Death of a Great Pioneer
 

The passing of Ginsburg at 87. Hard times for the Supreme Court to come.

Trump appoints another convervative judge. The left's agenda, along with the hopes and dreams of half of America will be minimized for decades to come.

DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A AUTO FORUM!!!

TAKE YOUR POLITICAL THREADS SOMEWHERE ELSE!

You are wrong.

This is a Politics Forum.

This thread in under the Politics Forum, subset of Off-topic forum.

What the heck are you doing replying to a politics thread if your only interest is in cars?

Stay off politics and stick with what you know.

Death of a Great Pioneer
 

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...0fd8b69e68.jpg

Why does it say xoutpost then? You’re gonna piss me off man!

I am exercising my right as a forum member to post under the specified off-topic forum using the correct terms and language to discuss subjects that are of interest to me.

Don't feel the need to reply if you have nothing constructive to say.

Asking nicely Again, stay off this thread. No one asked you to linger.

STAY OFF XOUTPOST!

Not up to you, is it?

[emoji23]

Happy - this is the political forum in the off-topic section of the Xoutpost forum. If you do not want to see political posts, please do not view posts in the off-topic/political forum. Any further negative posts will result in your posts being deleted and a temporary ban.

Thank you!
Michelle :)

Wise mod properly enforcing forum rules. I'm filled with hope for Xoutpost once again!

Best wishes to a great moderator, and may the rest of your year goes smoothly and trouble-free!

:)

If xoutpost is going to condone user Maruzo making these type of suggestions, when it’s possible that the individual he is referring to could possibly lose his life, then you can go ahead and permanently ban me now. I will not be a part of an online community that allows this type of condemnation towards any human beings/fellow citizens.

I am not purposely viewing the political post. They are coming up on my Tapatalk app. When the thread is trending, it is at the top of my list. Believe me if I had the ability to avoid seeing user Maruzo, I would.

Maruzo has offended other on users on xoutpost as well.

"The passing of Ginsburg at 87. Hard times for the Supreme Court to come.

Trump appoints another convervative judge. The left's agenda, along with the hopes and dreams of half of America will be minimized for decades to come."

I reread my original post as seen above.

I don't think I was malicious in my post towards anyone individual.

Are you sure we're talking about Trump?

Death of a Great Pioneer
 

That’s a dumb question.

I really think you have your priorities backwards and is quoting future posts to justify your own "negative posts" towards an OP in a past thread.

Makes no sense to me, since the mistake you've made in your prior post still stands regardless of what I posted weeks later.

If there's ever a case of misquoting others to justtify one's negative post towards another forum member, you've just shown it to the entire forum.

Come to think of it. You only replied to the Moderator after seeing my other post on another thread.

So you're retroactively justifying posting negative posts to another forum member by pointing out his new posts weeks/ month later?

Do you not see the fallacy in your logic?

I’m going to quote Joe Biden since this is a political thread, “Will you shut up, man”!

SERIOUSLY!!

If you can't explain away your negative behavior towards another forum member, I suggest you apologize first.

Instead of generating more negative vibe in this forum for all others to see.

You're both egging each other on.

Trump tested positive. I think that was a matter of time. It's probably just a matter of time for most of the country. It's too bad Trump didn't give it to all Congress.

^ That didn't need to be posted. You were in the right Maruzo and Michelle took care of the infraction.

As for RBG, I don't know enough to say one or the other, but it seems she has respect from both sides of the aisle and served the American public well. We need term limits for Supreme Court Justices but that's another issue. The highest court in the land should not veer too far from center in either direction so hopefully the new SCJ will temper their right lean realizing the gravity of their new position.

I believe in positive reinforcement.

It's not an effort to demean another forum member.

I just think we need to praise justice when it is served.

We're seen so little of it this year. I like to see more of it.

Even if it's served against me, I'd happily acknowledge it if i'm in the wrong.

Then send Michelle a PM. She's the only one who would benefit from the comment.

Appreciate your take on RBG. I think great Americans should be respected and acknowledged. We can all learn from these fine individuals in a positive way.

Although I must admit in my original post I was more worried about the possible negative consequences of her passing in the make up of the supreme court justices.

My fears are fast becoming true. The appointment of another conservative right judge is all but assured for the supreme court.

Will do next time.

:thumbup:

I have also had to send her a PM or two in the past of thanks (and apology on one occasion).

Ok boys, back on topic or the thread gets closed. :rolleyes:

Sure thing. I think I have but one meaningful reply from Crystal on topic which I’ve responded. So please kindly close it in a few days if no other members wish to contribute about the passing of RBG.

Thanks again!

.

Perfect summary of what was the major problem with RBG philosophy....

https://www.nationalreview.com/the-t...stand-her-job/

Sent from my SM-A730F using Tapatalk

I'm about half-way through this... and so far, all I've learned, is that the author is very long winded, and that he is a strict Constitutionalist. I am Constitution oriented (both parties are habitually violating it) as well but am also realistic enough to know that not everything can be enumerated in the original document.

But let me finish reading it and digest it. Seems to me he's complaining about a situation that applies to all the justices, but for different reasons (feminism in RBG's case).

I gave it a read as well. The author is entitled to his own take on how the supreme court judges should handle the cases that comes before them.

I think that's the only thing he's entitled to.

The judges always have differences in their opinions, and they are hand picked to best reflect the changing times of the American culture and society. To follow the original constitution strictly without making adjustments to suit the current needs of the American public would be both archaic and falls short of meeting the needs of our current generation.

As for grouping the 2 separate instances of the timing for new SCJ nominations, once with Obama and another after the passing of RBG.

He's right about one thing. The hypocricy is glaring.

But I do see the need to maintain the spirit of the original document, in as far as the work the Supreme Court does.

I think maybe instead of conforming strictly to the original document like the author believe we should do, we can prehaps find some ways of laying down guidelines for the SCJ to follow. That guideline could be voted on by the American public.

Strict conformance to the Constitution is the only way to go. If we make things a guideline that's voted on then you end up with one group controlling a smaller group or a small vocal group with say support by the media and not by the population at large making rules, laws, changes that benefit them only and not the country as a whole.

The Constitution doesn't say what the government can do it says what they can't do. The Supreme Court is there (in watered down terms) to say this law is valid Constitutionally or not and to be the final arbiter when sides cannot agree. Over the years we as a country have somehow decided that it's ok to ride roughshod over peoples Rights if 51% think it's good or wanted.

NO Supreme Court Justice should flavor their decision with their political beliefs/values.

The answers are black and white...

Constitutional or not, follows the law as written NOT INTERPRETED and if a case from State XXXX says law #22 says something was illegal and a man was found guilty by his peers yet law #13 says he met requirements for doing the actions legally then the SC has the option of upholding the conviction by showing law #13 is unconstitutional or if both laws are Constitutional then the SC must find for the citizen and vacate the conviction since Rights belong to the People before the Rights of the state or the government.

I realize these are over simplifications but without writing a dissertation it was the best I could do at 0430.

Sent from my SM-A730F using Tapatalk

The problem with the current structure is the parties have found ways to manipulate the nomination process in order to gain majority in the SCJ.

Not naming any parties in particular, but we’re seeing this happening before our own eyes.

It’s not making the highest court in our country any fairer than the founding father intended.

Finished the opinion piece. The author is a talented writer, but definitely long winded (as most good writers tend to be).

My thoughts haven't changed though as the second half was a reiteration of his position with admonition of the political left (and Ginsberg) following. In principle, I think his opinion is solid. And if justices on the left or the right could ONLY read the Constitution and determine if case X was enumerated in it to form their judgements, anyone could be a judge. Would be a simple if => then issue. But that's not the case as obviously not everything is covered in the document.

Given Mr. Williamson's position it would seem he would have a problem with all sorts of rulings from the SC. Citizen's United comes to mind. Now, with Ginsberg's recent death, the political climate, and his transparent political leaning it's understandable his piece was written the way it was. His complaint still applies (or should if he is honest about his position) to all SC justices. And in that, I agree with him. Political beliefs should not interfere with the Court's decisions on whether something is Constitutional or not. But there is still room for disagreement based on the interpretation of the document. Remember, not everything is enumerated in it.

I've found myself in much better "mental" places since around 2012 because I realized all politicians are scum (Obama gave me the last examples I needed). Taking one side or the other is a disservice to ourselves and the country. As voters, we need to vote the incumbents out regardless of party affiliation. Send a message that they serve us, not corporations, or special interests. That there should be no such thing as a career politician. But that's a pipe dream so now I sit on the outside and look in at everyone imploding and hurling insults at each other. I don't care which party is in charge of the 3 branches, the average citizen's life has changed very little, if at all.

I definitely agree that it applies to both parties as I believe in the Constitution.

Sent from my SM-A730F using Tapatalk