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: 332,038, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 52.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Tahuyaman's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    225899
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington or Syaulita, Mexico. Depending on the time of year
    Posts
    42,542
    Points
    332,038
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    4,336
    Thanked 11,452x in 9,032 Posts
    Mentioned
    293 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2303
    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: 339,833, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 43.0%
    Achievements:
    1 year registered50000 Experience PointsTagger Second Class
    decedent's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    317864
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    5,591
    Points
    339,833
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    1,725
    Thanked 2,214x in 1,592 Posts
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    3186
    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: 188,774, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 23.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Cletus's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    168756
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    9,169
    Points
    188,774
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    1
    Thanked 4,812x in 3,275 Posts
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1698
    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: 339,833, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 43.0%
    Achievements:
    1 year registered50000 Experience PointsTagger Second Class
    decedent's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    317864
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    5,591
    Points
    339,833
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    1,725
    Thanked 2,214x in 1,592 Posts
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    3186
    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: 188,774, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 23.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience Points1 year registered
    Cletus's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    168756
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    9,169
    Points
    188,774
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    1
    Thanked 4,812x in 3,275 Posts
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1698
    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: 6,535, Level: 19
    Level completed: 27%, Points required for next Level: 515
    Overall activity: 8.0%
    Achievements:
    Social5000 Experience Points3 months registered
    KathyS's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    1812
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    434
    Points
    6,535
    Level
    19
    Thanks Given
    1,385
    Thanked 442x in 242 Posts
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    19
    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.
    At this moment in time, even with N. Korea, China, Russia and Iran, we should be more afraid of the "enemies within" than those outside our borders. The enemies outside our borders cannot destroy us, but we can destroy ourselves. Kristie

  11. #17
    V.I.P
    Points: 177,228, Level: 99
    Level completed: 90%, Points required for next Level: 422
    Overall activity: 45.0%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsSocial1 year registered
    FindersKeepers's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    150070
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    8,231
    Points
    177,228
    Level
    99
    Thanks Given
    2,538
    Thanked 5,939x in 3,646 Posts
    Mentioned
    101 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1510
    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
    V.I.P
    Points: 916,905, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.8%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Peter1469's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    381377
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    123,814
    Points
    916,905
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    70,755
    Thanked 51,755x in 35,847 Posts
    Mentioned
    1988 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    3942
    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
    V.I.P
    Points: 916,905, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.8%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Peter1469's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    381377
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    123,814
    Points
    916,905
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    70,755
    Thanked 51,755x in 35,847 Posts
    Mentioned
    1988 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    3942
    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
    V.I.P
    Points: 916,905, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.8%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Discussion Ender
    Peter1469's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    381377
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    123,814
    Points
    916,905
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    70,755
    Thanked 51,755x in 35,847 Posts
    Mentioned
    1988 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    3942
    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