Printable View
Typical libs...of the Iranian emails attempting to discredit Trump. Schumer says, oh, let's not focus on which candidate is affected, we need to be concerned about our democracy. :laugh: Had the attack been targeted against Biden OMG! it would be a huge scandal.
Trump did a much better job being disciplined tonight. One unforced error for Biden regarding the oil industry.
Don’t think the debate has any real impact...which is bad for Trump.
If Biden had a shot at Pennsylvania, I think that is gone now with Biden's comment on the oil industry.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
We’ll see. Biden has a comfortable lead in PA.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDog
Trump is like a 5th ranked team trying to get into the 4-team college football playoff. He needed an eye-opening, smashing victory tonight...like 42-10...to impress the playoff committee. All he got was a hard-fought 26-20 win. Assuming the polls are even close to being accurate, Trump did not move the needle far enough in the debate.
I thought the little reporterette did a credible job moderating. Much better than Chris Wallace did.
What a bizarre thing to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
I should have added, "pretty." She's a pretty little reporterette. And, she did a good job.
Dawg80? So you are okay with courts rewriting the first amendment to say “Congress and the states” and the 14th amendment to say “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws nor permit segregation”?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Because it is the very same 14th amendment that the courts have “legislated from the bench on” in the past on to say that the First Amendment applies to the states (even though it only says Congress) and that segregation is unlawful. That same clause is the one modern courts use to find that homosexuals have the right to marry (and all other LGBQT protections) and various other expanded civil liberties that conservatives resist.
She was terrible. Her bias was obvious. She’s just another liberal bitch pretending to be a journalist.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
:laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by glm47
You snowflakes are a hoot.
LOL, projecting again.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Race is tightening up. Better hold on to your vagina.
I'm sorry that the Biff strategy isn't working out for you. Thoughts and prayers.Quote:
Originally Posted by glm47
quote:
Breaking911
@Breaking911
BREAKING UPDATE: President Trump has just announced that at least five additional countries want to join in a peace deal with Israel, and says Saudi Arabia is one of them. Says there will be a big signing event at the Whitehouse.
This is a big deal.. however this will probably be the headline on NBC..
Trump colludes with 5 Arab states in order to influence the 2020 election. 200 former intel officials back up claim with scathing letter.
-NBC
No, I am not okay with the courts legislating from the bench. And this statement stands on its own merits. Now, you can cite various cases from history and say well, here's an example of a court legislating from the bench. My personal view is no such "laws" are legal and can be and should be ignored. Now, I might agree with the premise of the law and advocate for proper legislative bodies to take up the charge and properly pass laws...even if it ends up word for word as the decision handed down by a court.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
I go back to Roe v. Wade and RBG's opinion on it. While I heartily disagree with murdering babies and can never support any law legalizing it, I do understand why Ruth said what she did. And, as a matter of law-making, she was 100% right. In the cited examples, California infringing on religious rights, for instance. I would hope the California state legislature would not pass any laws affecting the Freedom of Religion. But, if they did, and the Constitution has no language forbidding them from doing so, then so be it. All religious people would be better served vacating the state and leaving California to further rot in it's own evil filth.
And if states can LEGALLY pass laws protecting segregation...then so be that too. Now, that might have flown in some states back in the 1950's but wouldn't today. There would be no such state laws in existence now.
BTW, I support gays/lezzies being able to enter into a civil union, which we refer to as "marriage." When we got married, my wife and I, we had a church service, but we also had to go to the courthouse and get a license and we entered into a legal, civil contract that came with obligations and ramifications under state law. Homosexual couples should have the same right to enter into a contract. Now, I also support, under Freedom of Religion, any church denying recognition of that civil union, and doing so without any repercussions.
When Roe v. Wade is overturned, and hopefully that'll happen soon, that will not be the end of baby-murdering. The matter will simply be taken up by the states and each state legislature will decide for itself. Some states will make baby-murdering legal and others will do the right thing. That is exactly what RBG advocated for. Only...like all libs, she put her own self-serving interests ahead of the proper "rule of law." Yeah, she stated the SC should not have "made law" but she never acted to overturn it either. Hypocrite.
Obviously, and I have probably reinforced that fact, I am no Constitutional scholar. There are proper ways for society to make laws, to right wrongs, to undo injustices, and I simply want those proper ways followed. Even if I stumble and post something that is contrary to that, I can assure you it was borne from ignorance, and not a philosophical embrace of "legislating from the bench."
Ironically, the Supreme Court basically legislated from the bench in Marbury to find that they have the power to strike down laws as unconstitutional. The constitution doesn’t actually say they have that power.
So if you really want to follow originalism to the logical extreme, there shouldn’t even be originalism.
How about that?