- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Is Merrick Garland an objectionable nominee?
Posted on 2/1/17 at 5:15 pm to Ag Zwin
Posted on 2/1/17 at 5:15 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
I don't think he is that, and I don't want a bunch of groupthink on the SC. I would want it to tilt conservative, but have a robust group of different thinkers.
I want the same in people who work for me. If all you have is people who all think the same, that's just dumb.
This.
I don't want someone as liberal as RBG to replace RBG, but demanding a scalia type to replace her is just stupid imo. Balance on the court is good.
1
Posted on 2/1/17 at 5:17 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
and I don't want a bunch of groupthink on the SC. I
If it's a group that thinks they want to uphold the constitution and its original intentions then I'm all for it
Posted on 2/1/17 at 5:22 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
Balance on the court is good.
This is so stupid. Democrats want to use the judges to legistlate instead of being actual judges. Democrats donnot want to balance the court they want to undermine the process.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 5:23 pm to Strannix
quote:
Elections have consequences
So does intellectual stagnation.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 5:25 pm to Colonel Flagg
sometimes you need weird coalitions
like when you're dealing with LEO/4th amendment issues
like when you're dealing with LEO/4th amendment issues
Posted on 2/1/17 at 5:25 pm to Colonel Flagg
quote:
This is so stupid. Democrats want to use the judges to legistlate instead of being actual judges. Democrats donnot want to balance the court they want to undermine the process.
If you think "conservative" justices haven't expanded government reach/power then you don't really know anything about the history of the court.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 5:27 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
For the next one, assuming it is one of the more liberal justices, is Garland not a viable option?
No, he is not. He is so wrong on the 2nd Amendment, words fail me.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 5:32 pm to Ag Zwin
There is no moderate in terms of the SC. There are those that interpret the law strictly and those that rule based off their personal opinion and political bias.
The Constitution is inherently conservative. That is why "Conservative" judges are just the ones who are the strict originalists.
Im not in favor of groupthink either. Im in favor of judges with integrity that will interpret the law the way it is written instead of legistlating from the bench.
History tells us that judges will only drift away from strict literal originalist interpretation, never toward it.
The Constitution is inherently conservative. That is why "Conservative" judges are just the ones who are the strict originalists.
Im not in favor of groupthink either. Im in favor of judges with integrity that will interpret the law the way it is written instead of legistlating from the bench.
History tells us that judges will only drift away from strict literal originalist interpretation, never toward it.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 6:03 pm to Ag Zwin
Garland? No! Who's Trump gonna nominate when Clarence Thomas retires this year? That is the question.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 6:09 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
He's pretty moderate, especially compared to Sotomayor. I was surprised Obama nominated him to be honest.
Meh, the Dums were certain Hillary was going to win the presidency so Obama nominated Garland to tempt the GOP into voting for him because he would not be as far to the left as the person Hillary would pick.
However, the GOP didn't take the bait and now they will have a new justice of the SCOTUS who is farther to the right than Garland.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 6:10 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
is Garland not a viable option? It would be one more case of taking air out of the Dem sails
Hell no. Air in the Dem sails? That party is taking on water. We punch a few more holes in their boat.
You must not know Dems well. They will never reciprocate. Any good will shown will be forgotten an hour later.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 6:12 pm to LSU Tiger Bob
quote:
Who's Trump gonna nominate when Clarence Thomas retires this year?
What makes you think Clarence Thomas is going to retire this year?
Posted on 2/1/17 at 6:22 pm to Jake88
quote:
Hell no. Air in the Dem sails? That party is taking on water. We punch a few more holes in their boat.
You must not know Dems well. They will never reciprocate. Any good will shown will be forgotten an hour later.
You are absolutely right!
The Dums are shitting in their panties because they know RBG wants to retire and was just staying on the Court until after the presidential election thinking she could retire after Hillary became POTUS and Hillary would pick another far left justice to replace her.
Now RBG has to remain on the court for at least the next 4 years or until she dies which could happen while Trump is still POTUS.
If RBG does retire or dies while Trump is POTUS then the Dums know President Trump will pick another conservative justice and that means Roe vs Wade will be overturned.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 6:26 pm to Ag Zwin
What is Garland's stance on the 2nd Amendment?
Posted on 2/1/17 at 6:30 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
Is Merrick Garland an objectionable nominee? by Ag Zwin
He is a liberal.
frick liberals.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 6:31 pm to Jake88
Some of you can't see past your own hostility.
Keep the SC balanced but your hand on the wheel. Keep the Congress in GOP hands, but don't make it so conservative that you become a lighting rod. Leave room for the Dems to have a token presence, but keep them marginalized.
This country is generally right of center. If you don't lurch it too far right, you can stay in control a hell of a lot longer and keep ownership of the message and direction.
Give the left reason to paint you as extreme, and you will get another Obama. The media will help them do it every time.
Play the long game.
Keep the SC balanced but your hand on the wheel. Keep the Congress in GOP hands, but don't make it so conservative that you become a lighting rod. Leave room for the Dems to have a token presence, but keep them marginalized.
This country is generally right of center. If you don't lurch it too far right, you can stay in control a hell of a lot longer and keep ownership of the message and direction.
Give the left reason to paint you as extreme, and you will get another Obama. The media will help them do it every time.
Play the long game.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 6:32 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
He's pretty moderate, especially compared to Sotomayor.
Any justice who votes or would vote to uphold Roe is not a moderate.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 6:37 pm to DawgfaninCa
The farthest left that Trump should ever go with a SCOTUS nominee is someone like Hardiman, and that would only be to replace one of the truly liberal judges. If Trump wants to nominate Hardiman for RBG's spot, then fine. Even though Hardiman is a little further right than Kennedy, I would be kind of pissed if he replaced Kennedy (although I wouldn't be shocked if he does).
Posted on 2/1/17 at 6:39 pm to Ag Zwin
Republicans in the Senate chose to let the American people vote on this issue last November. And so they did.
Posted on 2/1/17 at 6:40 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:Compared to Sotomayor Karl Marx is moderate....
He's pretty moderate, especially compared to Sotomayor.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News