Trump Wins! Brits Take Country Back! Hillary Loses!

anatta said:
The more conservative judges did not want to use the 14th on gay marriage; as the states were already deciding for themselves by popular referendum that gay marriage
was to the norm, and as marriage is typically the providence of state gov't. IOW's let the process get us there.
I can see it both ways, as individuals needed relief now, or as I mentioned. The Kennedy decision was hilarious in its vacuous references btw -look thru it when you get a chance -or read Scalia's dissent.

I completely agree on rights of privacy, and i'm sure abortion is stare decisis by now -which would encompass the other factors you mentioned.

You bring up a good idea that neither a "liberal" judge or a "conservative" judge in extreme is desirable.
But I'm looking at the current crop ofliberals ( especially Kagan) and am seeing absolutely no concept of separation of powers.

I've given upon balance of powers (federalism) -but the real threat is the ABC agencies today.
These are fiat entities that regulate at an alarming pace with no checks and balances-
they can legislate/and enforce without recourse to those effected of due process. and that is most alarming to us all
if we get under their thumb, since they have unchecked powers.
Click to expand...

I believe in States Rights, to a point, but there are rules that limit what State governments can do. Its interesting that the regressive States, those that tend to want to limit individual freedom, scream freedom for the States, but not for the individual. They fight to be allowed the mob to limit the freedom of their citizens. If we went with the Conservative argument about States Rights during the Civil Rights movement, the States would still be free to segregate society. The minority black citizens would still not be free from the oppression of segregation.
 
Jarod said:
I believe in States Rights, to a point, but there are rules that limit what State governments can do. Its interesting that the regressive States, those that tend to want to limit individual freedom, scream freedom for the States, but not for the individual. They fight to be allowed the mob to limit the freedom of their citizens. If we went with the Democrat party argument about States Rights during the Civil Rights movement, the States would still be free to segregate society. The minority black citizens would still not be free from the oppression of segregation.
Click to expand...

FTFY
 
AssHatZombie said:
Those sound good. I have to admit. So you're against affirmative action that does not protect white males against discrimination, I assume.
Click to expand...

In theory I am very much against affirmative action. However, I have been persuaded that in the current world it is the only way to go about reversing wrongs. When GWB can get into Yale but not Texas A&M we have a cultural defacto affirmative action program for people with generational wealth. Because Black people were enslaved only a few generations ago they are at a disadvantage due to harmful policies our government imposed on them. I therefore believe that until Black people are given the oppertunity to amass generational wealth we need affirmative action. It is healthy for society because it gives intelligent capable black people the same opportunity as less intelligent generationally wealthy whites.
 
Jarod said:
Increased freedom for the individual.
Protection for the individual from mob rule against him or her.

It boils down to the "Right to Privacy" (which I call the right to individual freedom) and "14th Amendment Equal Protection".
Click to expand...

Which, as established by SCOTUS demands the respect for the right to arms as being among the "rational continuum of liberty" of individual rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

If the "progressives" get their way and the individual right to arms can be dissected out, then the "penumbral rights doctrine" by which the right to privacy and the derivative rights of contraceptive choice, abortion and the gains made in LGBTQ rights, simply can not be true.

It is certainly a, "be careful of what you wish for" situation.
 
philly rabbit said:
This is a sign of things to come. Donald Trump's call for strong border security, fair free trade, and anti terror has reached the British people and they have responded magnificently with a vote for independence! This is just the start and I believe this will be a domino effect throughout western civilization. Let freedom ring!

Obama, Hillary, and the elites of the E.U. all lost in Britain. Things are changing thanks to Trump's influence. Change is coming to America starting in November!
Click to expand...

I think you are correct, in that many Americans share those concerns, & trump is addressing some of them.

I don't think he will succeed taking on wallstreet/hillary, but then I never thought he would be the nom either..
 
Right said:
Less GovCo = more FREEDOM. Congrats to UK for choosing freedom.
Click to expand...

I like the fact that in "real democracies" the ppl have a say, & sometimes that say may cause damage, but here we have no say most of the time in these trade deals that benefit the very rich & bankrupt many in the middle/working classes.
 
Bill said:
I think you are correct, in that many Americans share those concerns, & trump is addressing some of them.

I don't think he will succeed taking on wallstreet/hillary, but then I never thought he would be the nom either..
Click to expand...

See, we have this thing called democracy.
 
one of the things that should be noted in brexit for all sides is numbers vs enthusiasm. polls had remain winning. Yet they also showed that brexit was more commited so they turned out more.

All throughout the night the main story was that the areas remain were winning they were not getting enough votes out of.
 
Bill said:
I like the fact that in "real democracies" the ppl have a say, & sometimes that say may cause damage, but here we have no say most of the time in these trade deals that benefit the very rich & bankrupt many in the middle/working classes.
Click to expand...

we do have a say. the majority of our population is too cowardly and stupid to take advantage of it.
 
Jarod said:
In theory I am very much against affirmative action. However, I have been persuaded that in the current world it is the only way to go about reversing wrongs. When GWB can get into Yale but not Texas A&M we have a cultural defacto affirmative action program for people with generational wealth. Because Black people were enslaved only a few generations ago they are at a disadvantage due to harmful policies our government imposed on them. I therefore believe that until Black people are given the oppertunity to amass generational wealth we need affirmative action. It is healthy for society because it gives intelligent capable black people the same opportunity as less intelligent generationally wealthy whites.
Click to expand...

Reversing wrongs by creating more wrongs. Nice one
 
Abatis said:
Which, as established by SCOTUS demands the respect for the right to arms as being among the "rational continuum of liberty" of individual rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

If the "progressives" get their way and the individual right to arms can be dissected out, then the "penumbral rights doctrine" by which the right to privacy and the derivative rights of contraceptive choice, abortion and the gains made in LGBTQ rights, simply can not be true.

It is certainly a, "be careful of what you wish for" situation.
Click to expand...


Even under the most Conservative of S.Ct. Judges acknowledge limits to the right to poses and carry arms, practice religion or speech.
 
Jarod said:
Even under the most Conservative of S.Ct. Judges acknowledge limits to the right to poses and carry arms, practice religion or speech.
Click to expand...

liberals on this site are arguing that dumb people shouldnt be given the right to vote :) you guys are scary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top