Trump 2025

Quote: fleaswatter

Maybe because he isn't a real lawyer? LOL

Yeah, that's got to be the answer...idiot...

Look, you bozos can't grasp the subtle nuances of stare decisis and it having been the linchpin of American Law, so why should I bother to educate you?

Dwell in ignorance...such is your fate in life...that plus giving a reach around to a fat convicted felon.

Quote: missedhervee

Yeah, that's got to be the answer...idiot...

Look, you bozos can't grasp the subtle nuances of stare decisis and it having been the linchpin of American Law, so why should I bother to educate you?

And you cannot grasp that precedent can be overturned. Again, if you say so you are saying you support legal separate but equal.

Then again, you think OJ didn't do it, so you probably do.

Listen children, quit the silly BS that MrV is not a lawyer. Unless you are willing to put your money where your mouth is. I’m sure I’ll hear crickets.

Got that out of the way.

I am all for pretty much unfettered access to abortion for all women on our shores. But everything I read about Roe was that it was always ‘bad law’ that had good results. That the USSC did the correct (legal thing) in overturning it. The Constitution has a few ways in which the protections of Roe can be restored. It’s called a constitutional amendment.

Did MrV say the recent USSC appointees were done so for political reasons? I’d say the are ‘less’ political than the most recent Democrat appointee, KBJ. Since ALL justices are nominated by a (by definition partisan) President, I’d say all are political appointees.

Quote: SOOPOO

I am all for pretty much unfettered access to abortion for all women on our shores. But everything I read about Roe was that it was always ‘bad law’ that had good results. That the USSC did the correct (legal thing) in overturning it. The Constitution has a few ways in which the protections of Roe can be restored. It’s called a constitutional amendment.

A constitutional amendment would be both overkill and unlikely to happen. The closest amendment to an abortion amendment would be prohibition and that was a disaster. Putting it to the states seems to be the best way. Laws should be local whenever possible.

Quote:

Did MrV say the recent USSC appointees were done so for political reasons?

Actually, he keeps claiming Trump "packed" SCOTUS. He also makes the absurd statement that Trump appoints judges that are constructionist and seems to imply a GOPPOTUS is supposed to appoint some liberals for whatever reason. This is a reason I question his law credentials, a good lawyer would know what "packing SCOTUS" refers to and means.

Trump both said he doesn't draw, but also said he draws just a few lines even though he talks about this drawing in one of his books



Is it a woman or a 15 or 16 year old.

I fondly recall reading the legal opinions of long dead USSC jurists such as Cardozo while in law school: what a legal mind he had, as well as others such as California jurist Roger Trainor..

Compare them and their legal acumen and writing ability to the current crop of lightweights, including of course that black buffooon, Clarence Thomas: night and day.

In law school we examined the legal reasoning of opinions as opposed to underlying political circumstances at the time, receiving implied assurance that THE LAW would be followed, i.e. stare decisis: think of it as a security blanket for society, a bulwark against tyranny..

Uh...nope.

Of course a president wants to appoint people who are of the same political beliefs but Trump appointed folks both venal and patently unqualified, as is he.

No surprise...I'll just watch America spin around the drain.

Now don't get me wrong, I didn't want Harris to win, but I didn't want Trump either.

Two shitty, shitty choices.

Where is a decent, moderate politician?

Hello, McFly?

Quote: missedhervee

I fondly recall reading the legal opinions of long dead USSC jurists such as Cardozo while in law school: what a legal mind he had, as well as others such as California jurist Roger Trainor..

Compare them and their legal acumen and writing ability to the current crop of lightweights, including of course that black buffooon, Clarence Thomas: night and day.

In law school we examined the legal reasoning of opinions as opposed to underlying political circumstances at the time, receiving implied assurance that THE LAW would be followed, i.e. stare decisis: think of it as a security blanket for society, a bulwark against tyranny..

Uh...nope.

Of course a president wants to appoint people who are of the same political beliefs but Trump appointed folks both venal and patently unqualified, as is he.

No surprise...I'll just watch America spin around the drain.

Now don't get me wrong, I didn't want Harris to win, but I didn't want Trump either.

Two shitty, shitty choices.

Would you still vote for neither today? I'm setting the rule that you can still only elect one or the other, not bring in your preferred candidate for the win.

Quote: SOOPOO

Listen children, quit the silly BS that MrV is not a lawyer. Unless you are willing to put your money where your mouth is. I’m sure I’ll hear crickets.

Got that out of the way.

blah, blah, blah.

If me or anyone else wants to say the mrv is not a lawyer, nothing you say is going to stop us.

Ok, I bet $1 that he is not a lawyer. Either prove he is a lawyer or send me the money.

Quote:

I am all for pretty much unfettered access to abortion for all women on our shores. But everything I read about Roe was that it was always ‘bad law’ that had good results. That the USSC did the correct (legal thing) in overturning it. The Constitution has a few ways in which the protections of Roe can be restored. It’s called a constitutional amendment.

Did MrV say the recent USSC appointees were done so for political reasons? I’d say the are ‘less’ political than the most recent Democrat appointee, KBJ. Since ALL justices are nominated by a (by definition partisan) President, I’d say all are political appointees.

Quote: fleaswatter

blah, blah, blah.

If me or anyone else wants to say the mrv is not a lawyer, nothing you say is going to stop us.

Ok, I bet $1 that he is not a lawyer. Either prove he is a lawyer or send me the money.

Listen, flea bag, you can of course say whatever you want. But it is just childish to keep saying ‘he’s not a lawyer’ when you damn well know that he is. I don’t want your miserable dollar. You know I agree with a lot of your posts, but let them stand on their merits rather than attach them to petulant insults.

I go after MrV’s takes almost all of the time. I point out his blatantly obvious TDS, BY REFERENCING THE POST which proves my point.

I’m here for the back and forth between you, me, Geno, Rx, Az, etc…. Bring ideas, not childish insults. (Like fleabag)

Quote: rxwine

Would you still vote for neither today? I'm setting the rule that you can still only elect one or the other, not bring in your preferred candidate for the win.

Silly rule, rxwine, and very anti-American.

I've voted Libertarian every presidential election for the past fifty years.

My choice, my vote, and since I voted I've earned the right to moan, carp and bitch.