Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 27, 2017, 06:12:53 PM
Turns out the Obama FAA's rule that drone owners register their drones is against the law. Because that's what the law says. I present the D.C. Court of Appeals in Taylor v. Huerta:
Quote
In short, the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act provides that the FAA “may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft,” yet the FAA’s 2015 Registration Rule is a “rule or regulation regarding a model aircraft.” Statutory interpretation does not get much simpler. The Registration Rule is unlawful as applied to model aircraft.
Judges doing what judges are supposed to do! :woot:
In other news, the 4th Circuit just ruled Trump's travel ban is unconstitutional - not because of the law as written but because of comments Trump made during the campaign. In other words, the same law signed by a different president would have been ok, which is a really interesting new legal paradigm. I think I hear Gorsuch laughing and cracking his knuckles....
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-on-travel-ban-judges-reach-trump-only-decision/article/2624241?platform=hootsuite (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-on-travel-ban-judges-reach-trump-only-decision/article/2624241?platform=hootsuite)
Post by: star seed 7 on May 27, 2017, 06:13:40 PM
Post by: Phil Titola on May 27, 2017, 06:38:51 PM
4th circuit :curse:
Post by: Institutional Control on May 27, 2017, 06:40:58 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on May 27, 2017, 11:38:43 PM
Btw, the 4th circuit ruling was a 10-3 decision. The 10 who reached that absurd ruling which is being roundly mocked by even some liberal law professors: 6 Obama appointees and 4 Clinton appointees.
Post by: Gooch on May 30, 2017, 01:50:20 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 30, 2017, 01:56:20 PM
Liberals have a hard time seeing the difference between applying written law and just making crap up to serve ideology.
Btw, the 4th circuit ruling was a 10-3 decision. The 10 who reached that absurd ruling which is being roundly mocked by even some liberal law professors: 6 Obama appointees and 4 Clinton appointees.
Taking hearsay into consideration during an injunction hearing is absurd and reversible error. This is an embarrassment to the justice system.
Post by: Spracne on May 30, 2017, 07:54:45 PM
Liberals have a hard time seeing the difference between applying written law and just making crap up to serve ideology.
Btw, the 4th circuit ruling was a 10-3 decision. The 10 who reached that absurd ruling which is being roundly mocked by even some liberal law professors: 6 Obama appointees and 4 Clinton appointees.
Taking hearsay into consideration during an injunction hearing is absurd and reversible error. This is an embarrassment to the justice system.
While I also think things spoken while campaigning should not be weaponized in this context, you're simply incorrect. It's not hearsay. It's not even a hearsay exception. It's an exemption, which is to say it's classified as nonhearsay under the federal rules of evidence. Now that's not to say that prudence shouldn't dictate that it get tossed under Rule 403, but that's another matter.
Post by: The Big Train on May 30, 2017, 08:13:55 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 31, 2017, 09:07:55 AM
Liberals have a hard time seeing the difference between applying written law and just making crap up to serve ideology.
Btw, the 4th circuit ruling was a 10-3 decision. The 10 who reached that absurd ruling which is being roundly mocked by even some liberal law professors: 6 Obama appointees and 4 Clinton appointees.
Taking hearsay into consideration during an injunction hearing is absurd and reversible error. This is an embarrassment to the justice system.
While I also think things spoken while campaigning should not be weaponized in this context, you're simply incorrect. It's not hearsay. It's not even a hearsay exception. It's an exemption, which is to say it's classified as nonhearsay under the federal rules of evidence. Now that's not to say that prudence shouldn't dictate that it get tossed under Rule 403, but that's another matter.
It's more of a stretch to call it exempt than hearsay, granted it doesn't get more arcane and mundane than discussing hearsay.
You could argue the judge should be recused if he ever commented favorably about asylum. It's just as stupid and colorable.
Would be better if the appellate courts just followed the law, instead of making garbage partisan rulings setting horrible precedent to be exploited in the future.
Post by: AbeFroman on May 31, 2017, 09:40:31 AM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 31, 2017, 01:00:52 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on May 31, 2017, 02:00:43 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on May 31, 2017, 02:01:48 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 31, 2017, 06:56:15 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on May 31, 2017, 06:58:19 PM
Post by: Spracne on May 31, 2017, 07:32:15 PM
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
Post by: cfbandyman on May 31, 2017, 07:38:43 PM
The thing about party admissions is that courts will take you both seriously and literally.
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
Oh don't start with this reasonable logic. Clearly liberal
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 31, 2017, 08:02:45 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 31, 2017, 08:05:36 PM
Post by: Spracne on May 31, 2017, 08:12:02 PM
Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 31, 2017, 09:16:57 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on May 31, 2017, 09:20:46 PM
:facepalm:
Post by: Spracne on June 01, 2017, 07:16:39 PM
Let's get the internment camps fired up for the antifa, they've probably said, "I'm gonna kill trump" a million times. Party admission for civil assault on the president, errr treason. Superb precedent!
:facepalm:
Somtimes you can't change
A
Dumbfuck idea (or a
Critical mis-
Understanding) into
Ngenious satire simply by
The Force of Hyperbole!
Post by: cfbandyman on June 01, 2017, 07:28:10 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 01, 2017, 08:28:44 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 28, 2017, 11:10:11 AM
Quote
More than four months after President Trump's 'travel ban' executive order was halted by a series of lower court decisions, the Supreme Court has weighed in and handed the White House a stirring - if only partial - victory.
The unanimous decision, which allows most of the travel ban to be enforced (for now) with a critical caveat, is not only a political victory for Trump, but a defeat for left-wing courts that seemed more preoccupied with an animus towards the president than interpreting the law.
VIDEO:
Trump administration asks Supreme Court to revive travel ban
In its per curium decision released Monday morning, the Supreme Court not only announced that it would hear the full case on the travel ban in October, but that it was also lifting the lower courts' temporary injunctions and allowing the order to be enforced. The caveat: the executive order cannot be applied (at least for now) to foreign nationals who have a “bonafide” relationship with a person (i.e. a family member) or entity (i.e. a university) within the United States.
Still, this is undoubtedly a political win for President Trump, who tweeted “SEE YOU IN COURT” back in February in response to the 9th circuit court of appeals refusing to lift an injunction against the original order.
But it's also a defeat for activist judges who had tried to invent a new legal standard with which to derail President Trump.
From the beginning of the legal battle, it was obvious that the president has authority over national security and immigration issues. Both Congress and the Constitution are explicit on that front. Supreme Court precedent has determined that judges should not try to second-guess the president's motives if the law is facially valid.
The lower courts, however, tossed decades of legal jurisprudence out the window and replaced it with a creative new standard: they analyzed Trump's past campaign statements and his tweets, found them to indicate an animus towards Muslims, and then concluded that the order was thus discriminatory and unconstitutional, all the while ignoring its actual legal merits.
In other words, the text of order didn't matter - it was illegal because it was signed by President Trump.
It was absurd, and even liberal lawyers who opposed the order as a matter of policy admitted this new legal standard would not pass muster. They were right: the Supreme Court, in its per curium opinion, kicked it to the curb.
The Supreme Court acknowledged “the Government’s compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security," wrote that the lower courts had given deference to "foreign nationals abroad who have no connection to the United States at all," and concluded that "the Government’s interest in enforcing [the order], and the Executive’s authority to do so, are undoubtedly at their peak when there is no tie between the foreign national and the United States.”
http://ijr.com/opinion/2017/06/266116-scotus-ruling-travel-ban-win-president-trump-loss-activist-judges/
Sorry amateur attorney dolts :lol:
Even Kagan and Sotomayor wouldn't uphold the garbage from the 9th circuit you endorsed.
Post by: Emo EMAW on June 28, 2017, 07:57:41 PM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 26, 2018, 02:28:07 PM
Brings to mind a few quotes from my favorite poster on this board.
In other news, the 4th Circuit just ruled Trump's travel ban is unconstitutional - not because of the law as written but because of comments Trump made during the campaign. In other words, the same law signed by a different president would have been ok, which is a really interesting new legal paradigm. I think I hear Gorsuch laughing and cracking his knuckles....
Meanwhile Trump's travel ban (which will soon be found constitutional by the only court that really matters) is looking more and more like a major political winner despite all the liberal wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Post by: star seed 7 on June 26, 2018, 02:31:01 PM
Post by: Phil Titola on June 26, 2018, 04:07:22 PM
Supreme Court upholds Trump travel ban, sweeping about a dozen liberal activist appellate decisions into the waste bin. The bitterness of this AP write-up is worth reading. https://apnews.com/3a20abe305bd4c989116f82bf535393b/Court-upholds-Trump-travel-ban,-rejects-discrimination-claim (https://apnews.com/3a20abe305bd4c989116f82bf535393b/Court-upholds-Trump-travel-ban,-rejects-discrimination-claim)Pretty funny to claim activist judges given how the vote came out and the BS Congress did to delay filling that seat. Big win though I'm sure....grats
Brings to mind a few quotes from my favorite poster on this board.In other news, the 4th Circuit just ruled Trump's travel ban is unconstitutional - not because of the law as written but because of comments Trump made during the campaign. In other words, the same law signed by a different president would have been ok, which is a really interesting new legal paradigm. I think I hear Gorsuch laughing and cracking his knuckles....Meanwhile Trump's travel ban (which will soon be found constitutional by the only court that really matters) is looking more and more like a major political winner despite all the liberal wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 26, 2018, 06:46:39 PM
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 26, 2018, 06:52:36 PM
The vote should have been a straight 9-0.
It's sad to see such partisanship on our nations highest court.
SMDH
Post by: Phil Titola on June 26, 2018, 07:07:25 PM
Section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Section 118f could not be any more clear.
The vote should have been a straight 9-0.
It's sad to see such partisanship on our nations highest court.
SMDH
the president saying he wanted to ban "muslims" like over and over is really the only reason it was in question.....he's an idiot. good vote bud!
Post by: catastrophe on June 26, 2018, 08:59:58 PM
Section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Section 118f could not be any more clear.
The vote should have been a straight 9-0.
It's sad to see such partisanship on our nations highest court.
SMDH
No one takes issue with the president’s powers. The only issue was whether the president can use those powers to clearly discriminate against a religious group even if the order as written is not clearly discriminatory. SCOTUS ruled it was ok, and I’m ok with that tbh. Although it is tough to square with the masterpiece cake decision where the court heavily relied on the fact that the baker was derided for his religion at the hearing.
Post by: renocat on June 26, 2018, 10:46:29 PM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 26, 2018, 11:03:53 PM
Pretty funny to claim activist judges given how the vote came out and the BS Congress did to delay filling that seat. Big win though I'm sure....grats
The narrow SC vote and machinations to put Gorsuch on the court (thank God for that) have absolutely zero bearing on whether lower courts were activist. The term “activist judge” refers to a judge who ruled to achieve a desired outcome as opposed to simply reading, interpreting, and applying the law. In this case, the law was quite clear but activist judges (including the libs on the SC) applied a bizarre “yeah but Trump said mean things” standard to reach their desired outcome. Today was a good day for the rule of law no matter what you think of the soundness of the underlying travel ban.
From Jonathan Turley: http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/394173-supreme-court-hands-trump-predictable-win-on-travel-ban (http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/394173-supreme-court-hands-trump-predictable-win-on-travel-ban)
Quote
The Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. Hawaii today was more than a predictable reversal of the 9th Circuit appeals court in its dubious ruling that the travel ban was unconstitutional. As some of us noted from the outset of this litigation, the precedent heavily favored President Trump.
What was unprecedented was the degree to which courts relied on campaign statements and tweets by Trump to rule that the entry limits were based on religious animus. The ruling properly returns the courts, and others, to basic principles of legal process. Call it “The Red Hen moment” for the courts, where judges, appalled by Trump’s inflammatory and reckless comments against Muslims, refused to extend him the same deference shown to predecessors like former President Obama. The response from judges, however, seemed more visceral than analytical in ignoring the nondiscriminatory rationales cited by agencies for the policy.
