Larry Gude
Strung Out
Hey, I'm with you; who becomes a justice IS a big deal. However, you start reading up on them over the years, who appointed whom, what they did, it's not as clear as we might like to think it is.
Trump on track to surpass all of Obama's travel costs in 2 years or less
- Thread starter awpitt
- Start date
Hey, I'm with you; who becomes a justice IS a big deal. However, you start reading up on them over the years, who appointed whom, what they did, it's not as clear as we might like to think it is.
Exactly. I shudder at the mere thought of what Hillary would have appointed to the SC.
This_person
Well-Known Member
You point to Merlin that there are some cases, and you listed, frankly MOST of them. You tell Hijinx that his opinion is narrow-minded and unfounded. The most I can agree with any of this is that it is relatively a narrow-minded vision to vote for president on essentially ONLY this issue.
If you think it's fair to suggest that Alito, Thomas, Scalia, etc., do not view their roles in a routinely originalist fashion, or that the Notorious RBG, Sotomayor, Kagan don't vote in a "living document" progressive manner reliably, then you're not really looking. Most justices most of the time vote pretty reliably the way you'd expect. You can pick out the anomaly votes, but it's pretty consistent. Kennedy and Stevens have/were not always that reliable, but most are most of the time.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Most of them? Kennedy has all but run the court for some time being the swing vote he's positioned himself as and I didn't even mention him. Care to hazard a guess who nominated him?
Souter was no Scalia. Who nominated him?
I mean, c'mon. This is simple stuff.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
Who then would have to get through McConnell. I mean, why do we think this way, that, somehow, the courts gonna be an R or a D court based on who does the nominating when there is no evidence FOR it and a lot agin' it? :shrug:
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
I don't give a flying #### about the Supreme Court being R or D, I care if the court respects the Constitution and makes fair decisions.
I also feel that with Soda jerk ,Kagen, and Ginsberg and an appointment by Hillary or perhaps someone as bad as Obama that is something that would not have happened..
Now I am not so naive as to make that my only criteria for voting for Trump.
I also looked at her lies, her private server,her incompetence,her bribes taken while S.O.S., her past with whitewater, FBI files, her condemnation of Bill Clinton's victim's while looking the other way at poor Bill and his sexual proclivities, the death of Vince Foster and his WH office being cleaned out.Her fondness for Obama's policies. I could go on, but why?
No way did I want this sorry excuse for a female human being sitting as the head of the most powerful country in the world.
Nor for her to get her pick as to a Judge on the Supreme Court.
Deny it all you want , but many people felt the same way, and voted for anyone other than Hillary.
Even members of her own party who supported an Independent Commie like Sanders.
Last edited:
This_person
Well-Known Member
But, Scalia and Thomas and Alito have been. You're talking a minority - accurately, but still a minority.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Because there's more evidence for it than against it. You're right, there's evidence against it, but more for it.
awpitt
Main Streeter
And the interesting thing is that more Americans voted for Hillary than voted for Trump. Do you think they were thinking about appointments to the Supreme Court?
Larry Gude
Strung Out
I just listed a fair bit of evidence that this illusion jinx has bought into is just a bill of goods the GOP pushes to make the sale.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Personally, yes I do. Trump told us who he would nominate (gave a long list of potentials). HRC was, at best, a horribly-flawed candidate. It seems likely that people were thinking long term on both sides - after all, SCOTUS is for life, and Pres is for 8 years max when elected into the first term. It is one of the few things that explains her getting any votes. The only reasons I see:
- Hatred for Trump (but, of course, this would include SCOTUS pick)
- Hatred for any other party
- Demonstrable sexism ("Let's make history again!!")
- Complete lack of knowledge of anything political or governmental
A lot yes, but a huge portion of Hills support came from college kids who were voting for the first time. College kids aren't known for taking the long view and thus discount the SC.
This_person
Well-Known Member
You did. And there is a cubic ####-ton more evidence that it is NOT just a bill of goods on either side. Your evidence is valid, I do not dispute it. The preponderance of evidence, though, suggests otherwise.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
No, it didn't. She was down with minorities and kids. I mean, OK, it was probably a 'yuge' number but nowhere as 'yuge' as Obama's or what she and they anticipated.
So it was at the same time a huge portion and not a huge portion. Pick a side and argue it, I can only defend one side of an argument at a time.
awpitt
Main Streeter
I'll leave that for you to figure out.
it means NOTHING .....
Larry Gude
Strung Out
If I read '...a huge portion of her support from college kids...' true enough but my immediate thought is '...not compared to Obama who won." It's like saying Trump got a yuge portion of his support from Republicans. My immediate thought is '...not compared to Bush 43..." It's noteworthy that Trump WON with the GOP officially being against him and Hillary lost with official support.
Grumpy
Well-Known Member
and that was AWESOME