As it turns out, it isn't the GOP establishment dictating justice nominees, it is the Heritage Foundation.

So you think the role of the highest court in the land is to rule with a conservative gavel?

 

And you have an issue with that?

A constitutionally conservative organization doing proper, thorough investigative research on judges is not a bad thing in my book, what makes the difference if Heritage Foundations suggests a nominee, or some other organization or individual, it's not like Obama himself researched Chief Judge Merrick B. Garland, you and I both know, he was suggested by someone.

A conservative gavel?, nah, not so much a conservative gavel, but a constitutionally conservative gavel for certain.

 

And for good reason they are against him.

 

I doubt there are all that many who are on the fence over The Donald.

 

Remind me again............what are those reasons?

 

Who decides who qualifies as a moderate?

 

1. Racism
2. Bullying
3. Lack of qualifications
4. Failure as a business man

Oh, never mind... That you can not see it before your eyes speaks volumes...

 

AND AGAIN;

 

Your inability to look up those reason shows that you're afraid that you will find out that Donald really isn't all that respected in the world... Just amongst the white supremacists...

 

.

 

Not quite sure what the meaning of you quoting three of my posts is, but it sure makes you appear speechless and ignorant...

 

I think your 3 posts that I quoted has a place in the 'irrelevant category'.

 

I'm trying to figure out how you feel about this ...

If the people, by vote in the general election, choose a liberal president ... are you going to complain about said liberal president's nominee or will you agree that "it's what the people want" and accept it?

 

And don't forget.....

A liar and golf cheat.

 

Reasonable question.

I am not a fan of popular opinion, however, I am a very big fan of 'law of the land', this country has a system of government that has checks and balances, also written within the law of the land.

I am not a fan of an activist judicial system, as I am a fan of a judicial system that makes rulings based on the law of the land.

As the pendulum swings, this nations debt grows, it tends to grow just about the time when rulings, legislation and regulation gets implemented by liberal/progressive and judicial emotional activism.

I am a constitutional conservative, and believe that the Constitution needs to be interpreted in the era of which it was written, interpreting the terms and phrases in the era of which it was written, Chief Justice Antonin Scalia did this, it is proven that Chief Judge Merrick B. Garland has not done this, and in several instances, he has ruled, based upon his own emotional balance.

 

Thank you for the thoughtful reply.

I admit that I don't agree with your conservative stance (surprise!), but I support your right to hold that position. I suppose I presume that there is no way our forefathers could anticipate the occurrence of, for example, same sex marriage and the ramifications of outlawing or legalizing same. It is my position that religious = conservative, and that, tho it is argued over and over, the separation of church and state should be paramount in the supreme court's rulings. For that reason, I like the idea of judges that are neither end of the political spectrum.

Man, I hope that makes sense ... I've been enjoying my wine tonight.

 

And if this were actually happening, were would not be arguing over banning assault weapons because they didn't exist "in the era of which it was written"...

But here we are...

 

1. Racism:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/racism?s=t

[rey-siz-uh m]

noun

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.

2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Please explain what statements or actions of his prove that he is a racist. Saying that Mexico is sending their rapists & murderers to the US is not racist.


2. Bullying

Nothing in the Constitution about that. Also, "bullying" is a subjective term. One could say that siccing the IRS on people because of their political beliefs is bullying.


3. Lack of qualifications



Are there other qualifications listed somewhere that I haven't covered?

4. Failure as a business man



4 or 5 failures out of about 400?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trump_Organization

Number of employees 22,450[4]

[4] Long, Heather (September 3, 2015). "How many jobs has Donald Trump actually created". CNN Money. Retrieved 15 January 2016.
According to PrivCo, the Trump Organization has 22,450 employees.



So, what are Bernie's qualifications to run for president?

Let's see. He's been in Congress for 25 years. And this from snopes.com

During his tenure in Congress Sanders has sponsored three bills that were enacted: two of which were rather slight matters involving the naming of USPS facilities, and one of which was the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013 (which provided "for an increase in the rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans").

 

After the schooling by M4M it would seem you ARE speechless, ignorant and I might add impotent.

 

Many of the founders were classified as Deist's (natural law), with that in mind, I would suspect that the founders never intended for same sex marriage to ever be an issue.

And today, it should still not be an issue. I dont care who fucks who, who sucks who, who ''loves'' who, it is not an issue to me, it really isn't.

However, the federal fucking government has no right to be involved in this issue at all, same sex marriage is an emotional issue, that the federal fucking government has no authority over, marriage is for one sole purpose...procreation... not to receive federal fucking government benefits and the recognition of said same sex marriage, same sex marriage is not based upon natural law.

I'm not opposed to States recognizing same sex marriage as a 'civil union', not at all, but not a marriage.

Those the oppose same sex marriage on a religious stand are just as emotionally imbalanced as those that are fighting for federal fucking government recognition...........marriage is not a 'religious right', so to speak, although, I'm not aware of any mainstream religion that endorses same sex marriage.

I'm real glad that the wine was tasty.

Oh, I have got to ask; what is your opinion of Joedirty's Signature?