Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Those who want a "representational" Supreme Court also point out that Mrs Clinton received 3 million more votes than President Trump. They just do not understand. That, or want the fundamental transformation the dearly departed spoke so eloquently of.
Those who want a "representational" Supreme Court also point out that Mrs Clinton received 3 million more votes than President Trump. They just do not understand. That, or want the fundamental transformation the dearly departed spoke so eloquently of.
We are a country based upon our constitution. I do not want us to ever stray from these basic tenets. The judges need to remain steadfast to these principles.
This is the United States of America, not some experimental, hippy dippy, touchy-feely, go with the current flow of opinion America.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 24 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,558 posts, read 16,548,014 times
Reputation: 6041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer
They prevent the leftists from inserting things that aren't there (imagining it calls out a general right to privacy that abortion can hide behind, exceptions to the 2nd amendment's ban on govt having any say in who can own and carry weapons, strange additions to the Commerce Clause and Welfare Clause that authorize govt to regulate far more than the Framers intended etc.), or ignoring things that ARE in the Constitution (bans on govt influencing people's practice of their own religion etc.).
.
An originalist, if he really is one, believes the exact opposite of what you claim on the second amendment because Alexander Hamilton explained exactly what the Congress ment when they wrote it when he was campaigning for its ratification
Calling someone an "Originalist" is like saying that cave-dwelling is a more authentic form of housing.
It's not like saying that at all. What a strange and silly thing to say.
The Constitution was written to describe the Fed govt and assign it its powers. States were to remain free to exercise all other powers. Do you believe that's too restrictive? The Constitution also commanded that the govt couldn't gain any more powers unless a lo of different people agreed, through a long and cumbersome process.
Those principles are as vital today as they were in 1789, they are timeless.
i don't know what being an "originalist" has to do with anything. Gorsuch will rule in favor for his rich donors if something directly or indirectly affects their business, otherwise he's not getting paid, it's as simple as that.
i don't know what being an "originalist" has to do with anything. Gorsuch will rule in favor for his rich donors if something directly or indirectly affects their business, otherwise he's not getting paid, it's as simple as that.
How about letting us know who the 'rich donors' to Gorsuch have been during his 11 years as a federal judge.
How about letting us know who the 'rich donors' to Gorsuch have been during his 11 years as a federal judge.
Please don't feed the trolls.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
