The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

President Obama Nominates Judge Merrick Garland to Supreme Court

jbrown329 said:
Fine. Let them block it. Then I hope people get mad enough that the Republicans loose big time, both in the House and the Senate. And the White House.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it appears that while the Dems may be able to retake the Senate....and are currently favoured to take the White House, they can't regain control over the gerrymandered House.

But their obstructionism may come back to bite them hard.
 
Benvolio said:
Conservatives believe in following the Constitution, and applying it. Liberals arrogate to themselves the right to change it.
Click to expand...

You are nothing if not consistent. Consistently making posts without a shred of intellectual honesty.
 
palemale said:
You are nothing if not consistent. Consistently making posts without a shred of intellectual honesty.
Click to expand...
Tell that to the 70 million Americans babies killed pursuant to the Roe v awake lies.
 
rareboy said:
Unfortunately, it appears that while the Dems may be able to retake the Senate....and are currently favoured to take the White House, they can't regain control over the gerrymandered House.
Click to expand...

Keeping the White House is a big deal if for no other reason because it controls the makeup of the federal courts. Another Democrat will cement a liberal or at least moderate system for a generation, and hopefully break the back of some of the most stubborn conservative courts, e.g. the 5th and 6th. Obama's appellate courts are some of the most left we've ever had, part of the reason we won the marriage cases so easily. Ninja, if he were around, would be able to fill us all in on the court details more.

The Senate, also, would be able to pass the Democrat's favored nominees, approve climate treaties, and other powers of the Senate. It would be able to sponsor some good amendments to legislation and money bills. Though with the filibuster, a feature that the House does not have, would be less powerful than if we had the House and not the Senate.

Democrats can get 55% of the vote and still lose the House. If that happens there would be some considerable pressure to do away with legislative appointed districts or a constitutional amendment to ban gerrymandering completely, but the latter is more likely. The problem is money bills originate in the House just like they do in parliaments. Economic progressives will stay out of government for a long time to come.

But their obstructionism may come back to bite them hard.
Click to expand...

The culture of comity is completely lost. Democrats may do away with the filibuster over SCOTUS nominees.
 
Benvolio said:
Tens of millions of lives are at stake. If Republicans can hold on for a Republican President to appoint an honest Justice, they can over rule the Roe v Wade fraud and stop the mass slaughter of American babies.
Click to expand...

Roe v Wade can't be "overruled". That's not how the court system works. Too bad you have no knowledge in that field whatsoever.

Also I'm always appreciative of someone who's on the side of rapists against their victims.
 
Benvolio said:
Conservatives believe in following the Constitution, and applying it. Liberals arrogate to themselves the right to change it.
Click to expand...

You have a considerably less enlightened world view than the founding fathers.
If anything you and your politics represent the America they were seeking to avoid.
 
Kabluey said:
You have a considerably less enlightened world view than the founding fathers.
If anything you and your politics represent the America they were seeking to avoid.
Click to expand...

Of course Ben has re-imagined the "real" FF's in his head so they look nothing like anything you might have been taught.
 
Benvolio said:
Tell that to the 70 million Americans babies killed pursuant to the Roe v awake lies.
Click to expand...
Do YOU personally have a uterus? If not, it's none of your fucking business what a woman does with her body. It's HER body, NOT yours. And climb down off your fucking cross.

My 80yr old friend is an Evangelical Christian. She's forgot more of the bible than you could ever hope to know. No, she if young wouldn't get an abortion. But also says that IT is the woman's choice.

So unless you can birth babies out of your asshole or your urethra, shut your pie hole. It's NONE of your fucking business.
 
This is not a debate about abortion, but about the Constitution. Yours is the liberal view: the actual Constitution is unimportant. The only important thing is what liberals want it to be.
 
Benvolio said:
This is not a debate about abortion, but about the Constitution. Yours is the liberal view: the actual Constitution is unimportant. The only important thing is what liberals want it to be.
Click to expand...

You brought abortion up.

And I'm still waiting for your answer - how many major schools of thought are there in regards to interpreting the constitution?
 
Benvolio said:
This is not a debate about abortion, but about the Constitution. Yours is the liberal view: the actual Constitution is unimportant. The only important thing is what liberals want it to be.
Click to expand...

The 14th Amendment says that a state cannot withhold due process from US citizens. There is nothing literal to glean from that statement. It is entirely interpretive. What falls under due process?

The Supreme Court in 1973 recognized that privacy is an element to many laws new and ancient, so they inferred that states are required to honor it in pregnancy.

Now, we can debate whether that is true or not. What is beyond debate is the fact that the Constitution has indefinite clauses and that courts have a right to declare the common law.
 
Benvolio said:
Tell that to the 70 million Americans babies killed pursuant to the Roe v awake lies.
Click to expand...

You're as intellectually dishonest about abortion as you are about anything else. How's your boy, Tedd Cruzz, doing?
 
Clause 2: Advice and Consent Clause

The President exercises the powers in the Advice and Consent Clause with the advice and consent of the Senate.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States,
Click to expand...
from ARTICLE TWO of the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

I think it was Kulindahr who claims that this Clause was only to fill the first Supreme Court. No, I don't see that anywhere. I don't see any limitation to the 18th Century - and I notice the word SHALL...which, in legalese, is a command. It is MANDATORY. Even if there is wiggle-room, it sure as fuck is CUSTOMARY to appoint a Supreme Court Justice - and I've heard mentioned somewhere that in all of our history, NO Supreme Court appointment has ever been denied a hearing and a vote. Robert Bork GOT HIS HEARING AND HIS VOTE; in the end he wasn't Confirmed but, the point is, Bork DID GET A SENATE VOTE...it just didn't go in his favor, and that is far from the first time.

I call bullshit if you say it only applied 229 years ago, and not now. That's not how it reads, at all.

The reading, to me, doesn't say that the Senate MUST act (as there is no "shall" part that applies to The Senate), but doing otherwise for the first time in more than two centuries is rather questionable and sleazy, to put it very mildly. I think it's more that the R's want all appointments, from now on, to be Dominionists who will rule, in every possible way, to ABSOLUTELY FORCE their Christianity on every aspect of our life.

The return of heresy crimes, anybody?

Rolyo85 said:
Roe v Wade can't be "overruled". That's not how the court system works. Too bad you have no knowledge in that field whatsoever.

Also I'm always appreciative of someone who's on the side of rapists against their victims.
Click to expand...
Yes...well, Roe v Wade can be overturned, in a sense, but that merely means GETTING RID OF A COURT DECISION; "overturning" Roe doesn't put a new law into place.

It "just" says that the states can do whatever they choose to make sure that EVERY woman, no matter what, is FORCED to take that goddam baby all the way to term and spit it out of their abdomen. Oh, so you're 10 and your uncle raped you and almost killed you? Deal with it. You will probably DIE in childbirth, and the baby will likely not survive? NO PROBLEM...a dead fetus AND a dead mother is MUCH BETTER than just a dead fetus.
 
Benvolio said:
Tell that to the 70 million Americans babies killed pursuant to the Roe v awake lies.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming that your interest is only in the white, protestant babies.
 
Has Obama obtained the consent of Congress to the appointment of Garland? Not yet. Did he obtain the advice of Congress before the nomination? Nope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top