What's new
By:
Filters

Who thinks that Trumps Supreme Court picks are gonna backfire?

DR. SMASHER

DR. SMASHER

Smashing things
Joined
May 21, 2020
Member Number
976
Messages
173
Loc
NJ
Trumps picks to head agencies during his admin were questionable at best. He was not a politician and therefore had to listen to advice of others that often were. So why did most of his appointments end up being bad? because the ones that were advising him, were not advising him with is or our best interest in mind.

This worries me about his Supreme Court pics. Are they going to be favorable in things we see important such as the 2nd amendment or are they really just more bad pics? I think the people that poorly advised him on his pics during his term. Probably advised him on picking them.

Bill Barr = shit
Comey = ahit
Meuller (who was the head of the local FBI while Whitey Bulger actually ran the office of the FBI and used it to eliminate his competition.) was an obvious mistake not exposing and firing him.
The list goes on.
 
supreme courts aren't going to be bad, most of the judges he appointed shouldn't be terrible.

hell, even most of his other appointments weren't bad. yes, there were many who outright didn't like him and were very comfortable lying to him, but hell all the "like the policy, hate the guy" people are actually saying "generally like his appointee for XYZ and that they were allowed to do and fix"
 
Provience said:
i do think the current makeup of the court is much less likely to challenge congress on anything, so that could suck.
Click to expand...

Yes. We’ve learned that if we go against the grain, we lose our social media, we lose our bank accounts, we lose our business dealings, we lose our insurance providers, and we lose pretty much any ability to sustain a successful life. So why would the Supreme Court be any different?
 
animator said:
Yes. We’ve learned that if we go against the grain, we lose our social media, we lose our bank accounts, we lose our business dealings, we lose our insurance providers, and we lose pretty much any ability to sustain a successful life. So why would the Supreme Court be any different?
Click to expand...

i'm pretty sad they didn't take up the covid shutdown challanges because "we isn't da docterrss" and they didn't take up the state election becuase "fraud in PA or GA doesn't effect voters in the rest of the coutnryryr"

so i'm not exactly holding my breath :laughing:
 
I mean they already refused to at lest hear Trumps evidence of election fraud. At the very least hear the case and disprove it, but no they refused to even hear it. Allowing no answer on election fraud. No findings of or findings that it didnt happen.
 
Yota Up said:
Let's bump this thread after an important 2nd amendment case they hear.
Click to expand...

Use of the word important in your comment is going to key.

kind of like “wide spread” in election fraud
 
Provience said:
i'm pretty sad they didn't take up the covid shutdown challanges because "we isn't da docterrss" and they didn't take up the state election becuase "fraud in PA or GA doesn't effect voters in the rest of the coutnryryr"

so i'm not exactly holding my breath :laughing:
Click to expand...

The “lack of standing” in the TX suit, with support of ~18 other states, was an afront to the constitution, and imho, a green light for states to cheat.

it could potentially be spun as a win for the 10th amendment, as I have always feared IL would try to sue IN over gun laws, CA would sue AZ over something, and they’d use the scotus to pish their brand of communism across the country, state by state... lawsuit be lawsuit.

but the lack of standing opinion in the TX lawsuit may provide a precedent that may be used by some clever lawyer at some point... maybe?
 
:flipoff2:We've already established that setting precedents on future cases is not what the Supreme court is going to do... at least nothing that matters anyway:rolleyes:
 
DR. SMASHER said:
Trumps picks to head agencies during his admin were questionable at best. He was not a politician and therefore had to listen to advice of others that often were. So why did most of his appointments end up being bad? because the ones that were advising him, were not advising him with is or our best interest in mind.

T
Click to expand...

I think you just said that Trump was a dumbass so you can't blame him for the crooks he appointed. Funny, I seem to recall one of his promises was to bring in the "best" people to run the government.

https://youtu.be/SWwLvs7IAMQ


One of the things I detested about Trump was how he throws everyone under the bus - friends, allies, generals, lawyers. He has poor character. Good riddance.
 
andy29847 said:
I think you just said that Trump was a dumbass so you can't blame him for the crooks he appointed. Funny, I seem to recall one of his promises was to bring in the "best" people to run the government.

https://youtu.be/SWwLvs7IAMQ


One of the things I detested about Trump was how he throws everyone under the bus - friends, allies, generals, lawyers. He has poor character. Good riddance.
Click to expand...



Pull up your tampon Nancy, we didn't vote for Trump to give us back rubs, we voted for him to drain the swamp and work for America. Unfortunately we have a bunch of greedy ****s who want the Government to give them things and are too blind to see their getting fucked in the long run...
 
Archer said:
[/COLOR]


Pull up your tampon Nancy, we didn't vote for Trump to give us back rubs, we voted for him to drain the swamp and work for America. Unfortunately we have a bunch of greedy ****s who want the Government to give them things and are too blind to see their getting fucked in the long run...
Click to expand...

This. Very much this.
 
