Balancing the Supreme Court

Dutch Uncle said:
We all have a First Amendment right.

Concart's error is conflating eliminating a right with a Senate choice that he didn't like.

Better to consider how Obamacare was implemented. Was it Constitutional? Yes. Was it in the "spirit" of the Constitution? No.
Click to expand...

Yeah so what?

Concarts error is he is a child and having a tantrum.

That may be different than it's not "moral".
 
CFM said:
The left has constantly screamed that one person/group pushing their/his or her morals on others is wrong. They do when it comes to things like same sex marriage, abortion, and any other left wing agenda items.

Wouldn't claiming something is immoral now being pushing morals on someone else? Why is it OK now?
Click to expand...

Proving they are as hypocritical as the fucking Republicans. Welcome to modern American politics.

That said, granting freedoms to all Americans isn't immoral.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Because the Republicans are being hypocritical. Do you consider hypocrisy to be immoral? I do.
Click to expand...

How are the repubs being hypocritical? I haven't challenged everyone if the leftist cockroaches here to deny that the demstapo would do the same thing in the same situation. As of this very second not a single one has had the balls to deny it. Fuck that hypocrite bullshit.
 
Hello Dutch Uncle,

Dutch Uncle said:
Letter of the law. While I agree to adhering to the "spirit", as the nomination of Amy Barrett proved, the Democrats don't give a shit about that either.

Thomas Jefferson thought the Constitution should be rewritten every generation or so.
Click to expand...

Democrats? You're singling out Democrats? That's weird.

What did they do that violates the spirit?
 
CFM said:
Are you saying it's unlimited?
Click to expand...

It would limit banning newspapers or guns.

Like you, the Democrats want to impose laws that negate the spirit of the Constitution without breaking it. Which is why they claim they don't want to ban guns, just certain types and you want to ban freedom of choice.
 
Yakuda said:
How are the repubs being hypocritical? I haven't challenged everyone if the leftist cockroaches here to deny that the demstapo would do the same thing in the same situation. As of this very second not a single one has had the balls to deny it. Fuck that hypocrite bullshit.
Click to expand...

I can't believe you are so fucking stupid you can't see the hypocrisy in jamming through an appointment when it was the Republicans who said before it wasn't appropriate close to an election.

Just another reason why I think you are immoral. You can't see immoral acts such as hypocrisy for what they are.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Proving they are as hypocritical as the fucking Republicans. Welcome to modern American politics.
Click to expand...

Not real sure how they can call someone a hypocrite, which is a moral concept, when doing so would involve pushing on others what they say is wrong to push on others.
 
Hello Dutch Uncle,

Dutch Uncle said:
The Senate advised and consented not to consider the nomination in an election year. Legal. With Barrett they advised and consented to consider the nomination. Legal. Moral? Not much.

Here's your logic:
1 - Republicans are wrong.
2 - My proof: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
3 - Democrats are allowed to be wrong too.

All you are doing is pushing tit-for-tat partisan politics like the Republicans are doing. There's a reason why 70% of Americans aren't Democrats and why 70% of Americans aren't Republicans. Both parties suck ass and serve themselves first, not the American public.
Click to expand...

That's like saying all presidents lie so Trump is no worse.

That's BS.

It is a matter of degree.

And btw, Obama did not lie with the keep your doctor thing.

If you had your own policy, not through an employer, you could be grandfathered in and keep it.

Technically what he said was true.

He did not lie.

Obamacare included a grandfather clause.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
It would limit banning newspapers or guns.

Like you, the Democrats want to impose laws that negate the spirit of the Constitution without breaking it. Which is why they claim they don't want to ban guns, just certain types and you want to ban freedom of choice.
Click to expand...

Are you saying all rights are unlimited? 2nd request
 
Dutch Uncle said:
I can't believe you are so fucking stupid you can't see the hypocrisy in jamming through an appointment when it was the Republicans who said before it wasn't appropriate close to an election.

Just another reason why I think you are immoral. You can't see immoral acts such as hypocrisy for what they are.
Click to expand...

I can't believe you're so fucking stupid that you can't see I never denied the hypocrisy. This is precisely what's wrong with you fucking assholes. What I don't want to see is you fucking lying hypocritical bastards calling someone else hypocritical. Make the claim right now that the left wouldn't do the same thing in the same situation and your a fucking lying hypocritical piece of horse shit.

The last fucking thing I care about is what some fucking leftist shit stain thinks of me morally.
 
Yakuda said:
I can't believe you're so fucking stupid that you can't see I never denied the hypocrisy. This is precisely what's wrong with you fucking assholes. What I don't want to see is you fucking lying hypocritical bastards calling someone else hypocritical. Make the claim right now that the left wouldn't do the same thing in the same situation and your a fucking lying hypocritical piece of horse shit.

The last fucking thing I care about is what some fucking leftist shit stain thinks of me morally.
Click to expand...

Psycho. How many times have the police paid you a visit for domestic abuse?
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Dude, you're reaching. Was the Justice seat filled or not?
Click to expand...

Wrong question. Did the Senate provide advice and consent to the pick of the President of the United States? No they did not. They could have denied consent, but they can't just pass on the role. Because the role is required by the Constitution. It isn't a reach at all. Let's break it down.

The President was Barack Obama.
The nominee was Merrick Garland
The Senate refused to consider (advice and consent) the nominee, as called for by the Constitution. Tell me how you would describe the action. This is not LACK of action. It is a decision to NOT provide advice or consent.

So the fact that the seat was filled is irrelevant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top