We need to stop appointing attorneys to SCOTUS....

I didn't just say "non-judges". I said "non-attorneys". And the lowest that anybody can find we already have as President.

BTW, who's Obama?

 

[QUOTE="PatriotNews, post: 1072086198, member: 4234"Unlike politicians from both parties that have sold us out to international globalist elites,[/QUOTE]
And Trump is the elite they sold us TO. He simply eliminated the middle-man.

Yeah... our economy is doing just great!

Question to the rest: Imagine people who see the economy crumbling, and insist it's doing great. People who see fires, floods, hurricanes, .... everything that was predicted 20 years ago by science, and STILL deny science. The same people who see a President lying every time he opens his mouth and still defend every word he says. Or that he's a criminal with no regards for the country, for the constitution and who calls them, his own supporters, "disgusting". What word would be appropriate to refer to that hypothetical type of supporters?

 

OK so you were never going to make an argument. You were leaning on your link, which I had already read and did not come even close to answering my question. It's as a suspected. I guess you did the best you could with a bad hand.

 

Science is not allowing lumber companies to thin the forests and cut fire breaks be cause of idiotic environmental wackos and then expecting them not to go up in flames? This isn't due to global warming. This is due to stupid environmentalists doing the opposite of what is good for the environment.

These fires were caused by high winds and down power lines, then more recently a rare thunderstorm. But we are on fire once again, and this time it is not caused by lightning or power lines. It is IMO, leftist agitators.

Sorry you took this off topic. That's what happens with this Trump hate.

 

So you say I'm never going to make an argument, and I'm leaning on the link where I make my argument.

Uh huh..

Oh wow! I must have psychic powers. How else could I have known and announced beforehand that you would act as if I hadn't sent the link that answered your question?

Fact is, I made my point. You didn't even address my arguments. As expected, you simply denied I made them. End of a very predictable story.

Thanks for playing.

 

You never made an argument. You just said "look at my link!" The link? A definition of the word "arms." The end.

You simply don't know how to state an argument. Then think it's my problem that I can't translate your incoherence. My suspicion is that you thought you would bail out of this long before being asked to actually state an argument, and got caught flat footed.

Well I at least made a good faith effort to engage you, but you simply made that impossible.

 

I know what you said and I said to be careful what you wish for. My idea sounded good in theory until it resulted in a Kagan.

Some Kenyan guy. Think he is supposed to be on Dancing With the Stars next year.

 

The ORIGINALIST definition of the word "arms". What kind of "originalist" justice would use anything other than the original meaning of the word? There is a reason why the word "original" is contained within the term "originalist".

Anyway...

 

Oh... you mean the justice who has recused herself every time there might be even a hint of a conflict of interest in a ruling?

Yeah... when you show somebody like Thomas (who has ruled more than a few times in cases with conflict of interest involving his wife) doing the same then maybe we can take you seriously.

Thanks anyway....

 

Do you still think you're making an argument? You've yet to demonstrate what Scalia did. So...still nothing.

 

a hint? She was literally arguing for the Obama admin prior to getting appointed...she's the only Justice on the Bench that was never a actual Judge...she was Obama and biden's lawyer....

Justice Thomas has not done that.

 

He'll probably try that if he thinks he'll lose the election. A guaranteed job for life, with a bunch of cronies who won't impeach him in Congress?

 

LOL She recused herself in cases that were already in the pipeline during her brief tenure as Solicitor General. Other than that, she is just a bland partisan hack of a justice who won't write an opinion unless the other justices force her to.

 

This is the reason why I told you that if you wanted to get into this debate, you would need to start by reading the Scalia gun legislation (a.k.a. "Heller") Expecting me to read it to you would be a waste of time.

 

What's wrong with arguing for the Obama administration prior to getting appointed and recusing herself on the cases she argued after she was appointed?

That's the decent thing to do. Compare that to Barr's corrupt defense of the Criminal in Chief.

 

notbjng she should

barr isn’t a judge hearing a case...if he was appointed he should. Not sure why you are talking about him or trump

defense? criminal? you just sound confused

 

You need arguments, quotes, links,... Simply... saying it, does not carry much weight. Especially not from somebody who supports a criminal President like this one, who has no use for the Constitution.

 

You are the one proclaiming she recuses herself all the time. It simply is not true just as your claim that I support Trump.

 

No. It's even worse! He's prosecuting it.

Or, rather, refusing to... Actually even worse than that... he's defending the criminals.

A prosecutor who defends proven criminals... you can't find anything worse than that. That's not even conflict of interest. It's outright corruption!

 

Quote where I said she recuses herself "all the time". Or retract!

 

huh? he's the AG...that's what they do....what are you even talking about?

What proven criminals is the prosecutor defending? You just seem to be going off on rant after your prior post were debunked

 

Despite COVID it is gathering steam far faster than leftists want, yes? The fiscal quarter should show major across the board improvements, except in housing affected by widespread unemployment and evictions.

 

He's still gobsmacked by all those trustworthy Mexican-American voters suddenly catching wise as a group.

 

Well then you have no idea how to make an argument in that case. So far, your entire argument has been:

a. read this definition of arms

b. Now, read Scalia's opinion. The end I win.

That's not an argument. I've argued court cases on this forum before, probably none more than Citizen's United. But it's not an argument for me to say, read the Citizen's United decision. I win! Yah me! Maybe the exception would be the "corporations are people" line.


The fact this has gone this long without you ever making an argument means you don't have one and never did, or you could have actually made that argument by now. Just go back to your idea that your feelings should decide court decisions or whatever goofy thing you believe.

 

No it's not! AGs are not the President's personal attorney. What are you talking about?

You don't know what AG is?