Republicans in Panic?

[Iceweasel]

wake up thugs, GOP bigotry has become a national punch line...

Only to assholes. But I understand it's hard to see your own asshole. Look in the mirror!

 

[jillian]

Since the GOP is essentially two parties right now, it's tough to say if it's in a panic, per se.

The "Freedom Caucus" side looks pretty excited, the rest of the party looks like they can't find their keys.

Bizarre.
.

don't you think it's ironic that a group of people who oppose the rights of women and gays and minorities call themselves the "freedom caucus"? it doesn't compensate for their actual policies.

 

[martybegan]

there is no "inherent right" to an abortion, I do not see it espoused in any texts, of any revolutions that had the goal of a free society. It's made up, flim flam, the imaginations of 5 of 9 unelected lawyers.

Gay marriage is another made up right, purely because 5 of 9 unelected lawyers decided to speed things up and overrrule the will of the people of several states.

and as for your last statement, I simply don't trust YOU or the government to stick to that view.

You idiots change your views on things faster than a cat in a small pet store changes his appetite.

the 2d applies to WELL-REGULATED MILITIA to defend the country (since there was no standing army at the time) and every justice until scalia knew that. but heller is what it is.... as stupid a decision as it is.

and I don't trust wingers with my rights. it's really simple. I guess it just depends on what your priorities are. of course, the difference is that no one has outlawed guns or tried to (since regulation is STILL ok even scalia said so in heller). yet, your guys routinely try to take away others' rights

The FIRST part gives the States the right to form militias. It was to prevent the federal government from claiming exclusive right to armed force. The SECOND part gives the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms.

It's your side that uses the courts to crush others, not us.

In what reality do you claim the right doesn't go to court to keep gun proliferation alive?
See: DC v. Heller

A case where the law making body of a City was superseded by your side going to court.


You might - if you wanted to debate honestly - admit that efforts to deprive gays/lesbians rights, for example:

"Rulings Upholding Marriage Discrimination: In three rulings since June 2013, judges have upheld laws denying the freedom to marry to same-sex couples: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld bans in KY, MI, OH and TN; and federal judges have upheld discrimination in Louisiana and Puerto Rico. Additionally, judges in several state courts, including Tennessee and Florida, have denied respect for same-sex couples' marriages for the purpose of dissolution."

Marriage Rulings in the Courts | Freedom to Marry

2nd amendment rights are explicit. I have the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what a local government wants or desires.

The constitution is silent on the concept of marriage in general, thus it is up to the States, in particular their legislatures to determine the content of the marriage license.

You have to understand what a strict constructionist is to understand my views, you don't have to agree with it, but you have to be able to grasp the concept, something beyond most progressives on this board.

"strict constitutionists" didn't exist as a credible paradigm until rhenquist took the bench. and it wasn't an effective paradigm until scalia and his boys polluted our body of constitutional law. i'd refer you back to Marbury v Madison for a more rational and credible perspective on constitutional construction.

but I know that the wingers have been shouting this for years and have managed to infect public discourse with their propaganda.... which isn't very effective with a single judge or attorney I know... but seems to resonate with lay people.

Anyone who uses the word paradigm should not be trusted. Too corporate-buzzwordy.

And marbury vs. madison is about Judicial REVIEW, not "Judicial creation of shit out of thin air", which is the progressive method of government. Like all good authoritarians they prefer to go to small groups of people to make their points, instead of to the people.

And your inability to find a "single judge or attorney" you know that follows this speaks less of the lack of them with the viewpoint, and more about your narrow social circle.

 

[jillian]

wake up thugs, GOP bigotry has become a national punch line...

Only to assholes. But I understand it's hard to see your own asshole. Look in the mirror!

that comment only proves how delusional and out of touch you are.

 

[jillian]

the 2d applies to WELL-REGULATED MILITIA to defend the country (since there was no standing army at the time) and every justice until scalia knew that. but heller is what it is.... as stupid a decision as it is.

and I don't trust wingers with my rights. it's really simple. I guess it just depends on what your priorities are. of course, the difference is that no one has outlawed guns or tried to (since regulation is STILL ok even scalia said so in heller). yet, your guys routinely try to take away others' rights

The FIRST part gives the States the right to form militias. It was to prevent the federal government from claiming exclusive right to armed force. The SECOND part gives the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms.

It's your side that uses the courts to crush others, not us.

In what reality do you claim the right doesn't go to court to keep gun proliferation alive?
See: DC v. Heller

A case where the law making body of a City was superseded by your side going to court.


You might - if you wanted to debate honestly - admit that efforts to deprive gays/lesbians rights, for example:

"Rulings Upholding Marriage Discrimination: In three rulings since June 2013, judges have upheld laws denying the freedom to marry to same-sex couples: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld bans in KY, MI, OH and TN; and federal judges have upheld discrimination in Louisiana and Puerto Rico. Additionally, judges in several state courts, including Tennessee and Florida, have denied respect for same-sex couples' marriages for the purpose of dissolution."

Marriage Rulings in the Courts | Freedom to Marry

2nd amendment rights are explicit. I have the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what a local government wants or desires.

The constitution is silent on the concept of marriage in general, thus it is up to the States, in particular their legislatures to determine the content of the marriage license.

You have to understand what a strict constructionist is to understand my views, you don't have to agree with it, but you have to be able to grasp the concept, something beyond most progressives on this board.

"strict constitutionists" didn't exist as a credible paradigm until rhenquist took the bench. and it wasn't an effective paradigm until scalia and his boys polluted our body of constitutional law. i'd refer you back to Marbury v Madison for a more rational and credible perspective on constitutional construction.

but I know that the wingers have been shouting this for years and have managed to infect public discourse with their propaganda.... which isn't very effective with a single judge or attorney I know... but seems to resonate with lay people.

Anyone who uses the word paradigm should not be trusted. Too corporate-buzzwordy.

And marbury vs. madison is about Judicial REVIEW, not "Judicial creation of shit out of thin air", which is the progressive method of government. Like all good authoritarians they prefer to go to small groups of people to make their points, instead of to the people.

And your inability to find a "single judge or attorney" you know that follows this speaks less of the lack of them with the viewpoint, and more about your narrow social circle.

you mean educated? yes, I am. I think it's odd that education and a working vocabulary make someone not "trustworthy".

my "narrow social circle". lol.. you mean real judges and lawyers?

ok.

again, show me where in Marbury v Madison it requires "strict construction". it wasn't even that way when the founders were alive.

 

[Iceweasel]

Montel Williams goes to war against “paranoid” GOP “bigotry”

The Navy vet and talk show host told Salon he still considers himself a conservative, but not a Republican

“I wrote this piece because I’m at my wits end with the GOP,” he added. “I still consider myself conservative, but I long ago abandoned the party because I could see it being dragged down a path of intolerance and I see no place for myself, as a black American in the GOP proper, much less one who refuses to tell women what to do with their bodies, one who is a proud but responsible gun owner, one who as a matter of faith and principle cannot abide bigotry whether it be toward Muslims, LGBT individuals or anyone else.”

Montel Williams goes to war against “paranoid” GOP “bigotry” and takes Fox News down with it - Salon.com

He took Fox News down? I watched it this morning, this must be very new. I'm not a Republican either, I'm a conservative. They mean different things. Not all Republicans are conservatives and there used to be Democrat conservatives but none have been cited in while. It's rumored that they are extinct.

Did he cite any specific examples of bigotry or was the allegation good enough for the target audience?

 

[Mac1958]

Since the GOP is essentially two parties right now, it's tough to say if it's in a panic, per se.

The "Freedom Caucus" side looks pretty excited, the rest of the party looks like they can't find their keys.

Bizarre.
.

don't you think it's ironic that a group of people who oppose the rights of women and gays and minorities call themselves the "freedom caucus"? it doesn't compensate for their actual policies.

It's that "freedom" word. Much like "liberty". It's a rallying cry, but limited in scope.
.

 

[Iceweasel]

wake up thugs, GOP bigotry has become a national punch line...

Only to assholes. But I understand it's hard to see your own asshole. Look in the mirror!

that comment only proves how delusional and out of touch you are.

That only proves how puerile you are.

 

[jillian]

Since the GOP is essentially two parties right now, it's tough to say if it's in a panic, per se.

The "Freedom Caucus" side looks pretty excited, the rest of the party looks like they can't find their keys.

Bizarre.
.

don't you think it's ironic that a group of people who oppose the rights of women and gays and minorities call themselves the "freedom caucus"? it doesn't compensate for their actual policies.

It's that "freedom" word. Much like "liberty". It's a rallying cry, but limited in scope.
.

i'd agree. i'd also agree that it's a way to falsely declare oneself somehow "patriotic" when their positions are anything but.

 

[jillian]

wake up thugs, GOP bigotry has become a national punch line...

Only to assholes. But I understand it's hard to see your own asshole. Look in the mirror!

that comment only proves how delusional and out of touch you are.

That only proves how puerile you are.

ok, bubbala.

 

[BlueGin]

Another denizen of the LWNJ echo chamber chimes in with inane talking points.....

you know, dear... i'm a lot of things. but a nutjob isn't one of them. in my view, you're wrong on almost every issue. and until the GOP dumps its loons on the right, no one like me (who DID vote for republican mayors and governors in the past) is going to ever vote for one of your candidates.

Sorry Jillian, but when you call everyone who supports Trump an uneducated bigot- you are a nut job.

I was wrong about Obama, but I was right about the Senate, the House and all of the state houses that Obama has handed the GOP. He has been a blessing in that regard.

There is no other explanation for supporting Trump other than being an uneducated bigot. Trump depends on both

Why are you being such a partisan jerk?

i'd hope not wanting to elect a bigot is a partisan issue.

I was kind of hoping that most republicans aren't bigots and would feel the same way.

of course, it seems you can't relate to thinking we shouldn't be represented by a bigot.

We already are.

 

[Iceweasel]

my "narrow social circle". lol.. you mean real judges and lawyers?

You clean their toilets?

 

[Correll]

"the WHite vote and it's agenda and interests."


and what's that agenda, exactly..?

It is varied and constantly changing.

NOT being discriminated against is a fairly stable one.

oh, i'm sorry did you think i was going to "debate" your silly delusions?

you're ascared of white people being systematically discriminating against in America and that is hilarious.

fear and loathing of colored people is not an appealing political platform to the rational majority, fool...[/QUOTE]

Calling if funny valerie is not much of a rebuttal.

What part am I wrong about?

"the WHite vote and it's agenda and interests."


and what's that agenda, exactly..?

It is varied and constantly changing.

NOT being discriminated against is a fairly stable one.

oh, i'm sorry did you think i was going to "debate" your silly delusions?

you're ascared of white people being systematically discriminating against in America and that is hilarious.

fear and loathing of colored people is not an appealing political platform to the rational majority, fool...

Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court concerning employment practices by the New Haven Fire Department.[1] Eighteen city firefighters, seventeen of whom were white and one of whom was Hispanic, brought suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. New Haven officials invalidated the test results because none of the black firefighters scored high enough to be considered for the positions. City officials stated that they feared a lawsuit over the test's disproportionate exclusion of certain racial groups from promotion under the controversial "disparate impact" theory of liability"

 

[BlueGin]

Since the GOP is essentially two parties right now, it's tough to say if it's in a panic, per se.

The "Freedom Caucus" side looks pretty excited, the rest of the party looks like they can't find their keys.

Bizarre.
.

More than two actually.

 

[martybegan]

The FIRST part gives the States the right to form militias. It was to prevent the federal government from claiming exclusive right to armed force. The SECOND part gives the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms.

It's your side that uses the courts to crush others, not us.

In what reality do you claim the right doesn't go to court to keep gun proliferation alive?
See: DC v. Heller

A case where the law making body of a City was superseded by your side going to court.


You might - if you wanted to debate honestly - admit that efforts to deprive gays/lesbians rights, for example:

"Rulings Upholding Marriage Discrimination: In three rulings since June 2013, judges have upheld laws denying the freedom to marry to same-sex couples: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld bans in KY, MI, OH and TN; and federal judges have upheld discrimination in Louisiana and Puerto Rico. Additionally, judges in several state courts, including Tennessee and Florida, have denied respect for same-sex couples' marriages for the purpose of dissolution."

Marriage Rulings in the Courts | Freedom to Marry

2nd amendment rights are explicit. I have the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what a local government wants or desires.

The constitution is silent on the concept of marriage in general, thus it is up to the States, in particular their legislatures to determine the content of the marriage license.

You have to understand what a strict constructionist is to understand my views, you don't have to agree with it, but you have to be able to grasp the concept, something beyond most progressives on this board.

"strict constitutionists" didn't exist as a credible paradigm until rhenquist took the bench. and it wasn't an effective paradigm until scalia and his boys polluted our body of constitutional law. i'd refer you back to Marbury v Madison for a more rational and credible perspective on constitutional construction.

but I know that the wingers have been shouting this for years and have managed to infect public discourse with their propaganda.... which isn't very effective with a single judge or attorney I know... but seems to resonate with lay people.

Anyone who uses the word paradigm should not be trusted. Too corporate-buzzwordy.

And marbury vs. madison is about Judicial REVIEW, not "Judicial creation of shit out of thin air", which is the progressive method of government. Like all good authoritarians they prefer to go to small groups of people to make their points, instead of to the people.

And your inability to find a "single judge or attorney" you know that follows this speaks less of the lack of them with the viewpoint, and more about your narrow social circle.

you mean educated? yes, I am. I think it's odd that education and a working vocabulary make someone not "trustworthy".

my "narrow social circle". lol.. you mean real judges and lawyers?

ok.

again, show me where in Marbury v Madison it requires "strict construction". it wasn't even that way when the founders were alive.

Show me in Marbury v madison where it precludes strict construction.

And sorry, but when it comes to opinions and concepts of overall governance, your law degree and theirs means jack squat. You are technicians of the law, and thus may have a skewed view of it.

And paradigm is a horrible word, cause of many a headache when used by some corporate drone giving a pep talk.

 

[Correll]

Seriously

There is no way anyone with a degree of intelligence could support Trump
There is also no way anyone who rejects bigotry could support Trumps antics

Trump's supporters are less educated than the average Republican voter.

http://www.people-press.org/files/2015/10/10-02-2015-2016-release1.pdf

But ...

He's speaking to the anxieties of the white, working middle-class. He's speaking to the Reagan Democrats. He's speaking to social conservatives who have not seen an economic advancement for the past two generations. And it's resonating.

True, and have NOT been brainwashed in the college indoctrination process.

A very interesting comment ^^^mindful of doublethink in 1984: Ignorance is Strength.

NOt at all.

There is nothing "doublethink" about accusing college faculty of abusing their position to push their leftist ideology.

 

[jillian]

In what reality do you claim the right doesn't go to court to keep gun proliferation alive?
See: DC v. Heller

A case where the law making body of a City was superseded by your side going to court.


You might - if you wanted to debate honestly - admit that efforts to deprive gays/lesbians rights, for example:

"Rulings Upholding Marriage Discrimination: In three rulings since June 2013, judges have upheld laws denying the freedom to marry to same-sex couples: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld bans in KY, MI, OH and TN; and federal judges have upheld discrimination in Louisiana and Puerto Rico. Additionally, judges in several state courts, including Tennessee and Florida, have denied respect for same-sex couples' marriages for the purpose of dissolution."

Marriage Rulings in the Courts | Freedom to Marry

2nd amendment rights are explicit. I have the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what a local government wants or desires.

The constitution is silent on the concept of marriage in general, thus it is up to the States, in particular their legislatures to determine the content of the marriage license.

You have to understand what a strict constructionist is to understand my views, you don't have to agree with it, but you have to be able to grasp the concept, something beyond most progressives on this board.

"strict constitutionists" didn't exist as a credible paradigm until rhenquist took the bench. and it wasn't an effective paradigm until scalia and his boys polluted our body of constitutional law. i'd refer you back to Marbury v Madison for a more rational and credible perspective on constitutional construction.

but I know that the wingers have been shouting this for years and have managed to infect public discourse with their propaganda.... which isn't very effective with a single judge or attorney I know... but seems to resonate with lay people.

Anyone who uses the word paradigm should not be trusted. Too corporate-buzzwordy.

And marbury vs. madison is about Judicial REVIEW, not "Judicial creation of shit out of thin air", which is the progressive method of government. Like all good authoritarians they prefer to go to small groups of people to make their points, instead of to the people.

And your inability to find a "single judge or attorney" you know that follows this speaks less of the lack of them with the viewpoint, and more about your narrow social circle.

you mean educated? yes, I am. I think it's odd that education and a working vocabulary make someone not "trustworthy".

my "narrow social circle". lol.. you mean real judges and lawyers?

ok.

again, show me where in Marbury v Madison it requires "strict construction". it wasn't even that way when the founders were alive.

Show me in Marbury v madison where it precludes strict construction.

And sorry, but when it comes to opinions and concepts of overall governance, your law degree and theirs means jack squat. You are technicians of the law, and thus may have a skewed view of it.

And paradigm is a horrible word, cause of many a headache when used by some corporate drone giving a pep talk.

why would it "preclude" something that didn't exist?

it was very clear that in reaching its decision the Court was not literal. That was the point and why that case is the first case studied by every Con Law class.

sorry you don't like my choice of word. but it's part of my working vocabulary.

 

[martybegan]

2nd amendment rights are explicit. I have the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what a local government wants or desires.

The constitution is silent on the concept of marriage in general, thus it is up to the States, in particular their legislatures to determine the content of the marriage license.

You have to understand what a strict constructionist is to understand my views, you don't have to agree with it, but you have to be able to grasp the concept, something beyond most progressives on this board.

"strict constitutionists" didn't exist as a credible paradigm until rhenquist took the bench. and it wasn't an effective paradigm until scalia and his boys polluted our body of constitutional law. i'd refer you back to Marbury v Madison for a more rational and credible perspective on constitutional construction.

but I know that the wingers have been shouting this for years and have managed to infect public discourse with their propaganda.... which isn't very effective with a single judge or attorney I know... but seems to resonate with lay people.

Anyone who uses the word paradigm should not be trusted. Too corporate-buzzwordy.

And marbury vs. madison is about Judicial REVIEW, not "Judicial creation of shit out of thin air", which is the progressive method of government. Like all good authoritarians they prefer to go to small groups of people to make their points, instead of to the people.

And your inability to find a "single judge or attorney" you know that follows this speaks less of the lack of them with the viewpoint, and more about your narrow social circle.

you mean educated? yes, I am. I think it's odd that education and a working vocabulary make someone not "trustworthy".

my "narrow social circle". lol.. you mean real judges and lawyers?

ok.

again, show me where in Marbury v Madison it requires "strict construction". it wasn't even that way when the founders were alive.

Show me in Marbury v madison where it precludes strict construction.

And sorry, but when it comes to opinions and concepts of overall governance, your law degree and theirs means jack squat. You are technicians of the law, and thus may have a skewed view of it.

And paradigm is a horrible word, cause of many a headache when used by some corporate drone giving a pep talk.

why would it "preclude" something that didn't exist?

it was very clear that in reaching its decision the Court was not literal. That was the point and why that case is the first case studied by every Con Law class.

sorry you don't like my choice of word. but it's part of my working vocabulary.

All of this is based on YOUR interpretation of judicial review, which is of course, judicial supremacy and judicial fiat.

Strict construction-ism is the only real way to look at the constitution. The way to change it is the amendment process, not the whims of 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers.

 

[Ravi]

Thanks for proving once and for all that the GOP is the party of white people only.

Which is of course not what I did.

Why do you feel the need to lie?

It's exactly what you did.

If the democratic party was somehow permanently marginalized, it would mean that the agenda and interests of the majority of blacks would never again be represented at the national level.

That would NOT mean that the Democratic Party is the party of Black People only.

Do you understand?

Now you're telling me that the GOP wouldn't represent the rights of black people. You are getting repetitive.

The GOP has it's ideology and agenda. It's poor showing among blacks shows that this platform is NOT that of the vast majority of blacks.

The Democratic Party's does.

Yet, I do not try to claim that the Dems are the party of Black People only.

It would not be true, and would not contribute to any debate or discussion.

Why would I try such a tact?

Oh, to just slam the dems whether it is true or not?

No, I'm not that type of person.

Who else are the GOP a party of? Hispanics? Jews? Asians? Muslims?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Are you taking idiot pills or something? The SC did NOT create gay marriage or the right to abortion. Those are inherent rights. THE USA cannot take away and inherent right without a compelling reason. There is NO compelling reason to say two same sex people can't get married, nor is there a compelling reason to say the government has the right over a woman's body.

The 2nd is an enumerated right. The only way to overturn it is a constitutional amendment.

Baby.

there is no "inherent right" to an abortion, I do not see it espoused in any texts, of any revolutions that had the goal of a free society. It's made up, flim flam, the imaginations of 5 of 9 unelected lawyers.

Gay marriage is another made up right, purely because 5 of 9 unelected lawyers decided to speed things up and overrrule the will of the people of several states.

and as for your last statement, I simply don't trust YOU or the government to stick to that view.

You idiots change your views on things faster than a cat in a small pet store changes his appetite.

the 2d applies to WELL-REGULATED MILITIA to defend the country (since there was no standing army at the time) and every justice until scalia knew that. but heller is what it is.... as stupid a decision as it is.

and I don't trust wingers with my rights. it's really simple. I guess it just depends on what your priorities are. of course, the difference is that no one has outlawed guns or tried to (since regulation is STILL ok even scalia said so in heller). yet, your guys routinely try to take away others' rights

The FIRST part gives the States the right to form militias. It was to prevent the federal government from claiming exclusive right to armed force. The SECOND part gives the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms.

It's your side that uses the courts to crush others, not us.

In what reality do you claim the right doesn't go to court to keep gun proliferation alive?
See: DC v. Heller

A case where the law making body of a City was superseded by your side going to court.


You might - if you wanted to debate honestly - admit that efforts to deprive gays/lesbians rights, for example:

"Rulings Upholding Marriage Discrimination: In three rulings since June 2013, judges have upheld laws denying the freedom to marry to same-sex couples: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld bans in KY, MI, OH and TN; and federal judges have upheld discrimination in Louisiana and Puerto Rico. Additionally, judges in several state courts, including Tennessee and Florida, have denied respect for same-sex couples' marriages for the purpose of dissolution."

Marriage Rulings in the Courts | Freedom to Marry

2nd amendment rights are explicit. I have the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what a local government wants or desires.

The constitution is silent on the concept of marriage in general, thus it is up to the States, in particular their legislatures to determine the content of the marriage license.

You have to understand what a strict constructionist is to understand my views, you don't have to agree with it, but you have to be able to grasp the concept, something beyond most progressives on this board.

I can grasp the concept, and I reject it as absurd.

Do we still use Bloodletting to treat and prevent disease?
Do we still believe the earth is the center of the universe?
Do we still believe a solar eclipse portends a disaster?

Do you understand the concept of stare decisis? Or do you reject that too?

Nowhere in Art. I, sec 8 is the power enumerated to give to the Federal Government to Regulate air corridors, build interstate highways or the transcontinental RR. In fact one failure of the Art. of Confederation was private sector control of roads, canals and bridges. Read some history, you might find out how absurd is the concept strict constructionist.

However, clause #1 does provide for the Congress to "...provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the US; ..."

Hint, this is not the 18th Century! Things change, laws are passed by legislatures in cities, states and the Congress to mitigate problems which arise do to evolving social structures (e.g.). the Industrial revolution, rural vis a vis urban populations and fire power.

I'm pragmatic, you're an ideologue; the former thinks outside the box, the latter is stuck in one.