The case why I am compelled to vote against the GOP/Conservatives
A great article that speaks for me and my opinion regarding the aforementioned topic in the Atlantic. How much of it concurs with your own?
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi … te/616808/
Patience, it could be seen as a long read.
Your thoughts, please.I didn't get far, but you vote against conservatives because...
1) A SCOTUS nominee says she would have to approach the question of Trump postponing the election with an open mind?
2) Because Barrett cannot comment on a hypothetical case without details?
3) Because Barrett refused to get in the middle of a purely political controversy?
Or do you demand that SCOTUS justices play the political game, make decisions on insufficient evidence as long as it follows liberal dogma and have a mind closed to the Constitution, using that same liberal dogma instead?Putting words into my mouth again, Wilderness?
While your rightwing bias is always clear to see, I thought that you would at least take the time to read the article, before allowing your spigot to
run out of control.
The article encompasses a broad view.
Barrett is an ideologue that conservatives like to say would properly interpret the law ONLY because all of her decisions would go their way. How hypocritical is that?It was you that said the article described why you won't vote for any conservatives, and those were the first three items they listed.
Either stand by them or come up with a different reason.
Your link read like a Salon article Cred, but I did read it all.
You really should start considering a writer's bias before offering whole-hearted support just because it agrees with your own thoughts.
Although the bias of the author was clear after the first quarter of the article, (the part that dealt with Judge Barret), it was cinched with a closing quote:
*I must add a caveat that a writer's bias doesn't automatically discredit what they write, (as in don't shoot the messenger).
The quote:
". . . and Republicans have responded with considerable alarm and anguish. They sacrificed their dignity, their House majority, and their principles to elevate a clownish reality star to the presidency, a would-be strongman whose disastrous tenure has seen hundreds of thousands of deaths, the collapse of the American economy, and the nadir of American global influence. "
Yep, that sounds like a credible voice to me—not.
But to get back to the Barret part, I think that, although he earned your applause, he failed there also.
He says she said things she did not say, (per your article's quotes), and he rebukes her for refusing to be drawn into political and hypothetical position questions—in a highly politicized confirmation hearing.
And then he got worse . . . in the rest of his article where he discusses Conservative SCOTUS Justices' decisions, it seemed, to me at least, that almost every criticism he had was one of ideological bias. He wasn't criticizing the decisions for their reading of the law, but for not reading the laws as they should, (at least to every intelligent being that can form complete sentences), be read—in his humble opinion. And even on the case examples he cites, that I could agree with, he loses me when his rationale for citing them is that they didn't interpret the law as he thought they should, rather than argue why their decisions were wrong.
There is a simple translation for his perspective: It's called legislating from the bench.
This one was a dub for me bud, (Ha! I rhymed). I won't be reading any more of this fellow's writings.
GAGee, GA, everything that does not have a right wing bias is a "Salon article"
Yes, the article supports my own thoughts, I did not deny that. Conservative interpretations of things rarely do, at least not in this society,
I dunno, any guy that laments the court prohibiting faithless electors for the Electoral College, and you did wince about it, is pretty tight with the Right.
I can't expect a lot of objectivity from one with such views....
I challenge the Right to dispute my viewpoint.
So, Barrett's reticence would be something that would be expected if all the roles and positions were reversed in favor of the other side?
We all argue about whether the law was interpreted the way we think that it should be.
There is such a thing as conservative bias, GA, and it has been making the rounds pretty frequently, these days.
We all have biases I am a west coast liberal that tends to see reality in certain terms, I have never denied that. Tell me why my perspectives are wrong and that of the conservatives/ Rightwingers are better?No Cred, everything isn't a Salon-type article if it doesn't meet my bias, but this one was. Using your own terminology; this author wasn't just Liberal or Left-leaning, his article spoke as a 'Left-winger'
"We all argue about whether the law was interpreted the way we think that they should be."
Yes we do, but the difference can be seen very clearly in 'Black & White'—as in the written text of the Law and our Constitution.
I think our recent discussion about Justice Ginsburg's opinion on the ACA case illustrates my view on your author's "interpretations" of the cases he discussed. For the most part, his views were about what he thought the laws 'meant', (by what he thought they should say), versus interpreting the Laws by what they do say.
Relative to your "West Coast perspective" I only say it is wrong because I think it is. Simply an opinion. But, the support for either perspective is what will determine whose opinion is more right than wrong.
GAI understand you example about the late Justice Ginsburg, but if I researched enough I could find a similar attitude taken by a conservative juror to support his or her opinion. I may be worth my effort to prove you wrong.
If something is explicitly stated, what needs to be interpreted?
------
"Relative to your "West Coast perspective" I only say it is wrong because I think it is. Simply an opinion. But, the support for either perspective is what will determine whose opinion is more right than wrong."
------
That we will well be on the way to determine next November 3rdGA, I wanted to discuss with you and Wilderness further about the conservative view regarding function of the Supreme Court.
Maybe, I am taking the opinion that the Constitution is intended more as guide than a rule book. Robert Bork, respected for his keen legal mind with a conservative bent, makes my case for me. See, below.
------
14th Amendment:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
--------
In his book The Tempting of America (page 82), Robert Bork endorsed the Brown decision as follows:
By 1954, when Brown came up for decision, it had been apparent for some time that segregation rarely if ever produced equality. Quite aside from any question of psychology, the physical facilities provided for blacks were not as good as those provided for whites. That had been demonstrated in a long series of cases … The Court's realistic choice, therefore, was either to abandon the quest for equality by allowing segregation or to forbid segregation in order to achieve equality. There was no third choice. Either choice would violate one aspect of the original understanding, but there was no possibility of avoiding that. Since equality and segregation were mutually inconsistent, though the ratifiers did not understand that, both could not be honored. When that is seen, it is obvious the Court must choose equality and prohibit state-imposed segregation. The purpose that brought the fourteenth amendment into being was equality before the law, and equality, not separation, was written into the law.
--------
We had the same 14th Amendment in 1896 that the court referenced in the landmark 1954 decision fundamentally overturning Plessy. Almost 60 years, yet two different courts interpreted the same law differently. Bork did not speak of "legislating from the bench", but of reasonable interpretation of the law as written. So was the court and its unanimous decisions wrong in 1896 or was it 1954?
A little background on the Plessy case
In May 1896, the Supreme Court issued a 7–1 decision against Plessy ruling that the Louisiana law did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, stating that although the Fourteenth Amendment established the legal equality of white and black Americans, it did not and could not require the elimination of all social or other "distinctions based upon color". The Court rejected Plessy's lawyers' arguments that the Louisiana law inherently implied that black people were inferior, and gave great deference to American state legislatures' inherent power to make laws regulating health, safety, and morals—the "police power"—and to determine the reasonableness of the laws they passed. Justice John Marshall Harlan was the lone dissenter from the Court's decision, writing that the U.S. Constitution "is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens", and so the law's distinguishing of passengers' races should have been found unconstitutional.
------------
Such stark disparities in the outcome should show that time and circumstances are naturally going to reveal the futility of original intent of the framers as being explicit, rather than seen as a guide.The supreme court is fallible like all courts. They are after-all made up of humans.They have made mistakes as clearly in the prohibition of alcohol and later reversed itself.
That is the beauty of our system. It is self correcting.Now, there is a Cred-worthy post. But, I am not going to let you work me too hard on a rainy Sunday morning. I will use the information provided in your comment to give you my 'first thoughts'.
First, I disagree with your lead that the Constitution is not a "rule" book. I think it is. What it is not is an instruction manual. Maybe that is just a semantics-thing, but I think it is an important distinction. The Constitution does not tell you how to climb the mountain, but it does tell you what you can and cannot do to climb it.
Onward to Bork's reading. I would disagree with the 1896 SCOTUS ruling. It seems that they let the culture of their time form their opinion, rather than the text of the Law. I am tempted to search for a Scalia opinion on that decision. I bet he also disagreed with that 1896 decision.