I think it remains to be seen. I don't think their refusal to hear the Trump stuff is the end of the world, honestly. You can argue it both ways, but I don't think they should be able to just override the fuckups from the states. Let's be honest about what happened this cycle - it was all on the states. It's the states' fault. As much as Texas and others didn't want their votes offset by possily fraudulent votes from GA and others, I don't think the supremes should just be able to rule on it because they asked. You advocate for all these federal powers to "fix" things like the election, gun laws, whatever, but in reality the states can do as they want and give the feds the middle finger.
 
Last edited:
Thefishguy77 said:
Until there are term limits of some sort of the SCOTUS they will continue to get more and more lazy and comfortable.
Click to expand...

They don't have "term limits" so they aren't affected by politics. That was in COTUS for the express purpose to keep current political bullshit out of the courts. Is it perfect ? Hell no, but it's better than having justices "play politics" with every decision. The courts are there to rule on COTUS, not make decisions that you like.
 
andy29847 said:
I think you just said that Trump was a dumbass so you can't blame him for the crooks he appointed. Funny, I seem to recall one of his promises was to bring in the "best" people to run the government.

https://youtu.be/SWwLvs7IAMQ


One of the things I detested about Trump was how he throws everyone under the bus - friends, allies, generals, lawyers. He has poor character. Good riddance.
Click to expand...

So you personally know him? Or are close enough to know what his character is? Or know someone personally that does? Or you watch the news and believe what they say?

or?

IMO his activism against the swamp and more specifically child molesters and pedophiles in the swamp is more than enough for me. There is NOTHING more detested than that behavior.
 
I figure they would have to be better than hillarys. look at the idiot that barrack put up there. one is at least smart, the other, not so much. but they all follow the demo creed.
 
I think the TX suit against PA was extremely dangerous and I was glad to see it dismissed. It would open the door for CA or NY to interfere in the internal function of other states... With truly awful consequences.
 
realsquash said:
You advocate for all these federal powers to "fix" things like the election, gun laws, whatever, but in reality the states can do as they want and give the feds the middle finger.
Click to expand...

primarily i advocate for the federal government to remove federal powers related to elections, gun laws, whatever (excluding very few things). I don't want them "to fix" i want them "outta the way"
 
Mikel said:
I think the TX suit against PA was extremely dangerous and I was glad to see it dismissed. It would open the door for CA or NY to interfere in the internal function of other states... With truly awful consequences.
Click to expand...

Good point. States are allowed to set up their own election laws, to a point. I'm against total federal control of that, as long as the laws don't restrict eligible people from voting.
 
Mikel said:
I think the TX suit against PA was extremely dangerous and I was glad to see it dismissed. It would open the door for CA or NY to interfere in the internal function of other states... With truly awful consequences.
Click to expand...

not at all.

the court could have heard the case and issued a very damning ruling 7-2 saying "fuck off, that is their shit to fuck with, you have not and cannot present enough to say you are damaged by them"

and then whatever fraud was weighed out in the open, hundreds of people could file complaints or start investigations within those state bodies to run them down as needed and root out the normal fraud that always happens.
 
Provience said:
primarily i advocate for the federal government to remove federal powers related to elections, gun laws, whatever (excluding very few things). I don't want them "to fix" i want them "outta the way"
Click to expand...

Same difference. If the states do what they want, like with the pot stuff, the feds really are basically powerless. More pressure at the state level is required, but that's not as popular because it's never on national TV. Only the states are responsible for the election fraud, too.
 
realsquash said:
I think it remains to be seen. I don't think their refusal to hear the Trump stuff is the end of the world, honestly. You can argue it both ways, but I don't think they should be able to just override the fuckups from the states. Let's be honest about what happened this cycle - it was all on the states. It's the states' fault. As much as Texas and others didn't want their votes offset by possily fraudulent votes from GA and others, I don't think the supremes should just be able to rule on it because they asked. You advocate for all these federal powers to "fix" things like the election, gun laws, whatever, but in reality the states can do as they want and give the feds the middle finger.
Click to expand...

The issue is the sates did not follow the Constitution and its prescriptions for Federal election, specifically the Presidency. Either the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, or it is not.

Mikel said:
I think the TX suit against PA was extremely dangerous and I was glad to see it dismissed. It would open the door for CA or NY to interfere in the internal function of other states... With truly awful consequences.
Click to expand...

TX lawsuit was about specific enforcement of a Constitutional requirement, not some cooked up state level shit.
 
realsquash said:
Same difference. If the states do what they want, like with the pot stuff, the feds really are basically powerless. More pressure at the state level is required, but that's not as popular because it's never on national TV. Only the states are responsible for the election fraud, too.
Click to expand...

yeah, that's pretty accurate.

given the choice though, i'm still going to advocate for reduced federal barriers.
 
SanDiegoCJ said:
They don't have "term limits" so they aren't affected by politics. That was in COTUS for the express purpose to keep current political bullshit out of the courts. Is it perfect ? Hell no, but it's better than having justices "play politics" with every decision. The courts are there to rule on COTUS, not make decisions that you like.
Click to expand...

I understand the basic concept of why but intention and action are completely different. Justice Roberts on the ACA was not playing politics? RBG calling out Obama for not trying to nominate a SCOTUS in his last year because it was his political duty. But yea its not political at all. Go back to your jeopardy program old man:flipoff2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh