"Let's make this election a referendum on the court vacancy"

Thing1 said:
Are you kidding me?

We have an election where there are huge problems and issues surrounding our economy, the debt, jobs, foreign policy, energy, immigration, healthcare, et al.

And we should make the ENTIRE ELECTION about one court vacancy? A vacancy that is supposed to be filled by the President in conjunction with Congress, because the founders specifically did NOT want it left up to a popular vote among the general populace?

The pundits & politicians are just going full stupid these days. I can't believe some of the stuff I'm hearing.
Click to expand...

if nothing else, this certainly proves that neither party has any reservations about appointing judges who have absolutely zero intention of ever ruling in line with the constitution, but along party ideology. we, who are at least sane, can only hope most of America can realize this and vote out the two parties before it's too late.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
if nothing else, this certainly proves that neither party has any reservations about appointing judges who have absolutely zero intention of ever ruling in line with the constitution, but along party ideology. we, who are at least sane, can only hope most of America can realize this and vote out the two parties before it's too late.
Click to expand...

The popularity of Trump really shows me that there is a lot of disillusionment with party out there. I'd add Sanders to a lesser extent.

Unfortunately, it's misdirected right now. But the fact that people are identifying less w/ either party can only be a good thing.
 
Thing1 said:
The popularity of Trump really shows me that there is a lot of disillusionment with party out there. I'd add Sanders to a lesser extent.
Click to expand...
the fascination with trump is built mainly out of the anger of a disenfranchised populace, as with Sanders.

Thing1 said:
Unfortunately, it's misdirected right now. But the fact that people are identifying less w/ either party can only be a good thing.
Click to expand...

most definitely a good thing, agreed.
 
Thing1 said:
The popularity of Trump really shows me that there is a lot of disillusionment with party out there. I'd add Sanders to a lesser extent.

Unfortunately, it's misdirected right now. But the fact that people are identifying less w/ either party can only be a good thing.
Click to expand...

This is very true, IMO. We can only dream of a day when a candidate can say, "This is who I am and what I stand for." And who cares what party he belongs to.
 
Thing1 said:
Are you kidding me?

We have an election where there are huge problems and issues surrounding our economy, the debt, jobs, foreign policy, energy, immigration, healthcare, et al.

And we should make the ENTIRE ELECTION about one court vacancy? A vacancy that is supposed to be filled by the President in conjunction with Congress, because the founders specifically did NOT want it left up to a popular vote among the general populace?

The pundits & politicians are just going full stupid these days. I can't believe some of the stuff I'm hearing.
Click to expand...

I haven't read though the whole thread so my apologies if this has already been stated but at the core elections are about turnouts and candidates do whatever they think will turnout their supporters. Both sides often use the Supreme Court as a reason for people on the edge to vote
 
leaningright said:
I'm going to go read this in context and see what I think. On the surface I may agree that it could be a good strategy for the republicans.
Click to expand...

Looks like Thing decided to "cherry pick" and chose not to include the first part of the "comment".
I wonder why that was??
 
Thing1 said:
I read that a couple of times just to be sure, but I think I can confirm at this point: you did not save any face w/ this lame explanation.

Cruz is saying we should make the election about the vacancy. My point stands, strongly.
Click to expand...
Again... yes, he does say that... but when read in context to his ENTIRE comments on the matter it makes more sense. Not that I agree with him, but I get where he is coming from given the variety of cases before SCOTUS right now. You call it 'lame', the real world calls it context.
 
Superfreak said:
Again... yes, he does say that... but when read in context to his ENTIRE comments on the matter it makes more sense. Not that I agree with him, but I get where he is coming from given the variety of cases before SCOTUS right now. You call it 'lame', the real world calls it context.
Click to expand...

All of the "issues" you mentioned are within the context of SCOTUS rulings. So, again - they all relate to making the election about one vacancy.

Man, you are stubborn. You will not admit you're wrong, under any circumstances whatsoever. I'll just say it for you: you are wrong on this one. He is definitely saying that this election should be a referendum on one court vacancy.
 
Thing1 said:
I'd be VERY interested to hear how you think it changes the meaning even one iota.

All ears here. Give it a go, USF.
Click to expand...

I would only be able to answer your question, if you can explain how it doesn't change the meaning.

Words have meaning, just ask Desh and she'll tell you.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I would only be able to answer your question, if you can explain how it doesn't change the meaning.

Words have meaning, just ask Desh and she'll tell you.
Click to expand...

That's what I expected.

Don't wander aimlessly into a discussion unless you know what you're talking about & are prepared to add something. This time, you stepped in it. Be a little more cautious.
 
Thing1 said:
That's what I expected.

Don't wander aimlessly into a discussion unless you know what you're talking about & are prepared to add something. This time, you stepped in it. Be a little more cautious.
Click to expand...

Just following your lead; but if you think that I should be better then you, I'll take it under advisement. :D
 
SmarterthanYou said:
if nothing else, this certainly proves that neither party has any reservations about appointing judges who have absolutely zero intention of ever ruling in line with the constitution, but along party ideology. we, who are at least sane, can only hope most of America can realize this and vote out the two parties before it's too late.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Only the donkeys put up people who have never read the document thinking instead it's a.living thing that can take direction from anywhere at all.
 
Celticguy said:
Nonsense. Only the donkeys put up people who have never read the document thinking instead it's a.living thing that can take direction from anywhere at all.
Click to expand...

this is nonsense. I can put up half a dozen, at least, cases by the USSC that deliberately ignore the words of the constitution for 'feel good' unconstitutional crap.....take DUI checkpoints, for example. maybe you should read that decision by rehnquist. or Heller for that matter. Raich v. Gonzalez, or roberts opinion on the ACA. seriously, you're only fooling yourself if you believe conservatives on the court actually give a damn about the constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top