ADVERTISEMENT

Romney Sides With McConnell On SCOTUS

People are assuming all republicans will support the judge nominated for the seat by the president. This is not a guaranteed rubber stamp confirmation.
Other than Collins and Murkowski all Republicans will support the confirmation. Romney and Alexander were the remaining question marks.
 
People are assuming all republicans will support the judge nominated for the seat by the president. This is not a guaranteed rubber stamp confirmation.
Honestly, if whoever is doing this work for Trump picks someone competent and qualified, I would rather Senate Dems don't try to drag out the vote. Let the Republicans say their piece about how they're not hypocrites and record that and move on to the election.
 
I don’t know why people think a guy who made his money funding Central American death squadrons was ever a good guy. People have very short memories.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Huey Grey
I understand the frustration from the left with this issue with the timing but why would she stay on the court in poor to bad health? She could have stepped down in 12, 13, 14 ect and they could have replaced her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B1G and mstp1992
Good for him finally.

I dont really care who is on the SC as long as they follow the intent of the authors of the constitution and not what they "think" it should be.

So we need to follow the constitution now?
 
People are assuming all republicans will support the judge nominated for the seat by the president. This is not a guaranteed rubber stamp confirmation.

Most have indicated they'd vote for the nominee. Especially with Trump having released, 2x now, his list that the nominee will come from.

All of them are hardcore conservatives.
 
Good for him finally.

I dont really care who is on the SC as long as they follow the intent of the authors of the constitution and not what they "think" it should be.
So like black people being 3/5ths of a human being. Got it. You should teleport yourself to a plantation. Immediately.
 
Good for him finally.

I dont really care who is on the SC as long as they follow the intent of the authors of the constitution and not what they "think" it should be.

I get the idea of following the intent of the Founding Fathers, I just think there needs to be wriggle room where they allow for the fact that the world/circumstances are different than they were in 1789. It never totally works for me that the Constitution, which was meant to be a living document, has to be set in stone and abide solely by what existed 250 years ago. Religious freedom for them meant primarily Christians and a small number of Jews. Totally different religious environment today. Weapons were single-shot devices that often weren't accurate past 20 feet. And so on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dekhawk
I get the idea of following the intent of the Founding Fathers, I just think there needs to be wriggle room where they allow for the fact that the world/circumstances are different than they were in 1789. It never totally works for me that the Constitution, which was meant to be a living document, has to be set in stone and abide solely by what existed 250 years ago. Religious freedom for them meant primarily Christians and a small number of Jews. Totally different religious environment today. Weapons were single-shot devices that often weren't accurate past 20 feet. And so on.
Translation can’t win with current rules so need to change the rules to win the game. Classic socialism
 
I get the idea of following the intent of the Founding Fathers, I just think there needs to be wriggle room where they allow for the fact that the world/circumstances are different than they were in 1789. It never totally works for me that the Constitution, which was meant to be a living document, has to be set in stone and abide solely by what existed 250 years ago. Religious freedom for them meant primarily Christians and a small number of Jews. Totally different religious environment today. Weapons were single-shot devices that often weren't accurate past 20 feet. And so on.
it absolutely never was meant to be a living document and I do not know where anybody ever got that idea
 
it absolutely never was meant to be a living document and I do not know where anybody ever got that idea
Maybe because the year is 2020 and not 1789 and maybe because blacks aren't considered 3/5ths of a human unless you want to tell a black person that to their face. I'd like to see the response.
 
I don’t know why people think a guy who made his money funding Central American death squadrons was ever a good guy. People have very short memories.

Don't forget the most horrible thing ever done by a person either. "Binders Full of Women" will never be forgiven!
 
Did the authors write their intent in the margins? How does one assess their intent without thinking?
You are obviously right but what I think the uneducated racists on here mean to say is what Scalia called "originalism." That you can only glean intent from the specific words written into said constitution. In other words, that you can't use your damn brain to synthesize a cohesive thought on how an arcane document may or may not apply to an environment 200+ plus years into the future. Basically, originalism = racism. And there are plenty of mouth breathing racists on hrot, as this thread amply demonstrates.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chishawk1425
Don't forget the most horrible thing ever done by a person either. "Binders Full of Women" will never be forgiven!
You have your issue I have mine. Romney did something I consider evil that should never be forgotten. Forgiveness requires contrition. Your flippant reply is disrespectful to the people Romney got killed.
 
it absolutely never was meant to be a living document and I do not know where anybody ever got that idea

Then why was the Amendment process baked into the Constitution so that changes could be made to it?

Translation can’t win with current rules so need to change the rules to win the game. Classic socialism

lol, no - more like Translation: rules are 250 years old and the game has since had new maps and characters added, so maybe we should recognize that rules should be updated to reflect that we're not playing the original game, but instead the expansion pack version.
 
Maybe because the year is 2020 and not 1789 and maybe because blacks aren't considered 3/5ths of a human unless you want to tell a black person that to their face. I'd like to see the response.
This was repealed in 1868 so I'm guessing you think Trump shall appoint a Justice who will overturn something from 1868?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CFNiteHawk85
ADVERTISEMENT