The Courts under Trump - Mega Thread

[Moiraine]

11 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Didn't we supposedly fight a war of some kind because people felt their voice wasn't being heard?

 

 

Funny, I was sort of thinking along these lines too.

 

Why would someone be okay with others influencing and sometimes even writing government policy because they’re rich? How much better is that than a Monarchy, for example? Many rich people are born into money. So in a way it’s similar to a Monarchy. There are just more of them. Let’s call it an oligarchy...

[Moiraine]

7 hours ago, Moiraine said:

I'll take it further in harshness. As far as politics goes, I think the country will be better off when the baby boomers die off. Having a top heavy old fart population is a big part of the problem right now, both in voting and in the economy. The former is why the GOP is cheating more and caring less about democracy as time goes by. Demographics will be less and less in their favor unless they change or get even better at lying (which they are far better at than the Democrats).

 

 

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/23/younger-americans-are-better-than-older-americans-at-telling-factual-news-statements-from-opinions/?fbclid=IwAR33QO2AS38aDXva5sIZjuAHDj-LENZoqb_mxGwNVNUAyHcULXyC4erC8xQ

 

 

For a long time now I’ve thought baby boomers (mostly those older than 60) are more susceptible to lies from hosts on a station like Fox News because when they grew up the news was the news. I think they applied their feelings of traditional media to everything that Fox airs including the opinion shows.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

6 hours ago, sho said:

 

In fairness, the lack of money isn't stopping you from saying what you want, it's just preventing you from getting the audience that you want.   That really isn't a 1A issue.  

 

The system needs to be tweeked, so that the voice of everyone is considered and not the voice of the wealthiest.   There are ways to do that without limiting what the wealthiest want to donate to the cause.

 

Thank you for clarifying that, it makes sense. 

[QMany]

 

[commando]

i wonder how the new right wing courts would handle trumps EO?  if he can pass an EO to strip 1 part of the constitution...couldn't he erase the whole constitution with his pen?   wouldn't erasing the constitution make him....a dictator?

 

 

[schriznoeder]

3 hours ago, QMany said:

 

 

^^^ THIS ^^^

[Danny Bateman]

41 minutes ago, schriznoeder said:

 

^^^ THIS ^^^

 

That the subtext of constitutional conservativism.

 

"We're for the constitution!*"

 

*When it benefits us.

[knapplc]

Good thread from the LA Times debunking this.

 

Like the caravan/troops to the border, this whole 14th Amendment thing is an election season dog whistle.

 

 

[Ric Flair]

On 10/25/2018 at 10:33 PM, Clifford Franklin said:

Please kick these people out of the government. They are rotting it from the inside out.

 

is suc

 

So tell the Democrats to show up and do their jobs.

[Ric Flair]

On 10/30/2018 at 2:40 PM, knapplc said:

Good thread from the LA Times debunking this.

 

Like the caravan/troops to the border, this whole 14th Amendment thing is an election season dog whistle.

 

 

 

The language of the Amendment itself is unclear and subject to debate. Your post itsel makes that clear when it talks about how “most legal scholars” agree. That means some, maybe many, do not.

[ZRod]

7 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

The language of the Amendment itself is unclear and subject to debate. Your post itsel makes that clear when it talks about how “most legal scholars” agree. That means some, maybe many, do not.

So how do you feel about the second amendment as it relates to restricting, purchase, and sale of certain firearms?

[Landlord]

4 minutes ago, ZRod said:

So how do you feel about the second amendment as it relates to restricting, purchase, and sale of certain firearms?

 

 

The correct answer *should* be, "The language of the Amendment itself is unclear and subject to debate." But, that won't be a convenient answer if you borrow the party's talking points hook, line, sinker.

[commando]

33 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

The language of the Amendment itself is unclear and subject to debate. Your post itsel makes that clear when it talks about how “most legal scholars” agree. That means some, maybe many, do not.

the vast majority think it's very clear.   some extremists argue that it isn't so clear.

[Ric Flair]

37 minutes ago, ZRod said:

So how do you feel about the second amendment as it relates to restricting, purchase, and sale of certain firearms?

 

I think the text of the 2nd Amendment is pretty clear.

11 minutes ago, commando said:

the vast majority think it's very clear.   some extremists argue that it isn't so clear.

 

Define “vast.”

[commando]

Just now, Ric Flair said:

 

I think the text of the 2nd Amendment is pretty clear.

 

Define “vast.”

an sizable majority