Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

I see Former is off his meds again today but he did raise one good point in there.

 

Her Supreme Court answer was horrific. I support a living Constitution whose meaning may change over time. But there's belief in that, and then there's advocating that the Court be legislative, which was Hillary's entire answer.

 

Trump put out a list, sure, but if he nominated Harambe to the court, no one would be shocked.

 

Jefferson's advocacy for ritual bloodletting is well known. He was deeply influenced by the French Revolution.

 

Here's the thing: We don't need TJ's draconian chaotic revolution if people would just vote the powers-that-be out. But Americans won't do it.

 

You do realize that the biggest recent "legislative" SCOTUS actions were conservative.

 

The Voting Rights Act and Campaign Finance reform were both bipartisan, overwhelmingly passed with near unanimous approval by both house and senate.....and Scalia saw fit to overturn them.

 

I would say both were bad calls: The States that were under the VRA immediately went back to their nefarious ways and NC was just found to have blatantly targeting minorities in pinching voting access. Talk about Tyranny.

 

CU has thrown gas on the pay for legislation we have today. Legislators now spend half their time raising money...Bravo Scalia...the Supreme Legislator...

Posted

 

Sorry about that. I took your objections to anyone criticizing her to be advocacy.

 

You've fell into the confirmation bias trap. My criticism of Trump is not an endorsement of Clinton. IIRC, I don't ever recall objecting to her criticisms. The only thing comes to mind is disputing that she's been a neocon.

Posted (edited)

 

Interpretations change over time. That's the beauty of the Constitution. How would the commerce clause be interpreted in the age of the Internet? Jurisdiction as well.

 

Hillary said she wants to choose judges to advocate for the common man and listed some specific issues. Of course, so did Trump--he just picked the other side of issues.

The Constitution has a prescribed method for changing the Document, which is how the commerce clause, and all other clauses should be adapted to a changing world.

 

Your preferred method is that of Clinton and Trump, because it expressly lends itself towards their ends.

 

You do realize that the biggest recent "legislative" SCOTUS actions were conservative.

 

The Voting Rights Act and Campaign Finance reform were both bipartisan, overwhelmingly passed with near unanimous approval by both house and senate.....and Scalia saw fit to overturn them.

 

I would say both were bad calls: The States that were under the VRA immediately went back to their nefarious ways and NC was just found to have blatantly targeting minorities in pinching voting access. Talk about Tyranny.

 

CU has thrown gas on the pay for legislation we have today. Legislators now spend half their time raising money...Bravo Scalia...the Supreme Legislator...

The role of the Court is to deem if legislation is Constitutional or not, not to judge if legislation is good or not.

 

The Constitution is the high law of the land, and all legislation must be subservient to it.

 

Scalia did not rule that the legislation wasn't constructive. He ruled that the Constitution did not permit it.

 

At which point, it falls to Congress to amend the legislation in order that it meet Constitutional rigors, or that they amend the Constitution in order to permit the legislation.

 

Did you really require this civics lesson this morning?

Edited by TakeYouToTasker
Posted

THE MEDIA WILL LEARN TO LOVE TRUMP IN DUE TIME:

.

He is the worst major-party candidate in history.

 

He’s a
. He’s an
who wants to
.

 

He’s a
who
to
.

 

He’s a nasty warmonger who doesn’t get the fundamental intricacies of modern
, with the Manichean

worldview to match. He’s an
with a
.

 

Think we’re talking about Donald Trump?

 

No, we’re talking about Mitt Romney circa 2012. That’s how the media painted one of the most honorable men ever to run for the White House, the creator of Romneycare, a northeastern Republican with a penchant for compromise and negotiation.

 

Mitt Romney, the left claimed,
— that halcyon of moderation and decency.

Now, of course, the media tells us that Donald Trump is a massive departure from the legacy of John McCain and Mitt Romney. He’s beyond the pale! He panders to racists! He’s a vicious sexist and sexual assaulter! He’s uninformed, unstable, ignorant, stupid! Why, compared to Mitt Romney, the man’s a
monster
!

Much of this may be true in a way it simply wasn’t about Romney. But by 2020, Donald Trump will be the new standard of civility and decency according to the Left

 

 

Posted

 

You've fell into the confirmation bias trap. My criticism of Trump is not an endorsement of Clinton. IIRC, I don't ever recall objecting to her criticisms. The only thing comes to mind is disputing that she's been a neocon.

 

 

It is more your lack of criticism of Hillary that exposes your :wub:

Posted

 

 

It is more your lack of criticism of Hillary that exposes your :wub:

I can't possibly keep up with B-Man

×
×
  • Create New...