tshile Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 22 minutes ago, Lombardi's_kid_brother said: This is disastrous, because even if the country "swings left" over the next twenty years as one would assume is going to happen, the Supreme Court with 5 and possibly 6 young hardcore Heritage Foundation zealots slowly returning us to a 1920s view of the Constitution. Donald Freaking Trump seriously has a chance to set policy for this country for the next 40 years, and I don't think he's ever read a book. God be merciful. Which was predicted 2 years ago. But Trump isn't really setting policy. Whoever happens to be near him when he's making a decision is. The 2016 election was not a good one for the dems to lose. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 All these judges have learned from 40 years of confirmation hearings. When abortion is brought up, you smile, talk about stare decicis, and refuse to speculate on any decision that may come before you in the future. And then Collins can vote with a clean conscience. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 22 minutes ago, bearrock said: But the key is that the fetus did not create or provoke the danger, which is the cornerstone of self defense. What if the very fact of your rapist's child's existence causes just too much suffering? Even if the continued attack theory is viable, is a person's mental anguish sufficient justification for murder of another person? The cornerstone is that a real danger to self exists That is why I could consider it justifiable before birth, after no. I would say no personally, but I'm open to that my opinion shouldn't rule since there was no consent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 So, Jeanine Pirro on the Supreme Court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 I assume Hardiman is the most likely pick...but Trump loves to surprise people so anything is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 5 minutes ago, visionary said: Well why didn't you ****ing do something about it SUSAN 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 9 minutes ago, twa said: The cornerstone is that a real danger to self exists That is why I could consider it justifiable before birth, after no. I would say no personally, but I'm open to that my opinion shouldn't rule since there was no consent. Can't you do this in another thread that we all can ignore because you started it? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 15 minutes ago, dcdiscokid said: This is one of the things I dont understand, If something like Roe vs Wade has stood the test of time, through both Conservative and liberal SCOTUS how can it be subject to be overturned at the whim of a new set of justices? Seems to to have already been decided? Cause the justices that are now being selected are farther right than before. They just overturned a 40 year precedent today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 Sure would be nice if the Senate still had a 60 vote threshold for filibusters wouldn’t it...... 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 Justice Kennedy can rot in hell for all I care. He KNOWS what kind of troll Trump will nominate. Dems better show the hell up in November and if anyone is thinking about protest voting......grrrrrrrr 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 10 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said: Sure would be nice if the Senate still had a 60 vote threshold for filibusters wouldn’t it...... Sure would Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 19 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said: Sure would be nice if the Senate still had a 60 vote threshold for filibusters wouldn’t it...... If you actually think that would still matter in this situation you really are not paying attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 Democrats sat out the 2014 midterms and lost the Supreme Court for a generation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 1 minute ago, Cooked Crack said: If you actually think that would still matter in this situation you really are not paying attention. 11 minutes ago, Springfield said: Sure would Don't take the bait. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 (edited) 20 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said: Justice Kennedy can rot in hell for all I care. He KNOWS what kind of troll Trump will nominate. Dems better show the hell up in November and if anyone is thinking about protest voting......grrrrrrrr The man is 81 and has served honorably (and obstinately) for 30 years. Trump didn't nominate a troll the first time, there is hope he will nominate a moderate. I said hope visionary. Might not be much hope. My main point is that Kennedy should not be derided for retiring... Edited June 27, 2018 by Popeman38 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 2 minutes ago, Popeman38 said: The man is 81 and has served honorably (and obstinately) for 30 years. Trump didn't nominate a troll the first time, there is hope he will nominate a moderate. That's hilarious, Trump nominated someone further Right than Scalia and you expect me to believe he's going Moderate. If that's the type of hope that keeps you warm at night then you're going to get frostbit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcdiscokid Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 2 minutes ago, Popeman38 said: The man is 81 and has served honorably (and obstinately) for 30 years. Trump didn't nominate a troll the first time, there is hope he will nominate a moderate. I think there is a possibility to this as with the mid-terms looming there may be pressure for some rep's to not want a radical nominated just before voters show up at the polls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 Kennedy, depending on when he retires may well eliminate a swing vote from the bench for an entire generation. If he EVER considered himself a moderate on the bench, then that all dies now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dcdiscokid Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 1 minute ago, AsburySkinsFan said: Kennedy, depending on when he retires may well eliminate a swing vote from the bench for an entire generation. If he EVER considered himself a moderate on the bench, then that all dies now. Effective July 31st. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 5 minutes ago, Popeman38 said: The man is 81 and has served honorably (and obstinately) for 30 years. Trump didn't nominate a troll the first time, there is hope he will nominate a moderate. I said hope visionary. Might not be much hope. My main point is that Kennedy should not be derided for retiring... I do feel like we should cut Kennedy some slack at his age though. so I sort of agree with the first part of your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearrock Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 48 minutes ago, twa said: The cornerstone is that a real danger to self exists That is why I could consider it justifiable before birth, after no. I would say no personally, but I'm open to that my opinion shouldn't rule since there was no consent. In an attempt to stop going off topic too much in this thread, I will just say I disagree with your positions as I am sure you disagree with mine. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 Just now, dcdiscokid said: I think there is a possibility to this as with the mid-terms looming there may be pressure for some rep's to not want a radical nominated just before voters show up at the polls. Bull, Trump will nominate who Trump wants and it will not be a moderate. McConnell will see this as a parting act from his Senate Majority Leader position. We are so screwed. I swear my blood is boiling right now, all of those people who stayed home, all of the protest voters, all of the people too stupid to see what Trump is and now he gets to set the bench for a generation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 27, 2018 Share Posted June 27, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now