Trump judge nominee, 36, who has never tried a case, wins approval of Senate panel.

ThatOwlWoman said:
I guess you are not aware that the majority of people receiving food assistance *do* have jobs? Of course this does not include children, disabled people, or the elderly. It does include our active military members and their families, as well as veterans (who make up 7% of SNAP recipients).

https://www.marketplace.org/2015/05/25/wealth-poverty/military-families-turn-food-stamps

I don't know about you, but I find it shameful that our military and veterans have to receive government assistance just to eat. Shouldn't we be taking better care of those who are serving and those who did?
Click to expand...

SOmething like this here>
HomelessVetWorthlessBum1.jpg
 
I Love America said:
Then they need to work more than one job. Many people have done that

Or you could find a family to support?

No?

Yes it is easy to satisfy ones conscious with other people’s property.
Click to expand...

Not surprising that paying ppl in the service a living wage to support themselves & their family isn't part of your solution....:palm:
 
Last edited:
Craig234 said:
This thread like any thread with a right-winger shows how un-American, how unprincipled, how evil they are. They don't care at all about right and wrong, about the rule of law, about the American system. They're happy for someone utterly unqualified to be put into the position of protecting the American people from the powerful as the guardians of the constitution, if they are on 'team red' and will serve their masters.
Click to expand...

Pls note not all ppl that are conservative have posted their selfishness in this thread.....

There are many that are not like that but they are often overshadowed by the loud mouth ignorant me firsters...
 
Bill said:
Pls note not all ppl that are conservative have posted their selfishness in this thread.....

There are many that are not like that but they are often overshadowed by the loud mouth ignorant me firsters...
Click to expand...

OK. I've had to put so many right-wingers on ignore, I haven't seen any different than I describe.

I'd be happy for you to quote something from a right-winger that's better and I'll give it credit if it looks like it deserves it.
 
Craig234 said:
OK. I've had to put so many right-wingers on ignore, I haven't seen any different than I describe.

I'd be happy for you to quote something from a right-winger that's better and I'll give it credit if it looks like it deserves it.
Click to expand...

Will do........
 
Craig234 said:
Well, I appreciate you agreeing about the right.

Unfortunately I can't return the favor about the left or the ABA (the ABA is not the left, either).

And I would suggest to you, that you are seriously in error in your statement about the constitution's 'face value' and 'simple verbiage'.

Unfortunately for that viewpoint, the constitution is the opposite. It's a bare framework that's VERY vague in all kinds of things, and does NOT answer thousands of detailed issues clearly, no matter how hard you look.

In fact, one of the best ways to spot the people who are lying about the constitution is to spot the ones who claim they're following the clear instructions in the constitution, the 'original intent' - the way the right does. They're just trying to stamp their agenda with legitimacy and attack any other viewpoint - which is equally or more valid - as tainted and incorrect.

In fact, the constitution has that vagueness - things like 'unspecified rights' that are not written but which exist - written right into it. The only correct interpretation of the constitution is the one that understands the 'spirit' of the document and does interpret it to recognize those 'unspecified rights' that are implied but not explicit. To say they don't exist is the one position that clearly violates the constitution's 'plain language' (see the 9th and 10th amendments which exactly protect unspecified rights).

That doesn't mean that anything anyone wants to make up is in the constitution.

It means that it is a more complex, less simple and clear document requiring expertise to interpret.

And unfortunately, the right takes advantage of that vagueness to push an agenda that is at odds with the intent of the constitution, and invent rights NOT implied, such as giving corporations constitutional rights the document did not intend.
Click to expand...

it's now very clear to me that you have absolutely zero clue about what the constitution is or does. you're also too biased to be taught it.

the constitution is one of the simplest documents ever created. It took lawyers, liberals, and conservatives to muddy the damn thing up so bad that it's a useless piece of paper now. congrats.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
judges do not argue motions
Click to expand...

He's never been a judge AND he's never even argued a motion. He has zero legal experience. He some idiot straight out of school with a right wing blog Trump appointed trying to game the system for his ideological position. You may as well go straight up to James Madison and piss on him, for all the respect it shows for the office.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
while I agree with you about the right being at war with the constitution, I have to say that so is the left. The ABA is an organization solely interested in job security, so their opposite opinion is all it takes for me to consider qualification.

there's only one way to understand the constitution, at it's face value and simple verbiage.
Click to expand...

In the common law system, you have to put the law in the context of previous rulings. You have to study the history of the law to truly understand the law. This is not a civil law system where previous rulings are irrelevant. The fact that you think it is is meaningless. You're wrong. You're just ignorant, and consider yourself wise.
 
If there were no requirement for stare decisis, any judge could just make up what ever rational reasoning they wanted at the time to decide any case whatever way they wanted. The wording in the constitution is not some perfect language that is totally unambigous, it can mean what you want it to mean. It's vague. The pseudoconstitutionalism of the right is no more valid than the actual constitutionalism of the left.
 
Another remedy for a conservative supreme court:

Upon assumption of the presidency, cancel the supreme courts term until such a time as enough conservative justices die, thus depriving them of the ability to issue final rulings in violation of the constitution. America will operate without the supreme court until such a time as the conservative justices die or resign.

- Reduce the size of the supreme court and every appellate court to 1 with one law. Dismiss all the excess judges. With another law, expand the court back to its original law, reappoint all the constiutional judges, and appoint new constitutional judges in place of the unconstitutional one.
 
Forgot to mention his wife is a lawyer in the administration. Funny how bad the memories of Trumps people are. He never tried a case and is qualified to a judge position for life? He got rejected by the bar assn ratings . This guy is terrible. I suppose Trump will have to pull another nominee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top