ACB Hearing - Day 2
- Thread starter pablow
- Start date
He’s an incredible orator and if you have a limited vocabulary I’d guess he would give you one.
Guess you don't get serious migraines listening to the Orange Turd.
ACB is very sharp. Durbin thought he had her cornered on a dissent she wrote in which she argued that the 2d A prevented the denial of the right to possess firearms to non-violent felons. In that case, a man lost his firearms privileges over a fraud conviction involving the sale and marketing of non-medicare cleared shoe inserts. ACB says that only felons convicted of crimes of violence can be barred under the 2d A. For some reason that bothers Durbin.
She swatted away Durbin's questions quite easily. She really knows what she talking about.
She swatted away Durbin's questions quite easily. She really knows what she talking about.
Someone should ask her what being a handmaiden means and what positions she had to submit to.
I am thinking its been a long line of missionary only for ACB
I am thinking its been a long line of missionary only for ACB
Graham is using the forum to whine about campaign funding. He appears oblivious to the fact that America is disgusted with him.
What he just started to expose is possibly the biggest threat to our democrat.
Sorry you couldn’t understand it, because it’s real and it’s terrifying.
Hey idiot, it was your nominees and your party backers that gave us Citizen's United. If you don't like the outcome vote out those bringing on the process. Oh wait, they are not elected officials but people in the shadows and with lifetime appointments. Sorry. Looks like you are out of luck.
I’m not surprised that you are unable to follow his logic and path. His point is crystal clear.
I am not a Boomer...but I did go through the family courts....so I have no respect for the court system going in. Its arbitrary and not some high and mighty BS.
Cruz is full on projection right now. He is accusing Democrats of what he KNOWS Republicans are doing. Total piece of shit. Him trying to act caring and compassionate is gross. It's so forced and fake.
Originalists have had no problem applying the 4th Amendment to automobile and cell phone searches and thermal imaging. This criticism is entirely bogus. I'm surprised it's still being brought up.
I thought that line of questioning went very poorly for her. It made her rulings look inconsistent and undermined her originalist claims.
Lets be honest. The whole originalist thing is bogus.
I have no problem with originalism in theory . . . the problem I have is that many of the judges that proclaim they are originalists seem to have no problem dumping that legal interpretation when they need to give their party a win.
4 "originalists" voted to render the entire ACA unconstitutional. Why? Republicans needed a win.
Roberts is the closest thing to an actual originalist on the court there is.
This is why I'm afraid the courts may try to undermine the entire election. Because Republicans have shown that democratic norms mean nothing anymore. They will just do whatever they feel they can get away with.
4 "originalists" voted to render the entire ACA unconstitutional. Why? Republicans needed a win.
Roberts is the closest thing to an actual originalist on the court there is.
This is why I'm afraid the courts may try to undermine the entire election. Because Republicans have shown that democratic norms mean nothing anymore. They will just do whatever they feel they can get away with.
When Roberts says the judiciary is independent, someone needs to stop him and call BS
We have a Kangaroo Court system. It should be avoided at all costs.
I think Roberts himself tries to be independent. Much more so than other justices. But he's often the only one. The rest will vote to give their party a win.
To me, her hearings are coming across as her wanting her cake and to eat it, too.
She wants to be an originalist, but only when convenient to do so. She wants to be a disciple of Scalia, but not have to answer for any of his dissenting opinions like gay marriage.
It all comes across as judicial convenience.
Cruz = Pence = Tucker Carlson. They’re all the same to me. So phony.
That's what an effing legislature if for. Can't understand that?
Roberts seems to work hard at trying to keep the court from becoming a lightning rod...
I agree with you on most of that but originalism would not have given the win in Obergefell. It would have said that the government through the legislature always has defined who is legal to marry and who is not and that is just how it is. That same originalism would also likely deliver the same result on interracial marriage as well.
Again I have no problem with it in theory because in theory it essentially says that it is up to the legislature to keep up with a changing society and not the courts to do that for them.
In practice though the reality is that the legislatures have often not kept up with a changing society and also the originalists have dumped that interpretation to give their side a win.
This is why I tend to view Roberts as the closest thing to an originalist as there is. Mostly because he generally seems to avoid (no matter who it benefits) from declaring laws unconstitutional unless they very clearly are.
Scalia, Thomas, others like them. They would jump at the chance to declare a liberal law unconstitutional just because they can, but with conservative laws would revert to the strictest most narrow reading of the constitution.
For the most part I could respect any justice that is at least consistent on this sort of thing.
Shouldn't it be under the "originalist" theory of constitutional interpretation? The idea is that unless something is very clearly unconstitutional, we leave political decisions in the hands of the elected politicians no matter who that benefits or harms.
My big problem is that outside of him plenty of "originalist" justices are all too willing to dump that theory to give the Republicans a win.
They both legislate from the bench. . . but at least the Dem justices admit to that as being part of how they interpret the constitution... (Essentially say that they try to operate by the spirit of the constitution rather than strict textual meaning.) The R's say that. . . but then they will go try and invalidate entire acts of congress just because it benefits the Republicans.
I argue that the decisions on the Affordable care act show who the real originalists are and who is one just when it benefits his/her side.
IMO I just want to see consistency in interpretation.
You see them as trying to produce Republican wins,... I see them as merely doing their job when Congress more and more frequently fails at developing clean legislation...
And, there are amendments to said US Constitution that make that a moot point
No . . . because they are actively looking for reasons to declare it unconstitutional and are willing to stretch the meanings of the constitution to do it. They will stretch it just as as far as the living document types in the other direction.
Barrett, so far, has declined to answer all substantive and important questions.
It works to claim be an originalist when you're philosophically pre-disposed on positions.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
2027 In-State Wing Josiah Harrington Poised for Massive Recruitment- Latest: Eliot Clough