MLD Woody Posted March 20, 2016 Report Share Posted March 20, 2016 You don't want a moderate. You'd view an actual moderate as a liberal. You want a full blown conservative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 20, 2016 Report Share Posted March 20, 2016 Woody, any "moderate" that wants to take down the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans, and wants to pander to the left over unlimited abortion... is a freaking liberal. If the Constitution isn't sacred to the nominee, they must not ever be a Justice. Plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted March 20, 2016 Report Share Posted March 20, 2016 The republicans are better off rolling the dice on this one. This *moderate* is only a moderate in comparison to the ultra left justices Obama has already put on the court. He is not a moderate in comparison the the justice he is replacing Anthony Scalia. The republicans may lose the senate anyway and no guarantees even if they confirm this justice it will give them a win as a republican in a blue state. I would recommend however a change of heart in November if Clinton wins and that a lame duck senate confirm the guy ASAP before she takes office. It would be a goodwill gesture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 20, 2016 Report Share Posted March 20, 2016 This is exactly what I said obama should do. It's a smart nomination that nobody should be able to object to too greatly. If the republicans go out of their way to block it they look like big bags of douche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 20, 2016 Report Share Posted March 20, 2016 Here's what the supreme court can't do: actually come and take your guns away. It's utterly impossible. And if they tried I'd bury mine somewhere in the vast expanse of my back field and Gee whiz, they got lost when my canoe flipped over in the river or some other such story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 20, 2016 Report Share Posted March 20, 2016 I've even got a couple that were so cheap that I could sacrifice them in the name of appeasement. Hi-point, I'm looking at you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted March 20, 2016 Report Share Posted March 20, 2016 Woody, any "moderate" that wants to take down the 2nd Amendment rights of Americans, and wants to pander to the left over unlimited abortion... is a freaking liberal. If the Constitution isn't sacred to the nominee, they must not ever be a Justice. Plain and simple. Where did he say he was coming for your guns? Cal, you're so far right you don't know what a moderate is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 20, 2016 Report Share Posted March 20, 2016 nobody said anything about him coming after guns, you idiot. This justice easily makes the other 4 pro-gun control justices automatically dangerous to the rights of all gun owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted March 20, 2016 Report Share Posted March 20, 2016 Oh, I'm sorry. You said "take down the 2nd amendment rights of Americans". Completely different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 20, 2016 Report Share Posted March 20, 2016 not at all. This Obamao nominee would cinch the rule of the extreme left justices that enjoy pandering to the left by ignoring the Constitution as a basis of decisions, and instead, using their own social mores as law. Obamao wants to tip the court to the left. The guy is a good guy, except he will tip the court to the left, on the major issues of abortion and gun rights, and probably gay marriage decisions in the future, too. Arguing that it won't happen is nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted March 20, 2016 Report Share Posted March 20, 2016 If the majority of people in the US are pro gay marriage, wouldn't the Supreme Court tipping that way just reflect the will of the people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted March 20, 2016 Report Share Posted March 20, 2016 A court with a conservative bent already legalized gay marriage so...what are you afraid of? The deed is already done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted March 20, 2016 Report Share Posted March 20, 2016 A court with a conservative bent already legalized gay marriage so...what are you afraid of...? An efficiently operating judicial branch, apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 20, 2016 Report Share Posted March 20, 2016 and yet, liberal nominee goes and tried to have a "Revisit" on the Heller case. Plain and simple, with a republican president, all the dems railed against any kind of litmus test. But with a dem, they are all in on litmus tests. Typical. The dems flip sides on issues the instant they realize THEY HAVE A POLITICAL ADVANTAGE. With reps, they don't - they nominated Robertson, who ended up going with the perversion of gay marriage because his sister is gay. Not one liberal member of the court has voted on the conservative side, ever, to my understanding. Always in lock step with the democratic platform. STICK TO THE CONSTITUTION, and in the highest court of them all... activist judges who go with personal political and social emotions and ignore our CONSTITUTION...should be disbarred, and rendered jobless.. http://www.tampabay.com/news/nation/garland-would-move-supreme-court-to-left-but-how-far/2270026 http://freebeacon.com/issues/obama-supreme-court-nominee-has-anti-gun-record/ http://www.reviewjournal.com/politics/heller-joins-fellow-republicans-opposes-obama-high-court-nomination Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 1) both sides flip when it helps them 2) social issues moving to the liberal view is the natural progression of things. It makes sense on non liberal justice would vote on the "liberal" side of a social issue 3) what does the constitution say about gay marriage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 1. Some do, some don't. Scalia did not. He went by the Constitution. 2. Social issues are not to be solved by the Supreme Court ignoring our Constitution. 3. It doesn't. That means the Supreme Court, nor any court, has NO right to rule in favor of the left just because they want to. GET IT? The court overruled entire states' legislation. That won't stand over time. Learn how to look stuff up yourself. You seem to ask questions as childish "gotchas" because you don't do your own research. http://www.suanews.com/constitution/gay-marriage-what-does-our-constitution-say.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 Can we add to it / amend it / etc? You're saying that because it doesn't say anything about it, the federal govt doesn't have the right to make a law about it? Haven't we done that in the past though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 Can we add to it / amend it / etc? You're saying that because it doesn't say anything about it, the federal govt doesn't have the right to make a law about it? Haven't we done that in the past though? You are calling for a constitutional amendment? Best of luck. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 Woody, of course we can ADD amendments to clarify and emphasize rights. but seriously, why does a minority, referring to gays, have a right to demand that they have the right to force the rest of America to redefine an age-old institution, called MARRIAGE? Why? I understand if they demand that civil unions be just as legally accepted and equal in standing to Real Marriage. But forcing a perversion of the actual real thing? What the hell? And, Woody, "the federal gov" never makes a law about anything. Courts do not make law. The highest law in our country is our Constitution. Congress passes federal laws, as reps and sens represent the citizens of our country. Not the exec branch. Not the judicial branch. Activist gays in this country could have done it right, working to establish civil unions as legally accepted as in the institution of Real Marriage. But that wouldn't be a leftist/marxist Don Quixote rage at windmills, then, would it? It also wouldn't be a slap in the face of conversative American life. So, some gay judges had to stick their leftwing noses into the mix, and make Real Marriage into something it is not. And that, is the rest of the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted March 21, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 "Gosh darn minorities and their wanting equality. Minorities should just do as they're told and shut up! They're lucky we let them live in our god fearing country at all, let alone try and have the same rights as us normal folk." Meanwhile, republicans freak out about white people becoming a minority, as if there is something bad about being a minority in the US? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 "Gosh darn minorities and their wanting equality. Minorities should just do as they're told and shut up! They're lucky we let them live in our god fearing country at all, let alone try and have the same rights as us normal folk." Meanwhile, republicans freak out about white people becoming a minority, as if there is something bad about being a minority in the US? Well how many Border Collies are there in the world and how many cockroaches? At any rate I'd be surprised, very surprised, if those who are crying about minority rights will finally shut the fuck up once white people are the minority. I say there's too much profit to be made and bitching about slavery a few hundred years ago. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted March 21, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 Well how many Border Collies are there in the world and how many cockroaches? At any rate I'd be surprised, very surprised, if those who are crying about minority rights will finally shut the fuck up once white people are the minority. I say there's too much profit to be made and bitching about slavery a few hundred years ago. WSS I suspect people will continue complaining about not having fair representation (something I would expect all REAL AMERICANS to identify with) as long as the senate and congress continue be whiter than a polar bear convention on an iceberg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 I suspect people will continue complaining about not having fair representation (something I would expect all REAL AMERICANS to identify with) as long as the senate and congress continue be whiter than a polar bear convention on an iceberg. Fair representation? That's actually funny. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted March 21, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 Fair representation? That's actually funny. WSS Well I should hope so, I put that in there for comedy value... But seriously though. The US, along with the UK and most other countries tends to be run by mainly rich white men (along with a few rich white females) for the benefit of rich white people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 Well I should hope so, I put that in there for comedy value... But seriously though. The US, along with the UK and most other countries tends to be run by mainly rich white men (along with a few rich white females) for the benefit of rich white people. So you propose affirmative action in which we select people 4 positions of power on the color of their skin? Assuming that a Caucasian cannot represent more than caucasians? Unfortunately that is a school of thought and a stupid one in my opinion.I know it's easier for some of you to blame racism, which doesn't really exist very much, for the ills of the world because black people are usually poor and more prone to be uneducated and violent. I think that's part of a shitty culture that some of them embrace because it's fed to them by disingenuous whites pretending to bribe them for their support. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted March 21, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 "So you propose affirmative action in which we select people 4 positions of power on the color of their skin? " Yes, that must be what I mean...! You have some odd logical conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 "So you propose affirmative action in which we select people 4 positions of power on the color of their skin? " Yes, that must be what I mean...! You have some odd logical conclusions. I think it's you that has the problem. If it's your position that blacks aren't represented only because the people in charge have a different skin color it's ridiculous. Am I not represented here in the United States because the president is African American? Are white people in Cleveland not represented because Frank Jackson is black? Why else would you feel non represented? Do the Democrats not carry the blacks water? Maybe you could explain that. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 So you propose affirmative action in which we select people 4 positions of power on the color of their skin? Assuming that a Caucasian cannot represent more than caucasians? Unfortunately that is a school of thought and a stupid one in my opinion. I know it's easier for some of you to blame racism, which doesn't really exist very much, for the ills of the world because black people are usually poor and more prone to be uneducated and violent. I think that's part of a shitty culture that some of them embrace because it's fed to them by disingenuous whites pretending to bribe them for their support. WSS Racism "doesn't really exist very much"? Interesting. I also don't see where Chris was advocating for race based AA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 Then read it again Woody and think just a little bit. Says that the world is run by old white people and some people don't think they're represented. I say between the 95% that vote Democrats and the fact that Democrats are pretty successful says that at least here in the United States they are represented. So in order to change that what do you propose that wouldn't be called affirmative action? We've already lowered the standards for college entrance, fire departments, post office work and police force because the powers-that-be don't believe minorities are represented enough in those fields. So there's a bigger chance that in a country where there's three or 4% (or 13%) blacks most of the people running things will not be black. Makes sense? And keep in mind that of that 13% there is much more illiteracy substandard education more poverty violent crime . That's not the folks that usually windup as scions of society . And let's say on the African continent they are represented quite well in seats of power. How's that working out? Frankly, and you should know this, I don't care at all about racism and what you guys call racism is not really racism anyway. And it's well within the power of the black community to change that. It's just that the people who can are unfortunately in the minority these days. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted March 22, 2016 Report Share Posted March 22, 2016 1) Being a condescending asshole doesn't make your point any better 2) What do I call racism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.