The cost of Kavanaugh's victory?

So the non-Republican judges have never followed the DEMOCRAT agenda above any other consideration?

So the liberal judges are also responsible for gutting the Civil Rights Act?

You mean ex-cons?

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

What the hell is that if not prescribing "the right of the people to keep and bear arms?"

After saying that to you about one million times, you've finally responded with this! Why didn't you respond with it the first time? Great movie!

Why? And I was actually asking what the disadvantage is of states not being able to handle their own election results.

Yes and their political persuasion could include having an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. What would be wrong with that?

So something always has to have precedent in order for it to be law? Surely you can't be serious.

Let me refresh your memory:

So you went from backlash to adverse reaction and adverse reaction to political payback. Quite ridiculous really. Why can't you just say what you mean instead of coming up with alternative definitions?

By the way, how does the Supreme Court threaten Obamacare?

 

Not that I'm aware of. I can't account for all justices (not judges) in history.

Actually.... once in which it could be interpreted that way. And that was on Roe v Wade. Not on the final decision, but on its reach. The main decision itself was based on precedent and sound reasoning. But some aspects seem to me to have been overreaching not based on precedent or science or... any objective aspect. At least as far as I could tell... I understand the arguments as to why they did it that way, though.

There are no liberal justices. Question already answered.

No, I don't mean ex-cons.

Well-regulated militias don't exist anymore. They are no longer necessary for the security of a free state..

You would need to ignore the rest to even conceivably conclude that.

Leslie Nielsen is a great.

It's the only way to change the Constitution. Advantages and disadvantages of doing that is a completely different topic. Unless you're asking for the disadvantage of not abiding by the Constitution in one particular state for purely partisan reasons.

No idea where you got the idea that our forefathers wanted justices to rule based on their partisan preferences.

Remember: I don't respond to statements you ascribe to me which I haven't made.

Because I mean a backlash. Who knows what form it will take. That depends on the political environment at that moment, I guess. And on the specific action or actions by the partisan justices.

By legislating (which is something they shouldn't be doing in the first place) against it. If Republicans keep insisting on trying to find ways to overturn it.

 

The right to keep and bear Bear arms is not contingent on the militia it is a right of the individual citizen.

 

I think it was both Obama and GW Bush (and probably Trump, but that's just my musing). Evidence for Obama and GW Bush.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2013/03/01/obama-laments-that-hes-not-a-dictator
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8221-if-this-were-a-dictatorship-it-would-be-a-heck

 

Not as written in the Constitution.

 

The Bill of Right is a partial listing of citizens' rights, not of government rights.

 

Wrong.

Precisely as it is written in the constitution as any person who is functionally literate knows.

 

Keep trying. I'm sure if you look hard enough you'll find a thread in which that comment is relevant.

 

So your excuse is that the Trump mandate not to believe what you read extends also to COTUS?

 

He has no such mandate and the second amendment clearly proves you wrong.

 

A Lawsuit is being brought that would end the pre-existing conditions rule and it will end up in front of the Supreme Court.

The Trump Justice Department has said that they won't even argue for the law if it does.

 

Sorry, which part of my post are you responding to? There was quite a bit in my post!

 

The very last line.

I suggest you make your posts simpler. They seem to confuse even you

 

Simpler? What is complicated about section by section responses?

I'm not confused, I just had no idea what part you were responding to. How was I supposed to know what part you were responding to? I suggest you make your replies clearer, by only quoting the parts of posts that you are responding to. That way, the person that you are responding to can know what you are responding to!

 

What about Obergefell v Hodges?

Sure you can't be serious. Okay, what are they then if not Republican?

Then who the hell are you referring to that cannot vote?

In your opinion. Do you think that your opinion should've been the opinion in Columbia v Heller?

How did Bush v Gore change the Constitution?

When did I say that the "forefathers wanted justices to rule based on their partisan preferences?" What I said was that these "republican" justices in your mind, could have "an originalist interpretation of the Constitution" which is what could explain them all voting as a "block."

Fine. When do you think something requires precedent in order to be law?

You don't think that the Supreme Court should be legislating? So then you disagree with Roe v Wade and Obergefell v Hodges?

 

If you don't agree that the American Citizen's Bill of Rights is relevant to the debate, you either don't know what you're talking about or you aren't honest.

 

-"Just remember what you’re seeing and what you're reading is not what’s happening" -Donald Trump

You follow it well.

 

Denial runs deep with you.

 

No you do.

The second amendment proves you wrong and does so absolutely

 

Just out if curiosity...

1.When you read 2A, what right do you think it protects, and who's right do you think is being protected.

2. What other Amendments in the Bill of Rights do you think do not guarantee a specific right to American citizens.

 

What about it?

I don't know. Who cares? That's besides the point.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/11/north-carolina-early-voting/506963/
For example...

That's not an opinion.

I don't know what you're talking about.

Then I have no idea what you mean by "oriiginalist interpretation"

Congress can make into law whatever it wants (almost). SCOTUS cannot (or should not).

I don't disagree with Roe v Wade. Read again. Obergefell v. Hodges simply clarifies laws that were already established.

 

The Bill of Rights is relevant. Your comment isn't.

 

I don't have to "think" any of that. It says it right there. Explicitly. I think the amendment means exactly what it says. No more, and most definitely no less.

Making your argument in the form of a question does not make it any more relevant to this debate.

 

You go to a lot of effort to avoid saying anything specific.

Why don't you try explaining what you mean instead of complaining when other people give an explanation.

 

Was Obergefell v Hodges not a Democrats agenda?

Your problem is that you are attaching the "Republican" label to all of the judges that you don't like, while not applying the same standard of label attaching to the other judges,
who you either DO like or are indifferent to. Is that not a gross double standard?

What is the problem with introducing laws which prevent voter fraud? And what is it about minority communities
that make it difficult for them to vote just like everyone else who have to abide by the exact same voter laws?

What's not an opinion? That "well-regulated militias don't exist anymore" or that "they are no longer necessary for the security of a free state?" The later is certainly not a fact,
but it will be hilarious if you try to claim that it is!

Are you saying that Bush v Gore is unconstitutional because there wasn't a Constitutional Amendment? If so, which part of the Constitution is it in conflict with?

What's funny is that you are against Shelby County v Holder because it meant that states are given voting law freedom without federal interference, but you are against Bush v Gore because states are NOT given voting law freedom WITH federal interference. Is that not a bit inconsistent?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism

I mean in light of you saying that SCOTUS shouldn't be legislating.

What laws were already established that said that two people of the same sex can marry?