She didn't, but Trump lies and his minions blindly follow him.
The policy and politics of Trumpism
- Thread starter CharminTide
- Start date
- Status
And yet Trump was mad at Sessions for recusing himself appropriately when Trump would have benefitted had he not done so and Sessions had then interfered in the investigation like Trump wanted him to do and like his minion Barr has done repeatedly since becoming AG. Very selective in demanding recusal, no?
In many cases, it's not so much that they defend him; rather, they just want to wait and see what happens.
i believe that about as much as i believed that eddie haskel cared how mrs. cleaver was doing.
Considering India's ruling party admires Hitler & the Nazis I'm not really surprised he has fans there.
That's a very nice hat you're wearing... and I don't mean that in an Eddie Haskell kind of way.
more legitimate differences of opinion for trump to be judged about
Well, Trump knows a lot about tainted jurors. He just watched the impeachment trial.
I didn't read into the dissent, particularly on page 6, what you did. Look, I consider myself more on the conservative side of the spectrum, but the last thing I want is a supreme court made up of entirely one party, or a majority that is in lockstep with EVERYTHING the POTUS wants, regardless of party.
I want the SC to be as impartial and constitutionally sound as humanly possible...decisions will be delivered that I disagree with, but I am not conceited enough to think that I am always right
If RBG passes, and another conservative judge is appointed...not a good thing as far as checks and balances...although that is the sole reason, I believe, many conservatives continue to vehemently support PDJT.
Hard to read something that isn't there. Sotomayor has legitimate concerns.I didn't read into the dissent, particularly on page 6, what you did. Look, I consider myself more on the conservative side of the spectrum, but the last thing I want is a supreme court made up of entirely one party, or a majority that is in lockstep with EVERYTHING the POTUS wants, regardless of party.
I want the SC to be as impartial and constitutionally sound as humanly possible...decisions will be delivered that I disagree with, but I am not conceited enough to think that I am always right
If RBG passes, and another conservative judge is appointed...not a good thing as far as checks and balances...although that is the sole reason, I believe, many conservatives continue to vehemently support PDJT.
The thing is though, particularly when it comes to security/immigration judges gave obama wide latitude based on the executive branch having wide latitude on enforcing laws that affected these items, including forcing local communities to accept illegals. Those were rulings I hated based local governments should have more power, (how the freak should washington DC politicians be able to force anyone into a community) however came to understand the concept related to federal executive branch having power in this topic and why something like articles of confederation didn't work. However with Trump lower courts do a 180, base rulings based on what they perceive is in his heart vs the facts contained in orders. Admin calls them out, rulings get smacked down, but yet it is the SC justices that are political lemmings,,,, whatever....I didn't read into the dissent, particularly on page 6, what you did. Look, I consider myself more on the conservative side of the spectrum, but the last thing I want is a supreme court made up of entirely one party, or a majority that is in lockstep with EVERYTHING the POTUS wants, regardless of party.
I want the SC to be as impartial and constitutionally sound as humanly possible...decisions will be delivered that I disagree with, but I am not conceited enough to think that I am always right
If RBG passes, and another conservative judge is appointed...not a good thing as far as checks and balances...although that is the sole reason, I believe, many conservatives continue to vehemently support PDJT.
good thing we have a bidness man running things. he can root out those mean old employees that are treating him so unfairly
We've had 3 years and 2 months of "seeing what happens". At this point it is willful ignorance all because he slaps an "R" next to his name and, you know, the sent by God crap.
"Hit list" on public employees that are not political appointments, Trump admits it, Trump supporters first deny it and now when faced with proof will support the president anyway. Prove me wrong.
Last edited:
but libtards were ok with it when obama did exactly the same and even worse
SCOTUS judges are political appointees, and while most have had political leanings their entire lives, they have generally set their ideology aside and ruled based on the Constitution. Most other judges arounf the country are actual politicians - they are elected - and many are not even required to have a law degree to hold the position. Every elected judge has to lean toward his constituents to keep his/her job. That is the problem that we need to fix, not the SCOTUS.
The problem Sotomayor addressed in her opinion - they are sent too many cases where the Constitutional ruling is clear, but the SCOTUS is asked by the DOJ to rule on those cases again in hopes that the currently right leaning court will find in their favor. Note - they are only sending cases to the SCOTUS that meet their right leaning agenda. This is not about justice or the Constitution for the Trump DOJ - it is about rewriting legal precedent.
Throughout history both parties have done this, but apparently Trump is having the DOJ do it more frequently than has been the case in the past, bogging the SCOTUS down in this garbage when they should be doing their job - protecting the Constitution.
- Status
Latest threads
-
Final Home Midweek for Alabama Brings Samford to The Joe- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
-
I'd like to hear about some actual prayer requests that have been answered the way it made sense to answer them.- Started by Labrador
- Replies: 11