• 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!

Vote for Trump to preserve SCOTUS?

danarhea said:
Actually, it will. Hillary will nominate Barack Obama, and then the Democratic Senate will end the filibuster. Then we may end up having the first Supreme Court Justice in history to decide a birther case against himself. LOL.
Click to expand...

Obama is dim enough, and he is utopia driven, he would fit right in.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Obama is dim enough, and he is utopia driven, he would fit right in.
Click to expand...

Actually, Obama was at the top of his class at Harvard law school, was the editor of the Harvard Law Review, and was a constitutional law professor before he ran for his first political office.
 
MaggieD said:
Where are you getting this opinion? Please give me a few examples of how ANY president can trash the Constitution?
Click to expand...

FDR did
 
danarhea said:
Actually, Obama was at the top of his class at Harvard law school, was the editor of the Harvard Law Review, and was a constitutional law professor before he ran for his first political office.
Click to expand...

you're sort of correct.

He was in the top 85 in his class at Harvard which is general what magna cum laude means-HLS classes are about 550 students and the top 15% graduate Magna. Two of my colleagues did and they both noted that magna could be anywhere from first (some times there is a summa cum laude award at Harvard but often the top student is only magna). He was not a constitutional law professor at U of C but merely a lecturer.
 
danarhea said:
Actually, Obama was at the top of his class at Harvard law school, was the editor of the Harvard Law Review, and was a constitutional law professor before he ran for his first political office.
Click to expand...

I know.
 
TurtleDude said:
you're sort of correct.

He was in the top 85 in his class at Harvard which is general what magna cum laude means-HLS classes are about 550 students and the top 15% graduate Magna. Two of my colleagues did and they both noted that magna could be anywhere from first (some times there is a summa cum laude award at Harvard but often the top student is only magna). He was not a constitutional law professor at U of C but merely a lecturer.
Click to expand...

But the point of course is that he has had his ticket punched in the correct places so of course he is as brilliant as he thinks he is.

Not.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
But the point of course is that he has had his ticket punched in the correct places so of course he is as brilliant as he thinks he is.

Not.
Click to expand...

Oh Obama is a smart guy and a very good politician. and he got to be president of the law review by political skill. HE actually appealed to the conservatives who voted for him while the other left wing candidates split up the dominant left wing vote. The problem with Obama from what I have seen is that he thinks he got to where he is by overcoming being black when in reality he is where he is because he is black
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Obama is dim enough, and he is utopia driven, he would fit right in.
Click to expand...

Obama does not have the credentials that recent nominees to the court have.
 
TurtleDude said:
Someone I care about has to have died or being married to get me into a church
Click to expand...

That's OK, I try hard to take people as they are.

I am a very spiritual person and it seems to me that life must be really boring for those who are not, but what ever.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
That's OK, I try hard to take people as they are.

I am a very spiritual person and it seems to me that life must be really boring for those who are not, but what ever.
Click to expand...

being spiritual has nothing to do with church attendance. you can say many things about my life and be correct-boring isn't one of them
 
TurtleDude said:
being spiritual has nothing to do with church attendance. you can say many things about my life and be correct-boring isn't one of them
Click to expand...

Of Course.

You and me are going to be friends one day Turtle, I feel it.
 
CriticalThought said:
It is a weak argument. Even prominent Originalists, who believe in an original interpretation of the Constitution, do not buy it.

Originalists Against Trump



Frankly, there is nothing Donald Trump has said or done that suggests he respects the traditions of the Constitution or the limits it puts on the office of the presidency. Even if Hillary Clinton wins and picks the most liberal justices you could imagine, that would be nowhere near as detrimental as a President Trump, who has never shown he has the humility or temperament to abide by the Constitution. I cannot see how Trump would want to govern much differently than Putin and I can't see how he wouldn't disect any institution that would stand in his way.
Click to expand...

Trump or Clinton, either way SCOTUS will continue to trample on the constitution and individual rights and freedoms/liberty.

Every member of SCOTUS should be dismissed for dereliction of duty. They have completely failed to interpret the constitution on the basis of the principles on which this nation was founded.

It is sad that folks claiming to be libertarians do not get this.
 
MaggieD said:
I think we all need to remember that the Constitution tells gvmt what it cannot do. It doesn't tell the people what they CAN do.
Click to expand...

Unless some freedom clearly protected by the Constitution is involved, the people of each state are free to make the laws and policies they want. I think most states today would allow abortion under most circumstances, even If Roe were overruled.
 
Mycroft said:
Whatever can be...and is...said about Trump and whatever speculations about his actions should he become President is useless without consideration of the alternative. Hillary.

She has stated quite clearly her intentions regarding Supreme Court nominations. She wants the Supreme Court to "represent all of us". The problem is, though, that's not the job of the Supreme Court. It is Congress' job to "represent all of us". Hillary's intentions are clearly to change the Supreme Court from a judicial institution into a legislative institution.

In my opinion, this makes her the more undesirable candidate. She is the greater of evils.
Click to expand...

LOL So you want a court that represents none of us, a court that suppresses change because that is their only job? We don't need people for that at all, we can replace them with a computer.. But the founders specified that they BE people and that is because they wanted change as long as the spirit of the Constitution remains. A Govt. for the people and OF the people. Our country would have long failed if the SC did not allow change.
 
matchlight said:
Unless some freedom clearly protected by the Constitution is involved, the people of each state are free to make the laws and policies they want. I think most states today would allow abortion under most circumstances, even If Roe were overruled.
Click to expand...

