• 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!

[quote]Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Will Retire from the US Supreme Court in January, 2019https://www (1 Viewer)

TurtleDude said:
You have the right to earn whatever someone is willing to pay you. If that "earns you a living" good

If NOT, then you have to do something to increase the value of your labor. there were several reasons why I busted my butt to get into good schools and ultimately a law degree and masters in labor law/labor relations. It was because with those degrees I cold make a six figure salary before I was thirty. Now when I hear 30 year olds whining they cannot support a family on minimum wage, I say DUH. I got minimum wage jobs out of the way when I was a student. Most smart and ambitious people do
Click to expand...

:applaud Yeah, what he said.
 
If it’s true, y’all liberals should start getting your sexual assault victims ready,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Plus Ultra said:
Its not an "investigation", its a ploy to hold a cloud of illegitimacy over Trump that justifies opposing everything he does by claiming it is done in furtherance of Russian interests.
Click to expand...

Incorrect...but continue to live in denial if you so choose. I'll personally opt for the 'fact' in is an investigation. :)
 
MrShangles said:
Maybe Trump will nominate a female, what would liberals do then, or maybe even a black female. Lol lol


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


Amy Barrett-devout catholic with several children--waiting for the radical feminists to call her a "breeder"
 
OpportunityCost said:
How many fishing poles do you have in the water in this thread? If you could ****ing try to comment on the actual story it would be a welcome change. So far you are sitting in your glass house throwing stones in every direction.

I don't even see Drudge on this story, I remain skeptical about it being true.

If true, the Republicans will nominate a judge with solid credentials that Democrats will be hard pressed to object to considering the partisan slant of Kagan and Sotomayor. Democrat Presidents are going to nominate progressive outlook judges and Republican Presidents are going to nominate conservative outlook judges. That is just what we can expect going forward.
Click to expand...

The person I was replying to had something to say about "a win is a win no matter how." I just was wondering how that was different from Democrats.

The rest if your post is....obvious. Yes, Democrats will nominate more progressive judges and Republicans will appoint mire conservative judges. No ****! Also, if you dump a bucket of water over their head, they might get a little damp.

A Democrat will appoint a more liberal judge with solid credentials. Like maybe.....I don't know....Merrick Garland.
 
Plus Ultra said:
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Will Retire from the US Supreme Court in January, 2019

I haven't seen anything about this anywhere else, the article is 2 days old. It is plausible, she is 85, has had problems with cancer. It would be sad to lose such a brilliant jurist and I expect another acrimonious fight to appoint a successor along the now customary partisan approach.
Click to expand...

So we're expected to take the word of One author on this.
I thought Journalism school taught Not to run with a story w/o TWO credible
sources.And what is this Author's confirmed source.He { Stan Greene } casually mentions
Diane Feinstein but not " Who ? " she told . As in what person says " She told key Democratic
senators ". If it was written " She has told key Democrat senators " at least Joe public would
have an inkling it was determined or fleshed-out by anyone but a leftists or Liberal.
Democrats hate use of the pronoun " Democrat ". They prefer " Democratic ".
At best the story could be used for Democrat fodder.Not mere Democratic fodder.
Because Democrats don't cotton anything negative regarding thee.Or THEM!.
 
rocket88 said:
The person I was replying to had something to say about "a win is a win no matter how." I just was wondering how that was different from Democrats.

The rest if your post is....obvious. Yes, Democrats will nominate more progressive judges and Republicans will appoint mire conservative judges. No ****! Also, if you dump a bucket of water over their head, they might get a little damp.

A Democrat will appoint a more liberal judge with solid credentials. Like maybe.....I don't know....Merrick Garland.
Click to expand...

Um ... pardon the Moi Here Ye Here Ye.Who was it that Nominated The First Woman on the
Supreme Court Sandra Day O'Connor.Who eventually became The Swing vote on the court.
Initially considered a Moderate Republican,her decisions eventually became more and more
Radicalized.Lesson learned.Plus back in THEM! days the Supreme Court Confirmation process
was not radicalized and turned into some Chuckie { the Cheese } Schumer Show.
O'Connor was confirmed in the Senate by a 99-0 vote.
 
rocket88 said:
The person I was replying to had something to say about "a win is a win no matter how." I just was wondering how that was different from Democrats.

