Senior U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia found dead at West Texas r

Jarod said:
Respect... Not all Republicans are partisan hacks. Maybe enough people think like you to make it so.
Click to expand...

playing politics does not make one a partisan hack....playing with judicial appointments has happened in every election year since they started having election years.......its just that it doesn't often involve SC justices......
 
Patrick Bateman said:
The next president will most likely be a dem so a liberal justice retiring means they will be replaced by a liberal. Not the same thing as the potential of replacing one of the most diehard conservatives with a pressumably liberal choice.

also the way we fix this is to have liberal judges respect the constitution and not be activist.
Click to expand...

I guess the bolded is the current conventional wisdom, but I don't see it. Sanders can't really be elected, and Hillary has huge unfavorable ratings.

I think this is the GOP's year. Although it is equally hard to see Cruz or Trump getting elected. Rubio probably could. Kasich definitely could - not sure why he isn't catching on more w/ voters.
 
Thing1 said:
I guess the bolded is the current conventional wisdom, but I don't see it. Sanders can't really be elected, and Hillary has huge unfavorable ratings.

I think this is the GOP's year. Although it is equally hard to see Cruz or Trump getting elected. Rubio probably could. Kasich definitely could - not sure why he isn't catching on more w/ voters.
Click to expand...

Nothing or nobody is a given at this point.
 
Thing1 said:
I guess the bolded is the current conventional wisdom, but I don't see it. Sanders can't really be elected, and Hillary has huge unfavorable ratings.

I think this is the GOP's year. Although it is equally hard to see Cruz or Trump getting elected. Rubio probably could. Kasich definitely could - not sure why he isn't catching on more w/ voters.
Click to expand...

This is going to take some time for someone to get a decent lead. It was pretty close in 2008 at this point between McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Santorum, Giuliani, and Thompson.
 
Patrick Bateman said:
The next president will most likely be a dem so a liberal justice retiring means they will be replaced by a liberal. Not the same thing as the potential of replacing one of the most diehard conservatives with a pressumably liberal choice.

also the way we fix this is to have liberal judges respect the constitution and not be activist.
Click to expand...
It looks good they'll take the Senate back too.

Look all I"m asking for is for some good comedy and theater. So far this has been the best Presidential election cycle ever. I'm just wondering if it could get better. I know Ted Cruz getting elected would make my head explode.

I'm still pulling for Kasich. I'd definitely consider voting for him. It's like he's the only grown up in the room.
 
Thing1 said:
I guess the bolded is the current conventional wisdom, but I don't see it. Sanders can't really be elected, and Hillary has huge unfavorable ratings.

I think this is the GOP's year. Although it is equally hard to see Cruz or Trump getting elected. Rubio probably could. Kasich definitely could - not sure why he isn't catching on more w/ voters.
Click to expand...

sanders is polling better in match ups with republicans than hillary is. As for getting the nomination, it's an outside shot but not impossible.

clinton is also winning all match ups with republicans.

I don't see a troll like trump beating a dem, nor do I see a religious gay bashing cruz winning over the majority of the country. rubio is failing hardcore right now, kasich is too milquetoast to be nominated by repubs.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
It looks good they'll take the Senate back too.

Look all I"m asking for is for some good comedy and theater. So far this has been the best Presidential election cycle ever. I'm just wondering if it could get better. I know Ted Cruz getting elected would make my head explode.

I'm still pulling for Kasich. I'd definitely consider voting for him. It's like he's the only grown up in the room.
Click to expand...

It does seem that way.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Good question. I don't. I'm assuming it will based on increased partisan interests butt I have no proof of that. I wouldn't expect it to be a dramatic increase.
Click to expand...

But Mott.
You said the following:

Mott the Hoople said:
Both good point and if a SCOTUS nominee isn't confirmed before the election that situation will only increase vote turn out and the conventional wisdom is that a large voter turnout put the GOP at a disadvantage. Even if the GOP nominates a establishment candidate they are really behind the electoral vote landscape.
Click to expand...

You didn't frame it as an opinion and made it look like it was something that had support.
 
evince said:
your party would lose everything


your voter ID laws are keeping people from voting huh



its the only way your shits can win
Click to expand...

Why don't you tell me how voter ID's keep people from voting!!

But if you decide to just go off and continue ranting, I'm just going to laugh in your face. :D
 
Patrick Bateman said:
I did appreciate it but you are just too dumb. I can't help myself. I've never known of an adult as willfully dumb as you are. Your role is clearly in the kitchen making sandwiches, not talking with the big boys about politics. Personally, I long for the day where you drown yourself in the ocean so the entire globe can have the average iq climb ten points. Your stupidity honestly makes me hate you, and I don't really hate people. But I see you as the epitome of the dumb, overconfident uninformed voter that makes up their mind via the huffington post. A textbook prole if there ever was one. A hypocritical unprincipled circle jerking rah rah partisan with no regard for the consequence of their own actions. You are a drain on this site and my mental well being. You suck.
Click to expand...

Grind:
Why don't you tell us how you really feel. :D
 
Jarod said:
Yes I can. The very existence of the Constitution.

If the people are free to elect a government that in turn is free to do ANYTHING to the people as a whole, what is the purpose of the Bill or Rights?

How can a Federal Government be held accountable for violations of the Bill of Rights without a Court to review if the laws are a violation of those rights?

If there is no mechanism for review, what purpose is a Bill of Rights? Without such review, the elected officials are in effect without limit to their power, the government is tyrannical.
Click to expand...

This is nothing but blather.

There is no text in the Constitution that expressly gives the Supreme Court those powers.

I have never come across writings indicating that was the ORIGINAL INTENTION of the founders. In fact everything I have read was that the Supreme Court was intended to be the weakest of the branches

The US Constitution does not need interpretation. It says what it says or it really doesn't mean anything at all

Those that say it is a "living document" are traitors to this country who know the Constitution doesn't allow them to do what they want to do so they mysteriously fund hidden rights or twist the law to serve predetermined outcomes. Even B. Hussein Yobabymama acknowledges that the US Constitution is predicated in negative rights meaning it outlines what the government CAN'T do. It doesn't outline what the government should give you.

Epic fail on your part counselor. You really are a shitty lawyer. I bet all of the judges where you live laugh when they see your name on the docket
 
Jarod said:
Yes I can. The very existence of the Constitution.

If the people are free to elect a government that in turn is free to do ANYTHING to the people as a whole, what is the purpose of the Bill or Rights?

How can a Federal Government be held accountable for violations of the Bill of Rights without a Court to review if the laws are a violation of those rights?

If there is no mechanism for review, what purpose is a Bill of Rights? Without such review, the elected officials are in effect without limit to their power, the government is tyrannical.
Click to expand...

dude.....the issue isn't whether there is a mechanism for review.......the issue is whether the courts have the power to change the constitution.......obviously they should not.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
dude.....the issue isn't whether there is a mechanism for review.......the issue is whether the courts have the power to change the constitution.......obviously they should not.....
Click to expand...

Dude, was asking for proof that The Courts have the power to invalidate unconstitutional laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top