GOP talking point: if you oppose SCOTUS decision, you're against democracy

[RB 60]

But but but I am also mentally ill????

Absolutely.

 

[Taichiliberal]

But but but I am also mentally ill????

 

[gemini104104]

Because, hey - now the VOTERS get to decide if a woman has rights nor not. Why would anyone be opposed to that? Don't you trust voters to do the right thing?

I've already heard it a half dozen times in the past day. If you oppose overturning a 50+ year old precedent and what has been the law of the land for a generation, you're against democracy. You're against Americans.

They really play us all for fools.

The GOP conspiring mission is to do the biding of foreign enemies, the enemy from within and the devil they sold their worthless souls to with the help of idiot voters who also betrayed America at selling their souls to the devil too. This in order to destroy Democracy from within and the well-being of society and humanity. This is considering the GQP/GOP is incapable of either supporting or co-existing in a civilized society at being morally decrepit and barbaric insurgency of savages.

 

[Into the Night]

Obama was able to APPOINT Merrick Garland, the turtle did nothing to stop him from APPOINTING Garland. The turtle did not allow him to be CONFIRMED. Idiot.

The President does not have authority to appoint a judge on the Supreme Court. They can only offer a candidate. See the Constitution of the United States, Articles I, II, and III.
The Senate is not required to confirm anyone.

Discard of the Constitution of the United States.

 

[Into the Night]

Yet, you cannot find any connection.

RQAA

It certainly is not in the Constitution--

It is.

must be legislating from the bench to invent powers we want government to exercise.

No court has to authority to interpret or change the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

Invaders are not apprehended by immigration officials. They are prisoners of war, not asylum/refugee seekers.

Semantics fallacies.

 

[Into the Night]

Endless repetition of the same points.

Inversion fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Now, now .... it's not nice to tease the mentally infirm.

Psychoquackery. No argument presented.

 

[Into the Night]

And he never will....nor will he admit to such. Essentially, he'll just squawk the SOS of nonsensical mantras until doomsday. I suspect he's one brick shy of a load, which is why I have him on permanent ignore.

Bulverism fallacy. Inversion fallacy. No argument presented.

 

[Into the Night]

The GOP conspiring mission is to do the biding of foreign enemies, the enemy from within and the devil they sold their worthless souls to with the help of idiot voters who also betrayed America at selling their souls to the devil too. This in order to destroy Democracy from within and the well-being of society and humanity. This is considering the GQP/GOP is incapable of either supporting or co-existing in a civilized society at being morally decrepit and barbaric insurgency of savages.

You are describing Antifa and BLM, funded and supported by Democrats. The United States was never a democracy.

 

[gemini104104]

Because, hey - now the VOTERS get to decide if a woman has rights nor not. Why would anyone be opposed to that? Don't you trust voters to do the right thing?

I've already heard it a half dozen times in the past day. If you oppose overturning a 50+ year old precedent and what has been the law of the land for a generation, you're against democracy. You're against Americans.

They really play us all for fools.

Actually, the GOP/GQP talking and heads up point amounts to seditious and fox type inspired trash and conspiracies and threats against society, and at waging war on anything of a human nature on Earth. This includes using the taxpayer money to engage in more plotting against humanity as they whore it up in their tRump and repuke conspiring in the gutter of untold stench and filth and moral rot.

 

[Flash]

Inversion fallacy.

Excessive fallacy obsession.

 

[Flash]

Semantics fallacies.

Avoiding debate by spouting fallacies

 

[Flash]

RQAA

No court has to authority to interpret or change the Constitution.

Yet, U. S. courts have been doing that for over 200 years and it has become basic constitutional law accepted by the courts and all legal practices.

It is like confusing immigration with naturalization--it is not correct but many have come to accept it.

 

[Into the Night]

Excessive fallacy obsession.

You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Avoiding debate by spouting fallacies

You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Yet, U. S. courts have been doing that for over 200 years and it has become basic constitutional law accepted by the courts and all legal practices.

So if someone runs over you with their car, it's legal because someone ran over you with there car...gotit. No, dude. no court has authority to interpret or change a constitution. You are still denying Article III.

It is like confusing immigration with naturalization--it is not correct but many have come to accept it.

Semantics fallacy.

 

[gfm7175]

Yet, U. S. courts have been doing that for over 200 years

... and slavery has been done for much longer (in fact, it is STILL being done to this day). Your point??

and it has become basic constitutional law accepted by the courts and all legal practices.

It is in direct violation of the Constitution.

It is like confusing immigration with naturalization--it is not correct but many have come to accept it.

I see you have yet to answer the latest question that I asked you with regard to this topic? Why is that?? Probably because you realized that the conclusion resulting from my line of questioning is a conclusion that you don't like so now you are trying to ignore it to make it go away.

 

[Flash]

It is in direct violation of the Constitution.

I see you have yet to answer the latest question that I asked you with regard to this topic? Why is that?? Probably because you realized that the conclusion resulting from my line of questioning is a conclusion that you don't like so now you are trying to ignore it to make it go away.

Without judicial review there would be no check on the power of the legislative and executive branches of government and they would have unlimited power. If Marbury v. Madison was not consistent with constitutional principles it would have been amended by now.

What question?

 

[gfm7175]

Without judicial review there would be no check on the power of the legislative and executive branches of government and they would have unlimited power.

Yes there would be. Read Article III of the Constitution.

However, there is no USA anymore, as the current installed Regime does not recognize the existence of this constitution (or any state constitution). During the final years of what was the USA, there was a fourth branch of government created (called the Intelligence Branch), and there were (and still are) no checks/balances on that branch of government. A big reason for this, and for the ultimate downfall of the USA, can be traced back to the gutting of State representation in federal government (via the 17th Amendment).

If Marbury v. Madison was not consistent with constitutional principles it would have been amended by now.

Seriously?? Just let enough time go by and a wrong changes into a right?? Seems to be rather fallacious reasoning on your part, doesn't it?

What question?

Don't pretend to not know things... Look at our prior exchanges in this thread with regard to naturalization.