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

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...

I agree, as misdirected as it is, the underlying cause is a great sign about the future, on both sides.

The break up of the party system would be very good for America.
 
its a realignment


the republican party cheating and cronyism pushed the party way right falsely


realignment will result in a far more left leaning country.



that is what the sander popularity is about
 
Thing1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

and AGAIN you get your panties in a bunch rather than reading what I wrote. Now... try reading it again... especially the first fucking part where I clearly stated 'yes, he does say that'
 
Superfreak said:
and AGAIN you get your panties in a bunch rather than reading what I wrote. Now... try reading it again... especially the first fucking part where I clearly stated 'yes, he does say that'
Click to expand...

No panties in a bunch here. No namecalling or bolding & underlining things.

Just pointing out that you 100% agree w/ my original premise, which is smart, because it's fact.
 
Thing1 said:
No panties in a bunch here. No namecalling or bolding & underlining things.

Just pointing out that you 100% agree w/ my original premise, which is smart, because it's fact.
Click to expand...


LMAO... you truly are a fucking idiot. Your previous comment whined about my not admitting I was 'wrong'.

1) My original comment was asking WHO had stated what you claimed, which you then provided
2) I then asked for a link... which you then provided
3) I then agreed with you that he did say what you had stated, but that the link added context to the small portion you quoted
4) you then whined "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."
5) I then pointed out that I had agreed with you, not disagreed
6) Then you made that last moronic post trying to save face.

You are indeed a fucking idiot.
 
Superfreak said:
No moron... I wanted to see the context in which he said it. Which was not apparent based on your quote. Which is why I asked you for a link.

So you see that in the above link he stated...

"“We are facing our fundamental rights in the balance,” the Texas senator said on NBC’s “Meet the Press,“ citing “abortion on demand,” “religious liberty” and the Second Amendment."

so in saying it should be a referendum on the SCOTUS seat, he is including how that will affect many other issues. On that he is correct.

While I do not agree with him completely, I get his point. There are a lot of decisions in front of SCOTUS that are going to be affected by who replaces Scalia.
Click to expand...

You're so intellectually dishonest. Read the wording of this post, and try to really be honest with yourself. You're trying to spin it in a way that makes it look like Cruz was including more "issues" into the referendum comment.

Your namecalling is pretty silly, too. Everyone does it to an extent - but you really make it part of how you present yourself. It sounds childish.
 
Thing1 said:
You're so intellectually dishonest. Read the wording of this post, and try to really be honest with yourself. You're trying to spin it in a way that makes it look like Cruz was including more "issues" into the referendum comment.

Your namecalling is pretty silly, too. Everyone does it to an extent - but you really make it part of how you present yourself. It sounds childish.
Click to expand...

No, moron, he is saying that because of the cases before the court now and in the future, making it about the SCOTUS seat is due to it affecting so many other areas (many social issues).

So here YOU are trying to READ INTO what I wrote. You are trying to spin away from what was said. I stated clearly that he did indeed say to make it a referendum on the seat. But again... as I also stated... if you look at the context in which he made the statement you can see it was deeper than you were implying. You pretended all other issues were tossed aside when in reality the SCOTUS seat can certainly effect the way the future decisions go on a wide variety of issues before the court.
 
Thing1 said:
You're so intellectually dishonest. Read the wording of this post, and try to really be honest with yourself. You're trying to spin it in a way that makes it look like Cruz was including more "issues" into the referendum comment.

Your namecalling is pretty silly, too. Everyone does it to an extent - but you really make it part of how you present yourself. It sounds childish.
Click to expand...

LMAO... so I call you a moron, you say 'intellectually dishonest'... you are a hypocrite.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
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.
Click to expand...

What did I write ? Nothing that you suggest.
Have your rant elsewhere as they all get it wrong at times. But not off my post.
 
Superfreak said:
No, moron, he is saying that because of the cases before the court now and in the future, making it about the SCOTUS seat is due to it affecting so many other areas (many social issues).

So here YOU are trying to READ INTO what I wrote. You are trying to spin away from what was said. I stated clearly that he did indeed say to make it a referendum on the seat. But again... as I also stated... if you look at the context in which he made the statement you can see it was deeper than you were implying. You pretended all other issues were tossed aside when in reality the SCOTUS seat can certainly effect the way the future decisions go on a wide variety of issues before the court.
Click to expand...

He said the election should be a referendum on the vacancy. I didn't mischaracterize anything at all.

The court makes legal decisions on the issues you listed - but not policy decisions. You're really desperate.
 
Thing1 said:
We have an election where there are huge problems and issues surrounding our economy, the debt, jobs, foreign policy, energy, immigration, healthcare, et al.
Click to expand...

From the OP.

Do you really think it's intellectually honest to suggest that the vacancy on the court will cover these issues in terms of policy?
 
Thing1 said:
From the OP.

Do you really think it's intellectually honest to suggest that the vacancy on the court will cover these issues in terms of policy?
Click to expand...

Good question, how do you think SCOTUS can influence these: economy, the debt, jobs, foreign policy, energy, immigration, healthcare, et al.

I am curious as to your response for each issue you mentioned. I don't recall SCOTUS having power over debt or foreign policy, for starters. You may start there and work your way to the rest.
 
Thing1 said:
He really sets a great precedent for a Cruz Presidency w/ this one:

" “You know what? The Senate is advising right now. We're advising that a lame-duck president in an election year is not going to be able to tip the balance of the Supreme Court, that we're going to have an election.”

So, if he wins election, he'll only have 2 years in which he can name any justice to the court.
Click to expand...
not six?.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top