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.
I don't think it'll cost Trump the election, but even if it does, the right lifetime appointee on the SCOTUS can be far more effective than a 4 year POTUS with a divided or fully opposition congress.
Why are judges partisan?
Because humans are partisan and judges are human. They have the ability to rise above it, but far too often do not.Why are judges partisan?
The Court's always been politicized. It told Jackson he couldn't just take land from native americans even when they had legal titles, so he did it anyway. It told non-slave holders they couldn't help runaway slaves, and ultimately the South started a war because it was afraid the law would change to let their slaves run away. And the Court nearly avoided FDR packing it when it declared parts of the New Deal unconstitutional despite popular support (Obamacare anyone?)I don't think it'll cost Trump the election, but even if it does, the right lifetime appointee on the SCOTUS can be far more effective than a 4 year POTUS with a divided or fully opposition congress.
Why are judges partisan?
But not when he was Obama.The bottom line here is that a President is elected for a term of four years. Not 3 years and ten months, but four years. And, as such, it's the President's Constitutional duty to nominate a Supreme Court Justice when a vacancy occurs. Period.
Those who believe that the American people should have a "voice" in who's nominated are ignorant and stupid. The American people have already spoken with that voice when they elected Donald Trump four years ago.
Let the chips fall where they may with regards to how it'll impact the election, but the President needs to do his job, and the Senate needs to do theirs...
I don't think it'll cost Trump the election, but even if it does, the right lifetime appointee on the SCOTUS can be far more effective than a 4 year POTUS with a divided or fully opposition congress.
Why are judges partisan?
Yes, why? They shouldn't be. They should be interpreting laws and and defending the Constitution. But the leftist judges have systematically legislated from the bench and reinterpreted the Constitution to say what they wanted it to say.
Judges should not be partisan
I don't think it'll cost Trump the election, but even if it does, the right lifetime appointee on the SCOTUS can be far more effective than a 4 year POTUS with a divided or fully opposition congress.
Why are judges partisan?
Yes, why? They shouldn't be. They should be interpreting laws and and defending the Constitution. But the leftist judges have systematically legislated from the bench and reinterpreted the Constitution to say what they wanted it to say.
Judges should not be partisan
Everything is on civil rights, that is what WE The PEOPLE means and a women has the right to privacy. Never mind that rich white men wrote the constitution and we had years of slavery and women were not allowed to vote, never mind that white men owned the US and still do.
We don't want a women or anyone on the bench that votes on the bible.
There is no right to privately take another human's life, regardless of gender.Everything is on civil rights, that is what WE The PEOPLE means and a women has the right to privacy.
No one owns the US. A case might be made that collectively, all citizens do. Of course, any mature intellect knows citizens come in both genders and all skin colors.Never mind that rich white men wrote the constitution and we had years of slavery and women were not allowed to vote, never mind that white men owned the US and still do.
And other citizens do. Elections have consequences.We don't want a women or anyone on the bench that votes on the bible.
But not when he was Obama.The bottom line here is that a President is elected for a term of four years. Not 3 years and ten months, but four years. And, as such, it's the President's Constitutional duty to nominate a Supreme Court Justice when a vacancy occurs. Period.
Those who believe that the American people should have a "voice" in who's nominated are ignorant and stupid. The American people have already spoken with that voice when they elected Donald Trump four years ago.
Let the chips fall where they may with regards to how it'll impact the election, but the President needs to do his job, and the Senate needs to do theirs...
Assuming that a replacement for Ginsburg has not been confirmed by November 3, and further assuming that Trump loses the election, should a defeated President be allowed to appoint a judge to the Supreme Court?
It should be pointed out, both assumptions are extremely likely. Trump is the least popular President in modern American history.
There is a corollary to the question. Should the defeated party in the Senate be allowed to confirm a Supreme Court judge?
Based on limited researched, I have been unable to find those questions addressed. However, allow me to answer my own questions.
There is absolutely nothing in the past four years to suggest that Trump and Trump Republicans in the Senate will put the will of the American people first.
If Trump is defeated, if the GOP loses control of the Senate -- both likely, why else are Republicans in such a hurry -- and Trump Republicans confirm Ginsburg's replacement, the GOP is likely to lose power for at least a generation.
Well Kaz is no less partisan than you, yet he accuses you of partisanship. I'm afraid that is a price one pays for being on the board.I don't think it'll cost Trump the election, but even if it does, the right lifetime appointee on the SCOTUS can be far more effective than a 4 year POTUS with a divided or fully opposition congress.
Why are judges partisan?
Yes, why? They shouldn't be. They should be interpreting laws and and defending the Constitution. But the leftist judges have systematically legislated from the bench and reinterpreted the Constitution to say what they wanted it to say.
Judges should not be partisan
Everything is on civil rights, that is what WE The PEOPLE means and a women has the right to privacy. Never mind that rich white men wrote the constitution and we had years of slavery and women were not allowed to vote, never mind that white men owned the US and still do.
We don't want a women or anyone on the bench that votes on the bible.
McConnell wouldn't give Obama's nominee a vote, and you accuwse me of horsehit. go fuk yourself. and watch with the name calling.But not when he was Obama.The bottom line here is that a President is elected for a term of four years. Not 3 years and ten months, but four years. And, as such, it's the President's Constitutional duty to nominate a Supreme Court Justice when a vacancy occurs. Period.
Those who believe that the American people should have a "voice" in who's nominated are ignorant and stupid. The American people have already spoken with that voice when they elected Donald Trump four years ago.
Let the chips fall where they may with regards to how it'll impact the election, but the President needs to do his job, and the Senate needs to do theirs...
This "butwhataboutism" tactic is stupid, only because it exposes you as someone who is in favor of standing in the way of someone carrying out their Constitutional responsibilities, and that make you un-American by any measure.
For the record, in 2016 I believe it was wrong to block the nomination of Merrick Garland. Garland should've had the benefit of confirmation hearings by the Senate, where there wouldn't have been enough votes to confirm him, anyway.
It was wrong then and it would be wrong now. But the fact that it was done back then in no way justifies doing it now.
The nomination should happen (and every indication is that it will) and then confirmation hearings need to be started...
Of course. But if only either or was possible, which?
Of course. But if only either or was possible, which?
The SCOTUS is already pretty much 5-3. 6-3 pretty much slams it, but the slight added advantage is not worth losing the White House and Senate over.
With the Senate, you can at least KEEP it 5-3 for a long time.
Giving up the White House and Senate with already having lost the House too, makes the republicans pretty much lame and irrelevant allowing the Left to go ahead FULL BORE on their agenda. Is that really worth it just to get a 6-3 SCOTUS?
The REAL plan ought to be to get a 6-3 SCOTUS and KEEP the WH, Senate and maybe get the House back too.
Well Kaz is no less partisan than you, yet he accuses you of partisanship. I'm afraid that is a price one pays for being on the board.I don't think it'll cost Trump the election, but even if it does, the right lifetime appointee on the SCOTUS can be far more effective than a 4 year POTUS with a divided or fully opposition congress.
Why are judges partisan?
Yes, why? They shouldn't be. They should be interpreting laws and and defending the Constitution. But the leftist judges have systematically legislated from the bench and reinterpreted the Constitution to say what they wanted it to say.
Judges should not be partisan
Everything is on civil rights, that is what WE The PEOPLE means and a women has the right to privacy. Never mind that rich white men wrote the constitution and we had years of slavery and women were not allowed to vote, never mind that white men owned the US and still do.
We don't want a women or anyone on the bench that votes on the bible.
Abortion is a tough issue for me, both personally and as a legal/const issue. I just don't want a say in what another person does with their body, and it is simply a religious issue that life begins at conception and not birth. Under the const, it's at birth. In 1780, the abortion issue was just not an issue. Beginning in the 19th century, moves to outlaw abortion came into being. (-:
But with Roe a new constitutional right came about, I'm against "new rights" unless there's an amendment. But I'm honest enough to admit that if we males were the gender that bore children, there'd never have been an anti-abortion movement.
So personally, I'm ardently pro-choice. But I don't see the constitutional right. But then I have a daughter. But she's educated an lives in a progressive state. But not all women are so lucky.
When Roe came down, abortion restrictions were losing issues politically. Roe gave the social conservatives an issue to rally around. Even now, they have a difficulty getting a slim maj in any state outside the bible belt. Imo the antiabortion people are at best fools because it will hurt them in places like Ohio and Iowa. But women without the ability to care for children will have children who are not cared for.
It is interesting that Trump's lying about covid is now page 2. And we're back to a social issue.Of course. But if only either or was possible, which?
The SCOTUS is already pretty much 5-3. 6-3 pretty much slams it, but the slight added advantage is not worth losing the White House and Senate over.
With the Senate, you can at least KEEP it 5-3 for a long time.
Giving up the White House and Senate with already having lost the House too, makes the republicans pretty much lame and irrelevant allowing the Left to go ahead FULL BORE on their agenda. Is that really worth it just to get a 6-3 SCOTUS?
The REAL plan ought to be to get a 6-3 SCOTUS and KEEP the WH, Senate and maybe get the House back too.
I believe that is the idea.
?????Well Kaz is no less partisan than you, yet he accuses you of partisanship. I'm afraid that is a price one pays for being on the board.I don't think it'll cost Trump the election, but even if it does, the right lifetime appointee on the SCOTUS can be far more effective than a 4 year POTUS with a divided or fully opposition congress.
Why are judges partisan?
Yes, why? They shouldn't be. They should be interpreting laws and and defending the Constitution. But the leftist judges have systematically legislated from the bench and reinterpreted the Constitution to say what they wanted it to say.
Judges should not be partisan
Everything is on civil rights, that is what WE The PEOPLE means and a women has the right to privacy. Never mind that rich white men wrote the constitution and we had years of slavery and women were not allowed to vote, never mind that white men owned the US and still do.
We don't want a women or anyone on the bench that votes on the bible.
Abortion is a tough issue for me, both personally and as a legal/const issue. I just don't want a say in what another person does with their body, and it is simply a religious issue that life begins at conception and not birth. Under the const, it's at birth. In 1780, the abortion issue was just not an issue. Beginning in the 19th century, moves to outlaw abortion came into being. (-:
But with Roe a new constitutional right came about, I'm against "new rights" unless there's an amendment. But I'm honest enough to admit that if we males were the gender that bore children, there'd never have been an anti-abortion movement.
So personally, I'm ardently pro-choice. But I don't see the constitutional right. But then I have a daughter. But she's educated an lives in a progressive state. But not all women are so lucky.
When Roe came down, abortion restrictions were losing issues politically. Roe gave the social conservatives an issue to rally around. Even now, they have a difficulty getting a slim maj in any state outside the bible belt. Imo the antiabortion people are at best fools because it will hurt them in places like Ohio and Iowa. But women without the ability to care for children will have children who are not cared for.
You have the problem most people do with abortion. You conflate right and wrong with government.
I am pro-choice. It is not a legitimate use of government power to point a gun at a woman and force her to carry a baby to term in her body. That said, it is immoral and it's taking a human life. If both sides would agree to work together to reduce the need for abortions, they'd both be a lot more effective.
I'm not sure how this became an abortion discussion.
I just don't see you disagreeing with Democrats ever. You can call that partisan, I do
?????Well Kaz is no less partisan than you, yet he accuses you of partisanship. I'm afraid that is a price one pays for being on the board.I don't think it'll cost Trump the election, but even if it does, the right lifetime appointee on the SCOTUS can be far more effective than a 4 year POTUS with a divided or fully opposition congress.
Why are judges partisan?
Yes, why? They shouldn't be. They should be interpreting laws and and defending the Constitution. But the leftist judges have systematically legislated from the bench and reinterpreted the Constitution to say what they wanted it to say.
Judges should not be partisan
Everything is on civil rights, that is what WE The PEOPLE means and a women has the right to privacy. Never mind that rich white men wrote the constitution and we had years of slavery and women were not allowed to vote, never mind that white men owned the US and still do.
We don't want a women or anyone on the bench that votes on the bible.
Abortion is a tough issue for me, both personally and as a legal/const issue. I just don't want a say in what another person does with their body, and it is simply a religious issue that life begins at conception and not birth. Under the const, it's at birth. In 1780, the abortion issue was just not an issue. Beginning in the 19th century, moves to outlaw abortion came into being. (-:
But with Roe a new constitutional right came about, I'm against "new rights" unless there's an amendment. But I'm honest enough to admit that if we males were the gender that bore children, there'd never have been an anti-abortion movement.
So personally, I'm ardently pro-choice. But I don't see the constitutional right. But then I have a daughter. But she's educated an lives in a progressive state. But not all women are so lucky.
When Roe came down, abortion restrictions were losing issues politically. Roe gave the social conservatives an issue to rally around. Even now, they have a difficulty getting a slim maj in any state outside the bible belt. Imo the antiabortion people are at best fools because it will hurt them in places like Ohio and Iowa. But women without the ability to care for children will have children who are not cared for.
You have the problem most people do with abortion. You conflate right and wrong with government.
I am pro-choice. It is not a legitimate use of government power to point a gun at a woman and force her to carry a baby to term in her body. That said, it is immoral and it's taking a human life. If both sides would agree to work together to reduce the need for abortions, they'd both be a lot more effective.
I'm not sure how this became an abortion discussion.
I just don't see you disagreeing with Democrats ever. You can call that partisan, I do
I just posted I don't see the legal rationale for Roe. But whatever.
I am a republican, but not a trump sucker
Whatever. Go with what you got kaz. LOL?????Well Kaz is no less partisan than you, yet he accuses you of partisanship. I'm afraid that is a price one pays for being on the board.I don't think it'll cost Trump the election, but even if it does, the right lifetime appointee on the SCOTUS can be far more effective than a 4 year POTUS with a divided or fully opposition congress.
Why are judges partisan?
Yes, why? They shouldn't be. They should be interpreting laws and and defending the Constitution. But the leftist judges have systematically legislated from the bench and reinterpreted the Constitution to say what they wanted it to say.
Judges should not be partisan
Everything is on civil rights, that is what WE The PEOPLE means and a women has the right to privacy. Never mind that rich white men wrote the constitution and we had years of slavery and women were not allowed to vote, never mind that white men owned the US and still do.
We don't want a women or anyone on the bench that votes on the bible.
Abortion is a tough issue for me, both personally and as a legal/const issue. I just don't want a say in what another person does with their body, and it is simply a religious issue that life begins at conception and not birth. Under the const, it's at birth. In 1780, the abortion issue was just not an issue. Beginning in the 19th century, moves to outlaw abortion came into being. (-:
But with Roe a new constitutional right came about, I'm against "new rights" unless there's an amendment. But I'm honest enough to admit that if we males were the gender that bore children, there'd never have been an anti-abortion movement.
So personally, I'm ardently pro-choice. But I don't see the constitutional right. But then I have a daughter. But she's educated an lives in a progressive state. But not all women are so lucky.
When Roe came down, abortion restrictions were losing issues politically. Roe gave the social conservatives an issue to rally around. Even now, they have a difficulty getting a slim maj in any state outside the bible belt. Imo the antiabortion people are at best fools because it will hurt them in places like Ohio and Iowa. But women without the ability to care for children will have children who are not cared for.
You have the problem most people do with abortion. You conflate right and wrong with government.
I am pro-choice. It is not a legitimate use of government power to point a gun at a woman and force her to carry a baby to term in her body. That said, it is immoral and it's taking a human life. If both sides would agree to work together to reduce the need for abortions, they'd both be a lot more effective.
I'm not sure how this became an abortion discussion.
I just don't see you disagreeing with Democrats ever. You can call that partisan, I do
I just posted I don't see the legal rationale for Roe. But whatever.
I am a republican, but not a trump sucker
Yeah, another Republican who thinks the Democrats are right on every issue. There are in fact no Democrats. Don't exist. You're all Republicans