This would be true for a while until the anti-choice groups get the SC to rule that a fetus has rights. Then the back-alley butchers will rule supreme. Abortion is the oldest medical procedure known and probably started with Eve. Why some wish to create a lucrative black market in abortions makes me suspicious about their true goals. Travel agents will also do well for those that can afford an "abortion vacation" to Canada or some other civilized nation. Not to mention that birth control will be next on the agenda...that will drum up more business for the back alley "entrepreneurs".
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
It is a weak argument. Even prominent Originalists, who believe in an original interpretation of the Constitution, do not buy it.

Originalists Against Trump



Frankly, there is nothing Donald Trump has said or done that suggests he respects the traditions of the Constitution or the limits it puts on the office of the presidency. Even if Hillary Clinton wins and picks the most liberal justices you could imagine, that would be nowhere near as detrimental as a President Trump, who has never shown he has the humility or temperament to abide by the Constitution. I cannot see how Trump would want to govern much differently than Putin and I can't see how he wouldn't disect any institution that would stand in his way.
Click to expand...

I thought he had laid out his list of Justices to choose from.
But trust is always a bad advisor.
 
iguanaman said:
LOL So you want a court that represents none of us, a court that suppresses change because that is their only job? We don't need people for that at all, we can replace them with a computer.. But the founders specified that they BE people and that is because they wanted change as long as the spirit of the Constitution remains. A Govt. for the people and OF the people. Our country would have long failed if the SC did not allow change.
Click to expand...

Where on earth do you get this nonsensical point of view?

Our justice system's only purpose is to judge disputes based on existing law. That's it. They have no mandate, whatsoever, to be involved in "change".

If you dispute what I say, then please present your evidence...be it from the exact wording of the Constitution or from the words of the Founders.
 
A republican president sent Justice Roberts to the Supreme Court.

How did that work out for the republican argument?
 
Crovax said:
No anyone who thinks that Trump isn't just as liberal as HC is ridiculous

Trump says his pro-abortion sister would make ‘phenomenal’ Supreme Court justice
Click to expand...

People also seem to conveniently forget that as recently as 2012, Trump was very public in his view that we need severe gun control, including saying that President Obama "speaks for" him when Obama called for gun control after Sandy Hook.

Hillary is anti-gun because she panders for votes, but I think she's really pro-gun. Trump is pro-gun because he panders for votes, but I think he's still anti-gun.

Trump doesn't know **** about the Constitution.

Nobody with a brain trusts a lifelong Liberal real estate developer reality TV star to pick SCOTUS judges.
 
cpwill said:
No, Trumps' father made the empire what it is today. Trump has thus far somehow failed at selling alcohol, gambling, and steak to Americans.

Nor is Trump the least dedicated to our respectful of the Constitution. He lacks basic knowledge of the Constitution, and his proposals inevitably involve further centralizing government and placing more decisions in the hands of an imperial Presidency.



Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It is amazing to me the lengths we will go to to vilify this man.

So? He inherited money from his father. Shoot him in the head for that, right? Give him no credit for the rest of his life because his father was wealthy. Yep, that's it. Yet he built the Teump brand. But never mind, he deserves no credit. The pissy link I found to discuss his rise in business even said he got a BAIL OUT. That BAIL out is called debt restructuring and is used by all of us when fortunes turn. When one's fortune is in real estate, it turns. It's called Chapter 11 (or maybe it's 13, don't recall.)

Then it talked about the gvmt being responsible for his fortunes. Blame your congressmen. Don't blame him. Blame the Politicians for the fact that they encourage real estate investment by providing some of the most effective tax deductions for real estate depreciation in order to grow our country...or is itmto line their war chests with contributions from big banks? And, btfreakin'way, those lucrative real estate depreciation deductions are available to YOU, to ANYONE who buys investment property. How do you think DETEOIT and other deceimated inner cities will be rebuilt? By poor people one house at a time? Or, thank GOD, by real estate investors who will boost their skin in the game thanks to gvmt tax deductions designed to do just that.

If I recall, because that link's take on Trump's success made me puke, he's filed bankruptcy with under ten of his businesses...some went to zero. Some just restructured debt, quite legally, and went on. That's out of hundreds of businesses he owns and/or started.

But nothing fits the narrative more than respectable people like you carrying the media's water as they destroy this man.

Congratulations. Never let the facts get in your way.
 
CriticalThought said:
It is a weak argument. Even prominent Originalists, who believe in an original interpretation of the Constitution, do not buy it.

Originalists Against Trump

Frankly, there is nothing Donald Trump has said or done that suggests he respects the traditions of the Constitution or the limits it puts on the office of the presidency. Even if Hillary Clinton wins and picks the most liberal justices you could imagine, that would be nowhere near as detrimental as a President Trump, who has never shown he has the humility or temperament to abide by the Constitution. I cannot see how Trump would want to govern much differently than Putin and I can't see how he wouldn't disect any institution that would stand in his way.
Click to expand...



So are you trying to tell me Crooked Hillary respects the constitution and the rule of law?
This Crooked person has skirted the law her entire public life. She lied over and over and over
about her private e-mail server and the deleted e mails. She put our nation's security at risk for
years by placing Top Secret, Code word material on a unclassified server.

Your hypothetical posting about what Trump would do to our constitution is nonsense.
We know for a fact what Crooked Hillary would do!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom