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.
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.
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.
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.
bull drink water wrote:
bullshit, when it comes to corporate or political interest, the majority votes 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.
mjmoore17 wrote:
And when Repubs could not win in the arena of ideas, debate, truth or fact, they refused to allow a vote 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?
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 abortion. 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.
mjmoore17 wrote:
Kinda like if I cannot get the justice I want, I will not allow vote on any justice. Remember Repubs and Garland. Paybacks.
You have nothing worth paying with.
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 abortion. 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 abortion 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.
LWW wrote:
Yes, Garland should have received a vote.
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.
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.
mjmoore17 wrote:
Kinda like if I cannot get the justice I want, I will not allow vote 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!
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.
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 abortion. 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?
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.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.