# The first liberal court in two generations if HRC wins



## JakeStarkey (Aug 24, 2016)

*How the first liberal Supreme Court in a generation could reshape America*

_Dylan Matthews_ _on August 22, 2016, _wrote_, in “_How the first liberal Supreme Court in a generation could reshape America”, that “Odds are that very soon, the Supreme Court will become something it hasn’t been in nearly 50 years: made up of a majority of Democratic-appointed justices.

Ever since Abe Fortas’s resignation in 1969, the Court has either been split down the middle or, more often, made up primarily of Republican appointees. Some of those Republican appointees nonetheless turned out to be liberals, but even taking that into account, the Court hasn’t been majority liberal since 1971, when William Rehnquist and Lewis Powell joined.  That hasn’t stopped the Court from evolving in a progressive direction at times. In 1973, GOP appointee Harry Blackmun authored _Roe v. Wade_, drawing only two dissents; from 1996’s _Romer v. Evans_ to 2015’s _Obergefell v. Hodges_, Anthony Kennedy and the Court’s liberals steadily expanded the rights of LGBTQ Americans.

But for the most part, over the past half-century liberals have been playing defense as an organized and well-planned movement of conservatives has limited the scope of rights trumpeted by liberals, expanded the power of the state in criminal justice, and issued more business-friendly rulings on campaign finance and regulatory issues.  The Court ruled that states didn't have to give poor black and Latino school districts the same funding as rich white districts. It ruled that school resegregation achieved through white flight to wealthy suburbs was just fine. It ruled that despite declaring abortion a fundamental right, that didn’t mean Medicaid had to extend that right to poor women, and then it reversed course on treating abortion as a fundamental right at all. It struck down the death penalty but then brought it back four years later.”

A new court appointed by Clinton might improve prison conditions, possibly stop executions permanently, enact finance campaign laws that would gut Citizens United.  Abortion rights would be defended.  It might defend voting rights and damage gerrymandering.  The LGBT question would be put to rest for two generations.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 24, 2016)

It's more than just the Supreme Court for the next twenty years, but the lower courts that will turn liberal


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Aug 24, 2016)

If they can pay off the debt great.

Otherwise, they really won't mean much.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 24, 2016)

A liberal court will mean

End of the death penalty
End of Citizens United
Rollback of Heller
Protection of abortion rights
Protection of gay rights
I


----------



## Grandma (Aug 24, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> If they can pay off the debt great.
> 
> Otherwise, they really won't mean much.



WTF does that have to do with the courts?

It's too bad the traitors in Congress are violating the Constitution by blocking the President's duty to choose a SC Justice.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Aug 24, 2016)

so the guy that claims to be a rep can't hide his desire for more dems to be in power and control.


and wonders why he's called Fake


----------



## Two Thumbs (Aug 24, 2016)

the Patriot act will be repassed and go unchallenged.
people will not get their right to privacy, property, free speech, arms, etc etc, returned to them

but, but, gay people.....


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 24, 2016)

Two Thumbs said:


> so the guy that claims to be a rep can't hide his desire for more dems to be in power and control.  and wonders why he's called Fake


The fakes are you guys who say you are GOP but are not.  You want to put a Dem lite like Trump into the WH.  You are not even conservatives.  Just power hungry gnats.


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 24, 2016)

We may finally benefit from a 21st century interpretation of that document that was written from an 18th century perspective.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Aug 25, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > so the guy that claims to be a rep can't hide his desire for more dems to be in power and control.  and wonders why he's called Fake
> ...


I'm going to tell you for the 30th or so time;

I'm not a republican.

leftist, like yourself, drove normal humans from the party.

You want everything the dems do, just don't have the balls to admit it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 25, 2016)

Two Thumbs said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...


Nonsense.  You are not a conservative.  You want dem lite in the presidency.  You are about power.  Have the integrity to admit it.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 25, 2016)

Al Azar said:


> We may finally benefit from a 21st century interpretation of that document that was written from an 18th century perspective.


The liberal Supreme Court will move us into the 21st century with a modern view of capital punishment/ineffective prison system, voter rights, gay rights and the rights of women


----------



## TrinityPaige (Aug 25, 2016)

I have never known Clinton to be a liberal. She and Bill are just continuing the Reagan legacy of destroying all FDR programs.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Aug 25, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


I don't want trump to be pres, never have.

go find a link to back up your lies, just one time.


Still waiting for you to link any proof that Im a racist, and that's been days.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 25, 2016)

Two Thumbs said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...


You totality in posts reveal your racism, which is well known on the board.

Because of people like you, Hillary is going to win and change America.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Aug 26, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


you lie as easy as breathing

filth like you is why America is dying.  Dying while you cheer it's death


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 26, 2016)

For the first time since the 70s, we will have a left leaning court. We should have had one six months ago


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 26, 2016)

As things appear now, this is pretty much inevitable. During the Clinton Presidency, the Supreme Court will be liberal. And our 'Conservatives' will sit in their basements, stroking their AK's and AR's, muttering about revolution and 2nd Amendment solutions, until they succumb to heart failure from their obesity and lack of exercise. And their heirs will turn over all the ammo and guns to the police for destruction.


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> > We may finally benefit from a 21st century interpretation of that document that was written from an 18th century perspective.
> ...



And help twats like you crush anyone who doesn't agree with you.

Fascist.


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> As things appear now, this is pretty much inevitable. During the Clinton Presidency, the Supreme Court will be liberal. And our 'Conservatives' will sit in their basements, stroking their AK's and AR's, muttering about revolution and 2nd Amendment solutions, until they succumb to heart failure from their obesity and lack of exercise. And their heirs will turn over all the ammo and guns to the police for destruction.



Seems like you have a masturbatory fantasy here.

"Wank wank, dead conservatives, wank wank, dead libertarians, wank wank, AGW is my God, Wank wank."


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 26, 2016)

LOL  Crush? Well, if you are easily crushed by laughter, I suppose that is the correct term.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 26, 2016)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Al Azar said:
> ...



You are not crushed, you will just have to accept a more liberal America


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 26, 2016)

martybegan said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > As things appear now, this is pretty much inevitable. During the Clinton Presidency, the Supreme Court will be liberal. And our 'Conservatives' will sit in their basements, stroking their AK's and AR's, muttering about revolution and 2nd Amendment solutions, until they succumb to heart failure from their obesity and lack of exercise. And their heirs will turn over all the ammo and guns to the police for destruction.
> ...


LOL  Only stating what the obvious physical conditions of most of the 'Conseratives' I see, are. And I nor anyone else has anything to do with that condition. Like the nomination of Trump, this is their own doing. LOL


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



a more PROGRESSIVE STATIST america. you idiots left the classical liberal boat a long time ago.


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Go suck some more government dick, Old rocks.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 26, 2016)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...




No such thing as a classical liberal. Liberalism is a function of its time and the issues they face


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Wrong. When one prefers government to enforce morality and thought, one cannot be liberal.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 26, 2016)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Government enforcing morality is not liberal?

Which world do you live in?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 26, 2016)

Marty lives in a world where only is point of view and his definitions and his "facts" count.

None of which impacts the fact that if HRC is elected, the court will go liberal.


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



No, it is not classically liberal. Classic Liberalism encourages freedom of expression and thought. Modern progressive Statism (under the cover of the word liberal) does not. 



> *Classical liberalism* is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedom.[1][2]



Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> Marty lives in a world where only is point of view and his definitions and his "facts" count.
> 
> None of which impacts the fact that if HRC is elected, the court will go liberal.



it will go progressive Statist, not liberal.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 26, 2016)

Wikipedia is not a legitimate source for definitions, Marty.


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> Wikipedia is not a legitimate source for definitions, Marty.



Why? because it refutes your views?


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 26, 2016)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



No such thing as "Classical Liberalism"

The liberalism of our founders existed in the views and morals of the day.....nothing "classical" about it

They supported slavery, opposed the equal rights of women yet were still the greatest "liberals" of their day


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Some supported slavery, some didn't, but the ones that didn't realized that was a fight for another day, and the same could be said for women's suffrage. Hell, back then property requirements for the franchise were considered A-OK.

Their liberalism was based on the concepts of representative government, individual freedoms, and equality under the law. Things that are all under attack by modern progressive Statists.

Moving away from representative government by using Courts to enforce their will on others. Away from individual freedom by forcing people to do things they don't want to, regardless of the minimal impact said refusal actually has, and away from equality under the law by the constant balkanization of people via identity politics, and the mentality of "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 26, 2016)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Irrelevant to the coming liberal court which will apply *21st century* liberal standards


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



21st Century liberalism isn't liberal. It is progressive statism.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 26, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> Wikipedia is not a legitimate source for definitions, Marty.


Because it allows anyone to post what they think instead of what are traditional, accept facts, definitions, and terms.


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Wikipedia is not a legitimate source for definitions, Marty.
> ...



Actually it is quite well vetted, and except for articles that are part of an edit war, can be trusted.

What is wrong with the wikipedia definition of classical liberalism?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 26, 2016)

*The first liberal court in two generations if HRC wins*

another good reason to vote Trump 

thanks for sharing dupe


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 26, 2016)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Moving away from representative government by using Courts to enforce their will on others.
_The Constitution which was written by liberals established our Judicial Branch and resulting checks and balances_

Away from individual freedom by forcing people to do things they don't want to, regardless of the minimal impact said refusal actually has

_It is a function of belonging to a society that you will have to do some things you do not like to do. Our liberal Constitution gives you a means to regress

_
, and away from equality under the law by the constant balkanization of people via identity politics,

_Liberals have fought for equality under the law for women, blacks and gays
_
 and the mentality of "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".

_Liberals have fought for equality under the law for women, blacks and gays_


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 26, 2016)

jon_berzerk said:


> *The first liberal court in two generations if HRC wins*
> 
> another good reason to vote Trump
> 
> thanks for sharing dupe



Kind of tough that you nominated Trump isn't it?
You had an excellent chance of beating a weak Hillary in 2016 and then you chose Trump


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 26, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > *The first liberal court in two generations if HRC wins*
> ...




what really sucks is you guys put up a corrupt lying candidate 

--LOL


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 26, 2016)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



21st century liberals address new challenges that previous liberals never dreamed of.....a right to healthcare, gay rights, environmental protections


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 26, 2016)

jon_berzerk said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



Yet, after 25 years of trying....you guys have never actually been able to prove that


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



The courts have become too powerful, and have moved away from a strict constructional view of law. 
And the use of government to make people do things they don't want to do has to be used only when an actual harm can be shown, not just hurt feelings or spending an aditional hour or so to find another baker.
"Liberals" also fight against religious freedom, 2nd amendment rights, and free speech rights, which are actuall in the document.


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Those are not "rights". 

If you want them to be protected enumerated rights, add them to the constitution via the amendment process.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 26, 2016)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Of course they are.....if We the People determine them to be so


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 26, 2016)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Courts have become powerful because Congress has become irrelevant due to petty infighting

When you belong to a society, you are forced to do things you don't want to do. It comes with the territory.
I don't want to drive under 65 but it is a concession I make for functioning in a society


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Actually it's 75 with with 10 MPH buffer usually given. I bet you are one of those regulator idiots who does 65 in the left lane. 

Courts have become more powerful because progressives have found out they can impose their will on others without having to convince them at the ballot box.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 26, 2016)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Actually, courts have become more powerful because liberals have found they will actually enforce our constitutional freedoms


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Actually made up freedoms, but you won't have the balls to acknowledge that.

Progressives: Supporting the constitutional right to things not in the constitution, while suppressing rights actually found in the document.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 26, 2016)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



The 14th amendment is not made up
Equal protection under our laws is not made up


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 26, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Yes.  The courts confirm our constitutional rights and freedoms, which are never subject to vote, in Congress or anywhere else.


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



The 14th amendment doesn't reference abortion, or gay marriage (or any marriage) or all the other crap you guys think it means.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 26, 2016)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Equal protection under our laws....a liberal benchmark


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



It depends on how you define equal.


----------



## HenryBHough (Aug 26, 2016)

I loved it when "Bork" became the magical verb "To Bork".  It worked for one side; it can work for another.  Almost makes one wish for Hillary to win - Borking - as much an American cultural icon as Bullfighting in Spain!


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 26, 2016)

HenryBHough said:


> I loved it when "Bork" became the magical verb "To Bork".  It worked for one side; it can work for another.  Almost makes one wish for Hillary to win - Borking - as much an American cultural icon as Bullfighting in Spain!


Robert Bork received a Congressional hearing.....why can't Garland?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 26, 2016)

martybegan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Actually it is nothing of the sort, marty.  It is a place to begin nothing more.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 26, 2016)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Bingo!  And that is where your arguments fail, Marty, because you want your own definitions and terms, which do not agree with SCOTUS opinions.


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



So what is wrong with the quoted definition?


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



So sorry massa, guess big bossman Supremeo court justisas are our betters and can never be wrongs.

Nice plantation mentality you got there farkey.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 26, 2016)

Scalia  Conservative Empty Seat

Kennedy, Anthony   Conservative  80 years old    (will retire while Hillary is President)

Thomas, Clarence   Conservative  68 years  ( may retire due to dissatisfaction with a liberal court)

Roberts, John G. Conservative 61 yrs old ( will stay as Chief Justice)

Alito, Samuel  Conservative 66 years old (will stay)


Ginsburg, Ruth  Liberal 83 years old (will retire under Hillary)

Breyer, Stephen  Liberal 78 years old  (will retire) 

Sotomayor, Sonia  Liberal 62 years old (will stay)

Kagan, Elena  Liberal 56 years old (will stay)


So Hillary will get to replace 2 liberal and 2 conservative seats (3 if Thomas drops out) giving Liberals a 6-3 edge for the next 25 years or more


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 26, 2016)

Of course SCOTUS can do wrong.  You, Marty, can do far more wrong if you get your way.


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> Of course SCOTUS can do wrong.  You, Marty, can do far more wrong if you get your way.



yeah, because following the constitution strictly, and limiting federal power are bad things.

Slurp slurp slurp starkey.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 26, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Scalia  Conservative Empty Seat
> 
> Kennedy, Anthony   Conservative  80 years old    (will retire while Hillary is President)
> 
> ...


The far right, who so wrongly think they are mainstream, have brought this on America because they wanted beyond all reason a candidate like the commie loving Trump.


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Scalia  Conservative Empty Seat
> 
> Kennedy, Anthony   Conservative  80 years old    (will retire while Hillary is President)
> 
> ...



And we can all kiss our freedoms goodbye. and kiss federalism goodbye as well.

You are such a government power suck up twat.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 26, 2016)

martybegan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Of course SCOTUS can do wrong.  You, Marty, can do far more wrong if you get your way.
> ...


