This Court Opening Terrorizes Me, President Trump’s Legacy on the Line...

This scares me...

Every single time the Republicans get power they blow it.

They switch from the economy, what they do extremely well.

To Social issues where they look like the rich white guys club.

They convince themselves the are the moral majority.

The White Guy Club will attack abortion and look ridiculous.

I hope these guys understand it truly is “the economy stupid”.

People don’t want to be told how to live their lives.

This is why I am fiscal conservative and a social liberal.

I hope Trump keeps some balance on the Court.

I hope Trump keeps laser beam focus on the economy.

I hope he continues his foreign policy.

And more than anything hopes he stays out of peoples bedrooms...

originally posted by: whyamIhere


This is why I am fiscal conservative and a social liberal.

Me too - - actually.

Although, I also support the logical progression of a United World (NO, not the NWO conspiracy variety).

Please don’t be scared! Find a safe space, maybe with some cookies and warm milk. Look at pictures of puppies and kittens, it will all be okay.
No worries the big boys have the helm, MAGA!! USA! USA!

originally posted by: whyamIhere
This scares me...

Every single time the Republicans get power they blow it.

They switch from the economy, what they do extremely well.

To Social issues where they look like the rich white guys club.

They convince themselves the are the moral majority.

The White Guy Club will attack abortion and look ridiculous.

I hope these guys understand it truly is “the economy stupid”.

People don’t want to be told how to live their lives.

This is why I am fiscal conservative and a social liberal.

I hope Trump keeps some balance on the Court.

I hope Trump keeps laser beam focus on the economy.

I hope he continues his foreign policy.

And more than anything hopes he stays out of peoples bedrooms...

LOL. You can't seriously think Trump is going to consider anything on your list as 'untouchable' can you?

We're going to get a Gorsuch equivalent or even more right leaning. Maybe Pierro, Maybe Guiliani, but I 110% promise you they will not be any farther left than Scalia was.

We will see Roe V. Wade overturned or defanged to the point of nothing within his term (and it will be the rally cry for the next presidential election)....

originally posted by: WUNK22
Please don’t be scared! Find a safe space, maybe with some cookies and warm milk. Look at pictures of puppies and kittens, it will all be okay.
No worries the big boys have the helm, MAGA!! USA! USA!

NO!

This administration is taking us back to the dark ages.

At 72 years of age - - I'm gonna kick, scream, and VOTE - - to move forward - - not backwards.

a reply to: Annee

"Forward" and "backward" is an illusion propped up by our currently long/good run on planet Earth. The reality is Trump is less of a danger to humanity, even at his worst, than disease and space rocks slamming into the planet.

That said, im concerned about Trumps pick, too. I think Bush completely blew it with his laughable efforts, and thought Sotomayor was just not a decent fit.

Im afraid Trump is going to put a crony in there that has no place in the judiciary.

Yupa reply to: Annee

a reply to: whyamIhere

Wow, that's a very reasonable and honest post whyamIhere.

Yes, so many of our friends here are celebrating ... and you see exactly what they are focused on?

Destroy Roe v. Wade. Destroy Obergefell. Go after climate change, voting rights, affirmative action, etc. etc.

It's magnificent for precisely the reasons you outlined.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You know...i am quite prolife. Even with that said, i don't want Roe v Wade overturned. I don't think we have enough information one way or the other, and see no need to upend society on a 50 year old debate that relies on 50 year old points.

a reply to: whyamIhere

I just hope that he finds someone who will put aside political ideology and instead be constitutionalist in nature.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Gryphon66

You know...i am quite prolife. Even with that said, i don't want Roe v Wade overturned. I don't think we have enough information one way or the other, and see no need to upend society on a 50 year old debate that relies on 50 year old points.

If I were in a position in which it was my choice to abort or not, I absolutely would choose not to abort.

Other people will have different life circumstaces and must have the right to choose because the alternatives are all horrifying.

For example, how exactly are they going to justify making abortion illegal? They will have to encode in law that a woman doesn't have full rights and control over her body. Further, they will probably overreact and do something really stupid like declaring a zygote a person. Have you ever really thought about what that will mean? The body naturally aborts around 50% of fertilized ova. What happens when a choice has to be made between the life of the fetus with full personhood and the mother?

... and all that irrationality is only the start.

a reply to: whyamIhere

When I read horsecrap like this I can't help but think "why even bother with "balance" when it simply doesn't matter?" Anthony Kennedy was a good Justice. He wasn't a partisan justice, he simply recognized a basic fact: the Court is NOT for legislation from the bench, it's to test legislation against the Constitution. For being "that guy" he manages to get ridiculed by the left on his way to retirement for being "trash" due to his conservative siding voting record 50% of the time.

As far as I'm concerned, the next appointee may as well be everything the left fears most rolled into a single justice and may that justice be in his mid 40s, with the physical constitution of a plow mule and the health habits of a teetotaler.

There are current SCOTUS decisions which need to be relooked at, including Roe V Wade and federally legalized gay marriage. Progress sometimes involves taking a step backward to correct the course after discovering you made a wrong turn.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: whyamIhere

I just hope that he finds someone who will put aside political ideology and instead be constitutionalist in nature.

I will give you even odds that he'll nominate Jeanine Pirro (ed. or someone similar).

Trump believes in rewarding those who are loyal.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I really do hope you are 1000% correct, Mr. Burdman.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
For example, how exactly are they going to justify making abortion illegal? They will have to encode in law that a woman doesn't have full rights and control over her body.

Isn't this already essentially the case when you consider the laws making drug use, prostitution, and even suicide illegal are already on the books and unchanged by any past court rulings, though? The law is inconsistent at best. They need to reach some manner of consistency... either Americans have full rights over their own bodies or they don't, but let's be done with this picking and choosing tomfoolery.

Needs to be someone right of center...because...Constitution.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I agree completely.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I really do hope you are 1000% correct, Mr. Burdman.

The funny thing here is that I'm not opposed to gay rights and I'm certainly not opposed to women's health issues being supported... I am, however, utterly done with the picking and choosing of which groups shall we placate today while viewing it as a rubber band where some other group previously coddled to must take a boot to the ass in exchange for the new groups' placations.

For example, I don't think it was all that out of line for the gay marriage ruling, as written, to open the door to the question "OK, so on what grounds are we continuing to federally ban polygamy, now?" Same with the "their body, their choice" ruling on abortion... why does that choice magically start and stop where the life growing inside a woman ends and the topic delves into choosing to take drugs, choosing to lay with men (or women) for money, or simply choosing to end your own life?

We need to take some steps backwards and pick up some of the multitude of issues that were left behind with these landmark rulings, in my opinion.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Star avalanche for that post if I could!!

That's EXACTLY what's needed!!

This faux-partisan crap has gotta' go on the SCOTUS! That was never what the SCOTUS was intended to be!

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: whyamIhere

When I read horsecrap like this I can't help but think "why even bother with "balance" when it simply doesn't matter?" Anthony Kennedy was a good Justice. He wasn't a partisan justice, he simply recognized a basic fact: the Court is NOT for legislation from the bench, it's to test legislation against the Constitution. For being "that guy" he manages to get ridiculed by the left on his way to retirement for being "trash" due to his conservative siding voting record 50% of the time.

As far as I'm concerned, the next appointee may as well be everything the left fears most rolled into a single justice and may that justice be in his mid 40s, with the physical constitution of a plow mule and the health habits of a teetotaler.

There are current SCOTUS decisions which need to be relooked at, including Roe V Wade and federally legalized gay marriage. Progress sometimes involves taking a step backward to correct the course after discovering you made a wrong turn.

There was a day the Supreme Court called balls and strikes.

It is there solely to protect our precious Constitution.

When it turns into a partisan food fight it cheapens the Republic.

I totally understand the feeling of some to rub the dems nose in it.

I hope those people find a different issue.

The Court always has and should always be for serious people.