Oh boy....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

However if the Repub. do confirm a justice and the Dems win the Pres and Sen. be prepared for a bunch of new justices and probably a need to put 2 more stars on ourflags.

oh good...more childishness from the democrats

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

oh good...more childishness from the democrats

not going to happen. What will eventually happen, is that as people flee liberal states, those states will lose congressional seats, and therefore, electoral votes.

[Got Stripers]

Really that’s how you think the GOP will view loosing the White House and the senate, wow that’s amazing. So a little revenge will make loosing the power worth while, I’d be surprised if a single GOP senator shares that view, which says something.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Really that’s how you think the GOP will view loosing the White House and the senate, wow that’s amazing. So a little revenge will make loosing the power worth while, I’d be surprised if a single GOP senator shares that view, which says something.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

before last friday, there was already a good chance the democrats take the white house and the senate. that’s just the pendulum swinging back and forth.

in 2008, the democrats ran the table, just opened up a major can of whoop azz. was that the end of the gop? no, the gop took back a staggering number of federal, state, and local seats over the next 12 years. no party goes on a run much longer than that,,it doesn’t happen.

twice as many republican senators are up for reelection as democrats. they only need 4. obviously there’s a good chance they’ll get it, regardless of what happened friday.

and of course i’m correct when i say that if amy barrett replaces ginsburg, liberals will have a much harder time enacting their agenda. that’s why they’re coming unglued.

i’m not saying it’s good if the democrats control everything. i’m saying the natural state of things is that the pendulum
swings back and forth. we’re due for a shift back to the left.

if i had to choose between (1) replacing ginsburg with Barrett or (2) a trump re election, if take the former any day. the former shapes policy for decades, not just 4 years. no question which is better.

how isnthat logic flawed exactly? be specific. obviously republicans senators won't say that, because they want to be senators.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

that’s why they’re coming unglued.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yup, unglued...violent, destructive, making threats and continuing to cause mayhem and promise more if they don't get their way...truly awful excuses for citizens...remember when the tea party was called "terrorists" by these morons?

trump should name keith richards...he's never gonna die

[Got Stripers]

Well payback will be a bitch, hopefully for Mitch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Well payback will be a bitch, hopefully for Mitch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

maybe. and then in a few years, the pendulum
swings back, and on and on.but again, with that tilt
in the court, and the way trump packed lower courts with judges who aren’t activists, a liberal federal government can’t go as far to the left. so personally, ill
sleep like a rock if amy barrett replaces ginsburg.

id like to see both sides lower the temperature and restore civility. i have no desire for the gop to play clean and get clobbered by low blows, been there and done that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Then vote for Biden. Don't expect Trump to save you from the woke mobs: He needs them to justify his existence, and vice-versa.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Then vote for Biden. Don't expect Trump to save you from the woke mobs: He needs them to justify his existence, and vice-versa.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

THAT is brilliant. Just brilliant.

Romney announced he's on board with voting for Trumps nominee, which means there's a 99% chance this is happening.

[Pete F.]

When the next Congress, for example, passes universal healthcare and using it’s article 3 powers to strip the SC of jurisdiction, then tell me how great having a loaded court is.
Article III, section 2, clause 2 explicitly empowers Congress to make “exceptions” to the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction—that is, to pick and choose for approximately 99 percent of the Supreme Court’s total docket what cases the Court has the power to hear and total power over the existence of the lower courts exists in Article 3 section 1.
There’s always more than one way to skin a cat.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

When the next Congress, for example, passes universal healthcare and using it’s article 3 powers to strip the SC of jurisdiction, then tell me how great having a loaded court is.
Article III, section 2, clause 2 explicitly empowers Congress to make “exceptions” to the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction—that is, to pick and choose for approximately 99 percent of the Supreme Court’s total docket what cases the Court has the power to hear and total power over the existence of the lower courts exists in Article 3 section 1.
There’s always more than one way to skin a cat.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're very angry and bitter Pete. Want a binky?

If the dems control everything, they can do whatever the constitution says they can do. They should be careful about doing things for short term gain, however. The democrats are learning that lesson the hard way, after Harry Reid and Joe Biden changed the rules, presumably assuming that the GOP would never be in power again. That was a mis-calculation.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You're very angry and bitter Pete.

4 years worth...better be a king size binky

[Pete F.]

Why do you claim that?
The ultimate promise of jurisdiction stripping isn’t as a short-term stratagem to restore the courts’ partisan balance. It is a deeper remedy that can help put an end to the unhealthy situation in which Americans look to federal courts to resolve every important political question.
Congress could enact wealth tax legislation that includes a provision stripping the federal courts of jurisdiction to review the tax. In so doing, Congress would be advancing its own understanding of the meaning of the Constitution’s apportionment requirement—the exact scope of which is, in fact, subject to reasonable debate—and telling courts to stay out. If voters dislike what Congress has done (that is, if they disagree either with the tax itself or with Congress’s decision to limit judicial review), they can give their votes in the next election to candidates who oppose the tax, the jurisdiction-stripping provision, or both.

But your view is consistently

Judge giving liberal verdict - Activist judge

Judge giving conservative verdict - The constitution is a perfect document
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

But your view is consistently

Judge giving liberal verdict - Activist judge

Judge giving conservative verdict - The constitution is a perfect document
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Wrong.

Judge IGNORING THE CONSTITUTION to deliver any verdict, to satisfy their personal agenda - activist judge (bad).

Judge ignoring their personal ideology and ruling by what the constitution says - conservative judge (good).l

You just can't explain what I believe for two syllables without lying. Because you have no response for the truth - NONE. The truth is, we're all better off when judges leave their personal agenda at home. Have you ever noticed that on every courthouse steps, there's a statue of lady justice, and that she's always blindfolded? Do you know what the blindfold is for?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Judge giving liberal verdict

Judge giving conservative verdict


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

You didn’t read the whole thing I wrote just the part that easily triggered you.
Let’s look at a few decisions
Dred Scott v. Sanford started the Civil War
Or Korematsu v. United States, that upheld the interment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry.
Or Roe vs Wade, which seems to be of great importance to you.
Are we a government of the people or ruled by 9 people with lifetime appointments.
It seems you want the latter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

there is no reason to have hearings..they should go straight to a vote

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You didn’t read the whole thing I wrote just the part that easily triggered you.
Let’s look at a few decisions
Dred Scott v. Sanford started the Civil War
Or Korematsu v. United States, that upheld the interment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry.
Or Roe vs Wade, which seems to be of great importance to you.
Are we a government of the people or ruled by 9 people with lifetime appointments.
It seems you want the latter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

are you drunk?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

are you drunk?

You’re the one who thinks they should go straight to a vote, genius
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You’re the one who thinks they should go straight to a vote, genius
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

no reason not to....save the country from the evil the democrats would conjure up...it's been a tough year already

[spence]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Are we a government of the people or ruled by 9 people with lifetime appointments.
It seems you want the latter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And a President who lost the popular vote, and a Senate majority that represents far less that the Democrats.

Tyranny of the minority.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

And a President who lost the popular vote, .

Because he was the candidate who had a basic grasp of electoral math, and therefore didn't waste time in CA.

Your problem is with Hilary, no one told her to blowoff flyover country and to call many of them deplorable and irredeemable. That's her fault, not Trumps.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

And a President who lost the popular vote.

this is meaningless

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Tyranny of the minority.

this is foolish

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Are we a government of the people or ruled by 9 people with lifetime appointments.
It seems you want the latter.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I completely agree that recently, the SC is too powerful.

Here's what you don't get, because it doesn't serve your agenda, even though it's obviously true.

Liberal judges give more power to the court, and to the federal government. Conservative judges give less power to the SC and to the federal government, more power to states, and therefore more power to people to govern themselves.

What a concept!

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I completely agree that recently, the SC is too powerful.

Here's what you don't get, because it doesn't serve your agenda, even though it's obviously true.

Liberal judges give more power to the court, and to the federal government. Conservative judges give less power to the SC and to the federal government, more power to states, and therefore more power to people to govern themselves.

What a concept!

So the majority of Americans support Roe vs Wade, but it’s ok for an activist court to overturn it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

So the majority of Americans support Roe vs Wade, but it’s ok for an activist court to overturn it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Last I heard it was about 70%. It's not just Roe though, Casey fixed the issues people had with Roe and is a lot stronger.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Last I heard it was about 70%.

.

meaningless

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

So the majority of Americans support Roe vs Wade have you asked everyone?

, but it’s ok for an activist court to overturn it.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so activist courts can create laws but activist courts can't overturn laws...?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

so activist courts can create laws but activist courts can't overturn laws...?

as long as the laws they create are liberal.