One Candidate For President Disqualified Themselves Today

[OKTexas]

This is true but her attitude on picking one didn't include a strict interpretation of the constitution as written. I hate to admit it, but oktexas is right about this.

If we strictly interpret the Constitution as written, there is no language in the document that would have allowed the Louisiana Purchase, the creation of the Marines or the Air Force or the Coast Guard, NASA, FEMA or any number of vital government agencies.

Perhaps some would like to freeze time in the 1790's back when it was ratified. I think the majority of Americans would prefer the world of today vs the world of the 1790's. Up to and including the 20% or so of America who are African American. Of course strict constitutionalists would not know there is 20%. Given the 3/5 compromise, there would be only 12% of the nation since blacks are counted as 3/5 of a person....right?

All of that is true and I make that point in another post. There are SOME things we need that the constitution doesn't specify. However, interpreting the constitution as it is written is still important. Sure the military or FEMA are necessary, but when it comes to programs being created outside of the bounds of the constitution, where do you draw the line? There has to be an authority on what the government can or cannot create.

It may or may not be legal in some instances for me to publish your SSN.

There is no guarantee of privacy in the constitution.

The court has held that you can marry a same sex partner and enjoy the same rights as hetero marriages. But you can have your wedding on Saturday and be fired by your employer on Monday for no reason other than you got married.

Plenty of things outside of our vague constitution need to be deliberated.

Ok but again I ask, where do you draw the line? Where do we go from here when it comes to programs not specified by the constitution?

Keep asking....

I can't tell you. I do know that the nation is better with FEMA, the FAA, Marine Corps, Air Force, NASA, that we were able to make the LA Purchase, Alaska purchase, etc... All of which isn't spelled out in the Constitution.

At some point, the powers that be decided we needed a Department of Education. The result has been no improvement. So we should probably try something else. One thing I will agree with the conservatives about is that once a federal agency is formed, it will take an act of a vengeful God to get rid of it. The DOE isn't going anywhere and it's not delivering results. At the same time, maybe it should be applauded for maintaining grad rates???? Dunno.

I do know we could get rid of the TSA. This is a worthless organization.

Yep the worthless DOE has cost us over 2 trillion since it's inception, all to get less for more. I feel the same about TSA. I refuse to fly as long as they exist. There are many more unconstitutional agencies that are just as worthless.

 

[JQPublic1]

Voter suppression shows us what Republicans think of the constitution.

Overturning Citizens United is speech suppression in elections. Voter ID is constitutional, supreme court said so.

Typical GOPer. Doesn't know the difference between voter suppression and voter ID.

Regressives call vote ID voter suppression, haven't you been paying attention?

I don't know any regressive group except you Draconian conservatives. Here is what the Federal courts in North Carolina said about voter suppression by the Right.
NCvote

Federal Appeals Court Rules New NC Voting Laws Intended To Discriminate

A three-judge panel of the U.S Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit has found North Carolina's controversial GOP-backed voting restrictions were intended to discriminate against African American voters.

In the opinion, the panel of judges said that the law restricted voting in ways that "disproportionately affected African Americans" and that its provisions targeted "African Americans with almost surgical precision." It said the state's defense of the law was "meager."

I've read it, it will be overturned if we get a decent scotus replacement. They said blacks tended to vote more in the first 7 days of early voting, the new law provided for 10 days, there's no reason blacks can't continue to vote in the first 7 days. That's just one example where they got it wrong. The district court got it right.

You read it and you still don't know the difference between voter suppression and voter ID? You are either a liar or a moron… but that explains your party affiliation… typical GOPer. Don't let facts get in your way… nosireee!

 

[candycorn]

Ok, I'm confused... does it really matter who she wants as long as there is a Republican ruled Senate? They have to confirm the appointee in order for them to actually get the nomination. Otherwise Hillary will have to keep sending up new candidates until the Senate approves one.

Do you seriously think there is a shortage of left wing judges out there? Hell Harvard doesn't even require constitutional study to get a law degree any more, thanks to one of maobabas picks, Kagan.

I'm still not getting your point. Hillary has to walk a fine line of finding someone that might follow her ideas... yet they have to be conservative enough that the Senate will approve them. Crazy thing is, they have to replace Scalia... but isn't Thomas about to retire too?

The next president could be nominating as many as 4. That's why it can't be the hildabitch.

It will be. Too bad, so sad.

Shoulda nominated someone else. This is why the GOP is the Party of Stupid.

 

[OKTexas]

Overturning Citizens United is speech suppression in elections. Voter ID is constitutional, supreme court said so.

Typical GOPer. Doesn't know the difference between voter suppression and voter ID.

Regressives call vote ID voter suppression, haven't you been paying attention?

I don't know any regressive group except you Draconian conservatives. Here is what the Federal courts in North Carolina said about voter suppression by the Right.
NCvote

Federal Appeals Court Rules New NC Voting Laws Intended To Discriminate

A three-judge panel of the U.S Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit has found North Carolina's controversial GOP-backed voting restrictions were intended to discriminate against African American voters.

In the opinion, the panel of judges said that the law restricted voting in ways that "disproportionately affected African Americans" and that its provisions targeted "African Americans with almost surgical precision." It said the state's defense of the law was "meager."

I've read it, it will be overturned if we get a decent scotus replacement. They said blacks tended to vote more in the first 7 days of early voting, the new law provided for 10 days, there's no reason blacks can't continue to vote in the first 7 days. That's just one example where they got it wrong. The district court got it right.

You read it and you still don't know the difference between voter suppression and voter ID? You are either a liar or a moron… but that explains your party affiliation… typical GOPer. Don't let facts get in your way… nosireee!

You must have take the short bus to school or you're just not paying attention. I said you regressives call voter ID voter suppression, get it. So you might want to explain the difference to them.

 

[OKTexas]

Ok, I'm confused... does it really matter who she wants as long as there is a Republican ruled Senate? They have to confirm the appointee in order for them to actually get the nomination. Otherwise Hillary will have to keep sending up new candidates until the Senate approves one.

Do you seriously think there is a shortage of left wing judges out there? Hell Harvard doesn't even require constitutional study to get a law degree any more, thanks to one of maobabas picks, Kagan.

I'm still not getting your point. Hillary has to walk a fine line of finding someone that might follow her ideas... yet they have to be conservative enough that the Senate will approve them. Crazy thing is, they have to replace Scalia... but isn't Thomas about to retire too?

The next president could be nominating as many as 4. That's why it can't be the hildabitch.

It will be. Too bad, so sad.

Shoulda nominated someone else. This is why the GOP is the Party of Stupid.

We've already been down this road, not going there again.

 

[candycorn]

Ok, I'm confused... does it really matter who she wants as long as there is a Republican ruled Senate? They have to confirm the appointee in order for them to actually get the nomination. Otherwise Hillary will have to keep sending up new candidates until the Senate approves one.

Do you seriously think there is a shortage of left wing judges out there? Hell Harvard doesn't even require constitutional study to get a law degree any more, thanks to one of maobabas picks, Kagan.

I'm still not getting your point. Hillary has to walk a fine line of finding someone that might follow her ideas... yet they have to be conservative enough that the Senate will approve them. Crazy thing is, they have to replace Scalia... but isn't Thomas about to retire too?

The next president could be nominating as many as 4. That's why it can't be the hildabitch.

It will be. Too bad, so sad.

Shoulda nominated someone else. This is why the GOP is the Party of Stupid.

We've already been down this road, not going there again.

Can't blame you for not wanting to own up to it. Must be painful to know that almost anyone else in the GOP clown car could have fared much better against Ms. Clinton.

Failure thy name is GOP.

 

[Billy000]

This is true but her attitude on picking one didn't include a strict interpretation of the constitution as written. I hate to admit it, but oktexas is right about this.

If we strictly interpret the Constitution as written, there is no language in the document that would have allowed the Louisiana Purchase, the creation of the Marines or the Air Force or the Coast Guard, NASA, FEMA or any number of vital government agencies.

Perhaps some would like to freeze time in the 1790's back when it was ratified. I think the majority of Americans would prefer the world of today vs the world of the 1790's. Up to and including the 20% or so of America who are African American. Of course strict constitutionalists would not know there is 20%. Given the 3/5 compromise, there would be only 12% of the nation since blacks are counted as 3/5 of a person....right?

All of that is true and I make that point in another post. There are SOME things we need that the constitution doesn't specify. However, interpreting the constitution as it is written is still important. Sure the military or FEMA are necessary, but when it comes to programs being created outside of the bounds of the constitution, where do you draw the line? There has to be an authority on what the government can or cannot create.

It may or may not be legal in some instances for me to publish your SSN.

There is no guarantee of privacy in the constitution.

The court has held that you can marry a same sex partner and enjoy the same rights as hetero marriages. But you can have your wedding on Saturday and be fired by your employer on Monday for no reason other than you got married.

Plenty of things outside of our vague constitution need to be deliberated.

Ok but again I ask, where do you draw the line? Where do we go from here when it comes to programs not specified by the constitution?

Keep asking....

I can't tell you. I do know that the nation is better with FEMA, the FAA, Marine Corps, Air Force, NASA, that we were able to make the LA Purchase, Alaska purchase, etc... All of which isn't spelled out in the Constitution.

At some point, the powers that be decided we needed a Department of Education. The result has been no improvement. So we should probably try something else. One thing I will agree with the conservatives about is that once a federal agency is formed, it will take an act of a vengeful God to get rid of it. The DOE isn't going anywhere and it's not delivering results. At the same time, maybe it should be applauded for maintaining grad rates???? Dunno.

I do know we could get rid of the TSA. This is a worthless organization.

Yeah I agree it's a good thing all of those programs exist. That doesn't mean we shouldn't adhere to an authority of what's constitutionally legal and what isn't.

 

[JQPublic1]

Typical GOPer. Doesn't know the difference between voter suppression and voter ID.

Regressives call vote ID voter suppression, haven't you been paying attention?

I don't know any regressive group except you Draconian conservatives. Here is what the Federal courts in North Carolina said about voter suppression by the Right.
NCvote

Federal Appeals Court Rules New NC Voting Laws Intended To Discriminate

A three-judge panel of the U.S Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit has found North Carolina's controversial GOP-backed voting restrictions were intended to discriminate against African American voters.

In the opinion, the panel of judges said that the law restricted voting in ways that "disproportionately affected African Americans" and that its provisions targeted "African Americans with almost surgical precision." It said the state's defense of the law was "meager."

I've read it, it will be overturned if we get a decent scotus replacement. They said blacks tended to vote more in the first 7 days of early voting, the new law provided for 10 days, there's no reason blacks can't continue to vote in the first 7 days. That's just one example where they got it wrong. The district court got it right.

You read it and you still don't know the difference between voter suppression and voter ID? You are either a liar or a moron… but that explains your party affiliation… typical GOPer. Don't let facts get in your way… nosireee!

You must have take the short bus to school or you're just not paying attention. I said you regressives call voter ID voter suppression, get it. So you might want to explain the difference to them.

Aww,stop squirming…you got caught red handed trying to distort and change the narrative.

RDEAN SAID: ↑
Voter suppression shows us what Republicans think of the constitution.

Then you tried to make it solely about voter ID:
OKTEXAS SAID: ↑
Overturning Citizens United is speech suppression in elections. Voter ID is constitutional, supreme court said so.


Again, stop squirming and accept the cloak of defeat that I have placed around your shoulders. It fits you so well.

 

[kaz]

With one answer the hildabitch proved she was unfit for the office. When asked about the Supreme Court, in almost 3 minute answer, she went on and on how the justices she would pick would go along with her radical agenda. Not once did she mention she would appoint one who would uphold the Constitution or the rule of law, which is the only function of the court. She basically vowed to continue to politicize the court to push her radical leftist agenda.

This, in any reasonable persons mind, should disqualify her form the office.

Your thoughts?

Voter suppression shows us what Republicans think of the constitution.

Imagine, only allowing legal citizens to vote. And then only once. It's just not right!

 

[kaz]

With one answer the hildabitch proved she was unfit for the office. When asked about the Supreme Court, in almost 3 minute answer, she went on and on how the justices she would pick would go along with her radical agenda. Not once did she mention she would appoint one who would uphold the Constitution or the rule of law, which is the only function of the court. She basically vowed to continue to politicize the court to push her radical leftist agenda.

This, in any reasonable persons mind, should disqualify her form the office.

Your thoughts?

Radical agenda? LMFAO!!! That's just uninformed, ignorant nonsense.
Trump lied repeatedly about committing criminal sexual assault - now THAT is disqualifying, not to mention the child rape case, and of course his illegal shell game of bringing in chinese steel to build his structures.
The man is a fraud from start to finish.

That's why you like Hillary, right? You're against lying?

 

[kaz]

With one answer the hildabitch proved she was unfit for the office. When asked about the Supreme Court, in almost 3 minute answer, she went on and on how the justices she would pick would go along with her radical agenda. Not once did she mention she would appoint one who would uphold the Constitution or the rule of law, which is the only function of the court. She basically vowed to continue to politicize the court to push her radical leftist agenda.

This, in any reasonable persons mind, should disqualify her form the office.

Your thoughts?

Voter suppression shows us what Republicans think of the constitution.

Overturning Citizens United is speech suppression in elections. Voter ID is constitutional, supreme court said so.

Typical GOPer. Doesn't know the difference between voter suppression and voter ID.

Voter suppression is what liberals call restricting voting to legal citizens and allowing them to vote only once. No legal citizens who follow the rules are prevented from voting in this country

 

[candycorn]

If we strictly interpret the Constitution as written, there is no language in the document that would have allowed the Louisiana Purchase, the creation of the Marines or the Air Force or the Coast Guard, NASA, FEMA or any number of vital government agencies.

Perhaps some would like to freeze time in the 1790's back when it was ratified. I think the majority of Americans would prefer the world of today vs the world of the 1790's. Up to and including the 20% or so of America who are African American. Of course strict constitutionalists would not know there is 20%. Given the 3/5 compromise, there would be only 12% of the nation since blacks are counted as 3/5 of a person....right?

All of that is true and I make that point in another post. There are SOME things we need that the constitution doesn't specify. However, interpreting the constitution as it is written is still important. Sure the military or FEMA are necessary, but when it comes to programs being created outside of the bounds of the constitution, where do you draw the line? There has to be an authority on what the government can or cannot create.

It may or may not be legal in some instances for me to publish your SSN.

There is no guarantee of privacy in the constitution.

The court has held that you can marry a same sex partner and enjoy the same rights as hetero marriages. But you can have your wedding on Saturday and be fired by your employer on Monday for no reason other than you got married.

Plenty of things outside of our vague constitution need to be deliberated.

Ok but again I ask, where do you draw the line? Where do we go from here when it comes to programs not specified by the constitution?

Keep asking....

I can't tell you. I do know that the nation is better with FEMA, the FAA, Marine Corps, Air Force, NASA, that we were able to make the LA Purchase, Alaska purchase, etc... All of which isn't spelled out in the Constitution.

At some point, the powers that be decided we needed a Department of Education. The result has been no improvement. So we should probably try something else. One thing I will agree with the conservatives about is that once a federal agency is formed, it will take an act of a vengeful God to get rid of it. The DOE isn't going anywhere and it's not delivering results. At the same time, maybe it should be applauded for maintaining grad rates???? Dunno.

I do know we could get rid of the TSA. This is a worthless organization.

Yeah I agree it's a good thing all of those programs exist. That doesn't mean we shouldn't adhere to an authority of what's constitutionally legal and what isn't.

Well, there are a lot of competing interest at play here. And it will get off the subject but "what role do you want the government to play in your life " seems to be the salient criterion on where you come down on justices interpreting the Constitution.

Myself, I'm dubious that anything written 80,000 days ago is capable of anticipating all of the various and sometimes competing societal forces and providing a remedy that satisfies all stakeholders. I think society has a way of working out its own issues. What troubles me to a greater degree is the actions of the government itself. Currently, we have a Senate that won't give the nominated/appointed candidate for the Supreme Court a hearing. Theorhetically, the Senate can let the entire court die off and we will simply not have a supreme court any longer.... or any federal judges for that matter. Hell, while they are at it, they don't have to confirm the AG, SecDef, SecTreasury, or any cabinet official for that matter.

Sound good to you? Probably not. But if you're going to be a strict reader of the Constitution...there is nothing to prompt the Senate to hold hearings. Just the same way that scumbag Harry Reid pocket vetoed legislation so the President wouldn't have to do so on the record. This is how bills that are started in one chamber arrive DOA when they go across the rotunda to the other chamber.

I favor having pre-scheduled convetions to add language to the Constitution to remedy any shenanigans that are going on at that time. This could ensure that the Senate does it's job insofar as giving the Presidential appiontmetns a hearing. Or ensure that one House takes up the business of the other House within 60 days of getting it...including an up/down vote of the entire body.

Just an idea but be careful what you wish for. The Constitution was written at a time when there was some mutual trust. We do not have that any longer.

 

[JQPublic1]

With one answer the hildabitch proved she was unfit for the office. When asked about the Supreme Court, in almost 3 minute answer, she went on and on how the justices she would pick would go along with her radical agenda. Not once did she mention she would appoint one who would uphold the Constitution or the rule of law, which is the only function of the court. She basically vowed to continue to politicize the court to push her radical leftist agenda.

This, in any reasonable persons mind, should disqualify her form the office.

Your thoughts?

Voter suppression shows us what Republicans think of the constitution.

Overturning Citizens United is speech suppression in elections. Voter ID is constitutional, supreme court said so.

Typical GOPer. Doesn't know the difference between voter suppression and voter ID.

Voter suppression is what liberals call restricting voting to legal citizens and allowing them to vote only once. No legal citizens who follow the rules are prevented from voting in this country

I don't need your laymen's definition about voter suppression when a federal appeals court has defined it for me. In case you missed it the link I provided can be seen in my sig @NCvote.

 

[OKTexas]

Do you seriously think there is a shortage of left wing judges out there? Hell Harvard doesn't even require constitutional study to get a law degree any more, thanks to one of maobabas picks, Kagan.

I'm still not getting your point. Hillary has to walk a fine line of finding someone that might follow her ideas... yet they have to be conservative enough that the Senate will approve them. Crazy thing is, they have to replace Scalia... but isn't Thomas about to retire too?

The next president could be nominating as many as 4. That's why it can't be the hildabitch.

It will be. Too bad, so sad.

Shoulda nominated someone else. This is why the GOP is the Party of Stupid.

We've already been down this road, not going there again.

Can't blame you for not wanting to own up to it. Must be painful to know that almost anyone else in the GOP clown car could have fared much better against Ms. Clinton.

Failure thy name is GOP.

We'll see in 27 days.

 

[NYcarbineer]

With one answer the hildabitch proved she was unfit for the office. When asked about the Supreme Court, in almost 3 minute answer, she went on and on how the justices she would pick would go along with her radical agenda. Not once did she mention she would appoint one who would uphold the Constitution or the rule of law, which is the only function of the court. She basically vowed to continue to politicize the court to push her radical leftist agenda.

This, in any reasonable persons mind, should disqualify her form the office.

Your thoughts?

"uphold the Constitution" in the context you use it is merely code for 'make rulings that conservatives agree with'.

 

[Norman]

With one answer the hildabitch proved she was unfit for the office. When asked about the Supreme Court, in almost 3 minute answer, she went on and on how the justices she would pick would go along with her radical agenda. Not once did she mention she would appoint one who would uphold the Constitution or the rule of law, which is the only function of the court. She basically vowed to continue to politicize the court to push her radical leftist agenda.

This, in any reasonable persons mind, should disqualify her form the office.

Your thoughts?

"uphold the Constitution" in the context you use it is merely code for 'make rulings that conservatives agree with'.

No you moron, it means upholding what the document actually says, not liberal wild definitions. The document is not exactly difficult to interpret... it's not some computer code to be decoded.

 

[jillian]

With one answer the hildabitch proved she was unfit for the office. When asked about the Supreme Court, in almost 3 minute answer, she went on and on how the justices she would pick would go along with her radical agenda. Not once did she mention she would appoint one who would uphold the Constitution or the rule of law, which is the only function of the court. She basically vowed to continue to politicize the court to push her radical leftist agenda.

This, in any reasonable persons mind, should disqualify her form the office.

Your thoughts?

RCP Avg now is +5.3. last NBC News/Wall St Journal poll was 52% Clinton 38% Trump

you were saying?

most of the country thinks your idea of what a judge is .... is BS. but thanks.

 

[jillian]

With one answer the hildabitch proved she was unfit for the office. When asked about the Supreme Court, in almost 3 minute answer, she went on and on how the justices she would pick would go along with her radical agenda. Not once did she mention she would appoint one who would uphold the Constitution or the rule of law, which is the only function of the court. She basically vowed to continue to politicize the court to push her radical leftist agenda.

This, in any reasonable persons mind, should disqualify her form the office.

Your thoughts?

"uphold the Constitution" in the context you use it is merely code for 'make rulings that conservatives agree with'.

they haven't figured that out yet.

 

[OldLady]

With one answer the hildabitch proved she was unfit for the office. When asked about the Supreme Court, in almost 3 minute answer, she went on and on how the justices she would pick would go along with her radical agenda. Not once did she mention she would appoint one who would uphold the Constitution or the rule of law, which is the only function of the court. She basically vowed to continue to politicize the court to push her radical leftist agenda.

This, in any reasonable persons mind, should disqualify her form the office.

Your thoughts?

Who is politicizing this, again? Who is refusing to consider a moderate justice in hopes of chosing a much more conservative judge in January? Is that Hillary and the Dems? Hmmmmm....

 

[mudwhistle]

With one answer the hildabitch proved she was unfit for the office. When asked about the Supreme Court, in almost 3 minute answer, she went on and on how the justices she would pick would go along with her radical agenda. Not once did she mention she would appoint one who would uphold the Constitution or the rule of law, which is the only function of the court. She basically vowed to continue to politicize the court to push her radical leftist agenda.

This, in any reasonable persons mind, should disqualify her form the office.

Your thoughts?

Also....she lied about respecting the 2nd Amendment.
When she mentioned closing loopholes, that's code for gun-confiscation....mainly because the loopholes have been closed for years. They are now just a leftist fantasy.

The Clintons like redefining the meaning of words......like "Affordable Care Act" actually means "Triple the cost of health care in 4 years or less" and "Screwing everyone into thinking they actually have health insurance when in fact we're really just raising your taxes".