Sell-Out

[Ivytalk]

John, I could go to sleep like Rip van Winkle, wake up, and type in your typical Trump post from memory! The only question for me is why you keep doing this on a college football message board. Do you have other outlets, like Daily Kos?

The main point is that I as well as most other "conservatives" who reject Trump are very much aware of the situation with the Supreme Court and the significance of the question of who is going to make the next set of appointments. Is there anybody who doubts, for instance, that George Will is aware of that situation?

This is a standard line of Trump supporters. They saddled us with a total abomination as the only alternative to Hillary and now they say that if we don't get in line and vote for him we're going to put HILLARY into the White House. HILLARY is going to make the appointment to replace Scalia and any other Supreme Court appointments.

Well, Trump supporters, you should have thought of that before you facilitated a situation in which a number of very good Republican candidates were available but the Party ended up with a totally unacceptable nominee. Even if all you cared about was winning it was clear from the very beginning that Trump was not anywhere close to the best choice for maximizing the probability of that. If you were worried about the Supreme Court you should have been supporting somebody like Rubio or even Kasich.

You shouldn't expect all the principled "conservatives" to fall in line and support someone who is not a conservative, who is even more dishonest than Hillary, completely unqualified for the job, is a complete ass, and who comes off as an emotionally unstable 70 year with the maturity of a 10 year old. You should have known better.

First of all, you didn't answer my questions. Second, why did you put the word "conservative" in quotes? If you are voting for Hillary, you're no conservative, and you don't really give a rat's patoot about the SCOTUS. Hillary, Fauxcahontas, and their like-minded pinko cohorts will turn the entire federal judiciary more liberal than ever, especially if the Donks retake the Senate. In fact, as you're well known around here for your rants about the "imperial judiciary," you're a total fraud.

I don't believe Trump is qualified to be President, whether by temperament, by integrity, or by experience, and I'm voting for Johnson (warts and all). But I have a grain of sympathy for those Republicans and independents who will hold their nose and vote for Trump because they trust him to put conservatives on the High Court. At the rate Trump's "campaign" (justified use of quotes here) is going, that's probably a moot point.

[Ibanez]

The main point is that I as well as most other "conservatives" who reject Trump are very much aware of the situation with the Supreme Court and the significance of the question of who is going to make the next set of appointments. Is there anybody who doubts, for instance, that George Will is aware of that situation?

This is a standard line of Trump supporters. They saddled us with a total abomination as the only alternative to Hillary and now they say that if we don't get in line and vote for him we're going to put HILLARY into the White House. HILLARY is going to make the appointment to replace Scalia and any other Supreme Court appointments.

Well, Trump supporters, you should have thought of that before you facilitated a situation in which a number of very good Republican candidates were available but the Party ended up with a totally unacceptable nominee. Even if all you cared about was winning it was clear from the very beginning that Trump was not anywhere close to the best choice for maximizing the probability of that. If you were worried about the Supreme Court you should have been supporting somebody like Rubio or even Kasich.

You shouldn't expect all the principled "conservatives" to fall in line and support someone who is not a conservative, who is even more dishonest than Hillary, completely unqualified for the job, is a complete ass, and who comes off as an emotionally unstable 70 year with the maturity of a 10 year old. You should have known better.

First of all, you didn't answer my questions. Second, why did you put the word "conservative" in quotes? If you are voting for Hillary, you're no conservative, and you don't really give a rat's patoot about the SCOTUS. Hillary, Fauxcahontas, and their like-minded pinko cohorts will turn the entire federal judiciary more liberal than ever, especially if the Donks retake the Senate. In fact, as you're well known around here for your rants about the "imperial judiciary," you're a total fraud.

I don't believe Trump is qualified to be President, whether by temperament, by integrity, or by experience, and I'm voting for Johnson (warts and all). But I have a grain of sympathy for those Republicans and independents who will hold their nose and vote for Trump because they trust him to put conservatives on the High Court. At the rate Trump's "campaign" (justified use of quotes here) is going, that's probably a moot point.

[YoUDeeMan]

He has also said that The Hildabeast wasn't qualified to be President either.

I'm guessing you recall that he pretty quickly took that back:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem ... -qualified

"Here's the truth, I've known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I respect Hillary Clinton, we were colleagues in the Senate, and on her worst day she would be an infinitely better president than either of the Republican candidates," Sanders said.

"She's qualified?" co-host Savannah Guthrie asked.

"Of course," Sanders responded.

Wait...so you support a candidate who is supported by a liar who makes a public statement and then takes it back?

[kalm]

The main point is that I as well as most other "conservatives" who reject Trump are very much aware of the situation with the Supreme Court and the significance of the question of who is going to make the next set of appointments. Is there anybody who doubts, for instance, that George Will is aware of that situation?

This is a standard line of Trump supporters. They saddled us with a total abomination as the only alternative to Hillary and now they say that if we don't get in line and vote for him we're going to put HILLARY into the White House. HILLARY is going to make the appointment to replace Scalia and any other Supreme Court appointments.

Well, Trump supporters, you should have thought of that before you facilitated a situation in which a number of very good Republican candidates were available but the Party ended up with a totally unacceptable nominee. Even if all you cared about was winning it was clear from the very beginning that Trump was not anywhere close to the best choice for maximizing the probability of that. If you were worried about the Supreme Court you should have been supporting somebody like Rubio or even Kasich.

You shouldn't expect all the principled "conservatives" to fall in line and support someone who is not a conservative, who is even more dishonest than Hillary, completely unqualified for the job, is a complete ass, and who comes off as an emotionally unstable 70 year with the maturity of a 10 year old. You should have known better.

First of all, you didn't answer my questions. Second, why did you put the word "conservative" in quotes? If you are voting for Hillary, you're no conservative, and you don't really give a rat's patoot about the SCOTUS. Hillary, Fauxcahontas, and their like-minded pinko cohorts will turn the entire federal judiciary more liberal than ever, especially if the Donks retake the Senate. In fact, as you're well known around here for your rants about the "imperial judiciary," you're a total fraud.

I don't believe Trump is qualified to be President, whether by temperament, by integrity, or by experience, and I'm voting for Johnson (warts and all). But I have a grain of sympathy for those Republicans and independents who will hold their nose and vote for Trump because they trust him to put conservatives on the High Court. At the rate Trump's "campaign" (justified use of quotes here) is going, that's probably a moot point.

When it comes to Wall Street, big business, foreign policy, legalizing weed, free trade, and campaign finance, Hillary is as conservative as Bush, McCain, and Romney.

[Baldy]

First of all, you didn't answer my questions. Second, why did you put the word "conservative" in quotes? If you are voting for Hillary, you're no conservative, and you don't really give a rat's patoot about the SCOTUS. Hillary, Fauxcahontas, and their like-minded pinko cohorts will turn the entire federal judiciary more liberal than ever, especially if the Donks retake the Senate. In fact, as you're well known around here for your rants about the "imperial judiciary," you're a total fraud.

I don't believe Trump is qualified to be President, whether by temperament, by integrity, or by experience, and I'm voting for Johnson (warts and all). But I have a grain of sympathy for those Republicans and independents who will hold their nose and vote for Trump because they trust him to put conservatives on the High Court. At the rate Trump's "campaign" (justified use of quotes here) is going, that's probably a moot point.

When it comes to Wall Street, big business, foreign policy, legalizing weed, free trade, and campaign finance, Hillary is as conservative as Bush, McCain, and Romney.

...and as Progressive as Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and LBJ.

[JohnStOnge]

First of all, you didn't answer my questions. Second, why did you put the word "conservative" in quotes? If you are voting for Hillary, you're no conservative, and you don't really give a rat's patoot about the SCOTUS. Hillary, Fauxcahontas, and their like-minded pinko cohorts will turn the entire federal judiciary more liberal than ever, especially if the Donks retake the Senate. In fact, as you're well known around here for your rants about the "imperial judiciary," you're a total fraud.

