We had different views but I believe she was honest and sincere.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I’m not on a different side, I just want things to be fair. Trump should technically get this appointment. But he shouldn’t have had the one in 2017.. also, this is much, much closer to Election Day than Scalia was.Going to entertaining seeing the Pubs and Dems argue completely different sides than they did four years ago. Gotta love politics.
I’m not on a different side, I just want things to be fair. Trump should technically get this appointment. But he shouldn’t have had the one in 2017.. also, this is much, much closer to Election Day than Scalia was.
I still remember arguing with Bernie bro’s on Reddit 4 years ago about how big a mistake sitting out the election would be for their ideals considering the court seats that were at stake. They laughed. Idiots.
We had different views but I believe she was honest and sincere.
Good riddance.
Ram a constructionist thru before the election.
And this is why our constitution is broken... because it allow scenarios like this one.Good riddance.
Ram a constructionist thru before the election.
Its not the constitution thats broken.. its the supreme court that is broken. The court has become the defacto legislative branch of the govt as the left uses it to push an agenda that voters would never have approved. Congress no longer makes law they merely rely on the court. It used to be that major structural changes to our country required a constitutional amendment, now an activist court can make it happen in a 5-4 decision. And congress does nothing.And this is why our constitution is broken... because it allow scenarios like this one.
No the constitution is broken. There was never an intent for this type of crap to happen when it was written.Its not the constitution thats broken.. its the supreme court that is broken. The court has become the defacto legislative branch of the govt as the left uses it to push an agenda that voters would never have approved. Congress no longer makes law they merely rely on the court. It used to be that major structural changes to our country required a constitutional amendment, now an activist court can make it happen in a 5-4 decision. And congress does nothing.
You said it yourself in a previous post.. the left agenda would be set back 30 yrs if a conservative was put on the court.No the constitution is broken. There was never an intent for this type of crap to happen when it was written.
Liberals better vote like their lives depended on it if they want to achieve any significant agenda in the next 20-30 years.
This is going to shift the idealism of the race. I’m not sure who it willfavor though
How it reviews and rules on laws is fine. They don’t create laws.You said it yourself in a previous post.. the left agenda would be set back 30 yrs if a conservative was put on the court.
The court is broken.
It needs to go back to ruling on laws.. not making them.
Appointees are supposed to represent the constitution.. not a majority of the voters. They are supposed to prevent mob rule.. not encourage it.How it reviews and rules on laws is fine. They don’t create laws.
The problem is the people being appointed to the court have by and large been appointed by presidents who never represented a majority of Americans... it’s a case of a political minority gaming the system repeatedly to dictate how the majority should be governed which is just wrong.
At least the majority has the opportunity to change things every 4 years when it comes to the electoral college, when it comes to court appointments the political minority gets their guys for decades.
Kyden somehow knows Gorsuch. And while Kyden is GOP, I trust his judgement and even donated to his campaign this year. Anyhow, I was in DC meeting with some DoD sponsors for a project I was working on when Gorsuch was appointed. I got dinner with Kyden, and he told me that Gorsuch was a legit good pick which eased my mind considerably. I have not seen anything since then to dispel that. I believe he is a sincere jurist.The majority of the country is pro-choice. They just don’t vote.
This is a weird issue that shouldn’t be politicized. Gorsuch was a legitimately great pick. He’s smart AF. Even liberal friends of mine who run in these circles actually were happy with it.
Kavanagh is predictably not great. He spent his whole life gambling he would get this. He’s not very interesting and votes predictably. That’s not all bad either.
I just don’t think people really understand how the court works. There are a lot of issues that aren’t right or left, up or down. You want good judges deciding those because they end up mattering a lot. Cases like Daubert or Sullivan decide national procedural and substantive issues much more for the good of law than Roe. You want smart people deciding those cases. Janine Pirro ain’t smart.
Roe probably shouldn’t be decided by a court, but 50 years of precedent makes it hard to meaningfully challenge. It’s not Congress. They are supposed to adhere to precedent.
well, except that $h!tstain who just cited Lochner.
THEY REPRESENT A CONSTITUTION THAT IS FLAWED AS TO THEIR OWN APPOINTMENT.Appointees are supposed to represent the constitution.. not a majority of the voters. They are supposed to prevent mob rule.. not encourage it.