One Candidate For President Disqualified Themselves Today

[Avatar4321]

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

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.

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?

Only because the north wanted to count them as 3/5th so the south wouldn't get more Representatives in the Congress. Maybe the Black folks should sue the northern states for reparations.

So penalizing states for allowing slavery was a bad thing now?

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

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?

Voter suppression shows us what Republicans think of the constitution.

What voter suppression? Which American citizens are prevented from voting?

The dead and non-citizens...

If you require someone to have any form of ID then you are suppressing that person but who cares you also need an ID to cash checks, drive your car and many other things...

 

[gipper]

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?

Radical agenda? LMFAO!!! That's just uninformed, ignorant nonsense.
Trump lied repeatedly about committing criminal sexual assault - now THAT is disqualifying, not to mention the child rape case, and of course his illegal shell game of bringing in chinese steel to build his structures.
The man is a fraud from start to finish.

Okay. Is Hillary a fraud?

 

[Yarddog]

They nominate, they don't appoint. Get back to me when you have a clue. Also I'm not surprised you have no concern that she never mentioned the Constitution when considering a person for the court. You have no respect for it yourself.

Oh brother...get back to me when you get a life.

Presidents are supposed to nominate a Justice they believe will properly interpret laws, rulings and the constitution as it applies in a nuetral way. She should have mentioned something along those lines

Really? Says who?

Its their job description. They are supposed to decide if a ruling or action is constitutional, or if if it supports the constitutional rights of a defendant or plaintiff. What else do we need them for really?

Yeah, goes without saying. The Constitution holds that blacks are 3/5 of a person. Should they, until the 13th amendment was passed and nullified that in 1865, saw blacks as 3/5 of a human being? Should someone brining suit that NASA is unconstitutional get standing and should Roberts order the space program to be shut down?

You do know why the 3/5ths clause was formed right? You do understand that it was meant as an action taken AGAINST the slave holding south right?

 

[candycorn]

Oh brother...get back to me when you get a life.

Presidents are supposed to nominate a Justice they believe will properly interpret laws, rulings and the constitution as it applies in a nuetral way. She should have mentioned something along those lines

Really? Says who?

Its their job description. They are supposed to decide if a ruling or action is constitutional, or if if it supports the constitutional rights of a defendant or plaintiff. What else do we need them for really?

Yeah, goes without saying. The Constitution holds that blacks are 3/5 of a person. Should they, until the 13th amendment was passed and nullified that in 1865, saw blacks as 3/5 of a human being? Should someone brining suit that NASA is unconstitutional get standing and should Roberts order the space program to be shut down?

You do know why the 3/5ths clause was formed right? You do understand that it was meant as an action taken AGAINST the slave holding south right?

SO?
The constitution says it.So according to stick constitutionalists, you guys though a black person was 3/5 of a human. Dance all you want; you can’t have it both ways.

 

[candycorn]

We'll see in 27 days.

No you’ll see. Those of us in the know…we know. Its class vs. crass and crass doesn’t play well nationwide.

No 57% of Americans said she should have been charged, so it makes criminal vs crass, so we'll see if Americans can actually pull the lever for some one they believe is a criminal.

No worries:


View attachment 92968

I see you didn't post a link for your fantasies. Who put it out, thinkprogress?

Nate Silver—the guy who predicted every state last time around…. I’m sure unskewedpolls.com will tell you what you want to hear though.

But hey, lets make it interesting.

Straight up avatar bet:

Hillary wins, you change your avatar to this until she is sworn in. From midnight election night to noon January 20:

Donald wins, I change my avatar to this until he is sworn in. from midnight election night to noon on January 20:
View attachment 92970

You sound confident…ready to back it up?

OKTexas

So do we have a deal or not? You are confident that your messiah is going to win, aren’t you?

 

[Yarddog]

Presidents are supposed to nominate a Justice they believe will properly interpret laws, rulings and the constitution as it applies in a nuetral way. She should have mentioned something along those lines

Really? Says who?

Its their job description. They are supposed to decide if a ruling or action is constitutional, or if if it supports the constitutional rights of a defendant or plaintiff. What else do we need them for really?

Yeah, goes without saying. The Constitution holds that blacks are 3/5 of a person. Should they, until the 13th amendment was passed and nullified that in 1865, saw blacks as 3/5 of a human being? Should someone brining suit that NASA is unconstitutional get standing and should Roberts order the space program to be shut down?

You do know why the 3/5ths clause was formed right? You do understand that it was meant as an action taken AGAINST the slave holding south right?

SO?
The constitution says it.So according to stick constitutionalists, you guys though a black person was 3/5 of a human. Dance all you want; you can’t have it both ways.

That's what I thought?? bullshit, are you crazy? Theres nothing to dance about, what I stated was a fact. In the End, that decision was actually defending the rights of those Blacks more than if their own representation could be used against their very own interest. Justices have to do the best they can on a case by case basis and they still might get it wrong, but trying to stay straight down the center should be what's required from every Justice in their own Mind. If they cant do that, they should just run for Senate or Congress and join the other Right and left wing hacks.

 

[candycorn]

Really? Says who?

Its their job description. They are supposed to decide if a ruling or action is constitutional, or if if it supports the constitutional rights of a defendant or plaintiff. What else do we need them for really?

Yeah, goes without saying. The Constitution holds that blacks are 3/5 of a person. Should they, until the 13th amendment was passed and nullified that in 1865, saw blacks as 3/5 of a human being? Should someone brining suit that NASA is unconstitutional get standing and should Roberts order the space program to be shut down?

You do know why the 3/5ths clause was formed right? You do understand that it was meant as an action taken AGAINST the slave holding south right?

SO?
The constitution says it.So according to stick constitutionalists, you guys though a black person was 3/5 of a human. Dance all you want; you can’t have it both ways.

That's what I thought?? bullshit, are you crazy? Theres nothing to dance about, what I stated was a fact.

Okay.
You say we should go by the written words in the Constitution. Right?
The 3/5 compromise is in the Constitution. Right?

So there you have it. It’s what we should go by, according to you. I am aware of the 13th Amendment changing it.

In the End, that decision was actually defending the rights of those Blacks more than if their own representation could be used against their very own interest. Justices have to do the best they can on a case by case basis and they still might get it wrong, but trying to stay straight down the center should be what's required from every Justice in their own Mind. If they cant do that, they should just run for Senate or Congress and join the other Right and left wing hacks.

Why it is in there is immaterial. The fact is, it is in there.

I don’t know why you’re getting so upset about it…that is your philosophy. Embrace it. But you can’t pick and choose what parts of the Constitution you feel like trotting out for examples.

 

[OKTexas]

Presidents are supposed to nominate a Justice they believe will properly interpret laws, rulings and the constitution as it applies in a nuetral way. She should have mentioned something along those lines

Really? Says who?

Its their job description. They are supposed to decide if a ruling or action is constitutional, or if if it supports the constitutional rights of a defendant or plaintiff. What else do we need them for really?

Yeah, goes without saying. The Constitution holds that blacks are 3/5 of a person. Should they, until the 13th amendment was passed and nullified that in 1865, saw blacks as 3/5 of a human being? Should someone brining suit that NASA is unconstitutional get standing and should Roberts order the space program to be shut down?

You do know why the 3/5ths clause was formed right? You do understand that it was meant as an action taken AGAINST the slave holding south right?

SO?
The constitution says it.So according to stick constitutionalists, you guys though a black person was 3/5 of a human. Dance all you want; you can’t have it both ways.

You're a liar dumbass, Article 5 was used to change it, meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution. They did it the proper way.

 

[candycorn]

Really? Says who?

Its their job description. They are supposed to decide if a ruling or action is constitutional, or if if it supports the constitutional rights of a defendant or plaintiff. What else do we need them for really?

Yeah, goes without saying. The Constitution holds that blacks are 3/5 of a person. Should they, until the 13th amendment was passed and nullified that in 1865, saw blacks as 3/5 of a human being? Should someone brining suit that NASA is unconstitutional get standing and should Roberts order the space program to be shut down?

You do know why the 3/5ths clause was formed right? You do understand that it was meant as an action taken AGAINST the slave holding south right?

SO?
The constitution says it.So according to stick constitutionalists, you guys though a black person was 3/5 of a human. Dance all you want; you can’t have it both ways.

You're a liar dumbass, Article 5 was used to change it, meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution. They did it the proper way.

Yes, I know.

But for the 70 or so years it was in effect, you’re stating that the courts should have seen blacks as 3/5 of a human…yes or no…BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IS IN THE CONSTITUTION….right?

 

[Yarddog]

Its their job description. They are supposed to decide if a ruling or action is constitutional, or if if it supports the constitutional rights of a defendant or plaintiff. What else do we need them for really?

Yeah, goes without saying. The Constitution holds that blacks are 3/5 of a person. Should they, until the 13th amendment was passed and nullified that in 1865, saw blacks as 3/5 of a human being? Should someone brining suit that NASA is unconstitutional get standing and should Roberts order the space program to be shut down?

You do know why the 3/5ths clause was formed right? You do understand that it was meant as an action taken AGAINST the slave holding south right?

SO?
The constitution says it.So according to stick constitutionalists, you guys though a black person was 3/5 of a human. Dance all you want; you can’t have it both ways.

That's what I thought?? bullshit, are you crazy? Theres nothing to dance about, what I stated was a fact.

Okay.
You say we should go by the written words in the Constitution. Right?
The 3/5 compromise is in the Constitution. Right?

So there you have it. It’s what we should go by, according to you. I am aware of the 13th Amendment changing it.

In the End, that decision was actually defending the rights of those Blacks more than if their own representation could be used against their very own interest. Justices have to do the best they can on a case by case basis and they still might get it wrong, but trying to stay straight down the center should be what's required from every Justice in their own Mind. If they cant do that, they should just run for Senate or Congress and join the other Right and left wing hacks.

Why it is in there is immaterial. The fact is, it is in there.

I don’t know why you’re getting so upset about it…that is your philosophy. Embrace it. But you can’t pick and choose what parts of the Constitution you feel like trotting out for examples.

I'm not a Supreme Court Justice last time I checked and it is THEIR job to interpret such things as this in regards to their historical context. If they have half a brain, it is in no way an impediment to coming to a conclusion if the 3/5ths clause was a factor, and they should also be able to do that while using the constitution as a guide. I dont see how its any better for a President to be actively looking for a Justice they feel is more conservative or more Liberal. Better to find someone who is smart and has shown a history of an objective viewpoint.

 

[candycorn]

We'll see in 27 days.

No you’ll see. Those of us in the know…we know. Its class vs. crass and crass doesn’t play well nationwide.

No 57% of Americans said she should have been charged, so it makes criminal vs crass, so we'll see if Americans can actually pull the lever for some one they believe is a criminal.

No worries:


View attachment 92968

I see you didn't post a link for your fantasies. Who put it out, thinkprogress?

Nate Silver—the guy who predicted every state last time around…. I’m sure unskewedpolls.com will tell you what you want to hear though.

But hey, lets make it interesting.

Straight up avatar bet:

Hillary wins, you change your avatar to this until she is sworn in. From midnight election night to noon January 20:

Donald wins, I change my avatar to this until he is sworn in. from midnight election night to noon on January 20:
View attachment 92970

You sound confident…ready to back it up?

Now that you’re back…do we have a deal OKTexas ?

You are confident in Trump winning, right?

 

[candycorn]

Yeah, goes without saying. The Constitution holds that blacks are 3/5 of a person. Should they, until the 13th amendment was passed and nullified that in 1865, saw blacks as 3/5 of a human being? Should someone brining suit that NASA is unconstitutional get standing and should Roberts order the space program to be shut down?

You do know why the 3/5ths clause was formed right? You do understand that it was meant as an action taken AGAINST the slave holding south right?

SO?
The constitution says it.So according to stick constitutionalists, you guys though a black person was 3/5 of a human. Dance all you want; you can’t have it both ways.

That's what I thought?? bullshit, are you crazy? Theres nothing to dance about, what I stated was a fact.

Okay.
You say we should go by the written words in the Constitution. Right?
The 3/5 compromise is in the Constitution. Right?

So there you have it. It’s what we should go by, according to you. I am aware of the 13th Amendment changing it.

In the End, that decision was actually defending the rights of those Blacks more than if their own representation could be used against their very own interest. Justices have to do the best they can on a case by case basis and they still might get it wrong, but trying to stay straight down the center should be what's required from every Justice in their own Mind. If they cant do that, they should just run for Senate or Congress and join the other Right and left wing hacks.

Why it is in there is immaterial. The fact is, it is in there.

I don’t know why you’re getting so upset about it…that is your philosophy. Embrace it. But you can’t pick and choose what parts of the Constitution you feel like trotting out for examples.

I'm not a Supreme Court Justice last time I checked and it is THEIR job to interpret such things as this in regards to their historical context. If they have half a brain, it is in no way an impediment to coming to a conclusion if the 3/5ths clause was a factor, and they should also be able to do that while using the constitution as a guide. I dont see how its any better for a President to be actively looking for a Justice they feel is more conservative or more Liberal. Better to find someone who is smart and has shown a history of an objective viewpoint.

Wearing those tap shoes a little too tight…

Simple yes or no question; during that time before the 13th Amendment, judges should regard blacks legally as 3/5 of a human being…
That is what a strict constitutionalist would believe….correct? Again.. a simple yes or no. There is no shame is saying Yes. There is no heroism in saying No. It was a different time.

What I’m illustrating is that when you say we should go by the written word, you limit the greatness of the nation exponentially. Again, NASA, FEMA, the national parks…all would be unconstitutional in the hands of strict constitutionalist. Vital agencies and national treasures; gone.

 

[OKTexas]

We'll see in 27 days.

No you’ll see. Those of us in the know…we know. Its class vs. crass and crass doesn’t play well nationwide.

No 57% of Americans said she should have been charged, so it makes criminal vs crass, so we'll see if Americans can actually pull the lever for some one they believe is a criminal.

No worries:


View attachment 92968

I see you didn't post a link for your fantasies. Who put it out, thinkprogress?

Nate Silver—the guy who predicted every state last time around…. I’m sure unskewedpolls.com will tell you what you want to hear though.

But hey, lets make it interesting.

Straight up avatar bet:

Hillary wins, you change your avatar to this until she is sworn in. From midnight election night to noon January 20:

Donald wins, I change my avatar to this until he is sworn in. from midnight election night to noon on January 20:
View attachment 92970

You sound confident…ready to back it up?

So you're trying to twist a "we'll see" to some degree of confidence? The way this elections is going I wouldn't bet on anything but how I and my immediate family will vote. Now run along child and try putting words in other peoples mouths.

 

[candycorn]

No you’ll see. Those of us in the know…we know. Its class vs. crass and crass doesn’t play well nationwide.

No 57% of Americans said she should have been charged, so it makes criminal vs crass, so we'll see if Americans can actually pull the lever for some one they believe is a criminal.

No worries:


View attachment 92968

I see you didn't post a link for your fantasies. Who put it out, thinkprogress?

Nate Silver—the guy who predicted every state last time around…. I’m sure unskewedpolls.com will tell you what you want to hear though.

But hey, lets make it interesting.

Straight up avatar bet:

Hillary wins, you change your avatar to this until she is sworn in. From midnight election night to noon January 20:

Donald wins, I change my avatar to this until he is sworn in. from midnight election night to noon on January 20:
View attachment 92970

You sound confident…ready to back it up?

So you're trying to twist a "we'll see" to some degree of confidence? The way this elections is going I wouldn't bet on anything but how I and my immediate family will vote. Now run along child and try putting words in other peoples mouths.

Thats what I figured….all yammer, no hammer. Typical Trump Supporter.

 

[OKTexas]

Presidents are supposed to nominate a Justice they believe will properly interpret laws, rulings and the constitution as it applies in a nuetral way. She should have mentioned something along those lines

Really? Says who?

Its their job description. They are supposed to decide if a ruling or action is constitutional, or if if it supports the constitutional rights of a defendant or plaintiff. What else do we need them for really?

Yeah, goes without saying. The Constitution holds that blacks are 3/5 of a person. Should they, until the 13th amendment was passed and nullified that in 1865, saw blacks as 3/5 of a human being? Should someone brining suit that NASA is unconstitutional get standing and should Roberts order the space program to be shut down?

Leave it to an ignorant regressive to ignore the reason for the 3/5ths compromise and spin it into something it's not. You're no better than the race baiters, sharpton, jackson and maobama.

Leave it to someone who thinks the constitution is a dead document to dodge the question.

It's not dead, but it is on life support, and to answer your question, YES. Just like federal spending on interstate highways, with the exception of the ones proven to be necessary for national defense or postal routes, should be shut down.

 

[OKTexas]

Presidents are supposed to nominate a Justice they believe will properly interpret laws, rulings and the constitution as it applies in a nuetral way. She should have mentioned something along those lines

Really? Says who?

Its their job description. They are supposed to decide if a ruling or action is constitutional, or if if it supports the constitutional rights of a defendant or plaintiff. What else do we need them for really?

Yeah, goes without saying. The Constitution holds that blacks are 3/5 of a person. Should they, until the 13th amendment was passed and nullified that in 1865, saw blacks as 3/5 of a human being? Should someone brining suit that NASA is unconstitutional get standing and should Roberts order the space program to be shut down?

You do know why the 3/5ths clause was formed right? You do understand that it was meant as an action taken AGAINST the slave holding south right?

SO?
The constitution says it.So according to stick constitutionalists, you guys though a black person was 3/5 of a human. Dance all you want; you can’t have it both ways.

What's a

stick constitutionalists

?

 

[kaz]

No legal citizens are prevented from voting in this country. You are full of shit

I am full of shit???? I didn't make that court ruling…. I am just the messenger trying to educate your dumb ass!

What court ruling?

Damn, SON… how many times do I have to post the link? See that NCvote in my sig line? That explains it all.

You mean the link that didn't even have a single example of any US citizen who can't vote?

All it said was the opinion of one judge is that blacks are too stupid and lazy to get a free ID, it didn't have even an accusation of anyone who couldn't get an ID. It just said blacks aren't going to do it because they spend too much time eating watermelon and fried chicken. They will vote, but they won't get a free ID to do it. The judge is a knuckle dragger. He's probably in the KKK.

Whether you agree with the judge or not, the article didn't say any legal US citizen has been or will be denied the right to vote. It was just his perception that blacks aren't motivated and won't follow up.

Name a US citizen who is being denied the right to vote. You can't do it because there isn't one

I don't know their names but here are a few citizens who would be denied the right to vote in some states if they have felony convictions for ANYTHING!

Yes, felon suppression

 

[kaz]

No legal citizens are prevented from voting in this country. You are full of shit

I am full of shit???? I didn't make that court ruling…. I am just the messenger trying to educate your dumb ass!

What court ruling?

Damn, SON… how many times do I have to post the link? See that NCvote in my sig line? That explains it all.

You mean the link that didn't even have a single example of any US citizen who can't vote?

All it said was the opinion of one judge is that blacks are too stupid and lazy to get a free ID, it didn't have even an accusation of anyone who couldn't get an ID. It just said blacks aren't going to do it because they spend too much time eating watermelon and fried chicken. They will vote, but they won't get a free ID to do it. The judge is a knuckle dragger. He's probably in the KKK.

Whether you agree with the judge or not, the article didn't say any legal US citizen has been or will be denied the right to vote. It was just his perception that blacks aren't motivated and won't follow up.

Name a US citizen who is being denied the right to vote. You can't do it because there isn't one

Your crass assessment of the court's judgement reflects who you are: an unsavory lowlife filled with hate and anger.Logic is alien to you and reason is lost in the windmills of your mind. Vent as you will. I will join the others in watching the deplorable spectacle you've become from a distance.

Tissue?

In the meantime, name any American citizens who weren't able to vote because the meanie Republicans stopped them. You're 0 fer so far ...

 

[OKTexas]

Its their job description. They are supposed to decide if a ruling or action is constitutional, or if if it supports the constitutional rights of a defendant or plaintiff. What else do we need them for really?

Yeah, goes without saying. The Constitution holds that blacks are 3/5 of a person. Should they, until the 13th amendment was passed and nullified that in 1865, saw blacks as 3/5 of a human being? Should someone brining suit that NASA is unconstitutional get standing and should Roberts order the space program to be shut down?

You do know why the 3/5ths clause was formed right? You do understand that it was meant as an action taken AGAINST the slave holding south right?

SO?
The constitution says it.So according to stick constitutionalists, you guys though a black person was 3/5 of a human. Dance all you want; you can’t have it both ways.

You're a liar dumbass, Article 5 was used to change it, meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution. They did it the proper way.

Yes, I know.

But for the 70 or so years it was in effect, you’re stating that the courts should have seen blacks as 3/5 of a human…yes or no…BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IS IN THE CONSTITUTION….right?

For representation they were counted as 3/5ths of a peson, because that what it said in the Constitution at that time. So why are you focusing on this when the 14th amendment say blacks that are not eligible to vote should be counted as no person at all for representation. Of course the census bureau ignores that law also. Not only do they refuse to not count ineligible citizen they include non citizens in the count which also violates the 14th and it's still an operative amendment.