- 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
0
Posted on 8/12/21 at 5:10 pm to FlexDawg
Prove with Link that Supreme Court Justice Comey Barrett acted ALONE in refusing the Indiana Univ mandate for vaccine or you are a troll.
I don’t believe any Justice ever acts ALONE.
I don’t believe any Justice ever acts ALONE.
Posted on 8/12/21 at 5:11 pm to FlexDawg
How is this unconstitutional? Not picking a side. Just curious.
Posted on 8/12/21 at 5:11 pm to Landmass
quote:
. Allowing slavery was a precedent too at one point.
Yes. And, a Constitutional Amendment invalidated that.
Posted on 8/12/21 at 5:11 pm to Landmass
quote:
I fricking warned you about her. I fricking warned you. You all downvoted me to oblivion because Trump appointed her. She was a terrible pick.
It would be difficult to find a pick who couldn’t be blackmailed or wouldn’t be bribed. The republicucks wouldn’t have voted for any outsiders because they’re bought off too.
Posted on 8/12/21 at 5:14 pm to FlexDawg
Each Supreme Court justice is assigned a circuit and gets to pick a number of cases to accept or deny I believe.
If you follow Scalia, there were many decisions he disagreed with from a moral standpoint but the law was the law and he honored that. That’s how judges should be instead of reading into the law what’s not there to fit their own personal beliefs.
If you follow Scalia, there were many decisions he disagreed with from a moral standpoint but the law was the law and he honored that. That’s how judges should be instead of reading into the law what’s not there to fit their own personal beliefs.
This post was edited on 8/12/21 at 5:16 pm
Posted on 8/12/21 at 5:16 pm to FlexDawg
WILLIAM H. PRYOR Jr.
Solid. Strong. Conservative. Proven Character and Principles.
He would be as solid as Thomas or Alito.
Solid. Strong. Conservative. Proven Character and Principles.
He would be as solid as Thomas or Alito.
Posted on 8/12/21 at 5:17 pm to loogaroo
quote:
Ms. Lesly
Who?
Posted on 8/12/21 at 5:17 pm to FlexDawg
It is a state issue.
You can’t have it both ways.
Either you want the federal government out of the vaccine issue or you don’t.
Indiana Supreme Court should decide this issue.
You can’t have it both ways.
Either you want the federal government out of the vaccine issue or you don’t.
Indiana Supreme Court should decide this issue.
Posted on 8/12/21 at 5:18 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
I thought we liked State's Rights here
I always default/defer to that.
However, we can't laud her decision as based in that philosophy if she gives no explanation.
Posted on 8/12/21 at 5:18 pm to Landmass
quote:
I fricking warned you about her. I fricking warned you. You all downvoted me to oblivion because Trump appointed her. She was a terrible pick.
Please stop, she held up that notebook that one time
Posted on 8/12/21 at 5:18 pm to FlexDawg
quote:
It would be difficult to find a pick who couldn’t be blackmailed or wouldn’t be bribed. The republicucks wouldn’t have voted for any outsiders because they’re bought off too.
How come this doesn't happen to Democrat nominees? When has one of them disappointed the Democrats?
Posted on 8/12/21 at 5:19 pm to FlexDawg
She’s impressed me because I really didn’t think she’d be worth a shite but she doesn’t play politics. She just does her job. But she’s still against women’s right to choose so frick her backwards thinking arse.
Posted on 8/12/21 at 5:22 pm to Froman
quote:
But she’s still against women’s right to choose so frick her backwards thinking arse.
I think that is the only issue she would 100% take a conservative view on. She is a one trick pony.
Posted on 8/12/21 at 5:22 pm to Froman
(no message)
This post was edited on 8/12/21 at 5:23 pm
Posted on 8/12/21 at 5:28 pm to FlexDawg
I'm only going to say this as a general matter, and I know I'm not telling anyone anything they don't already know, but perhaps this is just a reminder: Supreme Court Justices are not nominated and expected to pursue any particular political philosophy; they are expected to be independent of their own personal beliefs and/or the personal beliefs of anyone else in the endeavor to assess each case based exclusively on the law and Constitutional provisions that apply in that specific matter. I don't think it's fair to judge a Justice based on the perception that they didn't act/vote/opine in accordance with the political philosophies of the President who nominated him or her.
Now, whether the Justice has made the correct decision in a particular matter when considering the law etc relevant to that specific case, that's a completely different question subject to fair criticism.
Now, whether the Justice has made the correct decision in a particular matter when considering the law etc relevant to that specific case, that's a completely different question subject to fair criticism.
Posted on 8/12/21 at 5:31 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
I thought we liked State's Rights here.
We do like states rights when it comes to what they have purview over. This, to me, is in the same vein as a civil rights violation.
Posted on 8/12/21 at 5:32 pm to davyjones
quote:
I'm only going to say this as a general matter, and I know I'm not telling anyone anything they don't already know, but perhaps this is just a reminder: Supreme Court Justices are not nominated and expected to pursue any particular political philosophy; they are expected to be independent of their own personal beliefs and/or the personal beliefs of anyone else in the endeavor to assess each case based exclusively on the law and Constitutional provisions that apply in that specific matter. I don't think it's fair to judge a Justice based on the perception that they didn't act/vote/opine in accordance with the political philosophies of the President who nominated him or her.
What the hell planet are you from?
- The DNC
This post was edited on 8/12/21 at 5:34 pm
Posted on 8/12/21 at 5:34 pm to FlexDawg
Yall were hyping her, I was pulling for Pryor.
Posted on 8/12/21 at 5:37 pm to davyjones
quote:Tell this to the Democrat appointed justices because I can fairly accurately predict where they are coming down on major issues.
Supreme Court Justices are not nominated and expected to pursue any particular political philosophy; they are expected to be independent of their own personal beliefs and/or the personal beliefs of anyone else in the endeavor to assess each case based exclusively on the law and Constitutional provisions that apply in that specific matter
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News