Supreme Court Nominee coming soon....

[Jarod]

I don't care about the list per se but I expect a Scalia clone. Only reason I voted for Trump. If he screws that up I will not support him in 2020

I am hoping for Ted Cruz. It would serve a number of purposes.

1) he is a brilliant Constitutionalist and is in lock step with me on the written word of the Constitution

2) it would be a good signal to conservatives that supported him on this basis

3) it would be a big fuck you to the left and would make YOUR head explode

Personally I don't think the dems will put up that bit of a fight over this nominee as it is merely replacing Scalia. I believe they will hold their powder for when Ginsberg croaks and it can truly shift the court.

Was Cruz on the list?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I never read the list! lol..
Seriously I'd like to have someone replacing Scalia that understood/agreed/decided on the basis of textualism.
That was an important milestone in judicial philosophy that replaces "original intent"

he had a meeting with Andrew Napolitano.......so hopefully he takes his advice and puts an originalist or 3 on the bench.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Was Cruz on the list?

You don't know?

 

[Jarod]

he had a meeting with Andrew Napolitano.......so hopefully he takes his advice and puts an originalist or 3 on the bench.

I have a feeling that Ginsberg will live three more years. She is getting more healthy not less.

 

[Jarod]

You don't know?

I dont remember, I dont think so, but I am not sure. Do you know?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

I dont remember, I dont think so, but I am not sure. Do you know?

I know. You should look it up. Isn't that what good lawyers do?

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Ted Cruz will not be a nominee. Please.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Ted Cruz will not be a nominee. Please.

Did I say he WOULD?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Ted Cruz will not be a nominee. Please.

It is really no wonder why you were so monumentally wrong about the election. You are of very limited intellect with poor reading comprehension.

 

[tsuke]

im liking cruz more and more. He is turning out to be the senator for the trump agenda.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

It is really no wonder why you were so monumentally wrong about the election. You are of very limited intellect with poor reading comprehension.

I didn't vote for Trump. Ergo, my intellect > your intellect.

That's how it works.

 

[anatta]

he had a meeting with Andrew Napolitano.......so hopefully he takes his advice and puts an originalist or 3 on the bench.

i'm sure it will be an originalist (intent) -i'd like it to go further into someone who uses only the text as the ultimate arbiter -
not the "intent of the legislation" etc.

That was the beauty of Scalia's ideas -everything eventually had to have the foundation of the actual text.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

i'm sure it will be an originalist (intent) -i'd like it to go further into someone who uses only the text as the ultimate arbiter -
not the "intent of the legislation" etc.

agreed on the 'intent of the legislation' part, but the meaning of the text as the founders wrote it is important. there are places to read that and learn it.

That was the beauty of Scalia's ideas -everything eventually had to have the foundation of the actual text.

scalia was not the originalist or textualist that conservatives believe he was. nowhere was that more evidenced than his heller opinion.

 

[Celticguy]

i'm sure it will be an originalist (intent) -i'd like it to go further into someone who uses only the text as the ultimate arbiter -
not the "intent of the legislation" etc.

That was the beauty of Scalia's ideas -everything eventually had to have the foundation of the actual text.

Those guys put considerable effort into crafting that document and did a great job of making the concept of the text quite plain.

 

[anatta]

agreed on the 'intent of the legislation' part, but the meaning of the text as the founders wrote it is important. there are places to read that and learn it.



scalia was not the originalist or textualist that conservatives believe he was. nowhere was that more evidenced than his heller opinion.

2nd amendment cases always hinge on whether the dependent clause " a well regulated militia.." can actually
lead to regs on gun ownership.
Reading the text -it's clear the entire amendment in tact does indeed allow for regulations -but without limiting the actual rights to posses.

The idea of textualism is NOT to take into account the meanings ( like refferring to the Federalist papers) as well as the legislature.
It's to use only the Constitution itself as written as the bedrock text.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

2nd amendment cases always hinge on whether the dependent clause " a well regulated militia.." can actually
lead to regs on gun ownership.
Reading the text -it's clear the entire amendment in tact does indeed allow for regulations -but without limiting the actual rights to posses.

the 'well regulated' is NOT a dependent clause, no matter how hard someone tries to make it so. the founders and commentators made it VERY CLEAR that the new federal government had NO power or authority over the arms of the people. your idea of allowing for regs without actually limiting the actual right could lead to congress prohibiting everything except rocks, like the english did to the scots. unacceptable.

The idea of textualism is NOT to take into account the meanings ( like refferring to the Federalist papers) as well as the legislature.
It's to use only the Constitution itself as written as the bedrock text.

and that would be wrong. the legislature has NO power to alter the constitution. following the meanings of the founders is of utmost importance because that document is written by WE THE PEOPLE. it's extremely important to know what was meant when WE THE PEOPLE ratified it.

 

[anatta]

^ well see? that is the debate between originalism ( intent) and textualism.

What do I care about scots and rocks? -opening up such tangential reasoning and English law isn't germane to rulings by SCOTUS.
Stick to the text. the reasoning behind text should not be debated -only the meaning of the expressed text.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

^ well see? that is the debate between originalism ( intent) and textualism.

What do I care about scots and rocks? -opening up such tangential reasoning and English law isn't germane to rulings by SCOTUS.
Stick to the text. the reasoning behind text should not be debated -only the meaning of the expressed text.

Analogy pronounce [uh-nal-uh-jee]

1.a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based:
the analogy between the heart and a pump.

2.similarity or comparability:
I see no analogy between your problem and mine.

3.Biology. an analogous relationship.

4.Linguistics.
the process by which words or phrases are created or re-formed according to existing patterns in the language, as when shoon was re-formed as shoes, when -ize is added to nouns like winter to form verbs, or when a child says foots for feet.
a form resulting from such a process.

5.Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Will the cons be upset if he nominates someone not on the list?

it will likely be someone who is on the list....because he knows the libs will be upset if he nominates someone who IS on he list......he seems to like upsetting libs.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Then so is the Republican claim they are going to get rid of it, but Republicans keep raising money on it. Maybe, this will finally put an end to all the bullshit.

you're right.....perhaps it will.....