User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 62

Thread: Feinstein very concerned.

  1. #11
    Points: 143,600, Level: 91
    Level completed: 16%, Points required for next Level: 3,050
    Overall activity: 99.8%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteranOverdrive
    Awards:
    Activity Award
    Tahuyaman's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    252408
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Bremerton Washington or Sayulita Mexico depending on the time of year.
    Posts
    63,286
    Points
    143,600
    Level
    91
    Thanks Given
    7,294
    Thanked 21,372x in 16,163 Posts
    Mentioned
    356 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
    WRONG! Its was GW Bush who said its just a goddam piece of paper! Obama never said that!

    Actually, Bush never said that. But don't let reality change your view.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Tahuyaman For This Useful Post:

    Subdermal (03-21-2017)

  3. #12
    Points: 23,890, Level: 37
    Level completed: 62%, Points required for next Level: 460
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsTagger Second ClassVeteran
    decedent's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    390546
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    6,987
    Points
    23,890
    Level
    37
    Thanks Given
    2,234
    Thanked 2,783x in 2,002 Posts
    Mentioned
    119 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originalists are basically conservative political activist judges. They pretend to know that the Framers were thinking 250 years go. They use flimsy evidence to do so. In other words, they use originalism as an excuse to rule based on their political agenda. This makes their rulings very predictable and without accountability, as we saw with Scalia.


    Here's an example: Scalia thought that the Framers thought that corporations had rights that people have. The result was Citizens United -- one of the most ridiculous decisions in the history of the SCOTUS.
    I have a big cook.

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to decedent For This Useful Post:

    Crepitus (03-21-2017),del (03-20-2017)

  5. #13
    Points: 30,226, Level: 42
    Level completed: 42%, Points required for next Level: 824
    Overall activity: 19.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Cletus's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    176459
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    13,611
    Points
    30,226
    Level
    42
    Thanks Given
    5
    Thanked 8,140x in 5,339 Posts
    Mentioned
    146 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by decedent View Post
    Originalists are basically conservative political activist judges. They pretend to know that the Framers were thinking 250 years go. They use flimsy evidence to do so.
    Yeah, the words and writings of the Framers themselves.

    Real flimsy evidence.

    In other words, they use originalism as an excuse to rule based on their political agenda. This makes their rulings very predictable and without accountability, as we saw with Scalia.
    Scalia wasn't perfect, but he was probably the finest jurist to ever sit on the Supreme Court.

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Cletus For This Useful Post:

    MisterVeritis (03-21-2017),Subdermal (03-21-2017)

  7. #14
    Points: 23,890, Level: 37
    Level completed: 62%, Points required for next Level: 460
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsTagger Second ClassVeteran
    decedent's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    390546
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    6,987
    Points
    23,890
    Level
    37
    Thanks Given
    2,234
    Thanked 2,783x in 2,002 Posts
    Mentioned
    119 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Cletus View Post
    Yeah, the words and writings of the Framers themselves.

    Real flimsy evidence.

    Where did the Framers write that corporations have rights that people have? They didn't, of course, but Scalia decided what their opinion was. It happened to be the same opinion he had. What an amazing coincidence!


    Quote Originally Posted by Cletus View Post
    Scalia wasn't perfect, but he was probably the finest jurist to ever sit on the Supreme Court.
    Speaking of predictable....
    I have a big cook.

  8. #15
    Points: 30,226, Level: 42
    Level completed: 42%, Points required for next Level: 824
    Overall activity: 19.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Cletus's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    176459
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    13,611
    Points
    30,226
    Level
    42
    Thanks Given
    5
    Thanked 8,140x in 5,339 Posts
    Mentioned
    146 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by decedent View Post
    Where did the Framers write that corporations have rights that people have? They didn't, of course, but Scalia decided what their opinion was. It happened to be the same opinion he had. What an amazing coincidence!
    You don't even know what Citizens United affirmed, do you?

    Scalia had 30 years on the Supreme Court and all you can do is focus on one case you don't even understand.

    Hilarious... and predicable.

  9. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cletus For This Useful Post:

    MisterVeritis (03-21-2017),resister (03-21-2017),Subdermal (03-21-2017)

  10. #16
    Points: 6,573, Level: 19
    Level completed: 32%, Points required for next Level: 477
    Overall activity: 5.0%
    Achievements:
    Social10000 Experience Points1 year registered
    KathyS's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    8039
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,263
    Points
    6,573
    Level
    19
    Thanks Given
    4,505
    Thanked 1,482x in 774 Posts
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by decedent View Post
    Originalists are basically conservative political activist judges. They pretend to know that the Framers were thinking 250 years go. They use flimsy evidence to do so. In other words, they use originalism as an excuse to rule based on their political agenda. This makes their rulings very predictable and without accountability, as we saw with Scalia.


    Here's an example: Scalia thought that the Framers thought that corporations had rights that people have. The result was Citizens United -- one of the most ridiculous decisions in the history of the SCOTUS.
    I agree with you about Citizens United.
    “Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured…but not everyone must prove they are a citizen. And now, any of those who refuse, or are unable, to prove they are citizens will receive free insurance paid for by those who are forced to buy insurance because they are citizens.”



    Jim Hays


  11. #17
    Points: 182,938, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 41.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocial1 year registered
    FindersKeepers's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    153760
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    8,718
    Points
    182,938
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    2,838
    Thanked 6,393x in 3,908 Posts
    Mentioned
    127 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmyz View Post
    Justice Ruth Ginsburg denigrated our Constitution a ways back. Can you imagine a sitting SCOTUS judge saying that publicly. We live in strange times.
    We certainly do -- but they are interesting times, no?
    “I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men.”
    ~Leonardo da Vinci

  12. #18
    Original Ranter
    Points: 450,003, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    410300
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    138,621
    Points
    450,003
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    79,895
    Thanked 61,269x in 42,002 Posts
    Mentioned
    2131 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
    WRONG! Its was GW Bush who said its just a goddam piece of paper! Obama never said that!

    Snopes, if you give that website any credibility, says that is false.
    Alea iacta est

    Check out the blog.


  13. #19
    Original Ranter
    Points: 450,003, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    410300
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    138,621
    Points
    450,003
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    79,895
    Thanked 61,269x in 42,002 Posts
    Mentioned
    2131 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The 14th doesn't grant birthright citizenship.

    Can you cite to any SCOTUS case on point?

    The 14th focuses on protecting the newly freed slaves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crepitus View Post
    Liberals BTW do not hate the constitution, that's your team.

    Conservatives hate the 1st amendment, it keeps them from discriminating against people they don't like.

    They hate the 14th amendment because it grants birthright citizenship and let more brown people into their country.

    They hate the 16th amendment because it grants Congress the power to collect income tax.

    They hate the 17th, they want the states to pick senators, not the people.

    A decent portion of the evangelicals want to repeal the 21st so the 18th will be back in effect. Prohibition baby!

    They want religion in public schools, and they are likely to get it now.

    In fact, the only portion of the Constitution that I see conservatives supporting without fail across the board is the 2nd.
    Alea iacta est

    Check out the blog.


  14. #20
    Original Ranter
    Points: 450,003, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.9%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    410300
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    138,621
    Points
    450,003
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    79,895
    Thanked 61,269x in 42,002 Posts
    Mentioned
    2131 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That is a silly distortion of what originalism is.

    Quote Originally Posted by decedent View Post
    Originalists are basically conservative political activist judges. They pretend to know that the Framers were thinking 250 years go. They use flimsy evidence to do so. In other words, they use originalism as an excuse to rule based on their political agenda. This makes their rulings very predictable and without accountability, as we saw with Scalia.


    Here's an example: Scalia thought that the Framers thought that corporations had rights that people have. The result was Citizens United -- one of the most ridiculous decisions in the history of the SCOTUS.
    Alea iacta est

    Check out the blog.


+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


Critical Acclaim
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO