Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 35

Thread: Democrats acting badly

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Harker Heights
    Posts
    25,213
    Post Thanks / Like

    Democrats acting badly

    Well, the latest ploy they are pulling is that Upchuck Schumer wants all proposed wall funding redirected to solving the gun issue, and then a few top level democrat congressmen have sent the Supreme court an ultimatum to "heal themselves" of political influence or they will change the makeup of the court.

    The democrats have relied on courts to do their dirty work for a long time since none of them wants to actually have their name connected to any sort of legislation that may come back to haunt them later. A cheap cop out. Instead of legislating, they rely on judges to make law and the president to give out executive orders. If they don't like the executive orders, they have their liberal justices appeal them or overrule them. Pretty cowardly since they do not have the power, numbers, or constitution to take on issues personally. Too afraid a voting record may be traced back and used against them later.

    Congress, as an institution, has become useless and ineffective. Hamstrung with political intrigue and plots. Dependent on outside agencies to make law they cannot pass themselves.

    The warning to SCOTUS to heal themselves would normally be a good one, but what they are really saying is that the court needs to rule more to the left or else. WHat a bunch of gutless cowards they look like.
    We have met the enemy and he is us... POGO

  2. Likes txswimmer liked this post
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Cove
    Posts
    37,510
    Post Thanks / Like
    The SCOTUS will "heal itself" when the old hag Ginsburg dies and we get another conservative on there.
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

  4. Likes Night Owl liked this post
  5. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Hymesa Estates, Killeen
    Posts
    29,835
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by CenTexDave View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The SCOTUS will "heal itself" when the old hag Ginsburg dies and we get another conservative on there.
    "Hag"? Why.......she's a real fox......grrrrr
    Don't ask f'r rights. Take thim. An' don't let anny wan give thim to ye. A right that is handed to ye f'r nawthin' has somethin' the matter with it. It's more than likely on'y a wrong turned inside out.

  6. LOL CenTexDave, just2cents, Night Owl LOL'd at this post
  7. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    The Cove
    Posts
    37,510
    Post Thanks / Like
    5/5
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

  8. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    2,334
    Post Thanks / Like
    The Supreme Court should neutrally interpret the Constitution and laws of the United States, as well as the treaties which affect the nation. There should be no politics involved. There will of course be questions upon which reasonable minds differ, and that's why you have 9 justices. For those who say that the Court strays from the framers' intent, just remember that the Constitution was written long before today's technology, science, and knowledge. It was written when there was slavery. Yes, it has been amended, but many of the original Bill of Rights have faced challenges in interpretation in the modern world.

    I don't agree with all of the US Supreme Court decisions, but at least I respect those that have not been reached for political reasons. Some may say Brown vs, Board of Education was political, or any of the cases that affirmed individual rights of association, or went to guarantee equal treatment of all Americans. I don't believe those decisions were political, but they sure stirred up a #### storm when decided. I know there are some that still believe in the doctrine "separate but equal". I thank God they are not on the Court. It took over 230 years for the Supremes to recognize the individual right of ownership of a handgun in a person's home. Will they expand on that? Some say yes, others, no, but we will see.

    I agree that all in Congress should be fired, and their successors chosen by lot. Can't do any worse.
    Last edited by txswimmer; August 14th, 2019 at 1:11 PM.

  9. Likes CenTexDave liked this post
  10. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Hymesa Estates, Killeen
    Posts
    29,835
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by txswimmer View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    For those who say that the Court strays from the framers' intent, just remember that the Constitution was written long before today's technology, science, and knowledge.
    I don't see that as a problem.

    its the same reasoning those who think it's ok to infringe on gun rights use.....that, Oh, but the world has changed, guns have changed, etc etc. and while that may be true, it has nothing to do with the right itself. when the constitution was written they were talkin' 'bout the most modern arms in the world.....they were thinkin' and talkin' 'bout 'assault weapons"......state of the art rifles!

    and of course we now have some on board who neither want to nor believe that our constitution is timeless and possibly the greatest document ever written........they prefer to say and to convince others that it's a "flexible" constitution....mac
    Last edited by mac; August 14th, 2019 at 1:34 PM.
    Don't ask f'r rights. Take thim. An' don't let anny wan give thim to ye. A right that is handed to ye f'r nawthin' has somethin' the matter with it. It's more than likely on'y a wrong turned inside out.

  11. Thanks Night Owl thanked this post
  12. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Hymesa Estates, Killeen
    Posts
    29,835
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by txswimmer View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    The Supreme Court should neutrally interpret the Constitution and laws of the United States, as well as the treaties which affect the nation.
    no, no, no! They should absolutely not be neutral. They should be Pro Constitution......and most of us don't need any interpretation, we can handle it fine without interpreters.....too much interpretation goin' on out there".....mac
    Last edited by mac; August 14th, 2019 at 1:40 PM.
    Don't ask f'r rights. Take thim. An' don't let anny wan give thim to ye. A right that is handed to ye f'r nawthin' has somethin' the matter with it. It's more than likely on'y a wrong turned inside out.

  13. Likes Night Owl liked this post
  14. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    UCLA / Unknown Corner of Lower Alabama
    Posts
    7,745
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by txswimmer View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    It took over 230 years for the Supremes to recognize the individual right of ownership of a handgun in a person's home
    They should not have had to recognize that - it was already in the Constitution.

  15. Thanks Night Owl thanked this post
  16. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Hymesa Estates, Killeen
    Posts
    29,835
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=kantwin;494147]They should not have had to recognize that - it was already in the Constitution.[/QUOTE

    actually, it did't take'em any time at all.....they knew it from the git go....practically from their first days on earth,but it did take over 230 years for this infringement by a City Council to make it to the supreme court and be judged...........mac
    Don't ask f'r rights. Take thim. An' don't let anny wan give thim to ye. A right that is handed to ye f'r nawthin' has somethin' the matter with it. It's more than likely on'y a wrong turned inside out.

  17. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Harker Heights
    Posts
    25,213
    Post Thanks / Like
    Well, this is all part of the democrat plan anyhow. Get people to question what the meaning of the founders were, and then try and fit it into their own agenda.

    This is why the left depends so much on the federal courts to try and reinterpret the words in the constitution to fit a pet peeve of theirs. Or to try and label it as either an outdated document or "flexible" document.

    Like many things, it started out with clear, coherent, and simple contents and then lawyers got involved, and court systems. Like taking a simple clear thing like the 10 commandments and getting people to believe that they were merely suggestions and then getting a legalistic sector (think of a modern day Sanhedron) to make more laws to "clarify" what was perfectly clear to begin with.

    What started out as clear on comprehensible has now become shades of gray that need "legal experts" to explain. This is how rights come into question. Right now, we have plenty of laws on the books. Problem comes when they are so easily questioned or negated by law twisters.
    We have met the enemy and he is us... POGO

  18. Thanks Night Owl thanked this post
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •