Dan T. Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Who knew Christopher Lloyd changed his name to Bernie Sanders? Maybe we should do a Presidential Candidate Look-a-Like thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tshile Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Oh Hillary's Supreme Court....well guess she fails her own litmus test LOL. She is a gem. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/268174-clinton-i-have-a-bunch-of-litmus-tests-for-supreme-court Granted I'm new to this whole politics thing and don't pay attention to every single aspect of it, but I can't remember a serious candidate so openly saying - I will pick a justice that agrees with my viewpoint (well it's clinton, so it's only currently her viewpoint) on very specific topics. I mean, we know they do that at least to a certain extent, but i thought most of them at least attempted to hide behind "the most qualified" sort of speak. This is outright - I will try to stack the court with people wil believe x, y and z. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Hillary = more Ginsbergs/Sotomayors. Rubio = more Roberts/Kennedys Cruz = more Thomas/Scalias Trump???? Maybe Mark Cuban and Jimmy Fallon I'm not up to speed on current far left jurists, so I have no idea who Bernie would appoint. Make no mistake about it though, this is the ACTUAL most important issue of the campaign. Sadly, most people don't understand it. Not shocking. Hillary played the Vagina card. Just shocked that it came this early. As far as Cruz, he is the only one in the race I know of that actually helped choose a Chief Justice.(Roberts) perhaps he would choose differently if it was purely his choice, but he seems to have great respect for the constitution and rule of law unlike the yahoo in office Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rskins06 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Maybe we should do a Presidential Candidate Look-a-Like thread. That could get really amusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Do you think Hillary will appoint a Judge like Scalia or Ginsberg? Ginsberg is not like Scalia. She is not the liberal equivalent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PF Chang Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 The blubbery face of Ted Cruz versus This Pokemon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Do you think Hillary will appoint a Judge like Scalia or Ginsberg? I'll tell you, Theres probably 2 or so SC decisions where I can tell you how some Justice ruled. I can tell you Scalia was a moron in Hobby Lobby. (Going so far as to flat out state that he will only rule this way when it involves religions he likes). And I'm pretty sure that Robert's was equally partisan, but he at least tried to make it look like he was paying attention to precedent. And that Scalia was equally a moron with the gay marriage decision. And that's about it. So, no, I certainly hope that Hillary (or anybody else) will never appoint a Scalia. The man's a poster child for people who want to say that Justices should serve terms. (A notion which I do not support. I'm just saying that, if I did support it, he's the example I'd use.) So let's give you a chance to educate me. (Remember, I started by asking you a question. Which, I observe, you haven't answered). Could you point me at some recent SC decisions where you think that the "liberal justices" rulings on the decision were not only wrong, but were damaging enough to justify that comment of yours, that started this discussion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Ginsberg is not like Scalia. She is not the liberal equivalent. 2 Americas I'll tell you, Theres probably 2 or so SC decisions where I can tell you how some Justice ruled. I can tell you Scalia was a moron in Hobby Lobby. (Going so far as to flat out state that he will only rule this way when it involves religions he likes). And I'm pretty sure that Robert's was equally partisan, but he at least tried to make it look like he was paying attention to precedent. And that Scalia was equally a moron with the gay marriage decision. And that's about it. So, no, I certainly hope that Hillary (or anybody else) will never appoint a Scalia. The man's a poster child for people who want to say that Justices should serve terms. (A notion which I do not support. I'm just saying that, if I did support it, he's the example I'd use.) So let's give you a chance to educate me. (Remember, I started by asking you a question. Which, I observe, you haven't answered). Could you point me at some recent SC decisions where you think that the "liberal justices" rulings on the decision were not only wrong, but were damaging enough to justify that comment of yours, that started this discussion? 2 Americas. Its impossible to have this debate with you guys because you come from a position that there is a right and a wrong when it's really just about political philosophy. The fact that you can call Scalia a moron instead of an ideologue is telling. I don't think Any of them are morons. But I do know the kind of Justices I want to see replace those that retire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 2 America's sounds a lot like the Mitt's 47% comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 2 Americas 2 Americas. Its impossible to have this debate with you guys because you come from a position that there is a right and a wrong when it's really just about political philosophy. The fact that you can call Scalia a moron instead of an ideologue is telling. I don't think Any of them are morons. But I do know the kind of Justices I want to see replace those that retire. Is there a Supreme Court case called 2 Americas? Even if you don't want to debate them, I think Larry asked a good question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I think the Courts ruling on Obamacare was an outrage. And I would support any candidate who would use that as a litmus test, IE- Would you have ruled the other way? Then you qualify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I think the Courts ruling on Obamacare was an outrage. And I would support any candidate who would use that as a litmus test, IE- Would you have ruled the other way? Then you qualify. Really? You're "outraged" that the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government has the power to levy taxes? Are you posting from the Malheur Wildlife Refuge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Really? You're "outraged" that the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government has the power to levy taxes? Are you posting from the Malheur Wildlife Refuge? Exactly why I don't think it's possible to argue this point with you guys. No, Im outraged that the Court ruled something to be a tax, that is not