If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
True, but she's smart as hell and she'd shake that place up like a cocktail shaker. Plus, 67 or not she's hotToo old. She is 67.
I want someone under 55 and preferable under 50. someone that can be on the court for the next 30+ years.
I'm ok with that. She's what? 185?
Now he was pushed out...:
White House waged quiet campaign to create a Supreme Court opening
He was pro 2a on DC v Heller. So if your one track minded Kennedy's retirement is a wash not a gain. He leans left in other issues so we may see a small gain to the right with a trump pick but time will tell.Was Kennedy pro or anti 2A? This could be either a status-quo or a gain. I heard/read something about Nevada's Dean Heller looking at the position:
The endangered GOP senator who thinks Justice Kennedy could save him
Woman or man makes no difference jfc. As long as they believe in the true constitution who cares if they have a dick other not?If Kennedy does retire, Thomas Hardiman is likely on deck for the nomination. When Ginsberg finally gets her ticket to the underworld I think Trump is likely to replace her with another woman.
You forget......Hillary was the chosen one......those f***ers full on "knew" she was gonna win so they didn't prepare.Apparently they forgot the pressure on RBG to retire while Obama was still in office and could appoint a younger female ideologue as part of his legacy. That was before Justice Scalia died, so I think goes back to 2015 or so.
He was pro-2A on Heller and refused to take up any 2A cases after McDonald except Caetano. His replacement may make a huge difference for 2A.He was pro 2a on DC v Heller. So if your one track minded Kennedy's retirement is a wash not a gain. He leans left in other issues so we may see a small gain to the right with a trump pick but time will tell.
We need the old hag rbg to f***ing die already and Trump can get a hat trick.
Woman or man makes no difference jfc. As long as they believe in the true constitution who cares if they have a dick other not?
Despite the headline, the article admits just that.Apparently they forgot the pressure on RBG to retire while Obama was still in office and could appoint a younger female ideologue as part of his legacy. That was before Justice Scalia died, so I think goes back to 2015 or so.
Now RBG has to stay on even if "Weekend at Bernie's" hoping for Trump to lose in 2020.You forget......Hillary was the chosen one......those f***ers full on "knew" she was gonna win so they didn't prepare.
That article was interesting, but only in that the libtard Seattle news paper made all sorts of claims but had zero sources and made no statements or claims that could be verified. I kept reading looking for something verifiable but didn't find any. Seattle... More #Fakenews.Now he was pushed out...:
White House waged quiet campaign to create a Supreme Court opening
Yeah a lot of people whined about andrew jackson. Hes shaking up the RNC, and the libiots. Is he the libertarian hero, no? But he's no Barney o rapy, no Killery, or too tall devalue. Nor is he a mitt, or a bush tard.Just whatever earns him the votes
6-3 wouldn't be a good thing IMO. There's sometimes pro-freedom/libertarian 1st/4th/5th amendment 5-4 decisions where one of the conservatives sides with the liberals. And it would be a bad thing if the court gets wildly out of step with the democratic branches; that's where you start risking court packing or other radical steps if the left sweeps an election.Despite the headline, the article admits just that.
Now RBG has to stay on even if "Weekend at Bernie's" hoping for Trump to lose in 2020.
Otherwise, the court could be 6-3 pretty soon!
The left already did this (packing the lower courts). It’s a guarantee that they will take radical steps to “fundamentally change America” when they come into power again whether the court be 5-4, 6-3, or 9-0 when they take power again.6-3 wouldn't be a good thing IMO. There's sometimes pro-freedom/libertarian 1st/4th/5th amendment 5-4 decisions where one of the conservatives sides with the liberals. And it would be a bad thing if the court gets wildly out of step with the democratic branches; that's where you start risking court packing or other radical steps if the left sweeps an election.
And here's the Senator from California:
View attachment 238422
I keep thinking of the scene in Braveheart where Longshanks wants Wallace, "Alive if possible, dead, just as good"
... Anyone else also notice that the Left is pushing to re-segregate schools again? ...
The left already did this (packing the lower courts). It’s a guarantee that they will take radical steps to “fundamentally change America” when they come into power again whether the court be 5-4, 6-3, or 9-0 when they take power again.
SCOTUS needs to follow the damn COTUS. We should have 9 “originalists” on the court. All of this twisting the law and logic into a pretzel to justify some crap that Congress pushes out out their a$$es has to stop.
The left already did this (packing the lower courts). It’s a guarantee that they will take radical steps to “fundamentally change America” when they come into power again whether the court be 5-4, 6-3, or 9-0 when they take power again.
If by segregate, you mean communities that have schools where whites (or Christians, etc) are sent to the White school and blacks (Muslims, or whatever) are sent to the Black school, that was an absurdly racist policy.
If by segregate, you mean communities that generally have kids attend the nearest school, and that happens to result in a concentration of whites at one and blacks at another, that's just geography.
"Bussing" was a horrible idea.