-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
RBG back in the hospital.......
- Thread starter 7.62willdo
- Start date
I wish she would just retire already.
I can’t root for her death. I just want her to be VERY late term aborted.
I can’t root for her death. I just want her to be VERY late term aborted.
I hope she retires then recovers full health. I'll let the other side be the ones who wish harm on people because of their political beliefs.
I'm all for anything that drives them even more batshit crazy (if that's even possible) so that moderates keep on seeing what they really are.
That innocent old woman with zero blood on her hands. Yeah. Right.
That bitch has done more to bring our country down than ten thousand Taliban and Alqueda. Save your compassion for someone who’s worth it.
A little ATF and some WD40 on her Fetzer Valves and she’ll be back and pushing her Marxist agenda in no time.
A little ATF and some WD40 on her Fetzer Valves and she’ll be back and pushing her Marxist agenda in no time.
Even if she died tomorrow - nobody would hear about it until after the election.
She's the enemy. I'll piss on her grave even before all the dirt is poured in.
By this point Trump shouldn't be able to appoint another Supreme Court justice anyway, if we're going to stick to the standard set in 2015.
There is no "standard". There are no fucking rules. If the liberals think precedent means anything, they will be sorely disappointed.
Whose side are you on?
Frankly, I'm on the side of decency. Back in 2015 Republicans blocked vote on the confirmation of Obama's SC pick because it was so close to the election that the decision should be left up to the voter. I tend to agree with the sentiment. Democrats play this game all the time. They set a standard then hold everyone but themselves to the standard. It's disgusting. I don't want either side playing that game.
EDIT: I didn't realize the standard was for the second term of presidency.
Last edited:
The fuck you say. It was actually Joe Biden who started that shit. Google it.
Its a good thing we don't actually live in a democracy. We are a Republic.
I misread your post. I thought the word "decency" was democracy. LOL.
Beer goggles strike again.
MSM is going to portray anyone not on the blue team as the devil incarnate.
Might as well get the mileage.
The high road had gotten us to where we are.
They've been having a knife fight while we bitch at each other about optics.
R
It's a fair point but the high road definitely isn't why we're here. The reason we're here is because the radicals have been given time and energy to shift the culture, while republicans have been too focused on elections. Culture hasn't shifted to the right since Reagan reshaped the view of the purpose of government.
Uh, NO. Obama was at the end of his SECOND term in 2016. Regardless of the outcome of the election, there was NO WAY he could continue to be President. The winner would be either Trump or Clinton, and the decision “should be” theirs. THAT was the argument that was put forth. In this case, Trump is still eligible to be President. From a practical standpoint however, there’s no way they’re going to approve someone between now and November so it’s probably best for Trump if she makes it past the election. Her death could very well motivate Dems to get out the vote. I don’t wish her any ill will, but she needs to get off the court.
Yes political beliefs. That would take away all your freedom and put you in perpetual slavery to the oligharchy and non workers.
Smh
They can all go die
This isn’t I like yellow and they like green.
Right, they've been unchecked in society.
My point exactly.
Silent majority was entirely to silent.
R
We’ll get that fixed right after the house and senate agree to and make reasonable term limits.
Term limits and preventing stock trades for elected officials would be a great start to corruption on both sides.
Did you miss a few words in there or is that really what you meant?
That was because Republicans had enough votes to stop the nomination. Now that we have enough votes to pass a republican nominee if there is a vacancy it is what we must do. The survival of the Republic may depend on it.
The standard for late term appointment is in the last six months of a second term. Not a first. And there is no standard, simply a course that the Senate has followed. But I believe in traditions. And if she holds out until July 2024 we will have to wait and let President Flynn appoint her replacement.
sirhr
sirhr
Lifetime ban on government contracts for relatives of elected officials would be nice also. But we will get that when when unicorns come over that rainbow.
Has a certain ring to it.
I meant a start to corruption [the problem], reducing corruption! I hope I never meet anyone who thinks that enables it.
Ruth gater to death, “Hello sonny, are you here to cut my lawn? Be a good boy and bag everything up this time.”
That's what I thought you meant, but these are some weird times we live in.
Politicization of the SCOTUS is bastardization of our government. Judgement of court based on decisions rather than the legal arguments is ridiculous. Regardless if you agree with the outcome, the SCOTUS is doing what it's supposed to do - upholding the written law.
Frankly all notions of conservative or liberal should be irrelevant when it comes to the court, it's sad that it's not.
You're not wrong here, except conservative and liberal have become a cover for originalist vs activist. Originalists typically read the law as it was written at the time because it's the legislature's job to keep up with the times. Activists read things into the law that they think it should cover, so they end up backfilling for the legislature.
That's definitely not what they've been doing. They've been actively rewriting laws to make them constitutional instead of telling the legislature to fix their fuck up.
What arguments against the reasoning in the judgments do you have? As far as I've seen no one has deviated from their constitutional interpretation. (literal/textual, priori cases, etc). Happy to see some evidence against that.
I'm sick of people just saying "they turned liberal". That's a stupid argument by people who refuse to think. Frankly I don't keep up with politics because of this, but the original scotus logic for the past few cases was sound to me.
The rewriting of title 7 to include discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status even though they explicitly distinguished sex from orientation. Title 7 says nothing about orientation, only sex. This also causes direct conflicts of the other parts of the civil rights act like title 9
The rewriting of the Obamacare penalty for not having health insurance as a tax
The reading of abortion rights into due process through the right to privacy (which I'm not sure how the right to privacy is included in the right to due process)
Just to name a few over the years
Are you saying that the courts duties are not to uphold written law, but to strike down unconstitutional laws? Just making sure I'm not missing anything else as I can't say I've read the case in its entirety either.
I can't comment on the others but for the first point - The argument was something like: Joe and Jane both do the same work, both like women, but Jane was fired. They both like women, the only difference between the employees is their sex, thus it falls under VII. I don't care what side you're on, this is the argument. Not the "deep state" or some other garbage.
I think that argument is garbage. The second difference in the two is sexual orientation. Joe is straight and Jane is a lesbian in your example. If Jane was fired because she's a lesbian, she's very clearly not covered under title 7 because it mentions nothing about orientation, but if she was fired because she was a woman it would be. That argument says discrimination based on sex and orientation are the same thing. It was decided in a later case that religious institutions get immunity from discrimination based on orientation because certain same sex "interactions" are strictly against their beliefs. Does this mean that religious institutions are also immune from discriminating based on sex alone now?
I'm not arguing for discrimination based on orientation, or even arguing against a law that says so (assuming religious freedoms aren't infringed). That isn't the job of the courts to read that into existing law, it's the job of the legislature to draft it.
When it comes to the court I don't care if the outcome benefits the left or the right, I care much more about whether or not the decision is constitutional and based completely on how the law was written and what those words meant at the time of writing. The supreme court being garbage has nothing to do with conspiracy theories, just garbage judges.
Similar threads
