Bannon Out

[Jagger69]

So the balance of the Supreme Court of the United States is "so what?" Roe vs. Wade? speaking of being juvenile. You understand what that means and what's at stake.
Elections have consequences, and do they ever.

Wow. You had to dredge this old exchange up last night? Day-um....you sure must have been in a post-writin' mood late last night I reckon!

 

[sean miguel]

So the balance of the Supreme Court of the United States is "so what?" Roe vs. Wade? speaking of being juvenile. You understand what that means and what's at stake.
Elections have consequences, and do they ever.

Wow. You had to dredge this old exchange up last night? Day-um....you sure must have been in a post-writin' mood late last night I reckon!

as I thought.

And you sayng "day-um" is like my old man (or in your case - my grandpa) saying "dude" - just don't.

And we have jagger on record - the supreme court is "so what?"

just shut up.

 

[Straight Shooter]

So Trump will change the balance of SCOTUS for decades. Cool. Also just read he's nominated nine federal judges. Cool. Count me as one those people who has never really been concerned about SCOTUS. You know how you combat the unbalance? Pass legislation that's constitutional. Pretty simple. If it's constitutional, the conservative majority won't be able to do a damn thing

 

[Rattrap]

So Trump will change the balance of SCOTUS for decades. Cool. Also just read he's nominated nine federal judges. Cool. Count me as one those people who has never really been concerned about SCOTUS. You know how you combat the unbalance? Pass legislation that's constitutional. Pretty simple. If it's constitutional, the conservative majority won't be able to do a damn thing

Considering they get decide what is constitutional, that last bit isn't true at all. For example, they can decide you essentially do not have Fourth Amendment rights regarding your person - and have done just that (see: Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders).

 

[xfire]

Bannon supported Roy Moore, Trump backed Luther Strange. Mitch McConnell wants Roy Moore to lose to Doug Jones.

 

[sean miguel]

So Trump will change the balance of SCOTUS for decades. Cool. Also just read he's nominated nine federal judges. Cool. Count me as one those people who has never really been concerned about SCOTUS. You know how you combat the unbalance? Pass legislation that's constitutional. Pretty simple. If it's constitutional, the conservative majority won't be able to do a damn thing

did the 2000 presidential election ultimately come down to a Supreme Court decision? I say in principle, no - the votes were counted. but in practicality it did. Had the court decided the other way, the count in florida would've continued until Gore had won. The margin was that close. those hanging and dimpled chads though.

Roe vs. Wade and what the ramifications of that has been in sheer numbers of those aborted over the decades.

Didn't a supreme court decision decide the right of a washington d.c. resident to be able to have a firearm? or was it chicago? it was the whole "regulated militia" argument vs. an individual's right.

The judicial branch is supposed to be a co-equal branch of the federal government. Some would argue they hold too much power - 9 unelected and unaccountable judges serving lifetime appointments.

but yeah, "so what?"

 

[sean miguel]

So Trump will change the balance of SCOTUS for decades. Cool. Also just read he's nominated nine federal judges. Cool. Count me as one those people who has never really been concerned about SCOTUS. You know how you combat the unbalance? Pass legislation that's constitutional. Pretty simple. If it's constitutional, the conservative majority won't be able to do a damn thing

To those on here who say they might not vote at all. Keep this in mind....the next president will name as many as 3-4 Supreme Court justices. This will change the 5-4 balance on the court. So I say to my fellow lefties who are dissatisfied with Hillary, do you really want Cruz/Trump/Rubio shaping the court and thus changing the legal landscape when it comes to issues like gay rights, voting rights, workers rights, abortion rights, healthcare, Citizens United, etc

...

 

[sean miguel]

Pretty simple. If it's constitutional, the conservative majority won't be able to do a damn thing

any Supreme Court majority can determine what is "constitutional."

but "so what?"

 

[xfire]

any Supreme Court majority can determine what is "constitutional." but "so what?"

Supreme Court nominations were one of the biggest issues in the 2016 election, one side got it and the other didn't. When Roe v Wade is overturned it won't seem inconsequential.

 

[sean miguel]

didn't justice john roberts interpreting Obamacare's individual mandate as a "tax" save obamacare? that is, until it eventually implodes?

so what?


one or two more justices like Gorsuch and we should be good. they just need to stay away from those lib cocktail parties.

#FuckTheLeft

 

[Mayhem]

If it was me, I'd keep the confetti in the bag until Gorsuch actually rules on something. I have no idea what he's going to do, but the reality exists where this guy doesn't do what you expect him too.

And the thought occurs to me that the Right is so over-the-moon because Dear Leader appointed him. How have Dear Leader's appointments gone so far?

And the thought also occurs to me to advise: Forget Dear Leader, forget Gorsuch. Set your own bar low on this one. That way you'll have an easier time making lame excuses when Roe v Wade gets affirmed. Or whatever else happens that you thought was now in the bag.

 

[Jack Davenport]

 

[sean miguel]

If it was me, I'd keep the confetti in the bag until Gorsuch actually rules on something.

if you were paying attention:

Democrats fume over early Gorsuch rulings

Gorsuch publicly disagreed with his colleagues' decision to pass up a challenge to the McCain-Feingold law's ban on so-called soft money. He dissented from a ruling enforcing same-sex couple's rights to have their names on their children's birth certificates. He lamented the court's refusal to hear a case about the right to carry a weapon in public. He took a strong stand in favor of churches' right to public subsidies. And he signed an opinion saying he would have allowed President Donald Trump's travel ban to go into effect now, in full.

"We've got another Scalia," declared Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Feinstein told POLITICO she'd looked at Gorsuch's early rulings and saw no sign of moderation from conservative orthodoxy. "Right down the line. Everything — everything," she said. "I'm surprised that it's so comprehensive."

Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut — a former Supreme Court clerk — said Gorsuch's early record on the court is in tension with the humble and evenhanded approach he touted during his confirmation hearings in March.

read the rest of this MAGA here:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/28/democrats-gorsuch-supreme-court-rulings-240030

 

[sean miguel]

So Trump will change the balance of SCOTUS for decades. Cool. Also just read he's nominated nine federal judges. Cool. Count me as one those people who has never really been concerned about SCOTUS. You know how you combat the unbalance? Pass legislation that's constitutional. Pretty simple. If it's constitutional, the conservative majority won't be able to do a damn thing

To those on here who say they might not vote at all. Keep this in mind....the next president will name as many as 3-4 Supreme Court justices. This will change the 5-4 balance on the court. So I say to my fellow lefties who are dissatisfied with Hillary, do you really want Cruz/Trump/Rubio shaping the court and thus changing the legal landscape when it comes to issues like gay rights, voting rights, workers rights, abortion rights, healthcare, Citizens United, etc

bump

 

[Jack Davenport]

bump

Holy.Flying.Shitballs.

:1orglaugh

You know something? That guy has gotta be a parody poster.

 

[sean miguel]

peace out

 

[Jack Davenport]

Man this thread is a good read. :1orglaugh

 

[xfire]

Twat Waffle Bannon's been in the news lately, and I'm sure this thread is still a good read, even if you can't comment on it anymore.

 

[zeeblofowl_1969]

Twat Waffle Bannon's been in the news lately, and I'm sure this thread is still a good read, even if you can't comment on it anymore.

Hey Hey.....
Goodbye.