The rest if your post is....obvious. Yes, Democrats will nominate more progressive judges and Republicans will appoint mire conservative judges. No ****! Also, if you dump a bucket of water over their head, they might get a little damp.

A Democrat will appoint a more liberal judge with solid credentials. Like maybe.....I don't know....Merrick Garland.
Click to expand...

Actually you could not be more Wronged.What we just witnessed with the Kavanaugh Nomination
and Confirmation was an attempt at Jury Selection tampering and worse.The actual Framing
of a Supreme Court Nominee.Far worse than the crap Teddy Kennedy and Patrick Leahy and Joe
Biden pulled on Clarence Thomas.But similar.
 
rocket88 said:
The person I was replying to had something to say about "a win is a win no matter how." I just was wondering how that was different from Democrats.

The rest if your post is....obvious. Yes, Democrats will nominate more progressive judges and Republicans will appoint mire conservative judges. No ****! Also, if you dump a bucket of water over their head, they might get a little damp.

A Democrat will appoint a more liberal judge with solid credentials. Like maybe.....I don't know....Merrick Garland.
Click to expand...

Garland was appointed as a gimmick. We both know it, I am just honest about it.
 
TurtleDude said:
You have the right to earn whatever someone is willing to pay you. If that "earns you a living" good

If NOT, then you have to do something to increase the value of your labor. there were several reasons why I busted my butt to get into good schools and ultimately a law degree and masters in labor law/labor relations. It was because with those degrees I cold make a six figure salary before I was thirty. Now when I hear 30 year olds whining they cannot support a family on minimum wage, I say DUH. I got minimum wage jobs out of the way when I was a student. Most smart and ambitious people do
Click to expand...
So are you saying that everyone should go to law school and study labor law?
 
OpportunityCost said:
Garland was appointed as a gimmick. We both know it, I am just honest about it.
Click to expand...

He was a more liberal judge with a solid resume. Had Clinton won the election, there would have been a quick confirmation out of fear that she would nominate someone more liberal.

As far as the end justifying the means....fine, that's politics. But for all we see about how Republicans are above that, we both know that's bullcrap.
 
foolardi said:
Actually you could not be more Wronged.What we just witnessed with the Kavanaugh Nomination
and Confirmation was an attempt at Jury Selection tampering and worse.The actual Framing
of a Supreme Court Nominee.Far worse than the crap Teddy Kennedy and Patrick Leahy and Joe
Biden pulled on Clarence Thomas.But similar.
Click to expand...

Just because you think a Republican nominee should never be questioned at all, that's not how the system works. If you had the same questions about an Obama nominee as we did about Kavanaugh, I would not favor confirming without any questions asked about it.
 
foolardi said:
Um ... pardon the Moi Here Ye Here Ye.Who was it that Nominated The First Woman on the
Supreme Court Sandra Day O'Connor.Who eventually became The Swing vote on the court.
Initially considered a Moderate Republican,her decisions eventually became more and more
Radicalized.Lesson learned.Plus back in THEM! days the Supreme Court Confirmation process
was not radicalized and turned into some Chuckie { the Cheese } Schumer Show.
O'Connor was confirmed in the Senate by a 99-0 vote.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about anyone's gender. You're fighting with a straw man here. O'Connor was definitely seen as slightly to the right and well qualified. Would yo say the same about Kavanaugh or any of Trump's nominees? I think Gorsuch at least has proven to be more than a bit to the right than O'Connor.

In today's atmosphere, you're more likely to get more of an ideologue on either side. "Appointed by a Republican" doesn't mean "God's choice for sainthood."
 
eohrnberger said:
I'll take a Textualist or an Originalist any day over a leftist judicial activist.
Click to expand...

Note, it was explicitly stated Kavanaugh is not a textualist. Moreover, the founding fathers all knew the constitution would need to change with the changes in society, hence the amendment process.

Being an "originalist" is sort of like being a Taliban or Wahabbi Muslim - no changes, no interpretations, no alterations to the original text.

I dislike extremes, especially extremes that work for specific facets of our society over the rest - and those extremes tend to be republicans/conservatives.
 
prometeus said:
So are you saying that everyone should go to law school and study labor law?
Click to expand...

How you could get that narrow a meaning from what I said is really amusing. What I was saying is I knew I wanted to make more than minimum wage so I invested in education to make myself worthy to make a six figure salary before I was thirty. There are many ways to do that-engineering, medicine, business etc. Sitting around smoking dope, getting knocked up when you are in HS, etc and then whining you cannot support a family on 8 bucks an hour wages doesn't get you much sympathy with many of us
 
TurtleDude said:
How you could get that narrow a meaning from what I said is really amusing.
Click to expand...
That is your narrow thinking.

What I was saying is I knew I wanted to make more than minimum wage so I invested in education to make myself worthy to make a six figure salary before I was thirty.
Click to expand...
Yes I got that and it is honestly commendable and praise worthy, but for each one like you and there are many there are countless who have the drive and smarts yet they lack the opportunity and than there are those who are not meant to be lawyers or doctors. Are they not to be ever to make a decent wage or have a comfortable life?

There are many ways to do that-engineering, medicine, business etc. Sitting around smoking dope, getting knocked up when you are in HS, etc and then whining you cannot support a family on 8 bucks an hour wages doesn't get you much sympathy with many of us
Click to expand...
That is because you are incapable of thinking beyond appearances.
 
Obscurity said:
Note, it was explicitly stated Kavanaugh is not a textualist. Moreover, the founding fathers all knew the constitution would need to change with the changes in society, hence the amendment process.

Being an "originalist" is sort of like being a Taliban or Wahabbi Muslim - no changes, no interpretations, no alterations to the original text.

I dislike extremes, especially extremes that work for specific facets of our society over the rest - and those extremes tend to be republicans/conservatives.
Click to expand...

Granted, that the founders did allow for Constitutional amendment process, much to their foresight and wisdom, in order for the Constitution to be amended is quite a political hurdle to overcome, and rightfully so. There needs to be some sort of stability beyond the typical careening of political positions to the extremes such as the present cries for socialism and open borders from some.

Should the text of the Constitution be amended by that process, which is fine, wouldn't either a textualist or an originalist have to incorporate, and appropriately so, into their deliberations over a decision? With a Constitutional amendment, hasn't the text of the Constitution been legally and correctly amended?
 
prometeus said:
That is your narrow thinking.

Yes I got that and it is honestly commendable and praise worthy, but for each one like you and there are many there are countless who have the drive and smarts yet they lack the opportunity and than there are those who are not meant to be lawyers or doctors. Are they not to be ever to make a decent wage or have a comfortable life?

That is because you are incapable of thinking beyond appearances.
Click to expand...
I love it when someone who is wed to the income redistribution scheme claims someone else's ability to think or see things is limited. I hate to say the obvious but there are no guarantees in life other than death. You don't have a guarantee of a comfortable life. that being said, if you work hard, your chances of having a comfortable life are vastly increased. If you remain in high school till you earn a degree, you don't create a child before you are married, and you don't get involved in drugs, your chances of being impoverished are less than one in 20
 
TurtleDude said:
I love it when someone who is wed to the income redistribution scheme claims someone else's ability to think or see things is limited.
Click to expand...
You just proved my point. Because you can not defend, yes, that narrow and limited thinking that I pointed out you find it necessary to label me without any basis. I honestly thought you smarter than that.
 
prometeus said:
You just proved my point. Because you can not defend, yes, that narrow and limited thinking that I pointed out you find it necessary to label me without any basis. I honestly thought you smarter than that.
Click to expand...

I don't think you are able to evaluate how smart I am. and you confuse a philosophy you dislike with "narrow thinking". that, in itself, is narrow thinking.
 
TurtleDude said:
I don't think you are able to evaluate how smart I am.
Click to expand...
Nor do I want to or attempted to asses it, nor are you able to evaluate what I can or can not evaluate.

You came up short on a topic and I said that I thought hat you were smarter than that. Now with this display you are only making it a bit broader.

you confuse a philosophy you dislike with "narrow thinking"
Click to expand...
I confuse nothing and made no comment about any philosophy only about your comments. Is your reading comprehension off?.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom