PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Number7 on January 21, 2019, 05:28:46 AM
-
Crazy as it sounds, I wouldn’t put it past the communist party of America (they call themselves democrats) to think they can hold the President hostage over the border wall, hoping to trade the wall funding for the naming of Ginsberg’s replacement.
-
Crazy as it sounds, I wouldn’t put it past the communist party of America (they call themselves democrats) to think they can hold the President hostage over the border wall, hoping to trade the wal, funding for the naming of Ginsberg’s replacement.
Oh God, don't give them ideas.
-
Crazy as it sounds, I wouldn’t put it past the communist party of America (they call themselves democrats) to think they can hold the President hostage over the border wall, hoping to trade the wal, funding for the naming of Ginsberg’s replacement.
THAT just CANNOT happen. We can't let it.
Say we let them have their liberal judge in return for the wall.
Then say we even allocate funds and move to build the wall.
Then the liberal court decides some part of it is unconstitutional and blocks it. What have we won?
-
THAT just CANNOT happen. We can't let it.
Say we let them have their liberal judge in return for the wall.
Then say we even allocate funds and move to build the wall.
Then the liberal court decides some part of it is unconstitutional and blocks it. What have we won?
Now that you have defined the terms, can't you see how communists (they call themselves democrats for cover) would think that was just the best idea ever?
-
THAT just CANNOT happen. We can't let it.
Say we let them have their liberal judge in return for the wall.
Then say we even allocate funds and move to build the wall.
Then the liberal court decides some part of it is unconstitutional and blocks it. What have we won?
One of the main reasons I voted for Trump was Supreme Court appointments. Hillary would have put more Far Left Sotomayors, and Kagans on the court. That would have been disastrous because like Ginsburg, they hate the Constitution as written, and believe it is an archaic document that needs to be "reinterpreted" to reflect today's American. They are WRONG.
We should have border security, and not have to bargain away stuff to get it.
-
THAT just CANNOT happen. We can't let it.
Say we let them have their liberal judge in return for the wall.
Then say we even allocate funds and move to build the wall.
Then the liberal court decides some part of it is unconstitutional and blocks it. What have we won?
Not that I would be in favor of such a deal, but it would be a one for one swap. It wouldn't be a "liberal" court unless you think it's a liberal court now.
-
Not that I would be in favor of such a deal, but it would be a one for one swap. It wouldn't be a "liberal" court unless you think it's a liberal court now.
I do think it is a liberal court now. Maybe not quite as liberal as it was before Kavanaugh, but with people like Roberts, it may go liberal on any decision. We NEED to get at least one more dependable conservative on the bench. Then maybe we can trade away a draft pick.
-
I do think it is a liberal court now. Maybe not quite as liberal as it was before Kavanaugh, but with people like Roberts, it may go liberal on any decision. We NEED to get at least one more dependable conservative on the bench. Then maybe we can trade away a draft pick.
Exactly. Roberts is not to be trusted. He screwed us on Obamacare and essentially said I'm not doing the job I'm sworn to do just because I want to be seen as an SJW.
-
I do think it is a liberal court now. Maybe not quite as liberal as it was before Kavanaugh, but with people like Roberts, it may go liberal on any decision. We NEED to get at least one more dependable conservative on the bench. Then maybe we can trade away a draft pick.
Exactly. Roberts is not to be trusted. He screwed us on Obamacare and essentially said I'm not doing the job I'm sworn to do just because I want to be seen as an SJW.
Roberts voted with the majority in Chicago v. McDonald, D.C. vs. Heller, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado, and dissented in Obergefell vs. Hodges, all of which were the same as the rest of the Court's conservatives. And these are only the first major ones that come to mind outside of the ACA ruling. So Roberts votes in a way that many of us disagree with on the ACA ruling and now he's not to be trusted and it's still a liberal court? He's not Kennedy, though there is some speculation that he will take up the mantle of being the swing vote, but only time will tell if that's accurate or not.
The ACA was certainly a big case, but his voting record is pretty solidly conservative. FiveThirtyEight has a good article on this with some interesting numbers:
But liberals cannot reasonably hold out much hope that Roberts will sway votes for some of their favored causes the way Kennedy did. While the statistical metrics show Roberts taking a relatively moderate position, he has very rarely voted with the liberals when it mattered.
...
When we get rid of those cases where he sided with at least two members of the conservative bloc, the list of Roberts’s liberal “swings” drops to five cases. Five liberal-leaning decisions where Roberts joined his liberal colleagues and actually changed the outcome by doing so. They cover a small grab bag of topics and, with one big exception, aren’t exactly the sorts of results that show up in your phone’s push alerts.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/john-roberts-has-cast-a-pivotal-liberal-vote-only-5-times/
-
Roberts voted with the majority in Chicago v. McDonald, D.C. vs. Heller, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado, and dissented in Obergefell vs. Hodges, all of which were the same as the rest of the Court's conservatives. And these are only the first major ones that come to mind outside of the ACA ruling. So Roberts votes in a way that many of us disagree with on the ACA ruling and now he's not to be trusted and it's still a liberal court? He's not Kennedy, though there is some speculation that he will take up the mantle of being the swing vote, but only time will tell if that's accurate or not.
The ACA was certainly a big case, but his voting record is pretty solidly conservative. FiveThirtyEight has a good article on this with some interesting numbers:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/john-roberts-has-cast-a-pivotal-liberal-vote-only-5-times/
I understand that his record other than ACA has been good, and I'd much rather have him than another Sotomayor, Kagan, or Ginsburg. However, the ACA was a big one, and the rationale he used to justify his vote was scary as it had no basis in the law, but totally in his "feelings". That's why Roberts is a concern to me. Maybe not a huge concern, but still a concern.
-
I understand that his record other than ACA has been good, and I'd much rather have him than another Sotomayor, Kagan, or Ginsburg. However, the ACA was a big one, and the rationale he used to justify his vote was scary as it had no basis in the law, but totally in his "feelings". That's why Roberts is a concern to me. Maybe not a huge concern, but still a concern.
Its sort of like the hockey stick graphs the environmentalists like to use. Very steady for years, but a big recent change. According to the libs, that big recent change is all it takes to predict the future.