I don't believe Trump is qualified to be President, whether by temperament, by integrity, or by experience, and I'm voting for Johnson (warts and all). But I have a grain of sympathy for those Republicans and independents who will hold their nose and vote for Trump because they trust him to put conservatives on the High Court. At the rate Trump's "campaign" (justified use of quotes here) is going, that's probably a moot point.

[/quote]

If it's that important to you the answer to your question is that I post on this board because it has a "political" section and I like it here. I suppose I could find other outlets if I wanted to.

I put the word "conservative" in quotes because it's always difficult to categorize people. I think I would be categorized as conservative. I believe in sticking to the original understanding of the Constitution. But I also believe that prostitution and recreational drugs should be legal and I don't think that's inconsistent. Some people might say I'm not "conservative" because of things like believing in legalizing recreational drugs and prostitution.

As far as the Supreme Court goes: I think the problem goes beyond who is appointed to the Supreme Court. I think that the solution of the problem rests on convincing the People that we need to slap the Judiciary down. You can have Conservative Justices and you can have Liberal Justices. But the end result of the paradigm we've accepted is that we drift away from actually following the Constitution over time.

In the short term I do think Supreme Court appointments are important. But for the long term I think the only real solution is to re-define the role of the Supreme Court and do something to ensure that they are REQUIRED to proceed according to the original understanding and/or intent of Constitutional and Statutory language or else they are removed from office.

In other words: I think the only real solution involves getting rid of the idea that the Judiciary is the final word on what the Constitution and statutory language say. It might have seemed like a good idea at some point. But at this point the Judiciary has shown that it cannot be trusted with the final word. It's turned into an oligarchy. We should not continue to allow unelected and unaccountable Justices to make stuff up; to create "Constitutional" requirements that are not in the Constitution and to ignore Constitutional requirements that are in the Constitution as they do.

And I know you know they do that and have done that for many, many years now.

[Ivytalk]

First of all, you didn't answer my questions. Second, why did you put the word "conservative" in quotes? If you are voting for Hillary, you're no conservative, and you don't really give a rat's patoot about the SCOTUS. Hillary, Fauxcahontas, and their like-minded pinko cohorts will turn the entire federal judiciary more liberal than ever, especially if the Donks retake the Senate. In fact, as you're well known around here for your rants about the "imperial judiciary," you're a total fraud.

I don't believe Trump is qualified to be President, whether by temperament, by integrity, or by experience, and I'm voting for Johnson (warts and all). But I have a grain of sympathy for those Republicans and independents who will hold their nose and vote for Trump because they trust him to put conservatives on the High Court. At the rate Trump's "campaign" (justified use of quotes here) is going, that's probably a moot point.

If it's that important to you the answer to your question is that I post on this board because it has a "political" section and I like it here. I suppose I could find other outlets if I wanted to.

I put the word "conservative" in quotes because it's always difficult to categorize people. I think I would be categorized as conservative. I believe in sticking to the original understanding of the Constitution. But I also believe that prostitution and recreational drugs should be legal and I don't think that's inconsistent. Some people might say I'm not "conservative" because of things like believing in legalizing recreational drugs and prostitution.

As far as the Supreme Court goes: I think the problem goes beyond who is appointed to the Supreme Court. I think that the solution of the problem rests on convincing the People that we need to slap the Judiciary down. You can have Conservative Justices and you can have Liberal Justices. But the end result of the paradigm we've accepted is that we drift away from actually following the Constitution over time.

In the short term I do think Supreme Court appointments are important. But for the long term I think the only real solution is to re-define the role of the Supreme Court and do something to ensure that they are REQUIRED to proceed according to the original understanding and/or intent of Constitutional and Statutory language or else they are removed from office.

In other words: I think the only real solution involves getting rid of the idea that the Judiciary is the final word on what the Constitution and statutory language say. It might have seemed like a good idea at some point. But at this point the Judiciary has shown that it cannot be trusted with the final word. It's turned into an oligarchy. We should not continue to allow unelected and unaccountable Justices to make stuff up; to create "Constitutional" requirements that are not in the Constitution and to ignore Constitutional requirements that are in the Constitution as they do.

