Trump Predicts He'll Appoint 4 Supreme Court Justices in First Term

[ShootSpeeders]

Trump is a lame duck
He should not be allowed to make appointments. Let the people decide

So you want SC judges popularly elected ?? I'm all for that too.

 

[frigidweirdo]

This wouldn't even matter if we would follow the constitution and NOT let judges write laws. But we do allow that and that's why supreme court judges run the country.

I'm sorry, which laws has the Supreme Court ever written? Do provide proof.

There are millions of examples buy plyler v doe is the worst. That's where the court ordered the states to provide free k-12 for people that are not even allowed to be here!!! That has cost the american taxpayer literally TRILLIONS of dollars.

Okay, and where may I find the law they have written?

Or do you mean they interpreted laws and the Constitution differently to how it had been interpreted before?

 

[Dschrute3]

I agree lets not get any impartial judges on the court, those that try to follow the constitution & rule of law. lets get politically motivated one sided partisans who only reflect our current party's view

That is the current reality. We could try and pretend it isn't, but that would only be willful ignorance. We have to deal with reality. The courts are running the country now. And personally, i don't wanna see the them stacked with Globalists who don't have America or its Citizens' best interests in mind. So if Trump can get 2 or 3 Justices in there to thwart the Globalists, more power to him. It's the #1 reason i supported him. You gotta control the Court. It's as simple as that.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Trump is a lame duck
He should not be allowed to make appointments. Let the people decide

So you want SC judges popularly elected ?? I'm all for that too.

That would be better than the current system.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

There are millions of examples buy plyler v doe is the worst. That's where the court ordered the states to provide free k-12 for people that are not even allowed to be here!!! That has cost the american taxpayer literally TRILLIONS of dollars.

Okay, and where may I find the law they have written?

Or do you mean they interpreted laws and the Constitution differently to how it had been interpreted before?

I told you where to find it. Plyler v doe.

You say the law the court wrote was just a constitutional interpretation. So show us where the constitution says anything about education or rights of illegals.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

So you want SC judges popularly elected ?? I'm all for that too.

That would be better than the current system.

As long as judges are gonna write laws, then they should absolutely be elected. I say a 6 year term.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There are millions of examples buy plyler v doe is the worst. That's where the court ordered the states to provide free k-12 for people that are not even allowed to be here!!! That has cost the american taxpayer literally TRILLIONS of dollars.

Okay, and where may I find the law they have written?

Or do you mean they interpreted laws and the Constitution differently to how it had been interpreted before?

I told you where to find it. Plyler v doe.

You say the law the court wrote was just a constitutional interpretation. So show us where the constitution says anything about education or rights of illegals.

Well as you've told me the name of the case, I'm sure you can go and read it and find out.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So you want SC judges popularly elected ?? I'm all for that too.

That would be better than the current system.

As long as judges are gonna write laws, then they should absolutely be elected. I say a 6 year term.

But they don't write laws and you've not provided any evidence that they have written laws. All you've done is say "they wrote laws in this case", that's like me saying "the moon is made out of cheese" and then saying I've proven that the moon is made out of cheese.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

But they don't write laws and you've not provided any evidence that they have written laws. .

No evidence??? HAHAHA. I pointed you to plyler v doe. Roe v wade is another good example. According to the constitution abortion is a state issue and yet in 1973 the SC wrote a law specifying when abortion is legal.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But they don't write laws and you've not provided any evidence that they have written laws. .

No evidence??? HAHAHA. I pointed you to plyler v doe. Roe v wade is another good example. According to the constitution abortion is a state issue and yet in 1973 the SC wrote a law specifying when abortion is legal.

Yes, no evidence. You pointed to a Supreme Court case. You didn't quote the Supreme Court case. You didn't pull out the part of the case that shows that this is a law written by the Supreme Court.

Like I said, if I say "the moon is made out of cheese", I've pointed out that the moon is made out of cheese. There is my proof.

According to the Constitution the 14th Amendment says:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That's section 1 in case you have trouble finding it.

Did the Supreme Court MAKE this Amendment to the US Constitution?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But they don't write laws and you've not provided any evidence that they have written laws. .

No evidence??? HAHAHA. I pointed you to plyler v doe. Roe v wade is another good example. According to the constitution abortion is a state issue and yet in 1973 the SC wrote a law specifying when abortion is legal.

Yes, no evidence. You pointed to a Supreme Court case. You didn't quote the Supreme Court case. You didn't pull out the part of the case that shows that this is a law written by the Supreme Court.

Like I said, if I say "the moon is made out of cheese", I've pointed out that the moon is made out of cheese. There is my proof.

According to the Constitution the 14th Amendment says:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That's section 1 in case you have trouble finding it.

Did the Supreme Court MAKE this Amendment to the US Constitution?

What you fail to understand is that a physical written law isn't the only way a judge can enact judicial legislation.

Take for instance this commie in Hawaii. He once again stopped Trump's ban on foreign travel. The law clearly states that a US President has the legal right to stop anybody for any reason from coming into this country. But this little Commie used his authority to subvert our laws.

He didn't have to put it into writing. He just simply interpreted it in his own way. But that doesn't mean he didn't rewrite the law. He did, he just didn't put it into writing.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But they don't write laws and you've not provided any evidence that they have written laws. .

No evidence??? HAHAHA. I pointed you to plyler v doe. Roe v wade is another good example. According to the constitution abortion is a state issue and yet in 1973 the SC wrote a law specifying when abortion is legal.

Yes, no evidence. You pointed to a Supreme Court case. You didn't quote the Supreme Court case. You didn't pull out the part of the case that shows that this is a law written by the Supreme Court.

Like I said, if I say "the moon is made out of cheese", I've pointed out that the moon is made out of cheese. There is my proof.

According to the Constitution the 14th Amendment says:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That's section 1 in case you have trouble finding it.

Did the Supreme Court MAKE this Amendment to the US Constitution?

What you fail to understand is that a physical written law isn't the only way a judge can enact judicial legislation.

Take for instance this commie in Hawaii. He once again stopped Trump's ban on foreign travel. The law clearly states that a US President has the legal right to stop anybody for any reason from coming into this country. But this little Commie used his authority to subvert our laws.

He didn't have to put it into writing. He just simply interpreted it in his own way. But that doesn't mean he didn't rewrite the law. He did, he just didn't put it into writing.

No, I don't fail to understand this at all.

I understand what the principle behind judicial legeslation, I just happen to disagree with most times when people claim this is happening.

What I was doing was trying to get the poster to back up their claims, which they couldn't do. It's that simple. An argument was made, and not backed up. So what's the point of the argument.

I also understand that there are three parts to government and the checks and balances are designed to give different parts of govt the power to effectively cause major problems for the other branches if they deem that the other branches aren't doing things properly. This is how the whole system was set up. You don't like the system? Well neither do I, in certain aspects. Right now it's all going to be about how partisan politicians can fuck over the other partisan politicians. You didn't have a problem with this when Obama couldn't get a Supreme Court justice pick nominated, so don't come whining to me about judges in Hawaii.

You like this system.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But they don't write laws and you've not provided any evidence that they have written laws. .

No evidence??? HAHAHA. I pointed you to plyler v doe. Roe v wade is another good example. According to the constitution abortion is a state issue and yet in 1973 the SC wrote a law specifying when abortion is legal.

Yes, no evidence. You pointed to a Supreme Court case. You didn't quote the Supreme Court case. You didn't pull out the part of the case that shows that this is a law written by the Supreme Court.

Like I said, if I say "the moon is made out of cheese", I've pointed out that the moon is made out of cheese. There is my proof.

According to the Constitution the 14th Amendment says:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That's section 1 in case you have trouble finding it.

Did the Supreme Court MAKE this Amendment to the US Constitution?

What you fail to understand is that a physical written law isn't the only way a judge can enact judicial legislation.

Take for instance this commie in Hawaii. He once again stopped Trump's ban on foreign travel. The law clearly states that a US President has the legal right to stop anybody for any reason from coming into this country. But this little Commie used his authority to subvert our laws.

He didn't have to put it into writing. He just simply interpreted it in his own way. But that doesn't mean he didn't rewrite the law. He did, he just didn't put it into writing.

No, I don't fail to understand this at all.

I understand what the principle behind judicial legeslation, I just happen to disagree with most times when people claim this is happening.

What I was doing was trying to get the poster to back up their claims, which they couldn't do. It's that simple. An argument was made, and not backed up. So what's the point of the argument.

I also understand that there are three parts to government and the checks and balances are designed to give different parts of govt the power to effectively cause major problems for the other branches if they deem that the other branches aren't doing things properly. This is how the whole system was set up. You don't like the system? Well neither do I, in certain aspects. Right now it's all going to be about how partisan politicians can fuck over the other partisan politicians. You didn't have a problem with this when Obama couldn't get a Supreme Court justice pick nominated, so don't come whining to me about judges in Hawaii.

You like this system.

I'm merely explaining to you how judges do rewrite laws. Just because they don't get laws passed by a legislative body doesn't mean they didn't change law. It's the same thing that took place in Florida with Al Gore. The state federal judges rewrote the laws. That's why the Supreme Court stopped them.

I don't care for the system either because we give too much power to judges like this little imp in Hawaii. I've always said the two biggest threats to our liberty in this country are lifelong appointed judges and bureaucracies; that's because neither are held accountable for their actions. I think it's high time we start bringing judges to Congress to answer for their anti-American or anti-constitutional actions.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But they don't write laws and you've not provided any evidence that they have written laws. .

No evidence??? HAHAHA. I pointed you to plyler v doe. Roe v wade is another good example. According to the constitution abortion is a state issue and yet in 1973 the SC wrote a law specifying when abortion is legal.

Yes, no evidence. You pointed to a Supreme Court case. You didn't quote the Supreme Court case. You didn't pull out the part of the case that shows that this is a law written by the Supreme Court.

Like I said, if I say "the moon is made out of cheese", I've pointed out that the moon is made out of cheese. There is my proof.

According to the Constitution the 14th Amendment says:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

That's section 1 in case you have trouble finding it.

Did the Supreme Court MAKE this Amendment to the US Constitution?

What you fail to understand is that a physical written law isn't the only way a judge can enact judicial legislation.

Take for instance this commie in Hawaii. He once again stopped Trump's ban on foreign travel. The law clearly states that a US President has the legal right to stop anybody for any reason from coming into this country. But this little Commie used his authority to subvert our laws.

He didn't have to put it into writing. He just simply interpreted it in his own way. But that doesn't mean he didn't rewrite the law. He did, he just didn't put it into writing.

No, I don't fail to understand this at all.

I understand what the principle behind judicial legeslation, I just happen to disagree with most times when people claim this is happening.

What I was doing was trying to get the poster to back up their claims, which they couldn't do. It's that simple. An argument was made, and not backed up. So what's the point of the argument.

I also understand that there are three parts to government and the checks and balances are designed to give different parts of govt the power to effectively cause major problems for the other branches if they deem that the other branches aren't doing things properly. This is how the whole system was set up. You don't like the system? Well neither do I, in certain aspects. Right now it's all going to be about how partisan politicians can fuck over the other partisan politicians. You didn't have a problem with this when Obama couldn't get a Supreme Court justice pick nominated, so don't come whining to me about judges in Hawaii.

You like this system.

I'm merely explaining to you how judges do rewrite laws. Just because they don't get laws passed by a legislative body doesn't mean they didn't change law. It's the same thing that took place in Florida with Al Gore. The state federal judges rewrote the laws. That's why the Supreme Court stopped them.

I don't care for the system either because we give too much power to judges like this little imp in Hawaii. I've always said the two biggest threats to our liberty in this country are lifelong appointed judges and bureaucracies; that's because neither are held accountable for their actions. I think it's high time we start bringing judges to Congress to answer for their anti-American or anti-constitutional actions.

Are they re-writing laws or re-interpreting the laws?

There's a big difference.

The way the separation of powers work is that the Supreme Court gets to interpret the laws, if the President or Congress don't like their interpretation they're free to write ones that are clearer or fall within the boundaries of the interpretations of the US Constitution.

I didn't say the Supreme Court don't change laws, interpretation of laws is a very important part of the whole process.

I'd say that the problem here is this.

You have partisan presidents, then you have judges looking for the eye of partisan presidents so they can move up the ladder and become a Supreme Court justice.

A better system would be one where Congress is made up of far more political parties, where the president is elected, not for entertainment value, but because they can actually do the job, and where Supreme Court justices are appointed by a wide range of bodies. Right now to be Supreme Court justice you need to have the favor of the Republican Party.

If you had PR in the House, you'd have more political parties. This would probably spread to the Senate even if you didn't want to change this by changing the power of each state. Then have the President elected in a Swiss style system with 7 members, each taking an important post, and changing at different times, and being made up of politicians who have served their country in the House or Senate for a while and shown that they can work together with others in this political system. Then have Supreme Court Justices appointed by a committee made up of different parties from different states and all of a sudden you have a system that might work.

But it's not going to happen because they are too comfortable with their partisan bullshit and it's too easy to manipulate the people, and they don't want to lose this power.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

According to the Constitution the 14th Amendment says:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

HUH?? Where does that say anything about illegals in our schools??? THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

He didn't have to put it into writing. He just simply interpreted it in his own way. But that doesn't mean he didn't rewrite the law. He did, he just didn't put it into writing.

Liberal judges do that all the time. They rewrite a law and since they know they aren't supposed to do that, they call it an interpretation!!!

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Are they re-writing laws or re-interpreting the laws?

There's a big difference.

Not really. The two amount to the same thing.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The way the separation of powers work is that the Supreme Court gets to interpret the laws, if the President or Congress don't like their interpretation they're free to write ones that are clearer or fall within the boundaries of the interpretations of the US Constitution.

It doesn't matter how a law is written if you have activists judges lying about what the law means. Here is what Trump did, and you tell me how this can be misconstrued so badly that the little Commie in Hawaii could interpret this any different way than it's written:

Now you tell me that this law can be read any differently than above. Of course it can't. This moron activist judge decided he wasn't going to adhere to this law. There is nothing ambiguous about it. It's just that he is a buddy of Obama's.

I didn't say the Supreme Court don't change laws, interpretation of laws is a very important part of the whole process.

The only difference between a bastardized interpretation and rewriting the law is putting it into words. Other than that, you get the same results either way.

 

[frigidweirdo]

According to the Constitution the 14th Amendment says:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

HUH?? Where does that say anything about illegals in our schools??? THINK

I'm not sure it is you who should be telling me to think.

I really don't have the desire to get into a conversation about such things with someone who is going to play games like a child.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Are they re-writing laws or re-interpreting the laws?

There's a big difference.

Not really. The two amount to the same thing.

No, they're different. But then I guess it's the difference between eating cake and drinking coca-cola to you. They're both massive intakes of sugar.