getting rid of the Air Force?

  53. He just said on live tv it will be after the funeral

  54. The Senate refused to even pretend to consider the nomination of one nominated by a Democrat

    Then they leap at the the chance to rush the confirmation of the Republican nominee, for a vacancy much later in the game than Garland was.

    The first is a refusal to play the role assigned to them by the Constitution

    The second confirms a monstrous hypocrisy and double standard, completely different rules depending on who the president is at the time.

    Both actions are in open defiance of the Constitution.

    And if they sneak the new person through, the gloves will really be off should the Dems win big come November.

    And there had better be no sniveling and whining if that happens, if you reap what you sow.

  55. They should all be Catholic Peter….. and a Liberal whose Catholic is NOT Catholic.

  56. “They should all be Catholic Peter….. and a Liberal whose Catholic is NOT Catholic.”

    The Catholic Church are opposed to the death penalty, war, poverty, cliamte change denial, guns etc… If anyone isn’t a Catholic it is the conservatives.

  57. And if they sneak the new person through, the gloves will really be off should the Dems win big come November.

    So the gloves weren’t off on Kavanaugh? They accused him of rape……

    and you still didn’t explain why any of what the Republicans did or are doing is unconstitutional. What is it in the Constitution that the actions violate?

  58. If Trump gets this nomination through, before the election or in a lame-duck session, and the Democrats win all three (Presidency, House, Senate) then they should pack the Court.

  59. Kavanaugh was considered, and he was confirmed.

    I didn’t like the way it went, but he’s on the bench now.

    You got your answer, you just don’t like what it is. I won’t play Mark Levin phony word games here. They defied the Constitution and you support that defiance, that complete contempt for the process.

    And if a president Biden or Harris, packs the court, it is expected that you will be quiet on the matter. All’s fair, right?

  60. He just said on live tv it will be after the funeral

    And you believe him? He won’t be able to control himself that long. And he wants the hearings to start asap. McConnell will do whatever it takes to bulldoze it through for his boss.

  61. Seamus, on September 21st, 2020 at 2:26 PM Said: Edit Comment
    If Trump gets this nomination through, before the election or in a lame-duck session, and the Democrats win all three (Presidency, House, Senate) then they should pack the Court.

    Yeah repeat the disaster of FDR……

  62. “Yeah repeat the disaster of FDR……”

    To avoid the disaster of a radical right wing activist court.

  63. FU Phantom you can’t explain why what your complaining about as unconstitutional because it’s not and you lack the mental acuity to even try to justify your views.

  64. Rightwing courts aren’t activist, just the opposite.

  65. Did they consider the nomination of Garland?

    Did they have an obligation to consider that nomination?

  66. “Rightwing courts aren’t activist, just the opposite.”

    They are activists. You just support their activism.

  67. How are they activist?

  68. They rule on politics, not on the law. If they oppose something they will find some constitutional interpretation (however bogus) to oppose it. And if they support something they will find some constitutional interpretation (however bogus) to support it.

  69. Advise and Consent…… the advised against, and did not consent…. sounds EXACTLY what the Constitution describes as their role……

  70. Seamus, on September 21st, 2020 at 2:40 PM Said: Edit Comment
    They rule on politics, not on the law. If they oppose something they will find some constitutional interpretation (however bogus) to oppose it. And if they support something they will find some constitutional interpretation (however bogus) to support it.

    Just the opposite Seamus, they rule on whether or not a Law or a case has met Constitutional Standard. Does the Law or Case violate the Original Intent of the Constitution.

    RBG stated she was going to “Fix That” and make corrections…. that is activism.

  71. They did not weigh the qualifications of the candidate, nor pretend to do so.

    You guys seem to be unaware that two can play this anti constitutional game.

    You are outsmarting yourselves, at the worst possible time, as the GOP may be heading in the minority party status in the very near future.

  72. “Just the opposite Seamus, they rule on whether or not a Law or a case has met Constitutional Standard. Does the Law or Case violate the Original Intent of the Constitution.”

    Except they don’t. Firstly there was no original intent of the constitution. The drafters of the constitution disagreed on just about everything.

    And again when are you banning the Air Force?

  73. Where does the constitution say they have weigh the qualifications of the candidate?

    It says advice and consent…. it does not give advice on how.

