David Axelrod fuming

[Ransom]

As one after another 5-4 rulings of this SCOTUS on voting rights, abortion rights, the travel ban and more are announced, the full meaning of @SenMajLdr (https://twitter.com/SenMajLdr) ‘s unconscionable, nearly year- long blockade against the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland is manifest

You're dam right it's manifest, David. This from Twitter, Axelrod about right on here. This was all about the Garland Gorsuch swaparoosky the GOP pulled off on Obama. Sotomayor and RBG all asunder and whining loudly.

Gorsuch hopefully Trumps first. His second....might spell the doom of leftist national aspirations for decades. How sweet this is.

[donttread]

SC Justices should be Textualist or subscribe to a specific theory of "interpretation" vs just dem or repub lackeys.

[ripmeister]

I remember my good friend Utley complaining and more importantly warning about Obamas use of EO's and how that usurped the Constitution, warning that future POTUS' would do the same. McConnel's move may end up having similar results.

[ripmeister]

SC Justices should be Textualist or subscribe to a specific theory of "interpretation" vs just dem or repub lackeys.
That's certainly one opinion.

[MisterVeritis]

I remember my good friend Utley complaining and more importantly warning about Obamas use of EO's and how that usurped the Constitution, warning that future POTUS' would do the same. McConnel's move may end up having similar results.
McConnell did not usurp the Constitution.

[stjames1_53]

That's certainly one opinion.

they are the highest law in the law. they should not divide between left or right, but pure law, and NOT legislate from the bench on any occasion.

[ripmeister]

McConnell did not usurp the Constitution.

I didn't say he did. Utleys point was that once one goes down a road others will follow.

[ripmeister]

they are the highest law in the law. they should not divide between left of right, but pure law, and NOT legislate from the bench on any occasion.
Interpretation is not legislation.

[stjames1_53]

Interpretation is not legislation.

politicizing opinions based on left or right is not interpretation.

"On every occasion [of Constitutional
interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution
was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of
trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented
against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was
passed."

- Thomas Jefferson

[Common]

I didn't say he did. Utleys point was that once one goes down a road others will follow.
Reid started that ball rolling, he was the first Senate Major Lder in history to pull the nuke option and he was TOLD before he did it, it would have consequences, now he knows what the consequences are

[Ransom]

I remember my good friend Utley complaining and more importantly warning about Obamas use of EO's and how that usurped the Constitution, warning that future POTUS' would do the same. McConnel's move may end up having similar results.


McConnell's move. Ripmeister, the second the great Scalia passed there was no way the entire Republican Majority was going to allow Obama to replace him. Not a chance. You'll get your chance. About 2044.

[Ransom]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/abortion-and-travel-ban-rulings-are-victory-for-gop-tactics-on-gorsuch/ar-AAzcNUA?ocid=ientp

"GOP tactics" = winning!

[Admiral Ackbar]

I have to post this!

https://i.redd.it/g6rgbzl9arqy.jpg

[Ransom]

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=tied+of+winning&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&refig=fa56b899f7714b4280dd1b88740da316&sp=-1&pq=tied+of+winning&sc=8-15&qs=n&sk=&cvid=fa56b899f7714b4280dd1b88740da316&ru=%2fsearch%3fq%3dtied%2bof%2bwinning%26form%3dIE NTHT%26mkt%3den-us%26httpsmsn%3d1%26refig%3dfa56b899f7714b4280dd1b 88740da316%26sp%3d-1%26pq%3dtied%2bof%2bwinning%26sc%3d8-15%26qs%3dn%26sk%3d%26cvid%3dfa56b899f7714b4280dd1 b88740da316&view=detail&mmscn=vwrc&mid=09D77886589ABE09AC0D09D77886589ABE09AC0D&FORM=WRVORC

[MisterVeritis]

I didn't say he did. Utleys point was that once one goes down a road others will follow.
What road is McConnell going down?

[ripmeister]

Reid started that ball rolling, he was the first Senate Major Lder in history to pull the nuke option and he was TOLD before he did it, it would have consequences, now he knows what the consequences are

Yes. We tend to reap what we sow.

[ripmeister]

What road is McConnell going down?
The road of stonewalling legitimate nominations.

[Tahuyaman]

This is why elections are important. There's no doubt that these two decisions would have gone the other way had Hillary Clinton won the election.

The so called travel ban should have resulted in a 9-0 decision. Something can't be constitutional for one president and unconstitutional for another. The four votes in opposition to the travel ban were made based on politics and not the law.

The same thing applied with the most recent decision. No one should be forced to join a union, or have their salary confiscated to support political candidates they do not support individually. Again the votes in dissent were made based on political leanings and not the law.

[stjames1_53]

The road of stonewalling legitimate nominations.

you mean left wing nominations.................

[ripmeister]

you mean left wing nominations.................
In this case yes. The point was that those chickens will very likely come home to roost in the inverse.

[Captdon]

SC Justices should be Textualist or subscribe to a specific theory of "interpretation" vs just dem or repub lackeys.

How would that work. They are there for life unless removed by Congress. That won't ever happen. That leaves lackeys as the choice.

[NapRover]

Reid started that ball rolling, he was the first Senate Major Lder in history to pull the nuke option and he was TOLD before he did it, it would have consequences, now he knows what the consequences are
Plus they (Biden and many others) started the notion that no SCOTUS nominations should be made until the next election. Especially in an election year. If the republicans lose the Senate, what chance does Trump have of replacing a judge?

[DGUtley]

In this case yes. The point was that those chickens will very likely come home to roost in the inverse.

They always do. Always.

[Captdon]

Plus they (Biden and many others) started the notion that no SCOTUS nominations should be made until the next election. Especially in an election year. If the republicans lose the Senate, what chance does Trump have of replacing a judge?

They can't lose the Senate.

Trump still gets to nominate. He never has to nominate someone the liberals want. The Court can operate with 8 justices.

[Captdon]

They always do. Always.

The next Democratic Senate will do the same thing to a Republican President.

[ripmeister]

They always do. Always.

:grin: I was wondering if you were going to show up. I remember well your warning about Obamas use of the EO and what that meant in the long term. You were right.

[MisterVeritis]

The road of stonewalling legitimate nominations.
McConnell did not do that. He refused to consent to any nomination.

[MisterVeritis]

:grin: I was wondering if you were going to show up. I remember well your warning about Obamas use of the EO and what that meant in the long term. You were right.
You have no idea what an executive order is for, do you?

[ripmeister]

You have no idea what an executive order is for, do you?
I think I do regardless of what you and the book of Mr. V have to say about it.

[ripmeister]

McConnell did not do that. He refused to consent to any nomination.
I call that stonewalling. You call it what you like.

[MisterVeritis]

I think I do regardless of what you and the book of Mr. V have to say about it.
If you actually knew you would understand it is not the executive order that is the problem. It is its use to make or change legislation. Barack Hussein O used it to write law. President Trump has not done so.

[MisterVeritis]

I call that stonewalling. You call it what you like.
I find accuracy appeals to me. Your mileage may vary.

[Tahuyaman]

SC Justices should be Textualist or subscribe to a specific theory of "interpretation" vs just dem or repub lackeys.


That's certainly one opinion.

So, Supreme Court justices should be partisans and ignore the US constitution? Just rubber stamp the laws imposed by the majority?

[Captdon]

If you actually knew you would understand it is not the executive order that is the problem. It is its use to make or change legislation. Barack Hussein O used it to write law. President Trump has not done so.

He just did. He is keeping the families together despite the law. He did it by EO.

[MisterVeritis]

He just did. He is keeping the families together despite the law. He did it by EO.
You do have a point.

[Ransom]

I call that stonewalling. You call it what you like.

So do I. And thank God.