SavannahMann
Platinum Member
- Nov 16, 2016
- 14,540
- 6,818
I see. You get called on the obvious off topic nature of your asinine posts and run away.
You are mad at the State Department. Not the Supreme Court. Or you are such a moron that you think the Supreme Court deals with Foreign Policy.
Why can’t you argue the topic? Is your talking points instructional email late?
No....I just wanted to point out your dishonesty and stupidity....
....mission accomplished.
You have not shown where a Conservative Justice would be advantageous. You failed to prove the point of your own thread. Are you sure you aren’t a Liberal or a Racist? That is usually what the more emotionally motivated people on the board use as their techniques.
According to you we need Conservative Justices because then the Supreme Court could take over Foreign Policy and run the nation via Judicial Fiat. How is that Conservatism?
Let's review how you became hoist on your own petard......
This was post #8, in which I called you to support your absurd claim that American should gauge its actions based on international consensus.
Really?
So, you imagine (I almost said 'think') that America should gauge its actions vis-a-vis the international community?
What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?
The internationalists wanted Iran to be guaranteed nuclear weapons.....I asked you to defend that consensus.
You couldn’t of course, because you are both stupid and dishonest: you’d try to steal a free sample.
Wow. Not only are you a nut but your reading comprehension sucks. Let’s look at reply number 7 not 8.
View attachment 218823
I spoke about the United States violating international law and treaties we signed and ratified like the Extradition Treaty with Italy. I never said one word about adapting international law. I said that the Constitution made Treaties the same as Federal Law. I was explaining why one leg of you OP was valid. The contempt that America is viewed by the worlds legal systems. It is not because we fail to adapt their laws. It is because we fail to follow our own laws. If we start to follow our own laws then we can be annoyed that the world legal systems view us with contempt.
You have not made a case for a Conservative Justice yet. All you have done is show how irrational you are. Did you forget your meds again?
My argument is for sovereignty.
You've given up the argument by being unable to answer this question.
What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?
Not one of you Liberals has been able to defend guaranteeing nuclear weapons to Iran.
Sadly, I did answer your question. In reply number 35. Sadly, you were too busy to read the lengthy answer. So you continued off topic demanding support for a Conservative Supreme Court Justice so we can stop the Iranian Nuclear Deal. A deal that the IAEA, you know those inspectors who go and check it out, say that the Iranians are in compliance with. So the people who are inspecting the Iranians, a process that could not happen without the deal, say that the Iranians are complying with the deal.
Now, back to the topic at hand. What does the Iranian Nuclear Deal have to do with anything concerning the Supreme Court? Or are you incapable of making any case for why we should have a Conservative Justice?
As or Sovereignty. Pfui. If we agree to an international treaty, and we have signed on to and ratified several, we are bound by honor, and our own constitutional law to obey those treaties. Not just use them as cudgels to justify our insane anger. We have to follow them too. Like the aforementioned Extradition Treaty we have with Italy. For some reason, actual legal issues that have faced the Supreme Court are not interesting to you in your justification for a Conservative Justice. Insane as it seems, you are probably the biggest loser when it comes to the argument. You have convinced me though. I’ve just finished writing to my Senator via a Fax Program to advise both Senators that they must vote against Kavanaugh since apparently the only reason to approve them is Foreign Policy according to a vociferous proponent I’ve spent two days arguing with.