  74. lol why we banning the Air Force…..?

    I gotta hear this…

  75. “lol why we banning the Air Force…..?”

    Where does the constitution say that the federal government can create an Air Force? And if the constitution doesn’t say that then doesn’t the 10th Amendment reserve that power for the states?

  76. They failed to give advice or to confirm or deny the nomination.

    In complete defiance of the Constitution.

    Have fun with this. Again, two can play this game.

  77. If they had had hearings of any kind, these arguments might have fooled someone.

  78. except you’re not qualified Phantom….. the constitution does not say how they have to advise or consent. Not holding any hearings doesn’t even play into it…..

  79. Seamus, on September 21st, 2020 at 2:54 PM Said: Edit Comment
    “lol why we banning the Air Force…..?”

    Where does the constitution say that the federal government can create an Air Force? And if the constitution doesn’t say that then doesn’t the 10th Amendment reserve that power for the states?

    LMAO…… The Constitution does NOT say what the government CAN DO the Constitution says what the government CAN’T DO it is a list of Restrictions on the Govt.

  80. “LMAO…… The Constitution does NOT say what the government CAN DO the Constitution says what the government CAN’T DO it is a list of Restrictions on the Govt.”

    It has a list of all the things it can do. And then declares if it is not on the list then it can’t do it. Learn your own constitution.

    Just because an argument is inconvenient for you doesn’t mean you get to play the fool.

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States. Where is the power to form an Air Force delegated to the United States by the Constitution?

  81. “The Constitution does NOT say what the government CAN DO the Constitution says what the government CAN’T DO it is a list of Restrictions on the Govt.”

    Where does it restrict the government from having a role in healthcare (which you’ve pretended in the past to be unconstitutional)?

  82. If you understood the Constitution you would understand it is list of restrictions that lists what the Government can do and if it is not listed it falls to the states and the people.

    The Document was designed to restrain government power not give it to them.

  83. “If you understood the Constitution you would understand it is list of restrictions that lists what the Government can do and if it is not listed it falls to the states and the people.”

    So it lists what the government can’t do? And if it is not listed then it goes to the states and people? So what can the governemnt do then? Because if it is listed then it can’t do it, and if it is not listed then it can’t do it.

    Maybe you should learn your own system instead of just making shit up when you are losing an argument.

  84. O/T

    The Justice Department designated NYC, Portland and Seattle as “anarchist jurisdictions” under guidelines issued by President Trump earlier this month

    https://www.nbcboston.com/news/national-international/doj-designates-new-york-city-as-an-anarchist-jurisdiction/2198486/

    Are they the terrorist anarchists that we’re being told about? Will the leaders of these ‘anarchist jurisdictions’ be arrested? Surely if it doesn’t mention ‘anarchists’ in the Constitution it must be unconstitutional?

    Trump’s America is truly fucked up.

  85. Parts of Portland and Seattle are or have been anarchist jurisdictions

    NYC government has a lot to answer for, but they never allowed a thing like the lawless CHOP

  86. Or to be precise

    They have allowed for anarchy to exist in certain areas

    I think that 99% of the neighborhoods in Portland and Seattle are and have been orderly

    This sounds like wild overreach by Trump and his Barr

  87. Are or have been anarchist jurisdictions

    Oh catch a grip, FFS. Will we now see the leaders of these ‘anarchist jurisdictions’ arrested & tried as terrorists?

    If they want to say that cities aren’t doing their job and deprive them of federal funds because of it then let them. Such hysterical hyperbolic terminology in doing do is ridiculous.

  88. I am not supporting what Trump is doing

    But CHOP was a lawless area for a time. That should never have been allowed to happen.

  89. Stating that there has been some violence in parts of these cities and that the city hasn’t dealt with it as appropriately as you would have liked is a more measured, accurate comment.

    But you’re correct, it’s overreach by Trump & Barr.

    Have you ever been to Cristiana in Denmark, St Paul in Hamburg, Vallecas in Madrid etc? All pretty ‘alternative’ but in no way lawless.

  90. The Supreme Court have ruled in the past that coercive withdrawl of funding is illegal. So I can’t see this getting past the courts.

  91. Yes Seamus.

    De Blasio has said that such a move is unconstitutional and that the City will immediately sue. I suspect that the terminology is very deliberate in order to whip up hysteria.