The Supreme Court’s decision is, obviously, a major win for Trump, but it also is a major victory for those who believe courts must rule within the confines of the traditional record of review. CNN was quick to declare that this presidential order was “very different” from the original order. Despite my criticism of the original order — which was poorly drafted, poorly executed and poorly defended — it is not true that this decision was based on different questions. The challengers emphasized that the third order was based on the same threshold questions raised in the first order. The Supreme Court specifically hit the same flaw found in the first, second and third opinions, which was the reliance on the statements made by Trump on the campaign and over Twitter.
The Supreme Court ruled, “At the heart of their case is a series of statements by the President and his advisers both during the campaign and since the President assumed office. The issue, however, is not whether to denounce the president’s statements, but the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility.”
The dissenting justices still maintained that, regardless of the record created by the agencies, the president’s comments should be treated as dispositive as showing that the policy was “motivated by anti-Muslim animus.” There is little record that the agencies could create to overcome such statements in the view of the four dissenting justices. That is a dangerous approach for courts in reviewing policies and laws. It would allow jurists to pick from an array of public comments as determinative factors in review. While such comments have been given weight in racial gerrymandering cases and some other areas, the reliance by the 9th Circuit and the dissenting justices would have been unprecedented.
Post by: LickNeckey on June 26, 2018, 11:15:21 PM
Pretty funny to claim activist judges given how the vote came out and the BS Congress did to delay filling that seat. Big win though I'm sure....grats
The narrow SC vote and machinations to put Gorsuch on the court (thank God for that) have absolutely zero bearing on whether lower courts were activist. The term “activist judge” refers to a judge who ruled to achieve a desired outcome as opposed to simply reading, interpreting, and applying the law. In this case, the law was quite clear but activist judges (including the libs on the SC) applied a bizarre “yeah but Trump said mean things” standard to reach their desired outcome. Today was a good day for the rule of law no matter what you think of the soundness of the underlying travel ban.
From Jonathan Turley: http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/394173-supreme-court-hands-trump-predictable-win-on-travel-ban (http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/394173-supreme-court-hands-trump-predictable-win-on-travel-ban)QuoteThe Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. Hawaii today was more than a predictable reversal of the 9th Circuit appeals court in its dubious ruling that the travel ban was unconstitutional. As some of us noted from the outset of this litigation, the precedent heavily favored President Trump.
What was unprecedented was the degree to which courts relied on campaign statements and tweets by Trump to rule that the entry limits were based on religious animus. The ruling properly returns the courts, and others, to basic principles of legal process. Call it “The Red Hen moment” for the courts, where judges, appalled by Trump’s inflammatory and reckless comments against Muslims, refused to extend him the same deference shown to predecessors like former President Obama. The response from judges, however, seemed more visceral than analytical in ignoring the nondiscriminatory rationales cited by agencies for the policy.
The Supreme Court’s decision is, obviously, a major win for Trump, but it also is a major victory for those who believe courts must rule within the confines of the traditional record of review. CNN was quick to declare that this presidential order was “very different” from the original order. Despite my criticism of the original order — which was poorly drafted, poorly executed and poorly defended — it is not true that this decision was based on different questions. The challengers emphasized that the third order was based on the same threshold questions raised in the first order. The Supreme Court specifically hit the same flaw found in the first, second and third opinions, which was the reliance on the statements made by Trump on the campaign and over Twitter.
The Supreme Court ruled, “At the heart of their case is a series of statements by the President and his advisers both during the campaign and since the President assumed office. The issue, however, is not whether to denounce the president’s statements, but the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility.”
The dissenting justices still maintained that, regardless of the record created by the agencies, the president’s comments should be treated as dispositive as showing that the policy was “motivated by anti-Muslim animus.” There is little record that the agencies could create to overcome such statements in the view of the four dissenting justices. That is a dangerous approach for courts in reviewing policies and laws. It would allow jurists to pick from an array of public comments as determinative factors in review. While such comments have been given weight in racial gerrymandering cases and some other areas, the reliance by the 9th Circuit and the dissenting justices would have been unprecedented.
I was under the impression an "activist" judge was one that didn't align with your personal idealogies.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 27, 2018, 06:38:14 AM
Again; the laws could not be any more clear. It should have been 9-0.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 27, 2018, 08:29:21 AM
I was under the impression an "activist" judge was one that didn't align with your personal idealogies.
Nope, but you'd be forgiven for having that impression. Liberals are masters of diluting terms they don't like. Don't like the word "terrorism" because you think it unfairly impugns Muslims? Apply the label to all acts of mass violence whether motivated by political ideology or not. Don't like "judicial activism" because it calls out how liberal judges change the strike zone to achieve their desired result? Just redefine it as anything that doesn't align with your personal beliefs. Dilute disagreeable terms until they are meaningless. Once a word means everything, it means nothing.
This dilution is not to be confused with rebranding - another liberal proclivity. "Abortion" becomes "Reproductive Rights/Freedom." "Global Warming" becomes "Climate Change." "Illegal Immigrant" becomes "Undocumented Worker." "Liberal" becomes "Progressive." Etc. etc.
Post by: ChiComCat on June 27, 2018, 08:44:00 AM
I was under the impression an "activist" judge was one that didn't align with your personal idealogies.
Nope, but you'd be forgiven for having that impression. Liberals are masters of diluting terms they don't like. Don't like the word "terrorism" because you think it unfairly impugns Muslims? Apply the label to all acts of mass violence whether motivated by political ideology or not. Don't like "judicial activism" because it calls out how liberal judges change the strike zone to achieve their desired result? Just redefine it as anything that doesn't align with your personal beliefs. Dilute disagreeable terms until they are meaningless. Once a word means everything, it means nothing.
This dilution is not to be confused with rebranding - another liberal proclivity. "Abortion" becomes "Reproductive Rights/Freedom." "Global Warming" becomes "Climate Change." "Illegal Immigrant" becomes "Undocumented Worker." "Liberal" becomes "Progressive." Etc. etc.
:rollseyes:
Post by: Phil Titola on June 27, 2018, 12:04:30 PM
I was under the impression an "activist" judge was one that didn't align with your personal idealogies.
Nope, but you'd be forgiven for having that impression. Liberals are masters of diluting terms they don't like. Don't like the word "terrorism" because you think it unfairly impugns Muslims? Apply the label to all acts of mass violence whether motivated by political ideology or not. Don't like "judicial activism" because it calls out how liberal judges change the strike zone to achieve their desired result? Just redefine it as anything that doesn't align with your personal beliefs. Dilute disagreeable terms until they are meaningless. Once a word means everything, it means nothing.
This dilution is not to be confused with rebranding - another liberal proclivity. "Abortion" becomes "Reproductive Rights/Freedom." "Global Warming" becomes "Climate Change." "Illegal Immigrant" becomes "Undocumented Worker." "Liberal" becomes "Progressive." Etc. etc.
Can you provide an example of "activist judges" ruling towards a conservative leaning?
Post by: Spracne on June 27, 2018, 01:18:17 PM
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Post by: star seed 7 on June 27, 2018, 01:19:54 PM
Post by: catastrophe on June 27, 2018, 01:20:17 PM
Nope, but you'd be forgiven for having that impression. Liberals are masters of diluting terms they don't like. Don't like the word "terrorism" because you think it unfairly impugns Muslims? Apply the label to all acts of mass violence whether motivated by political ideology or not.
Are you suggesting “terrorism” should only be used to describe acts of violence from Muslims?
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 27, 2018, 01:28:18 PM
The Court is going to be conservative for the foreseeable future.
Post by: catastrophe on June 27, 2018, 01:28:47 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 27, 2018, 01:30:17 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on June 27, 2018, 01:30:55 PM
Man, it’s hard to even conceptualize what the impact will be if another conservative activist makes it on the bench.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 27, 2018, 01:38:53 PM
Nope, but you'd be forgiven for having that impression. Liberals are masters of diluting terms they don't like. Don't like the word "terrorism" because you think it unfairly impugns Muslims? Apply the label to all acts of mass violence whether motivated by political ideology or not.
Are you suggesting “terrorism” should only be used to describe acts of violence from Muslims?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. :jerk:
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 27, 2018, 01:40:12 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on June 27, 2018, 01:40:43 PM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 27, 2018, 01:41:13 PM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 27, 2018, 01:41:37 PM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 27, 2018, 01:42:07 PM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 27, 2018, 01:42:42 PM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 27, 2018, 01:43:36 PM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 27, 2018, 01:44:16 PM
Post by: OK_Cat on June 27, 2018, 01:44:17 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 27, 2018, 01:44:54 PM
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 27, 2018, 01:45:36 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on June 27, 2018, 01:45:53 PM
Post by: OK_Cat on June 27, 2018, 01:48:06 PM
Make gE great again
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: star seed 7 on June 27, 2018, 01:48:49 PM
I remember the good old days when ksuw pretended to not be a trump stooge.
Make gE great again
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You might want to get your memory checked.
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 27, 2018, 01:49:35 PM
RBG will outlive Trump
(https://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/img/editorial/2016/10/06/103999527-RTSQSH8.530x298.jpg?v=1475784615)
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 27, 2018, 01:52:25 PM
I'm sure my friend kdub will agree that Americans deserve to have a say in the replacement process and should wait until the new senate is in place to to address the issue
You should email Mitch McConnell your suggestion. (Btw, GOP will in all likelihood retain control of the Senate and may even pick up a couple seats).
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 27, 2018, 01:53:44 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on June 27, 2018, 01:54:28 PM
Post by: OK_Cat on June 27, 2018, 01:55:48 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Spracne on June 27, 2018, 02:09:16 PM
I can’t imagine anyone caring about the Supreme Court. Even starting a thread about them is lame.Huh?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 27, 2018, 02:09:35 PM
I can’t imagine anyone caring about the Supreme Court. Even starting a thread about them is lame.
Well that settles it. :cheese:
Post by: 420seriouscat69 on June 27, 2018, 02:14:21 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 27, 2018, 02:17:57 PM
I'm sure my friend kdub will agree that Americans deserve to have a say in the replacement process and should wait until the new senate is in place to to address the issue
When the pubs have more senators?????
It's like you dank little libtards forgot who runs the House, Senate, SCOTUS, and Executive. This isn't Barry O in the waning years of his dumpster fire admin grasping at power by lashing out through regulatory agencies.
Post by: sys on June 27, 2018, 02:39:52 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on June 27, 2018, 02:46:35 PM
I'm sure my friend kdub will agree that Americans deserve to have a say in the replacement process and should wait until the new senate is in place to to address the issue
When the pubs have more senators?????
It's like you dank little libtards forgot who runs the House, Senate, SCOTUS, and Executive. This isn't Barry O in the waning years of his dumpster fire admin grasping at power by lashing out through regulatory agencies.
What an odd post, even by fsd standards
Post by: Phil Titola on June 27, 2018, 03:47:00 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 27, 2018, 04:12:49 PM
Post by: star seed 7 on June 27, 2018, 04:15:22 PM
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on June 27, 2018, 04:16:24 PM
Post by: sys on June 27, 2018, 06:19:40 PM
McConnell saved democracy and they should build a huge rough ridin' monument for him. Like twice the size of the statue of liberty.
but instead your moron party led by your moron president despise him for some unknowable reason.
Post by: sonofdaxjones on June 27, 2018, 06:23:12 PM
I mean Chuck and Nancy of late are :lol:
Post by: gatoveintisiete on June 27, 2018, 06:23:57 PM
Post by: gatoveintisiete on June 27, 2018, 06:31:21 PM
McConnell saved democracy and they should build a huge rough ridin' monument for him. Like twice the size of the statue of liberty.
We need to rid our government of Class A son of a bitches that manipulate these appointments around our election schedule. Every damn schmuck up there was elected.
Post by: mocat on June 27, 2018, 07:22:03 PM
When will the Dems start despising some of their morons?
I mean Chuck and Nancy of late are
lol
Post by: 8manpick on June 27, 2018, 08:07:29 PM
Because it was unfair to not let our sitting president at the time fill the seat, typical partisan horseshit by Mitch. Eff him:thumbs:
Post by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on June 29, 2018, 10:24:09 AM
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/anthony-kennedy-retirement-more-originalist-supreme-court/ (https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/anthony-kennedy-retirement-more-originalist-supreme-court/)
Post by: Dugout DickStone on June 29, 2018, 10:37:34 AM