Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
The Attic
Supreme Court Threatened
Page <<first <prev 4 of 10 next> last>>
Aug 15, 2019 14:26:14   #
pendennis
 
mjmoore17 wrote:
Except for all the times it has been successfully done. With a democratic president, there will be no problem in assigning new justices.


Unless a Democrat president has a working majority in the Senate, it's again a moot point. Even with a Democrat majority in the Senate, FDR failed in his effort to pack the Supreme Court. However, he eventually got his way, when the court majority shifted in three years.

Reply
Aug 15, 2019 14:30:46   #
mjmoore17 Loc: Philadelphia, PA area
 
boberic wrote:
That was not a restructuring of the court


Actually, for about a year, it was a restructuring of the court. Cut it to eight for political purposes. Paybacks.

Reply
Aug 15, 2019 14:31:12   #
Angmo
 
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?


Evil leftie Dems are illegal.

Reply
 
 
Aug 15, 2019 14:40:35   #
Rose42
 
mjmoore17 wrote:
Plenty of integrity, I am telling you now what is going to happen. No deceptions or deflections.


None. That is why ELWNJs are poison and they are running your party.

Increasing the number of justices is purely a power grab not to mention going further up the pinnacle of stupid.

Reply
Aug 15, 2019 14:44:47   #
pendennis
 
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.


So, in your mind, then Roe v. Wade couldn't have been correctly decided. In the history of the United States, until the Roe case, no "right to privacy included the right to terminate a pregnancy legally. Suddenly a privacy right came from whole cloth.

In Brown v. Board of Education, those who argued in favor of desegregating schools suppressed evidence which didn't favor their side. There was never a problem with "separate, but equal" until Earl Warren decided that Plessy was invalid. This is the same Earl Warren who advocated violating Americans of Japanese origin rights and caused them to be forced into internment camp?

You're dreaming if you believe that Supreme Court justices would ever leave their ideologies at the courthouse steps. The job of the Supreme Court is to accurately interpret the constitutionality of laws, and that interpretation isn't always fair nor impartial.

Reply
Aug 15, 2019 14:50:05   #
pendennis
 
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.


The Senate exercised their prerogative in the case of Justice Garland. This wasn't the first time a judge or justice has been denied a hearing even in front of the Committee On The Judiciary. Perhaps you're not aware of the "blue slip" used by Senators to keep a nominee's name from advancing?

Reply
Aug 15, 2019 14:51:58   #
BigBear Loc: Northern CT
 
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.


It doesn't mention anything about arrogant little ogres, yet you somehow exist 'eh.

Reply
 
 
Aug 15, 2019 14:55:14   #
BigBear Loc: Northern CT
 
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.


You have nothing worth paying with.

Reply
Aug 15, 2019 14:55:53   #
pendennis
 
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.


I've already put your a******n argument to rest in another post, so I won't repeat it.

The Founders only mentioned "arms", not specific firearms. They well-knew that technology was not at a standstill, and that arms would evolve. To take your argument to its logical end, we should do away with all the communications technology, including modern printing presses. Get a fixed platen press and go to town, or go to the nearest square and use your megaphone.

Reply
Aug 15, 2019 15:00:11   #
BigBear Loc: Northern CT
 
LWW wrote:
Yes, Garland should have received a v**e.

He would have lost, but it should have happened,


It is the liberals who waste time and money on a something they can't fulfill.

Reply
Aug 15, 2019 15:24:59   #
mjmoore17 Loc: Philadelphia, PA area
 
pendennis wrote:
The Senate exercised their prerogative in the case of Justice Garland. This wasn't the first time a judge or justice has been denied a hearing even in front of the Committee On The Judiciary. Perhaps you're not aware of the "blue slip" used by Senators to keep a nominee's name from advancing?


Well aware, adding justices is merely exercising the prerogative given to congress. It has been done six times before.

Reply
 
 
Aug 15, 2019 18:30:36   #
Checkmate Loc: Southern California
 
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.


Garland was DOA, and we didn't even bring out all the DemoKKKcrap he's he raped!

Reply
Aug 15, 2019 18:36:43   #
mjmoore17 Loc: Philadelphia, PA area
 
Checkmate wrote:
Garland was DOA, and we didn't even bring out all the DemoKKKcrap he's he raped!


Your meds are wearing off. Ask the nurse for some help, also check your rectal tube, I think it is backing up and you are full of it.

Reply
Aug 15, 2019 19:10:27   #
bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.
 
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.


so if congress or the states say nothing about lobbying "bribing law makers" , you can in the open buy congress?

Reply
Aug 15, 2019 19:15:20   #
mjmoore17 Loc: Philadelphia, PA area
 
bull drink water wrote:
so if congress or the states say nothing about lobbying "bribing law makers" , you can in the open buy congress?


What a silly question. Congress and the states do say something about “ bribing lawmakers”, it is illegal. Influencing lawmakers happens everyday. I would be fine with banning financial lobbying but it is how Moscow Mitch stays in power.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 10 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
The Attic
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.