Trump: No Transgenders In The Military!

[demi-conservative]

Democrats look like they'll up their game and then sweep the board in 2018 and will probably get super-majorities in 2020 like they did in 2008 post-Bush.

[demi-conservative]

:cry: :sob:

Sad!!!

Maybe you should just make bubble of yours thicker!

[Tassman]

Scalia was one of the best jurors to serve in the last century. Gorusch hasn't been there long enough to establish himself. But, if it's nutters you want, just look at the trifecta of women idiots that currently serve. All 3 are complete leftist hacks who make absolutely NO effort to hide that they have already made their minds up on cases, even before they are argued.

[Starlight]

If it was merely strong Catholicism overriding logical decision making processes, people wouldn't have found him such a nutter. It was more a case of "if you surveyed a few extremist right-wing ultra-conservative staunch Republican nut balls on the street, what would their opinion on this issue be?" and that's the position Scalia would subsequently take. He was just a partisan extremist, and so very predictable in his decisions.

But he had this farce going, where instead of just openly admitting he had crazy extremist positions because he was a right-wing extremist loon, the guy pretended that what he was doing was actually justified and logical and that he was pioneering a new and special way of interpreting of the constitution where he alone knew the correct way to do it. He called "Originalism", and submitted articles about it to legal journals, and the process was so absurd in its logic that nobody in the legal community took it seriously, and he would pretend to justify his verdicts with reference to it where he could. Except, of course, when he wanted to give the exact opposite verdict that his own supposed methodology said he should, and in those cases he just ignored his theory of Originalism completely and gave the extremist verdict that he favored. So it became pretty clear he didn't really give two hoots about his fake methodology and was just a complete partisan hack.

[Bill the Cat]

He was a strict Constitutionalist by anyone with half of a brain's summation. But I guess that leaves you out, huh?

[Bill the Cat]

If it was merely strong Catholicism overriding logical decision making processes, people wouldn't have found him such a nutter. It was more a case of "if you surveyed a few extremist right-wing ultra-conservative staunch Republican nut balls on the street, what would their opinion on this issue be?" and that's the position Scalia would subsequently take. He was just a partisan extremist, and so very predictable in his decisions.

But he had this farce going, where instead of just openly admitting he had crazy extremist positions because he was a right-wing extremist loon, the guy pretended that what he was doing was actually justified and logical and that he was pioneering a new and special way of interpreting of the constitution where he alone knew the correct way to do it. He called "Originalism", and submitted articles about it to legal journals, and the process was so absurd in its logic that nobody in the legal community took it seriously, and he would pretend to justify his verdicts with reference to it where he could. Except, of course, when he wanted to give the exact opposite verdict that his own supposed methodology said he should, and in those cases he just ignored his theory of Originalism completely and gave the extremist verdict that he favored. So it became pretty clear he didn't really give two hoots about his fake methodology and was just a complete partisan hack.

You make a whole lot of uncited claims there Brandy, and so far you've offered no one of consequence to support your claims.

[Tassman]

He was a strict Constitutionalist by anyone with half of a brain's summation. But I guess that leaves you out, huh?

Scalia was a strict Constitutionalist only in the view of those who shared his religion-based bigotries and biases.

[Roy]

What other choice was there? I don't fault conservatives here for voting for Trump. There were no other options for them to vote for, except another candidate who hated their guts and politically planned to remove even more rights and privileges from them.

There were several other options besides Trump and Hilary for them to vote for. Ewan McMullen, for example.

The Demoblicans and Repucrats were very successful in spreading their meme that a vote for a third party is a vote for both Dollary and Clump.

[Bill the Cat]

Scalia was a strict Constitutionalist only in the view of those who shared his religion-based bigotries and biases.

indeed:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-...b_9275564.html

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016...t-justice-dies

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasb.../#542cc77312b3

[Tassman]

indeed:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-...b_9275564.html

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016...t-justice-dies

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasb.../#542cc77312b3

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...courts/493592/https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016...-justice-womenhttps://www.biography.com/people/antonin-scalia-9473091

[One Bad Pig]

There were several other options besides Trump and Hilary for them to vote for. Ewan McMullen, for example.

The Demoblicans and Repucrats were very successful in spreading their meme that a vote for a third party is a vote for both Dollary and Clump.

When all the other candidates are barely on the radar, a vote for them is pretty much wasted. Ewan McMullen got a ton of votes in Mormon country, didn't register outside of it. Of course, that there were other candidates doesn't mean that they were necessarily any better than the front runners. I do vote third party on occasion, but I didn't see one worth voting for this time around (pretty sure McMullen wasn't even on my ballot).

[One Bad Pig]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...courts/493592/https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016...-justice-womenhttps://www.biography.com/people/antonin-scalia-9473091

I'm not sure which is funnier - that you think you have a better grasp of American jurisprudence than those who live here, or that you think your links somehow contravene the evidence Bill raised.

[Bill the Cat]

I'm not sure which is funnier - that you think you have a better grasp of American jurisprudence than those who live here, or that you think your links somehow contravene the evidence Bill raised.

Especially his last citation which pretty much says he was a strict Constitutionalist.

[Terraceth]

There were several other options besides Trump and Hilary for them to vote for. Ewan McMullen, for example.

And those third party candidates had virtually no chance of winning (except for Gary Johnson, none of them were even on the ballot in all states). Now I did vote third party myself, but I can certainly understand the rationale that as there were only two individuals who had a chance of getting elected higher than that of winning the lottery with the purchase of one ticket, to vote for which of those two you found less displeasing.

There was the argument that a third party candidate winning a single state could have, if neither Trump nor Clinton got a majority, sent it to the House which (if controlled by Republicans, which happened) might have gotten them to vote in that third party candidate (particularly if said candidate directed their electors to vote for someone more pleasing to the Republicans, like Cruz or Kasich or Romney). However, even this unlikely scenario would have only been a viable argument if you lived in Utah, where a third party candidate (McMullin) had an unusually high amount of support.

[Starlight]

I'm not sure which is funnier - that you think you have a better grasp of American jurisprudence than those who live here

I think what's funniest is that people who live in America think they automatically have a better grasp of all things American, regardless of how ignorant they are about the topic, than any foreigner is allowed to have, regardless of how knowledgeable about the topic they are. It's like you guys think knowledge works by osmosis and proximity.