packgrad said:

---

You see no difference in the headlines? Ok......

---

Difference between the Post and the Times, or difference between the two Post headlines in the tweet you posted?

There have only been 2 headlines posted.

packgrad said:

---

There have only been 2 headlines posted.

---

Yes, I see a difference between the two headlines you posted.

I see an analogous difference in tone and content in the Washington Times stories on Scalia and RBG after their deaths.

Was the conservative Washington Times showing their liberal bias in their stories too?

The media has a clear liberal bias, but those two headlines are not a good example.

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

There have only been 2 headlines posted.

---

Yes, I see a difference between the two headlines you posted.

I see an analogous difference in tone and content in the Washington Times stories on Scalia and RBG after their deaths.

Was the conservative Washington Times showing their liberal bias in their stories too?

The media has a clear liberal bias, but those two headlines are not a good example.

---

Lol. Ok.

Looks like Trump is moving forward with the nomination.

That it is.

The woman from Indiana is qualified to be on the court.

That said, if Pub's push this through now, after what Yertle the Turtle did to Garland, the next time the Dems have the President and the Senate they will pack the court.

When winning becomes more important that what is good for the republic in the long run, can civil war be far behind?

Given the work load, 13 SCJ is likely fair - you might even try to match them to Federal Reserve Districts or something. A 24 year term would not be bad with an option to renew for 8 more.


Of course a lot of things in America need tweeking.

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

jadawson said:

---

ciscopack said:

---

Like many pals, Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg could have a pretty good argument now and then, but not let it affect their close friendship.

---

It's so incredibly sad that so many americans find this difficult these days. We should all take a note from these two people who were polar opposites in their interpretations of the constitution and case law and yet were very good friends to the end.

---

There are other examples of this as well. Michelle Obama and Ellen are both good friend with GWB. Its really not hard to look past ones political beliefs, yet so many people cant, for whatever close minded reason they have. I dont get it and its depressing

---

IMO, a lot of that is due to the media telling people they shouldn't like one side or the other. The cast majority of people aren't going to take the time to research anything. They will believe what they are told and act accordingly.

---

I blame social media. When you can curate who you hear from, you sit in an echo chamber. Hardly anyone bothers to listen to others at this point. If all you hear are opinions that agree with your own, it only enforces those views. Its actually my biggest issue with Trump. For his entire career in business and politics, hes only surrounded himself with yes men/women.

The whole thing reminds me of one of my favorite sayings "If you think you are the smartest person in a room, you are in the wrong room."

---

Yes.

And social media is just so much more effective at utilizing data to curate content and influence people. The news media has an impact but it's a fraction of what social media platforms can do.

GoPack2008 said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

RunsWithWolves26 said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

jadawson said:

---

ciscopack said:

---

Like many pals, Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg could have a pretty good argument now and then, but not let it affect their close friendship.

---

It's so incredibly sad that so many americans find this difficult these days. We should all take a note from these two people who were polar opposites in their interpretations of the constitution and case law and yet were very good friends to the end.

---

There are other examples of this as well. Michelle Obama and Ellen are both good friend with GWB. Its really not hard to look past ones political beliefs, yet so many people cant, for whatever close minded reason they have. I dont get it and its depressing

---

IMO, a lot of that is due to the media telling people they shouldn't like one side or the other. The cast majority of people aren't going to take the time to research anything. They will believe what they are told and act accordingly.

---

I blame social media. When you can curate who you hear from, you sit in an echo chamber. Hardly anyone bothers to listen to others at this point. If all you hear are opinions that agree with your own, it only enforces those views. Its actually my biggest issue with Trump. For his entire career in business and politics, hes only surrounded himself with yes men/women.

The whole thing reminds me of one of my favorite sayings "If you think you are the smartest person in a room, you are in the wrong room."

---

Yes.

And social media is just so much more effective at utilizing data to curate content and influence people. The news media has an impact but it's a fraction of what social media platforms can do.

---

When I say the media, I assume it's understood that social media is included.

ciscopack said:

---

To me the Supreme Court should have 13 members..... 4 Libs. - 4 Conserve and 5 Mods. but who determines who is what? Mostly those people are fair however....Ginsberg's best friend in the court was her total opposite and they were great friends.

---

No, the Supreme Court should be made up of people who can interpret the constitution, in its original intent. A persons political world view should have no affect on their ruling.

Example: I disagree with same sex marriage; however, no US or State constitution, that I know of, give the power to the State for a marriage license. So, do away with marriage license's and people can can create a contract among themselves; otherwise, just get married in your church...

If a constitution doesn't speak about a particular power, then the power doesn't exist, it should be left to the people. Folks, that's true liberty and freedom.

caryking said:

---

ciscopack said:

---

To me the Supreme Court should have 13 members..... 4 Libs. - 4 Conserve and 5 Mods. but who determines who is what? Mostly those people are fair however....Ginsberg's best friend in the court was her total opposite and they were great friends.

---

No, the Supreme Court should be made up of people who can interpret the constitution, in its original intent. A persons political world view should have no affect on their ruling.

Example: I disagree with same sex marriage; however, no US or State constitution, that I know of, give the power to the State for a marriage license. So, do away with marriage license's and people can can create a contract among themselves; otherwise, just get married in your church...

If a constitution doesn't speak about a particular power, then the power doesn't exist, it should be left to the people. Folks, that's true liberty and freedom.

---

Life is full of vagaries and gray areas and even a strict constitutionalist has to make judgment calls regarding application.

It's in those gray areas/judgment calls that political world views creep in.

There's a reason why we all know who conservatives and liberals are on the court.

PackBacker07 said:

---

Yes, I'm afraid the next 60 days or whatever are going to descend us into another layer of hell we didn't think possible.

---

You mean COMMUNISTIC....

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

ciscopack said:

---

To me the Supreme Court should have 13 members..... 4 Libs. - 4 Conserve and 5 Mods. but who determines who is what? Mostly those people are fair however....Ginsberg's best friend in the court was her total opposite and they were great friends.

---

No, the Supreme Court should be made up of people who can interpret the constitution, in its original intent. A persons political world view should have no affect on their ruling.

Example: I disagree with same sex marriage; however, no US or State constitution, that I know of, give the power to the State for a marriage license. So, do away with marriage license's and people can can create a contract among themselves; otherwise, just get married in your church...

If a constitution doesn't speak about a particular power, then the power doesn't exist, it should be left to the people. Folks, that's true liberty and freedom.

---

Life is full of vagaries and gray areas and even a strict constitutionalist has to make judgment calls regarding application.

It's in those gray areas/judgment calls that political world views creep in.

There's a reason why we all know who conservatives and liberals are on the court.

---

The first thought is regarding the law in which the complaint is concerning. The point you highlighted doesn't have vagaries and gray areas. Now, if the complaint is not concerning a constitutional power, then the ruling should be about the agreement set fourth by the parties in dispute. This are not vagaries or gray areas.

Now, less take the case regarding the religious rights of the bakery and same sex couple wanting a cake made. The court made a proper ruling based on the Constitution; however, my contention is that laws, the plaintiff were using, were not constitutional; therefore, religious freedom should not been the argument. Being no one challenged the laws, of the plaintiff, as constitutional, then the argument had to be made on the grounds of religious freedom.

A constitutional justice would have looked at the complaint and stated very simply: no where in the constitution does the federal government have the power to pass laws as such; therefore, your complaint is null and void.

Really, what should happen is for States to start nullifying laws where the federal government has no power. In those cases, supremacy clause has no affect on the States.

Wolfer79 said:

---

Christopher Scalia

I'm very sad to hear about the passing of my parents' good friend, and my father's wonderful colleague, Justice Ginsburg. May her memory be a blessing. I'd like to share a couple of passages that convey what she meant to my dad.../

---

His dad got it...they were great friends as were their spouses. They vacationed together....Ginsburg's husband was a favorite chef to Justice Scalia and he said Martin can cook well and I can eat well. They worked well together from totally opposite positions; they believed in one another! They both were on the same team and both were trying to figure out how to make the team better!

"Some things in life are more important than votes."

packgrad said:

---

Civil War because the president chooses a SC Justice. The left is going to bite off more than they can chew with such rhetoric.

---

Funny how all the rioting, looting, burning, destruction of both public and private property stopped once the Dems put the word out that it was backfiring on them... they had control to stop them from the start it would now seem... I think most logically thinking people can connect the dots on that stuff.

And no, they didn't just stop on their own either.

Got to think she made a Whoopsie with this tweet, then tried to save it with the follow up.

The number of justices has been 9 since Reconstruction, and I believe there were only 9 federal districts at that time (although there are more nefarious reasons why the number became 9). If Biden wins and the Dems take control of the Senate, why wouldn't they push for more justices?

PackBacker07 said:

---

The number of justices has been 9 since Reconstruction, and I believe there were only 9 federal districts at that time (although there are more nefarious reasons why the number became 9). If Biden wins and the Dems take control of the Senate, why wouldn't they push for more justices?

---

I think the better question is: why would they?

Because that would mean they are seeking Communistic dictatorship; not democracy! We've fought over way less!

Because politics? I'm sure they would use the front of Garland, the hypocrisy of this new justice, and workload increase in the last 150+ years.

