Support NeoGAF

[Spheyr]

Even his approval among Hispanics increased. How can that be explained?

He did better with black and Hispanic voters than Romney as well.

Here's the thing - Just because we share an ethnicity with many of the illegal immigrants does not mean we automatically side with them. Our families came here legally, many of us have family members working their way through the system to join us legally. Allowing some people to jump the queue just because they're too impatient to wait or think they're more important (Or just because they happen to have a child with them) is unfair to all the people who do it the legal way.


You should see my little sister's Facebook wall lately. Sandwiched between Latina pride posts and confederate flags are calls for building the wall. She makes me look quiet and reserved on the topic.

 

[KINGMOKU]

Some dems now suddenly preach term limits is anyone even falling for half the acts they now put on?
I mean for real lol

This is the shotgun approach. The democratic party is running on nothing. What exactly is the democratic party platform? I know what it used to be, and I know what that rhetoric sounds like but I am certainly not hearing it now.

I want an honest answer to a few questions I have;

I want strong borders. I want people to come to this country and integrate into society, not create pockets of their home country here. I am absolutely against any kind of open border policy as all that is, is a soft invasion. Illegal immigration is not a correct path to citizenship.

What does the democratic party have to offer on that front?

I want a balance on economic development and protecting the environment. Not an all out war against our way of life. Technology takes time to overcome certain obstacles and rushing headfirst into a new tech, while taxing the hell out of our current fuel supply not only seems irresponsible, it is irresponsible. Fuel taxes hurt the poorest the hardest and the cost of electric cars is still way, way out of reach for the poor as are solar panels for their homes.

What does the democratic party offer on that front?

Our current form of government has created the most prosperous, and safest planet we as sentient lifeforms have ever seen. What can be done to make sure it continues, and not be attacked and weakened by other forms of government that have repeatedly failed, killed millions of people, caused starvation and suffering and brought about world wars?

What does the democratic party have to offer on that front?

Trade imbalance, and American jobs are not only important to me, but a majority of the American people. No one wants to be outsourced or be part of a trade agreement that is lopsided.

What does the democratic party have to offer on that?

All I have heard is Fuck trump.

That is not a platform.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Here's the thing - Just because we share an ethnicity with many of the illegal immigrants does not mean we automatically side with them. Our families came here legally, many of us have family members working their way through the system to join us legally. Allowing some people to jump the queue just because they're too impatient to wait or think they're more important (Or just because they happen to have a child with them) is unfair to all the people who do it the legal way.


You should see my little sister's Facebook wall lately. Sandwiched between Latina pride posts and confederate flags are calls for building the wall. She makes me look quiet and reserved on the topic.

Well, a lot of people tend to forget that minorities are not some kind of unicorns but simple humans. Like everybody. And they also have their own opinion on things. After all sharing ethnicity doesn't mean sharing the views. (kinda ironic if you look at right and left)

 

[TrainedRage]

The 'Progressive' reaction to this news is like getting a Christmas present in June! So.. Much.. Salt

 

[Super Mario]

I'm a little mind boggled at how many people here want a full wash to a conservative side.

If you're conservative you should be hoping for a 5-4 and not anything better.

Once you have an overwhelming commonality you more than easily prop yourself up for a Bandwagon effect.


Tribalism is dangerous. Literally why we have the saying "two minds are better than one".

The best way I'd generalize it, is this: Liberal justices are more likely to "interpret" the law in ways it has never been seen before, creating new legislation, ie - roe v wade, gay marriage. Conservative justices are more likely to see it in ways that it has been since the country was founded. Where does the change in new interpretation come in? Through time? One of my favorite examples of this was Chief Justice Roberts closing dissent of gay marriage"

"If you are among the many Americans--of whatever sexual orientation--who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it. I respectfully dissent."

I still haven't read a compelling enough argument that proves his dissent wrong. Gay marriage was "enacted into law" in a dangerous way.

For as much doom and gloom as there was about Gorsuch, his decisions have been seen as fairly reasonable. How can you be against a justice like that, unless you want to push an agenda from the bench?

 

[LordPezix]

The best way I'd generalize it, is this: Liberal justices are more likely to "interpret" the law in ways it has never been seen before, creating new legislation, ie - roe v wade, gay marriage. Conservative justices are more likely to see it in ways that it has been since the country was founded. Where does the change in new interpretation come in? Through time? One of my favorite examples of this was Chief Justice Roberts closing dissent of gay marriage"

I agree with all of this. Basically it boils down to progression vs traditionalism, and yes, as the common body of the populous moral values change throughout time, it is prudent to have a justice systems that actively reflects these beliefs.
It is an unbreakable freedom individuals have in regards to their beliefs and opinions, however we must stand stalwart, and steadfast to ensure our systems aren't infiltrated or confined by agents who's actions results in unjust and opposing manifests against the common desire.

 

[bigedole]

I agree with all of this. Basically it boils down to progression vs traditionalism, and yes, as the common body of the populous moral values change throughout time, it is prudent to have a justice systems that actively reflects these beliefs.
It is an unbreakable freedom individuals have in regards to their beliefs and opinions, however we must stand stalwart, and steadfast to ensure our systems aren't infiltrated or confined by agents who's actions results in unjust and opposing manifests against the common desire.

No, wtf are you even saying. What a terrible word salad the bolded is. Regardless, the judicial system should never be considering what the "general values" of society are. That's what the legislative branch is for! If you want to change laws, or write new ones, or remove old ones, do it the way you're supposed to! The judicial is for interpreting the law as it is written and not to rewrite the law, period. Arguing otherwise is such an ugly, horrible perversion of the entire manner in which our government is designed. One branch writes the law, one branch executes the law, one branch makes sure the law is constitutional. 3 simple truths that define the American system of governance. We have a way to change what is considered constitutional, and it has such a high bar because the American system of federal government was meant to be heavily restricted in what it could do and for it to be difficult to expand their powers.

 

[Cato]

I agree with all of this. Basically it boils down to progression vs traditionalism, and yes, as the common body of the populous moral values change throughout time, it is prudent to have a justice systems that actively reflects these beliefs.
It is an unbreakable freedom individuals have in regards to their beliefs and opinions, however we must stand stalwart, and steadfast to ensure our systems aren't infiltrated or confined by agents who's actions results in unjust and opposing manifests against the common desire.

Separation of powers. All western democracies have it in one form or another, for good reasons. It is a good idea.

Of course, as society changes laws often need to change to reflect this too. That is beyond dispute.
However, it is not the Supreme Courts job to change he laws or create new law.
Their job is solely to interpret existing law. No more no less.

But that does not mean we are stuck with ancient law forever.
Fortunately, the US, like all other western democracies, have an assembly of publicly elected members whose
sole job and responsibility is to review old law and scrap when they no longer are valid, to modify existing law
and even create brand new law to reflect the changes in society.
These folks sole job is to keep updating the laws so that it reflects progress.


Not aimed at you but at the ignorant alt-left that are screaming for having the supreme court basically become the new
legislative branch of government. Do they not teach how government works anymore in schools?
If they have such fundamental misunderstandings about how the government works, why do we allow them to vote ?
(actually a somewhat serious question)

 

[LordPezix]

No, wtf are you even saying.

Mmmk.

Not aimed at you but at the ignorant alt-left that are screaming for having the supreme court basically become the new
legislative branch of government

I think you guys are completely missing what I am saying.


I will summarize.


I hope the judges that are appointed uphold Justice to the highest value, and aren't motivated by electoral or political concerns.

as it is their duty to as you stated to interpret the laws as written with which comes consideration of justice, and justice which is a moral principle, dictated by the values of society they hold true to their station.


I even stated "who's actions results in unjust".


I am literally just trying to say that I hope the judges hold justice to its highest moral principle when interpreting the law, and are not influenced by self biased opinions, I said nothing about changing laws or anything.

I don't about you, just striving for the idea of an un-corrupted justice system should be the aim of every citizen, sovereign or otherwise, of a nation.

You guys went off on some other tangent that I was not remotely speaking towards.

 

[CampbellzSoup]

The left is fucking hysterical Roe vs Wade isn’t going no where gay marriage isn’t being reversed...this hysterics is going to throw people into the right what don’t they understand?

 

[LordPezix]

The left is fucking hysterical Roe vs Wade isn’t going no where gay marriage isn’t being reversed...this hysterics is going to throw people into the right what don’t they understand?

I too have a hard time believing this will happen as well, but crazier things have happened so what can anyone do outside of wait?

 

[appaws]

There are a lot of people at the top of the GOP who really do not want to see Roe overturned, even while calling themselves "pro-life." They have been able to use abortion as a great weapon in national elections to rally believing Christians to the GOP. If Roe was overturned, they would lose a lot of that as the battles would devolve to the state level, and we would end up with abortion policy all over the map in different states. Roe has been the gift that keeps on giving to the GOP for over 40 years now.

 

[CampbellzSoup]

There are a lot of people at the top of the GOP who really do not want to see Roe overturned, even while calling themselves "pro-life." They have been able to use abortion as a great weapon in national elections to rally believing Christians to the GOP. If Roe was overturned, they would lose a lot of that as the battles would devolve to the state level, and we would end up with abortion policy all over the map in different states. Roe has been the gift that keeps on giving to the GOP for over 40 years now.

I’m pro life and don’t want to see any judicial decisions overturned. The court has spoken.

 

[NickFire]

Roe is not at risk IMO. The center aisle Republicans will not support someone who expresses a willingness to do so.

 

[pramod]

This Roe vs Wade thing is just more scare-mongering from the left.
No one is going to repeal Roe, not even Trump supporters want it repealed. It's just another "Republicans are evil" tool for the left.

 

[Cato]

I hope the judges that are appointed uphold Justice to the highest value, and aren't motivated by electoral or political concerns.

as it is their duty to as you stated to interpret the laws as written with which comes consideration of justice, and justice which is a moral principle, dictated by the values of society they hold true to their station.

They should interpret the text as it is written. No more no less. Anything else would be a mockery of democracy.

They should not try to interpret beyond the text and try to extrapolate onto what is the popular opinion of the day. Because what would that mean? Societal values and morals change all the time.
Sometimes to the left, sometimes to the right. You can't have laws that change their meaning based on the sentiment of the day.

Two examples of why your point is wrong:
1, Italy in the last few months. Italy has swung hard right and hard hostile to immigrants in the last few months/year. They now have a significant majority of their society holding hard anti immigrant moral positions.
Does this mean the Italian Judicial system should now start re-interpreting all their laws to reflect the immigrant hatred from the general population?
Fuck no, that would be a travesty.

2, In the US we hear a lot from the alt-left about that this should happen. I never hear this from the right.
I assume it is because the alt-left thinks they are on the right side of history and they are morally right.
Now, intersectionality and alt-left is in decline. I think they peaked last year.
We have numerous studies that show that in the generation that is coming now, replacing the millennials, that the pendlum is not just swinging back to before
the popular rise of alt-left, but it is swinging hard beyond that on the conservative scale.
In many ways they are said to be the most conservative generation in a hundred years.
Not impossible since every generation rebels against the previous one and the millenials did go hard left.

So, in the US, it is very likely that in 10 years, sentiment and morality in the society will have shifted hard right from where it is today.
Do you still think that at that time "the supreme court should re-interpret the law based on current society values and morals?"
or is that something that should only happen when you think they would lean your way?

(No, it would be just as wrong and as dangerous to democracy if SC 10 years from now would re-interpret the law from a hard right lens as it would be for it today to
re-interpret the law from a hard left lens.)


EDIT: Oh, we do have a lot of data on what happens every time a Judicial systems start going beyond just interpreting the text as it is written. Never very good outcomes.

 

[appaws]

I’m pro life and don’t want to see any judicial decisions overturned. The court has spoken.

I don't mean to be confrontational....but if you are really pro-life but you put stare decisis higher in your heirarchy of values....? That is weird.

 

[CampbellzSoup]

I don't mean to be confrontational....but if you are really pro-life but you put stare decisis higher in your heirarchy of values....? That is weird.

I just feel like it was contensted and decided and that’s the law. I won’t advocate for abortion but if it was decided that’s that.

 

[LordPezix]

They should interpret the text as it is written. No more no less. Anything else would be a mockery of democracy.

EDIT: Oh, we do have a lot of data on what happens every time a Judicial systems start going beyond just interpreting the text as it is written. Never very good outcomes.

I think we are somehow running along the same lines just not finding that meeting point.


I'm not speaking of knee jerk reactions and appeasing the message of an angry possible minority.

I'm stating that I want justices that will judge unbiased in regards to the highest standards of justice our society deems.

There is a reason we have split votes because interpretation of anything is a cumulation of beliefs/knowledge/experience manifested through an opinion.

I don't want justices that vote on situations based on self interest is all I have been trying to say here.

For example a Justice that votes a particular way due to peer pressure or appeasing the objectives of outside forces.

Again I state, I have made no comment in regards to changing laws or going beyond their appointed duties and fracturing the system they are apart of, only that we can strive to appoint fair - unbiased justices that only think of the law and aren't influenced by corruptive motivations.


If I could sum what I was stating up in as little as few words as possible.


- I hope our new justices aren't corrupt, lol.

I feel we can all agree with that sentiment.

 

[Cato]

I think we are somehow running along the same lines just not finding that meeting point.

Yeah, I think maybe we are. Sorry for my part of the misunderstanding. Good discussion though!

If I could sum what I was stating up in as little as few words as possible.


- I hope our new justices aren't corrupt, lol.

I feel we can all agree with that sentiment.

Absolutely agree. If the justice becomes corrupt then all is lost.

 

[LordPezix]

Yeah, I think maybe we are. Sorry for my part of the misunderstanding. Good discussion though!



Absolutely agree. If the justice becomes corrupt then all is lost.

Damn, I love GAF. This is what it is about right here.

 

[HarryKS]

Here's the thing - Just because we share an ethnicity with many of the illegal immigrants does not mean we automatically side with them. Our families came here legally, many of us have family members working their way through the system to join us legally. Allowing some people to jump the queue just because they're too impatient to wait or think they're more important (Or just because they happen to have a child with them) is unfair to all the people who do it the legal way.


You should see my little sister's Facebook wall lately. Sandwiched between Latina pride posts and confederate flags are calls for building the wall. She makes me look quiet and reserved on the topic.

Might seem small-time of me to say that, but there was a point in the life of this board where a post such as this one would be deemed completely unacceptable and they'd dogpile you until Besada or some other moron would ban you. Here's the small time part, I will bring it up again, because as a minority and a legal migrant, you weren't allowed to say that you did in fact have an issue with other people skipping the line while you'd wait for the process to carry along. None or I believe, very few legal migrants empathize with illegal immigration because it simply devalues their own efforts.

This has gone off-topic but I just wanted to point out that there has been some progress.

I don't really care about dropping names/usertags. It's only the truth.

 

[Moneal]

Might seem small-time of me to say that, but there was a point in the life of this board where a post such as this one would be deemed completely unacceptable and they'd dogpile you until Besada or some other moron would ban you. Here's the small time part, I will bring it up again, because as a minority and a legal migrant, you weren't allowed to say that you did in fact have an issue with other people skipping the line while you'd wait for the process to carry along. None or I believe, very few legal migrants empathize with illegal immigration because it simply devalues their own efforts.

This has gone off-topic but I just wanted to point out that there has been some progress.

I don't really care about dropping names/usertags. It's only the truth.

All the dog pile posts would just say they were the "fuck you got mine" type. Which is the worst kind of shit posts.

 

[Captain Zyrain]

Damn, I love GAF. This is what it is about right here.

It's really amazing the difference. It's nice seeing takes on things that aren't always 100% hot takes or one side only with no room for disagreement.

That shit is stifling.

 

[Sakura Doritos]

Potential Roe v Wade heading back to the states will probably get leftists to reverse their stance on gun control.

 

[Dontero]

Gay marriage was a 5-4 decision, with Kennedy being the only conservative to switch from the partisan stance. Donald Trump picks his replacement, which means the pick will be a hardcore conservative who will vote against the next gay marriage decision, making it 5-4 against.

That is what you get when you rely on court to make your law.
Court shouldn't ever be used to establish law because precisely of situation you describe.
Though i totally see Trump administration actually giving partnerships rights after such case.

 

[Dontero]

They should interpret the text as it is written. No more no less. Anything else would be a mockery of democracy.

Sorry but this is wrong. And it is not even about US law.
Law i make today: "Trade is allowed and can't be legally persecuted"

Let us for a second assume that we have time machine and we go 50 years into future. Due to various reasons and some weird events word "trade" doesn't anymore mean "trade" but actually it means "killing/to kill"

Do you understand problem here ? You cannot use your own ideas and different language to paint what you want to see. Especially for document that is like 100+ year old. People who wrote it lived in different world and their words mean different things. If you look at document closely you will find words that are not even legal anymore and you can't go without attributing spirit of those times because it won't literally make any sense for a lot of those laws without doing so. So when you take one law from it and you read it literally in spirit of modern times you must do it for all of them and naturally you can't because like i said shitload of laws won't make sense anymore.

YES it is a problem but that problem has resolution via democratic institutions like parliament, president etc.

 

[Cato]

Potential Roe v Wade heading back to the states will probably get leftists to reverse their stance on gun control.

Come on, Roe v Wade was 45 years ago. Long before even the oldest potential candidate to he SC gained voting rights.
It is not going to be challenged by the SC or anyone. Sorry but that is something only an idiot would think (or super partisan).

Not even a senate filled 100% with evangelical Christians would even contemplate that. The bus left the station 40 years ago.


Why not "SC will nullify President Johnsons end of segregation". That only happened 9 years prior.
Jesus Christ how these folks overreact.

 

[Cato]

Sorry but this is wrong. And it is not even about US law.
Law i make today: "Trade is allowed and can't be legally persecuted"

Let us for a second assume that we have time machine and we go 50 years into future. Due to various reasons and some weird events word "trade" doesn't anymore mean "trade" but actually it means "killing/to kill"

I don't know how to respond. I think there is no common ground for even dialogue.

EDIT: Other than if we live in Mad Max world 50 years from now. The way how the justice arm of government operates would be the least of our worries. You make no sense at all. Sorry.

EDIT2: Your comment is so ridiculous that I can't stop thinking about it. It means I should not dismiss it outright.
Maybe when the word changed its meaning from "trade" to "kill" we would have a legislative branch that would update the wording of the laws?
I assume the change in language wouldn't not happen as a singularity event, from one day to the other.
So the legislative branch would notice that "we have laws that talk about 'trade' but that word changed meaning from 'a mutually beneficial agreement between two parties of exchange of goods' to mean 'murder rape' since yesterday. Maybe we should update the laws to use the new word we have for 'trade' instead of the old word?

So even then it would be a failure of the Legislative branch, not the Juridicial branch if this happened.

I did my best to respond, but still, this scenario is so silly it is borderline bad faith.

 

[PuppetMaster]

Its interesting to remember that when Roe v Wade was passed, the court was 7 Republicans and only 2 Democrats.

And of the 2 justices who voted against it one was a Democrat: justice Byron White.

Abortion was controversial but not a partisan issue.

 

[LegendOfKage]

Get ready for Amy Coney Barrett, who strategically fits the bill all too perfectly:

- already mentioned on the short list
- female, so it trolls the libs, which Trump is likely to enjoy
- attractive, which is sure to be a plus for Trump, realistically
- vocal pro-life female, plays very well to base; see also: owning the libs
- former clerk to Scalia, well known in his camp
- her confirmation hearings to the 7th circuit a year ago led Feinstein to utter some damaging anti-religious bigotry ("the dogma lives loudly in you" as a dismissive and exasperated remark) which were given a ton of play in religious circles, and which are enormously damaging to the Left's ability to take any votes from that side. Just the circus of her hearing and the kinds of things that will be said about her beliefs will be a campaign video all of its own.
- relatively young, so she'd hold the seat for many decades

All great points. In light of the current situation, the first few minutes after the queued point in this video make for some interesting viewing.

 

[Dontero]

EDIT2: Your comment is so ridiculous that I can't stop thinking about it. It means I should not dismiss it outright.
Maybe when the word changed its meaning from "trade" to "kill" we would have a legislative branch that would

I assume the change in language wouldn't not happen as a singularity event, from one day to the other.
So the legislative branch would notice that "we have laws that talk about 'trade' but that word changed meaning from 'a mutually beneficial agreement between two parties of exchange of goods' to mean 'murder rape' since yesterday. Maybe we should update the laws to use the new word we have for 'trade' instead of the old word?

And that is my point and "spirit" of the law argument.
Law shouldn't change depending on changing definitions over time.
Words used in law are representation of actions and ideas not words themselves.

If law can be changed with changing definition then you don't need to gather 70% of people to change constitution. Just change definition. Torture ? "enhanced interrogation" voila and you have legal torture.
Right to not self incriminate ? Well "incriminate" definition doesn't have anything about electronical devices passwords so i guess lawmakers didn't meant that right ? Forget password ? lost key ? Too bad your right to not "self incriminate" doesn't apply here because someone chose to read words not meaning behind it.

"spirit of the law" is not infallible it has its own problems but it doesn't create new law which is imo critical argument.

 

[Sakura Doritos]

Come on, Roe v Wade was 45 years ago. Long before even the oldest potential candidate to he SC gained voting rights.
It is not going to be challenged by the SC or anyone. Sorry but that is something only an idiot would think (or super partisan).

Not even a senate filled 100% with evangelical Christians would even contemplate that. The bus left the station 40 years ago.


Why not "SC will nullify President Johnsons end of segregation". That only happened 9 years prior.
Jesus Christ how these folks overreact.

I think you may be the one misinformed if you think there will be no pushback and the deal is sealed on RvW. Also if you think I am a part of any party you are mistaken.

Also, relax I was half joking.

 

[dropkick!]

And that is my point and "spirit" of the law argument.
Law shouldn't change depending on changing definitions over time.
Words used in law are representation of actions and ideas not words themselves.

If law can be changed with changing definition then you don't need to gather 70% of people to change constitution. Just change definition. Torture ? "enhanced interrogation" voila and you have legal torture.
Right to not self incriminate ? Well "incriminate" definition doesn't have anything about electronical devices passwords so i guess lawmakers didn't meant that right ? Forget password ? lost key ? Too bad your right to not "self incriminate" doesn't apply here because someone chose to read words not meaning behind it.

"spirit of the law" is not infallible it has its own problems but it doesn't create new law which is imo critical argument.

I can argue the same thing about "spirit of the law" argument about creating a new law out of it. We almost lost the 2nd amendment in DC vs Heller because some justices decide to change the definition of militia to fit their own views.

The so-called "spirit of the law" varies from person to person. Just like "engineering judgment". There is a reason why in construction, people follow the code to the letter or you become liable greatly when tragedy happens. Even if the result is a bit tad ridiculous, people either just do it or go to massive bureaucracy just to address the issue so later on the building code gets revised. You know why? Because you don't want to make inconsistent interpretations of the code or people will diverge everytime!

Same thing with law. People should be willing to go to the bureaucracy of people that can be liable to you by voting (congress). You do not want to let 9 unfireable people become pseudo-kings and reinterpret the law based on how they see the law on their own eyes. It should be the job of the legislature to pass a law that is as clear as day as possible.

 

[Dontero]

I can argue the same thing about "spirit of the law" argument about creating a new law out of it. We almost lost the 2nd amendment in DC vs Heller because some justices decide to change the definition of militia to fit their own views.

The so-called "spirit of the law" varies from person to person. Just like "engineering judgment". There is a reason why in construction, people follow the code to the letter or you become liable greatly when tragedy happens. Even if the result is a bit tad ridiculous, people either just do it or go to massive bureaucracy just to address the issue so later on the building code gets revised. You know why? Because you don't want to make inconsistent interpretations of the code or people will diverge everytime!

Same thing with law. People should be willing to go to the bureaucracy of people that can be liable to you by voting (congress). You do not want to let 9 unfireable people become pseudo-kings and reinterpret the law based on how they see the law on their own eyes. It should be the job of the legislature to pass a law that is as clear as day as possible.

"Spirit of the law" means reading law as it was created back in period when it was created. Not "i think it should be this way or this way". If law was created 130 years ago and talks specifically about communication instruments which at the time meant phones then you can't use it today to any device that communicates with someone because at the time word meant "phones" in today translation and nothing else.

Because law wording represents actions and ideas not words. You argue that you should throw out context and use only pure text and nothing else as if law represented text not actions and ideas behind words.

If law doesn't work or it is faulty is spirit of the law because it has been 100 years or more then law should be updated via legislation and not "reinterpreted"

 

[VAL0R]

Has Trump decided on Amy Coney Barret for the SCOTUS? Young, pro-life, devout Catholic, conservative.

http://www.businessinsider.com/sen-orrin-hatch-gave-huge-clue-on-trumps-supreme-court-pick-2018-7

 

[VAL0R]

O, and you guys who are saying Roe is not at risk are insane. If Trump's next pick is conservative, abortion could be completely illegal or severely restricted in half of the states in the US within a couple of years. No question about it. Some states even have automatic and sweeping abortion ban laws that immediately kick in the moment a federal mandate is struck down.

 

[Bolivar687]

O, and you guys who are saying Roe is not at risk are insane. If Trump's next pick is conservative, abortion could be completely illegal or severely restricted in half of the states in the US within a couple of years. No question about it. Some states even have automatic and sweeping abortion ban laws that immediately kick in the moment a federal mandate is struck down.

They're not insane but it is in play. When Barrett gave a talk about Trump's potential impact on the court, she did not think Roe would be overturned but limited. Then again, that was her talking about a hypothetical court, not what she herself would do, given the chance.

In her writings, she respects legal precedent but only so far as it was made within the limits of judicial power. Kennedy's decisions on social issues were not. He was basically explaining his feelings and making them into law, so that legislators wouldn't have to.

Roe can and should be overturned. If abortion is as popular as its wealthy and powerful lobby insists that it really is, they should have no problem at all enacting laws to protect it.

 

[Spheyr]

Has Trump decided on Amy Coney Barret for the SCOTUS? Young, pro-life, devout Catholic, conservative.

http://www.businessinsider.com/sen-orrin-hatch-gave-huge-clue-on-trumps-supreme-court-pick-2018-7

I sure hope so!

 

[Phoenix RISING]

Nominating a female SCOTUS justice to replace a male will be the first smart thing he has done as POTUS.

 

[Spheyr]

And now I hope he nominates a white male

 

[dolabla]

And now I hope he nominates a white male

 

[TrainedRage]

And now I hope he nominates a white male

I wont accept anyone other than a Native American Trans person who identifies as a Muslim and an atheist. Any other pick will be a racist white man or woman!

 

[Harksteed]

What some of you wouldn't do to "own the libs"

 

[TrainedRage]

What some of you wouldn't do to "own the libs"

We don't need to do anything, they are owning themselves. Also yes, its fun to watch people self destruct over everything that happens in politics. Keeps me going through these dark and dangerous times

 

[Harksteed]

We don't need to do anything, they are owning themselves. Also yes, its fun to watch people self destruct over everything that happens in politics. Keeps me going through these dark and dangerous times

You show em, bud

 

[TrainedRage]

You show em, bud

I don't think you are getting it. I don't need to "show em" anything. They show ME everything.

"Guys my dad supports Trump, does that make me racist"
"If Trump wins i'm leaving the country"
"Trump is literally worse than Hitler"
"Im just so scared"
"He will start WW3"
"Not my President"
....It just keeps going, with something new every day. Hell the news cycle is so short the people complaining can't even keep up with what they should be outraged over. Its like they are sadistically looking to upset themselves and show it off to the entire world. I'm just sitting here laughing. I din' do nothin'.

 

[Harksteed]

I don't think you are getting it. I don't need to "show em" anything. They show ME everything.

"Guys my dad supports Trump, does that make me racist"
"If Trump wins i'm leaving the country"
"Trump is literally worse than Hitler"
"Im just so scared"
"He will start WW3"
"Not my President"
....It just keeps going, with something new every day. Hell the news cycle is so short the people complaining can't even keep up with what they should be outraged over. Its like they are sadistically looking to upset themselves and show it off to the entire world. I'm just sitting here laughing. I din' do nothin'.

Well at least you're not purchasing diapers yet.

 

[TrainedRage]

Well at least you're not purchasing diapers yet.

Why would I need diapers? Am I not getting a joke?

 

[Harksteed]

Why would I need diapers? Am I not getting a joke?

It's maximum lib owning: