Let's be truthful about this Supreme Court appointment.

Damocles said:
Do you really believe that in the current atmosphere it is impossible for this court to hear something about contraception in the future? My guess is you know it is possible but you really want to dislike something about this extremely qualified and well respected Judge, so you come up with this...

It's also interesting that you cannot see them hearing anything about elections in the near future...
Click to expand...

My guess is that you're making up an opinion about me that isn't supported by anything I wrote. Maybe you can comment specifically on what grounds Griswold could be challenged, and why you think the peaceful transfer of power is arguable.
 
Bourbon said:
Tell Us more about your personal experience and taste ...
Click to expand...

attachment.php
 
christiefan915 said:
My guess is that you're making up an opinion about me that isn't supported by anything I wrote. Maybe you can comment specifically on what grounds Griswold could be challenged, and why you think the peaceful transfer of power is arguable.
Click to expand...

I do believe that challenging the vote is something that will happen if there is a close election in any state that could decide the election results, and think that the dog whistle "peaceful transfer" nonsense is an attempt to get her to chime in on something she may hear something about in the near future. I will say that I remember hearing Trump say that whoever wins the election will be sworn in come January... so, my guess is he'll leave peacefully if it is Biden...
 
votebiden said:
Barrett called herself a follower of Scalia. No mystery as to how she will vote.
Click to expand...

Not true at all. Liking another justice's opinions does not mean you will vote the way they did on new issues that has completely different legal or constitutional principles. We don't know how Scalia would have voted on many issues so she can't vote like him. It is more true that she and Scalia would vote the same ways as most of the other justices on most cases.

There are few cases each session dealing with constitutional issues. Most deal with interpretations of federal law which Congress can change by amending that legislation.

You are being a little dramatic by predicting terrible things happening which the Dems are pushing in an attempt to block the confirmation they have already lost.
 
Flash said:
Not true at all. Liking another justice's opinions does not mean you will vote the way they did on new issues that has completely different legal or constitutional principles. We don't know how Scalia would have voted on many issues so she can't vote like him. It is more true that she and Scalia would vote the same ways as most of the other justices on most cases.

There are few cases each session dealing with constitutional issues. Most deal with interpretations of federal law which Congress can change by amending that legislation.

You are being a little dramatic by predicting terrible things happening which the Dems are pushing in an attempt to block the confirmation they have already lost.
Click to expand...


Ok. Not sure what all that meant.
 
Micawber said:
Expand the courts and stuff it. Payback is a bitch, liars.
Click to expand...

Yeah......when Trump wins, and the conservatives control both houses after the landslide victory on Nov. 3rd, 2020..........I hear the first thing that will happen is DC and PR will be considered for statehood. Can you say 2 more scoops? The left often does not consider the consequences of anything they act on in a knee jerk reaction. What is to stop Trump from packing the court if there is a conservative landslide? :bigthink:

Do you not remember just why Mr. Trump has had the opportunity to appoint 3 justices? Can you spell dirty politics by the demwits (and I call them demwits for a reason)....it never occurred to them that once they invoked the so called nuclear option and made it mandatory to have but a simple majority vote in the senate to confirm a court appointment instead of the (at the time) usual 60 majority votes. You can thank your own parties corruptness for Trump being allowed to appoint his picks on the court. Harry Reid.....does anyone have to wonder why you decided to RETIRE?

Now you don't even consider What's fair for the goose is fair for the gander.........Trump just might make you eat your words and pack the court himself.
 
Last edited:
votebiden said:
Most observers know she is a hardcore right winger who clerked for Scalia. Not sure where your info is coming from.
Click to expand...

My information comes from the history and behavior of Supreme Court Justices.

Which of her decisions was hardcore right wing?

The same accusation was made of Kavanaugh who has been very moderate. Kavanaugh voted with Garland 93% of the time but both right and left described them as being hard right or hard left.
 
Flash said:
That we have no clue on how she will vote on most issues other than agreeing with the other justices most of the time.
Click to expand...

Of course there are clues on how she will vote.......she is a solid constitutional originalist she will abide by the words actually found to exist in the constitution and that is what scares the hell out of the fascist left. Whatever was established by majority opinion on the court can be rescinded just as easily...whereas a true originalist looks to the actual words found in the constitution. Nowhere are the words ABORTION or MARRIAGE ever mentioned in the actual drafted words of the Constitution. And according to the constitution itself (Article 10 of the States Bill of Rights).....any words not found in the Constitution belong to the States/People......not scotus, to legislate law as the people of each state see fit.

She will abide by THE RULE OF LAW.....that's why she was nominated.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Agreed. She'll vote with the law not nutjobs.

4ieszn.jpg
Click to expand...

What the left does not realize. Even if Roe v. Wade is overturned by majority opinion........the states that have represented law at the state level that allows Abortion will not be affected by the decision as Roe v. Wade simply usurped STATE AUTHORITY to decide for themselves and made FEDERAL LAW via the sound of a judges gavel.....law that was never represented by THE PEOPLE before Roe v. Wade.

If a state wants to ban abortion in part or in whole......they just pass a law to that effect, if they want abortion to be legal, it will be legal in that state which will make it a nightmare when some want to go to another state to commit what their own state considers murder. So.....in the end, there must be an amendment to the Constitution because of this constitutional crisis...that is the correct way, the way the founding principles of this nation intended. If the majority of THE PEOPLE across this nation want Abortion to be legal.......it will become legal, if not, it will become illegal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top