Joe Ferguson forever Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago 33 minutes ago, MattM said: What stain of DEI? She got roughly the same grades as Gorsuch with almost twice the workload. She was also (literally) a national champion debater in high school. I thought you guys were all about demonstrated objective merit? Or is that only a one-way street? As noted, he was not an academic superstar (relative to HLS), not even graduating towards the top of the class, but you for some reason only focus on those things for her. Why is that? For the record, I was actually friendly with the guy (he was fun to grab a drink with and shoot the *****) despite our political differences, so bear him no personal ill will despite my disappointment with his decisions and his crossing his fingers behind his back during his confirmation hearings. I just find it hysterical how you folks are so willfully blind on this issue. They don't like experts, especially ones that don't comport with their preconceived ideas. Your unusual, intimate knowledge is valuable to any rational observer of SCOTUS. Please keep posting but don't expect anything other than bitter complaints and insults from the MAGA peanut gallery.
All_Pro_Bills Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago (edited) 13 hours ago, pennstate10 said: So, in context, it would seem like Mike Davis is a serious conservative, Republican. Right? Anyone want to argue that? Now lets consider his first sentence. "This is stunning a Supreme Court justice: 1. Actually thinks we must be ruled by unelected, unaccountable (leftwing) "experts"" Hmmm....lets think this through. There are 3 branches of government, in the US, right? Executive, Legislative, Judicial. Question. Which one of these three is unelected and unaccountable? Answer: The batsht crazy judicial branch, filled with professional grade grifters (Thomas, Alito), who have ruled that the president is above the law. The SCOTUS did not rule the "President is above the law". They ruled the President is acting within the powers provided to the office by Article II of the US Constitution. And at times simply overruling activist lower court judges lacking the authority for issuing rulings and injunction that "infringe" on the authority of the executive branch. Essentially judges believing they have magical powers to veto the actions of the President. What we have is not one elected would-be executive branch dictator but rather numerous un-elected would-be judicial branch dictators. Ironic many fail to observe this! If anyone is attempting to operate above the law its these activist judges. They're rulings are overridden because they are politically rather than legally motivated. Edited 1 hour ago by All_Pro_Bills
Joe Ferguson forever Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago 14 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: What we have is not one elected would-be executive branch dictator but rather numerous un-elected would-be judicial branch dictators. Ironic many fail to observe this! If anyone is attempting to operate above the law its these activist judges. They're rulings are overridden because they are politically rather than legally motivated. which is clearly defined by the constitution. the prez above the law, not so much. Several justices disagreed with that ruling.
pennstate10 Posted 57 minutes ago Posted 57 minutes ago 43 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: The SCOTUS did not rule the "President is above the law". They ruled the President is acting within the powers provided to the office by Article II of the US Constitution. And at times simply overruling activist lower court judges lacking the authority for issuing rulings and injunction that "infringe" on the authority of the executive branch. Essentially judges believing they have magical powers to veto the actions of the President. What we have is not one elected would-be executive branch dictator but rather numerous un-elected would-be judicial branch dictators. Ironic many fail to observe this! If anyone is attempting to operate above the law its these activist judges. They're rulings are overridden because they are politically rather than legally motivated. Semantics my friend. of course the SC didn’t issue a ruling stating that “the president is above the law”. Rather they gave him extraordinarily broad (and vague) immunity, which effectively places the president above the law. Since most of us here are Bills fans, here is an analogy. You might say that Josh Allen running fo a first down with about 1:15 left in last weeks game ended the game. In actuality, that run didn’t end the game. The game ended when the clock read 0:00. However, his run effectively ended the game. Make sense ? 1
BillsFanNC Posted 6 minutes ago Author Posted 6 minutes ago All too predicably the useful idiots are deflecting with an attack the messenger strategy in this thread. Therefore more Mike Davis on KBJ. Cope and seethe.
Recommended Posts