And I know you know they do that and have done that for many, many years now.[/quote]
And elections have consequences. If you persist in supporting Hillary Clinton, you'll be that much further away from a federal judiciary that comports with your originalist views.

[BDKJMU]

What you fail to realize is one of the most important things, if not the most important thing, that the next POTUS will be doing is nominating judges. Hillary is going to nominate far more liberal judges than Trump (Trump has already given us a list of judges). But you are too dense to realize that.

I am well aware of the situation with the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, Republican primary voters have nominated someone that is SO unacceptable that even that consideration isn't sufficient to justify supporting him.

When I'm talking about the long term I'm talking about the very long term. We have sadly gotten into a situation where Hillary being elected would be better for that very long term because she is the only viable alternative to Trump being elected. Even the Supreme Court consideration is, in this situation, a relatively short term issue.

This country simply cannot set the precedent of having a Republican nominee who has employed the tactics Trump has employed, acted as Trump has acted, and repeatedly lied the way Trump has repeatedly lied succeed in winning the Presidency.

If he wins, from this point forward, there will be no "good guys" or even any "not so bad guys" contending for power. It will be two completely unacceptable alternatives.

That's why you see stuff like George Will leaving the Republican Party. The Republican Party has ceased being an acceptable alternative to the Democratic Party with its acceptance of an emotionally immature, thoroughly dishonest demagogue as its nominee.

The next POTUS will nominate SCOTUS judges (and circuit too) that will be sitting for the next 20-30 years, making decisions that effect us for the next 50+.

There's no way you can believe what you just said. You would have to have gone full retard to believe that..

[catbooster]

First of all, you didn't answer my questions. Second, why did you put the word "conservative" in quotes? If you are voting for Hillary, you're no conservative, and you don't really give a rat's patoot about the SCOTUS. Hillary, Fauxcahontas, and their like-minded pinko cohorts will turn the entire federal judiciary more liberal than ever, especially if the Donks retake the Senate. In fact, as you're well known around here for your rants about the "imperial judiciary," you're a total fraud.

I don't believe Trump is qualified to be President, whether by temperament, by integrity, or by experience, and I'm voting for Johnson (warts and all). But I have a grain of sympathy for those Republicans and independents who will hold their nose and vote for Trump because they trust him to put conservatives on the High Court. At the rate Trump's "campaign" (justified use of quotes here) is going, that's probably a moot point.

If it's that important to you the answer to your question is that I post on this board because it has a "political" section and I like it here. I suppose I could find other outlets if I wanted to.

I put the word "conservative" in quotes because it's always difficult to categorize people. I think I would be categorized as conservative. I believe in sticking to the original understanding of the Constitution. But I also believe that prostitution and recreational drugs should be legal and I don't think that's inconsistent. Some people might say I'm not "conservative" because of things like believing in legalizing recreational drugs and prostitution.

As far as the Supreme Court goes: I think the problem goes beyond who is appointed to the Supreme Court. I think that the solution of the problem rests on convincing the People that we need to slap the Judiciary down. You can have Conservative Justices and you can have Liberal Justices. But the end result of the paradigm we've accepted is that we drift away from actually following the Constitution over time.

In the short term I do think Supreme Court appointments are important. But for the long term I think the only real solution is to re-define the role of the Supreme Court and do something to ensure that they are REQUIRED to proceed according to the original understanding and/or intent of Constitutional and Statutory language or else they are removed from office.

In other words: I think the only real solution involves getting rid of the idea that the Judiciary is the final word on what the Constitution and statutory language say. It might have seemed like a good idea at some point. But at this point the Judiciary has shown that it cannot be trusted with the final word. It's turned into an oligarchy. We should not continue to allow unelected and unaccountable Justices to make stuff up; to create "Constitutional" requirements that are not in the Constitution and to ignore Constitutional requirements that are in the Constitution as they do.

And I know you know they do that and have done that for many, many years now.

So how would you "slap down the judiciary"?
How would you "redefine the role of the Supreme Court" (amend the Constitution)?
How would you "ensure that they are required to proceed according to the original understanding and/or intent"? Who judges the judges?

