Multiple busloads of migrants were dropped off at Vice President Kamala Harris’s resi

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Doover

Democrats told President Reagan pass 'comprehensive immigration reform' and we'll send them all back next time.
Of course, lying, America hating, baby killing Democrats lied, as Democrats always do.
Name me one thing positive Tories/Democrats have EVER done for this County.

let me Guess. I bet you support sedition the Jan6th rioters and the attempted overthrow of an american election by a sitting POTUS...

Because you are such a America Lover

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

You really dont pay attention do you ... who voted to keep it? and are now legislating from the bench.. and republicans suddenly support it.

yes the daggers are already out for Gorsuch from the faithful who are disgusted he broke ranks ...

but please keep thinking that's not happening

I try to pay attention to what you say, but you make it difficult to do. Some of the stuff you say is crazier than stuff Trump says, and it's just as disjointed as his rhetoric. I couldn't tell, from the way you presented it, if you were saying that Gorsuch was legislating from the bench or if it was the other Justices. In either case, you didn't make it clear how they, whoever, was doing the legislating. Voting to keep a policy that was put in place by Congress, or the President, is not legislating from the bench--it is affirming that existing legislation, or policy, made by those others as constitutional. It's what SCOTUS is supposed to do, affirm or strike down. Neither of those decisions is "legislating." Legislating from the bench is when Judges impose their personal opinion (rather than the Constitution) on the law in question in ways that the Judges subjectively consider "good" or socially "just" for society, regardless of, or entirely outside of, the scope and intent of the policy in question--thusly creating "legislation" that was not passed by Congress into law.

It can't tell if you either don't know what you're talking about, or you actually believe that Judges affirming or striking down a law is legislating from the bench. If you believe that, then you would have to believe that the judges are supposed to legislate from the bench since upholding or striking down a law is their constitutional duty--which, I guess, would be sort of the same as you not knowing what you're talking about.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I try to pay attention to what you say, but you make it difficult to do. Some of the stuff you say is crazier than stuff Trump says, and it's just as disjointed as his rhetoric. I couldn't tell, from the way you presented it, if you were saying that Gorsuch was legislating from the bench or if it was the other Justices. In either case, you didn't make it clear how they, whoever, was doing the legislating. Voting to keep a policy that was put in place by Congress, or the President, is not legislating from the bench--it is affirming that existing legislation, or policy, made by those others as constitutional. It's what SCOTUS is supposed to do, affirm or strike down. Neither of those decisions is "legislating." Legislating from the bench is when Judges impose their personal opinion (rather than the Constitution) on the law in question in ways that the Judges subjectively consider "good" or socially "just" for society, regardless of, or entirely outside of, the scope and intent of the policy in question--thusly creating "legislation" that was not passed by Congress into law.

It can't tell if you either don't know what you're talking about, or you actually believe that Judges affirming or striking down a law is legislating from the bench. If you believe that, then you would have to believe that the judges are supposed to legislate from the bench since upholding or striking down a law is their constitutional duty--which, I guess, would be sort of the same as you not knowing what you're talking about.

if you were saying that Gorsuch was legislating from the bench

I never made such a suggestion

Just pointing out Gorsuch doesn’t feel the court should be legislating from the bench

And I wrote

“Hell now Republicans are cheering the SCJ legislating from the bench “


Gorsuch is suddenly a Rino for stating the Truth

Not sure how you misread my meaning?

In his written dissent, Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, said he did not discount the states’ concerns about a potential border crisis but said “the emergency” on which the Title 42 orders were adopted “has long since lapsed.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

if you were saying that Gorsuch was legislating from the bench

I never made such a suggestion

Just pointing out Gorsuch doesn’t feel the court should be legislating from the bench

And I wrote

“Hell now Republicans are cheering the SCJ legislating from the bench “


Gorsuch is suddenly a Rino for stating the Truth

Not sure how you misread my meaning?

In his written dissent, Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, said he did not discount the states’ concerns about a potential border crisis but said “the emergency” on which the Title 42 orders were adopted “has long since lapsed.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As I said, it's difficult to pay attention to you because your writing is so disjointed. You said “Hell now Republicans are cheering the SCJ legislating from the bench “ Ok, so, since SCJ stands for Supreme Court Justice (singular-one Judge), and you then followed that with "Gorsuch is suddenly a Rino for stating the Truth"--a single Judge who was the only one you named--and named right after your comment about legislating from the bench.

That was confusing. If not Gorsuch, to which other Judge were you referring? And regardless of which Judge, or Judges, to whom you referred, how were any of them legislating from the bench? I wondered how you considered any of them to be legislating rather than adjudicating. And it seemed to me that if you considered their adjudication to be legislation, then that would indicate that you would believe they were supposed to legislate from the bench since their purpose is to adjudicate, which they did, and you called that legislating.

Your writing was confusing, disjointed, very Trumpesque.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

As I said, it's difficult to pay attention to you because your writing is so disjointed. You said “Hell now Republicans are cheering the SCJ legislating from the bench “ Ok, so, since SCJ stands for Supreme Court Justice (singular-one Judge), and you then followed that with "Gorsuch is suddenly a Rino for stating the Truth"--a single Judge who was the only one you named--and named right after your comment about legislating from the bench.

That was confusing. If not Gorsuch, to which other Judge were you referring? And regardless of which Judge, or Judges, to whom you referred, how were any of them legislating from the bench? I wondered how you considered any of them to be legislating rather than adjudicating. And it seemed to me that if you considered their adjudication to be legislation, then that would indicate that you would believe they were supposed to legislate from the bench since their purpose is to adjudicate, which they did, and you called that legislating.

Your writing was confusing, disjointed, very Trumpesque.

I not a writer. You’ll get no argument from me
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Doover]

Originally Posted by wdmso

let me Guess. I bet you support sedition the Jan6th rioters and the attempted overthrow of an american election by a sitting POTUS...

Because you are such a America Lover

Jeepers youse Democrats have withdrawn the President Donald J Trump subpoena.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Doover

Jeepers youse Democrats have withdrawn the President Donald J Trump subpoena.

Yeah, because the investigation is over and they made referrals to the DOJ...

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Yeah, because the investigation is over and they made referrals to the DOJ...

Don't feed the troll.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Don't feed the troll.

Sorry, I forgot who I was responding to

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Doover

Jeepers youse Democrats have withdrawn the President Donald J Trump subpoena.

What no answer! yes or no ? Nope

just more defection

But you got response’s when it involves

cake bakers must not be forced to bake queers cake
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Don't feed the troll.

Well RR could use a crazy partner and Jim could use someone deflecting the attention from his crazy shrouded in whataboutism.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Well RR could use a crazy partner and Jim could use someone deflecting the attention from his crazy shrouded in whataboutism.

If you don't like being exposed as a hypocrite, I'd suggest you try to avoid engaging in hypocrisy.

Bob, if you criticize a republican for doing something...why isn't it a valid response if I point to an example of a democrat you support, who did something similar?

Why isn't it valid to expect that you hold both sides to a similar standard?

Labeling it "whatabout-ism", isn't refuting it.

I'm sure you have a very thoughtful, reasoned reply.

The lefties here wants to expel a republican who lied about his education and work experience. And I agree he should be kicked out. I agree 100%.

But none of you has any problem whatsoever, with a democrat in the US senate who lied for years about serving in the Vietnam War.

So it seems to me, you don't actually have a principle that "politicians should have to be honest". Rather, your principle is that republicans must always be criticized, and that democrats must never be criticized.

Try making that wrong.