• 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!

Gorsuch sides with liberals to tip decision to immigrant in Supreme Court deportation case

Harshaw said:
And you're flatly, explicitly, as a matter of fact, dead wrong. The opinion could not be more clear on that.
Click to expand...

Obama (former president of both the Harvard Law Review and the United States) and Bryer (a SCOTUS justice) disagree with you. As do I. I consider myself to be in good company.

Harshaw said:
Yes, N/A, because it didn't consider the question of limits on donations to PACs one way or the other -- it neither validated them, nor did it invalidate them. It said nothing. That was your "yes or no" question. It did, however, discuss donations to politicians directly and confirm the exception to the First Amendment which allows THOSE limitations. That, of course, wasn't your "yes/no" question, but it IS the part of the opinion which obliterates your "contention," above.
Click to expand...

Whether it considered the question or not, allowing unlimited political donations was the effect. These items are not mutually exclusive.

When the 2nd amendment was ratified, its authors did not foresee people justifying private ownership of semi automatic assault rifles. That, however is how millions of people now interpret the second amendment. There can be unforeseen or unintended consequences of an amendment or a SCOTUS decision, based on interpretation.


Harshaw said:
No, it isn't. You tried to pin me down with a TV lawyer trick that simply didn't apply, demanding a "yes or no" to a question where neither answer was possible.

I asked you to support your claims substantively.
Click to expand...

Which I contend I did, based on the interpretation of people smarter and more knowledgeable than me.




Harshaw said:
So, your final answer is "nuh-UHHHH!!!"
Click to expand...

nuh-UHHHH!!!

:2wave::peace
 
Last edited:
lurchadams said:
Obama (former president of both the Harvard Law Review and the United States) and Bryer (a SCOTUS justice) disagree with you. As do I. I consider myself to be in good company.



Whether it considered the question or not, allowing unlimited political donations was the effect. These items are not mutually exclusive.

When the 2nd amendment was ratified, its authors did not foresee people justifying private ownership of semi automatic assault rifles. That, however is how millions of people now interpret the second amendment. There can be unforeseen or unintended consequences of an amendment or a SCOTUS decision, based on interpretation.




Which I contend I did, based on the interpretation of people smarter and more knowledgeable than me.






nuh-UHHHH!!!

:2wave::peace
Click to expand...

1. The very blog post you linked to in support of your position explained how Obama was off-base. Did you actually read it?

2. Roberts and Alito, in their concurring opinion, put Breyer through the shredder.

3. None of this matters, because you aren't even making an argument. You're just taking their word for it because it's what you want to believe. If you can't explain it - and you can't - you can't possibly know if you're right.

3. Indeed, the framers of the Second Amendment did mean for military rifles to be covered by it, not least because the whole point of a militia is military combat. You keep sounding off on things you don't know much about.

4. Yes, I know - you think "because X said so" is a valid argument.

5. Bored now.
 
tres borrachos said:
I never said Kasich was running in 2020. I said I intend to support him in 2020. Doesn't that include writing him in, as you said you did?

All I know is I'm not supporting Trump. I opposed him in 2016 and I will continue to oppose him as long as he makes a mockery out of his office and the party that put him there.

You mention rabies a lot. Is that something that is interesting to you? Because I've seen animals with rabies, and the voters who vote for the Democrats aren't suffering from rabies. They are like you - hyper partisan.
Click to expand...

The Kasich/Hickenlooper rumor was very intriguing to me.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
Trump only picked HIM out of a pre-approved conservative judges list. But it is funny seeing all the cons supporting the decision. I didn't see that happen with Obamacare...It's like loyalty to Trump and Trump guys is all you care about. Your principles be damned. If this was Obama's SCOTUS, you'd all be screeching your heads off about this decision being unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't actually care so long as the men/women chosen were held to doing their job.

My issues with the Obama administration are with their actions as an administration. Not how the group was built up in the time after his election.

Presidents have always done things like this and its sad when I and people like myself. Have to sit here and watch as others just selectively forget the collective history of the office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom