A new debate topic, that has barely been touched until now

Little-Acorn

Gold Member
Jun 20, 2006
10,025
2,410
290
San Diego, CA
The death of Antonin Scalia opens up a new and immediate debate topic, that has remained almost untouched so far.

"Would you vote for a U.S. Senator who would approve a "moderate" SC Justice, thus paving the way for more approvals of Obamacare, Eminent Domain permission, gun control, and "non-treaties" like the Iran Nuclear Agreement?"

"Would you vote for a President who would appoint an SC Justice who would continue to approve Obamacare, gun control, and warrantless wiretapping?"
 
The death of Antonin Scalia opens up a new and immediate debate topic, that has remained almost untouched so far.

"Would you vote for a U.S. Senator who would approve a "moderate" SC Justice, thus paving the way for more approvals of Obamacare, Eminent Domain permission, gun control, and "non-treaties" like the Iran Nuclear Agreement?"

"Would you vote for a President who would appoint an SC Justice who would continue to approve Obamacare, gun control, and warrantless wiretapping?"
I would try not to do so; however, what these guys do in office is often very different than their promises during their election campaigns.
 
The death of Antonin Scalia opens up a new and immediate debate topic, that has remained almost untouched so far.

"Would you vote for a U.S. Senator who would approve a "moderate" SC Justice, thus paving the way for more approvals of Obamacare, Eminent Domain permission, gun control, and "non-treaties" like the Iran Nuclear Agreement?"

"Would you vote for a President who would appoint an SC Justice who would continue to approve Obamacare, gun control, and warrantless wiretapping?"
No never
 
The death of Antonin Scalia opens up a new and immediate debate topic, that has remained almost untouched so far.

"Would you vote for a U.S. Senator who would approve a "moderate" SC Justice, thus paving the way for more approvals of Obamacare, Eminent Domain permission, gun control, and "non-treaties" like the Iran Nuclear Agreement?"

"Would you vote for a President who would appoint an SC Justice who would continue to approve Obamacare, gun control, and warrantless wiretapping?"

Yes and make sure none of the duties of a Supreme Court justice are addressed in the question. Only a hyper-partisan response is acceptable, constitution be damned.

:rolleyes:
 
The death of Antonin Scalia opens up a new and immediate debate topic, that has remained almost untouched so far.

"Would you vote for a U.S. Senator who would approve a "moderate" SC Justice, thus paving the way for more approvals of Obamacare, Eminent Domain permission, gun control, and "non-treaties" like the Iran Nuclear Agreement?"

"Would you vote for a President who would appoint an SC Justice who would continue to approve Obamacare, gun control, and warrantless wiretapping?"

with Roberts and 4 liberal justices there is no risk to Obamacare with or without a conservative justice. Roberts showed his true color in rewriting Obamacare law.

With Roberts I don't see whomever they appoint making much of a difference.
 
The death of Antonin Scalia opens up a new and immediate debate topic, that has remained almost untouched so far.

"Would you vote for a U.S. Senator who would approve a "moderate" SC Justice, thus paving the way for more approvals of Obamacare, Eminent Domain permission, gun control, and "non-treaties" like the Iran Nuclear Agreement?"

"Would you vote for a President who would appoint an SC Justice who would continue to approve Obamacare, gun control, and warrantless wiretapping?"
I would vote for a senator who acknowledges and respects settled and accepted Constitutional jurisprudence – including a woman's right to privacy, the equal protection rights of gay Americans, government's responsibility to enact necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause, and who supports and defends the right of all Americans to vote.

Such a senator would consequently vote for a Supreme Court nominee qualified to serve in that capacity.
 
The death of Antonin Scalia opens up a new and immediate debate topic, that has remained almost untouched so far.

"Would you vote for a U.S. Senator who would approve a "moderate" SC Justice, thus paving the way for more approvals of Obamacare, Eminent Domain permission, gun control, and "non-treaties" like the Iran Nuclear Agreement?"

"Would you vote for a President who would appoint an SC Justice who would continue to approve Obamacare, gun control, and warrantless wiretapping?"

Yes and make sure none of the duties of a Supreme Court justice are addressed in the question. Only a hyper-partisan response is acceptable, constitution be damned.

:rolleyes:

Well the court shit on the Constitution when it declared the government had a right to force it's citizens to buy any product it deemed necessary to the public good.

So looks like the Constitution is already damned doesn't it.
 
The death of Antonin Scalia opens up a new and immediate debate topic, that has remained almost untouched so far.

"Would you vote for a U.S. Senator who would approve a "moderate" SC Justice, thus paving the way for more approvals of Obamacare, Eminent Domain permission, gun control, and "non-treaties" like the Iran Nuclear Agreement?"

"Would you vote for a President who would appoint an SC Justice who would continue to approve Obamacare, gun control, and warrantless wiretapping?"

you know, that's a fair question. me? i want a president who will appoint justices who aren't theocrats who think satan is a living being and who know what our body of caselaw actually stands for.
 
The death of Antonin Scalia opens up a new and immediate debate topic, that has remained almost untouched so far.

"Would you vote for a U.S. Senator who would approve a "moderate" SC Justice, thus paving the way for more approvals of Obamacare, Eminent Domain permission, gun control, and "non-treaties" like the Iran Nuclear Agreement?"

"Would you vote for a President who would appoint an SC Justice who would continue to approve Obamacare, gun control, and warrantless wiretapping?"

Yes and make sure none of the duties of a Supreme Court justice are addressed in the question. Only a hyper-partisan response is acceptable, constitution be damned.

:rolleyes:

Well the court shit on the Constitution when it declared the government had a right to force it's citizens to buy any product it deemed necessary to the public good.

So looks like the Constitution is already damned doesn't it.

no, moron. the court made an appropriate ruling because the federal government has every ability to legislate all matters in interstate commerce.

but thanks for your pretend constitutional expertise.
 
Idiotic thread. Now, more than ever, it is clear that that nation needs Ted Cruz as President of for no other reason that court appointments.

Our nation is now in the hands of the Republicans in the Senate.
 
The death of Antonin Scalia opens up a new and immediate debate topic, that has remained almost untouched so far.

"Would you vote for a U.S. Senator who would approve a "moderate" SC Justice, thus paving the way for more approvals of Obamacare, Eminent Domain permission, gun control, and "non-treaties" like the Iran Nuclear Agreement?"

"Would you vote for a President who would appoint an SC Justice who would continue to approve Obamacare, gun control, and warrantless wiretapping?"

Yes and make sure none of the duties of a Supreme Court justice are addressed in the question. Only a hyper-partisan response is acceptable, constitution be damned.

:rolleyes:

Well the court shit on the Constitution when it declared the government had a right to force it's citizens to buy any product it deemed necessary to the public good.

So looks like the Constitution is already damned doesn't it.

no, moron. the court made an appropriate ruling because the federal government has every ability to legislate all matters in interstate commerce.

but thanks for your pretend constitutional expertise.

So you're saying you're perfectly fine with the government requiring the purchase of a product which 100% benefits the Republican Party.

You see, you forfeited the right to object when you cheered that idiocy.
 
The death of Antonin Scalia opens up a new and immediate debate topic, that has remained almost untouched so far.

"Would you vote for a U.S. Senator who would approve a "moderate" SC Justice, thus paving the way for more approvals of Obamacare, Eminent Domain permission, gun control, and "non-treaties" like the Iran Nuclear Agreement?"

"Would you vote for a President who would appoint an SC Justice who would continue to approve Obamacare, gun control, and warrantless wiretapping?"

Yes and make sure none of the duties of a Supreme Court justice are addressed in the question. Only a hyper-partisan response is acceptable, constitution be damned.

:rolleyes:

Well the court shit on the Constitution when it declared the government had a right to force it's citizens to buy any product it deemed necessary to the public good.

So looks like the Constitution is already damned doesn't it.

no, moron. the court made an appropriate ruling because the federal government has every ability to legislate all matters in interstate commerce.

but thanks for your pretend constitutional expertise.

So you're saying you're perfectly fine with the government requiring the purchase of a product which 100% benefits the Republican Party.

You see, you forfeited the right to object when you cheered that idiocy.

i'm saying it wasn't a violation of the constitution.
 
The death of Antonin Scalia opens up a new and immediate debate topic, that has remained almost untouched so far.

"Would you vote for a U.S. Senator who would approve a "moderate" SC Justice, thus paving the way for more approvals of Obamacare, Eminent Domain permission, gun control, and "non-treaties" like the Iran Nuclear Agreement?"

"Would you vote for a President who would appoint an SC Justice who would continue to approve Obamacare, gun control, and warrantless wiretapping?"

Yes and make sure none of the duties of a Supreme Court justice are addressed in the question. Only a hyper-partisan response is acceptable, constitution be damned.

:rolleyes:

Well the court shit on the Constitution when it declared the government had a right to force it's citizens to buy any product it deemed necessary to the public good.

So looks like the Constitution is already damned doesn't it.

no, moron. the court made an appropriate ruling because the federal government has every ability to legislate all matters in interstate commerce.

but thanks for your pretend constitutional expertise.

So you're saying you're perfectly fine with the government requiring the purchase of a product which 100% benefits the Republican Party.

You see, you forfeited the right to object when you cheered that idiocy.

i'm saying it wasn't a violation of the constitution.

If you can't see that violates the constitution, you, and 5 morons are beyond hope.

I just showed you an illustration of what kind of a weapon you're willing to put in the hands of those who have it....because you like the people who wield it now.

When someone can wield it you don't, you will sing a very different tune.
 
The death of Antonin Scalia opens up a new and immediate debate topic, that has remained almost untouched so far.

"Would you vote for a U.S. Senator who would approve a "moderate" SC Justice, thus paving the way for more approvals of Obamacare, Eminent Domain permission, gun control, and "non-treaties" like the Iran Nuclear Agreement?"

"Would you vote for a President who would appoint an SC Justice who would continue to approve Obamacare, gun control, and warrantless wiretapping?"

Yes and make sure none of the duties of a Supreme Court justice are addressed in the question. Only a hyper-partisan response is acceptable, constitution be damned.

:rolleyes:

Well the court shit on the Constitution when it declared the government had a right to force it's citizens to buy any product it deemed necessary to the public good.

So looks like the Constitution is already damned doesn't it.

no, moron. the court made an appropriate ruling because the federal government has every ability to legislate all matters in interstate commerce.

but thanks for your pretend constitutional expertise.

So you're saying you're perfectly fine with the government requiring the purchase of a product which 100% benefits the Republican Party.

You see, you forfeited the right to object when you cheered that idiocy.
Perhaps there should be a law that requires everyone to buy a gun or pay a $1,000 tax.
 
The death of Antonin Scalia opens up a new and immediate debate topic, that has remained almost untouched so far.

"Would you vote for a U.S. Senator who would approve a "moderate" SC Justice, thus paving the way for more approvals of Obamacare, Eminent Domain permission, gun control, and "non-treaties" like the Iran Nuclear Agreement?"

"Would you vote for a President who would appoint an SC Justice who would continue to approve Obamacare, gun control, and warrantless wiretapping?"

Yes and make sure none of the duties of a Supreme Court justice are addressed in the question. Only a hyper-partisan response is acceptable, constitution be damned.

:rolleyes:

Well the court shit on the Constitution when it declared the government had a right to force it's citizens to buy any product it deemed necessary to the public good.

So looks like the Constitution is already damned doesn't it.

no, moron. the court made an appropriate ruling because the federal government has every ability to legislate all matters in interstate commerce.

but thanks for your pretend constitutional expertise.

That's not what the decision says at all.
 

Forum List

Back
Top