Breaking: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Champion Of Gender Equality, Dies At 87

[BillyCarpenter]

Just for the record BillyCarpenter is really only good at straw man arguments. He will take something you say, or don't say, and twist it until it suits his purpose.
End of discussion.

I knew you were lying when you said you weren't gonna respond to me in this forum. Can you do it or not science boy?

[bsm2]

By the way, for some of you who may be reading this, you may wonder why I'm being so hard on the 2 Canadians.

It's because both of them are BIG frauds that claim to stand on SCIENCE. What a joke. They don't want to talk about science. They don't know jack squat about science.

The truth is that's it's settled science that a baby can survive outside out of the womb long before 9 months with no assistance from medical devices. That's why even in every democrat state that they impose restrictions...unlike Canada.

But they don't give a damn about that. No. It's not about about science for them. It's all about men not having a say in abortion. End of discussion.

Yep What a Joke Thanks for providing us great entertainment for today

[bsm2]

Here we go

[FrohnB]

I'm curious. You say that you believe judges should be right down the middle. That sounds good but what does it mean in practical terms?

What is right down the middle on abortion?

On gun rights?

Those are the big 2 that are frequently discussed.

I'm not looking for a judge that is right down the middle. Mainly because I don't know what that means and I'm not sure it has a meaning that we can define. I'm more interested in judges making a ruling on a case based on their understanding of the constitution as it was written.

Just saying that I don’t think an interpreter of the constitution (or ANY judge for that matter) should “lean a certain way”. They should be Neutral to political ideology and agendas. Sadly, in our country it seems impossible to find anyone that doesn’t have a D or R next to their name. The pool has been pissed in for decades and decades, and has yet to be “drained and cleaned”, thus leading to an engrained bias in all judges/ nominees.
So I say they should be “right down the middle” (neutral), but realize that it is a futile request.

[bsm2]

Billy head North there's No Border Wall

[BillyCarpenter]

Just saying that I don’t think an interpreter of the constitution (or ANY judge for that matter) should “lean a certain way”. They should be Neutral to political ideology and agendas. Sadly, in our country it seems impossible to find anyone that doesn’t have a D or R next to their name. The pool has been pissed in for decades and decades, and has yet to be “drained and cleaned”, thus leading to an engrained bias in all judges/ nominees.
So I say they should be “right down the middle” (neutral), but realize that it is a futile request.

Trust me, I get where you're coming from. Lines have been drawn and no one is willing to compromise. It's become a zero-sum game. That needs to change in American politics.

But I would at least like you to entertain where I'm coming from on the Supreme Court. That is different from elected officials. I'm not saying that each sides don't have the own beliefs that are very different. And my goal isn't to change your mind.

Think about this: Would you rather a supreme court justice that legislates from the bench on major decisions or is it better left up to congress to decide the fate of the laws we follow. The reason the court has become so critical is that they're they've become way too important and I don't think that's what the Founding Father's had in mind.

Have you ever noticed that some conservative judges sometimes side with liberal judges on controversial cases but no liberal judges ever do the same?

[FrohnB]

What is this Biden rule that you speak of? Biden himself said that Judge Garland should receive a vote in the Senate and that was in an election year. So, we're following the Biden rule.

What most democrats are trying to avoid saying is “the reason we didn’t vote on a justice in 2016, is because there was a democrat president and a Republican led senate. The nomination would have gone NOWHERE because of this fact. So we gambled that Hillary would win and be the one to choose a justice.”

WHOOPS - Bad gamble dems. Trump won, and when he did, they were sick to their stomachs that they didn’t even try to nominate a justice.
Its not about “an election year, or ‘precedent’”, its them being crybabies (still), because Trump won’t make the same mistake they did in 2016! He’s just basing this decision off of “Precedent” (just not the precedent democrats want).
Historically there have been 29 appointments to the Supreme Court during an election year. With the fastest taking 19 days from nomination to appointment!
Historically there has only been one time an appointment was made where the President and senate were on opposite parties.

[BillyCarpenter]

Thomas Jefferson warned us about the Supere Court:


The Warnings of Thomas Jefferson

During his two terms as President, Jefferson detected some evil and subversive trends which were luring the American people away from the original Constitution. Notice how direct he was in pointing the finger of accusation at the judiciary for corrupting the original constitutional plan: "Our government is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit, by consolidation first, and then corruption.... The engine of consolidation will be the federal judiciary; the two other branches the corrupting and corrupted instruments." In other words, the Supreme Court uses its judicial mandates to draw more and more power to Washington; then the Congress and the Executive use this new power to shatter the Constitution and corrupt the dual federalism which was designed to balance the political powers between the government and the states. Once Jefferson's distant cousin, John Marshall, became chief justice of the Supreme Court, Marshall set himself and his associates up as the "final arbiter" on all constitutional issues. Nowhere in the Constitution was the federal judiciary given the power to enforce its will on the states or the other two federal departments. Jefferson had the Supreme Court in his gun sights when he wrote: "The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting with noiseless foot and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the [state] governments into the jaws of that [federal government] which feeds them."

[bsm2]

What most democrats are trying to avoid saying is “the reason we didn’t vote on a justice in 2016, is because there was a democrat president and a Republican led senate. The nomination would have gone NOWHERE because of this fact. So we gambled that Hillary would win and be the one to choose a justice.”

WHOOPS - Bad gamble dems. Trump won, and when he did, they were sick to their stomachs that they didn’t even try to nominate a justice.
Its not about “an election year, or ‘precedent’”, its them being crybabies (still), because Trump won’t make the same mistake they did in 2016! He’s just basing this decision off of “Precedent” (just not the precedent democrats want).
Historically there have been 29 appointments to the Supreme Court during an election year. With the fastest taking 19 days from nomination to appointment!
Historically there has only been one time an appointment was made where the President and senate were on opposite parties.

Nice Spin convincing Yourself. Republicans Block Obama section for No reason claiming they would waiting for the next President. Not now. No worries. Should it happen Biden will just add more judges
If they have the votes which is highly doubtful as 23 Senate's seats are up for grabs.

[FrohnB]

Nice Spin convincing Yourself. Republicans Block Obama section for No reason claiming they would waiting for the next President. Not now. No worries. Should it happen Biden will just add more judges
If they have the votes which is highly doubtful as 23 Senate's seats are up for grabs.

No spinning there shit-for-brains.
Historical facts!
Maybe you should try studying our American history before you spout your nonsense.
I may be half your age Mr. Michaels, but I’ve apparently learned more about our country’s history then you would ever be able to comprehend.
Each time you post it makes you look more and more like a Russian/ Chinese disinformation troll. Your grammar and terrible spelling only add to that theory.
Sad that we have 60 year olds in this country that can’t form a single logical thought.