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.
Believe it or not, I actually agree with you on this. Interpreting the constitution as it is written would be the best answer. It's what a SC judge does and she didn't mention it.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?
It is, however, important to appoint judges who lack strong partisan politics. Scalia was a sack of shit.
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.
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.
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.
Democrats are taking the Senate too.
Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin and I think PA are giving the Repubicans the boot. With Caine to break ties...we will have a functioning government once more.
That may be, but I'm just pointing out that Hillary wouldn't be able to just pick a judge that fits her needs and get them to slide into the Supreme Court. It's part of the checks and balances system.
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.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?
Whomever she appoints will be vetted by the Senate. Just as it has been, just as it should be.
Disqualified? You're thinking of Trump
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?
What?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.
Democrats are taking the Senate too.
Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin and I think PA are giving the Repubicans the boot. With Caine to break ties...we will have a functioning government once more.
That may be, but I'm just pointing out that Hillary wouldn't be able to just pick a judge that fits her needs and get them to slide into the Supreme Court. It's part of the checks and balances system.
There's that.
Also....
Judges are very independent minded. It comes with the robe. When you give them a lifetime appointment; you get complete independence. Just because HRC thinks they will rule one way or another; that may not be the case; it may never be the case.
Every court case has nuances...Very rarely are there cut and dried circumstances that result in a one-size-fits-all decision.
It may or may not be legal in some instances for me to publish your SSN.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.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.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?
Whomever she appoints will be vetted by the Senate. Just as it has been, just as it should be.
Disqualified? You're thinking of Trump
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?
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?
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.
Democrats are taking the Senate too.
Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin and I think PA are giving the Repubicans the boot. With Caine to break ties...we will have a functioning government once more.
That may be, but I'm just pointing out that Hillary wouldn't be able to just pick a judge that fits her needs and get them to slide into the Supreme Court. It's part of the checks and balances system.
There's that.
Also....
Judges are very independent minded. It comes with the robe. When you give them a lifetime appointment; you get complete independence. Just because HRC thinks they will rule one way or another; that may not be the case; it may never be the case.
Every court case has nuances...Very rarely are there cut and dried circumstances that result in a one-size-fits-all decision.
It may or may not be legal in some instances for me to publish your SSN.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.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.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?
Whomever she appoints will be vetted by the Senate. Just as it has been, just as it should be.
Disqualified? You're thinking of Trump
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?
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?It may or may not be legal in some instances for me to publish your SSN.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.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.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?
Whomever she appoints will be vetted by the Senate. Just as it has been, just as it should be.
Disqualified? You're thinking of Trump
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?
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.
I know you aren't being serious.What voter suppression? Which American citizens are prevented from voting?Voter suppression shows us what Republicans think of the constitution.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?
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?It may or may not be legal in some instances for me to publish your SSN.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.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.Whomever she appoints will be vetted by the Senate. Just as it has been, just as it should be.
Disqualified? You're thinking of Trump
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?
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.
I know you aren't being serious.What voter suppression? Which American citizens are prevented from voting?Voter suppression shows us what Republicans think of the constitution.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?
Why did the Supreme Court vote unanimous nitwit?
Typical GOPer. Doesn't know the difference between voter suppression and voter ID.Voter suppression shows us what Republicans think of the constitution.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?
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 shows us what Republicans think of the constitution.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?
Overturning Citizens United is speech suppression in elections. Voter ID is constitutional, supreme court said so.
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.Typical GOPer. Doesn't know the difference between voter suppression and voter ID.Voter suppression shows us what Republicans think of the constitution.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?
Overturning Citizens United is speech suppression in elections. Voter ID is constitutional, supreme court said so.
Regressives call vote ID voter suppression, haven't you been paying attention?
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?It may or may not be legal in some instances for me to publish your SSN.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.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.Whomever she appoints will be vetted by the Senate. Just as it has been, just as it should be.
Disqualified? You're thinking of Trump
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?
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.
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.Typical GOPer. Doesn't know the difference between voter suppression and voter ID.Voter suppression shows us what Republicans think of the constitution.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?
Overturning Citizens United is speech suppression in elections. Voter ID is constitutional, supreme court said so.
Regressives call vote ID voter suppression, haven't you been paying attention?
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."
