Do you think it's un-American for the census to count how many Americans are in America.
permafrost wrote:
come on byron, you know and everyone knows it was nothing more then a blocking move and did not follow protocol at all.. Garland was entitled to a vote.. if not approved, then Obama was entitled to make another nomination...etc...
It's very hard to try and teach retards, they just never focus on the subject matter, makes for a lot of wasted time.
Capt-jack wrote:
It's very hard to try and teach retards, they just never focus on the subject matter, makes for a lot of wasted time.
This is true, yet you are still with us..
4430 wrote:
Seems they are all for free speech IF it happens to agree with them !
The usual dem mentality. All for me, none for theeπππ
Kickaha wrote:
Barracuda, you are completely wrong on packing the court. Trump has not engaged in court packing. He has nominated someone for each vacancy on the court. If these were left leaning judges nominated for these openings, you would think everything is fine and proper. The Democrats are proposing court packing. They are not filling vacancies with judges that fit their ideology, they will create however many new positions necessary until they hold the majority on the court. Say the Democrats create six new justices now, what would stop the Republicans from creating ten new justices when they retake the majority in the Senate and the Presidency? We should back Ted Cruz's amendment to limit the number of Supreme Court justices to nine. That way we don't have to worry about either side politicizing the Supreme Court.
Barracuda, you are completely wrong on packing the... (
show quote)
OK, assuming there isn't a change in the number, how do you propose to make sure that the court interprets the law fairly. Right now, we have a battle between 'originalists' and 'progressives'. The originalists they ask us to interpret the Constitution as it was originally written, without regard for modern circumstances, technological change, cultural change and population demographic shifts. The other side takes all these into account.
It strikes me that to not take these things into account is to ignore progress in the society, and attempt to apply eighteenth century logic and circumstances to twenty-first century situations. This flies in the face of logic, and is pretty much unworkable as to fairness. If we adopt the originalist model, we should also relegate women to second class citizenry along with blacks and Latinos, and only allow male landowners to vote. I'm sure that would please some of you, but the majority would disagree. We have to find a way of considering the Constitution as it applies to the modern day, not as the founders saw it in their society. Conservative originalist judges don't fill this bill.
whitnebrat wrote:
OK, assuming there isn't a change in the number, how do you propose to make sure that the court interprets the law fairly. Right now, we have a battle between 'originalists' and 'progressives'. The originalists they ask us to interpret the Constitution as it was originally written, without regard for modern circumstances, technological change, cultural change and population demographic shifts. The other side takes all these into account.
It strikes me that to not take these things into account is to ignore progress in the society, and attempt to apply eighteenth century logic and circumstances to twenty-first century situations. This flies in the face of logic, and is pretty much unworkable as to fairness. If we adopt the originalist model, we should also relegate women to second class citizenry along with blacks and Latinos, and only allow male landowners to vote. I'm sure that would please some of you, but the majority would disagree. We have to find a way of considering the Constitution as it applies to the modern day, not as the founders saw it in their society. Conservative originalist judges don't fill this bill.
OK, assuming there isn't a change in the number, h... (
show quote)
The progressives DISREGARD the spirit and boundaries of the constitution. That's a problem. Name one thing in the Constitution that has not been amended to adapt? No SJW crap, just changes in technology, country size, etc.
Name one thing that has. The wording hasn't changed all that much.
whitnebrat wrote:
Name one thing that has. The wording hasn't changed all that much.
Do you live in West or Eastern Ore?
permafrost wrote:
This is true, yet you are still with us..
I see by the quality of your posts your level of IQ! No too good.
whitnebrat wrote:
Does it matter?
That's alright, you'd lie anyway.
byronglimish wrote:
That's alright, you'd lie anyway.
Yanno, it's a good thing I don't consider what comes my way on here as personal, since you don't know me from Adam or Eve, but the kind of slime and insults that come out of your fingers shows a total lack of civility and any respect for the viewpoints of others. I don't lie, and that's a fact, and having to even defend that requires that I stoop to your level of ignorance and intolerance. I suggest that you pull up another rerun of WWE, since that is the type of invective, bluster and bullying behavior that you seem to emulate.
whitnebrat wrote:
Yanno, it's a good thing I don't consider what comes my way on here as personal, since you don't know me from Adam or Eve, but the kind of slime and insults that come out of your fingers shows a total lack of civility and any respect for the viewpoints of others. I don't lie, and that's a fact, and having to even defend that requires that I stoop to your level of ignorance and intolerance. I suggest that you pull up another rerun of WWE, since that is the type of invective, bluster and bullying behavior that you seem to emulate.
Yanno, it's a good thing I don't consider what com... (
show quote)
More lies. I'm not the only member who has pointed that fact out.
You are known for it.
whitnebrat wrote:
OK, assuming there isn't a change in the number, how do you propose to make sure that the court interprets the law fairly. Right now, we have a battle between 'originalists' and 'progressives'. The originalists they ask us to interpret the Constitution as it was originally written, without regard for modern circumstances, technological change, cultural change and population demographic shifts. The other side takes all these into account.
It strikes me that to not take these things into account is to ignore progress in the society, and attempt to apply eighteenth century logic and circumstances to twenty-first century situations. This flies in the face of logic, and is pretty much unworkable as to fairness. If we adopt the originalist model, we should also relegate women to second class citizenry along with blacks and Latinos, and only allow male landowners to vote. I'm sure that would please some of you, but the majority would disagree. We have to find a way of considering the Constitution as it applies to the modern day, not as the founders saw it in their society. Conservative originalist judges don't fill this bill.
OK, assuming there isn't a change in the number, h... (
show quote)
Right and wrong have no dates on them! Lying was looked down on in 1776, but it seems ok today to
the Commie left! The people of the 18th century had a lot more honesty in them than a lot of today's American's.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.