.it just the process brent the field will be thinned ,then you will get a better debate.........nothing like Bernie and soon to be jailbird...............oh no here comes efucc..............
FNN Sponsor
.it just the process brent the field will be thinned ,then you will get a better debate.........nothing like Bernie and soon to be jailbird...............oh no here comes efucc..............
Because it was you, I said to myself, "I don't care what he writes I won't comment!!!!!" Then he calls me out by an insulting name. So guess what, "HERE I am!!" Instead of dropping to TO's level, with insults and name calling, I'll just say this, "I'll make a prediction," since monkey's can't help but throw their own feces around. Even in the last debate in the nominating process, "the Republicans will still be throwing SHITE at each other!!!" Let's see if I'm right???????????Originally Posted by TroutOnly
Last edited by etucker1959; 02-14-2016 at 07:38 PM.
Let's hope so TO, because it's really been crazy so far and the insults only hurt the party and the process. I may not be Republican, but I'm not a Democrat either, I just vote for who I think will best help our country period and right now the crazy train has pulled into the station on both parties.
.
Beetlejuice!
Beetlejuice!
Beetlejuice!
.
Last edited by hookdfisherman; 02-16-2016 at 09:24 AM.
The more that comes out about what justice Scalia believed in, "he must be turning over in his grave." (all thanks to the Republicans) Even though he was a Conservative he was also a firm believer in the Constitution. (the kinda guy who believed in original intent) So where in the world do these Republicans come off that they should stall the process of naming a new replacement for a year. Do you think that's what justice Scalia believed in????? I think not!!!!! So these Republicans are dishonoring the man by playing politics!!!!! They should all be wearing a Brown paper bag over their faces for this terrible insult to such a fine man!!!!!!!
Last edited by etucker1959; 02-16-2016 at 11:28 PM.
The hypocrisy of the left is telling indeed as is your phony logic. The left is overjoyed at the loss of Judge Scalia and in no way would they allow a judge like Scalia be appointed to the bench to replace him.
"A lot of people say that Justice Scalia was conservative. He was conservative in one sense. And in that sense he was conservative, he didn't believe in the federal government expanding anymore into the powers of the state than allowed by the constitution," "He was an originalist on the Constitution, which means he believed you looked to the original text of the Constitution or any other statute, and he was also a textualist on the Constitution, which meant, in interpreting the Constitution or any statute, you have to give the text the meaning that it had at the time the statute was passed."
"Scalia believed that the Supreme Court should not expand its power and interfere into the rights of the states. For instance, to decide what constituted a valid marriage, he thought that was up to the states. And he preached to me on more than one occasion, 'Where in the Constitution do we get the authority to do what we just did!'" Scalia said to Carroll. "His integrity was impeccable. It was not an ideological thing with him. He said, 'Look, this is what the Constitution says; we can't change that just because we think it's a good idea to change that.' His mission on the court was to keep the Constitution from being changed from what it meant at the time it was written. He didn't think the Supreme Court should be sticking its nose into things like gay rights, gay marriage, or any other death penalty, anything that has been traditionally decided by the states."
Now if you want to see the stark contrast between Scalia and Judge Stevens in the 2nd amendment case “DC vs Heller”. You can read or hear in their own words a summary of the case here. Click on the opinion announcement on the left side of the screen and play the pop up screen.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290
I can't wait to hear your comments after you hear the case summary opinion.
If you go back to my original point, "that he wanted to interrupt the law as the Constitution say's it should be." The Constitution say's that the President shall appoint the justices to the Supreme court. Not for the Senate to stall indefinitely till they get a President that they like!!!!! Everything YOU wrote verifies my original point!!! "Justice Scalia is turning over in his grave at what the Senate is doing!!" Just man up and say "etucker got it right on this one." lol
Last edited by etucker1959; 02-17-2016 at 09:57 AM.
There is a sentiment among the left; one of jubilation at the death of Scalia. I was no fan of the late Justice, and will not mourn his passing. But while the animosity is not undeserved, I personally feel this celebration of his death borders on distasteful, particularly when it comes from those who may not have cared or even thought about Justice Scalia for months (or years) prior to his death.
As I said in a separate forum on the day of his death, anti-establishment liberals (who seem to be the most vocal in their joy at Scalia's passing) shouldn't be so happy about this. As we've already seen, there is a sentiment among congressional republicans that any appointment to the bench should occur after the election, or at the very least should be some sort of political moderate. Some have already suggested taking on a obstructionist stance, and if this turns out to be the case, it will only benefit establishment candidates during this election cycle. That's right boys and girls - Hillary Clinton.
Having said all this, there is nothing which mandates that President Obama choose a conservative or even moderate for his appointment, in order to maintain the right's sense of "balance" on the Supreme Court. Assuming a victory in November by the GOP, a right-leaning Court would indeed unbalance politics in this country, with all three branches being right-leaning simultaneously. Thanks, but no thanks.
This statement contradicts itself at the very end with that sentence. Any statute by definition expands the powers of the federal government. The very words of the Constitution all but guaranteed an expansion of those powers, as supported by Necessary and Proper Clause. Of course, there are those who will argue whether this law or that law oversteps Constitutional limitations, which is why we have..................wait for it..................the Supreme Court to make those interpretations. Of course, this leads us to the next statement:
The writer is trying to suggest that Scalia wasn't trying to inject his own ideology into the judicial process. Bullsh!t. Justices, due to the nature and duration of their appointments, are certainly less influenced by the ever-changing political currents, but that doesn't mean their personal views aren't injected into their opinions. Each Justice has his/her own interpretation of the Constitution, and no one interpretation is more or less legitimate than the other, but it is their own. And really, if personal politics didn't play a part in the confirmation process, we would not be having this conversation now.
Of course, when the Court hands down a decision which one political group or another objects to, people start crying "Judicial Activism!" or "Legislating from the bench!" Hey, listen up you disingenuous idiots:
"An activist court is a court that makes a decision you don't like." - Justice Anthony Kennedy
Last edited by Lady Quagga; 02-17-2016 at 08:48 AM.
And speaking as a roofer, I can say that a roofer's personal politics come heavily into play when choosing jobs.
I don't think we'll be seeing Babyface Bambino on the bench anytime soon......
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote