|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi: |
12-28-2022, 03:00 PM
|
#61
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,197
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doover
Democrats told President Reagan pass 'comprehensive immigration reform' and we'll send them all back next time.
Of course, lying, America hating, baby killing Democrats lied, as Democrats always do.
Name me one thing positive Tories/Democrats have EVER done for this County.
|
let me Guess. I bet you support sedition the Jan6th rioters and the attempted overthrow of an american election by a sitting POTUS...
Because you are such a America Lover
Last edited by wdmso; 12-28-2022 at 03:08 PM..
|
|
|
|
12-28-2022, 03:41 PM
|
#62
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
You really dont pay attention do you ... who voted to keep it? and are now legislating from the bench.. and republicans suddenly support it.
yes the daggers are already out for Gorsuch from the faithful who are disgusted he broke ranks ...
but please keep thinking that's not happening
|
I try to pay attention to what you say, but you make it difficult to do. Some of the stuff you say is crazier than stuff Trump says, and it's just as disjointed as his rhetoric. I couldn't tell, from the way you presented it, if you were saying that Gorsuch was legislating from the bench or if it was the other Justices. In either case, you didn't make it clear how they, whoever, was doing the legislating. Voting to keep a policy that was put in place by Congress, or the President, is not legislating from the bench--it is affirming that existing legislation, or policy, made by those others as constitutional. It's what SCOTUS is supposed to do, affirm or strike down. Neither of those decisions is "legislating." Legislating from the bench is when Judges impose their personal opinion (rather than the Constitution) on the law in question in ways that the Judges subjectively consider "good" or socially "just" for society, regardless of, or entirely outside of, the scope and intent of the policy in question--thusly creating "legislation" that was not passed by Congress into law.
It can't tell if you either don't know what you're talking about, or you actually believe that Judges affirming or striking down a law is legislating from the bench. If you believe that, then you would have to believe that the judges are supposed to legislate from the bench since upholding or striking down a law is their constitutional duty--which, I guess, would be sort of the same as you not knowing what you're talking about.
Last edited by detbuch; 12-28-2022 at 04:01 PM..
|
|
|
|
12-28-2022, 04:29 PM
|
#63
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,197
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
I try to pay attention to what you say, but you make it difficult to do. Some of the stuff you say is crazier than stuff Trump says, and it's just as disjointed as his rhetoric. I couldn't tell, from the way you presented it, if you were saying that Gorsuch was legislating from the bench or if it was the other Justices. In either case, you didn't make it clear how they, whoever, was doing the legislating. Voting to keep a policy that was put in place by Congress, or the President, is not legislating from the bench--it is affirming that existing legislation, or policy, made by those others as constitutional. It's what SCOTUS is supposed to do, affirm or strike down. Neither of those decisions is "legislating." Legislating from the bench is when Judges impose their personal opinion (rather than the Constitution) on the law in question in ways that the Judges subjectively consider "good" or socially "just" for society, regardless of, or entirely outside of, the scope and intent of the policy in question--thusly creating "legislation" that was not passed by Congress into law.
It can't tell if you either don't know what you're talking about, or you actually believe that Judges affirming or striking down a law is legislating from the bench. If you believe that, then you would have to believe that the judges are supposed to legislate from the bench since upholding or striking down a law is their constitutional duty--which, I guess, would be sort of the same as you not knowing what you're talking about.
|
if you were saying that Gorsuch was legislating from the bench
I never made such a suggestion
Just pointing out Gorsuch doesn’t feel the court should be legislating from the bench
And I wrote
“Hell now Republicans are cheering the SCJ legislating from the bench “
Gorsuch is suddenly a Rino for stating the Truth
Not sure how you misread my meaning?
In his written dissent, Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, said he did not discount the states’ concerns about a potential border crisis but said “the emergency” on which the Title 42 orders were adopted “has long since lapsed.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
12-28-2022, 05:50 PM
|
#64
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
if you were saying that Gorsuch was legislating from the bench
I never made such a suggestion
Just pointing out Gorsuch doesn’t feel the court should be legislating from the bench
And I wrote
“Hell now Republicans are cheering the SCJ legislating from the bench “
Gorsuch is suddenly a Rino for stating the Truth
Not sure how you misread my meaning?
In his written dissent, Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, said he did not discount the states’ concerns about a potential border crisis but said “the emergency” on which the Title 42 orders were adopted “has long since lapsed.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
As I said, it's difficult to pay attention to you because your writing is so disjointed. You said “Hell now Republicans are cheering the SCJ legislating from the bench “ Ok, so, since SCJ stands for Supreme Court Justice (singular-one Judge), and you then followed that with "Gorsuch is suddenly a Rino for stating the Truth"--a single Judge who was the only one you named--and named right after your comment about legislating from the bench.
That was confusing. If not Gorsuch, to which other Judge were you referring? And regardless of which Judge, or Judges, to whom you referred, how were any of them legislating from the bench? I wondered how you considered any of them to be legislating rather than adjudicating. And it seemed to me that if you considered their adjudication to be legislation, then that would indicate that you would believe they were supposed to legislate from the bench since their purpose is to adjudicate, which they did, and you called that legislating.
Your writing was confusing, disjointed, very Trumpesque.
|
|
|
|
12-28-2022, 07:42 PM
|
#65
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,197
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
As I said, it's difficult to pay attention to you because your writing is so disjointed. You said “Hell now Republicans are cheering the SCJ legislating from the bench “ Ok, so, since SCJ stands for Supreme Court Justice (singular-one Judge), and you then followed that with "Gorsuch is suddenly a Rino for stating the Truth"--a single Judge who was the only one you named--and named right after your comment about legislating from the bench.
That was confusing. If not Gorsuch, to which other Judge were you referring? And regardless of which Judge, or Judges, to whom you referred, how were any of them legislating from the bench? I wondered how you considered any of them to be legislating rather than adjudicating. And it seemed to me that if you considered their adjudication to be legislation, then that would indicate that you would believe they were supposed to legislate from the bench since their purpose is to adjudicate, which they did, and you called that legislating.
Your writing was confusing, disjointed, very Trumpesque.
|
I not a writer. You’ll get no argument from me
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
12-29-2022, 11:53 AM
|
#66
|
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Catskill Mountains Of New York
Posts: 85
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
let me Guess. I bet you support sedition the Jan6th rioters and the attempted overthrow of an american election by a sitting POTUS...
Because you are such a America Lover
|
Jeepers youse Democrats have withdrawn the President Donald J Trump subpoena.
|
343
ISAIAH 3:9
Romans 1:26-27
|
|
|
12-29-2022, 12:41 PM
|
#67
|
Also known as OAK
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Westlery, RI
Posts: 10,369
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doover
Jeepers youse Democrats have withdrawn the President Donald J Trump subpoena.
|
Yeah, because the investigation is over and they made referrals to the DOJ...
|
Bryan
Originally Posted by #^^^^^^^^^^^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
|
|
|
12-29-2022, 01:06 PM
|
#68
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,242
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND
Yeah, because the investigation is over and they made referrals to the DOJ...
|
Don't feed the troll.
|
|
|
|
12-29-2022, 01:16 PM
|
#69
|
Also known as OAK
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Westlery, RI
Posts: 10,369
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
Don't feed the troll.
|
Sorry, I forgot who I was responding to
|
Bryan
Originally Posted by #^^^^^^^^^^^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
|
|
|
12-29-2022, 01:19 PM
|
#70
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Somerset MA
Posts: 9,197
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doover
Jeepers youse Democrats have withdrawn the President Donald J Trump subpoena.
|
What no answer! yes or no ? Nope
just more defection
But you got response’s when it involves
cake bakers must not be forced to bake queers cake
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
|
|
|
12-29-2022, 05:44 PM
|
#71
|
Ledge Runner Baits
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: I live in a house, but my soul is at sea.
Posts: 8,456
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS
Don't feed the troll.
|
Well RR could use a crazy partner and Jim could use someone deflecting the attention from his crazy shrouded in whataboutism.
|
|
|
|
12-30-2022, 08:30 AM
|
#72
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,435
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Got Stripers
Well RR could use a crazy partner and Jim could use someone deflecting the attention from his crazy shrouded in whataboutism.
|
If you don't like being exposed as a hypocrite, I'd suggest you try to avoid engaging in hypocrisy.
Bob, if you criticize a republican for doing something...why isn't it a valid response if I point to an example of a democrat you support, who did something similar?
Why isn't it valid to expect that you hold both sides to a similar standard?
Labeling it "whatabout-ism", isn't refuting it.
I'm sure you have a very thoughtful, reasoned reply.
The lefties here wants to expel a republican who lied about his education and work experience. And I agree he should be kicked out. I agree 100%.
But none of you has any problem whatsoever, with a democrat in the US senate who lied for years about serving in the Vietnam War.
So it seems to me, you don't actually have a principle that "politicians should have to be honest". Rather, your principle is that republicans must always be criticized, and that democrats must never be criticized.
Try making that wrong.
Last edited by Jim in CT; 12-30-2022 at 08:38 AM..
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:39 PM.
|
| |