Then replace those republicansI doubt it, but I can hope. I also have little faith in Republicans if they did take both houses. They’ll play it safe in desperation to keep their seats.
I always love this. We can't even get our own worthless R's replaced.Then replace those republicans
The Red Wave Is Not Just Inevitable, It's Also Conservative
Voters understand that the hour is late. Conservative warriors are being summoned by citizens ready to fight for the things that they love.thefederalist.com
If you read the article, you will see some notable success at challenging CoCrublicans in republican primaries, as well as see that one of the many not-Trump darlings of the RINOs, Christie Noem, doesn't seem as interested in taking back America as she is in carrying water for the old orderI always love this. We can't even get our own worthless R's replaced.
No chance the others are going to be replaced in one cycle.
'We' would imply you took some active part in the attempt. If you wait until Election Day to get involved it will be too lateWe can't even get our own worthless R's replaced.'We' would imply you took some active part in the attempt. If you wait until Election Day it is too late
When possible. I’m not even all that concerned about conservatives replacing what we have now. Any America-First candidates would be better than the CoC Republicans.Then replace those republicans
The Red Wave Is Not Just Inevitable, It's Also Conservative
Voters understand that the hour is late. Conservative warriors are being summoned by citizens ready to fight for the things that they love.thefederalist.com
Hey now, we have to get these disagreements aired now, there likely will no no power to run the internet in 2024…2024 is a long way off yet.
If Biden and his handlers double down on what they have been doing the next few years we might not have a country anymore.
Maybe not the same country where our republic still functions. Something closer to Orwell' view of the world in his 1984 book.
That’s the point. Do they really put America first or are they grifters riding the wave of populism to make a career?If you read the article, you will see some notable success at challenging CoCrublicans in republican primaries, as well as see that one of the many not-Trump darlings of the RINOs, Christie Noem, doesn't seem as interested in taking back America as she is in carrying water for the old order
Oh hell. I forgot about grab them by the *****. But seriously, I did not think much about that one. It’s like lockeroom talk.In other news, people who are not me and have a following in the real world continue to point to Trump as the goto guy for taking back America
Pornstar ****ing (2006) and 'grab them by the *****' (2005) are not mentioned, for some reason. Perhaps they decline to do the left's work for them
The Historical Meaning of Donald Trump
www.theepochtimes.com
Hopefully that standard applies to current not-Trump faves, alsoWhen possible. I’m not even all that concerned about conservatives replacing what we have now. Any America-First candidates would be better than the CoC Republicans.
But, voters have to be careful. Many Republicans got elected as “TEA party” candidates and turned out to be duds. They just hitched themselves up to the name. If Republicans smell a wave coming, they try to smell like the wave to make a political career for themselves. After the TEA Party’s fall from popularity, people tried to latch onto “Trumpism” to ride that wave. I’m still not sure what to think of Dan Crenshaw, but I kinda don’t want more like him.
Just saying people need to know what they’re getting.
"Three justices, appointed by one president, Donald Trump..."
I am always aghast and appalled, but not surprised, by the left's unwarranted assumption that a liberal SCOTUS was how things were meant to be
It was never a federally protected constitutional right. The justices that decided RvW legislated from the bench and just declared abortion a constitutional right, from thin air. They ruled on it that way because it was the policy they wanted.
Agreed but I thin the courts have been used to cement particular interests into case law for a very long time.I am always aghast and appalled, but not surprised, by the left's unwarranted assumption that a liberal SCOTUS was how things were meant to be
They always ignore the fact that a liberal court was a recent development and SCOTUS was very conservative for a very long time until it became politicized as a pathway to liberal desires that was an end run over winning in the legislature, it being easier to change the ideology of nine men in robes than 535 men in congress
The recent decisions took an important step toward reigning in the court's activism. Both at the circuit appellate level in the new one tier strict scrutiny guidelines that they must follow based upon historical text and traditions consistent within the framework of the 2nd Amendment and at the SCOTUS level by overturning a previous court's judicial legislative act known as RvW and returning it to the States where it always belonged.I am always aghast and appalled, but not surprised, by the left's unwarranted assumption that a liberal SCOTUS was how things were meant to be
They always ignore the fact that a liberal court was a recent development and SCOTUS was very conservative for a very long time until it became politicized as a pathway to liberal desires that was an end run over winning in the legislature, it being easier to change the ideology of nine men in robes than 535 men in congress
Agreed, and I would further stipulate that the originalist mindset is important also because SCOTUS should predominantly be the final arbiter on the constitutionality of any law - and a thorough knowledge of the constitution and the contemporary writings of the framers would seem to be important in divining just what the original intent was and remaining faithful to itThat's why it is so important the make-up of the court needs to consist of a majority of conservative leaning originalist justices to combat judicial activism.
Absolutely. The mandate that SCOTUS is tasked with is to solely determine the Constitutionality within the intent of the founding document based on historical text and tradition to uphold any lower court ruling. In the case of overturing RvW there was no historical text and tradition to be found that empowered a previous SCOTUS to grant abortion as right which should've been left to the States and the people to determine. SCOTUS should not be creating rights.Agreed, and I would further stipulate that the originalist mindset is important also because SCOTUS should predominantly be the final arbiter on the constitutionality of any law - and a thorough knowledge of the constitution and the contemporary writings of the framers would seem to be important in divining just what the original intent was and remaining faithful to it