Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Hepting v. AT&T -- The Supreme Court wouldn't take the case.Fair enough.Oh? What case was this Supreme Court rebuke of Obama's recess appointments?
So you're saying it hasn't been heard by the supreme court, you do know that the court has no authority to intervene without a case before them, right?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/us/supreme-court-president-recess-appointments.html?_r=0
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. NOEL CANNING ET AL.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1281_mc8p.pdf
Supreme Court Limits President's Recess Appointment Power
Regarding Bush's wiretapping: Hepting v. AT&T
Regarding trying detainees:
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
Hepting was dismissed by the Ninth Circut and the appeal wasn't taken up by the supreme court.
The other placed limits on a presidents war powers on US soil, and I can't say I disagree with them.
I saw an interview with Trump on Hannity last night, I'm really surprised regressives haven't posted a thousand threads on it by now, screaming and cursing Trump. But since they haven't I figured what the hell.
During the interview Sean asked Trump what supreme court justices would he try to replicate if he had the opportunity to appoint one or more judges to the court. To my utter surprise he said Scalia and Thomas. Maybe this guy is more conservative than many are giving him credit for.
Your thoughts?
It's the primary season.
What else would he say on Hannity? To me he seems to say what the crowd wants to hear.I saw an interview with Trump on Hannity last night, I'm really surprised regressives haven't posted a thousand threads on it by now, screaming and cursing Trump. But since they haven't I figured what the hell. During the interview Sean asked Trump what supreme court justices would he try to replicate if he had the opportunity to appoint one or more judges to the court. To my utter surprise he said Scalia and Thomas. Maybe this guy is more conservative than many are giving him credit for. Your thoughts?
He was once again playing to the crowd.I saw an interview with Trump on Hannity last night, I'm really surprised regressives haven't posted a thousand threads on it by now, screaming and cursing Trump. But since they haven't I figured what the hell.
During the interview Sean asked Trump what supreme court justices would he try to replicate if he had the opportunity to appoint one or more judges to the court. To my utter surprise he said Scalia and Thomas. Maybe this guy is more conservative than many are giving him credit for.
Your thoughts?
Hepting v. AT&T -- The Supreme Court wouldn't take the case.Fair enough.Oh? What case was this Supreme Court rebuke of Obama's recess appointments?So you're saying it hasn't been heard by the supreme court, you do know that the court has no authority to intervene without a case before them, right?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/us/supreme-court-president-recess-appointments.html?_r=0
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. NOEL CANNING ET AL.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1281_mc8p.pdf
Supreme Court Limits President's Recess Appointment Power
Regarding Bush's wiretapping: Hepting v. AT&T
Regarding trying detainees:
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
Hepting was dismissed by the Ninth Circut and the appeal wasn't taken up by the supreme court.
The other placed limits on a presidents war powers on US soil, and I can't say I disagree with them.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld -- Scalia and Thomas dissented.
So much for those "Constitutional type judges like Thomas and Scalia tend to drop the hammer on presidents who stray outside their constitutional limits."
What else would he say on Hannity? To me he seems to say what the crowd wants to hear.I saw an interview with Trump on Hannity last night, I'm really surprised regressives haven't posted a thousand threads on it by now, screaming and cursing Trump. But since they haven't I figured what the hell. During the interview Sean asked Trump what supreme court justices would he try to replicate if he had the opportunity to appoint one or more judges to the court. To my utter surprise he said Scalia and Thomas. Maybe this guy is more conservative than many are giving him credit for. Your thoughts?
Funny, I think the exact opposite...Hepting v. AT&T -- The Supreme Court wouldn't take the case.Fair enough.Oh? What case was this Supreme Court rebuke of Obama's recess appointments?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/us/supreme-court-president-recess-appointments.html?_r=0
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. NOEL CANNING ET AL.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1281_mc8p.pdf
Supreme Court Limits President's Recess Appointment Power
Regarding Bush's wiretapping: Hepting v. AT&T
Regarding trying detainees:
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
Hepting was dismissed by the Ninth Circut and the appeal wasn't taken up by the supreme court.
The other placed limits on a presidents war powers on US soil, and I can't say I disagree with them.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld -- Scalia and Thomas dissented.
So much for those "Constitutional type judges like Thomas and Scalia tend to drop the hammer on presidents who stray outside their constitutional limits."
Well all I can say is Thomas, Alito and Scalia get it right more often than not, where Roberts, Kennedy and Stevens only get it right about half the time, and the rest are most always wrong.
Funny, I think the exact opposite...Hepting v. AT&T -- The Supreme Court wouldn't take the case.Fair enough.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. NOEL CANNING ET AL.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1281_mc8p.pdf
Supreme Court Limits President's Recess Appointment Power
Regarding Bush's wiretapping: Hepting v. AT&T
Regarding trying detainees:
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
Hepting was dismissed by the Ninth Circut and the appeal wasn't taken up by the supreme court.
The other placed limits on a presidents war powers on US soil, and I can't say I disagree with them.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld -- Scalia and Thomas dissented.
So much for those "Constitutional type judges like Thomas and Scalia tend to drop the hammer on presidents who stray outside their constitutional limits."
Well all I can say is Thomas, Alito and Scalia get it right more often than not, where Roberts, Kennedy and Stevens only get it right about half the time, and the rest are most always wrong.
Your opinion is noted but irrelevant to your claim of "Constitutional type judges like Thomas and Scalia tend to drop the hammer on presidents who stray outside their constitutional limits," where you've been shown two cases where they didn't reign in a president's overreach.Hepting v. AT&T -- The Supreme Court wouldn't take the case.Fair enough.Oh? What case was this Supreme Court rebuke of Obama's recess appointments?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/us/supreme-court-president-recess-appointments.html?_r=0
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. NOEL CANNING ET AL.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1281_mc8p.pdf
Supreme Court Limits President's Recess Appointment Power
Regarding Bush's wiretapping: Hepting v. AT&T
Regarding trying detainees:
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
Hepting was dismissed by the Ninth Circut and the appeal wasn't taken up by the supreme court.
The other placed limits on a presidents war powers on US soil, and I can't say I disagree with them.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld -- Scalia and Thomas dissented.
So much for those "Constitutional type judges like Thomas and Scalia tend to drop the hammer on presidents who stray outside their constitutional limits."
Well all I can say is Thomas, Alito and Scalia get it right more often than not, where Roberts, Kennedy and Stevens only get it right about half the time, and the rest are most always wrong.
Your opinion is noted but irrelevant to your claim of "Constitutional type judges like Thomas and Scalia tend to drop the hammer on presidents who stray outside their constitutional limits," where you've been shown two cases where they didn't reign in a president's overreach.Hepting v. AT&T -- The Supreme Court wouldn't take the case.Fair enough.NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. NOEL CANNING ET AL.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1281_mc8p.pdf
Supreme Court Limits President's Recess Appointment Power
Regarding Bush's wiretapping: Hepting v. AT&T
Regarding trying detainees:
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
Hepting was dismissed by the Ninth Circut and the appeal wasn't taken up by the supreme court.
The other placed limits on a presidents war powers on US soil, and I can't say I disagree with them.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld -- Scalia and Thomas dissented.
So much for those "Constitutional type judges like Thomas and Scalia tend to drop the hammer on presidents who stray outside their constitutional limits."
Well all I can say is Thomas, Alito and Scalia get it right more often than not, where Roberts, Kennedy and Stevens only get it right about half the time, and the rest are most always wrong.
Wrong. That dismissal was appealed and sent to the Supreme Court. They decided not to take the case. In a case where the president was wiretapping without first getting warrants, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to end that practice and chose not to.Your opinion is noted but irrelevant to your claim of "Constitutional type judges like Thomas and Scalia tend to drop the hammer on presidents who stray outside their constitutional limits," where you've been shown two cases where they didn't reign in a president's overreach.Hepting v. AT&T -- The Supreme Court wouldn't take the case.Fair enough.
Regarding Bush's wiretapping: Hepting v. AT&T
Regarding trying detainees:
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
Hepting was dismissed by the Ninth Circut and the appeal wasn't taken up by the supreme court.
The other placed limits on a presidents war powers on US soil, and I can't say I disagree with them.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld -- Scalia and Thomas dissented.
So much for those "Constitutional type judges like Thomas and Scalia tend to drop the hammer on presidents who stray outside their constitutional limits."
Well all I can say is Thomas, Alito and Scalia get it right more often than not, where Roberts, Kennedy and Stevens only get it right about half the time, and the rest are most always wrong.
Right, one that didn't make it to the supreme court. Also I guess you missed the point that the case was dismissed by one of the most regressive courts of appeal, the 9th.
Wrong. That dismissal was appealed and sent to the Supreme Court. They decided not to take the case. In a case where the president was wiretapping without first getting warrants, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to end that practice and chose not to.Your opinion is noted but irrelevant to your claim of "Constitutional type judges like Thomas and Scalia tend to drop the hammer on presidents who stray outside their constitutional limits," where you've been shown two cases where they didn't reign in a president's overreach.Hepting v. AT&T -- The Supreme Court wouldn't take the case.Hepting was dismissed by the Ninth Circut and the appeal wasn't taken up by the supreme court.
The other placed limits on a presidents war powers on US soil, and I can't say I disagree with them.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld -- Scalia and Thomas dissented.
So much for those "Constitutional type judges like Thomas and Scalia tend to drop the hammer on presidents who stray outside their constitutional limits."
Well all I can say is Thomas, Alito and Scalia get it right more often than not, where Roberts, Kennedy and Stevens only get it right about half the time, and the rest are most always wrong.
Right, one that didn't make it to the supreme court. Also I guess you missed the point that the case was dismissed by one of the most regressive courts of appeal, the 9th.
I saw an interview with Trump on Hannity last night, I'm really surprised regressives haven't posted a thousand threads on it by now, screaming and cursing Trump. But since they haven't I figured what the hell.
During the interview Sean asked Trump what supreme court justices would he try to replicate if he had the opportunity to appoint one or more judges to the court. To my utter surprise he said Scalia and Thomas. Maybe this guy is more conservative than many are giving him credit for.
Your thoughts?
It's the primary season.
And?
I saw an interview with Trump on Hannity last night, I'm really surprised regressives haven't posted a thousand threads on it by now, screaming and cursing Trump. But since they haven't I figured what the hell.
During the interview Sean asked Trump what supreme court justices would he try to replicate if he had the opportunity to appoint one or more judges to the court. To my utter surprise he said Scalia and Thomas. Maybe this guy is more conservative than many are giving him credit for.
Your thoughts?
It's the primary season.
And?
And of course in the GOP primary season when you're Donald Trump who will pander anywhere anytime he's going to give that sort of answer to that sort of question.
I saw an interview with Trump on Hannity last night, I'm really surprised regressives haven't posted a thousand threads on it by now, screaming and cursing Trump. But since they haven't I figured what the hell.
During the interview Sean asked Trump what supreme court justices would he try to replicate if he had the opportunity to appoint one or more judges to the court. To my utter surprise he said Scalia and Thomas. Maybe this guy is more conservative than many are giving him credit for.
Your thoughts?
I saw an interview with Trump on Hannity last night, I'm really surprised regressives haven't posted a thousand threads on it by now, screaming and cursing Trump. But since they haven't I figured what the hell.
During the interview Sean asked Trump what supreme court justices would he try to replicate if he had the opportunity to appoint one or more judges to the court. To my utter surprise he said Scalia and Thomas. Maybe this guy is more conservative than many are giving him credit for.
Your thoughts?
You will believe anything. That is why you still watch Hannity.
Trump will tell you just what you want to hear. And you, my friend, will believe it. After all.....he "says what you are thinking"!!
Why haven't liberals started thtreads on this? I'll tell you. First...we know that Trump will not become president. Second....we know he's full of shit. Third.....we don't care when he says something on Hannity. Our issue with Trump is that he's making America look like a land full idiots in front of the world's citizens. Nobody BUT idiots is watching Hannity. No harm done.
Dupe.
I saw an interview with Trump on Hannity last night, I'm really surprised regressives haven't posted a thousand threads on it by now, screaming and cursing Trump. But since they haven't I figured what the hell.
During the interview Sean asked Trump what supreme court justices would he try to replicate if he had the opportunity to appoint one or more judges to the court. To my utter surprise he said Scalia and Thomas. Maybe this guy is more conservative than many are giving him credit for.
Your thoughts?
You will believe anything. That is why you still watch Hannity.
Trump will tell you just what you want to hear. And you, my friend, will believe it. After all.....he "says what you are thinking"!!
Why haven't liberals started thtreads on this? I'll tell you. First...we know that Trump will not become president. Second....we know he's full of shit. Third.....we don't care when he says something on Hannity. Our issue with Trump is that he's making America look like a land full idiots in front of the world's citizens. Nobody BUT idiots is watching Hannity. No harm done.
Dupe.
Yet here you are, LMAO. Also you seem to be making assumptions you have no hope of backing up.
Your thoughts?
... and Hamdan ... ?Wrong. That dismissal was appealed and sent to the Supreme Court. They decided not to take the case. In a case where the president was wiretapping without first getting warrants, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to end that practice and chose not to.Your opinion is noted but irrelevant to your claim of "Constitutional type judges like Thomas and Scalia tend to drop the hammer on presidents who stray outside their constitutional limits," where you've been shown two cases where they didn't reign in a president's overreach.Hepting v. AT&T -- The Supreme Court wouldn't take the case.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld -- Scalia and Thomas dissented.
So much for those "Constitutional type judges like Thomas and Scalia tend to drop the hammer on presidents who stray outside their constitutional limits."
Well all I can say is Thomas, Alito and Scalia get it right more often than not, where Roberts, Kennedy and Stevens only get it right about half the time, and the rest are most always wrong.
Right, one that didn't make it to the supreme court. Also I guess you missed the point that the case was dismissed by one of the most regressive courts of appeal, the 9th.
Here's you a big hint child, it takes more than a couple of judges to decline to hear a case. I can't find anything that has a record of the vote on that case, except to say Alito didn't participate in the discussion or decision.
