Justice Kennedy Retires

[BDKJMU]

Where in the Constitution does it say gays have a right to marry and women have a right to abortion?

Again, as with almost every power thats not expressly granted to the fed govt in Constitution, let the states decide.

Where does it give heterosexual couples the right? It doesn’t, yet here we are.
And what’s the harm with two loving adults behind joined together? Is it the Union, gays or the use of the word, “marriage” that bothers you?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All that is irrlevelant to the question at hand. Doesn’t matter how great or terrible a law is, and what the consequences of having/not having it are. Only thing that matters is whether or not, per the Constitution, it an issue that should or shouldn’t be left up to the states to decide.

[Skjellyfetti]

Even if you remove ‘expressly’ it doesnt change the point that there’s no right to abortion or gay marriage granted by the Constitution..

As the quote from the Contitution debate says - it includes powers that are implied to be granted.

Mr. Madison objected to this amendment, because it was impossible to confine a Government to the exercise of express powers; there must necessarily be admitted powers by implication, unless the Constitution descended to recount every minutia.

What powers are implied for the federal government? That's up the courts. What powers have the courts decided are implied in the Constitution...? Well.... here we are.

[css75]

Just one question about the abortion issue: Does not the child inside the woman get a chance to live or just be slaughtered?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Let me ask you a question- are you going to care for the kid once it’s born or just bitch about a woman that keeps getting pregnant? Or what if the woman was raped? What if to save the woman you have to terminate the pregnancy?

I already stated my position here regarding abortion.

I understand the dilemma, but what’s the alternative? Backdoor abortions that endanger the mothers life as well? Not all women getting abortions are sluts that can’t stop ****. What you see as a living thing, some just see as a collection of cells.

The fetus isn’t viable until 22,23 weeks( approx, I could be off a week or two).

It’s a tight line to walk, I know. I’m anti-abortion personally but I think the overall healthcare of women who don’t share my views shouldnt suffer.



What’s your view of the death penalty?

I am for the death penalty on a case by case basis. Some one like Charles Manson should forfeit his life for what he did. Life is precious and only those who destroy life should forfeit theirs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

Let me ask you a question- are you going to care for the kid once it’s born or just bitch about a woman that keeps getting pregnant? Or what if the woman was raped? What if to save the woman you have to terminate the pregnancy?

I already stated my position here regarding abortion.

I understand the dilemma, but what’s the alternative? Backdoor abortions that endanger the mothers life as well? Not all women getting abortions are sluts that can’t stop ****. What you see as a living thing, some just see as a collection of cells.

The fetus isn’t viable until 22,23 weeks( approx, I could be off a week or two).

It’s a tight line to walk, I know. I’m anti-abortion personally but I think the overall healthcare of women who don’t share my views shouldnt suffer.



What’s your view of the death penalty?

I am for the death penalty on a case by case basis. Some one like Charles Manson should forfeit his life for what he did. Life is precious and only those who destroy life should forfeit theirs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Life is precious- but who are we to play God and decide who dies? Thou shall not kill is quite straightforward.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

Where does it give heterosexual couples the right? It doesn’t, yet here we are.
And what’s the harm with two loving adults behind joined together? Is it the Union, gays or the use of the word, “marriage” that bothers you?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All that is irrlevelant to the question at hand. Doesn’t matter how great or terrible a law is, and what the consequences of having/not having it are. Only thing that matters is whether or not, per the Constitution, it an issue that should or shouldn’t be left up to the states to decide.

I get your POV and respect it. I prefer the states have the power- but they sometimes make decisions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Baldy]

The left is so **** evil they have made it so I kinda dont care if people are ACTUALLY Nazis. I love where they are right now mentally and I hope a lot of them end the problem for us.

Enjoy it while you can. They will win in the end. And what's going on right now will make them win sooner.

What's going on now has got people leaving the Donk party in droves. #WalkAway

Viral ‘Walk Away’ Videos Highlight Growing Movement of Democrats Leaving the Party

When actor James Woods tweeted out the hashtag “#WalkAway” in late June, even the alt-right missed the enormity of what lay beneath it. The Democratic Party had, in fact, struck an iceberg.

Some 5 million people on Facebook and YouTube have seen the video by now. A very handsome gay man, who you just assume is about to scold you on progressive talking points, instead says this:

“Once upon a time, I was a liberal. Well, to be honest, less than a year ago, I was still a liberal.

“I reject a system which allows an ambitious, misinformed and dogmatic mob to suppress free speech, create false narratives, and apathetically steamroll over the truth.”

And then this devastating line—the Rosa Parks moment of the video:

“I reject hate.”

If Democratic strategists were still able to watch the rest of the video without suffering a nervous breakdown, they’d see that it quickly got worse.

“These are the reasons why I became a liberal. And these are the same reasons why I am now walking away.”

As I've said on here for years, the Left can't help but eat it's own.

[kalm]

Enjoy it while you can. They will win in the end. And what's going on right now will make them win sooner.

What's going on now has got people leaving the Donk party in droves. #WalkAway

Viral ‘Walk Away’ Videos Highlight Growing Movement of Democrats Leaving the Party

When actor James Woods tweeted out the hashtag “#WalkAway” in late June, even the alt-right missed the enormity of what lay beneath it. The Democratic Party had, in fact, struck an iceberg.

Some 5 million people on Facebook and YouTube have seen the video by now. A very handsome gay man, who you just assume is about to scold you on progressive talking points, instead says this:

“Once upon a time, I was a liberal. Well, to be honest, less than a year ago, I was still a liberal.

“I reject a system which allows an ambitious, misinformed and dogmatic mob to suppress free speech, create false narratives, and apathetically steamroll over the truth.”

And then this devastating line—the Rosa Parks moment of the video:

“I reject hate.”

If Democratic strategists were still able to watch the rest of the video without suffering a nervous breakdown, they’d see that it quickly got worse.

“These are the reasons why I became a liberal. And these are the same reasons why I am now walking away.”

As I've said on here for years, the Left can't help but eat it's own.

There's a certain degree of truth to that.

This dude is obviously not alone. He sounds like Dave Ruben. I think it's very reasonable to leave the party at this point. I'm not sure they're exactly running into the arms of Trump though, as the article states.

Conversely, I'm guessing that more than few Log Cabin Republicans like Andrew Sullivan have also jumped ship.

[Silenoz]

Well, I can't wait for the inevitable meltdown from everyone I know on the left, where I'll have to hear that incessant wailing. Drowned out only by the cacophony of self-righteous nutbaggery from everyone I know on the right. Facebook needs a "mass unfollow" option

[JohnStOnge]

BTW I've mentioned this before but I heard discussion about it today: Trump getting to appoint Supreme Court Justices does not mean assuring a conservative majority for a generation. If and when the Democrats take total control, they can simply increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court to a number sufficient to allow them to establish a Liberal majority. It doesn't take a Constitutional Amendment or anything. All it would take is the Democrats gaining control to a level that the Republicans have now.

And it's going to happen. Again: All of the underlying trends are in the Democrats' favor. Republicans have been able to gain power thanks to the Electoral college and gerrymandering. But the population is evolving more and more in the Democrat direction. They are, inevitably, going to be in control of the Presidency and Congress again. And when they are they an take care of the Judiciary thing.

[Rob Iola]

BTW I've mentioned this before but I heard discussion about it today: Trump getting to appoint Supreme Court Justices does not mean assuring a conservative majority for a generation. If and when the Democrats take total control, they can simply increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court to a number sufficient to allow them to establish a Liberal majority. It doesn't take a Constitutional Amendment or anything. All it would take is the Democrats gaining control to a level that the Republicans have now.

And it's going to happen. Again: All of the underlying trends are in the Democrats' favor. Republicans have been able to gain power thanks to the Electoral college and gerrymandering. But the population is evolving more and more in the Democrat direction. They are, inevitably, going to be in control of the Presidency and Congress again. And when they are they an take care of the Judiciary thing.

Um, if stacking the Supreme Court is as easy peasy as you say, then why hasn't it been done every single time one party has total control?

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Well, I can't wait for the inevitable meltdown from everyone I know on the left, where I'll have to hear that incessant wailing. Drowned out only by the cacophony of self-righteous nutbaggery from everyone I know on the right. Facebook needs a "mass unfollow" option

They do.... Delete the app and dont visit the site

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Ivytalk]

BTW I've mentioned this before but I heard discussion about it today: Trump getting to appoint Supreme Court Justices does not mean assuring a conservative majority for a generation. If and when the Democrats take total control, they can simply increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court to a number sufficient to allow them to establish a Liberal majority. It doesn't take a Constitutional Amendment or anything. All it would take is the Democrats gaining control to a level that the Republicans have now.

And it's going to happen. Again: All of the underlying trends are in the Democrats' favor. Republicans have been able to gain power thanks to the Electoral college and gerrymandering. But the population is evolving more and more in the Democrat direction. They are, inevitably, going to be in control of the Presidency and Congress again. And when they are they an take care of the Judiciary thing.

You idiot. Don’t you know what happened in 1937 when FDR contemplated the same thing?

Dolt.

[css75]

BTW I've mentioned this before but I heard discussion about it today: Trump getting to appoint Supreme Court Justices does not mean assuring a conservative majority for a generation. If and when the Democrats take total control, they can simply increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court to a number sufficient to allow them to establish a Liberal majority. It doesn't take a Constitutional Amendment or anything. All it would take is the Democrats gaining control to a level that the Republicans have now.

And it's going to happen. Again: All of the underlying trends are in the Democrats' favor. Republicans have been able to gain power thanks to the Electoral college and gerrymandering. But the population is evolving more and more in the Democrat direction. They are, inevitably, going to be in control of the Presidency and Congress again. And when they are they an take care of the Judiciary thing.

One thing very true here. You have mentioned this before and before and before and before. Before that you mentioned. We all know you want mob rule which is what would happen if the EC was eliminated.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

BTW I've mentioned this before but I heard discussion about it today: Trump getting to appoint Supreme Court Justices does not mean assuring a conservative majority for a generation. If and when the Democrats take total control, they can simply increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court to a number sufficient to allow them to establish a Liberal majority. It doesn't take a Constitutional Amendment or anything. All it would take is the Democrats gaining control to a level that the Republicans have now.

And it's going to happen. Again: All of the underlying trends are in the Democrats' favor. Republicans have been able to gain power thanks to the Electoral college and gerrymandering. But the population is evolving more and more in the Democrat direction. They are, inevitably, going to be in control of the Presidency and Congress again. And when they are they an take care of the Judiciary thing.

The conks have 51 Senate seats. You think the donks are going to be able to stack the SCOTUS if they have the POTUS, House, and a bare Senate majority.. You can’t be that dumb to believe that..

[AZGrizFan]

BTW I've mentioned this before but I heard discussion about it today: Trump getting to appoint Supreme Court Justices does not mean assuring a conservative majority for a generation. If and when the Democrats take total control, they can simply increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court to a number sufficient to allow them to establish a Liberal majority. It doesn't take a Constitutional Amendment or anything. All it would take is the Democrats gaining control to a level that the Republicans have now.

And it's going to happen. Again: All of the underlying trends are in the Democrats' favor. Republicans have been able to gain power thanks to the Electoral college and gerrymandering. But the population is evolving more and more in the Democrat direction. They are, inevitably, going to be in control of the Presidency and Congress again. And when they are they an take care of the Judiciary thing.

Um, if stacking the Supreme Court is as easy peasy as you say, then why hasn't it been done every single time one party has total control?

It’s the second time I’ve seen that mentioned on here by a lib. They truly have gone full retard. THAT is why people are leaving them in droves.

Trump gets tough on the border...his #s with Hispanics go up 10 points. Donks do NOT understand it. And never will.

[houndawg]

BTW I've mentioned this before but I heard discussion about it today: Trump getting to appoint Supreme Court Justices does not mean assuring a conservative majority for a generation. If and when the Democrats take total control, they can simply increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court to a number sufficient to allow them to establish a Liberal majority. It doesn't take a Constitutional Amendment or anything. All it would take is the Democrats gaining control to a level that the Republicans have now.

And it's going to happen. Again: All of the underlying trends are in the Democrats' favor. Republicans have been able to gain power thanks to the Electoral college and gerrymandering. But the population is evolving more and more in the Democrat direction. They are, inevitably, going to be in control of the Presidency and Congress again. And when they are they an take care of the Judiciary thing.

Um, if stacking the Supreme Court is as easy peasy as you say, then why hasn't it been done every single time one party has total control?

Because they don't always croak when they should?

[SeattleGriz]

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Life is precious- but who are we to play God and decide who dies? Thou shall not kill is quite straightforward.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are misquoting that. It is about planning and attacking a person for the sole purpose of killing them.

Thou shalt not murder is probably better description.

There are consequences for choices.

[SeattleGriz]

Back to the topic. Reading that Mike Hall from Utah might be a pick.

[Winterborn]

Back to the topic. Reading that Mike Hall from Utah might be a pick.

You mean Mike Lee? He has no judiciary experience.

[SeattleGriz]

Back to the topic. Reading that Mike Hall from Utah might be a pick.

You mean Mike Lee? He has no judiciary experience.

Yes, thanks for clarifying.

Isn't the lack of judiciary similar to Kagan?

[HI54UNI]

You mean Mike Lee? He has no judiciary experience.

Yes, thanks for clarifying.

Isn't the lack of judiciary similar to Kagan?

It won't be Mike Lee. He was a never Trumper.

[css75]

Back to the topic. Reading that Mike Hall from Utah might be a pick.

You mean Mike Lee? He has no judiciary experience.

Mike Lee and Mike Hall are both on the list.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[CitadelGrad]

I read today that Trump has told people in the west wing that he really wants someone from Harvard or Yale.

Ivytalk should send his resume.

If not Ivytalk, then whom?

[Ivytalk]

I read today that Trump has told people in the west wing that he really wants someone from Harvard or Yale.

Ivytalk should send his resume.

If not Ivytalk, then whom?

Kavanaugh is a double Yalie. The left would go ballistic if he gets it, because he worked on the Clinton impeachment team.

[Chizzang]

At this point we've traveled so far into Bizzaro world does it even matter who he chooses..?
What would surprise anybody at this point..?

I'm thinking he's going to select one of his kids or one of his personal lawyers (Why not)