Bernie is a rich snob that has never had a job in his life. What I think is stupid. The fact is this guy is a Marxist liar. There is no more Democrat, Republican, Socialist or Independent fence sitter. It's either Patriot and America First (not your bank account) or Marxist Atheist who are MAPs and Pedos. This will be the choice when the choice is clear. Right now, everyone is getting exposed for WHO they really are and what they desire. 90% want kids safe & protected. 6.66% told us the jabs were safe & effective and that was a bullshit lie that we see. The top of the 6.66% had all the money and power but not no more.
Trump at Arlington National Cemetery
- Thread starter Dominic
- Start date
whatithink
GOLD
They do/can/should take the losses - no issue there.
Bernie is slightly left of center by European or most of the world's standard - but yeah, socialist here ... most every other Dem pol is right of center by international standards, with very few exceptions, Harris included.
Yes, we can thank our founding fathers for that. It's not perfect, but it's crazy how our Constitution has stood the test of time. Some would say divinely inspired, but I'm not religious.
She is considerably farther left than prior Democrat presidents. Not even close.
Yet! You will find your peace and your love for God after this is over. This is the Great Awakening. I'm starting to better understand you and many of my non-religious friends.
Look who is endorsing Kamala and the FBI is saying Russia is trying to cheat for her to stop Trump and interfere with our elections again. Those Russians, lol!
whatithink
GOLD
Yeah, the foundational strength of the Constitution is only bettered by its flexibility based on the make up for SCOTUS. The clairvoyance of the originalists is definitely spiritual in nature, with them knowing exactly what was intended by individuals 200+ years ago! I suppose the divine who inspired it must also be white (3/5ths) and male (women couldn't vote) too. I take it that the 27 amendments were equally divinely inspired. Who'd a thunk it!
Hopefully he got paid. I guess being the lousy mayor of 100k people somehow qualifies you to be the secretary of transportation. Oh wait, maybe THAT was the payoff. A real job. For which he thanked us by doing a real shitty job. While ships sat out in in the ocean and just stared at our ports for weeks, Mayor Bootygig was taking paternity leave because his husband had such a difficult pregnan... uh, ADOPTION.
The democrat party has become nothing but a fucking disgrace.
Thats what i think
The majority of SCOTUS decisions are unanimous. You couldn't get 9 other people together to reach an unanimous opinions on anything. The Constitution and SCOTUS work well as designed. Complaining about SCOTUS is just sour grapes.
Don't forget about when he "rode" his bike to work. What a clown show.
I believe that story turned out to be false.
bike... Mike... what's the difference?
whatithink
GOLD
That's a misconception. The majority being unanimous happened twice between 2008-2019. The average for unanimous was 48% in that period.
SCOTUSBlog has a lot in info on it, e.g. the Oct21 term report has 29% unanimous https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/SCOTUSblog-Final-STAT-PACK-OT2021.pdf
It's tasty wine from the best grapes in the world win SCOTUS rules in favor of the Dems. However, when the Dems lose, it's sour grapes. These people are the biggest babies I have ever met. They have to win everything, or they will cheat and lie and then wine like spoiled brats. I know the right does it as well, but you don't hear the right say after a big defeat, "we need to pack the court to cheat." This is the system we have. I'm open to new ideas but not the ideas of radical kid groomers!
Maybe when you have a jurist that can't even define what a woman is, it makes it harder to reach consensus on more complicated issues.
whatithink
GOLD
You're better than that
Really, that's all you have? I could have said the same thing about you quoting a 30 year old film major on how abuse of taxes works. Instead, I laid out why she was wrong and didn't understand the subject matter.
It takes two people to disagree and Jackson is a hyper-partisan. She can't even answer a question that has been established for thousands of years. I would much rather have an originalist than someone that can't define a simple question because she bases her opinion on a current emotional narrative.
This article outlines how its effectively a 3/3/3 court. With all three liberal judges voting liberally, 3 conservative judges voting conservatively, and 3 conservative judges voting down the middle. Notice that Cavanaugh and Barrett are down the middle and happen to be the last two conservative judges appointed and are the ones that the left are crying about as packing the court.
"Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett — they agreed with each of the other two at least 89 percent of the time, while agreeing with members of the liberal block about 80 percent of the time. In fact, they were more likely to agree with the liberal block than the other conservatives."
whatithink
GOLD
Jackson was appointed to SCOTUS in 2022, all my examples above are prior to that ... hence my comment, i.e. you "blamed" the one current justice who wasn't there for any of those decisions.
Fair point, but I didn't blame her for anything. Really just generally trying to point out (maybe inarticulately) that SCOTUS works great as designed and that originalists aren't a problem, or at least no more of an issue than the "liberalists" on the Court (for lack of a better term). You cherry picked a time period to say the court agreeing on decisions is a misconception. Factually the conservatives are more "agreeable" than the liberals on the court. With 3 conservatives (some that have been accused of "orginalism") voting 80% with the 3 liberals, more so than the other conservatives, I'd say that's effectively a bi-partisan court. Despite this fact the is Left is crying about the Right packing the court and threatening to expand it.
Here is some current data on the court which shows 75% unanimity:
Amid controversy, Supreme Court shows surprising unanimity in most rulings – so far
As the 2023-2024 Supreme Court term nears its end, data reflects historic unanimity among the justices, although a number of potentially divisive cases are to be decided in the coming weeks.
cnsmaryland.org
Do I philosophically disagree with the Courts decision on Roe v. Wade. Very much so, but I think there was reasonable legal basis to do so. Even RGB questioned the legal basis of RvW, although it was overturned for other reasons than RGB cited.
whatithink
GOLD
Strangely enough I received a malware alert for the site you referenced ... so won't be going there. I did a quick search and got the results I got, which were historic, but not purposefully cherry picked - I think we've interacted enough for you to know I don't cherry pick.Fair point, but I didn't blame her for anything. Really just generally trying to point out (maybe inarticulately) that SCOTUS works great as designed and that originalists aren't a problem, or at least no more of an issue than the "liberalists" on the Court (for lack of a better term). You cherry picked a time period to say the court agreeing on decisions is a misconception. Factually the conservatives are more "agreeable" than the liberals on the court. With 3 conservatives (some that have been accused of "orginalism") voting 80% with the 3 liberals, more so than the other conservatives, I'd say that's effectively a bi-partisan court. Despite this fact the is Left is crying about the Right packing the court and threatening to expand it.
Here is some current data on the court which shows 75% unanimity:
Amid controversy, Supreme Court shows surprising unanimity in most rulings – so far
As the 2023-2024 Supreme Court term nears its end, data reflects historic unanimity among the justices, although a number of potentially divisive cases are to be decided in the coming weeks.
Do I philosophically disagree with the Courts decision on Roe v. Wade. Very much so, but I think there was reasonable legal basis to do so. Even RGB questioned the legal basis of RvW, although it was overturned for other reasons than RGB cited.
My expectation of SCOTUS is that it should, generally, be unanimous. Partisan should never enter into it either. They are meant to be judges not culture warriors. Obviously that's tremendously naive. Given the partisan nature of the lifetime court appointees, it also undermines the 3 pillars imvho.
The RvW decision was the worse for the GOP. It'll get sorted state by state as or if the electorate are allowed to vote on it.
Democrats love saying Trump is Putin's boy. Clearly, they'll say anything. Doesn't have to be even remotely factual.