The Senate Is Unmoved

[jillian]

It's all the Republicans have left

Full time filibuster, gerrymander and blocking judicial appointments

They have moved past blocking judges to leaving a Supreme Court vacancy open for over a year

And this surprises you? The republic is at stake. Can't say I blame them.

Conservatives have had a majority on the court since the 70s

Do they think the republic depends on them controlling the courts?

Certainly it does. The U.S. Constitution should not magically change from generation to generation without so much as an amendment. Stare decisis especially makes liberal judges so dangerous. The difference between a liberal justice and a conservative justice can be seen below.

Considerations of a Conservative justice on statutory or constitutional interpretation

Text
History
Tradition
Precedent

Considerations of a Liberal Justice on statutory or constitutional interpretation

Text
History
Tradition
Precedent
Purpose (WILDLY SUBJECTIVE)
Consequences (WILDLY SUBJECTIVE)

Indeed, the Republic is at stake. Purpose and Consequences are completely new tools of Constitutional interpretation made up by liberal justices within the last 60 years.

ah... if only you were equipped to understand the constitution.

Sounds like a challenge. Lets go! I'll even let you choose the topic.

no. the fact that you lied about the above means you are a dishonest winger.

i don't validate lying loons.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

It's all the Republicans have left

Full time filibuster, gerrymander and blocking judicial appointments

They have moved past blocking judges to leaving a Supreme Court vacancy open for over a year

And this surprises you? The republic is at stake. Can't say I blame them.

Conservatives have had a majority on the court since the 70s

Do they think the republic depends on them controlling the courts?

Certainly it does. The U.S. Constitution should not magically change from generation to generation without so much as an amendment. Stare decisis especially makes liberal judges so dangerous. The difference between a liberal justice and a conservative justice can be seen below.

Considerations of a Conservative justice on statutory or constitutional interpretation

Text
History
Tradition
Precedent

Considerations of a Liberal Justice on statutory or constitutional interpretation

Text
History
Tradition
Precedent
Purpose (WILDLY SUBJECTIVE)
Consequences (WILDLY SUBJECTIVE)

Indeed, the Republic is at stake. Purpose and Consequences are completely new tools of Constitutional interpretation made up by liberal justices within the last 60 years.

ah... if only you were equipped to understand the constitution.

Sounds like a challenge. Lets go! I'll even let you choose the topic.

Publius1787 ....

Dude, challenge her to the bull ring. You pick the topic and three judges.....then it is just you and her. The judges decide who wins.

jillian (a.k.a. jillihag), won't go near that kind of challenge.

She's got a big mouth and no brain.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

And this surprises you? The republic is at stake. Can't say I blame them.

Conservatives have had a majority on the court since the 70s

Do they think the republic depends on them controlling the courts?

Certainly it does. The U.S. Constitution should not magically change from generation to generation without so much as an amendment. Stare decisis especially makes liberal judges so dangerous. The difference between a liberal justice and a conservative justice can be seen below.

Considerations of a Conservative justice on statutory or constitutional interpretation

Text
History
Tradition
Precedent

Considerations of a Liberal Justice on statutory or constitutional interpretation

Text
History
Tradition
Precedent
Purpose (WILDLY SUBJECTIVE)
Consequences (WILDLY SUBJECTIVE)

Indeed, the Republic is at stake. Purpose and Consequences are completely new tools of Constitutional interpretation made up by liberal justices within the last 60 years.

ah... if only you were equipped to understand the constitution.

Sounds like a challenge. Lets go! I'll even let you choose the topic.

no. the fact that you lied about the above means you are a dishonest winger.

i don't validate lying loons.

translation: you don't have the guts or the ammo to stay up.

Admit it ....your mouth would better serve your boyfriend.

 

[Publius1787]

And this surprises you? The republic is at stake. Can't say I blame them.

Conservatives have had a majority on the court since the 70s

Do they think the republic depends on them controlling the courts?

Certainly it does. The U.S. Constitution should not magically change from generation to generation without so much as an amendment. Stare decisis especially makes liberal judges so dangerous. The difference between a liberal justice and a conservative justice can be seen below.

Considerations of a Conservative justice on statutory or constitutional interpretation

Text
History
Tradition
Precedent

Considerations of a Liberal Justice on statutory or constitutional interpretation

Text
History
Tradition
Precedent
Purpose (WILDLY SUBJECTIVE)
Consequences (WILDLY SUBJECTIVE)

Indeed, the Republic is at stake. Purpose and Consequences are completely new tools of Constitutional interpretation made up by liberal justices within the last 60 years.

ah... if only you were equipped to understand the constitution.

Sounds like a challenge. Lets go! I'll even let you choose the topic.

no. the fact that you lied about the above means you are a dishonest winger.

i don't validate lying loons.

Sounds like a cheap excuse to back down to me. But that's just my interpretation. To each his own I guess. Let the record show that the challenge was offered and the self proclaimed constitutional expert, the one who proclaimed that I was not equipped to understand the Constitution, backed down.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Republicans have decided their political party is now the only god they bow and pray to. The Constitution has no meaning for them now. They have a year to interview and grill and whatever else to whomever is nominated and then vote, but for their politics alone they said they are suspending the Constitution.

This is a dead party. Once you cross that line and say 'we are going to cheat everywhere all the time because living within the Constitution means we lose' then your party is dead. Stop pretending to be Americans, you aren't. You've given up on this democracy. That is what it boils down to and all the gnashing of teeth and searching the internet for this or that speech or quote and acting as if you have now elevated a speech or something some person said to the supreme law of the land because it suits your purpose, isn't going to change anything.

The Republicans are using their politics to ignore the Constitution. Conservatism has become the anti-Constitution worldview. That document does not work for conservatives so, just as in 1860, they've decided it's time to ignore it.

All because this group of people cannot accept the society has changed around them and they will also have to change in some small to moderate way. It is the selfishness of a child writ large. 'If I can't have my way then nobody gets to play'.

How these people can look their own children in the eye is one of those moments of lying to one's self to the point of schizophrenia. You cannot act in this lowlife way and also say you love and want what's best for your own children. You are burning the Constitution; nothing else you could do is worse.

It's all the Republicans have left

Full time filibuster, gerrymander and blocking judicial appointments

They have moved past blocking judges to leaving a Supreme Court vacancy open for over a year

And this surprises you? The republic is at stake. Can't say I blame them.

Conservatives have had a majority on the court since the 70s

Do they think the republic depends on them controlling the courts?

Certainly it does. The U.S. Constitution should not magically change from generation to generation without so much as an amendment. Stare decisis especially makes liberal judges so dangerous. The difference between a liberal justice and a conservative justice can be seen below.

Considerations of a Conservative justice on statutory or constitutional interpretation

Text
History
Tradition
Precedent

Considerations of a Liberal Justice on statutory or constitutional interpretation

Text
History
Tradition
Precedent
Purpose (WILDLY SUBJECTIVE)
Consequences (WILDLY SUBJECTIVE)

Indeed, the Republic is at stake. Purpose and Consequences are completely new tools of Constitutional interpretation made up by liberal justices within the last 60 years.

The Constitution says the President nominates the Senate gives consent/approval

Republicans are willing to leave one branch of Government unfilled for political purposes

Throwin a tantrum because conservatives no longer control SCOTUS is not in the Constitution

Conservatives never controlled the SCOTUS......are you really that stupid ?

Demoncrats did the same thing...admit it....

Two wrongs don't make a right.

But your lack of understanding does make you a hack.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Conservatives have had a majority on the court since the 70s

Do they think the republic depends on them controlling the courts?

Certainly it does. The U.S. Constitution should not magically change from generation to generation without so much as an amendment. Stare decisis especially makes liberal judges so dangerous. The difference between a liberal justice and a conservative justice can be seen below.

Considerations of a Conservative justice on statutory or constitutional interpretation

Text
History
Tradition
Precedent

Considerations of a Liberal Justice on statutory or constitutional interpretation

Text
History
Tradition
Precedent
Purpose (WILDLY SUBJECTIVE)
Consequences (WILDLY SUBJECTIVE)

Indeed, the Republic is at stake. Purpose and Consequences are completely new tools of Constitutional interpretation made up by liberal justices within the last 60 years.

ah... if only you were equipped to understand the constitution.

Sounds like a challenge. Lets go! I'll even let you choose the topic.

no. the fact that you lied about the above means you are a dishonest winger.

i don't validate lying loons.

Sounds like a cheap excuse to back down to me. But that's just my interpretation. To each his own I guess. Let the record show that the challenge was offered and the self proclaimed constitutional expert, the one who proclaimed that I was not equipped to understand the Constitution, backed down.

Oh, I think you are right on....

Go to the bullring challenge zone and issue the challenge.

Then we'll broadcast how Jillihag, once again, failed to put up....but still won't shut up.

 

[Publius1787]

And this surprises you? The republic is at stake. Can't say I blame them.

Conservatives have had a majority on the court since the 70s

Do they think the republic depends on them controlling the courts?

Certainly it does. The U.S. Constitution should not magically change from generation to generation without so much as an amendment. Stare decisis especially makes liberal judges so dangerous. The difference between a liberal justice and a conservative justice can be seen below.

Considerations of a Conservative justice on statutory or constitutional interpretation

Text
History
Tradition
Precedent

Considerations of a Liberal Justice on statutory or constitutional interpretation

Text
History
Tradition
Precedent
Purpose (WILDLY SUBJECTIVE)
Consequences (WILDLY SUBJECTIVE)

Indeed, the Republic is at stake. Purpose and Consequences are completely new tools of Constitutional interpretation made up by liberal justices within the last 60 years.

ah... if only you were equipped to understand the constitution.

Sounds like a challenge. Lets go! I'll even let you choose the topic.

Publius1787 ....

Dude, challenge her to the bull ring. You pick the topic and three judges.....then it is just you and her. The judges decide who wins.

jillian (a.k.a. jillihag), won't go near that kind of challenge.

She's got a big mouth and no brain.

I'd be happy too. I would even give her the benefit of choosing the legal topic and the judges.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Conservatives have had a majority on the court since the 70s

Do they think the republic depends on them controlling the courts?

Certainly it does. The U.S. Constitution should not magically change from generation to generation without so much as an amendment. Stare decisis especially makes liberal judges so dangerous. The difference between a liberal justice and a conservative justice can be seen below.

Considerations of a Conservative justice on statutory or constitutional interpretation

Text
History
Tradition
Precedent

Considerations of a Liberal Justice on statutory or constitutional interpretation

Text
History
Tradition
Precedent
Purpose (WILDLY SUBJECTIVE)
Consequences (WILDLY SUBJECTIVE)

Indeed, the Republic is at stake. Purpose and Consequences are completely new tools of Constitutional interpretation made up by liberal justices within the last 60 years.

ah... if only you were equipped to understand the constitution.

Sounds like a challenge. Lets go! I'll even let you choose the topic.

Publius1787 ....

Dude, challenge her to the bull ring. You pick the topic and three judges.....then it is just you and her. The judges decide who wins.

jillian (a.k.a. jillihag), won't go near that kind of challenge.

She's got a big mouth and no brain.

I'd be happy too. I would even give her the benefit of choosing the legal topic and the judges.

Go for it......

Don't let her choose the judges....she'll choose hacks.

Choose people who think for themselves.

Notice she vacated the thread.

It's her style.

Hides under her mothers skirt and calls you names.

 

[rightwinger]

It's all the Republicans have left

Full time filibuster, gerrymander and blocking judicial appointments

They have moved past blocking judges to leaving a Supreme Court vacancy open for over a year

And this surprises you? The republic is at stake. Can't say I blame them.

Conservatives have had a majority on the court since the 70s

Do they think the republic depends on them controlling the courts?

Certainly it does. The U.S. Constitution should not magically change from generation to generation without so much as an amendment. Stare decisis especially makes liberal judges so dangerous. The difference between a liberal justice and a conservative justice can be seen below.

Considerations of a Conservative justice on statutory or constitutional interpretation

Text
History
Tradition
Precedent

Considerations of a Liberal Justice on statutory or constitutional interpretation

Text
History
Tradition
Precedent
Purpose (WILDLY SUBJECTIVE)
Consequences (WILDLY SUBJECTIVE)

Indeed, the Republic is at stake. Purpose and Consequences are completely new tools of Constitutional interpretation made up by liberal justices within the last 60 years.

The Constitution says the President nominates the Senate gives consent/approval

Republicans are willing to leave one branch of Government unfilled for political purposes

Throwin a tantrum because conservatives no longer control SCOTUS is not in the Constitution

Yes indeed, the Republic is at stake and they should hold firm.

Liberals founded our Republic

 

[Publius1787]

And this surprises you? The republic is at stake. Can't say I blame them.

Conservatives have had a majority on the court since the 70s

Do they think the republic depends on them controlling the courts?

Certainly it does. The U.S. Constitution should not magically change from generation to generation without so much as an amendment. Stare decisis especially makes liberal judges so dangerous. The difference between a liberal justice and a conservative justice can be seen below.

Considerations of a Conservative justice on statutory or constitutional interpretation

Text
History
Tradition
Precedent

Considerations of a Liberal Justice on statutory or constitutional interpretation

Text
History
Tradition
Precedent
Purpose (WILDLY SUBJECTIVE)
Consequences (WILDLY SUBJECTIVE)

Indeed, the Republic is at stake. Purpose and Consequences are completely new tools of Constitutional interpretation made up by liberal justices within the last 60 years.

The Constitution says the President nominates the Senate gives consent/approval

Republicans are willing to leave one branch of Government unfilled for political purposes

Throwin a tantrum because conservatives no longer control SCOTUS is not in the Constitution

Yes indeed, the Republic is at stake and they should hold firm.

Liberals founded our Republic

Indeed, Classical Liberals, from liber, meaning liberty, meaning of and pertaining to freedom. Not the folks who called themselves "progressives" until they became unpopular so they started to call themselves "liberals" instead. Classical liberals were negative liberty types, not positive liberty types. John Locke types in fact. In short, they're more aligned to modern day conservatives. Hence "to conserve." To conserve what? The past, traditions, to prevent rapid change & etc.

 

[Publius1787]

And this surprises you? The republic is at stake. Can't say I blame them.

Conservatives have had a majority on the court since the 70s

Do they think the republic depends on them controlling the courts?

Certainly it does. The U.S. Constitution should not magically change from generation to generation without so much as an amendment. Stare decisis especially makes liberal judges so dangerous. The difference between a liberal justice and a conservative justice can be seen below.

Considerations of a Conservative justice on statutory or constitutional interpretation

Text
History
Tradition
Precedent

Considerations of a Liberal Justice on statutory or constitutional interpretation

Text
History
Tradition
Precedent
Purpose (WILDLY SUBJECTIVE)
Consequences (WILDLY SUBJECTIVE)

Indeed, the Republic is at stake. Purpose and Consequences are completely new tools of Constitutional interpretation made up by liberal justices within the last 60 years.

ah... if only you were equipped to understand the constitution.

Sounds like a challenge. Lets go! I'll even let you choose the topic.

no. the fact that you lied about the above means you are a dishonest winger.

i don't validate lying loons.

16:00 in this video I am validated. A Liberal Justice vs a Conservative Justice on statutory interpretation. Of course, Breyer gets his ass kicked.

 

[rightwinger]

Conservatives have had a majority on the court since the 70s

Do they think the republic depends on them controlling the courts?

Certainly it does. The U.S. Constitution should not magically change from generation to generation without so much as an amendment. Stare decisis especially makes liberal judges so dangerous. The difference between a liberal justice and a conservative justice can be seen below.

Considerations of a Conservative justice on statutory or constitutional interpretation

Text
History
Tradition
Precedent

Considerations of a Liberal Justice on statutory or constitutional interpretation

Text
History
Tradition
Precedent
Purpose (WILDLY SUBJECTIVE)
Consequences (WILDLY SUBJECTIVE)

Indeed, the Republic is at stake. Purpose and Consequences are completely new tools of Constitutional interpretation made up by liberal justices within the last 60 years.

The Constitution says the President nominates the Senate gives consent/approval

Republicans are willing to leave one branch of Government unfilled for political purposes

Throwin a tantrum because conservatives no longer control SCOTUS is not in the Constitution

Yes indeed, the Republic is at stake and they should hold firm.

Liberals founded our Republic

Indeed, Classical Liberals, from liber, meaning liberty, meaning of and pertaining to freedom. Not the folks who called themselves "progressives" until they became unpopular so they started to call themselves "liberals" instead. Classical liberals were negative liberty types, not positive liberty types. John Locke types in fact. In short, they're more aligned to modern day conservatives. Hence "to conserve." To conserve what? The past, traditions, to prevent rapid change & etc.

No such thing as a classical liberal. They were the most liberal minds of their era
Liberals evolve to meet new challenges. Conservatives do what they can to ensure they don't succeed

 

[Publius1787]

Certainly it does. The U.S. Constitution should not magically change from generation to generation without so much as an amendment. Stare decisis especially makes liberal judges so dangerous. The difference between a liberal justice and a conservative justice can be seen below.

Considerations of a Conservative justice on statutory or constitutional interpretation

Text
History
Tradition
Precedent

Considerations of a Liberal Justice on statutory or constitutional interpretation

Text
History
Tradition
Precedent
Purpose (WILDLY SUBJECTIVE)
Consequences (WILDLY SUBJECTIVE)

Indeed, the Republic is at stake. Purpose and Consequences are completely new tools of Constitutional interpretation made up by liberal justices within the last 60 years.

The Constitution says the President nominates the Senate gives consent/approval

Republicans are willing to leave one branch of Government unfilled for political purposes

Throwin a tantrum because conservatives no longer control SCOTUS is not in the Constitution

Yes indeed, the Republic is at stake and they should hold firm.

Liberals founded our Republic

Indeed, Classical Liberals, from liber, meaning liberty, meaning of and pertaining to freedom. Not the folks who called themselves "progressives" until they became unpopular so they started to call themselves "liberals" instead. Classical liberals were negative liberty types, not positive liberty types. John Locke types in fact. In short, they're more aligned to modern day conservatives. Hence "to conserve." To conserve what? The past, traditions, to prevent rapid change & etc.

No such thing as a classical liberal. They were the most liberal minds of their era
Liberals evolve to meet new challenges. Conservatives do what they can to ensure they don't succeed

Well I'll be damned. Classical Liberalism has it's own wiki page. Go figure.

Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[rightwinger]

The Constitution says the President nominates the Senate gives consent/approval

Republicans are willing to leave one branch of Government unfilled for political purposes

Throwin a tantrum because conservatives no longer control SCOTUS is not in the Constitution

Yes indeed, the Republic is at stake and they should hold firm.

Liberals founded our Republic

Indeed, Classical Liberals, from liber, meaning liberty, meaning of and pertaining to freedom. Not the folks who called themselves "progressives" until they became unpopular so they started to call themselves "liberals" instead. Classical liberals were negative liberty types, not positive liberty types. John Locke types in fact. In short, they're more aligned to modern day conservatives. Hence "to conserve." To conserve what? The past, traditions, to prevent rapid change & etc.

No such thing as a classical liberal. They were the most liberal minds of their era
Liberals evolve to meet new challenges. Conservatives do what they can to ensure they don't succeed

Well I'll be damned. Classical Liberalism has it's own wiki page. Go figure.

Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I can make a wiki page

Classical Liberalism was invented by Conservatism to try to give themselves some legitimacy in American history

A liberal is a liberal is a liberal...and it ain't a conservative