Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
  On 5/29/2019 at 12:51 AM, TrueBlueGED said:

Indeed! Yes, those who go down this road will be insulted by the very notion it's partisanship at work. 

Expand  

The correct reply would have been, Shut up you, I'm trolling.

I would also have accepted "LOL".

Edited by Weave
Posted
  On 5/29/2019 at 12:09 AM, TrueBlueGED said:

Today, Mitch McConnell said if a Supreme Court vacancy happens in 2020, the Senate will fill it. This is, of course, wholly unsurprising. What's going to be funny is watching everyone who twisted themselves into pretzels to make (really bad) arguments about why it's appropriate to hold a seat open during a presidential election year suddenly make arguments as to why a vacancy must be filled ASAP regardless of timing on the political calendar. 

Expand  

Because McConnell is a giant hypocrite with no moral compass. The best thing that can happen in this country is that he can leave office. He's an old white guy completely out of touch with what people want and only in touch with what gets him more money or power. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
  On 5/28/2019 at 1:22 PM, LGR4GM said:

What? I am lost. I get where your going with the far right media stuff but got lost at the end. Is that what they will say of people who don't agree with them? 

Expand  

You mean, if you don't agree with them, it is because you hate America?  Oh, yeah.  That is open-and-shut.

  On 5/29/2019 at 12:22 PM, LGR4GM said:

Because McConnell is a giant hypocrite with no moral compass. The best thing that can happen in this country is that he can leave office. He's an old white guy completely out of touch with what people want and only in touch with what gets him more money or power. 

Expand  

Agreed.  There are many for whom the partisan battle has eviscerated their moral compasses.  The idea of putting aside partisan gains for the good of the country seems to be lost with the exception of people like Justin Amash.

 

Posted
  On 5/27/2019 at 12:46 PM, 5th line wingnutt said:

There is no such thing as "settled law".  The New Deal court of the mid 1930s overturned precedents that were a over century old.

Expand  

This did not happen.  The Supreme Court has overturned itself three times.  None of them were in the 1930s.

Posted
  On 5/31/2019 at 12:28 AM, Eleven said:

This did not happen.  The Supreme Court has overturned itself three times.  None of them were in the 1930s.

Expand  

You better listen to him, Wingnut.  He's in pre-med.

Posted
  On 5/31/2019 at 12:28 AM, Eleven said:

This did not happen.  The Supreme Court has overturned itself three times.  None of them were in the 1930s.

Expand  

I did not say SCOTUS overturned itself.  I said precedents were overturned.

Precedents are established when legislatures pass laws, when administrative agencies establish regulation, when courts issue rulings.  A large body of precedents were established when the constitution was ratified.  The new deal court radically overturned the understanding of what the constitution meant.

Posted
  On 6/5/2019 at 12:10 AM, 5th line wingnutt said:

I did not say SCOTUS overturned itself.  I said precedents were overturned.

Precedents are established when legislatures pass laws, when administrative agencies establish regulation, when courts issue rulings.  A large body of precedents were established when the constitution was ratified.  The new deal court radically overturned the understanding of what the constitution meant.

Expand  

Precedent is established when a court issues a ruling, and not through the enactment of laws or promulgation of regulations.  And, of course, the only precedent binding on SCOTUS, if binding even is the right word, are its own prior rulings.

  • 5 weeks later...
×
×
  • Create New...