• 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!

Hillary Clinton's scotus vs. Trump's

I

itsforthekids

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2018
Messages
2,754
Reaction score
572
Location
Reality
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Hillary, on the debate stage....

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/hillary-clinton-heres-what-i-want-in-the-supreme-court.html
"Clinton said she wanted justices who would defend women's rights, back LGBT rights, support Roe v. Wade and reverse the Citizens United decision and its ability to funnel dark money into elections. Clinton said she wanted a court to "stand on the side of the people" rather than wealthy donors and corporations, though Clinton's own political career has benefited from some rich backers."

In other words, as radical.
 
Who cares what that washed up gas bag said? It doesn't matter what judges she would of liked to see because she will not get to pick them nor is she in congress to vote on their approval.

Now is she decides to comment on Trumps recent pick then criticize her for that. Until then keep that turd Hillary flushed.
 
itsforthekids said:
Hillary, on the debate stage....

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/hillary-clinton-heres-what-i-want-in-the-supreme-court.html
"Clinton said she wanted justices who would defend women's rights, back LGBT rights, support Roe v. Wade and reverse the Citizens United decision and its ability to funnel dark money into elections. Clinton said she wanted a court to "stand on the side of the people" rather than wealthy donors and corporations, though Clinton's own political career has benefited from some rich backers."

In other words, as radical.
Click to expand...

I don't give a **** about this person. This person isn't worth discussing anymore.
 
itsforthekids said:
Hillary, on the debate stage....

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/hillary-clinton-heres-what-i-want-in-the-supreme-court.html
"Clinton said she wanted justices who would defend women's rights, back LGBT rights, support Roe v. Wade and reverse the Citizens United decision and its ability to funnel dark money into elections. Clinton said she wanted a court to "stand on the side of the people" rather than wealthy donors and corporations, though Clinton's own political career has benefited from some rich backers."

In other words, as radical.
Click to expand...

Fair point, that's been mentioned, whatever Hillary said, so what?

On a more general point, it seems the left doesn't want a SCOTUS that's founded in defending the constitution, as the founders intended, but rather would see a SCOTUS that imposes their leftist social policies and agenda, those they can't get through legislation.
 
eohrnberger said:
Fair point, that's been mentioned, whatever Hillary said, so what?

On a more general point, it seems the left doesn't want a SCOTUS that's founded in defending the constitution, as the founders intended, but rather would see a SCOTUS that imposes their leftist social policies and agenda, those they can't get through legislation.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point. I bet that that answer lost her the election.
 
itsforthekids said:
Exactly my point. I bet that that answer lost her the election.
Click to expand...

They are up to it again these idiots with "ICE is a terrorist organization(Paraphrase maybe)" like Nixon just did.

The D's have been the bungling party for so long, when are their fans going to get smart and demand better work do you figure?
 
Hawkeye10 said:
They are up to it again these idiots with "ICE is a terrorist organization(Paraphrase maybe)" like Nixon just did.

The D's have been the bungling party for so long, when are their fans going to get smart and demand better work do you figure?
Click to expand...

I saw “murderer” Ted Kennedy’s borking of Bork again...what a disgrace that man was...but he supported women’s right to murder their babies!
 
MovingPictures said:
Long after she's dead they'll be obsessing with her.:lol:
Click to expand...

The Clintonistas and the Trumpers, yes, they never shut the **** up about this irrelevant person. In both cases, it's to cover their own inadequacies.
 
itsforthekids said:
Hillary, on the debate stage....

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/hillary-clinton-heres-what-i-want-in-the-supreme-court.html
"Clinton said she wanted justices who would defend women's rights, back LGBT rights, support Roe v. Wade and reverse the Citizens United decision and its ability to funnel dark money into elections. Clinton said she wanted a court to "stand on the side of the people" rather than wealthy donors and corporations, though Clinton's own political career has benefited from some rich backers."

In other words, as radical.
Click to expand...
Whats imteresting to me is they complain about the right javing a lotmus test for judges and openly declare theirs as of theirs isbok but nobody elses is

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
eohrnberger said:
Fair point, that's been mentioned, whatever Hillary said, so what?

On a more general point, it seems the left doesn't want a SCOTUS that's founded in defending the constitution, as the founders intended, but rather would see a SCOTUS that imposes their leftist social policies and agenda, those they can't get through legislation.
Click to expand...

Let's see how it plays out. Does the new SCOTUS result in more rights and freedom or does it limit rights and freedoms.
What happens where the rubber meets the road...
 
itsforthekids said:
I saw “murderer” Ted Kennedy’s borking of Bork again...what a disgrace that man was...but he supported women’s right to murder their babies!
Click to expand...

You don't know what the word 'murder' means, so your posts on the subject are worthless.
 
itsforthekids said:
I saw “murderer” Ted Kennedy’s borking of Bork again...what a disgrace that man was...but he supported women’s right to murder their babies!
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure you lost me but my mind after your post is this: We are up to our eyeballs in "Do as I say, not as I do" people, and some of us have had enough of this scum.
 
Grand Mal said:
Let's see how it plays out. Does the new SCOTUS result in more rights and freedom or does it limit rights and freedoms.
What happens where the rubber meets the road...
Click to expand...

Hey Grand.

I guess we'll see how the nomination process unfolds. Can already see that it's going to be a long and dirty one, if initial impressions are anything.

Rather than 'more rights' or 'fewer rights', how about a legitimate and accurate measure of cases brought to SCOTUS against the constitution?

I do believe that's what the founders intended when they designed SCOTUS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom