Putting the Supreme Court Justice section of the debate in perspective

I think this gets passed over and no one cares because partisan victory, but when both of the candidates (the most unpopular in a 30 year history) were asked about their supreme Court nominations, they didn't say they'd put in people who would uphold the consituation. Instead they said they'd put in people that would erode our rights. Seriously, that was the debate; what right do you want to lose, vote for me. This is (*)(*)(*)(*)ing disgusting. How have we devolved to the point where the two most unpopular candidates we've ever had are in charge of a decision that could last a quarter of a century and they're trying to get your vote by saying they'll further restrict your rights rather than protect them?

 

This is one reason I say time and time again neither Trump or Clinton belongs within a million miles of the White House. With the election of one or the other, is this the point where the American Republic dies much like the Roman Republic died with Caesar. Only we elected our Caesar in Hillary Clinton which packs the SCOTUS where political agendas over ride the Constitution? Very possible.

 

My friend just reminded me that we're not supposed to vote third party either. Which right to you want to have eroded, election 2016!

 

Couple of things:

Saying what the candidates said about how they would choose the SCOTUS justices they choose...does not necessarily mean anyone's rights will be endangered.

Their responses on that issue had a ring of truth about them...a rare commodity these days.

At some point early in her first term, I suspect Hillary Clinton's approval and popularity ratings will increase dramatically. Remember that in 2015 she was named the "most admired woman in the world" for a record 20th time in the annual Gallup poll of Americans.

 

In what way does them saying they'll choose justices who agree with their desire to erode our rights not endanger our rights? Did you watch the debate? If not watch the first section, it's the one I'm talking about.

Hillary told the standard lies about guns like implying that the 30k deaths per year is due to gun violence (66% of those deaths are suicides, she didn't mention that nor did she mention any plan to deal with suicides), talked about a "online buying" loophole which, if you buy a gun online, you have to have it shipped to a gun shop and have a background check conducted on you. She went on about the "gun show" loophole while as usual failing to mention that most people selling guns at gunshows are FFL dealers because if you sell over a certain amount (I'm thinking 10, can't remember off the top of my head) you need a FFL or you're committing a crime. What she's most likely talking about is that private transactions are not federally illegal (I can sell you my gun, unless I know you're a felon), but that's something normal people do and isn't as scary.

Donald, honestly I don't know what the (*)(*)(*)(*) that guy was on about abortion. His lies were worse than what Hilldog said, since they were direct lies and not lies by omission and deception. That guy was saying (*)(*)(*)(*) about aborting babies hours before birth as if that's somehow legal or normal.

Regardless to say that they don't have agendas would be a lie. To say that they won't place supreme court justices that support those agendas is a lie (they said they would). So to say that their choices of justices don't necessarily endanger our rights is incorrect, because they straight up told us that's the kind of people they are looking for. As for Hilldogs approval who gives a (*)(*)(*)(*). She's massively unpopular because she just another politician who represents the same course the US has been on for decades. The fact that it's even a contest between her and a (*)(*)(*)(*)ty businessman from a reality show tells us just how terrible she is. If the Democratic party hadn't pulled so hard for her who's to say who they would have gotten. As for the Republicans, there was nothing they could do. They've been "saying it without saying it" for a long time, keeping that same, (*)(*)(*)(*)ty base. All it was going to take was for some strongman to say it and they were gunna win. We're talking about the same people who think Putin is who world leaders should aspire to be like. Ugly lesson, one which is likely to be learned in a very wrong way. Expect more of this (*)(*)(*)(*) four years from now.

 

It is my opinion that nothing they said about their selection process for SCOTUS indicates that NECESSARILY anyone's rights would be eroded or endangered.

They have to select someone...and EVERYONE has biases.

Some decisions made by the court will be choices YOU do not like; some I will not like; some neither of us will like.

Either the candidate of the Republican Party or the candidate of the Democratic Party will be elected. That person will make the nomination for SCOTUS justices.

Vote for either one; vote for someone else; or refuse to vote.

 

I don't understand. What you are saying is that just because they said they'd put people in who reflect their views about these issues, those people aren't going to agree with eroding those rights that they agree should be erroded. That doesn't make sense. I'm really not a fan of playing semantics here, and what you're saying from what I see is "yeah we can be 99.9% certain that's what's going to happen, but there is that .1% so we have no idea what will happen!"

 

Let me try this again.


It is my opinion that nothing they said about their selection process for SCOTUS indicates that NECESSARILY anyone's rights would be eroded or endangered.

 

Let me try this again.

You are playing semantics and avoiding a proper point for reasons I don't understand.

 

Not sure of what your problem is, but I was responding to something you said...to wit: Instead they said they'd put in people that would erode our rights.

THEY DID NOT SAY THAT.

That is my point.

It is my opinion that nothing they said about their selection process for SCOTUS indicates that NECESSARILY anyone's rights would be eroded or endangered.

That is something you are asserting for whatever reason you want to assert it...BUT IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOW that the people they choose will erode or endanger anyone's rights...except insofar as some people want "X" and some want "not X"...so unavoidably ANY JUSTICES CHOSEN EVEN BY COIN FLIP...will occasionally erode or endanger what some people consider their rights.

I'm calling that to your attention.

Okay???

Or are you suggesting I am not allowed to do that?

 

Still playing semantics I see. I have no idea how you can take “I am pro-life and I will be appointing pro-life judges” to mean something other than Trump is saying he'll errode a womans right to abortion. Of course that doesn't "necessarily" mean he'll do that, maybe he'll put in a bunch of Pro-Life people and abortion will be even more aborty than ever, but if we take him at his word, which is what this thread is about, then clearly he's trying to appoint people who are against abortion. He says so, there can be no mistake. Hillary says the same thing with many Democrat talking points. Oddly enough a Democrat wants to put in justices that believe the same things she does, and one of those (a big issue to me, same with abortion) is the second amendment. This isn't flipping a coin, they're telling us they are going to appoint justices that follow along with the agenda they are presenting. This isn't hidden, it's blatantly obvious if you watch the debate.

Please watch the debate:

[video=youtube;ye0Xblp_Nb0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye0Xblp_Nb0[/video]

 

History tells us that democracies always end in tyrannies, and usually we think of that as the President taking on dictatorial powers. And that still could happen since the Presidency has taken on extra constitutional powers and no one has said boo about that. But before we get to that point, it's obvious that we're devolving into a judicial oligarchy. The Supreme Court is an important issue in the race for the Presidency because the Court can now just make up new law without even bothering to refer to the constitution. That's why who is elected President is important to each group, because if SC judges actually adhered to the constitution, it wouldn't matter what President appointed them.

So no matter how disgusted you are, yes we have devolved to that point and are still heading straight to the bottom.

 

no we have NOT devolved to that point.

Oh and yes...were Trump get elected he WOULD have Roe v Wade overturned and we would be back to back alley abortions (for the poor) again

 

My favorite was her comment about all the DOZENS of toddlers dying and that what was the Heller ruling was about. Note dozens, not thousands or even hundreds.

- - - Updated - - -

HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Are you serious? Do you know how rare that actually was when abortion wasn't legal?

 

I don't aspire to be a Putin. I aspire to be a competent politician in our political system(well, you know my independent beliefs. But even in my system, I promote free will and the pluses that come with that. All I ever want, is to eliminate the negatives that also come with it. That has always been humanity's intention with freedom. To keep the good and eliminate the bad.)

Will my ideas work? Who knows. But I do know that I want to implement them with the constitution in tact. If anything violates the constitution, I'd make amendments to have it pass muster. Which is why I can't vote for Hillary/Trump. Both are a disaster for the US.

 

Your idea of what our rights are, and what they aren't is based on your own interpretation of laws, the constitution, etc.

Our rights are what we say they are, free to change and improve, add and remove as we see fit.

 

So you are voting Hillary for her values and policies, not for her possible Supreme Court picks?

How do you think Trump could do that when two Bushes, a Reagan, and a Ford couldn't do it?

 

She lied through her teeth about the 2nd amendment. She wants to gut it. I also imagine forcing doctors to accept payment based upon federal price controls namely through medicaid/medicare are in the near future with that dumbass in control as well.

 

Thank you for sharing your guess about whether Hillary Clinton lied in her statement about guns, Freak.

Thank you for sharing your guess about whether Hillary Clinton wants to "gut" the 2nd Amenment, Freak.

My guess is that she will move to control our nation's out-of-control medical costs. I applaud her for doing so.

 

I wouldn't expect any less from a fascist.

 

Reference; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...e-court-sotomayor_us_57fafd7de4b0b6a4303369c4

Excerpts;

“I want to appoint Supreme Court justices who understand the way the world really works, who have real-life experience, who have not just been in a big law firm and maybe clerked for a judge and then gotten on the bench, but maybe they tried more cases,”

The rest of Clinton’s answer centered on core but predictable tenets that an ideal liberal Supreme Court candidate might stand for ― the protection of voting rights, marriage equality and a woman’s right to choose, plus a commitment to getting money and corporate influence out of politics.

Clinton has already said that she’d “look broadly and widely” for justices who represent the country’s diversity. But Sunday’s expanded definition and nod to trial experience fit Sotomayor to a tee, as an Ivy League-educated Puerto Rican woman from the Bronx who cut her teeth as a district attorney in New York before becoming a federal trial judge.

No where in the above excerpts do I see anything that indicates Clinton will 'erode our rights'??

Lastly, polls that ask about popularity are basically meaningless...have zero to do with a person's qualifications for office! Popularity polls only serve to expose the vitriol in the nation today...

 

Great rejoiner.

Bet the other kids in the sandbox are applauding you.

 

If you were to watch the debate, you'd see where she starts going off about gun control, talking about the need to tackle issues that are not issues and passing off gun suicides (66% of gun deaths) as deaths due to gun violence. If you think she doesn't want to erode our second amendment rights you're not listening.

 

You are correct, since we don't follow the constitution we have no rights and the government can do whatever it sees fit. We were to follow our own laws though, things would be different, and there wouldn't be a need for "interpretation". It's kind of like how we have a right to privacy, which protects abortion, but we have no right to privacy, which is why the NSA can spy on us.

 

Considering I am not trying to limit their freedom, in whatever metaphorical sandbox you speak of, they may not applaud, but they do not speak ill. You on the other hand are in favor of the government fixing a private service which will inevitably restrict access our force charity. Either way, it's a net loss.