Law Justice Kennedy Retires!!! New SCOTUS justice to be announced 9PM Monday, July 9th

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Strawman much? Why not try to communicate instead of shelling up?

I made my point already. You can either admit that everyone has bias or that a handful of humans who sit in non elected positions don't follow human nature. Like I said not much more I can say about it.

 

[waiguoren]

A government that can't not execute someone within the context of the law is a government with no teeth and no effective way to ultimately enforce the law. Death is the ultimate sanction and the legal framework under which it can be applied the ultimate expression of rule of law.

Ok.

I don't want to debate the death penalty. That's a long and difficult discussion.

The point is that the Constitution permits the death penalty clearly ("No person shall be deprived of life...without due process of law") but that didn't stop Ginsburg/Breyer from finding it "unconstitutional".

 

[waiguoren]

You can either admit that everyone has bias or that a handful of humans who sit in non elected positions don't follow human nature.

Everyone has a bias.

Thomas/Gorsuch attempt to interpret law the way it was written.

Ginsburg/Sotomayor attempt to change the law to fit their preferences.

That's an important distinction, right?

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Holy shit, you're in TN?? Consider me a new voter, just to cancel your shit out. Hah.

You're like a dorky college freshman who says things to get reactions from people so you can "be different." But at the end of the day you'll always be a dorky college freshman.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Everyone has a bias.

Thomas/Gorsuch attempt to interpret law the way it was written.

Ginsburg/Sotomayor attempt to change the law to fit their preferences.

That's an important distinction, right?

Lol, Good byeeeee

 

[Hit-N-Run]

Democrats have a solid chance to flip the House and the Senate is a long shot. Let's hope they don't fuck it up.

I have little faith in the Democrats. I just see them fucking things up in the end. They are too late to the race. Republicans have gerrymandered the hell out of districts. As they gain more local state power they change the rules in their favor. It's why I see authoritarianism in out future. The Republicans have gained power and change the rules in their favor.

Democrats have done it in the past but nothing like the new Republicans.

 

[waiguoren]

I disagree strongly with your shitty Federalist argument. Everyone on the bench is interpreting the law. Just because you don't like their interpretation, that doesn't make yours uniquely in line with the constitution.

Originalists are just trying to drape themselves in the constitution in order to denigrate their opposition without actually winning the arguments on the merits. They want to disqualify any decision they don't like as against the constitution, and it's complete horse shit.

I knew that you would respond with some crazy shit (no offense, but it really is crazy nonsense).

Yet no matter how crazy you are, there is no way in hell that you would agree with @KONG-D'SNT-TAP that the job of the judiciary is to "enact legislation". And that was my point.

 

[Greoric]

You're like a dorky college freshman who says things to get reactions from people so you can "be different." But at the end of the day you'll always be a dorky college freshman.

Not an argument.

 

[Teppodama]

Ok.

I don't want to debate the death penalty. That's a long and difficult discussion.

The point is that the Constitution permits the death penalty clearly ("No person shall be deprived of life...without due process of law") but that didn't stop Ginsburg/Breyer from finding it "unconstitutional".

Personally, I would be more shocked if any of them actually just did their job with real impartiality and didn't allow their own personal ideologies to influence their decisions or interpretations of the law. Some are just more blatant about their bias than others and since the position is for life....well whatcha gonna do? None of those SCOTUS positions should have been for life anyway, ridiculous that they are.

 

[HomerThompson]

I knew that you would respond with some crazy shit (no offense, but it really is crazy nonsense).

Yet no matter how crazy you are, there is no way in hell that you would agree with @KONG-D'SNT-TAP that the job of the judiciary is to "enact legislation". And that was my point.

It's your bias that thinks one group of people is, "following the constitution", and that one group of people is, "making laws from the bench". Nothing more.

If you can't see how pathetic, and weak, that position is, there's nothing I can do to help you.

 

[SaiWa]

The people that ARE in swing states though generally know they are. Guess I'm just confused why you'd roll people like Homer in with people that live in swing states the same way I'd be confused if I was rolled in given I live in WA where I don't think the state has gone red since like.. MAYBE Reagan?

Well talking to my buddies before the election a few didn't like Clinton and mused about not voting cause we live in NJ. Most of them vote left but are not registered (like myself). But some of us believe we should always vote no matter what. The idea of not voting because of x reason is wrong IMO. If I thought this way and I talked and chatted about not voting and hating Clinton and so on to others (on the phone, social media, forum, etc..) I am helping to spread that idea that my vote doesn't count when it does theoretically. Thinking this way creates doubts to others and it may reach people that can actually have an effect on the outcome.

One of my best friends who works in NJ but still has his license in PA (mother lives there so cheaper car insurance) didn't vote for example. He thought PA was no longer a swing state and said "meh.. I don't need to go back and vote". Another buddy of mine was a huge Bernie supporter and was so pissed he refused to vote for Hillary even though I told him what the risk were (immigration, SCOTUS, etc...). He refused to listen and didn't vote in NJ.

Everyone should vote. I voted for George W Bush twice in NJ. my vote didn't matter during those elections but it mattered to me. And that's how everyone should think regardless of whether it affects the election directly or not.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Not an argument.

You're right I'm not arguing you are a dweeb, I KNOW you're one

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

I knew that you would respond with some crazy shit (no offense, but it really is crazy nonsense).

Yet no matter how crazy you are, there is no way in hell that you would agree with @KONG-D'SNT-TAP that the job of the judiciary is to "enact legislation". And that was my point.

Please go quote my post where I said this. Fn dweeby liar.

 

[waiguoren]

You should reconsider Roe v. Wade. That case was decided on the flimsiest of grounds.

It's your bias that thinks one group of people is, "following the constitution", and that one group of people is, "making laws from the bench". Nothing more.

If you can't see how pathetic, and weak, that position is, there's nothing I can do to help you.

Hey Homer, is it the job of the judiciary to "enact laws"? @KONG-D'SNT-TAP says yes.

 

[HomerThompson]

You should reconsider Roe v. Wade. That case was decided on the flimsiest of grounds.

Hey Homer, is it the job of the judiciary to "enact laws"? @KONG-D'SNT-TAP says yes.

No, it's not. But I don't call decisions I disagree with, "enacting law" from the bench. I disagree on the merits. The entire Federalists philosophy is a sham, and a bulwark against progressive ideas, regardless of merit.

 

[Rygu]

Let's go Judge Judy!!

She would actually make a great pick. She puts up with no bullshit, and isn't a feminist.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

You should reconsider Roe v. Wade. That case was decided on the flimsiest of grounds.

Hey Homer, is it the job of the judiciary to "enact laws"? @KONG-D'SNT-TAP says yes.

Please go quote my post where I said anything like this.

 

[waiguoren]

Personally, I would be more shocked if any of them actually just did their job with real impartiality and didn't allow their own personal ideologies to influence their decisions or interpretations of the law. Some are just more blatant about their bias than others and since the position is for life....well whatcha gonna do? None of those SCOTUS positions should have been for life anyway, ridiculous that they are.

Disagree. I already pointed to one of many examples in my enjoyable dialogue with @KONG-D'SNT-TAP:

Clarence Thomas probably opposes marijuana use. He would probably support state laws banning the individual growth and of marijuana.

But in Gonzales v. Raich, he wrote that the federal government has no authority to pass a law banning the production/use of homegrown marijuana. He doesn't let his policy preferences get in the way of his beliefs about the Constitution's meaning.

 

[bushman505]

People who didn’t vote have no credibility in political arguments.

 

[IGIT]

I have little faith in the Democrats. I just see them fucking things up in the end. They are too late to the race. Republicans have gerrymandered the hell out of districts. As they gain more local state power they change the rules in their favor. It's why I see authoritarianism in out future. The Republicans have gained power and change the rules in their favor.

Democrats have done it in the past but nothing like the new Republicans.

herro Hit-N-Run,

the problem for the Democrats is that, at the moment, the country seems pretty happy.

consumer confidence has basically soared under Mr. Trump, thus far...and i don't see deploying the "culture wars" squad as something that'll bring Democrats to the polls in droves.

transgender rights and BLM aren't going to do it, you know?

what the Democrats need is a recession. they might be able to spingboard a financial catastrophe into electoral success, i guess.

- IGIT