However, I wouldn't call that decision 'legislating from the bench', I would just call it a bad decision made for the wrong reasons. I don't think they "interpreted" the law to mean something it didn't, I think they ignored what the law said.
So I agree with Bork's thought that that the Court's decision was not a "reasonable interpretation" because it appears to have ignored an interpretation of the law and instead interpreted what they thought the Framers would not have intended.
Hold on now. I know the line between that explanation and
Textual Originalism is so fine you can barely see it, but I think that the 1896 decision makes less of the law than was written—and not make more of it than was written, makes the difference between bad decisions and legislating from the bench.
If your bottom-line was that the Court isn't always right, then I agree with you. However, I would say that since the 1950s it appears to have become less influenced by societal norms, (as was the case of the 1896 decision), than the earlier years of our nation.
GAthe Supreme Court has moved into more political realm as seen by the recent numerous 5-4 decisions.
This should not be the case since, if they are all educated and good judges, they should know their duty and rule on the constitutionality of the law, and agree most of the time...9-0, 8-1, 7-2, or even 6-3. To have important matters such as the ACA decided by 5-4 is ludicrous.
The court is not doing a good job under Chief Justice Roberts. IMHO."Onward to Bork's reading. I would disagree with the 1896 SCOTUS ruling. It seems that they let the culture of their time form their opinion, rather than the text of the Law. I am tempted to search for a Scalia opinion on that decision. I bet he also disagreed with that 1896 decision."
------
It was a perfectly good ruling from the aspect of those living in 1896. They all believed with one exception that the equal protection aspect had been properly addressed, without interfering in prevailing social mores regarding relation between the races. If they were made to be aware that separate was inherently unequal as revealed in the next 60 years, perhaps the meaning of equal rights and protection by the law would have been interpreted differently.
So, it was not so much wrong as it is the reality that people can read the identical same document but interpret its meaning differently as we cannot excise our backgrounds, ideological leanings and understanding of the environment around us from being elements of that interpretation.
I believe that the difference between bad decisions and "legislating from the bench" may be more elusive than set in stone. As human beings, the search for the correct answer will always be relative and subjective.
So, I have problems believing as Jack refers to that there is only one correct way to interpret the Constitution. People like to call the Warren Court an activist one, but many good and perfectly valid decisions came from that court.
It still depends upon your point of view, just like it did in 1896 and 1954."So, I have problems believing as Jack refers to that there is only one correct way to interpret the Constitution."
And yet it seems (though I may be mistaken here) that a great deal of effort is often expended in trying to understand what the writers of the Constitution meant, using their culture and not ours.
While such efforts cannot always present 100% perfect results, it seems better than deciding that using the mores and culture of today would have produced the same meaning 200 years ago.
And that produces "legislating from the bench" - when the words are interpreted according to today's culture, doubly so when we include our backgrounds, ideological leanings and understanding of the environment around us as part of that interpretation. We will, of course, always have new concepts, events and culture; the task them seems to be to decide what the writers would have said about those things rather than what we, personally, feel about them. And render a decision based on that, not on our own feelings or opinions.But, how can you really know what the writers would have said or meant being centuries removed from current issues? How do jurors really sort between what is in the minds of 18th century men with any accuracy and how if they were alive, they would apply that to 21st century issues?
The jurors may very well differ in their interpretation as to what it is the writers had said or intended when the law was initiated.Well, if I were doing it I would read things they (original writers) had written, trying to get a feel for how they felt about a variety of things. I would study the culture and the actions that existed at the time. I would read what others had written/commented - both those in agreement and disagreeing with the authors. I would try hard to understand what compromises had been made among the writers and, more importantly, why they had been made.
And in the end my efforts might produce what those writers intended. Or I may fail miserably in spite of years of effort to understand. But either way it seems better than simply saying "I want a 'living Constitution', with intent and wording changing according to what I view as contemporary morals and needs.", which is what I see happening all too often. Ginsburgs brief is a case in point: "We need this, it is a good thing, so I will rule that my interpretation is that the Constitution says it is legal. Whether it actually does or not. And then I will spin my comments until I make it sound reasonable, at least to others of a similar desire and philosophy.
