President Trump May Have a Profound Affect on the Supreme Court for the Next 30 Years...

a reply to: Snarl

Don't forget GOP has control of the Senate.

a reply to: Outlier13

couldnt have said it better myself. I didnt vote for trump and am not a fan. He totally pisses me off on Cannabis and states rights which he hasnt moved on like he signaled he would do during his campaign......but im cautiously optimistic about him. We arent at war yet and hopefully the deep state wont get its way on that one. Im not sure what to believe about trump on whether or not he is truly an anti interventionist or if hes able to bow to the pressure of the deep state and maybe deal with some threats on his family.....i mean who really knows whats going on in there man....we seriously have NO CLUE.

i know if i was potus and i knew even what i know NOW, forget with this clearance, and wat the deep state is able to do to you.....you would have to be willing to risk EVERYTHING to go against that and all im saying is how do we know hes willing to put his family on the line? Look at the kennedys...either by assassination or just bad luck that poor family has been just ruined!

so im not sure what to believe honestly...i dont trust people/humans that much....

anyway, balance is always good i guess...assuming it doesnt destroy you trying to get to the balance point!

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: Grambler

yup, good thing the "will of the people" wants to give out massive tax breaks to the wealthiest, and cut out those silly banking rules, and make the EPA safe for businesses to pollute, and throw granny out of her nursing home, and making sure poor people don't have a pot to piss in....."ahhhh...I love the smell of napalm in the morning"

I think your hyperbolic and over simplified view of what people want is sad.

Once more, an example of an elitsits who feels that the peons don't know whats best, and therefore the almighty courts should decide the law.

Well lets hope your mentality loses for your sake, because if Trump does appoint 2 or 3 more judges, and they decide to legislate laws from the bench, Liberals may have almost no say for 20 years.

originally posted by: iWontGiveUP
a reply to: scojak

It wasn't Michele, but the purse is correct

Touché

Touche't and I'll raise you one Touche't

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: Grambler

yup, good thing the "will of the people" wants to give out massive tax breaks to the wealthiest, and cut out those silly banking rules, and make the EPA safe for businesses to pollute, and throw granny out of her nursing home, and making sure poor people don't have a pot to piss in....."ahhhh...I love the smell of napalm in the morning"

I think your hyperbolic and over simplified view of what people want is sad.

Once more, an example of an elitsits who feels that the peons don't know whats best, and therefore the almighty courts should decide the law.

Well lets hope your mentality loses for your sake, because if Trump does appoint 2 or 3 more judges, and they decide to legislate laws from the bench, Liberals may have almost no say for 20 years.

so what did I say that you don't think would pass muster with a right-wing court?....they only rule on the constitutionality of legislation, and everything I said IS NOT in violation of the constitution.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: Grambler

yup, good thing the "will of the people" wants to give out massive tax breaks to the wealthiest, and cut out those silly banking rules, and make the EPA safe for businesses to pollute, and throw granny out of her nursing home, and making sure poor people don't have a pot to piss in....."ahhhh...I love the smell of napalm in the morning"

I think your hyperbolic and over simplified view of what people want is sad.

Once more, an example of an elitsits who feels that the peons don't know whats best, and therefore the almighty courts should decide the law.

Well lets hope your mentality loses for your sake, because if Trump does appoint 2 or 3 more judges, and they decide to legislate laws from the bench, Liberals may have almost no say for 20 years.

so what did I say that you don't think would pass muster with a right-wing court?....they only rule on the constitutionality of legislation, and everything I said IS NOT in violation of the constitution.

I guess maybe a misread your post. Were you being sarcastic when you said alkl of those things is the will of the people?

My point is the activists judges, particularly in places like the 9th circuit, seek to legislate from the bench, and in doing such usurp the will of the people who do not get to vote on these judges.

But if I am reading you right, yes, congress currently does not follow the will of the people, they have ceded much power to the other two branches.

However, if courts go back to their original role, perhaps congress will to, and then the people can vote for legislators that will actually pass policy they approve of.

originally posted by: Grambler
Reading some of the decisions from today I so far really like Gorsuch. He seems to be an originalist that is very bright.

Truthfully, I feel the Scotus has too much power. I would like to see the legislative branch, which is the branch closets to the people, start to be more effective in their job. It seems they are near irrelevant at this point, with the executive deciding things such as wars, immigration policy, etc, and the Scotus and other courts legislating from the bench.

To any democrats or left leaning people that fear Trump shifting the direction of the court;

Don't worry too much. Instead of relying on activist judges, you need only win elections and get laws passed, amendments if need be.

This is a better system because it reflects the will of the people better than activists judges like those on the 9th circuit that feel it is their job to make law.

For a such a young man, such fantastic ideals
Your future is brite

originally posted by: Plotus

originally posted by: iWontGiveUP
a reply to: scojak

It wasn't Michele, but the purse is correct

Touché

Touche't and I'll raise you one Touche't

Doubt they'll be another group photo op
Anytime soon... ...



Trump that!

originally posted by: iWontGiveUP

originally posted by: Plotus

originally posted by: iWontGiveUP
a reply to: scojak

It wasn't Michele, but the purse is correct

Touché

Touche't and I'll raise you one Touche't

Doubt they'll be another group photo op
Anytime soon... ...

Trump that!

a reply to: whyamIhere

I'm hearing trump will be nominating two more SC justices by the end of the year. Then if RBG croaks or retires, another in his 1st term. He'd have named 4 justices! The court would be conservative for a generation.