Kavanaugh is not an originalist, vote him down so Trump makes a better pick

[rightwinger]

Originalists are morons stuck in the 18th century

 

[TNHarley]

Originalists are morons stuck in the 18th century

No, dipshit. All you have to do is amend the Constitution.
You dont rape it because of your bedwetting feelz
Of course, i doubt you understand that considering how much you fap to stalin.

 

[mudwhistle]

He’s going to catch a lot of heat from his base over this choice. Maybe an easy sacrifice for the opposition to shoot down, so his second pick (his real desire) gets fast tracked through...? Not sure. This choice is a head scratcher...

I fell in love with Trump’s other possible pick:

 

[Silhouette]

Originalists are morons stuck in the 18th century

Yeah that stupid Constitution. It too was drawn up in the 18th Century. Time to throw it out.

Right? In your perfect cult utopia. Your ilk did get a good start on it in 2015 though. States don't need that sovereignty thing anyway. Five people on the Supreme Court know what's best for us 300 million.

 

[Redfish]

Why, yes. We don't live in 1789.

no we don't, but the words of the constitution apply today just as they did in 1789, those original words, coupled with over 200 years of precedents is how the SC should decide issues brought to it. Not on political whims, or "cultural changes" but the exact wording of the original document and precedents.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Originalists are morons stuck in the 18th century

Yeah that stupid Constitution. It too was drawn up in the 18th Century. Time to throw it out.

Right? In your perfect cult utopia. Your ilk did get a good start on it in 2015 though. States don't need that sovereignty thing anyway. Five people on the Supreme Court know what's best for us 300 million.

Your straw man arguments burn down. No one said anything of the sort, Sil, so step down.

 

[rightwinger]

Originalists are morons stuck in the 18th century

No, dipshit. All you have to do is amend the Constitution.
You dont rape it because of your bedwetting feelz
Of course, i doubt you understand that considering how much you fap to stalin.

The amendment process is extremely long and complex and can’t be used unless you want to completely change what is in it.

That is why we have courts

 

[Redfish]

McConnell prevented another far left liberal from getting on the court. It was politics as usual. Reid changed the senate rules, now the dems are having that change shoved up their asses.

Only to those that regurgitate talking points was Garland "a far left liberal". Fact is prior to the nomination he was a jurist praised by Republicans. Obama called their bluff.

I have no problem with the change in the rules. Constitution calls for the consent of the Senate, it does not call for a super-consent of the Senate, that means a majority vote - not a super majority vote.

.>>>>

Garland leaned too far left. I agree with you on the rules changes, but the dems don't (now).

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why, yes. We don't live in 1789.

no we don't, but the words of the constitution apply today just as they did in 1789, those original words, coupled with over 200 years of precedents is how the SC should decide issues brought to it. Not on political whims, or "cultural changes" but the exact wording of the original document and precedents.

If you are arguing for case law and statute, sure.

 

[TNHarley]

Originalists are morons stuck in the 18th century

No, dipshit. All you have to do is amend the Constitution.
You dont rape it because of your bedwetting feelz
Of course, i doubt you understand that considering how much you fap to stalin.

The amendment process is extremely long and complex and can’t be used unless you want to completely change what is in it.

That is why we have courts

As it should be. If you bedwetters want good things to happen, it shouldnt be so hard to get it done.

 

[rightwinger]

Why, yes. We don't live in 1789.

no we don't, but the words of the constitution apply today just as they did in 1789, those original words, coupled with over 200 years of precedents is how the SC should decide issues brought to it. Not on political whims, or "cultural changes" but the exact wording of the original document and precedents.

14 th Amendment is a good example

What is the scope of equal protection under the law?
Why did it not immediately apply to blacks, women and native americans?

 

[rightwinger]

Originalists are morons stuck in the 18th century

No, dipshit. All you have to do is amend the Constitution.
You dont rape it because of your bedwetting feelz
Of course, i doubt you understand that considering how much you fap to stalin.

The amendment process is extremely long and complex and can’t be used unless you want to completely change what is in it.

That is why we have courts

As it should be. If you bedwetters want good things to happen, it shouldnt be so hard to get it done.

Our Congress can’t even agree on a budget
What makes you think they could reach 2/3 to pass an amendment?

 

[TNHarley]

Originalists are morons stuck in the 18th century

No, dipshit. All you have to do is amend the Constitution.
You dont rape it because of your bedwetting feelz
Of course, i doubt you understand that considering how much you fap to stalin.

The amendment process is extremely long and complex and can’t be used unless you want to completely change what is in it.

That is why we have courts

As it should be. If you bedwetters want good things to happen, it shouldnt be so hard to get it done.

Our Congress can’t even agree on a budget
What makes you think they could reach 2/3 to pass an amendment?

Then it seems we need to fix the problem instead of electing the same douchebags to congress, ey?
If our federal govt is so shitty, why do you morons want to give them more power?

 

[Redfish]

Why, yes. We don't live in 1789.

no we don't, but the words of the constitution apply today just as they did in 1789, those original words, coupled with over 200 years of precedents is how the SC should decide issues brought to it. Not on political whims, or "cultural changes" but the exact wording of the original document and precedents.

If you are arguing for case law and statute, sure.

I think that's what I said. But Ginsburg recently said that the constitution and law are merely guidelines that don't have to be followed to the letter. That kind of thinking will destroy this nation. But she wont be around much longer so its an academic discussion.

Confirmation of Kavanaugh is very likely.

 

[Silhouette]

The amendment process is extremely long and complex and can’t be used unless you want to completely change what is in it.

That is why we have courts

Yeah so an oligarchy of five unelected lawyers can tell 300 million people how it's gonna be? Do you realize you just said you believe in judicial-legislation? Or more succinctly, you believe in doing away with democracy. As I recall, you lean far left. I swear that cult is downright frightening.

Shit if that was the level of power delegated to such a tiny group, they might start getting so drunk with it that they'd do public interviews in advance of Hearings saying things that defy the majority sentiments like "I think America is ready for (contested issue x".)

Nope. Thank God for that old crusty document.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So Ginsburg said that. You disagree. That's your right. You merely believe such thinking will destroy the nation, but you can't prove it.

Kavanaugh may get better than 65 votes.

Sil makes a weak "yabut whattabout" argument. It is what it is.

 

[skews13]

We have a neo-con right winger and a mainstream establishment guy.

The next one will be "who the heck knows?"

elections have consequences, Jakey boy. the words of your messiah, the great obozo.

So do decisions. The problems you have, is elections didn't stop happening when Trump got elected, and over the last year and a half, the left has been winning those elections, and in some very red areas they shouldn't be.

Then there is the problem of a fast changing population that is happening in the number of millions, and is in no danger of slowing down over the next 30 years until people that look like Kavanaugh are in the minority in this country.

At which time when the Congress, state legislatures, governors, and the Presidency are the ultimate check on the judiciary, and it's irrelevant who is on the court.

The consequences for the liberals are temporary. The consequences for conservatives will be permanent in just a few more years.

The problems for Trump will become permanent sooner than that.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

He’s going to catch a lot of heat from his base over this choice. Maybe an easy sacrifice for the opposition to shoot down, so his second pick (his real desire) gets fast tracked through...? Not sure. This choice is a head scratcher...

If the Repubs try and stop it then enough Dems will vote for him that he will still be in.

He is a judge that does not rule based on his political ideology, which is why the he is hated so much by the wing nuts

 

[rightwinger]

The amendment process is extremely long and complex and can’t be used unless you want to completely change what is in it.

That is why we have courts

Yeah so an oligarchy of five unelected lawyers can tell 300 million people how it's gonna be?

Shit if that was the level of power delegated to such a tiny group, they might start getting so drunk with it that they'd do public interviews in advance of Hearings saying things that defy the majority sentiments like "I think America is ready for (contested issue x".)

Nope. Thank God for that old crusty document.

Yes...that is the Constitution created by our founders

 

[Redfish]

Why, yes. We don't live in 1789.

no we don't, but the words of the constitution apply today just as they did in 1789, those original words, coupled with over 200 years of precedents is how the SC should decide issues brought to it. Not on political whims, or "cultural changes" but the exact wording of the original document and precedents.

If you are arguing for case law and statute, sure.

I think that's what I said. But Ginsburg recently said that the constitution and law are merely guidelines that don't have to be followed to the letter. That kind of thinking will destroy this nation. But she wont be around much longer so its an academic discussion.

Confirmation of Kavanaugh is very likely.

So Ginsburg said that. You disagree. That's your right. You merely believe such thinking will destroy the nation, but you can't prove it.

Kavanaugh may get better than 65 votes.

Sil makes a weak "yabut whattabout" argument. It is what it is.

If the constitution is subject to "interpretation" then why not all laws? speeding for instance "but officer, I think the speed limit on this road is incorrect, so the court must dismiss my ticket"