I'm not saying that I like all of their rulings, but I don't see any solutions in there. It seems to me the Constitutional solution is the nomination/approval of new justices (ideally elect good President/Senators); impeachment, I suppose; Congress do their job (lots of these laws that are struck down could be amended to remove the portion struck down).

[JohnStOnge]

The next POTUS will nominate SCOTUS judges (and circuit too) that will be sitting for the next 20-30 years, making decisions that effect us for the next 50+.

There's no way you can believe what you just said. You would have to have gone full retard to believe that..

As I noted above, while there is some effect based on who appoints Supreme Court Justices, the long term trend does not change on that basis. Reagan appointed Anthony Kennedy as well as Sandra Day O'Conner. Both effectively functioned as Liberal Justices. A Republican President appointed friggin' Earl Warren. If we want to solve the problem created by the Judiciary being out of control, we have the reach the point of convincing the People that there is a need to do something about the Judiciary being out of Control.

The negatives associated with Trump outweigh the negatives associated with the idea of Hillary being in position to appoint Supreme Court Justices. It takes a lot of negatives on the part of Trump to create that situation. But Trump has obliged.

[Ibanez]

First of all, you didn't answer my questions. Second, why did you put the word "conservative" in quotes? If you are voting for Hillary, you're no conservative, and you don't really give a rat's patoot about the SCOTUS. Hillary, Fauxcahontas, and their like-minded pinko cohorts will turn the entire federal judiciary more liberal than ever, especially if the Donks retake the Senate. In fact, as you're well known around here for your rants about the "imperial judiciary," you're a total fraud.

I don't believe Trump is qualified to be President, whether by temperament, by integrity, or by experience, and I'm voting for Johnson (warts and all). But I have a grain of sympathy for those Republicans and independents who will hold their nose and vote for Trump because they trust him to put conservatives on the High Court. At the rate Trump's "campaign" (justified use of quotes here) is going, that's probably a moot point.

If it's that important to you the answer to your question is that I post on this board because it has a "political" section and I like it here. I suppose I could find other outlets if I wanted to.

I put the word "conservative" in quotes because it's always difficult to categorize people. I think I would be categorized as conservative. I believe in sticking to the original understanding of the Constitution. But I also believe that prostitution and recreational drugs should be legal and I don't think that's inconsistent. Some people might say I'm not "conservative" because of things like believing in legalizing recreational drugs and prostitution.

As far as the Supreme Court goes: I think the problem goes beyond who is appointed to the Supreme Court. I think that the solution of the problem rests on convincing the People that we need to slap the Judiciary down. You can have Conservative Justices and you can have Liberal Justices. But the end result of the paradigm we've accepted is that we drift away from actually following the Constitution over time.

In the short term I do think Supreme Court appointments are important. But for the long term I think the only real solution is to re-define the role of the Supreme Court and do something to ensure that they are REQUIRED to proceed according to the original understanding and/or intent of Constitutional and Statutory language or else they are removed from office.

In other words: I think the only real solution involves getting rid of the idea that the Judiciary is the final word on what the Constitution and statutory language say. It might have seemed like a good idea at some point. But at this point the Judiciary has shown that it cannot be trusted with the final word. It's turned into an oligarchy. We should not continue to allow unelected and unaccountable Justices to make stuff up; to create "Constitutional" requirements that are not in the Constitution and to ignore Constitutional requirements that are in the Constitution as they do.

And I know you know they do that and have done that for many, many years now.[/quote]
Trump would seat conservatives on the bench. You're against liberal judges. You support Clinton.


Error. Error. Error. You sir, are a goat rope.

[JohnStOnge]

Trump would seat conservatives on the bench. You're against liberal judges. You support Clinton.


Error. Error. Error. You sir, are a goat rope.

I think the odds of getting people at least perceived as "conservative" on the bench are better with Trump. But I don't think it's a given. Trump has repeatedly shown that what he says at any particular time cannot be trusted. In my opinion his list of Justices was issued in the vein of telling a target audience what ti wants to hear. I don't think he'd have any compunction at all about doing otherwise if he for some reason decided he wanted to do so.

Aside from that, though it's a very important consideration, the Supreme Court Justice question is one consideration. There are many others.

You're talking about putting a mentally ill and totally unqualified individual into a very important job.

[Baldy]

You're talking about putting a mentally ill and totally unqualified individual into a very important job.

...and you are voting for The Hildabeast.

No joke, but your family needs to have you tested for early onset Alzheimer's.

JohnStHildabeast.

[JohnStOnge]

So how would you "slap down the judiciary"?
How would you "redefine the role of the Supreme Court" (amend the Constitution)?
How would you "ensure that they are required to proceed according to the original understanding and/or intent"? Who judges the judges?.

I think that needs to be worked out. But the starting point is agreeing that the current situation in which the Judiciary is free to say the Constitution says whatever it wants it to say without accountability is unacceptable.

One thing to do is to Amend the Constitution to say something along the lines of "Court decisions will be based upon the meaning of words in the Constitution and and honest effort to divine how those who voted to accept those words understood them."

Then there could be a "check." After all, the idea is that there are supposed to be checks and balances. Frankly, I think the final word on the Constitution as well as statute should be Congress. Yes, the Court should be able to decide cases but if something important enough happens Congress should be able to say, "We're the branch responsible for making law and you got it wrong."

Not a simple majority vote. To me the level of power assigned to each branch should be as follows:

1) Congress
2) Executive
3) Judiciary

And I frankly think that's how the Framers envisioned it. Congress has the most power, ultimately, but it also is buffered by the fact that there are hundreds of people in Congress. The Executive is one person but if Congress has sufficient agreement it can over rule the Executive. The Judiciary is totally unaccountable and should not be free to impose its own will at all. It should simply be honestly reflecting the intent of the elected branches.

[Skjellyfetti]

One thing to do is to Amend the Constitution to say something along the lines of "Court decisions will be based upon the meaning of words in the Constitution and and honest effort to divine how those who voted to accept those words understood them."

So, you mean - by reading coffee grounds, sacrificing chickens, and seances?

[JohnStOnge]

One thing to do is to Amend the Constitution to say something along the lines of "Court decisions will be based upon the meaning of words in the Constitution and and honest effort to divine how those who voted to accept those words understood them."

So, you mean - by reading coffee grounds, sacrificing chickens, and seances?

I really don't think it's like that. You've got the words themselves. The Separation of Church and State paradigm in place right not, for instance. That is clearly not supported by the language of the First Amendment. And it's clearly not supported by the history. You know, stuff like Congress appropriating funds to hire a Chaplain and then hold Christian Church Services in the House Chamber. NO intellectually honest person would say the First Amendment does stuff like, for instance, prohibit the principle of a Public School saying a Christian prayer over the intercom at the beginning of the school day.

You can argue that such a thing SHOULD be prohibited. But arguing that the Constitution actually does that is absurd.

That kind of thing.

We have the Federalist papers that were submitted to argue for adoption of the Constitution and explain how it was supposed to work. We have other history. We have what the Constitution actually says.

The Judiciary does not stick to that. It makes stuff up. There is a need to put an end to that.

[Skjellyfetti]

Oh, the Federalists.

The guys like Washington and Hamilton - who created a National Bank (where is that in the Constitution?) as one of their first acts.

Federalists argued for a loose interpretation of the Constitution.

Anti-federalists sided more with you.

Read anti-Federalist 78. Antifederalists argued for your position.

The judges in England are under the control of the legislature, for they are bound to determine according to the laws passed under them. But the judges under this constitution will control the legislature, for the supreme court are authorised in the last resort, to determine what is the extent of the powers of the Congress. They are to give the constitution an explanation, and there is no power above them to set aside their judgment. The framers of this constitution appear to have followed that of the British, in rendering the judges independent, by granting them their offices during good behavior, without following the constitution of England, in instituting a tribunal in which their errors may be corrected; and without adverting to this, that the judicial under this system have a power which is above the legislative, and which indeed transcends any power before given to a judicial by any free government under heaven.

http://www.thisnation.com/library/antif ... 78-79.html


They also lost.