How's that, "You have to vote Republican because the Supreme Court is too important" argument working out for you?
How's that, "You have to vote Republican because the Supreme Court is too important" argument working out for you?
Shots fired. LOL.Originally Posted by SicEmBaylor
Beware the man who would rule you for your own good. He will never cease. He will regulate every aspect of your life, destroy your liberty and enslave you, and sleep well convinced that he has made the world a better place.
I wish the three female judges weren't lockstep liberals that had absolutely no diversity of opinion. They do not represent the women of America, who are not 100 percent liberal all of the time.
As for most of the rest of the other judges, kudos for being independent and not driven purely by political ideologies and party ties... even if that means that you make decisions I don't always agree with. Reliably liberal and reliably conservative judges boo
I really don't understand this line of thinking. I agree with you that judges should never ever be beholden to party interests, but being ideologically consistent is not a bad thing at all. One's ideology is very much reflected in how they view the Constitution and the role of government in American life. I don't want a justice that isn't ideologically consistent because it seriously makes me question whether they have a firm set of legal and constitutional principles.
I expect them to uphold the intent and letter of the United States Constitution, and the Roberts court has fundamentally failed to do that. Roberts has been an enormous disappointment, and I think the real problem is that he is absolutely paranoid that his court appear overly partisan; therefore, he gives the uh "benefit of the doubt" to landmark legislation. But, in so doing, he has made this one of the most political courts in recent memory.
Would have worked out fine except for those idiots who refused to vote and therby let in the Dims to appoint those wacko Libs!
Quote
If God wanted Men to look women in the eyes, He wouldnt have gave em Boobs !
Yeah, it's the Republican appointees that are the problem. Roberts, Kennedy, and Souter are/were all Republican appointees. O'Conner was a wash. And then there was Blackmun, Burgher, Earl Warren, etc. were all Republicans.
Sometimes you get Jamarcus Russell. Sometimes you get Andrew Luck. I'll take my chances with the first pick 10 times out of 10.
Last edited by Eielson; 6/26/2015 at 11:04 PM.
Ya got me Bro!
Quote
If God wanted Men to look women in the eyes, He wouldnt have gave em Boobs !
This! It supposed to be this way, but ideology has been in it since at least FDR if not before...
As to your first thread start comment, I am DONE voting Republican, err, Liberal Lite Party. I no longer GAS about Boner, McCorckle or the Dem Lites.... I am voting Liberatarian from now on and I will actively vote for the weakest repub candidate from here on out.
Everything progressives do is aimed at weakening democracy, capitalism and the social and cultural institutions that support those things...... They are about subjugating people and being a ruling class.
You're another fool if you give up and vote for RINOS in the primary. The ONLY hope we have for peacefully turning the country around is to get better people in office, and we all know it.
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
Well stated and obviously correct, except I'm not certain as to why Roberts voted as he did. Likely we may never know for sure.
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
Well...except...you know...he wrote a rather lengthy majority opinion explaining exactly why he voted the way he did. I'm not sure there's any ambiguity to it.
Like Sally Kern and Louie Gohmert?
me neither. Talking about pressure of some kind, like the kind you mentioned, but maybe not exactly as you surmised. But, it's done, and what he did doesn't mean voting 3rd party is going to bring any different results than it ever has. Simple math at work. Of course, I'm hoping for a peaceful restoration of sanity to our government.
Put a lid on it! Kiss it goodbye. We gave it away, and apparently thought it made sense to do so.
Term limited in 2016. Some term limited state legislators will sometimes seek statewide office or Congress, but I don't think Kern is a candidate for either. I've heard rumors that her husband plans to seek her office in 2016 when term limits kick in, however.Like Sally Kern
I agree that voters must choose better candidates if they want a better government. Of course, everyone's idea of "better" is different. In that case, make sure you actually vote when you can. It's more than most other complainers will do
The problem is that this was a weak case on the merits. Seems to me that he did follow the actual law.
It is my sincere desire for you to vote the way you are saying! Ima left of center and truly
covet your position. Please actively recruit and aggressively persuade ALL your friends to
do as you profess. Of course, you know that a libertarian has a snow ball's chance in
hell to get anywhere close. With your attitude, the Pubs will go the way of a fading cloud,
cause the Dems will clean your clock! Not because of anything other nutcases like Cruz, Paul,
Trump (send in the clown)...you guys gotta hang your heads, RILLY, 14 idjits,,,gosh, it's wunnerful!
There IS no LAW. The Constitution Is the Law. we have different views interpreting said Constitution, and then Making their opinions Law. There in is the Prob.
Quote
If God wanted Men to look women in the eyes, He wouldnt have gave em Boobs !
Read the crux of the opinions. It came down to whether the federal exchanges Substituted for state exchanges. Almost as bad as "what does is mean"?
That case should have never made the Supreme Court. Look for definite political bias on the part of Thomas et al on that one.
Metaphors be with you!
Posting Permissions
