|
Post by soonerbounce13 on Jun 28, 2018 20:46:24 GMT -6
I think it would be admirable for trump to select a moderate. The problem is, the left's definition of a moderate is not a moderate No it wouldn't. Screw the reaching across the asile crap. We need someone that is going to follow the Constitution. The left isn't going to support anyone that's not an activist. In my mind, being a moderate and following the constitution is t mutually exclusive Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jun 28, 2018 22:19:51 GMT -6
In my mind, being a moderate and following the constitution is t mutually exclusive Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk The longer conservatives are on the court the more likely they are to move center/left. Liberals seem to stay put. Give me a conservative.
|
|
|
Post by oilsooner on Jun 29, 2018 5:37:22 GMT -6
Yeah, I went there...lol ![](https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180629/ecbcd1dee1a696f987f3a3df3845db67.jpg) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by soonerbounce13 on Jun 29, 2018 7:03:46 GMT -6
In my mind, being a moderate and following the constitution is t mutually exclusive Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk The longer conservatives are on the court the more likely they are to move center/left. Liberals seem to stay put. Give me a conservative. I don't disagree But there is some value in making a moderate choice. It would make trump appear more rational to the on the fence voters. It would help in midterms and beyond
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 29, 2018 7:26:20 GMT -6
Yeah, I went there...lol ![](https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180629/ecbcd1dee1a696f987f3a3df3845db67.jpg) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk ![](https://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/well-played-gif-10.gif)
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 29, 2018 8:09:32 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2018/06/29/cnn-chris-cuomo-corrects-gillibrand-democrats-gorsuch/Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand wrongly stated that no Democrat voted for Neil Gorsuch and had to walk that statement back in an interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo Thursday night. “He didn’t get a vote from one Democrat. And I believe now that we’ve seen what Gorsuch has done in the court, he’s already undermined women’s rights, already union rights, already civil rights in this country, I don’t think people are going to trust that President Trump isn’t going to do what he said he was going to do,” Sen. Gillibrand stated. “Are you right that he didn’t get one vote? Didn’t he get three?” the CNN anchor asked. After holding strong one more time, she finally realized her mistake. “You might be right, Chris, but I believe this Democratic caucus will stand together. You’re really deciding whether or not you value women and you want them to have basic civil rights and civil liberties.” Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Donnelly all voted in for Gorsuch. Gillibrand was on CNN discussing the new vacancy on the Supreme Court with the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy being announced earlier this week.
|
|
|
Post by heff on Jun 29, 2018 8:44:56 GMT -6
I've always said Libertarians (Classical Liberals) make the best Supreme Court Justices, because, when in doubt, they will always err on the side of individual liberty.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jun 29, 2018 10:10:52 GMT -6
dailycaller.com/2018/06/29/cnn-chris-cuomo-corrects-gillibrand-democrats-gorsuch/Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand wrongly stated that no Democrat voted for Neil Gorsuch and had to walk that statement back in an interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo Thursday night. “He didn’t get a vote from one Democrat. And I believe now that we’ve seen what Gorsuch has done in the court, he’s already undermined women’s rights, already union rights, already civil rights in this country, I don’t think people are going to trust that President Trump isn’t going to do what he said he was going to do,” Sen. Gillibrand stated. “Are you right that he didn’t get one vote? Didn’t he get three?” the CNN anchor asked. After holding strong one more time, she finally realized her mistake. “You might be right, Chris, but I believe this Democratic caucus will stand together. You’re really deciding whether or not you value women and you want them to have basic civil rights and civil liberties.” Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Donnelly all voted in for Gorsuch. Gillibrand was on CNN discussing the new vacancy on the Supreme Court with the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy being announced earlier this week. "Yes, Chris, I may be wrong but that doesn't matter".
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 29, 2018 13:16:45 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jun 29, 2018 14:55:58 GMT -6
Those are some pretty nice signs considering the decision was a day before. Quite the grass roots movement.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 29, 2018 21:02:33 GMT -6
On Friday, Hillary promoted a radical left-wing organization called ‘Demand Justice’ as a new group her pac, Onward Together would be teaming up with to fight President Trump’s MAGA agenda. Demand Justice was formed in 2017 with an agenda to fight President Trump’s court picks. They accuse Trump of nominating racist, white men who defend the Ku Klux Klan. Via their website: demandjustice.org/whatsatstake/Trump’s judges are overwhelmingly white men. Many are not at all qualified for their posts. And they consistently hold extreme, right-wing views. His nominees have a record of favoring big corporations over workers. They have fought to restrict women’s access to reproductive health services and deny equal treatment to LGBTQ Americans. Trump’s judges also have a clear record of bigoted views when it comes to race. His nominees have defended voter suppression tactics, promoted the racist birther conspiracy against President Obama, and even defended the Ku Klux Klan. His picks also won’t even say they agree with the historic Brown vs. Board of Education decision by the Supreme Court that led to the desegregation of our nation’s schools. Hillary Clinton ✔ @hillaryclinton Given the news coming out of the Supreme Court this week, I'm excited to support @wedemandjustice's critical work by welcoming them into the @onwardtogether family. Onward Together @onwardtogether 🚨 We're proud to announce our newest @onwardtogether partner: @wedemandjustice, the group fighting to organize progressives to protect our federal courts. Learn more about their work, and take action to support it, here: actionnetwork.org/forms/onward-together … 2:21 PM - Jun 29, 2018 16.4K 5,341 people are talking about this
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 29, 2018 21:04:06 GMT -6
In regards to my previous post: ![](http://usbacklash.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Hillary-Clinton-Hugs-KKK-Exalted-Cyclops-Friend-And-Mentor-Robery-Byrd-1.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jun 29, 2018 22:03:57 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jun 29, 2018 22:06:01 GMT -6
In regards to my previous post: ![](http://usbacklash.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Hillary-Clinton-Hugs-KKK-Exalted-Cyclops-Friend-And-Mentor-Robery-Byrd-1.jpg) Don't forget Hillary's hero, Margaret Sanger.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jun 29, 2018 22:23:51 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 30, 2018 6:15:51 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 30, 2018 6:17:10 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/32498/dem-senator-kirsten-gillibrand-doesnt-want-scotus-frank-campDem Senator Kirsten Gillibrand Doesn’t Want SCOTUS To ‘Criminalize Women’ by Frank Camp June 29, 2018 On Thursday, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) claimed while at a #DitchTheList rally that a new Supreme Court justice appointed by President Trump could lead to women being arrested for "making decisions about their bodies." This is a battle line that has been drawn that literally will put women's lives at risk, that undermines our civil rights, our human rights. This is a line that's been drawn about whether we are going to criminalize women, whether we are going to be arresting women for making decisions about their bodies. This is not a fire drill; this is not a hypothetical case. Please understand this is already happening in states ... women have been arrested, mothers have been arrested when they’re trying to get the health care that their daughters might need ... we should not allow a justice who doesn’t believe in women’s rights.
|
|
|
Post by trumped on Jun 30, 2018 9:59:54 GMT -6
Donald J. Trump Donald J. Trump @realdonaldtrump · 3h I will be making my choice for Justice of the United States Supreme Court on the first Monday after the July 4th Holiday, July 9th!
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jun 30, 2018 11:23:47 GMT -6
They are all, at least for now, running for president.
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jun 30, 2018 12:40:21 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 1, 2018 17:46:54 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/32516/sen-susan-collins-i-wont-support-nominee-hostile-emily-zanottiMaine's Republican senator, Susan Collins, told CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday that she would not support a nominee for the Supreme Court who is "hostile" to the landmark abortion rights decision, Roe v. Wade. Collins bizarrely claimed that believing a decision which held that an amorphous "right to privacy" in procreation is hidden somewhere in the Bill of Rights' "penumbras and emanations" could be overturned demonstrates a lack of respect" for "established decisions, established law." "I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law," Collins said. She also spoke candidly about a recent meeting she had with President Trump where she reportedly laid out her personal requirements for an "acceptable" Supreme Court justice. "The President really was soliciting my views on the type of nominee that I was looking for," Collins claimed. "I emphasized that I wanted a nominee who would respect precedent, a fundamental tenet of our judicial system." But lest an observer believe that Collins is caving to reproductive rights activists who of late have undertaken a campaign to flood her Congressional office with wire coat hangers, Collins ended with a caveat: she will not use any litmus test that two of the most recent Republican nominees to the Supreme Court — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch — couldn't themselves pass. "I had a very long discussion with Justice Gorsuch in my office and he pointed out to me that he is a co-author of a whole book on precedent," Collins told CNN, adding that, "Roe v. Wade is a constitutional right that is well established, and no less an authority than Chief Justice Roberts said that repeatedly at his confirmation hearing." The problem with Collin's reasoning is that Roe v. Wade has already been gutted by successive cases, like Planned Parenthood v. Casey, robbing it of its (not-actually-real) status as a "super-precedent" outside the Court's consideration. And neither Roberts nor Gorsuch is at liberty to express their true thoughts on any single case that could come before the Court; Justices Roberts and Gorsuch would be forced to recuse themselves from any abortion rights case if they reveal to Congress how they'd rule on an appeal to Roe. Collins seems to be trying to play both sides: appear willing to consider a conservative justice, for the sake of her Republican colleagues, but unwilling to step on the toes of abortion rights activists who see her as their last best hope.
