Trumps Muslim Ban Allowed

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,510
Because we are on the verge of it becoming irrevocably right wing tilted for decades to come. The liberals are outnumbered and there's pretty much no moderates on the bench. The Supreme Court should be non partisan not stacked in either direction.
 
Last edited:

Lurker

Star
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3,783
Because we are on the verge of it becoming irrevocable right wing tilted for decades to come. The liberals are outnumbered and there's pretty much no moderates on the bench. The Supreme Court should be non partisan not stacked in either direction.
Wasn't this ruling 9-0, making it nonpartisan?
 

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,510
It wasnt a ruling yet - they won't hear the case until October. It was a temporary stay - that it could proceed until the hearing. Because the case has not actually been heard yet there hasn't Been any opportunity for a majority versus dissenting opinion.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2017/06/shrewd-justice

And my comment was really aimed at the Supreme Court in general not just this one decision.
 

The Zone

Star
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
3,165
It took people jumping off the democratic party wagon voting the other way for the change you fear. The democratic party brought this on themselves by thrashing free speech and hating those who they feel are haters. It does not help that they all want safe rooms for any perceived trampling of their rights and things like being called Lightening T or Butchy Boo instead of their real names and the kind. A third party is being born in the US that thinks in the middle. Centrists are the ones who can help mend the ways of too far right or left. Problem is the divide is deep and Soros and war mongers are still here.
 

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,510
You say that as if I love or even respect the Democratic Party. I do not.

I did not say the Supreme Court should be liberal. I said it should be non partisan and moderate.

And actually, the situation we now have is the result of the republicans stealing a seat on the Supreme Court which was not theirs to appoint.
 

TMT

Star
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
1,201
Adding variety to the gene pool isn't genocide. It's called improvement. And the idea that the white gene just disappears in that scenario is wrong. It's super wrong actually.
Yes sir, genetic diversity is a great thing, it's a lack of genetic diversity that causes things like sickle cell or other genetic disorders
 
Last edited:

Lurker

Star
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3,783
You say that as if I love or even respect the Democratic Party. I do not.

I did not say the Supreme Court should be liberal. I said it should be non partisan and moderate.

And actually, the situation we now have is the result of the republicans stealing a seat on the Supreme Court which was not theirs to appoint.
So, you're just pissed that Obama couldn't nominate three justices instead of two? Where was your outrage when Joe said we should wait until after the election?
 

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,510
So, you're just pissed that Obama couldn't nominate three justices instead of two? Where was your outrage when Joe said we should wait until after the election?
Umm.. no.

The Supreme Court should be moderate and non partisan. I've said that idk how many times at this point.

Im not pissed about anything, I am concerned about the future of the courts since it is already very partisan and looks poised to become even more so. The law ideally should be objective and since that's the highest court of law in the land it should be held to a standard of objectivity even higher then the rest of our courts.
 

Lurker

Star
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
3,783
Umm.. no.

The Supreme Court should be moderate and non partisan. I've said that idk how many times at this point.

Im not pissed about anything, I am concerned about the future of the courts since it is already very partisan and looks poised to become even more so. The law ideally should be objective and since that's the highest court of law in the land it should be held to a standard of objectivity even higher then the rest of our courts.
Then why are you concerned about the direction of the court? I'm not following your thoughts.
 
Top