Let me just remind you...

[TemplarKormac]

The Supreme Court holds the same legitimacy whether it rules for or against something you support. It ruled in favor of this travel ban today, Republicans cheered, Democrats lamented. In 2012 the court upheld Obamacare. Democrats cheered, Republicans lamented.

The one thing those two things had in common was that one side hailed the legitimacy of the court while the other questioned it. You can't do that. Either they are, or they aren't a legitimate court, they either are or aren't activists. It is pretty dishonest to change your opinion of the court simply when it rules for or against something you support politically or ideologically.

So, let me remind you, what the court says, goes. Whether you like it or not.

 

[candycorn]

That the Supreme Court holds the same legitimacy whether it rules for or against something you support. It ruled in favor of this travel ban today, Republicans cheered, Democrats lamented. In 2012 the court upheld Obamacare. Democrats cheered, Republicans lamented.

The one thing this had in common was that one side hailed the legitimacy of the court while the other questioned it. You can't do that. Either they are, or they aren't a legitimate court, they either are or aren't activists. It is pretty dishonest to change your opinion of the court simply when it rules for or against something you support politically or ideologically.

So, let me remind you, what the court says, goes. Whether you like it or not.

Should be interesting if they have to rule on self pardons....where you come down

 

[TheOldSchool]

That the Supreme Court holds the same legitimacy whether it rules for or against something you support. It ruled in favor of this travel ban today, Republicans cheered, Democrats lamented. In 2012 the court upheld Obamacare. Democrats cheered, Republicans lamented.

The one thing this had in common was that one side hailed the legitimacy of the court while the other questioned it. You can't do that. Either they are, or they aren't a legitimate court, they either are or aren't activists. It is pretty dishonest to change your opinion of the court simply when it rules for or against something you support politically or ideologically.

So, let me remind you, what the court says, goes. Whether you like it or not.

It's legitimate, despite the GOP's efforts to turn the court into a joke with the Garland blocking.

 

[jc456]

That the Supreme Court holds the same legitimacy whether it rules for or against something you support. It ruled in favor of this travel ban today, Republicans cheered, Democrats lamented. In 2012 the court upheld Obamacare. Democrats cheered, Republicans lamented.

The one thing this had in common was that one side hailed the legitimacy of the court while the other questioned it. You can't do that. Either they are, or they aren't a legitimate court, they either are or aren't activists. It is pretty dishonest to change your opinion of the court simply when it rules for or against something you support politically or ideologically.

So, let me remind you, what the court says, goes. Whether you like it or not.

It's legitimate, despite the GOP's efforts to turn the court into a joke with the Garland blocking.

after the dems took out antonin scalia

 

[TemplarKormac]

That the Supreme Court holds the same legitimacy whether it rules for or against something you support. It ruled in favor of this travel ban today, Republicans cheered, Democrats lamented. In 2012 the court upheld Obamacare. Democrats cheered, Republicans lamented.

The one thing this had in common was that one side hailed the legitimacy of the court while the other questioned it. You can't do that. Either they are, or they aren't a legitimate court, they either are or aren't activists. It is pretty dishonest to change your opinion of the court simply when it rules for or against something you support politically or ideologically.

So, let me remind you, what the court says, goes. Whether you like it or not.

Should be interesting if they have to rule on self pardons....where you come down

I am against self pardons. What, did you think I was a blind Trump supporter? I will drop him the moment he starts legitimately abusing his powers.

 

[Dschrute3]

Get the Supreme Court. The courts run the show now. We have to accept that. Right now, it's a slim 5-4 advantage for Pro-America/Constitution Judges. But if Trump can 1 or 2 more Justices appointed, it could end up 7-2 in their favor. And that would amount to a Coup d'etat. The NWO Globalists would be finished for many years. Hopefully he'll at least get one more in there. But 2 more, would be an absolute dream come true.

 

[candycorn]

That the Supreme Court holds the same legitimacy whether it rules for or against something you support. It ruled in favor of this travel ban today, Republicans cheered, Democrats lamented. In 2012 the court upheld Obamacare. Democrats cheered, Republicans lamented.

The one thing this had in common was that one side hailed the legitimacy of the court while the other questioned it. You can't do that. Either they are, or they aren't a legitimate court, they either are or aren't activists. It is pretty dishonest to change your opinion of the court simply when it rules for or against something you support politically or ideologically.

So, let me remind you, what the court says, goes. Whether you like it or not.

Should be interesting if they have to rule on self pardons....where you come down

I am against self pardons. What, did you think I was a blind Trump supporter? I will drop him the moment he starts legitimately abusing his powers.

We’ll see where you are when/if it happens.

Will you call out any Conservative who sees it as his constitutional right to pardon himself? Meaning that he can rape someone and murder their husband and then grant himself a pardon and still get in 3 rounds at Mar-a-Largo by sunset.

 

[candycorn]

Get the Supreme Court. The courts run the show now. We have to accept that. Right now, it's a slim 5-4 advantage for Pro-America/Constitution Judges. But if Trump can 1 or 2 more Justices appointed, it could end up 7-2 in their favor. And that would amount to a Coup d'etat. The NWO Globalists would be finished for many years. Hopefully he'll at least get one more in there. But 2 more, would be an absolute dream come true.

He is an NWO globalist.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Dschrute3

Packing the courts ruins the legitimacy of their rulings. Never should we favor a lopsided court. Both sides should be equally represented when ruling on the merits of the law.

 

[hazlnut]

That the Supreme Court holds the same legitimacy whether it rules for or against something you support. It ruled in favor of this travel ban today, Republicans cheered, Democrats lamented. In 2012 the court upheld Obamacare. Democrats cheered, Republicans lamented.

The one thing those two things had in common was that one side hailed the legitimacy of the court while the other questioned it. You can't do that. Either they are, or they aren't a legitimate court, they either are or aren't activists. It is pretty dishonest to change your opinion of the court simply when it rules for or against something you support politically or ideologically.

So, let me remind you, what the court says, goes. Whether you like it or not.

Great post.

Yeah, I don't think we'll hear Huckabee screaming about "unelected lawyers" with this decision. (like he did for the marriage equality ruling)

 

[TemplarKormac]

Will you call out any Conservative who sees it as his constitutional right to pardon himself?

Well, right now it is. Whether I like it or not is irrelevant.

Meaning that he can rape someone and murder their husband and then grant himself a pardon and still get in 3 rounds at Mar-a-Largo by sunset.

If he ever does something so horrendous, he should be arrested on the spot. I can't imagine him being so corrupt and so vile as to prey on women and use his constitutional power to pardon to absolve himself of the consequences.

 

[candycorn]

If we get a Democrat controlled Senate, there will be no new justices until we do not have one or until there is a Democrat making the nominations.

Are Republicans okay with that?

 

[candycorn]

Will you call out any Conservative who sees it as his constitutional right to pardon himself?

Well, right now it is. Whether I like it or not is irrelevant.

Meaning that he can rape someone and murder their husband and then grant himself a pardon and still get in 3 rounds at Mar-a-Largo by sunset.

If he ever does something so horrendous, he should be arrested on the spot. I can't imagine him being so corrupt and so vile as to prey on women and use his constitutional power to pardon to absolve himself of the consequences.

Yeah, he wouldn’t grab em by the pussy or anything like that…would he?

 

[mdk]

That the Supreme Court holds the same legitimacy whether it rules for or against something you support. It ruled in favor of this travel ban today, Republicans cheered, Democrats lamented. In 2012 the court upheld Obamacare. Democrats cheered, Republicans lamented.

The one thing this had in common was that one side hailed the legitimacy of the court while the other questioned it. You can't do that. Either they are, or they aren't a legitimate court, they either are or aren't activists. It is pretty dishonest to change your opinion of the court simply when it rules for or against something you support politically or ideologically.

So, let me remind you, what the court says, goes. Whether you like it or not.

It's legitimate, despite the GOP's efforts to turn the court into a joke with the Garland blocking.

after the dems took out antonin scalia

Justice Scalia’s coronary artery disease, obesity, diabetes, and, a whole host of other ailments had nothing to do with his death. It was the dems that took him out.

 

[TNHarley]

Sure, what they say goes.
However, that doesnt make them right. They have raping the Constitution for generations.

 

[Dschrute3]

Dschrute3

Packing the courts ruins the legitimacy of their rulings. Never should we favor a lopsided court. Both sides should be equally represented when ruling on the merits of the law.

I hear ya, but that's a fairy tale notion at this point. The reality is, you get the Courts, you run the show. If Trump can get it to at least 6-3, that would be a big blow to the NWO Globalists. Their Open Borders Agenda, and others, would be all done for awhile. And my Lord, if he can get it 7-2, it's Game Over for the NWO Globalists. They'd be done for a very long time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Templar's OP is generally correct, as is the principle to work against the ruling in every legal ways as possible if you disagree with it.

 

[mdk]

Is anyone really surprised by the this ruling? The Supreme Court has always given the Executive Branch wide latitude in these matters. Hell, it would have been a 9-zip decision if isn’t wasn’t for Trump statements concerning Muslims.

 

[BULLDOG]

Dschrute3

Packing the courts ruins the legitimacy of their rulings. Never should we favor a lopsided court. Both sides should be equally represented when ruling on the merits of the law.

I hear ya, but that's a fairy tale notion at this point. The reality is, you get the Courts, you run the show. If Trump can get it to at least 6-3, that would be a big blow to the NWO Globalists. Their Open Borders Agenda, and others, would be all done for awhile. And my Lord, if he can get it 7-2, it's Game Over for the NWO Globalists. They'd be done for a very long time.

I wish you would make up your mind. Is it the NWO, the DEEP STATE, or the Bilderburgs? Somebody is calling the shots, but it can't be all of them. How would Bigfoot know which one to obey?

 

[BluesLegend]

Dschrute3

Packing the courts ruins the legitimacy of their rulings. Never should we favor a lopsided court. Both sides should be equally represented when ruling on the merits of the law.

Appointing FLAMING LIBERALS who ignore the Constitution in favor of their personal opinions is what ruins the legitimacy of the court. The right want's to pack the court with justices who will rule based on the Constitution not their personal feelings, that's not ruining the legitimacy of the court its restoring it.