I have no issue with her or anyone else. As long as they vote the law and the constitution

Bas2020 said:

---

---

Yes. They will attack and destroy her or whoever else is the nominee. If they can check their rage a bit they'll be alright but they're going to turn off a lot of people if they go all out like they did on Kavanaugh. This is going to be a woman and possibly a minority woman. Someone on the left is going to screw up and tweet or say something really below the belt, sexist, or racist. Get your popcorn ready.

PackBacker07 said:

---

Because politics? I'm sure they would use the front of Garland, the hypocrisy of this new justice, and workload increase in the last 150+ years.

---

Noooo

I don't agree with filling the seat now, but two wrongs do not make a right. Court packing will make 50% of the country no longer see it as legitimate. Despite everything we've seen the past few years the court still has the trust of the public at large, at least compared to any other branch of government.

IseWolf22 said:

---

PackBacker07 said:

---

Because politics? I'm sure they would use the front of Garland, the hypocrisy of this new justice, and workload increase in the last 150+ years.

---

Noooo

I don't agree with filling the seat now, but two wrongs do not make a right. Court packing will make 50% of the country no longer see it as legitimate. Despite everything we've seen the past few years the court still has the trust of the public at large, at least compared to any other branch of government.

---

This is where I am. I dont agree with filling the seat, but the Republicans arent breaking any rules or procedures. Its WAY more concerning to me that the Liberals are openly talking about stacking the court. Talk about escalating politics. The court will be at 97 justices before you know it, because itll get stacked every time there is a change of power, rendering it a useless branch of government.

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

PackBacker07 said:

---

Because politics? I'm sure they would use the front of Garland, the hypocrisy of this new justice, and workload increase in the last 150+ years.

---

Noooo

I don't agree with filling the seat now, but two wrongs do not make a right. Court packing will make 50% of the country no longer see it as legitimate. Despite everything we've seen the past few years the court still has the trust of the public at large, at least compared to any other branch of government.

---

This is where I am. I dont agree with filling the seat, but the Republicans arent breaking any rules or procedures. Its WAY more concerning to me that the Liberals are openly talking about stacking the court. Talk about escalating politics. The court will be at 97 justices before you know it, because itll get stacked every time there is a change of power, rendering it a useless branch of government.

---

Here's a concerning note putting aside that GOP is following the constitution which really no more needs to be said. But...on top of that democrats have said outright that this election is going to be fraudulent and they will not accept the results on election night under ANY circumstance. I'm not making this up.. Biden camp has 600 lawyers ready to roll and they plan to take this election into the courts. They may even try to tie it up past inauguration. Whatever they're doing it's nefarious. Now imagine the supreme court gets involved... but out of politeness we waited. Now there's 8 justices to potentially decide election results that could change America forever. You better fill the seat now.

Glasswolf said:

---

I have issue with her or anyone else. As long as they vote the law and the constitution

---

Believe you meant to put NO before issue. If I am wrong, please correct me. Knowing you as long as I have, I'm betting you just left out NO by mistake.

ncsualum05 said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

PackBacker07 said:

---

Because politics? I'm sure they would use the front of Garland, the hypocrisy of this new justice, and workload increase in the last 150+ years.

---

Noooo

I don't agree with filling the seat now, but two wrongs do not make a right. Court packing will make 50% of the country no longer see it as legitimate. Despite everything we've seen the past few years the court still has the trust of the public at large, at least compared to any other branch of government.

---

This is where I am. I dont agree with filling the seat, but the Republicans arent breaking any rules or procedures. Its WAY more concerning to me that the Liberals are openly talking about stacking the court. Talk about escalating politics. The court will be at 97 justices before you know it, because itll get stacked every time there is a change of power, rendering it a useless branch of government.

---

Here's a concerning note putting aside that GOP is following the constitution which really no more needs to be said. But...on top of that democrats have said outright that this election is going to be fraudulent and they will not accept the results on election night under ANY circumstance. I'm not making this up.. Biden camp has 600 lawyers ready to roll and they plan to take this election into the courts. They may even try to tie it up past inauguration. Whatever they're doing it's nefarious. Now imagine the supreme court gets involved... but out of politeness we waited. Now there's 8 justices to potentially decide election results that could change America forever. You better fill the seat now.

---

Stop with the "democrats have said [insert crazy saying here]."

What democrats? On what basis? Where? How many?

Ironically, it's Trump that has most frequently called into question the potential election result with all this voter fraud BS but no democrats or republicans I know really think Trump is going to thumb his nose at the election if he loses, squat in the White House, and need to get removed by the military.

I don't like it when either side does this, it's not real. It's making up something to rage against.

C'mon man.