Your interp?  Yeah, it is a bad thing.  Marty, however, our discussion does not matter thanks to the far right.  We are going to get a very far left SCOTUS because of the far right's dunderation.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 26, 2016)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Scalia  Conservative Empty Seat
> ...



Cats and Dogs living together....Mass Hysteria

End of the world as we know it if we get a liberal court


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 26, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Scalia  Conservative Empty Seat
> ...



Looks like Roberts and Alito representing the right. After 25 years, I am not sure Thomas will want to play in a Liberal Court


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Lol, nothing like blaming the victim there farkey.


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



People who make shit up to create rights out of thin air can just as easily (and will with the 2nd amendment) make shit up to remove them as well.


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 26, 2016)

martybegan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Of course SCOTUS can do wrong.  You, Marty, can do far more wrong if you get your way.
> ...


 You may not realize it, but SCOTUS decisions are the ultimate exercise of federal power.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 26, 2016)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Your nonsensical interp is why you are not a serious player in these discussions about SCOTUS and its role in American jurisprudence.  Regardless, the court, if HRC is elected, will go liberal, and you will have to live with it.


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 26, 2016)

The quickest route to regulation of our rights is the unreasonable exercise thereof.


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

Al Azar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



oh, I realize it 100%, and that is the current issue.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 26, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



As usual, whenever decisions go against them, Conservatives will wrap themselves in the Constitution and pout

What they don't tell anyone is they have never read anything other than the second amendment (and they have only read half of that)


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Kind of like the blacks had to live with Plessey?

And LOLOLOLOL on your twatty self being able to decide who is taken seriously in any discussion.


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



And progressives ignoring the parts they don't like is so fucking much better.

The 2nd part does not rely on the 1st part. I have a RKBA that is not to be infringed. $1000 in fees and a 3-6 month wait period is infringement.


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

Al Azar said:


> The quickest route to regulation of our rights is the unreasonable exercise thereof.



So the old "the peasants can't be trusted" line. Really?


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 26, 2016)

martybegan said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> > The quickest route to regulation of our rights is the unreasonable exercise thereof.
> ...


 No, rights come with responsibilities.  Irresponsible behavior creates limitations.  It's entirely up to us how limited the exercise of our rights become.


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

Al Azar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Al Azar said:
> ...



The whole idea of a right is they can only be limited in the most dire circumstances, like banning people from yelling FIRE in a crowded theater.

Some idiot using a gun illegally does not mean making it impossible for me to get one is acceptable.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 26, 2016)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



You are just cheap....millions of New Yorkers have guns


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 26, 2016)

martybegan said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


 That's right, which is why that doesn't happen.

Which is an entirely different discussion.


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Not in NYC, and not handguns. 

Again, how about we just tack on $100 for an abortion in fees, and add a 10 day wait period?


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

Al Azar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Al Azar said:
> ...



Actually its the same discussion. The question is when can government stomp on an enumerated right.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 26, 2016)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



You need to stop being so cheap and just cough up the money

After Hillary gets her liberal court, you will have to join a militia to buy a gun


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



you didn't answer the question.

Hack.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 26, 2016)

martybegan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Plessy?  Show me your chains, your burns, your marks, the lynch ropes.  You exaggerate and continue to look poorly in this discussion.  You are not on any level as that.  Shame on you.


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Aww, did I hit a sore spot farkey?

And your side tries to equate making a gay couple go to another baker the same as the systemic discrimination found during the Jim Crow days, so spare me your tut-tutting. 

I made an apt comparison, and your only response is to get all huffy.

I win dickweed.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 26, 2016)

martybegan said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Enumerated rights are subject to SCOTUS and its review.  To suggest we should live today legally as we did in 1789 boggles common sense.


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Al Azar said:
> ...



And they should only be limited based on overwhelming need, and then only in the most limited way possible. 

Making me pay $1000 and wait 3-6 months for a handgun has no overwhelming need, and is not in the most limited way possible.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 26, 2016)

martybegan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


On your best day, you are laughable, and you win nothing.   The fallacy of false equivalency of segregation and one's supposed right to discriminate against LGBT amuses the informed mind.

Your right to own a gun is not abridged.  And not letting you have a gun in the next four seconds is not an abridgment either of the 2d Amendment.


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Still a sore loser, dickweed.

You are now added to the posters I call bitch-tits. Wear it well.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 26, 2016)

martybegan said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


  You have lost again, marty, as you did in life daily.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 26, 2016)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Here is the uniform you can wear when Hillary's court makes you join a militia to buy guns. After all, you need to be well regulated


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 26, 2016)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


 There's no mention of handguns in our constitution, just arms.  Unless all arms are generally prohibited, our rights have not been infringed.

Which is a different topic and the last I'll post on this tangent.


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Blah Blah Blah, bitch-tits.


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

Al Azar said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



That's like saying that if government allows you to use a printing press but suppresses your ability to post online your free speech rights are not being infringed.


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Running to argumentum ad absurdum as usual, dippy.

When have I ever posted about not wanting any government?


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 26, 2016)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...




Better stock up on your guns....

The Hillary Court is going to be strict on the Constitution and require "Well regulated militias"


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



That would be the wrong interpretation of the amendment. State's have the right to form militias, the PEOPLE retain the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 26, 2016)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Don't you believe in a free state?  Well regulated militias are necessary

But you will not be required to join a militia to buy guns. Of course, if you want a handgun or AR-15 you will need to be well regulated. Otherwise you can buy yourself a nice musket....just like our founders anticipated


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Then I guess government should limit you to a printing press or your own voice when it comes to your free speech rights.....

and you can't take regulated from the first part, which applies to the militia, and the right of the States to have them, and apply it to the part where the PEOPLE retain the RKBA.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 26, 2016)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



You are twisting the second amendment.

A liberal court will straighten you out


----------



## martybegan (Aug 26, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I am reading it the right way. The People have the RKBA. Its actually very simple.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 26, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



There are still "classic" liberals that love the Constitution and have a innate distrust of power in govt. Don't mind the fixes to the Constitution DONE LEGALLY. They are called Libertarians. True story..


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 26, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> A liberal court will mean
> 
> End of the death penalty
> 
> ...





End of the death penalty

How? What cases now going through the lower courts?  

End of Citizens United

They won't touch that case, the supreme court already ruled on it.

Rollback of Heller

At work, what's that

Protection of abortion rights

Who has been attacking them?

Protection of gay rights

Again gay marriage already legal.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 26, 2016)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Yes, that describes your arguments well, marty.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 26, 2016)

End of the death penalty (possibly)

End of Citizens United (a Clinton court will overturn it)

Rollback of Heller (don't think so)

Protection of abortion rights (they will continue to be protected against the attacks of the socons)

Protection of gay rights (they will continue to be protected against the attacks of the socons)


----------



## 1stRambo (Aug 26, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> *How the first liberal Supreme Court in a generation could reshape America*
> 
> _Dylan Matthews_ _on August 22, 2016, _wrote_, in “_How the first liberal Supreme Court in a generation could reshape America”, that “Odds are that very soon, the Supreme Court will become something it hasn’t been in nearly 50 years: made up of a majority of Democratic-appointed justices.
> 
> ...



Yo, you`re right, a big 

!!!

"GTP"


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 26, 2016)

*Hillary Clinton has support from majority and 10-point lead over Donald Trump, poll shows*

*Hillary Clinton has 10-point lead over Trump and majority*

This is the first time one of them is at 50%.  That, with Obama's generally favorable poll numbers, strike terror into the heart of the far right.  As it well should.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 26, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


All liberals love the Constitution.....we wrote it


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 26, 2016)

bear513 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > A liberal court will mean
> ...


Most states already don't use the death penalty. Only Jesusland insists on it

I give it ten years tops


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 26, 2016)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


You will get used to your militia


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 26, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Ignorant and wrong.  

Liberals love, respect, and follow the Constitution and its case law – indeed, liberals correctly understand that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law.

The problem is conservatives and libertarians who are ignorant of, or have contempt for, the Constitution’s case law.


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 26, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


 Before we know it, he'll be bitching about how the militia is regulated, even though the constitution mandates it.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 26, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Except for the 2nd, 5th, 10th amendments and all the POWERS that progressives IMAGINE are in the Constitution, when they are not. Nothing LEFT in the Dem party but folks who love themselves an omnipotent govt that can DICTATE every little flush on a toilet. Or the lights you switch on. Or the Big Gulp that you drink.   

You leftists hunted your libertarians (the Blue Dogs) to extinction. Because they EMBARASSED you with dissent on spending and national security. Pretty much PURGED yourselves of anything truly "Liberal" in your party..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 26, 2016)

8/26/2016 Jake finally stopped pretending to be a Republican and comes out swinging for his gal, Crooked Hillary


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 26, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Case law reverses and refines with time. There is nothing sacrosanct about 5 to 4 decisions of a court hung one way or the other. That's what you're FIGHTING about in the thread. 

When it comes to the items like turning the World's Premiere spy agency against it's OWN CITIZENS ---- you leftists are mute. Make political hay over "terrorist lists" and "drone kill lists" rather than FIXING THEM. 

Leftists are often lately on the WRONG SIDE of even their own ACLU... 

But most importantly -- you are not liberal because all the self-preservation instinct of REAL LIBERALS has been bred and taught right the fuck out of you when it comes to that innate distrust of govt power. No Thoreau -s  anymore on the Left. You EMBRACE and LUST for power. And abuse it instinctively. It's what leftist politics has become all about. 

No humility. No limits to the power you will TAKE -- if you can place the CORRECT people in the right offices.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 26, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> End of the death penalty (possibly)
> 
> End of Citizens United (a Clinton court will overturn it)
> 
> ...


Spot on.

Particularly with regard to _Heller/McDonald_.

This illustrates that liberal jurists respect the Constitution and its case law, respect the rule of law, and follow settled, accepted Constitutional jurisprudence which is beyond dispute:

The right to privacy with regard to reproductive liberty.

The right to equal protection of the law for gay and transgender Americans.

The right to due process of the law for immigrants.

First Amendment protection of religious liberty – Muslim Americans in particular given the unwarranted fear and hostility directed toward Muslims by many on the right.

The right of minorities to vote.

And the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment concerning the individual right to possess a firearm and the right to lawful self-defense.

Indeed, liberals consider current Second Amendment jurisprudence to be as settled, accepted, and beyond dispute as privacy rights jurisprudence and 14th Amendment protections for those gay and transgender.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 26, 2016)

Jones is telling you crazy gun freaks on the far right: hillary won't come to your door and take your guns.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 26, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


We wrote the constitution. 
Libertarians are a nonentity. They talk the talk but never accomplish anything
Their...I got mine, fuck everyone else gets tiresome


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 26, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Libertarians, generally, are laughable.  It is "get of my lawn."  They can't even agree on what is "libertarianism."


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 26, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Liberals wrote the Constitution -- you PURGED all of them. It's all about concentrating power to you today.. 
If anything, the Libertarian concepts of returning the freedoms and choices that you want to take away make us far in touch with the intentions of the Founders than any present/future "democrat" will ever be. Your idea of liberalism today is nothing more than robbing the rich to redistribute to the poor. And keeping the poor as a domesticated herd that you can depend on for votes. 

To you --- packing the Court with ideologues to expand your power and control is a NOBLE thing. A Libertarian choice would simply be vetted -- not by trigger issues -- but by a fundamental interpretation of the document.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 26, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Libertarians agree on the important stuff that your heroes have legally screwed. As I just said -- we ALL agree that the Patriot Act and that gi-normous palace that YOUR GUYS built for the NSA in Utah --- has to go. We said that BEFORE there was a Patriot Act or a massive new spy palace to spy on what you're gonna type next.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 26, 2016)

martybegan said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


And the Constitution’s case law is used to answer that question.

Although the rights and protected liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights are inalienable, they are not absolute – they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government consistent with relevant case law.

For example, hate speech is entitled to First Amendment protections; but advocating for imminent violence or lawlessness against a given race or religion through speech is not.

With regard to government regulatory authority, Commerce Clause jurisprudence determines when regulatory measures are necessary, proper, and Constitutional, and when they are not.

After more than 200 years of judicial review, there exists sufficient Constitutional jurisprudence to allow judges and justices to determine when government has acted in accordance with the Constitution, and when government has failed to abide by the Constitution’s case law.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 26, 2016)

The twin engines of history are (1) the refinement and development of energy and (2) the centralization of human activities.

Until we suffer an apocalyptic event, gang, that devolves our societies, (1) and (2) are not going to stop.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 26, 2016)

Name me a couple "Liberal" authors and leaders of "modern Liberalism" that GUIDE your lefty party today. 

Anyone????

Liberals ... Pffft..........


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 26, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Libertarians don't actually do anything.....but they do post a lot on the Internet


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 26, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Thomas hasn’t been very happy in a conservative Court, either.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 26, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Right now -- we're doing a LOT. Actually have a Libertarian in the House of Rep. You've run this arrogant power grab so far into the ditch -- that citizen voters and ELECTED OFFICIALS are APPALLED at the carnage. 
Elected officials are MUZZLED out of fear of retribution from their party. 

APPALLED that you would be so fucking bent on obtaining and maintaining power that BOTH of the parties would SCARE people into voting out of fear about "packing the court" or any other object that you can rig to be a "dog whistle" or trigger to keep the votes coming in. Just like this thread.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 26, 2016)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


He didn't have to do much. Scalia did most of the talking

In a liberal court, more of the Conservative burden would shift to Thomas and he would be outvoted in EVERY case


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 26, 2016)

So -- I asked a question.  Who are the LEADERS of academic thought on "Liberalism in the DNC" in the past 30 years?  It's a bunch of power whores who are there to build dynasties. On the SupCt and any other vestige of Democracy they can appropriate. 

For all of Clayton's lawyerly contributions -- he misses the ENTIRE PRINCIPLE point -- that case law doesn't mean a damn thing -- if you got the RIGHT asses in the RIGHT seats.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 26, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Scalia  Conservative Empty Seat
> 
> Kennedy, Anthony   Conservative  80 years old    (will retire while Hillary is President)
> 
> ...


What’s both interesting and important is that with a ‘liberal’ Court there really won’t be much in the way of change – as it should be; where non-conservative justices will respect established precedent and the rule of law:

Women needn’t fear that their right to privacy will be violated by the states.

Gay Americans needn’t fear their equal protection rights will be violated by the states.

And what change does come will be positive and consistent with long-standing legal doctrine, particularly true should _Shelby County_ be overturned, once again making voting rights paramount, and safeguarding those rights with the upmost protection from abuse by the states.

Last, the notion that a non-conservative Court would ‘jeopardize’ the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment is as unfounded as it is wrong.

Indeed, the _Heller_ Court reaffirmed a fact of Constitutional law liberals have always accepted and observed: that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited.' "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[,]” that the Second Amendment right is subject to reasonable restrictions by government, consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence – jurisprudence all justices must follow and respect, liberal or conservative.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 26, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




? Last I read states were putting on hold because of they couldn't get hold of the cocktail mix...

I still don't know what you are talking about and why the Supreme court would get involved.

It seems to me with out even researching it the SS already had a bunch of cases on it, when it was reinstated and ruled constintional , 

So with that being said it is extremely rare that the Supreme Court revisits a past Supreme court ruling. As rare as an amendment to the constitution and as rare as a Supreme court overturning a presidents E.O.

So don't get your hopes up on them revisiting this case or Cooperations are people too and I still don't have a clue about why they would have to strengthen gay rights or roe vs. wade.



Btw for some reason you guys don't mention that SS case also helped Union influence and donations.


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 26, 2016)

SCOTUS revisits issues when different arguments are made and different hairs need splitting.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 26, 2016)

Citizen's United is in the bull's eye if HRC is elected.


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 26, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> Citizen's United is in the bull's eye if HRC is elected.


 Good.  It's a constitutional abomination.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 26, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> Citizen's United is in the bull's eye if HRC is elected.



Why liberal Supreme court udges want to get rid of Union donations?

Not going to happen..

The Supreme court won't revist that case..

You will have more luck with a constitution amendment reversing the 2 nd amendment then that one.


To many players are involved.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 26, 2016)

bear513 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Citizen's United is in the bull's eye if HRC is elected.
> ...


Go learn what citizen's is about.  You are babbling now.   And no one wants your hand guns.  That is simply a far right bogeyman.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 26, 2016)

Al Azar said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Citizen's United is in the bull's eye if HRC is elected.
> ...


Indeed.  The far right is trying to give money free speech while talking away votes from eligible citizens.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 26, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...




No you dumb ass read about the ruling..

Its already been decided by the supreme court ..

Tell me when the Supremes revist a major ruling ?


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 26, 2016)

bear513 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Citizen's United is in the bull's eye if HRC is elected.
> ...


The SC's primary driver is consistency.  The CU case is glaringly inconsistent with previous case law and a lot of people are itching to overturn it on that basis.

It doesn't matter which entities are making the contributions, it matters only that, based on past rulings, they don't have the right to be considered citizens so that they can make those contributions.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 26, 2016)

bear513 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Of course they do.  They split hair's all the time.  Citizen's is on the chopping block if HRC is appointed.  And when that is over turned, as it will be, if HRC is elected, then a new McCain-Feingold bill will be passed.  Corporations can be consider "people" for tax purposes but not for civil rights is the point that will be made and adopted.  Easily.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 26, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...




So mother fucker Jake the ass hole fake...

Riddle me this?

Which cases are now in the lower courts against citizens United?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 26, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...




Which case?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 26, 2016)

Al Azar said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...




It first has to go through the lower courts..

So specify which challenge?

Be specific and not a fantasy world of unicorns and rainbows


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 26, 2016)

bear513 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Al Azar said:
> ...


Hit a never.   You have no idea, do you?  You will by spring next year.


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 26, 2016)

bear513 said:


> It first has to go through the lower courts..
> 
> So specify which challenge?
> 
> Be specific and not a fantasy world of unicorns and rainbows


  One challenge might be over corporate entitlement to personhood with respect to civil rights.

It was decided a hundred years ago that corporations do not enjoy Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.  Most recently, in 1988 the court ruled that the Fifth protects only the "right of a natural person, protecting the realm of human thought and expression."   Only natural persons enjoy protection under the Fifth Amendment.

However, in CU, the court ruled that corporations enjoy the First Amendment right to express themselves the same as natural persons when it comes to making political contributions.  The conservative court never did justify how they could be natural persons under the First Amendment after already having decided that they could not be natural persons under the Fifth Amendment.

Chew on that.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 26, 2016)

How about corporations (or unions) are not 'natural persons'?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 26, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...




Just like hobby lobby?

Damn Jake you have a dildo up your ass about this?

Again what case drama queen?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 26, 2016)

Al Azar said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > It first has to go through the lower courts..
> ...




I am asking you also which case is now in the lower courts?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 26, 2016)

Btw Looney tunes, did you guys bother to ask yourselves if they revisit this. case ...

And ruled against company's And unions..


How many jobs will be lost?

 Again which case?

Or are you guys just having mental masturbation moments and more Jake the flack stuff?


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 26, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


 And why is that important?  The SC isn't going anywhere.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 26, 2016)

Al Azar said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Al Azar said:
> ...



Check...


No court case..

Thanks for affirming that.


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 26, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Al Azar said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


 I'll also put your mind at ease and affirm that the sun will appear to rise from the eastern horizon tomorrow.

Rest easy.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 27, 2016)

bear513 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


HL is a poor deflection.  It will be revisited and narrowed.  You love to drama, don't you?  You are wrong, get over it.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 27, 2016)

bear513 said:


> Btw Looney tunes, did you guys bother to ask yourselves if they revisit this. case ...
> 
> And ruled against company's And unions..
> 
> ...


None


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 27, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Starkey reminds us that Progressives use SCOTUS to subvert the Amendment process


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 27, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Btw Looney tunes, did you guys bother to ask yourselves if they revisit this. case ...
> ...




I don't see what the big deal to you guys is to get a left leaning supreme court anyways.Jesus you won on gay marriage and twice on Obozo care plus a few others to say the right leaning supreme court wasn't fair ...is just showing the left as fools.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 27, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> It's more than just the Supreme Court for the next twenty years, but the lower courts that will turn liberal



Starkey sock reminds us that Progressives use SCOTUS to subvert the Amendment process


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 27, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...




Again fag name me a supreme court case that was revisited and overturned?


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 27, 2016)

bear513 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


You know why we won?

Because conservative attempts to restrict gay rights were so unconstitutional that even conservative judges couldn't agree


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 27, 2016)

bear513 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


You don't have to overturn......just clarify and redefine


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Aug 27, 2016)

bear513 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



You don't understand or acknowledge how dangerous Progressives are.They hate all human life and wish to enslave and destroy it. They will NEVER stop or be satisfied until we're North Korea.


----------



## Dot Com (Aug 27, 2016)

the one saving grace of a hiLIARy election win


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 27, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



No...gay friendly California voted against it. Then the ass hole 5th district court took up the case.

You fuckers went against the will of the people on gay marriage, every one was fine with civil unions.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 27, 2016)

Conservatives worked tirelessly to stock the courts with conservatives to do two things........repeal Roe v Wade and protect gun rights

They failed on Roe v Wade but got Heller

Now it is the Liberals turn


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 27, 2016)

bear513 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Your boyfriend must have bored your ass bad, bear.  You have been corrected.  You have sounded stupid.  You don't understand any of this.  Citizen's will be revisited by SCOTUS as surely as the sun comes up if HRC is elected.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 27, 2016)

bear513 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


The court held back on gay marriage till it was already a done deal. State after state allowed it before the court finally made it nationwide


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 27, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...




Again fag tell me when a past supreme court case has been overturned?


They don't do it.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 27, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




California didn't allow it that's why it went to the supreme court.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 27, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> *How the first liberal Supreme Court in a generation could reshape America*
> 
> _Dylan Matthews_ _on August 22, 2016, _wrote_, in “_How the first liberal Supreme Court in a generation could reshape America”, that “Odds are that very soon, the Supreme Court will become something it hasn’t been in nearly 50 years: made up of a majority of Democratic-appointed justices.
> 
> ...



And even with a court biased towards the right, the right have been moaning about how it's being giving people they don't like rights and freedoms for ages now.


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 27, 2016)

bear513 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


It tells me that your views are way, way to the right, out in right field near the eye-strain bleachers.  Even the conservative court rules too liberally for you.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Aug 27, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> *How the first liberal Supreme Court in a generation could reshape America*
> 
> _Dylan Matthews_ _on August 22, 2016, _wrote_, in “_How the first liberal Supreme Court in a generation could reshape America”, that “Odds are that very soon, the Supreme Court will become something it hasn’t been in nearly 50 years: made up of a majority of Democratic-appointed justices.
> 
> ...



Instead of "vote Trump" it's "the SC will be Liberal if you vote Hillary", that's how much confidence they have in Trump.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 27, 2016)

bear513 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Gay marriage was already legal in California


----------



## yiostheoy (Aug 27, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> *How the first liberal Supreme Court in a generation could reshape America*
> 
> _Dylan Matthews_ _on August 22, 2016, _wrote_, in “_How the first liberal Supreme Court in a generation could reshape America”, that “Odds are that very soon, the Supreme Court will become something it hasn’t been in nearly 50 years: made up of a majority of Democratic-appointed justices.
> 
> ...


If McConnell can hold onto the Senate, then he can thwart anything Hillary does.

It will be more important news on election night to see how the Senate goes than anything else.

Hillary has essentially already won the presidency.  No use crying over that anymore.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 27, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > *How the first liberal Supreme Court in a generation could reshape America*
> ...


McConnell will be a one term majority leader


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 27, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


That is not a given.  However, if he has only 51 or 52 votes, he will deal on SCOTUS to get economic deals he wants.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 27, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > yiostheoy said:
> ...


No he won't. McConnell doesn't have that card to play. His base will not allow him to approve ANY liberal judge EVER

McConnell has already obstructed for one year. He will keep playing the same losing hand until it burns him.  And there will be a revolt if he leaves the Supreme Court empty


----------



## Al Azar (Aug 27, 2016)

I'm with RW.  About the only way to get nominees confirmed is with a Democratic majority.  The GOP refuses to govern.  They exist today only to thwart the people's will and force us down a different road.


----------

