• 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!

Immediate impact: Gorsuch could redefine Supreme Court starting next week

that had nothing to do with scalia and was one of Roberts worst decisions ever.
same goes for the other 4 judges who upheld it. it should have been struck down as unconstitutional as it was.

there is nothing in the constitution that gives the government power to force people to buy a private product.
more so there is nothing in the constitution that gives the government the power to tax people for not buying
a product that they don't want.

the American people lost a lot of freedom that day.

Do you feel the same about the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments also.

How about the CRA, VRA and CU 1.0/2.0.

Gorsuch either joins the Libertarian wing of the USSC, Roberts/Kennedy, or the Thomas wing in search of a reason for their opinion .
 
Do you feel the same about the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments also.

How about the CRA, VRA and CU 1.0/2.0.

Gorsuch either joins the Libertarian wing of the USSC, Roberts/Kennedy, or the Thomas wing in search of a reason for their opinion .

the 14th has nothing to do with what I said.
I do not say that the 16th applies. as there is no taxation of income. it is a penalty for not buying a product from a private entity.
Roberts pulled stupid out of the hat on that decision.

The 17th again has nothing to do with anything.

the CRA stops agencies from writing law which they don't have the power to do.
it is a stop gap that allows congress to control the regulations of departments.

again has nothing to do with what I said.
again nothing to do with what I said.

so congrats on your red herring arguments.

Gorsuch will do what Gorsuch always has done. he is a judge that views himself as a judge and not a congress person.
he will rule based on the constitution and not his feelings of what it should say. hopefully he will stay consistent.
 
I love when they get in there and moderate, i.e. don't vote the prescribed or hoped for party line.

yes because it is great when a judge overturns our freedoms.
 
yes because it is great when a judge overturns our freedoms.

So you think moderates steal your freedom more quickly than moderates? The moderates whittle away, the extremists take them outright. Check the root of those words.
 
So you think moderates steal your freedom more quickly than moderates? The moderates whittle away, the extremists take them outright. Check the root of those words.

thank you for supporting my argument.
 
It may not. But we don't know that. There have been a number of appointments to the court that didn't turn out the way people thought they would. Two are still on the court now, Kennedy and Roberts.

So you are admitting your OP is little more than idle speculation at best... ;)

Fact is the 'drift to the left' occurred when the court had 9 Justices... (well as defined as the rabid right) For the rest of us it knocked down idiotic laws passed to limit the rights of citizens based on sexual orientation.

I do enjoy some other posters who lament the ACA ruling- which had a BushII appointee as the CHIEF Justice cast the deciding vote. Guess it shows rabid right amateurs don't always understand the Constitution like the experts appear to....
 
Fingers crossed she can last another 4 years... ;)

Rehnquist seemed to fade before he finally passed while still a Justice, Chief at that.

I wouldn't send flowers just yet... :peace

Neither would I and she's a tough old bird. But if I were a betting man-and I am not, her not lasting the next four years as opposed to say Kennedy or Breyer, would be the best bet
 
So you are admitting your OP is little more than idle speculation at best... ;)
Why would you ask such a question? I posted an article that I thought others may be interested in discussing. What's funny about your post is that discussing what may happen in the future, by it's very nature, is speculation, hence speculative. Although I wouldn't say it was idle given the fact that we are still discussing it. If you'd rather discuss me, there places below this one on tis forum that I would be happy to tell you what I think of you as well, just not up here.

Fact is the 'drift to the left' occurred when the court had 9 Justices... (well as defined as the rabid right) For the rest of us it knocked down idiotic laws passed to limit the rights of citizens based on sexual orientation.
Are saying I'm part of the "rabid right?" Again as above, I don't know why you can't discuss the thread topic and not other members here. Any honest member here will tell you I am and have been consistently in favor of government recognition of the rights of all people in this country.

I do enjoy some other posters who lament the ACA ruling- which had a BushII appointee as the CHIEF Justice cast the deciding vote. Guess it shows rabid right amateurs don't always understand the Constitution like the experts appear to....
I fail to see why you keep making this about people, specifically members of this forum. Again, if you would like to discuss members then there's other places to do so.
 
Fingers crossed she can last another 4 years... ;)

Rehnquist seemed to fade before he finally passed while still a Justice, Chief at that.

I wouldn't send flowers just yet... :peace

I wasnt planning to send flowers
 
Why would you ask such a question? I posted an article that I thought others may be interested in discussing. What's funny about your post is that discussing what may happen in the future, by it's very nature, is speculation, hence speculative. Although I wouldn't say it was idle given the fact that we are still discussing it. If you'd rather discuss me, there places below this one on tis forum that I would be happy to tell you what I think of you as well, just not up here. Are saying I'm part of the "rabid right?" Again as above, I don't know why you can't discuss the thread topic and not other members here. Any honest member here will tell you I am and have been consistently in favor of government recognition of the rights of all people in this country. I fail to see why you keep making this about people, specifically members of this forum. Again, if you would like to discuss members then there's other places to do so.

That you fail to see is no matter to me....

But the radical right loves the victim card... :roll:

The OP was pure no- sense speculation combined with rabid right whine about a court that was 'drifting to the left' while a FULL COURT and has been rather inert as a 8 Justice court.

Discussing a rabid right whine piece? suuuuurrrreeee :lol:

But then again you only want a certain discussion to be generated, not opinions you don't like, silly at best... :peace
 
That you fail to see is no matter to me....

But the radical right loves the victim card... :roll:

The OP was pure no- sense speculation combined with rabid right whine about a court that was 'drifting to the left' while a FULL COURT and has been rather inert as a 8 Justice court.

Discussing a rabid right whine piece? suuuuurrrreeee :lol:

But then again you only want a certain discussion to be generated, not opinions you don't like, silly at best... :peace

When you have something of substance to discuss about the topic, let me know.
 
Back
Top Bottom