- Joined
- Dec 14, 2020
- Messages
- 2,709
- Reaction score
- 3,539
Awesome.
With that and my AK-47, I am sure to get a lot of deer this year.
With that and my AK-47, I am sure to get a lot of deer this year.
Everyone here knows you're an old fool. If you're actually serious, I'm glad people who think like you are gone from leadership positions in the next 15-20 years. If you think for a second that Thomas should still be on the SC, you're a traitor to what this country is really about.
Text book first attempt at using a new word.Textbook ultracrepidarian thread.
This gonna be me and my boys this “season”Awesome.
With that and my AK-47, I am sure to get a lot of deer this year.
Awesome.
With that and my AK-47, I am sure to get a lot of deer this year.
It's a problem when a gaggle of political operatives run the Supreme Court. They are seen by the public as a political animal by most people for the first time in history because they are hardly trying to hide the fact that their decisions are ideological, not driven by actual sound reasoning.Because a decision on a similar situation was made in the past does not mean that decision cannot be reevaluated for constitutional legality. A precedent is simply a guideline and does not guarantee the original decision was correct regardless of how often it might be cited.
dawg, they been overpopulating a ton. they drive my dog crazy every time that they are gathering around in the neighborhood....Awesome.
With that and my AK-47, I am sure to get a lot of deer this year.
Every judge rules based on their interpretation of the law. Their decisions are always going to be informed by their ideologies, some more than others, but always.It's a problem when a gaggle of political operatives run the Supreme Court. They are seen by the public as a political animal by most people for the first time in history because they are hardly trying to hide the fact that their decisions are ideological, not driven by actual sound reasoning.
This is not a popularity contest. There is no provision in the U.S. Constitution to ban a bump stock or anything eluding to it. If we actually dig into the Federalist Papers and the 2nd Amendment, the intent is that Americans have access to the same standard issue firearms as the infantryman and we do not have that. When I hear a Left Cult Clown whine about it... I just see an ignorant and/or un-American fool.
Note... a bump stock gets you nowhere near the automatic capabilities of our military. I wouldn't recommend one, but I wouldn't dog someone that wanted one.
Their job is also to get a shit load of free trips and gifts.It's not the SCOTUS job to act based on the will of the people, it's their job to interpret the constitution.
Eschew *Every judge rules based on their interpretation of the law. Their decisions are always going to be informed by their ideologies, some more than others, but always.
It's why there are even terms like Liberal or Progressive Judges or Conservative Judges. It's easy to see the philosophical leanings of all of them in how they have adjudicated in the past.
Don't try to act like it's only "conservative" judges that fall into that. The only real problem with the current court is they aren't ruling in favor of progressive concerns and decided to esque precedent on some issues to reexamine and reevaluate what some consider settled arguments.
Gave you the like but at least 2 if not all 3 of TR7MP''s appointees were asked about Roe v Wade and they claimed they would not overturn it to get confirmed.Every judge rules based on their interpretation of the law. Their decisions are always going to be informed by their ideologies, some more than others, but always.
It's why there are even terms like Liberal or Progressive Judges or Conservative Judges. It's easy to see the philosophical leanings of all of them in how they have adjudicated in the past.
Don't try to act like it's only "conservative" judges that fall into that. The only real problem with the current court is they aren't ruling in favor of progressive concerns and decided to esque precedent on some issues to reexamine and reevaluate what some consider settled arguments.
Come on now—that is far from the only problem with this Court. And I’m just referring to issues with their rulings, not even their rampant corruption.Every judge rules based on their interpretation of the law. Their decisions are always going to be informed by their ideologies, some more than others, but always.
It's why there are even terms like Liberal or Progressive Judges or Conservative Judges. It's easy to see the philosophical leanings of all of them in how they have adjudicated in the past.
Don't try to act like it's only "conservative" judges that fall into that. The only real problem with the current court is they aren't ruling in favor of progressive concerns and decided to esque precedent on some issues to reexamine and reevaluate what some consider settled arguments.
—so I’m not totally sure what you meant to say, but their disregard for precedent is a serious issue actually. It’s not a minor thing.decided to esque precedent on some issues
Everyone here knows you're an old fool. If you're actually serious, I'm glad people who think like you are gone from leadership positions in the next 15-20 years. If you think for a second that Thomas should still be on the SC, you're a traitor to what this country is really about.
That's the lefts bullshit go to when they got nothing. If you don't support men in women's and girls shower the you're a closet gay or something.
Fuck giving up and compromising unless we get what we want.
Fuck the strings attached. Fuck all they other shit they want to force on us.
WTF are you talking about they don't base their decisions on precedent they set the precedent as per the constitution.
You're being disingenuous, and you know you are. I'm sure you think it's valid to say that the justices on the right give "reasons" for their decisions...despite everyone tacitly understanding that the public legal reasoning for those decisions made from the bench is always some contorted inconsistent view tailored to the topic at hand and has little to do with the actual "reasoning" behind those decisions.Every judge rules based on their interpretation of the law. Their decisions are always going to be informed by their ideologies, some more than others, but always.
It's why there are even terms like Liberal or Progressive Judges or Conservative Judges. It's easy to see the philosophical leanings of all of them in how they have adjudicated in the past.
Don't try to act like it's only "conservative" judges that fall into that. The only real problem with the current court is they aren't ruling in favor of progressive concerns and decided to esque precedent on some issues to reexamine and reevaluate what some consider settled arguments.