A left-wing protester at an antifa Denver rally shot and killed a conservative

Old Trapper said:
Only if you limit the meaning of the word "pack".
Click to expand...

The phrase "packing the court" goes back to FDR. He tried adding more Justices to the Court, and thankfully, he failed. Given that context, there is no other way to interpret the phrase unless you're specifically trying to muddy the issue.

Granted, the left loves to redefine things. Racism used to mean judging people by the color of their skin, and now, it apparently doesn't apply if you're judging white people by the color of their skin.
 
Woko Haram said:
Gorsuch is pretty libertarian, actually. Kavanaugh is conservative on economics, but he doesn't have any significant rulings or statements on gay marriage. Barrett is very socially conservative, so I'll give you that, although she balances out the socially liberal members already on the Court.

I am pretty conservative myself, but you seem a lot less like a libertarian and a lot more like a liberal.
Click to expand...

You seem pretty activist and authoritarian which explains why you think anyone who isn't is a fucking bleeding heart liberal.

In this discussion, you've confirmed both your judicial activism and your desire for authoritarianism. Because I disagree with you, you, like the other RWNJs, tag me as a liberal. I'm not, just ask all the LW loonies who have tagged me as a RWer.
 
Woko Haram said:
The phrase "packing the court" goes back to FDR. He tried adding more Justices to the Court, and thankfully, he failed. Given that context, there is no other way to interpret the phrase unless you're specifically trying to muddy the issue.

Granted, the left loves to redefine things. Racism used to mean judging people by the color of their skin, and now, it apparently doesn't apply if you're judging white people by the color of their skin.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's an old bullshit political tactic: Accuse the opposition of lighting fires "forcing" you to "fight fire with fire".
 
Woko Haram said:
The phrase "packing the court" goes back to FDR. He tried adding more Justices to the Court, and thankfully, he failed. Given that context, there is no other way to interpret the phrase unless you're specifically trying to muddy the issue.

Granted, the left loves to redefine things. Racism used to mean judging people by the color of their skin, and now, it apparently doesn't apply if you're judging white people by the color of their skin.
Click to expand...

The "definition" is one relating to politics, and only to politics. However, the term "packing" can relate to many things without adding anything. Thus when we speak of "packing the court" in regards to the lower courts it does not require the addition of seats.

I know how the right loves to ignore reality, and truth, however, both are relevant to life.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
You seem pretty activist and authoritarian which explains why you think anyone who isn't is a fucking bleeding heart liberal.

In this discussion, you've confirmed both your judicial activism and your desire for authoritarianism. Because I disagree with you, you, like the other RWNJs, tag me as a liberal. I'm not, just ask all the LW loonies who have tagged me as a RWer.
Click to expand...

It's not activist or authoritarian to desire conservatives on the court to balance out the liberals.

As far as your own leanings, I made my assumption since I more often see you side with liberals on a lot of issues here. The only time I usually see you side with conservatives is on a few economic issues. Most of the stances you take on social issues don't appear to be libertarian -- they seem more progressive.
 
Old Trapper said:
The "definition" is one relating to politics, and only to politics. However, the term "packing" can relate to many things without adding anything. Thus when we speak of "packing the court" in regards to the lower courts it does not require the addition of seats.

I know how the right loves to ignore reality, and truth, however, both are relevant to life.
Click to expand...

Once again, you're misusing the phrase, but I'm tired of arguing over semantics or history with you.

As far as replacing judges in lower courts go, that's been a standard practice among both sides for a while now.

Unlike that, adding Justices beyond the 9 is not standard practice.
 
Woko Haram said:
It's not activist or authoritarian to desire conservatives on the court to balance out the liberals.

As far as your own leanings, I made my assumption since I more often see you side with liberals on a lot of issues here. The only time I usually see you side with conservatives is on a few economic issues. Most of the stances you take on social issues don't appear to be libertarian -- they seem more progressive.
Click to expand...
Spot on
 
Woko Haram said:
It's not activist or authoritarian to desire conservatives on the court to balance out the liberals.

As far as your own leanings, I made my assumption since I more often see you side with liberals on a lot of issues here. The only time I usually see you side with conservatives is on a few economic issues. Most of the stances you take on social issues don't appear to be libertarian -- they seem more progressive.
Click to expand...

It's authoritarian to favor activist, biased judges which you have done.

You are free to assume whatever bullshit you like and I'm free to disagree. You've proved yourself to be a far right authoritarian. It's not unusual for a RWNJ to wrongly think anyone to the left of them is a Left Winger. It works the same way with LWLs as I pointed out to you with Katzgar.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
It's authoritarian to favor activist, biased judges which you have done.

You are free to assume whatever bullshit you like and I'm free to disagree. You've proved yourself to be a far right authoritarian. It's not unusual for a RWNJ to wrongly think anyone to the left of them is a Left Winger. It works the same way with LWLs as I pointed out to you with Katzgar.
Click to expand...

And if half of the Court is composed of activist Justices in one direction, then it makes sense to put Justices of the other direction on the bench to balance things out, unless you prefer the rulings to be in the one activist direction present.

Either you're not thinking strategically, or you apparently don't care if the Court swings heavily to the left.
 
Old Trapper said:
The "definition" is one relating to politics, and only to politics. However, the term "packing" can relate to many things without adding anything. Thus when we speak of "packing the court" in regards to the lower courts it does not require the addition of seats.

I know how the right loves to ignore reality, and truth, however, both are relevant to life.
Click to expand...
Filling existing open court seats is not packing. Changing the rule to add additional seats so you can fill them to change the nature of the court is packing the court.
 
Woko Haram said:
And if half of the Court is composed of activist Justices in one direction, then it makes sense to put Justices of the other direction on the bench to balance things out, unless you prefer the rulings to be in the one activist direction present.

Either you're not thinking strategically, or you apparently don't care if the Court swings heavily to the left.
Click to expand...

The fact you keep dodging is that you're part of the problem of activist judges on the bench.

You've already lied several times about me today. What's a few more lies dripping like Trump's cum from your lips?
 
Dutch Uncle said:
The fact you keep dodging is that you're part of the problem of activist judges on the bench.

You've already lied several times about me today. What's a few more lies dripping like Trump's cum from your lips?
Click to expand...

I can see you're trying hard to get a reaction from me, but all I'm doing is explaining why neither side is likely to refrain from picking activist judges. Strategically, it doesn't make sense at this point.
 
Woko Haram said:
I can see you're trying hard to get a reaction from me, but all I'm doing is explaining why neither side is likely to refrain from picking activist judges. Strategically, it doesn't make sense at this point.
Click to expand...

That very well be but how does that make me wrong in pointing out you were part of the problem? Same goes with your opposite Katzgar, et al.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top