Cont: The Trump Presidency VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brainiac said:
If Obama's Presidency didn't accomplish very much (in other words, if Obama's Presidency didn't effect significant change), then why did Trump need to #MAGA?
Click to expand...

Didn’t accomplish much that was good? Is that better?

Maybe if he didn’t govern so much by his pen and phone it wouldn’t be so easy to dismantle his wrong accomplishments?
 
logger said:
I don’t think it would be productive to explain something so simple as this.
Click to expand...

TRANSLATION: "I can't explain what I mean, so I'll project my inability to articulate onto you."

Now, can you explain why the views of a group of 18th Century Liberals should continue to be used without change?

Society is not stagnant, so why should legal interpretation? The underlying premise of the authors of the CONUS - that individual liberty is something that should be cherished and protected - can be used as a basis of interpretation, but there is no reason to claim that the CONUS is a piece of holy writ that once written can never be changed or altered.
 
logger said:
Didn’t accomplish much that was good? Is that better?

Maybe if he didn’t govern so much by his pen and phone it wouldn’t be so easy to dismantle his wrong accomplishments?
Click to expand...

Largest number of executive orders issued by President Obama in any year of his presidency - 41 (average was 35)

Number of executive orders issued by President Trump in the first year of his presidency - 55

Pot, meet kettle :rolleyes:
 
logger said:
Geez, you found me out! Of course I don’t look at my side as partisan extremists. All I want them to do is interpret the constitution as our founders intended.

Do you think that is extreme?
Click to expand...

That's not what you said. You said:

(1) Qualifications don't matter.
(2) A potential judge's political leanings are what matter.
(3) Garland was one of the nominees you judge to be too extreme for Republicans to move forward on.

Points 1 and 2 are matters of opinion. Most people will disagree with you on both of those points (at least the people who aren't partisan hacks).

Point 3 is demonstrably false. Garland was a moderate, and everyone knows why McConnell sabotaged his confirmation.
 
logger said:
All I want them to do is interpret the constitution as our founders intended.
Click to expand...

Since the constitution was originally intended only to be the articles and the first 10 amendments, does this mean that you are in favour of repealing all subsequent amendments?
 
Good afternoon SezMe
SezMe said:
How do you know it is evening when Craig4 reads your message?
Click to expand...
For the most part, it isn't possible to know when someone might read someone's post. My greeting gives some indication of when I wrote it. Sorry if that's confusing or annoying. :-)
 
Wonder how Trump feels about his new Bestie after his speech that criticised trumps 'America First' and both his stance on Climate Change and Iran?
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Since the constitution was originally intended only to be the articles and the first 10 amendments, does this mean that you are in favour of repealing all subsequent amendments?
Click to expand...

Those amendments were added constitutionally.

I would be in favor of the federal government bound by the enumerated powers.

You?
 
Border Reiver said:
TRANSLATION: "I can't explain what I mean, so I'll project my inability to articulate onto you."

Now, can you explain why the views of a group of 18th Century Liberals should continue to be used without change?

Society is not stagnant, so why should legal interpretation? The underlying premise of the authors of the CONUS - that individual liberty is something that should be cherished and protected - can be used as a basis of interpretation, but there is no reason to claim that the CONUS is a piece of holy writ that once written can never be changed or altered.
Click to expand...

Translation... my time is valuable.
 
Brainiac said:
That's not what you said. You said:

(1) Qualifications don't matter.
Click to expand...

Because of politics
(2) A potential judge's political leanings are what matter.
Click to expand...
Because politics drives their decisions when they’re on the left.
(3) Garland was one of the nominees you judge to be too extreme for Republicans to move forward on.
Click to expand...

No, he’s going to mostly rule with the left.
Points 1 and 2 are matters of opinion. Most people will disagree with you on both of those points (at least the people who aren't partisan hacks).
Click to expand...
Most will not disagree, most are not in the middle.
Point 3 is demonstrably false. Garland was a moderate, and everyone knows why McConnell sabotaged his confirmation.
Click to expand...

Agreed, it was a brilliant and bold move.

Now, I am going to wait till you answer my question. Is interpreting our constitution as our founders intended extreme?
 
Here’s a great example of the left trying to legislate from the bench. This travel ban is at the sole discretion of the president as is anything on immigration. The leftist give away their act as they pepper the solicitor general with heart wrenching hypotheticals. None of that matters under the law. If they don’t like what the president is doing congress should change the law. They cannot do it from the bench!!!

http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/25/supreme-court-trump-travel-ban/
 
logger said:
Now, I am going to wait till you answer my question. Is interpreting our constitution as our founders intended extreme?
Click to expand...

No. Wanting a SC Justice who interprets the constitution as the founders intended isn't extreme, and it doesn't make someone a partisan extremist.

Insisting that a political litmus test for a Supreme Court Justice is more important than qualifications or competence is extreme. THAT is what makes makes someone a partisan extremist.
 
Brainiac said:
Insisting that a political litmus test for a Supreme Court Justice is more important than qualifications or competence is extreme. THAT is what makes makes someone a partisan extremist.
Click to expand...

What qualifications are you suggesting?

Every SC justice has been through this litmus test. That makes everyone in the advise and consent category an extreme partisan? :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom