quote:

Originally posted by aileron:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Jon Tester, Montana (NRA Rating: A-)

but now,

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...or-opposing-gorsuch/

On April 7 the NRA made clear Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) can count on facing an advertising onslaught during his re-election campaign because of his decision to vote against the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch.

Tester is one of the red state Democrats whom the NRA put on notice prior to the confirmation vote.

Tester voted against Gorsuch. And the NRA is making the case that Tester voted against protecting the Second Amendment rights of Montanans in the process.

I sent Tester a letter urging him to vote for Gorsuch's confirmation, but he (his staff) e-mailed back that his constituents are largely in favor of blocking his appointment to the SCOTUS. Bullshit, and fuck Tester. I can't wait for his re-election campaign to begin and the current campaign to replace Zinke in the House - there's a battle brewing between 7 Republicans Republican and at least 8 Dimocrats - including front running poet/musician Quist.

quote:

Originally posted by Shaql:

quote:

Originally posted by aileron:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Jon Tester, Montana (NRA Rating: A-)

but now,

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...or-opposing-gorsuch/

On April 7 the NRA made clear Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) can count on facing an advertising onslaught during his re-election campaign because of his decision to vote against the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch.

Tester is one of the red state Democrats whom the NRA put on notice prior to the confirmation vote.

Tester voted against Gorsuch. And the NRA is making the case that Tester voted against protecting the Second Amendment rights of Montanans in the process.

I sent Tester a letter urging him to vote for Gorsuch's confirmation, but he (his staff) e-mailed back that his constituents are largely in favor of blocking his appointment to the SCOTUS. Bullshit, and fuck Tester. I can't wait for his re-election campaign to begin and the current campaign to replace Zinke in the House - there's a battle brewing between 7 Republicans Republican and at least 8 Dimocrats - including front running poet/musician Quist.

You should respond and ask them to provide the data. What polls did they use, what feedback did they get, where's the data?

quote:

Originally posted by DMF:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by DMF:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
For the record, 'deal making' like that described above is not deal making, its colluding with the enemy. Either they (Collins and Murkowski) are Republicans acting with the GOP, or Dem's acting against it.

Actually, they're supposed to be individuals representing their constituents, and their constituents are NOT the entire party.

Then they and their damn constituents need to join the other party if their goal is to perpetuate the collapse of this country.

That's a nonsense argument. Just because someone doesn't support 100% of the GOP agenda, does not mean their goal is to "perpetuate the collapse of this country." It's not my goal to "perpetuate the collapse of this country," but I don't agree with everything that is part of the GOP agenda.

It's intellectually dishonest to say that if someone is not 100% aligned with the GOP, that they then are trying to destroy the entire country.

quote:

Originally posted by 911Boss:
Sounds like bullying to me.

Can't they get a page or something to handle the door? Maybe a stenographer to take notes?

I'd like to think our justices time can be better spent than figuring out healthy menu choices...

quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:
Don't care who runs the menu, etc, in SCOTUS.

I do care VERY MUCH about the justice's opinions regarding the constitution!

They take an oath to support, defend, and uphold the constitution of this country! Just like those of us who wear, or have worn, the uniform of this country!

To me, anyone who takes that oath and then proceeds to trash the constitution should be summarily removed from office. And that include SCOTUS!

As I recall, the republicrats simply approved every SCOTUS nominee without debate or objection when the democraPs were in power.

And the same seems to be the harsh reality for the selection and appointment of a crap load of federal judges as well.

Maybe it is just that all those anti-constitutional lawyers, judges, etc never heard about that old document (the finest in world history).

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
Exactly. And my personal opinion (IANAL) is that Roe v. Wade was a very flawed decision. I don't have a pony in the show, but I think it probably should be overturned.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
Exactly. And my personal opinion (IANAL) is that Roe v. Wade was a very flawed decision. I don't have a pony in the show, but I think it probably should be overturned.

flashguy

Roe is wrongly decided. And not because of the substance of the abortion question, which is heresy to many. It is wrong because the decision about whether to permit abortion is not a question for the feds. The constitution says nothing about it, one way or the other. The court had to manufacture the federal question out of "penumbras and emanations" of other rights and protections and general notions of personal liberty.

The states should get to decide on abortion. That means that there would be abortions in California and New York, and not in Texas and Utah. In our federal system, this is a perfectly proper state of affairs.

But the Court will not ever overturn Roe. It has been the law for 40 years. There is a huge body of law that has grown out of it, and it reaches well beyond abortion. Explicitly overturning Roe would disturb vast swaths of law, and that would be bad. Creating that instability would be terrible. So, only the most rabid ideologues would overturn it. Judges value stability and believe, quite rightly, that stare decisis has value in and of itself. Worrying about Roe being overturned is silly. It won't happen.

It could get nibbled at. Restricted and limited. It is remotely possible that it could get old, and just wither away. (That happens sometimes - precedent gets old and out of date, but because everyone moves along it just sits there, more or less ignored. That probably won't happen with Roe, but who knows what might be true in 100 years.) But it won't be explicitly overturned.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
. . .I think what it would take to overturn Roe would be a society that refined selfishness out of itself. I don't see that happening. I don't know when a fetus becomes a human being, but I'm sure it's far earlier than when most abortions happen. Given that, we have accepted a moral standard which precludes the requirements to overturn Roe. I hate it, but have accepted it. I don't like being forced to subsidize it.

Sorry for that drift. I think the point needed to be made even if as an epitaph. It would be better if this thread did not become about abortion.

quote:

Roe is wrongly decided. And not because of the substance of the abortion question, which is heresy to many. It is wrong because the decision about whether to permit abortion is not a question for the feds. The constitution says nothing about it, one way or the other. The court had to manufacture the federal question out of "penumbras and emanations" of other rights and protections and general notions of personal liberty.

The states should get to decide on abortion. That means that there would be abortions in California and New York, and not in Texas and Utah. In our federal system, this is a perfectly proper state of affairs.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:


I think what it would take to overturn Roe would be a society that refined selfishness out of itself. I don't see that happening. I don't know when a fetus becomes a human being, but I'm sure it's far earlier than when most abortions happen. Given that, we have accepted a moral standard which precludes the requirements to overturn Roe. I hate it, but have accepted it. I don't like being forced to subsidize it.

Sorry for that drift. I think the point needed to be made even if as an epitaph. It would be better if this thread did not become about abortion.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:


I think what it would take to overturn Roe would be a society that refined selfishness out of itself. I don't see that happening. I don't know when a fetus becomes a human being, but I'm sure it's far earlier than when most abortions happen. Given that, we have accepted a moral standard which precludes the requirements to overturn Roe. I hate it, but have accepted it. I don't like being forced to subsidize it.

Sorry for that drift. I think the point needed to be made even if as an epitaph. It would be better if this thread did not become about abortion.

But that isn't why Roe is a bad legal decision. It is a reason to be against abortion as a matter of policy. But courts are in the legal decision-making business, not the policy-decision-making business. Confusing the two, which is done by people on every place in the philosophical spectrum, is one reason why these appointments are now so troublesome.

Keep the discussion here on point - which is about appointments and conformations. Not the merits of abortion policy.

quote:

Originally posted by c1steve:
Fortunately probably the worst two Supreme Court judges are two of the three oldest. Trump should outlast Ginsburg, and hopefully Breyer. Indeed, the next 1-2 generations will be in a good position.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
Exactly. And my personal opinion (IANAL) is that Roe v. Wade was a very flawed decision. I don't have a pony in the show, but I think it probably should be overturned.

flashguy

Roe is wrongly decided. And not because of the substance of the abortion question, which is heresy to many. It is wrong because the decision about whether to permit abortion is not a question for the feds. The constitution says nothing about it, one way or the other. The court had to manufacture the federal question out of "penumbras and emanations" of other rights and protections and general notions of personal liberty.

The states should get to decide on abortion. That means that there would be abortions in California and New York, and not in Texas and Utah. In our federal system, this is a perfectly proper state of affairs.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:

quote:

Originally posted by c1steve:
Fortunately probably the worst two Supreme Court judges are two of the three oldest. Trump should outlast Ginsburg, and hopefully Breyer. Indeed, the next 1-2 generations will be in a good position.

This is why we will see Trump under endless attacks. They must destroy him or nearly everything they've accomplished will be reversed. This is existential warfare now. Frankly, Trump is the only character strong enough of the Republican field who can duke it out to the end. He absolutely must be a two term president.

---

SIGforum: For all your needs!
Imagine our influence if every gun owner in America was an NRA member! Click the box>>>

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Roe is wrongly decided. And not because of the substance of the abortion question, which is heresy to many. It is wrong because the decision about whether to permit abortion is not a question for the feds. The constitution says nothing about it, one way or the other. The court had to manufacture the federal question out of "penumbras and emanations" of other rights and protections and general notions of personal liberty.

The states should get to decide on abortion. That means that there would be abortions in California and New York, and not in Texas and Utah. In our federal system, this is a perfectly proper state of affairs.

Exactly.
I would like to see a restoration of federalism, so I hope you are wrong about Roe ... but you are probably right.

Funding for planned parenthood is often defended by the left as "women's health care" but of course the Constitution says nothing about health care either. How far we have come from the federalism envisioned by the Founders and described in the Federalist Papers.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

quote:

The Judicial Oath
The origin of the second oath is found in the Judiciary Act of 1789, which reads “the justices of the Supreme Court, and the district judges, before they proceed to execute the duties of their respective offices” to take a second oath or affirmation. From 1789 to 1990, the original text used for this oath (1 Stat. 76 § 8) was:

“I, _________, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

In December 1990, the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 replaced the phrase “according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution" with "under the Constitution.” The revised Judicial Oath, found at 28 U. S. C. § 453, reads:

“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”