I wish Rudy would just disappear. I have very little use for the man. Actually, I have zero use for him. Never have and never will.
JUSTICE KENNEDY RETIRING
- Thread starter CaseHardened
- Start date
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
I think I'd rather have Gowdy replace Sessions. Gowdy has been great with his grillings of people at oversight hearings, unfortunately, the House committees cannot prosecute. Gowdy was a DA and I feel like AG is where his talents would be best used.
I don't give a shit who is appointed. I had the same attitude about Gorsuch and I was right. SCOTUS will never resolve 2nd amendment issue, because neither political party wants to. Grow up, wake up and smell the coffee.
Last edited:
As for the Newest Justice, whomever it turns out to be....
I have three questions and I want real, honest straight answers.
1. Do you FULLY believe in the words that are written, the thoughts behind our Founding Fathers in regards to the Second Amendment?
2. What is you FULL stance on abortion, Personal views, Professional views and the view in regards to the Constitution?
3. Completely and fully explain what you think the roll of the Federal Government is? I would like a COMPLETE answer, not the short version. I want to know how you feel about the over regulation that is placed upon the American People, I want to know how you feel about taxes and the way they are forced down upon the people and I want to know exactly how you feel about how the Federal Government is going about the war of Illegal Immigration. Again, I want to know Personal views, Professional views and the view in regards to the Constitution?
I do not care how much time is spent answering all of this.
I have three questions and I want real, honest straight answers.
1. Do you FULLY believe in the words that are written, the thoughts behind our Founding Fathers in regards to the Second Amendment?
2. What is you FULL stance on abortion, Personal views, Professional views and the view in regards to the Constitution?
3. Completely and fully explain what you think the roll of the Federal Government is? I would like a COMPLETE answer, not the short version. I want to know how you feel about the over regulation that is placed upon the American People, I want to know how you feel about taxes and the way they are forced down upon the people and I want to know exactly how you feel about how the Federal Government is going about the war of Illegal Immigration. Again, I want to know Personal views, Professional views and the view in regards to the Constitution?
I do not care how much time is spent answering all of this.
While the 2A plays a large roll, it is by far one of the smallest issues facing this Nation as of now.
Maybe we can get a true conservative in the seat.
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
Was Gorsuch Worth A Trump Presidency? It’s Starting To Look That Way
A presidency is more than one man, and so far, the Constitution is winning.
It’s odd, isn’t it, that so many of the folks who warn us about the authoritarianism of the GOP also happen to support an array of policies that coerce Americans to do things they don’t want to?
Take, for example, the four reliably liberal Supreme Court justices, all of whom believe it’s constitutional to compel Americans to pay dues to political organizations they disagree with, and to coerce Americans to say things they don’t believe, and to compel them to make things that undermine their principles.
Don’t get me wrong: Trump’s attacks on the press can be harmful and gratuitous (though, of course, not every tweet critical of CNN is an attack on the foundations of the First Amendment). Yet they are far less consequential than allowing SCOTUS to forever codify attacks on free expression. For some, the prospects of a progressive court have long competed with their distaste for Trump. The question for them was, “What’s scarier, a Trump presidency or a progressive Supreme Court?”
I imagine the answer is becoming a bit clearer for many of those Republicans. Of course, you can thank Mitch McConnell for giving Trump the Neil Gorsuch seat and perhaps saving the Constitution (for now.) The much-disparaged Senate leader withstood immense political pressure and preposterous attacks when stopping President Obama from stacking the court.
The result is that in three cases this term — the rulings that stopped the Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission from destroying Jack Phillips’ business over a thought crime, California’s attempt to force people to support abortion, and public-sector unions from continuing their long-standing policy of forcing workers to fund their political activities — the court has handed the Constitution clear wins.
I mean, has there been a bigger victory for small-government, real-life conservatives over the past few decades than the Janus v. AFSCME ruling? The decision not only fortifies the First Amendment by explicitly finding compelled speech unconstitutional, but also calls out the Left’s authoritarian political machinery, which has been holding many American communities, school systems, and workers hostage for decades.
“It is hard to estimate how many billions of dollars have been taken from nonmembers and transferred to public-sector unions in violation of the First Amendment,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority. “Those unconstitutional exactions cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely.”
The Janus ruling also stipulates that employees must now affirmatively opt-in — rather than having to opt out — of unions before having to pay fees. The court understood that dollars are fungible, and every one of them should be considered a matter of speech.
In an environment where Americans are increasingly drifting apart ideologically, culturally, and politically on virtually every major issue, gridlock has become the de facto state of affairs in DC, and the court becomes even more important. Whatever Trump’s personal predilections or beliefs might be, the First Amendment has been strengthened under this presidency. Certainly, it would not have been the case had Hillary won. We know this by taking a peek at a counterhistory by reading the dissent.
“The First Amendment,” writes Justice Elena Kagan, “was meant for better things. It was meant not to undermine but to protect democratic governance — including over the role of public-sector unions.” The idea that the court should decide who deserves First Amendment protections, or that those protections should be contingent on the vagaries of “democratic governance,” whatever that means, is as corrupt as any of the dumb things Trump has ever said about free expression. The Supreme Court is built to withstand the whims of democracy, not to surrender to them. (Kagan gives away her political game when she worries that “Public employee unions will lose a secure source of financial support.”)
More at ...
Was Gorsuch Worth It? It's Starting To Look That Way
A presidency is more than one man, and so far, the Constitution is winning.
It’s odd, isn’t it, that so many of the folks who warn us about the authoritarianism of the GOP also happen to support an array of policies that coerce Americans to do things they don’t want to?
Take, for example, the four reliably liberal Supreme Court justices, all of whom believe it’s constitutional to compel Americans to pay dues to political organizations they disagree with, and to coerce Americans to say things they don’t believe, and to compel them to make things that undermine their principles.
Don’t get me wrong: Trump’s attacks on the press can be harmful and gratuitous (though, of course, not every tweet critical of CNN is an attack on the foundations of the First Amendment). Yet they are far less consequential than allowing SCOTUS to forever codify attacks on free expression. For some, the prospects of a progressive court have long competed with their distaste for Trump. The question for them was, “What’s scarier, a Trump presidency or a progressive Supreme Court?”
I imagine the answer is becoming a bit clearer for many of those Republicans. Of course, you can thank Mitch McConnell for giving Trump the Neil Gorsuch seat and perhaps saving the Constitution (for now.) The much-disparaged Senate leader withstood immense political pressure and preposterous attacks when stopping President Obama from stacking the court.
The result is that in three cases this term — the rulings that stopped the Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission from destroying Jack Phillips’ business over a thought crime, California’s attempt to force people to support abortion, and public-sector unions from continuing their long-standing policy of forcing workers to fund their political activities — the court has handed the Constitution clear wins.
I mean, has there been a bigger victory for small-government, real-life conservatives over the past few decades than the Janus v. AFSCME ruling? The decision not only fortifies the First Amendment by explicitly finding compelled speech unconstitutional, but also calls out the Left’s authoritarian political machinery, which has been holding many American communities, school systems, and workers hostage for decades.
“It is hard to estimate how many billions of dollars have been taken from nonmembers and transferred to public-sector unions in violation of the First Amendment,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority. “Those unconstitutional exactions cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely.”
The Janus ruling also stipulates that employees must now affirmatively opt-in — rather than having to opt out — of unions before having to pay fees. The court understood that dollars are fungible, and every one of them should be considered a matter of speech.
In an environment where Americans are increasingly drifting apart ideologically, culturally, and politically on virtually every major issue, gridlock has become the de facto state of affairs in DC, and the court becomes even more important. Whatever Trump’s personal predilections or beliefs might be, the First Amendment has been strengthened under this presidency. Certainly, it would not have been the case had Hillary won. We know this by taking a peek at a counterhistory by reading the dissent.
“The First Amendment,” writes Justice Elena Kagan, “was meant for better things. It was meant not to undermine but to protect democratic governance — including over the role of public-sector unions.” The idea that the court should decide who deserves First Amendment protections, or that those protections should be contingent on the vagaries of “democratic governance,” whatever that means, is as corrupt as any of the dumb things Trump has ever said about free expression. The Supreme Court is built to withstand the whims of democracy, not to surrender to them. (Kagan gives away her political game when she worries that “Public employee unions will lose a secure source of financial support.”)
More at ...
Was Gorsuch Worth It? It's Starting To Look That Way
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
Giuliani was a good mayor for NYC. It was a needed break from the full-on dempcrat lib push from Dinkins and Koch.
I have to take the word of those who lived there. He never served me so I do not know how good he was. I just find the man to have very little Morals or Ethics. He reminds me of a toad.
I never really paid all that much attention to what he did or did not do, most of my opinions are of more recent times.
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
We need some one that will be able to write an opinion that will stand up to the liberals lower court interpretation ...
One only has to look at the attack on the 2nd by Cuomo and liberal courts to see this. Sorry I don't see Giuliani having this ability.
One only has to look at the attack on the 2nd by Cuomo and liberal courts to see this. Sorry I don't see Giuliani having this ability.
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
Halfway through I was expecting Chris to pop a vein and keel over.
masterswimmer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Damn it I can't 'like' this twice!
RDN
.357 mag
Very good thing Sen. McConnell blocked Obama's nomination to the high court in 2016.
The Dems could've had two Libtards added to the high court.
Trump just keeps winning, winning, winning and winning....
The Dems could've had two Libtards added to the high court.
Trump just keeps winning, winning, winning and winning....
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
Is anyone else amazed that they're loosing their shit trying to figure out how to oppose the nominee without a nominee having been named? Trump could nominate the Hildabeast and Mathews would still flip out. He (Mathews) really doesn't look well.
There is now way Giuliani is getting nominated. The guy is 74 years old.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
While this news is better than none, when it comes to the 2A, it doesn't matter who's in there. Both parties have a vested interest in abolishing it. One party is public about it. The other pretends it supports it but does nothing to protect it.
In the end, SCOTUS is a sham. None of the judges rule imparitally as per the Constitution like they are supposed to and instead rule on party allegiances and politics.
In the end, SCOTUS is a sham. None of the judges rule imparitally as per the Constitution like they are supposed to and instead rule on party allegiances and politics.
Last edited:
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
While I agree, that doesn't take away from the situation that would be brewing if Hillary had won. Thank G-d she didn't.
Arjuna
.338 Win Mag
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
Sen. Dianne Feinstein
Dianne Emiel FeinsteinTrump, Congress have options on the table to prevent family separationTerry Crews testifies before the Senate Judiciary on sexual assault billSenate negotiators aiming to craft border bill over July 4 recessMORE (Calif.), the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, wants the Senate to apply the "McConnell standard" and wait until after the midterm elections to vote on a Supreme Court justice who will replace Justice Anthony Kennedy.
“Leader McConnell set that standard in 2016 when he denied Judge [Merrick] Garland a hearing for nearly a year, and the Senate should follow the McConnell Standard," Feinstein said shortly after Kennedy announced his retirement.
Top Dem on Judiciary Cmte, @SenFeinstein wants to wait until after election to consider Kennedy’s replacement: “Leader McConnell set that standard in 2016 when he denied Judge Garland a hearing for nearly a year, and the Senate should follow the McConnell Standard.” pic.twitter.com/Aau3sCi7Tc
— Frank Thorp V (@frankthorp) June 27, 2018
McConnell quickly responded to the announcement that Kennedy was retiring by saying that the Senate would vote in the fall on President Trump’s second Supreme Court nominee.
“We’re now four months away from an election to determine the party that will control the Senate," Feinstein added. "There should be no consideration of a Supreme Court nominee until the American people have a chance to weigh in."
Feinstein's comments echoed what many Democratic lawmakers said. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer
Charles (Chuck) Ellis SchumerJim Jordan dismissive of GOP compromise immigration billSchumer calls for Trump administration to appoint 'czar' to oversee family reunificationDonald Trump Jr. headlines Montana Republican conventionMORE (D-N.Y.) said it would be the "height of hypocrisy" for Republicans to vote on a nominee to replace Kennedy and urged McConnell to have the proceedings take place in 2019.
Sen. Dick Durbin
Richard (Dick) Joseph DurbinOvernight Defense: White House 'strongly objects' to ZTE provision | Senate subpanel advances 5B Pentagon spending bill | New questions about VA pickBipartisan senator duo urges Trump to back criminal justice billDem senator to introduce anti-discrimination bill after Supreme Court upholds travel banMORE (D-Ill.) said in a statement that McConnell set the "new standard by giving the American people their say in the upcoming election before court vacancies are filled."
“The U.S. Senate must be consistent and consider the president’s nominee once the new Congress is seated in January," he added.
Merrick Garland
Merrick Brian GarlandMitch McConnell trolls with photo of Gorsuch after travel ban rulingKey appeals court to start livestreaming oral argumentsThe Hill's Morning Report — Sponsored by CVS Health — Trump’s love-hate relationship with the SenateMORE, President Obama's nominee to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, had his nomination blocked in 2016 by McConnell. The GOP leader argued that voters should have the chance to weigh in on what they'd desire for the court in the 2016 presidential election.
More at ...
Feinstein: Senate should follow 'McConnell standard,' wait to vote on Supreme Court justice
“Leader McConnell set that standard in 2016 when he denied Judge [Merrick] Garland a hearing for nearly a year, and the Senate should follow the McConnell Standard," Feinstein said shortly after Kennedy announced his retirement.
Top Dem on Judiciary Cmte, @SenFeinstein wants to wait until after election to consider Kennedy’s replacement: “Leader McConnell set that standard in 2016 when he denied Judge Garland a hearing for nearly a year, and the Senate should follow the McConnell Standard.” pic.twitter.com/Aau3sCi7Tc
— Frank Thorp V (@frankthorp) June 27, 2018
McConnell quickly responded to the announcement that Kennedy was retiring by saying that the Senate would vote in the fall on President Trump’s second Supreme Court nominee.
“We’re now four months away from an election to determine the party that will control the Senate," Feinstein added. "There should be no consideration of a Supreme Court nominee until the American people have a chance to weigh in."
Feinstein's comments echoed what many Democratic lawmakers said. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer
Sen. Dick Durbin
“The U.S. Senate must be consistent and consider the president’s nominee once the new Congress is seated in January," he added.
Merrick Garland
More at ...
Feinstein: Senate should follow 'McConnell standard,' wait to vote on Supreme Court justice
I am glad that we have the opportunity to get a Justice that sees ALL of the problems the US is facing!
I have been ambivalent about trump's tweets, but I actually would like to see him taunt the dems over this. That would be priceless.
I laughed out loud listening to matthews talk about dems rolling over and following the rules. Right. The gang that rammed obamacare down the country's throat via a legislative trick. The gang that eliminated the filibuster when it suited them and then wanted it to return when they were no longer in the majority. That's following the rules? If the shoe was on the other foot they would be bragging about how they would nominate the second coming of karl marx and ram it down our throats.
I laughed out loud listening to matthews talk about dems rolling over and following the rules. Right. The gang that rammed obamacare down the country's throat via a legislative trick. The gang that eliminated the filibuster when it suited them and then wanted it to return when they were no longer in the majority. That's following the rules? If the shoe was on the other foot they would be bragging about how they would nominate the second coming of karl marx and ram it down our throats.
Love it.
They are losing their minds right now.
What a great day to be an American.
I want President trump and our side to cram this up their commie asses.
I want them to rue the day Hillary lost and they are missing out on their 2 young liberal activist judges that would have forever tipped the balance of power.
I want them to remember how they all laughed at the idea of trump running in 2016 like it was a joke.
Well the jokes on you now.
MAGA
MothMan
.338 Win Mag
Figment
9mm
Rudy is a non contender. He's never held a judge position and if you look at the list Trump has circulated every one of them has held a judgeship in a lesser court.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Right now all the talk of a blue wave in november (where the dems pick up seats and take back one or both of the chambers of congress) has been fairly muted. The enthusiasm has been on the republican side. This could be the spark that gets democratic turnout to increase. After the recent supreme court rulings and now kennedy's announcement their backs are up against the wall. They know that mueller can't help them, so it will have to be a full court press to retake the house or senate. Their problem is they can't stop acting crazy, and if they become even more manic the average voter will turn against them. They can't have maxine waters and the new crazy girl from NYC become the face of the party.
RDN
.357 mag
AMEN !!