The cost of Kavanaugh's victory?

You'll get used to it ...

 

Who really gives a damn.

Donald Dork is a MISTAKE of a PotUS, the consequence of a two-century old flaw in the presidential voting system. It's called the Electoral College, and should be done away with. (Given that it manipulates the Popular-Vote for the presidency, which unadulterated is the only bona-fide voting mechanism for any True Democracy.)

Along with Gerrymandering, also a manipulation of the Popular-vote now more than 200 years old that also should be dumped along with the garbage.

But none of this will happen, because the Replicants have a majority of both Legislative Branches and a solid hold on an aging Supreme Court that is there collectively for life.

I can't think of a recipe more potent for a country's Political Stagnation in the hands of Right-wing Knotheads ...

 

And there you are. Just parrot the MSM fake news and when called out for it, deflect.

 

You seem to know a great deal about obsession.

How's it working out for you?

 

I wonder if the haters are actually stupid enough to believe the dirty dossier, or whether they feign stupidity just to have an excuse to forward their power-hungry narrative.

The same question applies to many of their clearly false narratives.

What do you think?

 

This must be the fear of the week. Wonder what we will get this week as we approach election day. The constitution is designed to limit the power of government for very good reasons. Every justice should be a constitutionalist for those very good reasons.

 

It's not the truth that matters to the left, it's the seriousness of the allegations that count.

 

I think if CNN told them Trump was really a Klingon wearing a body cloaking device, sent here to destroy the planet they would buy it hook, line and sinker.

 

Trump has stated publicly that phone security is "too inconvenient".

 

Oh my, indeed. That was already investigated.

Remember that there were various issues on this, including stuff like the fact that material was classified after she had it, she herself had the power to determine security for some material, etc.

You are just butt hurt.

 

Petraeus was shoveling information to a person who had no right to see it.

 

Well I'm glad that you've finally answered. My point is that it is very suspicious that you are aware of "thousands of resolutions" in which all but a few coincide with Republican Party principles.

I'm using Obergefell v Hodges as an example. Do you label the justices that decided that case as "activist justices?" If not, why not?

I don't know why you think that I have the idea that you disagree with Roe v Wade. I do however, have the idea that you think that Shelby County v Holder and Bush v Gore were illegitimate as you've certainly given that impression. Can you confirm if you think that Shelby County v Holder and Bush v Gore were illegitimate?

I'm asking what your understanding is. No leg work that I do can tell me your understanding. So is it your understanding that what was "invoked to prove" is NOT a fact explicitly stated in the text in Bush v Gore and Shelby County v Holder?

Even so, you DID say that the Supreme Court was legislating in Obergefell v Hodges didn't you?

 

Comey, McCabe, Ohr and Rosenstein investigating?

 

She had the clearance to see the documents. The Ruskies and Chinese had no such clearance to see Hillary's emails.

 

hahaha...

I think you have a great point....

 

Those are not the only levels of security.

And, as DoS Hillary had significant discretion concerning document classification. Besides, documents she was accused of holding had been classified AFTER she had held them.

That's why nobody complained when DoS C. Rice did the same thing.

 

You don't know civic class or American history?

 

She had corrupt democrats who would not indict her even though it was obvious.

 

WTF???

Republicans were the ones who refused to investigate her.

You aren't making sense.

 

If you're talking about Condi, then she never did the same thing.

 

She had a secret or top secret clearance.

Ones she should have classified.....but didn't because of her insecure server.

 

You are making no sense. But I don't think it's relevant, so... don't worry about it.

Look. You are completely confused. An activist judge is one who actively seeks to create legislation instead of following established law. How in the world would I know if those in the majority opinion are activist judges or not? Obergfell was completely based on established llaw. Not on political preferences. Heller was not. I would consider "activist judge"he one who consistently or blatantly and shamelessly rules on anything other than established law, basic logic and/or facts.

Youir question makes it obvious that you didn't know what "activist judge" means.

Now, here is my question to you. And I expect an answer. Why didn't you look up what "activist judge" (or justice) means before asking this question?

Please respond.

No! They are legitimate. Because the Constitution legitimately gives the Supreme Court the legitimate right to decide the cases brought before them. Therefore, Bush v Gore, Heller, Citizens United.... and many others.... they are all decisions I disagree with, but they are the legitimate Law of the Land. So, since you don't bother to research and make sure you understand the terms you use, you keep asking the wrong questions.

So let's do this.... read you posts, and make sure you understand the meaning of the terms you use. And then get back to me with some legitimate questions. If you have any/

And remember to answer the question I asked above.

 

Oh, good lord.

You're running on empty partisan hate.

 

You think that the vast majority of resolutions coincide with Republican Party principles. Correct?

Well wouldn't you say that ALL of those in the majority opinion in Obergefell are NOT activist justices due to the fact that it was "completely based on established law?"

How is the 2nd Amendment NOT "established law?" The key in Heller was the INTERPRETATION of the established law of the 2nd Amendment!

And so would I!

Why do you assume that I didn't look it up? I've not shown any ambiguation towards what an activist judge is, just why you think that some are and some aren't activist judges.

Alright, that's pretty clear. However, it just seems that you think that your opinion on the cases that you disagree with, is the only opinion that is legitimate based on your own interpretation of law. Are you not willing to say that your interpretation of law MIGHT be wrong?

Even so, you DID say that the Supreme Court was legislating in Obergefell v Hodges didn't you?

 

I do not. Would you expect anything different from the average non-US citizen?