Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
the point is we cajt keep changing the rules when they work against you. 60 votes backfires, that backfired…Did Biden do it? Are we still on that old "Biden Rule" which if you want to call it that, was never "enforced?" The Republicans were purposely obstructionist, but we all knew that. They put party before the people. Those vacancies hurt the people waiting for verdicts. Slowed the courts to a crawl in some areas. Justice shouldn't be flushed down the toilet because a bunch of Republican bullies have the numbers to stop business as usual. Just like they did with Garland.I think it was pretty undemocratic for the Republicans under Obama not to take action on his nominees to fill those court vacancies when they were supposed to. It was their strategy, in hopes of loading the courts when a Republican won the WH. You're PROUD of that?Trump is unbelievably well-positioned to fill up federal courts with lifetime judges. He inherited a whopping 108 court vacancies when he became president – double the number of vacancies President Barack Obama inherited when he took office.
The left adores judges who believe that their job is to make society better by interpreting laws in new and creative ways. Once leftists discovered they could make up stuff like the "penumbra" of the Constitution and that judges could pretend their policy choices were required by law, despite no direct wording to that effect, the door was open to impose the Progressive Agenda without all the messiness of approving legislation in Congress, where the people have a voice.
That undemocratic – indeed, anti-democratic – approach to governing, wherein the elite discusses theories in academic journals, and then activist judges impose those theories as law, is popular among the cultural elite, because they believe themselves to be something like philosopher-kings, entitled to rule others by their superior wisdom. Their cultural preferences, such as same-sex marriage, gain the authority of law thereby.
Restoring a judiciary that believes its job is to interpret, not make up, the law is a reform that cannot happen fast enough.
Read more: Blog: Dems begin to panic as Trump set to transform federal judiciary
They were just doing what biden himself advocated back in the 1990's. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" as they say.
Those people suck. Wish I could vote against every stinkin one of them.
Trump is unbelievably well-positioned to fill up federal courts with lifetime judges. He inherited a whopping 108 court vacancies when he became president – double the number of vacancies President Barack Obama inherited when he took office.
The left adores judges who believe that their job is to make society better by interpreting laws in new and creative ways. Once leftists discovered they could make up stuff like the "penumbra" of the Constitution and that judges could pretend their policy choices were required by law, despite no direct wording to that effect, the door was open to impose the Progressive Agenda without all the messiness of approving legislation in Congress, where the people have a voice.
That undemocratic – indeed, anti-democratic – approach to governing, wherein the elite discusses theories in academic journals, and then activist judges impose those theories as law, is popular among the cultural elite, because they believe themselves to be something like philosopher-kings, entitled to rule others by their superior wisdom. Their cultural preferences, such as same-sex marriage, gain the authority of law thereby.
Restoring a judiciary that believes its job is to interpret, not make up, the law is a reform that cannot happen fast enough.
Read more: Blog: Dems begin to panic as Trump set to transform federal judiciary
. Yep and the left started it, but the conservatives are going to finish it.Trump is unbelievably well-positioned to fill up federal courts with lifetime judges. He inherited a whopping 108 court vacancies when he became president – double the number of vacancies President Barack Obama inherited when he took office.
The left adores judges who believe that their job is to make society better by interpreting laws in new and creative ways. Once leftists discovered they could make up stuff like the "penumbra" of the Constitution and that judges could pretend their policy choices were required by law, despite no direct wording to that effect, the door was open to impose the Progressive Agenda without all the messiness of approving legislation in Congress, where the people have a voice.
That undemocratic – indeed, anti-democratic – approach to governing, wherein the elite discusses theories in academic journals, and then activist judges impose those theories as law, is popular among the cultural elite, because they believe themselves to be something like philosopher-kings, entitled to rule others by their superior wisdom. Their cultural preferences, such as same-sex marriage, gain the authority of law thereby.
Restoring a judiciary that believes its job is to interpret, not make up, the law is a reform that cannot happen fast enough.
Read more: Blog: Dems begin to panic as Trump set to transform federal judiciary
It's become a massively ridiculous situation where judges aren't appointed based on their ability to judge, but on their ability to catch the eye of a President. It's pushing the country more and more partisan, and only those who can control partisan politics, ie, the rich, can ever hope to benefit. The US is ripping itself apart.
Several judges and at least two appellate courts, one in full review, "says". Keep your narrative straight, Ray. SCOTUS will decide, not Trump.There is no separation of powers being violated when SCOTUS rules
Wait a minute: We have a law on our books that the President exercised. An activist judge says he can't exercise that law because he doesn't like what Trump said while campaigning. In other words, a judge stopped a President from using a law that's been on our books for decades, and you say that isn't the judicial branch making executive branch decisions????
Of course it is. It's almost as obvious as the nose on your face.
Trump is unbelievably well-positioned to fill up federal courts with lifetime judges. He inherited a whopping 108 court vacancies when he became president – double the number of vacancies President Barack Obama inherited when he took office.
The left adores judges who believe that their job is to make society better by interpreting laws in new and creative ways. Once leftists discovered they could make up stuff like the "penumbra" of the Constitution and that judges could pretend their policy choices were required by law, despite no direct wording to that effect, the door was open to impose the Progressive Agenda without all the messiness of approving legislation in Congress, where the people have a voice.
That undemocratic – indeed, anti-democratic – approach to governing, wherein the elite discusses theories in academic journals, and then activist judges impose those theories as law, is popular among the cultural elite, because they believe themselves to be something like philosopher-kings, entitled to rule others by their superior wisdom. Their cultural preferences, such as same-sex marriage, gain the authority of law thereby.
Restoring a judiciary that believes its job is to interpret, not make up, the law is a reform that cannot happen fast enough.
Read more: Blog: Dems begin to panic as Trump set to transform federal judiciary
It's become a massively ridiculous situation where judges aren't appointed based on their ability to judge, but on their ability to catch the eye of a President. It's pushing the country more and more partisan, and only those who can control partisan politics, ie, the rich, can ever hope to benefit. The US is ripping itself apart.
. Yep and the left started it, but the conservatives are going to finish it.Trump is unbelievably well-positioned to fill up federal courts with lifetime judges. He inherited a whopping 108 court vacancies when he became president – double the number of vacancies President Barack Obama inherited when he took office.
The left adores judges who believe that their job is to make society better by interpreting laws in new and creative ways. Once leftists discovered they could make up stuff like the "penumbra" of the Constitution and that judges could pretend their policy choices were required by law, despite no direct wording to that effect, the door was open to impose the Progressive Agenda without all the messiness of approving legislation in Congress, where the people have a voice.
That undemocratic – indeed, anti-democratic – approach to governing, wherein the elite discusses theories in academic journals, and then activist judges impose those theories as law, is popular among the cultural elite, because they believe themselves to be something like philosopher-kings, entitled to rule others by their superior wisdom. Their cultural preferences, such as same-sex marriage, gain the authority of law thereby.
Restoring a judiciary that believes its job is to interpret, not make up, the law is a reform that cannot happen fast enough.
Read more: Blog: Dems begin to panic as Trump set to transform federal judiciary
It's become a massively ridiculous situation where judges aren't appointed based on their ability to judge, but on their ability to catch the eye of a President. It's pushing the country more and more partisan, and only those who can control partisan politics, ie, the rich, can ever hope to benefit. The US is ripping itself apart.
Trump is unbelievably well-positioned to fill up federal courts with lifetime judges. He inherited a whopping 108 court vacancies when he became president – double the number of vacancies President Barack Obama inherited when he took office.
The left adores judges who believe that their job is to make society better by interpreting laws in new and creative ways. Once leftists discovered they could make up stuff like the "penumbra" of the Constitution and that judges could pretend their policy choices were required by law, despite no direct wording to that effect, the door was open to impose the Progressive Agenda without all the messiness of approving legislation in Congress, where the people have a voice.
That undemocratic – indeed, anti-democratic – approach to governing, wherein the elite discusses theories in academic journals, and then activist judges impose those theories as law, is popular among the cultural elite, because they believe themselves to be something like philosopher-kings, entitled to rule others by their superior wisdom. Their cultural preferences, such as same-sex marriage, gain the authority of law thereby.
Restoring a judiciary that believes its job is to interpret, not make up, the law is a reform that cannot happen fast enough.
Read more: Blog: Dems begin to panic as Trump set to transform federal judiciary
It's become a massively ridiculous situation where judges aren't appointed based on their ability to judge, but on their ability to catch the eye of a President. It's pushing the country more and more partisan, and only those who can control partisan politics, ie, the rich, can ever hope to benefit. The US is ripping itself apart.
Correct, because the left never does that, do they?
Uh huh.
Most Judges, unless they are totally partisan or incompetent, follow the law.Not including Roy Moore.
This is regardless of who appointed them The same STUPID remarks (DEMS PANIC) were seen under Reagan, and both Bush's.
It's just dumb my friend.
The US Constitution is what it is, says what it says.To imagine the Judiciary is going to adopt nutcase fundy christian or internet rightie "ideas" or "theories" is ridiculous, as is your post.
It REALLY makes me laugh when righties whine about an activist, liberal judge................that was appointed by Ronald Reagan.
Trump is unbelievably well-positioned to fill up federal courts with lifetime judges. He inherited a whopping 108 court vacancies when he became president – double the number of vacancies President Barack Obama inherited when he took office.
The left adores judges who believe that their job is to make society better by interpreting laws in new and creative ways. Once leftists discovered they could make up stuff like the "penumbra" of the Constitution and that judges could pretend their policy choices were required by law, despite no direct wording to that effect, the door was open to impose the Progressive Agenda without all the messiness of approving legislation in Congress, where the people have a voice.
That undemocratic – indeed, anti-democratic – approach to governing, wherein the elite discusses theories in academic journals, and then activist judges impose those theories as law, is popular among the cultural elite, because they believe themselves to be something like philosopher-kings, entitled to rule others by their superior wisdom. Their cultural preferences, such as same-sex marriage, gain the authority of law thereby.
Restoring a judiciary that believes its job is to interpret, not make up, the law is a reform that cannot happen fast enough.
Read more: Blog: Dems begin to panic as Trump set to transform federal judiciarydespite no direct wording to that effect
The debate between loose and strict constructivist jurisprudence is as old as the country itself. Is there a high school graduate in the land who doesn't recall the Bank of the United States debate?
The very same topic is debated today in exactly the same way and on the same bases as it was in the 18th century. Today we call the two approaches "judicial activism" and "judicial restraint," but the substance is the same no matter the rhetorical monikers one invokes.
- Washington's Secretary of Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, proposed a Bank of the United States. This bank would be a powerful private institution, the government would be a major stockholder, the federal Treasury would deposit surplus monies in it, it would stimulate business, and print paper money (for a much needed strong national currency).
- Jefferson argues against the bank. There was no authorization in the Constitution, and he was convinced that all powers not specifically granted to the central government were reserved to the states (supported by 10th amendment in Bill of Rights). Therefore, Jefferson believed that only the states had the power to charter banks. Jefferson believed that the Constitution should be interpreted literally -> theory of "strict construction." This theory was embraced by the faction antifederalists, and the political party that they would soon emerge into, the Democratic-Republicans.
- Hamilton believed that what the Constitution did not forbid it permitted. His support was the "elastic clause" (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution). Congress may pass any laws "necessary and proper" to carry out the powers vested in the various government agencies. This justified Congress in establishing a bank. The faction federalists, who would soon become the political party, Federalists, believed in loose construction/ the "elastic clause."
- Hamilton's argument convinced Washington, who signed the bank into Law 1791.
- Strict construction was for states' rights. Loose construction was for more power of the national government.
- The big importance of Strict vs. Loose Construction is it is the basis for the forming of political parties under President Adams. Strict=Democratic-Republicans (Jefferson/Madison). Loose=Federalists (Hamilton/Adams). The Bank issue was just the big thing that separated the two parties.
The simple fact is that strict constructionists are such only as long as it suits their needs, and when that doctrine ceases to do so, they become judicial activists, to wit, conservatives' shifting jurisprudential philosophy when presenting their arguments re: the issues of gun control and abortion. There are myriad laws of which liberals and conservatives approve that are explicitly provided for in the Constitution and that are not. Thus it's just rank disingenuousness for members of either faction to propone what the Constitution expressly says or doesn't say as the basis for whatever position they hold.
- Constitutional Interpretation and the Problem of History
- Constitutional Clichés
- Our Constitutions's Design: The Implications for Its Interpretation
What makes more sense is to consider any action or law in its own right and on its own merits and demerits, neither of which include what is explicitly stated in the Constitution. Some things the Constitution expressly says make sense to adhere to strictly. Other things it says do not now, but they might later. It all comes down to what's the best course of action -- given the body of considerations and the extant situation -- to pursue at a given temporal crossroads.
So are you saying calm down, it doesn't really matter?
Appoint me and ill uphold the constitution
Frankly, I think anyone who's ever declared themselves a member of either major party should be summarily prohibited from appointment or election as a jurist.Well, I'm not entranced with a bunch of right leaning judges unfairly flooding a system that is supposed to take fair turn and turn about.. He should be proud, because appointing leftist judges to a bench is insane.I think it was pretty undemocratic for the Republicans under Obama not to take action on his nominees to fill those court vacancies when they were supposed to. It was their strategy, in hopes of loading the courts when a Republican won the WH. You're PROUD of that?Trump is unbelievably well-positioned to fill up federal courts with lifetime judges. He inherited a whopping 108 court vacancies when he became president – double the number of vacancies President Barack Obama inherited when he took office.
The left adores judges who believe that their job is to make society better by interpreting laws in new and creative ways. Once leftists discovered they could make up stuff like the "penumbra" of the Constitution and that judges could pretend their policy choices were required by law, despite no direct wording to that effect, the door was open to impose the Progressive Agenda without all the messiness of approving legislation in Congress, where the people have a voice.
That undemocratic – indeed, anti-democratic – approach to governing, wherein the elite discusses theories in academic journals, and then activist judges impose those theories as law, is popular among the cultural elite, because they believe themselves to be something like philosopher-kings, entitled to rule others by their superior wisdom. Their cultural preferences, such as same-sex marriage, gain the authority of law thereby.
Restoring a judiciary that believes its job is to interpret, not make up, the law is a reform that cannot happen fast enough.
Read more: Blog: Dems begin to panic as Trump set to transform federal judiciary
Trump is unbelievably well-positioned to fill up federal courts with lifetime judges. He inherited a whopping 108 court vacancies when he became president – double the number of vacancies President Barack Obama inherited when he took office.
The left adores judges who believe that their job is to make society better by interpreting laws in new and creative ways. Once leftists discovered they could make up stuff like the "penumbra" of the Constitution and that judges could pretend their policy choices were required by law, despite no direct wording to that effect, the door was open to impose the Progressive Agenda without all the messiness of approving legislation in Congress, where the people have a voice.
That undemocratic – indeed, anti-democratic – approach to governing, wherein the elite discusses theories in academic journals, and then activist judges impose those theories as law, is popular among the cultural elite, because they believe themselves to be something like philosopher-kings, entitled to rule others by their superior wisdom. Their cultural preferences, such as same-sex marriage, gain the authority of law thereby.
Restoring a judiciary that believes its job is to interpret, not make up, the law is a reform that cannot happen fast enough.
Read more: Blog: Dems begin to panic as Trump set to transform federal judiciary
It's become a massively ridiculous situation where judges aren't appointed based on their ability to judge, but on their ability to catch the eye of a President. It's pushing the country more and more partisan, and only those who can control partisan politics, ie, the rich, can ever hope to benefit. The US is ripping itself apart.
Correct, because the left never does that, do they?
Yes, they do. I'm not talking about the right ripping the US apart here, I'm talking about partisan politics ripping the US apart, partisan left and partisan right doing everything they can to win, win, WIN. Who gives a fuck about anything else? Education? Nah, it's just a tool for winning.
Trump is unbelievably well-positioned to fill up federal courts with lifetime judges. He inherited a whopping 108 court vacancies when he became president – double the number of vacancies President Barack Obama inherited when he took office.
The left adores judges who believe that their job is to make society better by interpreting laws in new and creative ways. Once leftists discovered they could make up stuff like the "penumbra" of the Constitution and that judges could pretend their policy choices were required by law, despite no direct wording to that effect, the door was open to impose the Progressive Agenda without all the messiness of approving legislation in Congress, where the people have a voice.
That undemocratic – indeed, anti-democratic – approach to governing, wherein the elite discusses theories in academic journals, and then activist judges impose those theories as law, is popular among the cultural elite, because they believe themselves to be something like philosopher-kings, entitled to rule others by their superior wisdom. Their cultural preferences, such as same-sex marriage, gain the authority of law thereby.
Restoring a judiciary that believes its job is to interpret, not make up, the law is a reform that cannot happen fast enough.
Read more: Blog: Dems begin to panic as Trump set to transform federal judiciary
It's become a massively ridiculous situation where judges aren't appointed based on their ability to judge, but on their ability to catch the eye of a President. It's pushing the country more and more partisan, and only those who can control partisan politics, ie, the rich, can ever hope to benefit. The US is ripping itself apart.
Correct, because the left never does that, do they?
Yes, they do. I'm not talking about the right ripping the US apart here, I'm talking about partisan politics ripping the US apart, partisan left and partisan right doing everything they can to win, win, WIN. Who gives a fuck about anything else? Education? Nah, it's just a tool for winning.
Education is just one of the many things Democrats wish to fund at the cost of the taxpayer.
But we do fund education. In fact, we spend more per capita than any other industrialized nation in the world. In spite of having mediocre results, the Democrat policy is to spend even more. The definition of insanity is...............
Trump is unbelievably well-positioned to fill up federal courts with lifetime judges. He inherited a whopping 108 court vacancies when he became president – double the number of vacancies President Barack Obama inherited when he took office.
The left adores judges who believe that their job is to make society better by interpreting laws in new and creative ways. Once leftists discovered they could make up stuff like the "penumbra" of the Constitution and that judges could pretend their policy choices were required by law, despite no direct wording to that effect, the door was open to impose the Progressive Agenda without all the messiness of approving legislation in Congress, where the people have a voice.
That undemocratic – indeed, anti-democratic – approach to governing, wherein the elite discusses theories in academic journals, and then activist judges impose those theories as law, is popular among the cultural elite, because they believe themselves to be something like philosopher-kings, entitled to rule others by their superior wisdom. Their cultural preferences, such as same-sex marriage, gain the authority of law thereby.
Restoring a judiciary that believes its job is to interpret, not make up, the law is a reform that cannot happen fast enough.
Read more: Blog: Dems begin to panic as Trump set to transform federal judiciary
It's become a massively ridiculous situation where judges aren't appointed based on their ability to judge, but on their ability to catch the eye of a President. It's pushing the country more and more partisan, and only those who can control partisan politics, ie, the rich, can ever hope to benefit. The US is ripping itself apart.
Correct, because the left never does that, do they?
Yes, they do. I'm not talking about the right ripping the US apart here, I'm talking about partisan politics ripping the US apart, partisan left and partisan right doing everything they can to win, win, WIN. Who gives a fuck about anything else? Education? Nah, it's just a tool for winning.
Education is just one of the many things Democrats wish to fund at the cost of the taxpayer.
But we do fund education. In fact, we spend more per capita than any other industrialized nation in the world. In spite of having mediocre results, the Democrat policy is to spend even more. The definition of insanity is...............
My point was that both sides us education as a tool to "win", rather than using it as a method of improving society. The Republicans aren't better than the Democrats.
It's become a massively ridiculous situation where judges aren't appointed based on their ability to judge, but on their ability to catch the eye of a President. It's pushing the country more and more partisan, and only those who can control partisan politics, ie, the rich, can ever hope to benefit. The US is ripping itself apart.
Correct, because the left never does that, do they?
Yes, they do. I'm not talking about the right ripping the US apart here, I'm talking about partisan politics ripping the US apart, partisan left and partisan right doing everything they can to win, win, WIN. Who gives a fuck about anything else? Education? Nah, it's just a tool for winning.
Education is just one of the many things Democrats wish to fund at the cost of the taxpayer.
But we do fund education. In fact, we spend more per capita than any other industrialized nation in the world. In spite of having mediocre results, the Democrat policy is to spend even more. The definition of insanity is...............
My point was that both sides us education as a tool to "win", rather than using it as a method of improving society. The Republicans aren't better than the Democrats.
I follow politics pretty closely and I don't recall any Republican calling for more school spending. I've heard of reform, I've heard them talk about getting rid of the teachers union, but not just throwing money at the problem as a solution.
Correct, because the left never does that, do they?
Yes, they do. I'm not talking about the right ripping the US apart here, I'm talking about partisan politics ripping the US apart, partisan left and partisan right doing everything they can to win, win, WIN. Who gives a fuck about anything else? Education? Nah, it's just a tool for winning.
Education is just one of the many things Democrats wish to fund at the cost of the taxpayer.
But we do fund education. In fact, we spend more per capita than any other industrialized nation in the world. In spite of having mediocre results, the Democrat policy is to spend even more. The definition of insanity is...............
My point was that both sides us education as a tool to "win", rather than using it as a method of improving society. The Republicans aren't better than the Democrats.
I follow politics pretty closely and I don't recall any Republican calling for more school spending. I've heard of reform, I've heard them talk about getting rid of the teachers union, but not just throwing money at the problem as a solution.
Okay, and what does this have to do with what I'm talking about?
As far as I can tell I've heard many prominent Republicans talk about school vouchers. And we've had this discussion, haven't we? Remember the one where you started harping on about choice? About how choice is the most important thing? How choice is so fucking good it could make you wet yourself? And then we spoke about electoral reform and you didn't want choice because choice isn't good, it's bad, it's so bad it'll make you wet yourself? Remember that one? I do.
The whole point of school vouchers isn't choice, it's funneling money out of education and back into the pockets of rich people who, apparently, need the money.
Now, the Republicans are talking about getting rid of school unions, not to improve education, but to make it cheaper, so they can give the money to rich people instead of teachers. Yeah. I know that one too.
Don't try and bullshit me pretending that the Republican Party in the main wants to "improve" education. yes, they want to "improve" education in their own vision, which is cheaper and doesn't provide a threat to their private school educated children.
