In our democratic republic, no branch of the goverment should control

[ElmerMudd]

In our democratic republic, no branch of the goverment should control. Np President should try to control the legislative or judicial and vice versa.
In Trump's world it is not safe to disagree with him. He will make you pay whether an individual, an organization or a branch of the governmrnt.
That is why he is not fit to be President

 

[lennypartiv]

Trump says he wants to make America great again. We trust him.

 

[BackAgain]

In our democratic republic, no branch of the goverment should control. Np President should try to control the legislative or judicial and vice versa.
In Trump's world it is not safe to disagree with him. He will make you pay whether an individual, an organization or a branch of the governmrnt.
That is why he is not fit to be President


View attachment 805498

We are a Constitutional republic. We are not a democratic republic.

 

[Winco]

Trump says he wants to make America great again. We trust him.

What happened the first 4 years?
And you want 4 more years of lies?

 

[westwall]

What happened the first 4 years?
And you want 4 more years of lies?

Yeah, the country was SIGNIFICANTLY better under Trump than the vegetable.

DURRRRRR

 

[frigidweirdo]

In our democratic republic, no branch of the goverment should control. Np President should try to control the legislative or judicial and vice versa.
In Trump's world it is not safe to disagree with him. He will make you pay whether an individual, an organization or a branch of the governmrnt.
That is why he is not fit to be President


View attachment 805498

The problem is the system as it currently stands was designed a long, long time ago, and it's creaking so much it's like a piece of wood that's fallen apart.

The president gets to nominate the Supreme Court and the Senate gets to decide yes or no. When you have President and Senate as the same party, then they get who they want, when this differs, it's a problem.
But either way, you end up with political justices, the Supreme Court is so political these days it's sickening.

 

[White 6]

Trump says he wants to make America great again. We trust him.

Luckily the country does not trust either one of you, and for good reason.

 

[lennypartiv]

But either way, you end up with political justices, the Supreme Court is so political these days it's sickening.

We need Supreme Court justices who are willing to overturn Obergefell, Griswold, and Loving.

 

[White 6]

Yeah, the country was SIGNIFICANTLY better under Trump than the vegetable.

DURRRRRR

We're doing fine around here, if you like lots of traffic, lots of hiring, that sort of thing.

 

[frigidweirdo]

We need Supreme Court justices who are willing to overturn Obergefell, Griswold, and Loving.

No, we need a Supreme Court that is going to look at the decisions from impartiality.

 

[Thinker101]

In our democratic republic, no branch of the goverment should control. Np President should try to control the legislative or judicial and vice versa.
In Trump's world it is not safe to disagree with him. He will make you pay whether an individual, an organization or a branch of the governmrnt.
That is why he is not fit to be President


View attachment 805498

Right, guess that explains why you loons want to pack the supreme court.

 

[Thinker101]

We're doing fine around here, if you like lots of traffic, lots of hiring, that sort of thing.

Sure, lots of inflation, lots of lies, lots of high prices is just peachy with you clowns.

 

[BackAgain]

We need Supreme Court justices who are willing to overturn Obergefell, Griswold, and Loving.

Why Loving?

Why should I give a duck if people of different “races” wish to intermarry?

And why Griswold? Is there some special reason I should want the government telling me that they have a say in whether I can use a rubber or if my wife wants to use a pull?

And for that matter, why Obergefell? Do we have a public interest as to who is fucking whom, in private? I know I don’t give a damn. And my rule of thumb is: if something doesn’t concern me, why should it necessarily concern my government?

 

[lennypartiv]

No, we need a Supreme Court that is going to look at the decisions from impartiality.

Justices are put there by government officials who are elected. From that you can infer they are supposed to do what is popular. In other words, do what the people want.

 

[BackAgain]

The problem is the system as it currently stands was designed a long, long time ago, and it's creaking so much it's like a piece of wood that's fallen apart.

Not a problem and not creaking.

The president gets to nominate the Supreme Court

No. Not exactly. He gets to nominate people for any open seats.

and the Senate gets to decide yes or no.

Yep. Advise and consent. Light on the advice. Heavy on the consent or the decision not to consent.

When you have President and Senate as the same party, then they get who they want, when this differs, it's a problem.

Nope. No problem. The Framers knew what they were doing. Today’s politicians are far less like our elder statesmen.

But either way, you end up with political justices,

Not true. Several Supreme Court Justices have proved to be disappointments to the Presidents who had nominated them. Justice Whizzer White apparently disappointed JFK.

the Supreme Court is so political these days it's sickening.

Nonsense. If anything, they are apolitical.

 

[White 6]

Sure, lots of inflation, lots of lies, lots of high prices is just peachy with you clowns.

I'm in Tennessee, and have seen far worse inflation before, so this ain't my first rodeo. You should have seen the early lat 70s, early 80s. We have the 2nd lowest gas prices in the country and dropped another 7 cents of average since last month. I'm certainly no losing money. Either it sucks where you are or you may just be a bad manager.

 

[Arlette]

Trump says he wants to make America great again. We trust him.

Trump doesn't want to go to prison

 

[LuckyDuck]

We need Supreme Court justices who are willing to overturn Obergefell, Griswold, and Loving.

The sad part is that the Supreme Court can make any ruling it wants, but it has no enforcement arm. The Marxist blue states are ignoring the Supreme Court 2nd Amendment rulings and going ahead with firearms restrictions anyway.

 

[Thinker101]

I'm in Tennessee, and have seen far worse inflation before, so this ain't my first rodeo. You should have seen the early lat 70s, early 80s. We have the 2nd lowest gas prices in the country and dropped another 7 cents of average since last month. I'm certainly no losing money. Either it sucks where you are or you may just be a bad manager.

Is that the go to line these days, "at least it not as bad as the 70s"? Gas was about 36 cents a gallon back then. If you're not losing money, you aren't buying gas or groceries.

 

[Esdraelon]

No, we need a Supreme Court that is going to look at the decisions from impartiality.

I agree but look back at the recent decisions from this court and notice how often the Democrat-appointed justices vote lockstep with current Democrat policies versus how often Republican-appointed vote against Republican policies. Dems are nearly a total bloc vote every time.