• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CLARENCE THOMAS: 'We are destroying our institutions'... DC 'broken'...

matchlight said:
Mr. Trump has made public his list of nominees for the Court, and I assume Mrs. Clinton has, too. It should be possible from studying the histories of the judges on those lists to get a good idea of which ones would be more likely to support what this or that part of the Constitution was intended to mean, and which would be more likely to inject their personal views of what the part of the Constitution in question should mean.

Heller was a 5-4 decision, and Justice Scalia, who wrote the opinion for the majority, is no longer with us. Maybe many people who take this lightly haven't read Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion in Heller, in which three other justices joined. If a Court with one or two Clinton appointees were to overrule Heller and adopt Stevens' views, the individual right to keep and bear arms--a right every bit as fundamental as the right to free speech, or any of the other First Amendment rights--would no longer exist. But judging by my many contacts with pseudo-liberals, most of them are either too dim or too resentful of traditional American values to give a good G--damn about little details like fundamental rights. These people will predictably protest indignantly that they love this country and its Constitution--but don't believe it.
Click to expand...

It's all lip service........ from a clueless populace of Lefties.
 
Chomsky said:
B.S.

They're abrogating their responsibility, placing partisan politics above governance.
Click to expand...

No they aren't. They are absolutely doing the will of the people to do whatever they can not to allow partisan politics become the makeup of the Court.
 
AlbqOwl said:
No they aren't. They are absolutely doing the will of the people to do whatever they can not to allow partisan politics become the makeup of the Court.
Click to expand...
The GOP are not being partisan here?

This is your argument?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom