Debates

I agree

So Bonnie, let’s me propose a question. If nothing was, “done against the rules” 4 years ago? If we have the same exact situation this year and the party leaders are doing the complete opposite. Are there thing being done, “against the rules“ now?

“ Now I am sure you would be ok with it all if the positions of the two parties where flipped .”

100% I would be!

I’ve said it here many times. When your party is the one punching. You love it. When you’re getting punched. It absolutely sucks.

If the parties were flipped? I would not use the Constitution as a reason why the slot should be filled, when my party did the complete opposite four years prior.

Which gets back to my original point that the Judiciary is political. Especially the SCOTUS.

One party will interpret the Law one way the other party will interpret completely opposite. Hence the rush to fill the slot.

It would be intetesting for sure .
Here in CT we where hit with a big gun ban after the Sandy Hook shooting.
This killed the shooting sport in our state
Gun ranges are struggling to stay open.
We lost a lot of gun manufacturing jobs as the many companies moved out of state.
Now our fucktard politition's want to remove officers that protect schools .
I think there was one conviction for violating the gun ban since it went into law .
I am sure our gun groups will be going back to court.

@Bonnie

You have 3 different points here.

"Not to many lawmakers will be into allowing felons to have firearms or people to have machine guns. This issue would probably never go to court . Not much she can do as a judge to change laws by herself. "

No, lawmakers do not want them. The problem is that the laws that control that violate the 2nd. Even Scolia when he voted on controls stated it violated the 2nd. She is a literalist. If the constitution doesn't say it, it doesn't matter type. She has already written opinions on this. She thinks there should be NO controls on guns because the controls are not put in by the constitution.

It has gone to court. That was the Scalia case. It is often tried.

She is not changing laws. Laws have to be constitutional. She is stating that the laws are unconstitutional.

Just remember.. felons , crooks, bad people will always get guns and use them against defenseless people.. no matter what laws are passed.. it is the honest people and law abiding people who will always be hurt.. FACT!

Speaking if felons with guns , they can always get them.
The left wing NFAC black militia group had a member discharge a firearm at a rally last week, thank god no one was injured or killed. Guess what , he was a fellon.
This is the second time in a matter if weeks with this NFAC group.

Not to many lawmakers will be into allowing felons to have firearms or people to have machine guns.
This issue would probably never go to court .
Not much she can do as a judge to change laws by herself.
Now lets look at judge Sullivan and the Flynn case.
He is overstepping his authority , charges dropped , documents proove the guy was set up and Sullivan still wants to charge Flynn.

Ok , Karen , you still dont have a argument , nothing was done against the rules 4 years ago .
Now I am sure you would be ok with it all if the positions of the two parties where flipped .

@Flip

It's a weird argument because if you are OK with felons getting guns then you are ok with no restrictions because that is the societal norm. Her take would allow you and I to have machine guns, bazookas, etc. That's why it is an interesting vote. She is more literal than Scolia. She would be the most literal justice on the court.

No you said baseless.

"Now tell me how mine is the same?"

I said you have no argument .

@ea, the guns for ex felons is a debate I always like. I completely see both sides of it.

They didn't break any rules. They just broke from the normal tradition.

I will go very slow for y o u.

HFT argued, “Because it's in the Constitution, The Court reopened October 1st cases have to be settled by nine Judges. If only eight Judges four to four no decision. It just makes for good government. If the election ends up in Court we need a decision from nine Judges.”

Mitch didn’t listen/do what the constitution calls for four years earlier. So HFT cannot use that as an argument as to why he should rush a confirmation this year.

Further more the Constitution does not say that nine members have to be present to have a quorum. The court can hear arguments with eight Justices. His whole argue meant is baseless.

Now tell me how mine is the same?

"Mitch and his fellow Republicans said fuck the Constitution four years ago when the would not process the nomination of Obama. The court had only eight justices for a longer period than they would have now. "

KAREN , YOUR ARGUMENT IS ABOVE !
Now tell me what rules Mitch and the Republicans broke .

"Your argument is baseless.

So is yours !“

Please tell me what my argument is?

“ I see that the critical thinking has kicked in again. One has nothing to do with the other.”

Please explain? How do they not have to do with each other?

“ Political parties interpret things differently.

I see that the critical thinking has kicked in again. One has nothing to do with the other.”

Please explain how they do not

The rush to confirm is to no longer have a swing vote. They already had a 5-4 conservative court. Now they want 6-3. That means no more swing votes. The reality is that the positions that the minority want are now controlled by a minority.

Nearly 80% of the US does not want Roe overturned.

Nearly 75% want stricter gun laws.

Nearly 85% believe citizens was a bad ruling.

The problem that you have is the same crowd that scream no SHARIA law is the same crowd that wants CHRISTIAN law. I want NO religious laws.

The rush to confirm is because they hear the blue tsunami coming.

“ I might be dreaming but a judges job is not to be political . It is to interpret the constitution
If it’s not political? Why the rush to confirm?

Political parties interpret things differently.

I see that the critical thinking has kicked in again. One has nothing to do with the other.

If you look at some of the positions that she has taken, she is an originalist.

Do you know that she wants felons to have guns back?

Do you know that she wants NO restrictions on guns?

"Your argument is baseless."

So is yours !

"I might be dreaming but a judges job is not to be political . It is to interpret the constitution. Amy is a good judge and a good person why would either side block her."

Did you say the same about Scolia?

You know the guy who said, "Get over it" regarding the 2000 election. The originalist who decided to NOT be an originalist over the Bush election?

Yeah nice try.