Not balance for the sake of balance.
Yes, balance for the sake balance.....If one assumes both positions have merit. And we both know that, by default, all liberal positions are wrong, on INGO.
Not balance for the sake of balance.
Yeah. It's not like we need a Clarance Thomas for every Wise Latina Woman. But that's how it turns out because the SCOTUS has too much power. Every administration wants to stack the court with it's own ideology. Even Scalia wasn't unbiased.
I hope they ship Merrick a free NRA patch or send him a donation letter for consolation. Seriously though, just because the NRA says no we have to automatically not consider him? They are a lobby. Or are we not allowed to go against the NRA hivemind? How about they not presume something about a nominee who hasn't been able to prove something on the bench because the opportunity hasn't presented itself yet? Let the senators ask the questions and make a decision based off the answer.
You have your balance now with 4 to 4 judges. Add the 9th judge and there's no balance regardless of which side of the fence you are on, but that's the way the system is.Yes, balance for the sake balance.....If one assumes both positions have merit. And we both know that, by default, all liberal positions are wrong, on INGO.
So is this the plan? Either confirm Garland, who would overturn Heller.... or let Clinton pick someone worse. Those are the options.
The 'Moderates' Are Not So Moderate: Merrick Garland
Who in the Hell would want a Constitutional originalist?
Kut (hopes you chose the wrong word)
So, no more votes for women?
You said "the day its ink dried."Ah geeze...yeah, exactly.
I'm long past tired of the "living, breathing document" types.
So, no more votes for women?
He was known as a strong Originalist. Can't ask for anything more than that.
Yes, balance for the sake balance.....If one assumes both positions have merit. And we both know that, by default, all liberal positions are wrong, on INGO.
So landed white men should only have the ability to vote?
So, no more votes for women?
So landed white men should only have the ability to vote?
Stop being deliberately obtuse. You are, or at least should be, aware that there is a difference between procedural provision of the Constitution and matters of principle, particularly as established in its treatment of our natural rights.
You need to take a step backward as you are buying into the foundation of the problem at hand: It is NOT the function of the Supreme Court to be a partisan institution. Its proper function is to determine the constitutional compatibility of laws and actions taken by the government, so assuming that either position having merit is a legitimate issue is fundamentally flawed. In most (not all) cases, the conservative position is that of adhering to the Constitution. That is the function of the court--to adhere to the Constitution, not to, for partisan reasons, arbitrarily decide whether to adhere to the Constitution or not.
Stop being deliberately obtuse. You are, or at least should be, aware that there is a difference between procedural provision of the Constitution and matters of principle, particularly as established in its treatment of our natural rights.
Surely, you don't deny that the Constitution, as originally put forth by the founders, denied natural rights to larges segments of the populace? ...and we won't even get into the second amendment, and the BoRs
Why is it not surprising that two leftists in this discussion must have slept through the part in class where they covered how the Constitution is amended and that that Constitutionally-defined process was used to give women and blacks the right to vote. That amendment process is an original part of the Constitution. The "living Constitution" is a corrupt practice used to bypass Constitutional protections without having to go through the actual process of getting buy-in from America.
If purple isn't implied that has to be one of the most intellectually dishonest statements I've ever seen on INGO. And we have Trumpers!So, no more votes for women?
Where in the Constitution does it specify that only men shall have the vote?
Why is it not surprising that two leftists in this discussion must have slept through the part in class where they covered how the Constitution is amended and that that Constitutionally-defined process was used to give women and blacks the right to vote. That amendment process is an original part of the Constitution. The "living Constitution" is a corrupt practice used to bypass Constitutional protections without having to go through the actual process of getting buy-in from America.