Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 479
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

She could've retired toward the end of 44's term but chose not to.  Decisions & elections have consequences. 

And Cruz followed with a complete teardown of Whitehouse assertions

Posted Images

1 minute ago, unbillievable said:

Reid did it first. Democrats were warned what would happen. They're being warned again about packing the court.

 

If the Dems do it, it will mark the end of America; permanently destroying a branch of the government.

I agree, which is why I don't see Biden doing that.  We need to get back to representatives that are more than party, on both sides of the aisle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Republican nominees to the court follow the intent of the judiciary Branch, routinely swinging the vote right or left depending on the laws passed by Congress as it pertains to the Constitution.

 

On the other hand, the Democrat Justice nominees are ACTIVISTS. They ignore  their jobs in favor of Social Justice initiatives popular at the time.

 

Obama already tried destroying the Executive branch by setting the precedent that the President can pick and choose which laws can be enforced. Now the Dems want to do it again to 2nd branch of government.

 

 

Edited by unbillievable
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, unbillievable said:

What makes it worse is that Republican nominees to the court are following the intent of the judiciary Branch by enforcing the laws and the Constitution. They routinely swing the vote right or left depending on the laws passed by Congress.

 

On the other hand, the Democrat Justice nominees are ACTIVISTS. They ignore  their jobs in favor of Social Justice initiatives popular at the time.

 

Obama already tried destroying the Executive branch by setting the precedent that the President can pick and choose which laws can be enforced. Now the Dems want to do it again to 2nd branch of government.

 

 

 

Let me also throw in there the fact that GInsburg, and now Kagen have actually cited international law in opinions they have handed down which in my humble opinion SHOULD have gotten them impeached from the bench!

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cinga said:

 

Let me also throw in there the fact that GInsburg, and now Kagen have actually cited international law in opinions they have handed down which in my humble opinion SHOULD have gotten them impeached from the bench!

 

Not to Mention Sotomayer stating that she will use RACE as the basis for all her decisions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, unbillievable said:

Reid did it first. Democrats were warned what would happen. They're being warned again about packing the court.

 

If the Dems do it, it will mark the end of America; permanently destroying a branch of the government.

 

Reid didn't do anything to the Supreme Court.

30 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

And you don't see any problem with that concept in terms of separation of powers among the branches of government?

 

I personally think a balanced court is what is best for America. 5-4 balance was good. A 6-3 balance would not be good for the country.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Backintheday544 said:

Reid didn't do anything to the Supreme Court.

He was ignorant to have believed that; and you are too if you also think that.

 

Obama also didn't think through his stance on refusing to enforce the laws. Now look at how many Sheriffs are refusing to enforce state and local laws. I don't remember that happening before...

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

Reid didn't do anything to the Supreme Court.

 

I personally think a balanced court is what is best for America. 5-4 balance was good. A 6-3 balance would not be good for the country.

 

It's more like 2-2 and 5, if Barret is confirmed. 

Trump and the GOP picked impartial judges, despite the Dem circus and MSM propaganda. Even Barrett is a facts over feelings nominee.

 

 

 

Edited by unbillievable
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

Reid didn't do anything to the Supreme Court.

 

I personally think a balanced court is what is best for America. 5-4 balance was good. A 6-3 balance would not be good for the country.

classifying the justices by party affiliation is misleading & wrong

 

the mandate of the court is determine if the laws and actions being litigated comply with Contitution

the justices are split along lines of those that follow that mandate and those who impose their personal feelings into pushing an agenda

 

The Dems have been unable to get preferred legislation passed thru Congress (abortion), so they have made an endrun by filling the Court with activist judges to push their agenda- who are forced to perform mental gymnastics to fit the agenda items into a perverted Constituional interpretation.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very impressed with ACB thus far.  Watching her act with grace and dignity is wonderful.  She knows the letter of the law and like any good nominee worthy of the role, sticks to it without partiality.  So far, very impressed by her.

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DFT said:

Very impressed with ACB thus far.  Watching her act with grace and dignity is wonderful.  She knows the letter of the law and like any good nominee worthy of the role, sticks to it without partiality.  So far, very impressed by her.

Agreed. I say this as someone who would have rather had Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court.

I do have an argument with the process (I really think it should have waited till after the election under the Lindsey Graham Rule), and I do think she should probably recuse from the ACA decision [this is not an actual conflict, but I consider it an "appearance of impropriety" situation] and maybe some litigation over the election on a case-by-case basis. But she is clearly qualified and of good character.

Edited by The Frankish Reich
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

All due respect to the other Justices on the Supreme Court and the Senators in this hearing, but I've heard said that often ACB is referred to as the smartest person in the room and she is proving it today, as I suspect she will as well once seating.

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Agreed. I say this as someone who would have rather had Merrick Garland on the Supreme Court.

I do have an argument with the process (I really think it should have waited till after the election under the Lindsey Graham Rule), and I do think she should probably recuse from the ACA decision and maybe some litigation over the election on a case-by-case basis. But she is clearly qualified and of good character.

I get the sense that she’ll do that if she feels compelled by the people.  I tried to go in open minded and looking for character flags in partisanship.  I never agreed with RBG totally on her thoughts, but what made her so appealing to me, was she knew the law indisputably and levied it in her decision making.  That’s the same quality I see in Amy.    She won’t be pushed around or influenced and it resonates.  I don’t believe she has any pre-conceived notions.  I believe like RBG, she’s a true student of the law.  I’m excited to see what she does and hopeful that she makes incredible non-partisan decisions that benefit the country.   

3 minutes ago, Cinga said:

All due respect to the other Justices on the Supreme Court and the Senators in this hearing, but I've heard said that often ACB is referred to as the smartest person in the room and she is proving it today, as I suspect she will as well once seating.

Agree and I almost wish we could restart this thread to discuss our early impressions and not so much our doomsday scenarios.  She is really incredible thus far.   Very impressed!

Link to post
Share on other sites

And she is doing it with no notes. If you know your subject, you don't need notes.  I made notes for my thesis defense, but once I started speaking I never referred to them.  I was prepared (had practiced it about 30-40 times.).

Edited by Wacka
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wacka said:

And she is doing it with no notes. If you mow your subject, you don't need notes.  I made notes for my thesis defense, but once I started speaking I never referred to them.  I was prepared (had practiced it about 30-40 times.).

Yes!!!!!   That’s such an incredible skill.  I loved when they asked what she was taking/ using notes with and she lifted up her notebook and it was blank.  She’s impressive!  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Senator Mike Lee said it would be wrong to pack the court, because there should be 9 justices.

 

Four years ago, when there were 8, he wasn't bothered by that.

 

Hypocrisy has become the daily norm of the Republicans.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whitehouse with the conspiracy theory of the century!

 

Holy crapola!

 

Koch Industries? They've become DEMOCRAT donors of late you idiot! Because they want that cheap labor to come across an open border! But at least he admitted that politicians taking dark money is the norm smdh... 

Edited by Cinga
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Cinga said:

Whitehouse with the conspiracy theory of the century!

 

Holy crapola!

 

Koch Industries? They've become DEMOCRAT donors of late you idiot! Because they want that cheap labor to come across an open border! But at least he admitted that politicians taking dark money is the norm smdh... 

True about the Kochs. Say what you will about them, they have a particular right-libertarian viewpoint and they'll support causes that align with that regardless of party lines.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...