Just doesn't work for me - if our Constitution needs changed, as it does sometimes, and enough people agree, then it will be changed, as it has repeatedly been. The answer is not for a single individual, or a group of 6 (over half the sitting bench) to change that most revered document - it is up to the nation and all it's people.
Well buggers. I want to argue with your thought because I believe the decision was flawed because it did allow current societal mores' to enter into the reading of the law.
But, your thought about 60 years of hindsight and new information makes a lot of sense. Now I have to ponder if that true lack of understanding, (regarding the fallacy of separate but equal), makes their 1896 decision understandable.
I will give it some thought, but I think I have to agree with your point on this one.
However, although I can't support that Jack's interpretation is the only correct one, I can support that there is only one correct interpretation—the one that reads the law as written.
Your original example, (the 1896 decision), presents a different conundrum; can not knowing of what the future will know proscribe that Laws should be interpreted differently? I think not. We can't act on what we don't know, but we can correct ignorant actions when we do know, (become non-ignorant).
GAOriginalist judges knows that their job is to rule on the Constitutionality. That is why conservatives support originalists, while liberals pick activist justices like RBG. The term "living document" is often used to describe our Constitution. It means the Constitution is not rigid and can be modified over time. It does not mean we are free to interpret the wording of the text to read more into what was architected by the Founders.
Or, in my opinion of the Plessy case of 1896, reading less into what was written to fit what they thought was the right interpretation.
I agree with your view of the Constitution as a "living document," relative to it being amendable, but in the case of this discussion, I think the Justices restricted the Constitution's intent rather than expand it.
GA
This response bothered me all day and night, and I hate to lose sleep over thinking I missed something. So I looked a little deeper into The Plessy decision so that I can respond with "2nd thoughts."
My agreement with your previous response was mostly driven by my thoughts about Brown and school segregation issues. And with that in mind, I still agree with your thought that we had learned a lot about "separate but equal" in the 60 years between decisions,
But I still felt uneasy. It was said that this was simply about rail car seating and legal distinctions between Black and White citizens.
So, a few quotes, two from the Court decision and another from an essay on the decision focused my reason for not liking my agreement with your charitable defense of the 1896 Justices.
From the Court's ruling:
"Rejecting Plessy’s argument that his constitutional rights were violated, the Supreme Court ruled that a law that “implies merely a legal distinction” between whites and blacks was not unconstitutional."
That doesn't sound right to me, regardless of the time period.
Then:
"In declaring separate-but-equal facilities constitutional on intrastate railroads, the Court ruled that the protections of 14th Amendment applied only to political and civil rights (like voting and jury service), not “social rights” (sitting in the railroad car of your choice).
I know that ain't right. The Court making distinctions between classes of Rights protected? That isn't just a dangerous slippery slope, that's a soaped up 'Slip and Slide'. I can't find any reason to think a Supreme Court Justice wouldn't see this.
And one more from the Court opinion:
" “We consider the underlying fallacy of [Plessy’s] argument,” Justice Henry Brown wrote, “to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it.”
Really? Can this be anything but a weasel move excuse not to upset the apple carts of the times.
Just look at the history of the lone dissenter, he was a former slaveholder from Kentucky and had opposed emancipation and civil rights for freed slaves during the Reconstruction era. But he got it right, he didn't need 60 years of societal proof that separate but equal wasn't right.
"The arbitrary separation of citizens on the basis of race while they are on a public highway is a badge of servitude wholly inconsistent with the civil freedom and the equality before the law established by the Constitution,” he wrote. “It cannot be justified upon any legal grounds.”
I am returning to my original thoughts bud. The Court got it wrong, and I won't allow them the defense of societal ignorance.
Now, that is only my opinion, and as PrettyPanther's post noted, my Google University venture doesn't make it more right or valid than those of the experts and scholars, but it is the opinion that I think is right and the one I am comfortable with.
GAOddly enough, I gave my assessment a bit more thought and must give Wilderness credit for a suggestion as to how he would, as a juror, ascertain the intent of the framers that were responsible for any provision of the Constitution.
A good juror would gather background on these "framers" their writings, and what ever material that would be revealing.
So, I might be coming around to your idea that the 1896 ruling was a mistake rather than reflecting a deficit of information available to the jurors.
When one looks at who were the framers of the 14th Amendment, one has to return to the period of Radical Republicans during the immediate aftermath of the Civil War.
I do know that these men were responsible for the "framing" and created the Equal Protection clause explicitly " to afford the Negro full citizenship rights" to ascertain that the previous horrendous struggle and the corresponding carnage, was to have some meaning and purpose.
Under the circumstances, I could not imaging any of the framers, if alive by 1896, as countenancing any idea of distinctions being made because of race or color as consistent with their objective of full equality for the "Negro". These were adamant men and their purpose was quite clear if one seriously took the time to investigate their motives.
I could reasonably have expected the Court that ruled on Plessy to have accessed this information and found that out for themselves.
So, as you said, Plessy was a compromise between accommodating Southern social mores, yet allowing that Court to operate along the periphery of the true meaning of what the 14 th Amendment was to represent. It was within the power of this court to have made a more appropriate decision. The one dissenting juror in 1896 had it right, but it was not beyond the powers of the other jurors to not see things in the way he did.
-----------
"Rejecting Plessy’s argument that his constitutional rights were violated, the Supreme Court ruled that a law that “implies merely a legal distinction” between whites and blacks was not unconstitutional."
-----------
You're, right, it isn't.
GA, we both came to the same conclusion regarding these cases, albeit from different directions.And this isn't our first agreement either. You posed a good question.
GA
Yes, November 3rd will tell us a lot of things, but I don't think it will tell us whose perspective, (West Coast Progressive vs. Conservative), is right for the nation.
If my 'guess' is right about the election outcome, I think one point it will make is that, to voters, the intangibles are just as important as the tangibles.
GA
That was a lengthy article... I see where you are coming from totally. It would seem the author used a lot of words to come to one conclusion. However, he certainly made his case clear in regard to using history and meshing the current mindset of the Supreme Court. And at this point, it's clear he is fearful that the Supreme Court is in danger of showing bias toward liberal ideology, and minorities. A really big "If Come". At times it would seem, Mr. Serwer, is no stranger to exhibiting bias. It would seem inappropriate to call the president silly names, just because he could. However, it's evident many writers feel they have the right call names, and misquote if they feel the need to.
It would seem that the conclusion Mr.Serwer came to after using many words, was that packing the Supreme Court would be plausible in his view. He could justify it, live with it. No matter that this act would usurp our Constitution.
Not sure with all the other problems we are facing in America at this time, the configuration of the Supreme Court would be what tipped the scales. It's obvious Barrett will be voted in and confirmed. At this point, it's a lost battle. However, yes if Joe Biden wins he will most likely pack the court. But what else will he do? So if the configuration of the SC is most important to you, I can see where this article may have tipped the scale. it's just what you may have needed to hear.
Although, are there other battles that Biden may not win for you? Have the Dems won many battles for you in the past? Have you been in a very very long war?
I think it's wonderful you took this long to make your decision on who you will cast your vote for. I respect your diligence and lengthy research. We may have voted for different candidates, but we have a few things in common. LOLThanks for humoring me by reading the article.
As far as I am concerned SC appointment seats were stolen from those who had the right to properly fill them, that is theft. So, if that means that court numbers needs to be adjusted, I would say that Biden should get to select two judges raising the number of jurors to 11. If you don't unethically steal seats then I would have no reason to change the number of jurors.
Sharlee, the the GOP have been taking more than the Democrats have been giving. But, we on the left of Biden will get more concessions to address the more contentious issues.
America has always been difficult, the war has been on going and continues, and we need people who recognize this and are willing to come to terms with the solutions necessary.