|
|
|
Post by principledcon on Jul 1, 2018 20:58:40 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/32516/sen-susan-collins-i-wont-support-nominee-hostile-emily-zanottiMaine's Republican senator, Susan Collins, told CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday that she would not support a nominee for the Supreme Court who is "hostile" to the landmark abortion rights decision, Roe v. Wade. Collins bizarrely claimed that believing a decision which held that an amorphous "right to privacy" in procreation is hidden somewhere in the Bill of Rights' "penumbras and emanations" could be overturned demonstrates a lack of respect" for "established decisions, established law." "I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law," Collins said. She also spoke candidly about a recent meeting she had with President Trump where she reportedly laid out her personal requirements for an "acceptable" Supreme Court justice. "The President really was soliciting my views on the type of nominee that I was looking for," Collins claimed. "I emphasized that I wanted a nominee who would respect precedent, a fundamental tenet of our judicial system." But lest an observer believe that Collins is caving to reproductive rights activists who of late have undertaken a campaign to flood her Congressional office with wire coat hangers, Collins ended with a caveat: she will not use any litmus test that two of the most recent Republican nominees to the Supreme Court — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch — couldn't themselves pass. "I had a very long discussion with Justice Gorsuch in my office and he pointed out to me that he is a co-author of a whole book on precedent," Collins told CNN, adding that, "Roe v. Wade is a constitutional right that is well established, and no less an authority than Chief Justice Roberts said that repeatedly at his confirmation hearing." The problem with Collin's reasoning is that Roe v. Wade has already been gutted by successive cases, like Planned Parenthood v. Casey, robbing it of its (not-actually-real) status as a "super-precedent" outside the Court's consideration. And neither Roberts nor Gorsuch is at liberty to express their true thoughts on any single case that could come before the Court; Justices Roberts and Gorsuch would be forced to recuse themselves from any abortion rights case if they reveal to Congress how they'd rule on an appeal to Roe. Collins seems to be trying to play both sides: appear willing to consider a conservative justice, for the sake of her Republican colleagues, but unwilling to step on the toes of abortion rights activists who see her as their last best hope. This has happened because we allowed the constution to be changed in the way the Senate was chosen...
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jul 1, 2018 21:14:52 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/32516/sen-susan-collins-i-wont-support-nominee-hostile-emily-zanottiMaine's Republican senator, Susan Collins, told CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday that she would not support a nominee for the Supreme Court who is "hostile" to the landmark abortion rights decision, Roe v. Wade. Collins bizarrely claimed that believing a decision which held that an amorphous "right to privacy" in procreation is hidden somewhere in the Bill of Rights' "penumbras and emanations" could be overturned demonstrates a lack of respect" for "established decisions, established law." "I would not support a nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade because that would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not include a respect for established decisions, established law," Collins said. She also spoke candidly about a recent meeting she had with President Trump where she reportedly laid out her personal requirements for an "acceptable" Supreme Court justice. "The President really was soliciting my views on the type of nominee that I was looking for," Collins claimed. "I emphasized that I wanted a nominee who would respect precedent, a fundamental tenet of our judicial system." But lest an observer believe that Collins is caving to reproductive rights activists who of late have undertaken a campaign to flood her Congressional office with wire coat hangers, Collins ended with a caveat: she will not use any litmus test that two of the most recent Republican nominees to the Supreme Court — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Neil Gorsuch — couldn't themselves pass. "I had a very long discussion with Justice Gorsuch in my office and he pointed out to me that he is a co-author of a whole book on precedent," Collins told CNN, adding that, "Roe v. Wade is a constitutional right that is well established, and no less an authority than Chief Justice Roberts said that repeatedly at his confirmation hearing." The problem with Collin's reasoning is that Roe v. Wade has already been gutted by successive cases, like Planned Parenthood v. Casey, robbing it of its (not-actually-real) status as a "super-precedent" outside the Court's consideration. And neither Roberts nor Gorsuch is at liberty to express their true thoughts on any single case that could come before the Court; Justices Roberts and Gorsuch would be forced to recuse themselves from any abortion rights case if they reveal to Congress how they'd rule on an appeal to Roe. Collins seems to be trying to play both sides: appear willing to consider a conservative justice, for the sake of her Republican colleagues, but unwilling to step on the toes of abortion rights activists who see her as their last best hope. And who is surprised by this? Once the nominee is announced expect the abortion screaming meemees to be hot and heavy.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jul 2, 2018 6:24:34 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 2, 2018 14:48:26 GMT -6
www.thedailybeast.com/anthony-kennedy-you-are-a-total-disgrace-to-americaAnthony Kennedy, You Are a Total Disgrace to America It’s been a few days now, but the shock of Anthony Kennedy’s retirement announcement hasn’t abated a bit. This is partly because of the ghastly coming ramifications, more on which later. But it’s also because I honestly didn’t think Kennedy would allow Donald Trump to name his successor. I thought he had more respect for the United States of America than to allow this corrupt gangster who’s almost certainly never read a Supreme Court opinion in his life to name his successor. Yes, Kennedy is conservative, so to that extent it makes sense that he’d want a Republican president to make the call, and maybe it’s just that simple. But whatever his motivation, Kennedy has altered and destroyed his legacy. Let me put it this way. If I owned a restaurant and he walked in, I’d serve him dinner. But if the other diners mocked and shamed him, I wouldn’t exactly cry.
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jul 2, 2018 15:18:22 GMT -6
www.thedailybeast.com/anthony-kennedy-you-are-a-total-disgrace-to-americaAnthony Kennedy, You Are a Total Disgrace to America It’s been a few days now, but the shock of Anthony Kennedy’s retirement announcement hasn’t abated a bit. This is partly because of the ghastly coming ramifications, more on which later. But it’s also because I honestly didn’t think Kennedy would allow Donald Trump to name his successor. I thought he had more respect for the United States of America than to allow this corrupt gangster who’s almost certainly never read a Supreme Court opinion in his life to name his successor. Yes, Kennedy is conservative, so to that extent it makes sense that he’d want a Republican president to make the call, and maybe it’s just that simple. But whatever his motivation, Kennedy has altered and destroyed his legacy. Let me put it this way. If I owned a restaurant and he walked in, I’d serve him dinner. But if the other diners mocked and shamed him, I wouldn’t exactly cry. All you need to know about this idiot is that he called something written by Jeffry Toobin as important.
|
|
|
Post by principledcon on Jul 2, 2018 17:24:02 GMT -6
The longer conservatives are on the court the more likely they are to move center/left. Liberals seem to stay put. Give me a conservative. I don't disagree But there is some value in making a moderate choice. It would make trump appear more rational to the on the fence voters. It would help in midterms and beyond Only value would be to liberal progressives...real conservatives would be done with him...
|
|
|
Post by soonernvolved on Jul 3, 2018 9:41:42 GMT -6
www.dailywire.com/news/32587/two-key-pro-democratic-groups-push-false-claims-hank-berrienAs The Daily Wire reported on Monday, the Democratic Party has chosen to make war on Judge Amy Barrett, who is being considered by President Trump to fill the vacancy left by the imminent retirement of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Now groups that are connected to the Democratic Party have taken to making false claims about Barrett. Why Courts Matter, which is part of the Center for American Progress, founded by former Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta, parroted a claim by the NAACP, writing that Barrett ruled against “an African American worker in favor of a company’s ‘separate-but-equal arrangement,’ flying in the face of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” The NAACP tweeted the claim; Why Courts Matter parroted the claim four minutes later, as seen below:
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jul 3, 2018 10:30:00 GMT -6
Why are you allowing something like facts to get in the way of a good tantrum?
Notice how the left is all in concerning defending women unless they don't agree with them?
|
|
|
Post by kcrufnek on Jul 3, 2018 12:29:25 GMT -6
|
|