Supreme Court Threatened (Page 3): So you agree democrats have no integrity.

Rose42

mjmoore17 wrote:

And when Repubs could not win in the arena of ideas, debate, t***h or fact, they refused to allow a v**e on Garland. Stacking is stacking, just a different way to accomplish the same thing.

So you agree democrats have no integrity.

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

Wrangler wrote:

Mr. Moore, in response to your previous post, I a... (show quote)

The Constitution needs no interpretation. The SC is there to determine whether a legislated law is valid based on what the Constitution says as written.

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

bull drink water wrote:

bulls**t, when it comes to corporate or political interest, the majority v**es along party lines. why else do they work so hard to get "their" thinking people on the bench? the court should be neutral, so that all judgements are fair and impartial.

That is how it should work. However, liberal judges have been ruling in favor of their pre-determined outcome regardless what the law actually says.

mjmoore17 Loc: Philadelphia, PA area

Rose42 wrote:

So you agree democrats have no integrity.

Plenty of integrity, I am telling you now what is going to happen. No deceptions or deflections.

mjmoore17 Loc: Philadelphia, PA area

BigBear wrote:

The Constitution needs no interpretation. The SC is there to determine whether a legislated law is valid based on what the Constitution says as written.

Then you had better tell Wrangler:

The job of the Supreme Court is NOT to reflect the will of the people. It is to interpret the Constitution as written.

What did the constitution say about a******n. You would not want to go beyond what the constitution says. Also I did not see semi-automatic weapons mentioned in the constitution, you would never “interpret” the words GUNS to mean semi-automatic with 100 round magazines.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Frank T wrote:

How about they stop v****g on party lines?
Yes. Both sides.

A reasonable response. What's different now is that the democrats are saying If We don't get our way we will change the rules. 2 of the most Liberal judges RBG ans Sotomayor (sp?) were appointed by liberal presidents, and the repubs did not threaten restructuring. Sounds like the dems are saying like Linus saying he is going to take his footballl home unless he gats his way.

mjmoore17 Loc: Philadelphia, PA area

boberic wrote:

A reasonable response. What's different now is that the democrats are saying If We don't get our way we will change the rules. 2 of the most Liberal judges RBG ans Sotomayor (sp?) were appointed by liberal presidents, and the repubs did not threaten restructuring. Sounds like the dems are saying like Linus saying he is going to take his footballl home unless he gats his way.

Kinda like if I cannot get the justice I want, I will not allow v**e on any justice. Remember Repubs and Garland. Paybacks.

Angmo

mjmoore17 wrote:

And when Repubs could not win in the arena of ideas, debate, t***h or fact, they refused to allow a v**e on Garland. Stacking is stacking, just a different way to accomplish the same thing.

Well g’morning sweet pee. Sleep well? How are those new dentures.

Wrangler Loc: North Texas

mjmoore17 wrote:

Then you had better tell Wrangler:

The job of the Supreme Court is NOT to reflect the will of the people. It is to interpret the Constitution as written.

What did the constitution say about a******n. You would not want to go beyond what the constitution says. Also I did not see semi-automatic weapons mentioned in the constitution, you would never “interpret” the words GUNS to mean semi-automatic with 100 round magazines.

A gun launches projectiles. A single action or semi automatic does the same. Technology has changed but a gun is still a gun.

The Constitution does not mention automobiles so are they illegal? The Constitution does not mention radios, internet, television or a lot of things that we use everday. Are all those things illegal in your world?

yhtomit Loc: Port Land. Oregon

mjmoore17 wrote:

Well, since the “interpretation” can be more than one direction, it will be no problem to appoint justices with the “people’s interpretation”. As opposed to the f*****t conservative libertarian “interpretation”.
And with Dems having all three branches, they will be equal.

They interpret the constitution, not the people’s opinion. Read something other than a manifesto.

yhtomit Loc: Port Land. Oregon

Wrangler wrote:

A gun launches projectiles. A single action or semi automatic does the same. Technology has changed but a gun is still a gun.

The Constitution does not mention automobiles so are they illegal? The Constitution does not mention radios, internet, television or a lot of things that we use everday. Are all those things illegal in your world?

🎉

mjmoore17 Loc: Philadelphia, PA area

Wrangler wrote:

A gun launches projectiles. A single action or semi automatic does the same. Technology has changed but a gun is still a gun.

The Constitution does not mention automobiles so are they illegal? The Constitution does not mention radios, internet, television or a lot of things that we use everday. Are all those things illegal in your world?

Your side is hung up on “no interpretation” not mine.

mjmoore17 Loc: Philadelphia, PA area

yhtomit wrote:

They interpret the constitution, not the people’s opinion. Read something other than a manifesto.

Glad we agree, the constitution is open for interpretation.

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

mjmoore17 wrote:

Kinda like if I cannot get the justice I want, I will not allow v**e on any justice. Remember Repubs and Garland. Paybacks.

Yes, Garland should have received a v**e.

He would have lost, but it should have happened,

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

mjmoore17 wrote:

Kinda like if I cannot get the justice I want, I will not allow v**e on any justice. Remember Repubs and Garland. Paybacks.

That was not a restructuring of the court