Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

The Supreme Court Travesty

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,112
Even if Hillary Clinton is elected, a Republican dominated Senate may continue to keep her from filling the vacancy left by Justice Scalia on The Supreme Court. It is ironic that in supposed defense of wishing to keep The Constituion intact, rather than "a living " document, that can change, the conservatives in The republican Party are willing to flout the Constitution and its mandate to the President to appoint members of Supreme Court.

"The New York Times" has an article on the Republicans' plans.

"That Supreme Court Stonewall May Not Crumble Anytime Soon

WASHINGTON — Senator Jeff Flake was startled a few months ago when a constituent pressed him on whether he was willing to hold up any Supreme Court nominee chosen by Hillary Clinton if she was elected president.

'I asked for how long, and he said for four years,' Mr. Flake, an Arizona Republican, recounted in an interview. 'I said no, of course not. That is not what I came to Washington to do.'

But that’s precisely what some of his Republican colleagues are considering. Having already blocked President Obama’s nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia since March, they contend that Republicans should indefinitely stall any nomination by Mrs. Clinton to prevent an ideological shift in the court. Such a blockade would represent a major escalation in the judicial wars that have been waged in the Senate since the 1980s.

Mr. Flake and other Republicans say that would be a terrible mistake. 'You just can’t do that,' Mr. Flake said. 'You shouldn’t and you can’t. People expect to have a full court.'

But if Mrs. Clinton prevails and Republicans hold the Senate, they are likely to come under immense pressure from conservative groups to do whatever is necessary to prevent her from filling seats on the court, considered by many Republicans as their last defense against the advance of liberal social and governmental policy.

The idea of denying Mrs. Clinton a court pick has been quietly simmering in conservative circles as Republicans held firm in their refusal to take up the president’s nomination of Merrick B. Garland before the election. It burst into the open in recent weeks after Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican who formerly tried to defuse judicial clashes, said that Republicans would stand united against any nominee chosen by Mrs. Clinton. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas followed that up with comments pointing to a precedent for extended vacancies on the court.

This week, Senator Richard M. Burr of North Carolina, who is in a tough re-election fight, was heard on a recording obtained by CNN promising to 'do everything I can do to make sure four years from now, we still got an opening on the Supreme Court.'”

Link...http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/us/politics/that-supreme-court-stonewall-may-not-crumble-anytime-soon.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

AGBF
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,008
I want to talk about the other side for a minute. Do you realize that one of the reasons Trump has as much support as he does is precisely for this reason? Much of America does not see the Constitution as a living document and will hold their nose and vote for him. Who are the progressives to cast that much of the population aside to further their agenda? I am a firm believer in states' rights and that the federal government or SCOTUS (for the most part) should not step into that relationship between a state and it's residents. If I lived in one of the swing states it is likely that I would have voted for Trump for this reason. What works (supposedly) for New York or San Francisco does not necessarily work in rural America. And we do not trust a progressive to mind the store so to speak. All I can hope for if Hillary is elected is that she is so tainted that she gets nothing done.
 

liaerfbv

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
1,247
redwood66|1478277192|4093686 said:
I want to talk about the other side for a minute. Do you realize that one of the reasons Trump has as much support as he does is precisely for this reason? Much of America does not see the Constitution as a living document and will hold their nose and vote for him. Who are the progressives to cast that much of the population aside to further their agenda? I am a firm believer in states' rights and that the federal government or SCOTUS (for the most part) should not step into that relationship between a state and it's residents. If I lived in one of the swing states it is likely that I would have voted for Trump for this reason. What works (supposedly) for New York or San Francisco does not necessarily work in rural America. And we do not trust a progressive to mind the store so to speak. All I can hope for if Hillary is elected is that she is so tainted that she gets nothing done.
I don't buy your claim that only "liberal" justices have an agenda. Viewing the Constitution as a "not living" document is just as much of an agenda as a progressive view. As much as a progressive court scares you, a conservative court scares me. Who are the conservatives to cast aside that much of the population to further THEIR agenda?

Like it or not, we live in the UNITED States of America and our Constitution is being shredded by ONE political party. It's time to put aside party for country. I will cry for weeks if Trump is elected, but I will be THRILLED when he appoints a justice - even a conservative one. How can someone who loves this country want a president to "get nothing done" in regards to the glaring hole on our Supreme Court?
 

E B

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
9,488
redwood66|1478277192|4093686 said:
I want to talk about the other side for a minute. Do you realize that one of the reasons Trump has as much support as he does is precisely for this reason? Much of America does not see the Constitution as a living document and will hold their nose and vote for him. Who are the progressives to cast that much of the population aside to further their agenda? I am a firm believer in states' rights and that the federal government or SCOTUS (for the most part) should not step into that relationship between a state and it's residents. If I lived in one of the swing states it is likely that I would have voted for Trump for this reason. What works (supposedly) for New York or San Francisco does not necessarily work in rural America. And we do not trust a progressive to mind the store so to speak. All I can hope for if Hillary is elected is that she is so tainted that she gets nothing done.
:lol: Hold his or her nose for Trump, who has shown he has no respect for the 1st Amendment (silencing media outlets he finds "negative" toward him/national Muslim database), the 4th Amendment, the 5th, the 6th, the 14th, etc. (feel free to add to what I've missed!).

This has far less to do with "the constitution" and far more to do with the 2nd Amendment- the crazy idea Hillary will seize your guns (just like Obama did!)- and Roe v. Wade. And, I guess, marriage equality for those still stuck in the 50s.

Anyone who thinks Scalia was a fair and balanced, originalist justice is sorely mistaken.
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,008
And we will fully agree to disagree on this. I respect your opinion and expect the same from you.

:wavey:
 

E B

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
9,488
redwood66|1478280478|4093709 said:
And we will fully agree to disagree on this. I respect your opinion and expect the same from you.

:wavey:
Fair enough, but now I'm curious: Which rights of yours under the constitution do you feel will be taken away under an HRC presidency- rights she's shown some sort of (actual) proof of wanting to undermine?
 

E B

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
9,488
8th Amendment. Separation of Powers.

Sorry, just adding as I think of/find more evidence re: Trump's "protecting" the Constitution.
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,008
E B|1478281129|4093713 said:
Trump's "protecting" the Constitution.
I don't think it is so much trusting him as not trusting her at all.
 

E B

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
9,488
redwood66|1478281645|4093722 said:
E B|1478281129|4093713 said:
Trump's "protecting" the Constitution.
I don't think it is so much trusting him as not trusting her at all.
So it hinges on an overall "feeling" about her, despite actual proof from the man's own mouth about wanting to undermine multiple parts of the Constitution. We can call it a feeling, but I suspect it's largely ignorance-- and I don't mean that in a mean way. Not necessarily the willful kind. Going with a "feeling" over proof is usually buoyed by this. And that's unfortunate.

Like I said, if it's Roe v. Wade, gay marriage, (falsehoods about) the 2nd Amendment, one should just say so, but to claim he'll better protect the Constitution flies in the face of reason.
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,008
If we want to call it "feeling" then ok lets say that. Then it is the feeling that the big city is leaving them behind and assuming they are ignorant - and I mean ignorant in the most "mean" way possible. You may say you don't intend to be "mean" about it but that is exactly how it comes across. I am far from ignorant and lacking intelligence (two different things) but I want to live a much simpler life than the one city dwellers live. And I don't want those same city dwellers to decide how I should live in the state I reside. Which is why I do not want federal government intrusion into the way my state runs its business. When SCOTUS takes up causes that states have not decided they are aligned with and makes it the law of the land, then you have too much intrusion. Should one want such intrusion you are free to live in states that allow it. Sadly it is both coasts and as much as I would love to live near the ocean again, I will not move.

ETA - I think I have to clarify the "leaving them behind" remark. It is not so much as leaving them behind as I would rather they leave us alone.
 

liaerfbv

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
1,247
redwood66|1478285157|4093751 said:
If we want to call it "feeling" then ok lets say that. Then it is the feeling that the big city is leaving them behind and assuming they are ignorant - and I mean ignorant in the most "mean" way possible. You may say you don't intend to be "mean" about it but that is exactly how it comes across. I am far from ignorant and lacking intelligence (two different things) but I want to live a much simpler life than the one city dwellers live. And I don't want those same city dwellers to decide how I should live in the state I reside. Which is why I do not want federal government intrusion into the way my state runs its business. When SCOTUS takes up causes that states have not decided they are aligned with and makes it the law of the land, then you have too much intrusion. Should one want such intrusion you are free to live in states that allow it. Sadly it is both coasts and as much as I would love to live near the ocean again, I will not move.

Yikes. Saying the Supreme Court "takes up causes" is a willful misrepresentation of our our judicial system works.

Based on your statements here, I can only assume you actually support individual self-governed states without a federal governance system at all. Do you you think we should allow the Supreme Court to die a natural death, as some Republican senators have suggested, because you don't believe the Supreme Court should be allowed to impose laws on your state that you potentially may not agree with?

We liberals have been living under a Conservative-majority SCOTUS now since about 1970 and we've somehow managed to continue participating in a democracy -- but yikes, threaten conservatives with a possible a possible liberal majority on SCOTUS and conservatives scream "liberal agenda" in a manner that suggests you're only happy to support our Constitution when you're in the majority.
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,008
liaerfbv|1478286097|4093756 said:
redwood66|1478285157|4093751 said:
If we want to call it "feeling" then ok lets say that. Then it is the feeling that the big city is leaving them behind and assuming they are ignorant - and I mean ignorant in the most "mean" way possible. You may say you don't intend to be "mean" about it but that is exactly how it comes across. I am far from ignorant and lacking intelligence (two different things) but I want to live a much simpler life than the one city dwellers live. And I don't want those same city dwellers to decide how I should live in the state I reside. Which is why I do not want federal government intrusion into the way my state runs its business. When SCOTUS takes up causes that states have not decided they are aligned with and makes it the law of the land, then you have too much intrusion. Should one want such intrusion you are free to live in states that allow it. Sadly it is both coasts and as much as I would love to live near the ocean again, I will not move.

Yikes. Saying the Supreme Court "takes up causes" is a willful misrepresentation of our our judicial system works.

Based on your statements here, I can only assume you actually support individual self-governed states without a federal governance system at all. Do you you think we should allow the Supreme Court to die a natural death, as some Republican senators have suggested, because you don't believe the Supreme Court should be allowed to impose laws on your state that you potentially may not agree with?

We liberals have been living under a Conservative-majority SCOTUS now since about 1970 and we've somehow managed to continue participating in a democracy -- but yikes, threaten conservatives with a possible a possible liberal majority on SCOTUS and conservatives scream "liberal agenda" in a manner that suggests you're only happy to support our Constitution when you're in the majority.
Don't assume anything because you will likely be wrong. I would like a balanced Supreme Court and have stated that before. And saying that judges don't take up causes is naive of you.
 

liaerfbv

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
1,247
redwood66|1478286699|4093761 said:
Don't assume anything because you will likely be wrong. I would like a balanced Supreme Court and have stated that before. And saying that judges don't take up causes is naive of you.

But I can only take what you've said here at face value. You want your state to be "left alone", unless it's governed by a conservative SCOTUS who support your ideals for this country. That's have your cake and eating it too type of government. I cringe at the thought of a conservative justice being appointed - but I would rather our government WORK then be left to rot because Republican cry babies can't f*cking get over themselves and hold a confirmation hearing for someone a Democrat appointed.
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,008
liaerfbv|1478288952|4093788 said:
redwood66|1478286699|4093761 said:
Don't assume anything because you will likely be wrong. I would like a balanced Supreme Court and have stated that before. And saying that judges don't take up causes is naive of you.

But I can only take what you've said here at face value. You want your state to be "left alone", unless it's governed by a conservative SCOTUS who support your ideals for this country. That's have your cake and eating it too type of government. I cringe at the thought of a conservative justice being appointed - but I would rather our government WORK then be left to rot because Republican cry babies can't f*cking get over themselves and hold a confirmation hearing for someone a Democrat appointed.
Your opinion is noted. Have a nice day.

ETA I did not say anything about the bolded. I want them to stay out of state business no matter the make up of the court.

:wavey:
 

DAF

Shiny_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 7, 2012
Messages
374
E B|1478281129|4093713 said:
8th Amendment. Separation of Powers.

Sorry, just adding as I think of/find more evidence re: Trump's "protecting" the Constitution.

+1. Isn't the Supreme Court sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong on some issues?
 

Bayek

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
6,678
redwood66|1478277192|4093686 said:
I want to talk about the other side for a minute. Do you realize that one of the reasons Trump has as much support as he does is precisely for this reason? Much of America does not see the Constitution as a living document and will hold their nose and vote for him. Who are the progressives to cast that much of the population aside to further their agenda? I am a firm believer in states' rights and that the federal government or SCOTUS (for the most part) should not step into that relationship between a state and it's residents. If I lived in one of the swing states it is likely that I would have voted for Trump for this reason. What works (supposedly) for New York or San Francisco does not necessarily work in rural America. And we do not trust a progressive to mind the store so to speak. All I can hope for if Hillary is elected is that she is so tainted that she gets nothing done.

So back at you :) who are the conservatives to throw back at progressives their view? It isn't MUCH of America, it's probably less than 1/2 of America. All I can hope for is that if Trump is elected he spends all his time in court with his bankruptcies, rape cases, lying and being sued for non payment, so much so that he is impeached.. because I don't expected he will get anything done period even if he were an angel, he's tooooo tainted.
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,008
Tekate|1478290664|4093800 said:
redwood66|1478277192|4093686 said:
I want to talk about the other side for a minute. Do you realize that one of the reasons Trump has as much support as he does is precisely for this reason? Much of America does not see the Constitution as a living document and will hold their nose and vote for him. Who are the progressives to cast that much of the population aside to further their agenda? I am a firm believer in states' rights and that the federal government or SCOTUS (for the most part) should not step into that relationship between a state and it's residents. If I lived in one of the swing states it is likely that I would have voted for Trump for this reason. What works (supposedly) for New York or San Francisco does not necessarily work in rural America. And we do not trust a progressive to mind the store so to speak. All I can hope for if Hillary is elected is that she is so tainted that she gets nothing done.

So back at you :) who are the conservatives to throw back at progressives their view? It isn't MUCH of America, it's probably less than 1/2 of America. All I can hope for is that if Trump is elected he spends all his time in court with his bankruptcies, rape cases, lying and being sued for non payment, so much so that he is impeached.. because I don't expected he will get anything done period even if he were an angel, he's tooooo tainted.
Which is why I support states' rights. You live in a state that works for you and I will live in one that works for me. I fear a SCOTUS that has activist judges making rulings for my state residents that do not agree.

If I allow you 60% then that is 40% of voting Americans that are conservative. There are 146,311,000 Americans registered to vote. That is 58,524,400 that you say is not MUCH of America.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/voting-statistics/
 

liaerfbv

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
1,247
DAF|1478289702|4093792 said:
+1. Isn't the Supreme Court sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong on some issues?

1. 99% of cases heard by the Supreme Court are heard on appeal - aka a party is ASKING the court to rule. SCOTUS doesn't "stick its nose" places it's not ASKED TO.

2. 4 of the 9 justices have to agree to hear any given case that they determine may have national significance. FOUR of the BIPARTISAN justices who are confirmed by a BIPARTISAN MAJORITY SENATE CONFIRMATION HEARING.

Do you honestly think the justices are like WHOOP gonna wake up on this fine morning and STICK MY NOSE INTO SOME ISSUES while I drink my coffee?
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,008
And when those SCOTUS decisions are made they apply to all states. Even for another state that did not bring the issue to them. And they choose to take up a case or send it back.
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,008

Dakota

Rough_Rock
Joined
Oct 16, 2016
Messages
48
Some would say that they are one in the same.

Whoever becomes president is going to pick a judge that helps serve their purpose. What that purpose is becomes beside the point when it stands next to that bias.
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,008
E B|1478282265|4093725 said:
redwood66|1478281645|4093722 said:
E B|1478281129|4093713 said:
Trump's "protecting" the Constitution.
I don't think it is so much trusting him as not trusting her at all.
So it hinges on an overall "feeling" about her, despite actual proof from the man's own mouth about wanting to undermine multiple parts of the Constitution. We can call it a feeling, but I suspect it's largely ignorance-- and I don't mean that in a mean way. Not necessarily the willful kind. Going with a "feeling" over proof is usually buoyed by this. And that's unfortunate.

Like I said, if it's Roe v. Wade, gay marriage, (falsehoods about) the 2nd Amendment, one should just say so, but to claim he'll better protect the Constitution flies in the face of reason.
Here is an interesting take on Hillary's stance on the 2nd Amendment.

http://reason.com/archives/2016/05/25/hillary-clintons-second-amendment

Excerpt:

On the same day that Trump addressed the NRA, one of Clinton's policy advisers told Bloomberg Politics the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee disagrees with District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 decision in which the Supreme Court overturned the District's handgun ban. The adviser, Maya Harris, said, "Clinton believes Heller was wrongly decided in that cities and states should have the power to craft commonsense laws to keep their residents safe."

Since Heller is the first case in which the Supreme Court explicitly recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to armed self-defense, that statement is roughly equivalent to saying, "Trump believes Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided in that cities and states should have the power to craft commonsense laws to protect unborn children." Just as supporters of abortion rights would be justified in reading the latter statement as a rejection of their position, supporters of gun rights are justified in reading Clinton's statement as a rejection of theirs.

 

katharath

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Messages
2,833
AGBF - I've been following this travesty since the day Scalia died and it absolutely is one - an appalling travesty. It will be very interesting to see just how many Republicans are voted out on Tuesday. This country is steadily moving to a more progressive place, slowly but surely. If I believed in a higher power, I'd thank him/her/it!
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
21,112
redwood66|1478277192|4093686 said:
I want to talk about the other side for a minute. Do you realize that one of the reasons Trump has as much support as he does is precisely for this reason? Much of America does not see the Constitution as a living document and will hold their nose and vote for him. Who are the progressives to cast that much of the population aside to further their agenda? I am a firm believer in states' rights and that the federal government or SCOTUS (for the most part) should not step into that relationship between a state and it's residents. If I lived in one of the swing states it is likely that I would have voted for Trump for this reason. What works (supposedly) for New York or San Francisco does not necessarily work in rural America. And we do not trust a progressive to mind the store so to speak. All I can hope for if Hillary is elected is that she is so tainted that she gets nothing done.
Do you realize what you are actually saying here, redwood? Rather than to address the issue I raised, which is a Constitutional one, you change the subject. You change the subject to discuss why a renegade with with no regard for the law whatsoever (Trump) has gotten support.

The issue is not "are people in the United States unhappy?" or "would people in the United States like to change some Supreme Court decisions?". Maybe sometimes The Supreme Court will make decisions that are just but not popular. You are writing as if the Supreme Court has to make everyone happy or else it is not doing its job. You are writing as if the fact that a demagogue like Donald Trump can gain support means that The Supreme Court is interpreting The Constitution incorrectly.

The fact that Donald Trump has support does not mean that The Supreme Court has erred. The fact that people may be unhappy with some decisions does not mean that The Supreme Court is a failed institution. However, when a branch of government ceases to do what The Constitution calls upon it to do-in the case of the Senate to confirm the requisite number of members of the Supreme Court-then required by law-that institution has failed. Therefore, at this point, the Legislative Branch has failed.

AGBF
 

ksinger

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
5,078
katharath|1478314490|4093914 said:
AGBF - I've been following this travesty since the day Scalia died and it absolutely is one - an appalling travesty. It will be very interesting to see just how many Republicans are voted out on Tuesday. This country is steadily moving to a more progressive place, slowly but surely. If I believed in a higher power, I'd thank him/her/it!
And that is because there is no one coming to rescue the group who thinks their collective finger in the demographic dike, is going to freeze things as they are, or roll back the changes that have occurred.

Whites will continue to decline in numbers and influence, and the move from rural to urban will continue. Both of these shifts have been happening for a very long time, it's just now we've finally reached critical mass enough to see how it will impact going forward.

Change happens. Period. And our history reflects it very well.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-conservatives-start-culture-wars-and-liberals-win-them/2016/01/29/f89d0b2c-b658-11e5-a842-0feb51d1d124_story.html
 

Bayek

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
6,678
Do I live in a state that works for me? Nah.. I never have except maybe 40 years ago when I lived in New York city. I chose to move back to the north from Texas because I HATED the heat, I hated the politics and I hated the gun culture. But moving to a state with a Tea Party governor wasn't all that much better.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

the supreme court is the law of the land under the constitution of the United States of America. If a state wishes not to follow the supreme court, they need to secede.. If citizens united pisses you off it does me too, but it is the law of the land and until it can be changed I have to live by it. (I personally think this one law has allowed our political system to go nutzoid).

We have the supremacy clause, federal trumps state law. If one does not want to live under federal jurisdiction then that state must secede. If a state secedes (which I am in favor of for Texas for sure) then their population loses federal funding, federal aide and protection (although there are more guns in Texas probably than in all of the USA ;-) ) we are a country, we have rules and we have to live by them.

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

Bayek

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
6,678
redwood66|1478291368|4093810 said:
Tekate|1478290664|4093800 said:
redwood66|1478277192|4093686 said:
I want to talk about the other side for a minute. Do you realize that one of the reasons Trump has as much support as he does is precisely for this reason? Much of America does not see the Constitution as a living document and will hold their nose and vote for him. Who are the progressives to cast that much of the population aside to further their agenda? I am a firm believer in states' rights and that the federal government or SCOTUS (for the most part) should not step into that relationship between a state and it's residents. If I lived in one of the swing states it is likely that I would have voted for Trump for this reason. What works (supposedly) for New York or San Francisco does not necessarily work in rural America. And we do not trust a progressive to mind the store so to speak. All I can hope for if Hillary is elected is that she is so tainted that she gets nothing done.

So back at you :) who are the conservatives to throw back at progressives their view? It isn't MUCH of America, it's probably less than 1/2 of America. All I can hope for is that if Trump is elected he spends all his time in court with his bankruptcies, rape cases, lying and being sued for non payment, so much so that he is impeached.. because I don't expected he will get anything done period even if he were an angel, he's tooooo tainted.
Which is why I support states' rights. You live in a state that works for you and I will live in one that works for me. I fear a SCOTUS that has activist judges making rulings for my state residents that do not agree.

If I allow you 60% then that is 40% of voting Americans that are conservative. There are 146,311,000 Americans registered to vote. That is 58,524,400 that you say is not MUCH of America.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/voting-statistics/
As I said, less than 1/2 of America. We all learn when we are kids, majority rules. Don't like it, don't play in the sandbox.
 

Bayek

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
6,678
redwood66|1478311945|4093900 said:
E B|1478282265|4093725 said:
redwood66|1478281645|4093722 said:
E B|1478281129|4093713 said:
Trump's "protecting" the Constitution.
I don't think it is so much trusting him as not trusting her at all.
So it hinges on an overall "feeling" about her, despite actual proof from the man's own mouth about wanting to undermine multiple parts of the Constitution. We can call it a feeling, but I suspect it's largely ignorance-- and I don't mean that in a mean way. Not necessarily the willful kind. Going with a "feeling" over proof is usually buoyed by this. And that's unfortunate.

Like I said, if it's Roe v. Wade, gay marriage, (falsehoods about) the 2nd Amendment, one should just say so, but to claim he'll better protect the Constitution flies in the face of reason.
Here is an interesting take on Hillary's stance on the 2nd Amendment.

http://reason.com/archives/2016/05/25/hillary-clintons-second-amendment

Excerpt:

On the same day that Trump addressed the NRA, one of Clinton's policy advisers told Bloomberg Politics the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee disagrees with District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 decision in which the Supreme Court overturned the District's handgun ban. The adviser, Maya Harris, said, "Clinton believes Heller was wrongly decided in that cities and states should have the power to craft commonsense laws to keep their residents safe."

Since Heller is the first case in which the Supreme Court explicitly recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to armed self-defense, that statement is roughly equivalent to saying, "Trump believes Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided in that cities and states should have the power to craft commonsense laws to protect unborn children." Just as supporters of abortion rights would be justified in reading the latter statement as a rejection of their position, supporters of gun rights are justified in reading Clinton's statement as a rejection of theirs.

So, how often as Americans, has our government armed against us? I have a narrower view of the 2nd amendment also. Do we think every day our government is going to break down our door and kill us in the name of liberalism? I do think it's possible with the Donald as president anarchy could happen, and then I would want a gun, sort of like if the gun lovers are coming after me because I"m liberal, time to get me a AR 15! seriously though I don't think an argument that Clinton or any president that would like to put more checks and balances in gun ownership is going to take 'guns away'.

The President of the United States is in charge of the militia, did you know that?

http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/articles/2/essays/87/commander-of-militia
 
Be a part of the community It's free, join today!
    Three-stone engagement ring upgrade
    Three-stone engagement ring upgrade
    Vintage OEC Bracelet
    Vintage OEC Bracelet
    June’s Birthstone Trinity
    June’s Birthstone Trinity

Need Something Special?

Get a quote from multiple trusted and vetted jewelers.

Holloway Cut Advisor



Diamond Eye Candy

Click to view full-size image.
Top