November 3rd may be ambrosia, as the Trump Era comes to an end, the Dems control Congress, house and Senate, and we can restore things that we have lost in the last four years and build back better.
I do not deserve so much credit over the time it took to cast my ballot. I am a Democrat who finds their philosophy and point of view simply more palatable than that of the other side. I have known that for almost 50 years worth of Election cycles.
But, as I said in 2016, may the best man win and while I will more than likely always be critical of Trump, I will acknowledge him as the people's choice."But, we on the left of Biden will get more concessions to address the more contentious issues."
Lots of if's there... The Dem's would have to that the Senate, which is possible, but not a sure thing. Plus, then if the Dems did take the Senate and were able to push their agenda --- In four years you had better hope the majority approved of the changes, or all you gained would be gone. This is America. Many have done well under Trump, and will not be happy campers watching it disappear. W have a president that has accomplished so much. Just Friday he made a historic deal. --- President Donald J. Trump Brokers a Historic Peace Agreement Between Israel and Sudan.
His wonderful accomplishment that is very historic, but not reported. Imagine if this peace was made under Obama? This man worked to bring peace to the Middle East, which no president has been able to do. It may have gone unnoted in the US, but the people in the Middle East that countries are now in the peace deal took note.
Trump has won your battles, you are just unwilling to recognize them. He may have started from a different battlefield, but as he did with his Middle east deal. But, he has worked on true solutions that go to the root of systemic race problems. He put money where his mouth is, he has accomplished. not just provided empty encouraging words. Those words are the true problem. No solutions, just words.Many have done well, and many have not, November 3rd will reveal where the sentiments of the majority of Americans lie. So, that, too is a matter of opinion.
Trump has taken Washington and this nation back to remembrance of darker times.
Who is telling US who won our battles? Ninety percent of African Americans tend to disagree compared with Trumpians who do not understand nor have any "skin in the game" who's says otherwise?
What makes so many of you believe that, and give the overwhelming number the lack of respect to assume that they cannot see and evaluate his performance for themselves?
I already told you what I thought of his MidEast Deal."Trump has taken Washington and this nation back to remembrance of darker times."
That is your opinion. You may want to look to either side of you. Many are very pleased with Trump and what he brought to Washington and their own lives. Your opinion is yours, it holds no more water than mine.
As a rule, I do add " in my view" to my comments. It is my opinion that Trump has won a couple of battles that Black Americans might feel benefit their lives in some respects... and yes I feel he just came at the fight from a different battle strategy. Not with typical meaningless words but deeds.
Yes, you did tell me what you thought of the Middle East Deal. Pardon me for telling you my thoughts on it. My comment was meant to share my views. It would seem you may not appreciate an open conversation, sharing views. Point made, and I will certainly keep that in mind.I never fear open conversation and sharing views, Sharlee. That is why I am here and it makes my day. We are all here to exchange ideas and opinions. So, as for your concerns about this, please "perish the thought".
Unfortunately, Sharlee, Trump's inroads into the concerns of the Black community have been more window dressing than substantive in my opinion.
I will never discount your opinion or minimize it, it is only that when the issues concern African-Americans, I have the advantage of wearing the mantel of having first hand experience as to how politicians and politics have played out in its regard.I would assume you have the opinion as one Black individual. hear is Candice Owen's opinion on racism. Her opinion is very interesting in regards to why Trump is picking up so many black citizens' support. She is so outspoken, down to earth, and refreshing. Hopefully, you will have a listen. I think it goes to provide another black American's views on politics, and the results of years of politic's on Black citizens. I would assume she also wears the mantel of a black person. However, you are very much correct, I can't give an opinion on the experience of a black individual in any respect. Although, I have the right to add an opinion in regard to what I feel Trump has provided that has worked to improve the lives of Black citizens. I am somewhat sure that many black citizens might feel differently than you in regards to Trump's agenda to improve the lives of Black citizens. I used Candice as an example, hopefully, you will listen to the videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LtIML6tnRE
https://www.facebook.com/realCandaceOwe … 8635149865" I am somewhat sure that many black citizens might feel differently than you in regards to Trump's agenda to improve the lives of Black citizens. I used Candice as an example, hopefully, you will listen to the videos."
Not many, but a few. If Trump could actually get more than 10 percent of the Black vote, he would exceed our expectations.
I have seen and heard the videos, intersting but I am not convinced.She is willing to step out and point back at her own... Go down a different road... In my view, I think her ideologies could work to make many black Americans uncomfortable.
I would venture he will get 20 to 30 % of the black vote this time around. Hey, one week and we will have a good idea on the Black vote.
Sherlee, I wanted to add this point.
My dad, who passed away at the age of 88 last month, told me how his dad voted Republican until 1936, he said WE all did, but FDR changed the past dynamic by walking the talk and between him and Eleanor, WE could say that we had a friend in the White House.
Mums was smitten like a school girl in the presence of Robert Kennedy, whose campaign she was a part of in the Denver area in 1968. Another man whose record and current actions have earned him the trust and confidence of the Black community.
Believe me, if Donald Trump made anywhere near such inroads, his supporting numbers from among us would certainly increase markedly.
I think you would vote against the GOP regardless. When was the last time you voted for any Republican?
Case closed.
However, let me say, why you should reconsider this time. Please consider Joe Biden in his current state. How can anyone, with good conscience, put him in the White House? and have him with his finger on the nuclear button...? He is unfit, medically, to be the President."I think you would vote against the GOP regardless. When was the last time you voted for any Republican?"
Yes, Jack, a snowball would have a better chance remaining intact within the depths of hell.
Republican philosophy during my lifetime has always sucked and I stayed away from any and all of their candidates for almost 50 years pretty close to the time that I became old enough to vote.
It is high time to throw the man-baby out with the rancid water it sits in. Trump shows me every day that he is the one whose mental faculties should be questioned.
Related Discussions
- 48
SC says no more faithless electors in the EC- what say conservatives?
by Credence2 4 years ago
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi … gK1iPD_BwEThis nice reassurance ruling from the Supreme Court may well give the Electoral College a new lease on life and make the institution less troublesome in my eyes than before.No more happenstance, if you don't want something to occur,...
- 713
The Disatorous Ramifications of the Deadly Reversal of Roe vs Wade.
by Scott Belford 11 days ago
The Conservatives on the Supreme Court stuck a knife in the back of all Americans with their decision to ignore stare decises and overturn Roe. Besides stripping women of a fundemental right to control their own body (now, in some states, a 13-year old rape victim with be FORCED to carry the...
- 23
Conservatives, how do you feel about Chief Justice Roberts siding in favor of up
by Mary's Crumbs 12 years ago
Conservatives, how do you feel about Chief Justice Roberts siding in favor of upholding ObamaCare?In what can only be characterized as a victory for the Obama administration, the Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 decision which basically upholds the The Affordable Care Act. Chief Justice...
- 90
What is going on with the Chief Justice John Roberts?
by Jack Lee 4 years ago
This latest 5/4 Supreme Court decision on DACA is inexplicable. John Roberts, as Chief Justice should know better. This is a series of miss steps by John Roberts ever since the decision on the ACA. Why is this happening to our high courts? It was John Roberts who claim there is no politics in the...
- 48
What Does SC Justice Anthony Kennedy's Retirement Mean for America?
by Scott Belford 6 years ago
Clearly, Donald Trump will nominate the most extreme conservative he can find to replace Kennedy and Sen Mitch McConnell will do everything he can to get him appointed.At stake, of course, is Kennedy's own legacy. I suspect he is quite aware that the important decisions he sided with the...
- 13
The Supreme Court Tossing Out the Texas Case To Oppose Biden's Victory
by Santiago Salinas 3 years ago
It has been a month since the election results were set and stone. Joe Biden and his running mate, Kamala Harris, were announced the winners of the 2020 presidential election. However, there have been many claims, especially from Trump and his supporters, about voter fraud in the election that...