That is scary.
It is worse than scary Paul. It means the end of our country.
I wonder if he would even consider it. Quite a circus with the SS detail around all the time, etc.
Hold the phone. Talked with my liberal friend yesterday and she broke her Don't Discuss It mode to say she has Clinton fatigue, O-Care is bleeding her retirement funds, she doesn't want Sanders, and is completely disgusted with all elected officials. Is considering Rubio! Folks, this is big news. See what your liberal friends might be driven to actually SAY out loud!
1. Obama pardons Hillary, in the manner that Ford pardoned Nixon.I sure picked the wrong day to quit drinking.
2. Hillary wins, nominates Obama for the Supremes.
3. The Senate caves.
4. We are doomed.
Hold the phone. Talked with my liberal friend yesterday and she broke her Don't Discuss It mode to say she has Clinton fatigue, O-Care is bleeding her retirement funds, she doesn't want Sanders, and is completely disgusted with all elected officials. Is considering Rubio! Folks, this is big news. See what your liberal friends might be driven to actually SAY out loud!
Clinton added that she believes the Supreme Court is "heading in the wrong direction" due to the right-leaning justices President George W. Bush appointed.
From the above linked article-
I didn't know the Supreme Court was supposed to have a "direction". I thought the idea was to nominate people that knew a lot about the Constitution, historical background and law in general with the idea being to preserve the document and it's intent as long as possible? With people believing the Constitution is supposed t have a direction, we might as well tear the thing up and go with which ever party wins gets to do whatever they want for as long as they are in power.
With this attitude, and I suspect the right wing has it too, is it any wonder we have "activist judges"?
From the above linked article-
I didn't know the Supreme Court was supposed to have a "direction". I thought the idea was to nominate people that knew a lot about the Constitution, historical background and law in general with the idea being to preserve the document and it's intent as long as possible? With people believing the Constitution is supposed t have a direction, we might as well tear the thing up and go with which ever party wins gets to do whatever they want for as long as they are in power.
With this attitude, and I suspect the right wing has it too, is it any wonder we have "activist judges"?
That is the way it should be. I don't think it has been that way in a long time.
It seems our society has "progressed" to a point where it is OK to politicize everything including our Founding Principles.
From the above linked article-Winner!
I didn't know the Supreme Court was supposed to have a "direction". I thought the idea was to nominate people that knew a lot about the Constitution, historical background and law in general with the idea being to preserve the document and it's intent as long as possible? With people believing the Constitution is supposed t have a direction, we might as well tear the thing up and go with which ever party wins gets to do whatever they want for as long as they are in power.
With this attitude, and I suspect the right wing has it too, is it any wonder we have "activist judges"?
Bold added
Honestly, yes. It is OK to politicize our Founding Principles. The issue with Progressives is that they aren't honest about it.
If you want to repeal the first amendment, go ahead and propose doing so. Don't say "We need to get money out of politics." (McCain-Feingold attack on free speech) or "We need to get religion out of politics." (Attack on the Free Exercise clause)
I actually have a lot more respect for Sanders because he's up front about being against the economic system that built the country. I think he's wrong, and that his "solutions" would be devastating to this country, but at least he's honest about what he wants to do. Unlike Clinton who wants to tear it down, but is dishonest about it.
Back to the original point. I don't believe in having "sacred cows" that cannot ever be challenged. And that applies to the founding principles too. The framers were not perfect men, and they understood that, and provided a mechanism for correcting errors (hint to progs...it's Article V, not Article III).
Bold added
Sacred cows make the best hamburgers
From the above linked article-
I didn't know the Supreme Court was supposed to have a "direction". I thought the idea was to nominate people that knew a lot about the Constitution, historical background and law in general with the idea being to preserve the document and it's intent as long as possible? With people believing the Constitution is supposed t have a direction, we might as well tear the thing up and go with which ever party wins gets to do whatever they want for as long as they are in power.
With this attitude, and I suspect the right wing has it too, is it any wonder we have "activist judges"?
As if we need more...
I believe the "right wing" is much more about judges not legistlating from the bench, rather the judges should be (what's the phrase?) Constitutionalists, if I'm using that term correctly.
I agree that the SCOTUS (and any court) should not have a "direction." So hillary talking about the "direction" of SCOTUS is yet another example of why she is completely unfit for the office of the President of the US.