a tax, nor something that was ever claimed to be a tax until it became apparent to the left that if it WASNT a tax, that the whole Obamacare disaster would fall apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Really? You're "outraged" that the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government has the power to levy taxes? Are you posting from the Malheur Wildlife Refuge? Larry, I think he's talking about the ruling with respect to the exchanges. The law clearly states that subsidies should only go the states where they have established exchanges. I'm not quite sure of the reasoning of the logic behind that when the law was written, but that's what the law states (clearly they wanted to force/encourage states to open up their own exchanges, but I'm not sure of why). The executive branch decided to ignore that part of the law. The Supreme Court decided to go along with it. Do you really not think that's an issue? (**EDIT** Looking at his response, maybe I got the wrong decision, but I think in general with respect to Obamacare the decisions have been very political in nature. Though, I'm not sure that's really dependent on political party when you get beyond Obamacare. It seems that appointees from all sides are making politicial calculations when deciding certain cases.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I think that's a HUGE issue. However, I don't think it's an issue of right and wrong. I believe that all people, even SCOTUS Justices, have political bias. And that bias HAS to affect their opinions and rulings. I think defending "your side" as somehow being more just or holding some moral high ground is insane. Scalia is absolutely a right wing theocrat in my opinion. And will rule that way. But it is interesting to note the number of justices over the past 50 years appointed by GOP Presidents that were liberal Justices compared to the number appointed by Dem Presidents that were Conservative. The GOP is late to the game of packing the court with absolute known idealogues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 ONLY the large Pharma company budgets on R&D add up to tens of billions of dollars a year. The ENTIRE NIH budget is about $30 million. I assume that's a typo. The entire NIH budget is $30 billion, not million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I assume that's a typo. The entire NIH budget is $30 billion, not million. My mistake, but still the reported R&D budget of just the 4 top Pharma companies gets you over $30 billion. Now, I'd not be shocked if those companies were fudging the numbers some, but not by that much that over all Pharma R&D money is greater than the government share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Exactly why I don't think it's possible to argue this point with you guys. No, Im outraged that the Court ruled something to be a tax, that is not a tax, nor something that was ever claimed to be a tax until it became apparent to the left that if it WASNT a tax, that the whole Obamacare disaster would fall apart. "Ruled something to be a tax, that is not a tax"? It's calculated on your 1040, administered by the IRS, and paid into the General Revenue fund. And it was "(not) something that was ever claimed to be a tax"? A quick Google on "obamacare largest tax increase history" turns up hundreds of fact check articles from the 2012 election season pointing out that all of the Republican claims that Obamacare was the biggest tax increase in history weren't true. In fact, Politifact made that claim their Lie of the Year. (Some of them even pointed out that, even when the Republicans tried to count the penalties and the insurance premiums people paid, as taxes, it still wasn't the biggest.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 So the GOP claimed it was a tax, but that was ruled by Politifact to be a lie, and it was refuted by the Obama Administration, and yet when it became necessary for it to be called a tax for the SCOTUS to uphold it, VOILA! Now its a tax? I really don't want to debate Obamacare again. It's the law. It's the law because 5 SCOTUS Justices ruled it Constitutional. So I'd like to see more Justices who wouldn't be willing to rule that way. And you'd like to see more that would be. Which brings us right back to my original point. Hillary choosing justices scares the crap out of me. Because they will be more Ginsburg than Scalia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Alright Predicto, please come in here and tell us what's what. Kilmer's relativism is obscurant. Is Ginsberg the liberal equivalent of Scalia? Is his jurisprudence equally valid/meritorious if opposite? Also, who are the liberal equivalents of Thomas, Alito, and Roberts? What is Kennedy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 So the GOP claimed it was a tax, but that was ruled by Politifact to be a lie Swing and a miss. PolitiFact ruled that it wasn't the largest in history. (And ruled that health insurance premiums paid to private corporations weren't taxes.) Now, you're right, though. The Dems at the time danced really hard to deny that they were increasing taxes. (While still counting the money as increased revenue.) I think you're about my age. Remember the phrase "revenue enhancements"? I do. Were Reagan's "revenue enhancements" unconstitutional, because he didn't use the word "taxes", when he sold them to the voters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Swing and a miss. PolitiFact ruled that it wasn't the largest in history. (And ruled that health insurance premiums paid to private corporations weren't taxes.) Now, you're right, though. The Dems at the time danced really hard to deny that they were increasing taxes. (While still counting the money as increased revenue.) I think you're about my age. Remember the phrase "revenue enhancements"? I do. Were Reagan's "revenue enhancements" unconstitutional, because he didn't use the word "taxes", when he sold them to the voters? Nope. Not gonna do it. I stand firm to my statement that Hillary choosing Justices scares the crap out of me as much as Cruz choosing them scares you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Aaah yes, the old "2 Americas". The inference is, of course, that one America is good and the other somewhat less so. But really, it's ****y-ass weak sauce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Aaah yes, the old "2 Americas". The inference is, of course, that one America is good and the other somewhat less so. Actually Larry called them a moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Nope. Not gonna do it. I stand firm to my statement that Hillary choosing Justices scares the crap out of me as much as Cruz choosing them scares you. Yeah, but comparatively you're wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.