The Supreme Court

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

All eight of them lol

Lol...wanna bigger shovel?

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Black Dog said:

LOl the guy who constantly fills his posts with angry emojis is gonna talk about hysterical, too funny.

 

lol!  Sure kid, they're angry.  It's not like me and most of the people here are laughing at you or anything    

 

Quote

No,  it's objective reality but I 'm well aware you're not familiar with the place.

Sure kid  

 

Quote

I don't think it would look bad at all. Doing whatever it takes to win is never a bad look and that's what it's all about. Republicans know this, Democrats need to learn that lesson.

Spoken like a true fascist dictator. Which is actually what the democrats are all about. Everybody knew all along that they were the real threat to democracy as you have just demonstrated. Which is why trump is back in the white house and your guys are out on their ass

Quote

I dunno man a fake vag is probably better 

I won't argue with the voice of experience   

Edited November 8, 2024 by CdnFox

[gatomontes99]

5 hours ago, User said:

What a rambling bunch of BS. 

It is not "judicial activism" to appoint Justices to the Courts, it is judicial activism when you support and they engage in trying to change law, society, or culture through novel legal interpretations. 

It is not "court packing" when you are appointing existing judicial slots with judges to replace existing judicial slots emptied. Court packing is traditionally understood as increasing the size of a judicial body, in the number of slots available, so that you can then immediately appoint and fill them to push the Court in one ideological way. 

The BS in Obama's term was Democrats own fault. They were warned not to nuke the cloture rule on lower courts, they did it anyhow, so they could push through all of Obama's lower court appointments. That came back to bite them in the rear when it came to higher court appointments. 

 

 

But!

Emotions!

Ahhh!

[Black Dog]

25 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Lol...wanna bigger shovel?

You gonna lend me the one you use to heave your wife into bed or what.

[User]

9 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

But!

Emotions!

Ahhh!

Of course. That is exactly why he ignored that response but had time to defend his boyfriend having a fake vagina. 

[Black Dog]

5 hours ago, User said:

What a rambling bunch of BS. 

It is not "judicial activism" to appoint Justices to the Courts, it is judicial activism when you support and they engage in trying to change law, society, or culture through novel legal interpretations. 

Which is exactly what the Republican Court has been doing.

Quote

It is not "court packing" when you are appointing existing judicial slots with judges to replace existing judicial slots emptied. Court packing is traditionally understood as increasing the size of a judicial body, in the number of slots available, so that you can then immediately appoint and fill them to push the Court in one ideological way. 

People often use "court packing" to describe changes to the size of the Supreme Court, but it's better understood as any effort to manipulate the Court's membership for partisan ends. 

-link

Quote

The BS in Obama's term was Democrats own fault. They were warned not to nuke the cloture rule on lower courts, they did it anyhow, so they could push through all of Obama's lower court appointments. That came back to bite them in the rear when it came to higher court appointments. 

This is bullshit, of course. The Republicans' unprecedented decision to hold no hearings or votes on Garland was entirely because they wanted to hold that seat so a Republican could fill it. Simple as.

5 minutes ago, User said:

Of course. That is exactly why he ignored that response but had time to defend his boyfriend having a fake vagina. 

I didn't see your earlier response because I have you on ignore for being boring and stupid. I check in sometimes to see if you're not being boring and stupid (which is rare).

[CdnFox]

56 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Which is exactly what the Republican Court has been doing.

People often use "court packing" to describe changes to the size of the Supreme Court, but it's better understood as any effort to manipulate the Court's membership for partisan ends. 

-link

This is bullshit, of course. The Republicans' unprecedented decision to hold no hearings or votes on Garland was entirely because they wanted to hold that seat so a Republican could fill it. Simple as.

I didn't see your earlier response because I have you on ignore for being boring and stupid. I check in sometimes to see if you're not being boring and stupid (which is rare).

So basically nobody agrees with you except the voices in your head. That must be difficult to deal with.

[Black Dog]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

So basically nobody agrees with you except the voices in your head. That must be difficult to deal with.

Look sweetie just because the only source for validation you get is the dumb apes on here nodding dumbly at your garbage opinions, that doesn't mean anyone else cares.

[CdnFox]

20 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Look sweetie just because the only source for validation you get is the dumb apes on here nodding dumbly at your garbage opinions, that doesn't mean anyone else cares.

LOLOL well you obviously care, you're foaming and crying again  

But hey - lets see some actual proof. Not just opinion but some sort of proof showing that judges do the bidding of their political masters and don't follow the law. 

And you need to stop hating me just because i'm right   You're mad all the time these days

[WestCanMan]

20 hours ago, Black Dog said:

I remember a time year's ago when Republicans pretended that judicial activism was a bad thing, but now you pricks are just openly advocating for packing the court with partisan hacks. of course you'd cry and scream bloody murder if the roles were reversed and pul all kinds of bullshit like in Obama's last term, but the thing about you people is you are all of low character.

Judicial activism is a bad thing, and ending R v W wasn't an example of judicial activism FYI. Even RB Ginsberg said as much.

You should be happy that voters are choosing for themselves on this issue, creating actual democratically-arrived-at laws, and that even in an election year with a Republican wave, pro-choice advocates made decisive wins across the board.

Was 2024 not a great year for democracy? 

In a year where:

• one party elected the majority of candidates,
• the other party managed to make all of the biggest gains on their most important issue. 

If you're being honest, that's the way they drew it up on the board. It was a win-win election year.

The Dems made the whole election about abortion in a year when the world is teetering on the brink of major wars and the economy was in serious need of help. That never should have been enough, BD. Trump had more trust from the majority of Americans on the two most important topics. It would have been a farce of abortion was the deciding issue, all things considered.

[ironstone]

20 hours ago, Black Dog said:

I remember a time year's ago when Republicans pretended that judicial activism was a bad thing, but now you pricks are just openly advocating for packing the court with partisan hacks. of course you'd cry and scream bloody murder if the roles were reversed and pul all kinds of bullshit like in Obama's last term, but the thing about you people is you are all of low character.

Isn't it normal for Republicans and Democrats to put justices on the SC that align more with their values?

And it hasn't been the Republicans who are the one's talking about expanding the SC to tip the scales.

[Nationalist]

3 hours ago, Black Dog said:

You gonna lend me the one you use to heave your wife into bed or what.

So classless.

The eternal loser.

[NAME REMOVED]

 

6 hours ago, Black Dog said:

 

I didn't see your earlier response because I have you on ignore for being boring and stupid. I check in sometimes to see if you're not being boring and stupid (which is rare).

I have User on ignore too!

Edited November 9, 2024 by DUI_Offender

[User]

13 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

 

I have User on ignore too!

LOL, you are a coward. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, User said:

LOL, you are a coward. 

As I'm sure you've noticed, this is a common theme around here. Many on the left block anyone who gives them actual logic or reason or makes them look stupid because their arguments lack logic or reason.

But let's face it. If they had the nuts to stare facts in the face they wouldn't be liberals in the first place   

[gatomontes99]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

As I'm sure you've noticed, this is a common theme around here. Many on the left block anyone who gives them actual logic or reason or makes them look stupid because their arguments lack logic or reason.

But let's face it. If they had the nuts to stare facts in the face they wouldn't be liberals in the first place   

Robosmith just childishly blocked me because I implied he was a childish lwnj. Boy did he show me. Hahahahaha!

The left is all emotion. They are not equipped to handle logical debate. They truly feel that name calling, yelling and childish outbursts are proving how valid their arguments are.

[CdnFox]

21 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Robosmith just childishly blocked me because I implied he was a childish lwnj. Boy did he show me. Hahahahaha!

 

NOW who will marry you?

Quote

The left is all emotion. They are not equipped to handle logical debate. They truly feel that name calling, yelling and childish outbursts are proving how valid their arguments are.

Yeah.

[User]

23 hours ago, Black Dog said:

Which is exactly what the Republican Court has been doing.

Well, when you can figure out what argument you want to make here and put together some coherent thoughts, let me know. 

23 hours ago, Black Dog said:

People often use "court packing" to describe changes

Yes, because that was what the term meant, well, until upset Democrats wanted to stretch it to simply mean Republicans appointing justices to fill existing slots. 

If this is your argument now, then it has no meaning. Everything appointment is "court packing"

23 hours ago, Black Dog said:

This is bullshit, of course. The Republicans' unprecedented decision to hold no hearings or votes on Garland was entirely because they wanted to hold that seat so a Republican could fill it. Simple as.

Nope, this goes back to ol Chucky threatening to do this under Bush. 

23 hours ago, Black Dog said:

I didn't see your earlier response because I have you on ignore for being boring and stupid. I check in sometimes to see if you're not being boring and stupid (which is rare).

Ah yes, because you are a coward. 

[Legato]

Odd thing happened just now.

We are looking after a friends Shih Tzu whilst they're away.

So just sat at my computer and she jumps on my lap and looks at the screen.

Scrolling through this thread and was reading one of Black Dog's posts when my little dog started growling.

Had to laugh but I think it's more than just coincidence.😀

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Legato said:

Odd thing happened just now.

We are looking after a friends Shih Tzu whilst they're away.

So just sat at my computer and she jumps on my lap and looks at the screen.

Scrolling through this thread and was reading one of Black Dog's posts when my little dog started growling.

Had to laugh but I think it's more than just coincidence.😀

Man....  when your posts get owned by a Shih Tzu.....  that's not good. 

[Legato]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Man....  when your posts get owned by a Shih Tzu.....  that's not good. 

Yeah, made my day.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

The left is all emotion. They are not equipped to handle logical debate. They truly feel that name calling, yelling and childish outbursts are proving how valid their arguments are.

I think it's more like a rite of passage within their cult. 

You can't be taken seriously as a leftist these days without paying lip-service to the silliest woke ideologies of the day, and you also need to make unsubstantiated accusations against your political opposites - facts be damned. 

Look at Trudeau taking a knee for BLM, and Kamala supporting the defund police movement and also pimping a bail fund to get violent rioters back on the streets. And who did she pick for a running mate...? A guy who let rioters take whatever they wanted in his entire state, and who mandated that tampons would even be placed in boys' washrooms. 

Being intelligent and sensible just isn't the path to success within the leftist cult. You gotta get out there and be as loud and stupid as possible. 

There was no path to promotion within the DNC cult for Tulsi Gabbard. She was well on her way down. And yet, compare her intelligence, demeanour, and leadership qualities to Kamala's.... Tulsi is as close to "a woman of grace" as you'll find in this day and age, and Kamala is pure trash. She literally sucked her way to the top, and she's a mouthy, worthless liar.

Edited November 9, 2024 by WestCanMan