Why do you want right wing judges on the bench, what do you want

[Penelope]

Correct, it does go by income.

If you are a french fry maker, you likely vote Democrat, therefore the subsidies make it extremely affordable.

If you are middle-class, you likely vote Republican, and the little subsidy you get (if any at all) makes insurance unaffordable.

Yup, their income determines their subsidy but does NOT help them with their max out of pocket. She's being very disingenuous. Go figure.

Do you know there are something called silver plans on it.

LOL, do you know that many/most can't afford Silver or Gold? I do this every day honey.

So lets give the insurance companies free rein. You sell ins. I bet you make lots of money hey. Do you sell off the ACA or marketplace so its cutting into your pocket, I see. That's it, it has decreased your income.

More ignorance

Or maybe own a business and do not want to co share insurance. That must be it.

 

[initforme]

What in my post do you disagree with? It's called personal responsibility. Try it instead of calling names.

 

[Doc1]

Yup, their income determines their subsidy but does NOT help them with their max out of pocket. She's being very disingenuous. Go figure.

Do you know there are something called silver plans on it.

LOL, do you know that many/most can't afford Silver or Gold? I do this every day honey.

So lets give the insurance companies free rein. You sell ins. I bet you make lots of money hey. Do you sell off the ACA or marketplace so its cutting into your pocket, I see. That's it, it has decreased your income.

More ignorance

Or maybe own a business and do not want to co share insurance. That must be it.

I am very comfortable with your ignorance kid.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The OP's post is based on a fallacy. The SCOTUS doesn't make law, they interpret the law. Anything that is changed will come from the people. Elections have consequences. I simply want judges that interpret the law who aren't activists.

Well it really depends on their interpretation, doesn't it. So in essence they determine the law of the land.

No, only when it's Democrat judges like that little imp in Hawaii that said Trump could not place a ban on people coming here from other countries. The law was written by Congress many years ago and not challenged until Trump used it. He decided that he didn't like the law, and deemed it unconstitutional after all these years.

So these are the type of people we need to rid our country of--Democrat judges. Because it's Democrat judges who feel empowered for judicial legislation.

So lets see, corps and people like Trump can move elsewhere and have stuff made , we can have a global economy but not a global population. That means Trump can move back to Germany, and Melania's parents can move back where they came from.. All those Russian pg women that are renting Trump branded apts in Florida can go home and have their babies.

There is a legal process for immigration in this country. The US allows a million new foreigners to become citizens every year. What other country does that?

A country without borders is no country at all. A country without laws is an uncivilized society.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I want all judges to base their rulings on the law and the constitution judicial activism is not what they are on the bench for.

Their interpretation of it, you mean. I'm sure the second amendment never assumed for people to have assault weapons with huge cartridges.

What you know about firearms wouldnt fill a thimble.

 

[Penelope]

`
When it comes to politics, I'm rather stoic. Personally, I've been involved in races close to home like governor and US senator. When it comes to governor, Tony Evers (D) is in a dead heat with Scott Walker (49 vs 44) Leah Vukmir (R) is getting blown away by democratic incumbent Tammy Baldwin.

I don't particularly like the democratic party but anything is better than the republicans, at least locally.

You have to pick one or the other, I understand that. The SC can make laws that affect all of us down to the water we might drink and the air we breathe and the killing of workers rights and access to affordable healthcare.

The concept of this country was to have individual states operate themselves without the federal government. The federal government was only to intervene when it came to national issues like the defense of this country and interstate commerce.

Since that time, the federal government has turned into a massive control center of the people. It is partially the judges that allowed this to happen. Now we rely on the federal government to take care of our poor, healthcare, housing, marital issues, race issues, environmental issues, retirement, food, water, you name it and the federal government has it's hands in it.

This is something I hope will stop in the future, and perhaps reverse itself. But that can never happen with Democrats in power be they in the Congress or in the courts.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress 1794

And yet Trump is telling CA what to do and is traveling all over holding rallies to get his base numbers up and bad mouthing Democrats. Seems Trump wants his cake and wants to eat it too.

 

[Flash]

like repealing Roe v. Wade Hell yea!

Allow insurance companies to opt out of birth control? Hell yea!

Make no laws concerning guns. Hell yea!

End SSM Hell yea!

Start saying prayers in public schools. Hell yea!

Get rid of public schools. Hell yea!

End the EPA. Hell yea!

End ACA for good. Hell yea!

End all social programs , except for vets Hell yea!

All those things sounds great to me. It would be a good start to restoring liberty and the Constitution.

I see you couldn't think for yourself and make up your own list. Very telling.

My list would include:

Overturning Brown v Board.

Overturning the 1964 Civil Rights Acts

Overturning the NFA

Just to name a few.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

`
When it comes to politics, I'm rather stoic. Personally, I've been involved in races close to home like governor and US senator. When it comes to governor, Tony Evers (D) is in a dead heat with Scott Walker (49 vs 44) Leah Vukmir (R) is getting blown away by democratic incumbent Tammy Baldwin.

I don't particularly like the democratic party but anything is better than the republicans, at least locally.

You have to pick one or the other, I understand that. The SC can make laws that affect all of us down to the water we might drink and the air we breathe and the killing of workers rights and access to affordable healthcare.

The concept of this country was to have individual states operate themselves without the federal government. The federal government was only to intervene when it came to national issues like the defense of this country and interstate commerce.

Since that time, the federal government has turned into a massive control center of the people. It is partially the judges that allowed this to happen. Now we rely on the federal government to take care of our poor, healthcare, housing, marital issues, race issues, environmental issues, retirement, food, water, you name it and the federal government has it's hands in it.

This is something I hope will stop in the future, and perhaps reverse itself. But that can never happen with Democrats in power be they in the Congress or in the courts.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress 1794

And yet Trump is telling CA what to do and is traveling all over holding rallies to get his base numbers up and bad mouthing Democrats. Seems Trump wants his cake and wants to eat it too.

What is Trump telling California to do that you disagree with?

 

[Penelope]

`
When it comes to politics, I'm rather stoic. Personally, I've been involved in races close to home like governor and US senator. When it comes to governor, Tony Evers (D) is in a dead heat with Scott Walker (49 vs 44) Leah Vukmir (R) is getting blown away by democratic incumbent Tammy Baldwin.

I don't particularly like the democratic party but anything is better than the republicans, at least locally.

You have to pick one or the other, I understand that. The SC can make laws that affect all of us down to the water we might drink and the air we breathe and the killing of workers rights and access to affordable healthcare.

The SCOTUS cannot, according to the Constitution make laws.
That's what is wrong with you people. You either don't understand the Constitution, or you want to ignore it.
We want SC justices that follow the Constitution and the law.
If you want federal laws changed, only Congress can make laws.

Another ignorant person, of course the SC makes laws.

You have got to be one DUMBEST people on this board….

There of three branches of Government DIP SHIT….

Executive, Judicial, and Legislative…...

I would explain it but you are too STUPID to understand it.

You are a perfect example of the ignorance on the left…

Deno, I appreciate that post on the 3 branches of Gov. What we are seeing lately with the 'Deep State' is a perversion and melding of the not so separate & not so equal branches, IMHO.

I also believe in the Separation of Powers but guess who doesn't:
http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Kavanaugh_MLR.pdf

Do you believe FDR had a right to fire Humphrey?
Humphrey's Executor v. United States - Wikipedia

 

[harmonica]

denounce criminals and criminality
unlike Obama, who sympathized with criminals/etc

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I want all judges to base their rulings on the law and the constitution judicial activism is not what they are on the bench for.

Their interpretation of it, you mean. I'm sure the second amendment never assumed for people to have assault weapons with huge cartridges.

Actually it was written so that citizens had equal firepower of their government.

 

[Defiant1]

The SCOTUS cannot, according to the Constitution make laws.
That's what is wrong with you people. You either don't understand the Constitution, or you want to ignore it.
We want SC justices that follow the Constitution and the law.
If you want federal laws changed, only Congress can make laws.

Really only Congress can make laws. Are you kidding me?

You ever heard of a legislator DUMB ASS?

No never have, what is a legislator?

Good lord. Which Branch WRITES laws?

You tell me?

It's a waste of time telling something to person who is incapable of learning.

 

[Doc1]

Really only Congress can make laws. Are you kidding me?

You ever heard of a legislator DUMB ASS?

No never have, what is a legislator?

Good lord. Which Branch WRITES laws?

You tell me?

It's a waste of time telling something to person who is incapable of learning.

….and there it is.

 

[2aguy]

from them?? What do you think they will do??

Just list them:

like repealing Roe v. Wade

Allow insurance companies to opt out of birth control?

Make no laws concerning guns.

End SSM

Start saying prayers in public schools.

Get rid of public schools.

End the EPA.

End ACA for good.

End all social programs , except for vets.

And in your post you expose your ignorance.....

The Supreme Court is not supposed to make laws...left wing justices ignore that which is why the democrats are fighting so hard to keep an originalist Judge off the court. The democrats want the Supreme Court to make the laws they are afraid to pass in congress....they only need 5, unelected, politically appointed lawyers to make that law, not both houses of congress and the President....

We want the Judge to protect the Constitution from people like you.

 

[2aguy]

Stops left wing Judicial Activism

What stops right wing judicial activism?

Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk

Their understanding of the Constitution, the role of the courts, and their belief in the checks and balances on the different branches....

 

[Defiant1]

Really only Congress can make laws. Are you kidding me?

You ever heard of a legislator DUMB ASS?

No never have, what is a legislator?

Good lord. Which Branch WRITES laws?

You tell me?

It's a waste of time telling something to person who is incapable of learning.

I want all judges to base their rulings on the law and the constitution judicial activism is not what they are on the bench for.

Their interpretation of it, you mean. I'm sure the second amendment never assumed for people to have assault weapons with huge cartridges.

I bet you believe that an AR-15 has a HUGE cartridge.
You continually show the depth of your ignorance has no bounds.

 

[Doc1]

You ever heard of a legislator DUMB ASS?

No never have, what is a legislator?

Good lord. Which Branch WRITES laws?

You tell me?

It's a waste of time telling something to person who is incapable of learning.

I want all judges to base their rulings on the law and the constitution judicial activism is not what they are on the bench for.

Their interpretation of it, you mean. I'm sure the second amendment never assumed for people to have assault weapons with huge cartridges.

I bet you believe that an AR-15 has a HUGE cartridge.
You continually show the depth of your ignorance has no bounds.

Emotion and estrogen control her every thought.

 

[2aguy]

I want all judges to base their rulings on the law and the constitution judicial activism is not what they are on the bench for.

Their interpretation of it, you mean. I'm sure the second amendment never assumed for people to have assault weapons with huge cartridges.

Actually it was written so that citizens had equal firepower of their government.

I wish the quotes would have the post # so we can go back and directly quote....

so...for Penelope...

D.C v Heller explains this concept....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

------------




We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The democrats want the Supreme Court to make the laws they are afraid to pass in congress

Actually that's what they have bureaucracies for. Democrats love bureaucracies for that exact reason.

 

[Freiheit]

from them?? What do you think they will do??

Just list them:

like repealing Roe v. Wade

Allow insurance companies to opt out of birth control?

Make no laws concerning guns.

End SSM

Start saying prayers in public schools.

Get rid of public schools.

End the EPA.

End ACA for good.

End all social programs , except for vets.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling. Wolf oh my God there is a wolf stop it stop it, Wolf, wolf stop it. What else will you say to cause fear and panic among the
deluded, hysterical leftists?