2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Overheal

By the way that "law" the SCOTUS allegedly wrote itself in your view was the 14th Amendment, if I'm not mistaken.

It's funny how people always get bunched up anytime an executive action or court ruling goes against their favor: it's always 'an out of control body who thinks it has unlimited authority' bla bla bla.

walshyn93

Overheal wrote: »

By the way that "law" the SCOTUS allegedly wrote itself in your view was the 14th Amendment, if I'm not mistaken.

It's funny how people always get bunched up anytime an executive action or court ruling goes against their favor: it's always 'an out of control body who thinks it has unlimited authority' bla bla bla.

I'm not one of those people.

Yeah, the 14th amendment had nothing to do with gay marriage. A similar challenge failed in Ireland.

walshyn93

InTheTrees wrote: »

Well never mind gambling, Mormons aren't supposed to even drink. There's no bars or pubs in Utah, only "private clubs".

So in asking generally what people's opinions are of trumps chances with the faithful, i picked utah as an example of an ultra religious state.

Casinos arent an issue yet because we haven't started the Presidential campaign, but you can bet DNC lawyers are going over every line of trumps bankruptcy filings.

Ps. I have no doubt the republican candidate will pick up utah's 6 electoral votes btw

Trump doesn't drink or smoke.

InTheTrees

walshyn93 wrote: »

3 supreme court justices will probably appointed in the next presidency so people will be looking for someone who's going to overturn that disgraceful bit of executive overreach. Supreme court is a joke. Gov. Greg Abbott looks like someone who would make a great presidential candidate.

Three? Which three?

Ginsburg is 80 so shs's certainly a possibility but who are the other two?

Scalia and Kennedy are conservative reagan appointees so if their replacements are conservatives also it wont change the balance.

walshyn93

InTheTrees wrote: »

Three? Which three?

Ginsburg is 80 so shs's certainly a possibility but who are the other two?

Scalia and Kennedy are conservative reagan appointees so if their replacements are conservatives also it wont change the balance.

Why would their replacements be conservatives?

InTheTrees

walshyn93 wrote: »

Trump doesn't drink or smoke.

And I'm sure El Chapo doesnt do coke.

The point is Trump ran casino's so he was making a living off people who do drink and smoke and gamble. He was encouraging people to drink and gamble.

If he wasn't then he cant have been a very good businessman.

walshyn93

InTheTrees wrote: »

And I'm sure El Chapo doesnt do coke.

The point is Trump ran casino's so he was making a living off people who do drink and smoke and gamble. He was encouraging people to drink and gamble.

If he wasn't then he cant have been a very good businessman.

Do you think the point you're making is significant? If so, why?

Overheal

walshyn93 wrote: »

I'm not one of those people.

Yeah, the 14th amendment had nothing to do with gay marriage. A similar challenge failed in Ireland.

So? Irish law is not US law and US law is not Irish law

The court decision was specifically about whether 14A protected same sex marriage. The justices filed multiple opinions ( Scalia jumped in on most of them) so the entire ruling is about 105 pages.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/obergefell-v-hodges/

walshyn93

Overheal wrote: »

So? Irish law is not US law and US law is not Irish law

The court decision was specifically about whether 14A protected same sex marriage. The justices filed multiple opinions ( Scalia jumped in on most of them) so the entire ruling is about 105 pages.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/obergefell-v-hodges/

It's still overstepping their bounds. I compare it to Ireland because the law is much the same but our courts are more restrained and don't interfere in the domain of the Oireachtas. And I think you will find that common law jurisdictions tend to borrow from one another.

Finding that gay marriage is a fundamental right is absurd. They can essentially claim anything as a fundamental right now. There's no stopping them. All they need is a majority ruling.

Hande hoche!

Colonialboy wrote: »

Joe Biden, questions Hilarys authenticity with regard to her comments on the rich-poor divide.
He praises Bernies authenticy and credibility on the same subject.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/11/politics/joe-biden-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-income-inequality/

by the way, I managed to pick up that nice pair of flip flops I was talking about earlier today.

Trump is looking very fresh and energised, I think he has the stamina for the long haul . Id question Hilary, all these issues with her as a candidate will take their toll on her.

Rand Paul , Carly Fiorina didnt make the main stage debate for tomorrows GOP debate. THey are pencilied in for the prelim debate.

Might have to watch some of the undercard debate so. Should be nice and awkward with only three on stage.

InTheTrees

walshyn93 wrote: »

Why would their replacements be conservatives?

Why?

Well if a conservative president wins of course. Appointments to the supreme court are a presidents lasting legacy so a president will nominate a judge that shares their outlook.

It still doesn't mean a court can just decide to overturn previous decisions. There's a procedure.

Roe v Wade (1973 I think) is the major decision that allowed abortion to become legal and conservatives have been trying to reverse it ever since but its not that easy.

If a democratic president wins and two conservative judges retire within the eight years then a real shift in society will begin.

Overheal

walshyn93 wrote: »

It's still overstepping their bounds. I compare it to Ireland because the law is much the same but our courts are more restrained and don't interfere in the domain of the Oireachtas. And I think you will find that common law jurisdictions tend to borrow from one another.

Finding that gay marriage is a fundamental right is absurd. They can essentially claim anything as a fundamental right now. There's no stopping them. All they need is a majority ruling.

That's your opinion I guess - you keep claiming that they are without substantiating it. Irish and Irish courts do not set any precedents whatsoever in the United States They aren't overstepping their bounds, which are very well defined in the Constitution.

walshyn93

InTheTrees wrote: »

Why?

Well if a conservative president wins of course. Appointments to the supreme court are a presidents lasting legacy so a president will nominate a judge that shares their outlook.

It still doesn't mean a court can just decide to overturn previous decisions. There's a procedure.

Roe v Wade (1973 I think) is the major decision that allowed abortion to become legal and conservatives have been trying to reverse it ever since but its not that easy.

If a democratic president wins and two conservative judges retire within the eight years then a real shift in society will begin.

Yeah that's exactly the point I've been making all along.

InTheTrees

walshyn93 wrote: »

Finding that gay marriage is a fundamental right is absurd. They can essentially claim anything as a fundamental right now. There's no stopping them. All they need is a majority ruling.

I believe that they decided that there was no reason why gays couldn't get married.

As simple as that. Fundamental rights seem neither here nor there, its a basic question of fairness.

Why shouldn't they get married?

InTheTrees

walshyn93 wrote: »

Yeah that's exactly the point I've been making all along.

You were writing about judicial overreach.

You can call it that but this is a conservative court and they were asked to make a decision on quite a liberal subject and I think a majority of people believe they did the correct thing.

walshyn93

Overheal wrote: »

That's your opinion I guess - you keep claiming that they are without substantiating it. Irish and Irish courts do not set any precedents whatsoever in the United States They aren't overstepping their bounds, which are very well defined in the Constitution.

Yeah? Who else's would it be? It's all opinion, especially when you have a Supreme Court that makes it up as it goes along. It's also the opinion of the other almost half of the Supreme Court so it's not without merit. It's unsurprisingly the subversive progressives who will exercise no restraint in imposing their ideology and as in the trees says if a Democrat is elected this will only get worse.

No, Irish judges exercise restraint because they feel they should. There's nothing concrete to stop them. It's just a tradition of restraint where they decided at some point that certain things should be left to the Oireachtas and they upheld that tradition.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

my friend

Is anyone else here taken aback by the RTE and Irish print media set and their eagerness to have assured us of the upcoming coronation of Hillary Clinton?

Its provided quite bizarre reading for the last 6 months.

walshyn93

InTheTrees wrote: »

You were writing about judicial overreach.

You can call it that but this is a conservative court and they were asked to make a decision on quite a liberal subject and I think a majority of people believe they did the correct thing.

Really? Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagen, Breyer? These are what you would call "conservatives"?

Sotomayor: "I am an affirmative action candidate".

One with a very convenient interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause.

This is what we have to look forward to.

walshyn93

my friend wrote: »

Is anyone else here taken aback by the RTE and Irish print media set and their eagerness to have assured us of the upcoming coronation of Hillary Clinton?

Its provided quite bizarre reading for the last 6 months.

Yes. I listened to a bit on I think it was Morning Ireland the other day talking about the race. Spent the whole time talking about how "dangerous" Donald Trump is and generally just dismissing the Republicans for us.

Once point was very telling. There was an American sounding lad on and he said in a very grovelling kind of way that according to a law professor at whatever college it was Ted Cruz was the most intelligent law student he ever had. It was followed by an awkward silence and they quickly moved on.

InTheTrees

walshyn93 wrote: »

Yeah that's exactly the point I've been making all along.

If you mean that as a conservative you're worried about appointments a democratic president would make to the supreme court you probably don't have too much to worry about.

Ginsburg will probably retire and be replaced by another liberal, the other two conservatives who are likely could easily keep on going another eight years in the hope of a republican president.

Which would mean the balance would remain as it is. You see how its a presidents lasting legacy? There's still Reagan appointees on the court.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

InTheTrees

walshyn93 wrote: »

Really? Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagen, Breyer? These are what you would call "conservatives"?

Sotomayor: "I am an affirmative action candidate".

One with a very convenient interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause.

This is what we have to look forward to.

The supreme court is made up of nine justices, the majority of whom were appointed by conservative republican presidents.

Five are conservatives and four are liberals.

This would be referred to as a conservative court.

walshyn93

InTheTrees wrote: »

If you mean that as a conservative you're worried about appointments a democratic president would make to the supreme court you probably don't have too much to worry about.

Ginsburg will probably retire and be replaced by another liberal, the other two conservatives who are likely could easily keep on going another eight years in the hope of a republican president.

Which would mean the balance would remain as it is. You see how its a presidents lasting legacy? There's still Reagan appointees on the court.

There's already talk of Barack Obama being appointed to the SC. And I don't think Scalia and Kennedy will necessarily last. What we could potentially end up with is 6 judges appointed by Obama and the Clintons. And that means progressive ideology completely dominating the SC for the foreseeable. Knowing Clinton she'll appoint 3 very young judges to prolong it.

Black Swan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Rape and sexual assault are felonies in the 50 states. Was Bill Clinton convicted of these crimes in criminal court, or is he guilty until proven innocent?

Furthermore, I did not know Bill Clinton was running for president 2016.

InTheTrees

walshyn93 wrote: »

There's already talk of Barack Obama being appointed to the SC. And I don't think Scalia and Kennedy will necessarily last. What we could potentially end up with is 6 judges appointed by Obama and the Clintons. And that means progressive ideology completely dominating the SC for the foreseeable. Knowing Clinton she'll appoint 3 very young judges to prolong it.

Yes. Exactly. And as a democrat that's what I hope will happen.

Although I think scalia would die on the job rather than give a democratic president the power to replace him. Kennedy's more centrist but he could easily hang on. I think hes a bike rider...very health conscious.

MightyMandarin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Republicans aren't stupid and dangerous. They just say a lot of stupid things and some of their proposed policies and the thought of some of their candidates in power is quite dangerous.

It's a shame Cruz couldn't put some of that intelligence of his to better use than making up stories, facts and the rest of the nonsense he comes out with.

ancapailldorcha

Colonialboy, do not post in this thread again.

Black Swan

Republican South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley will rebut Obama's State of the Union Address on behalf of the GOP. This opportunity for Haley may be a test balloon to see how well she is received nationally, and if she does grand, may be a promising candidate to run as VP with the 2016 GOP presidential nominee? This strategy may draw some of the women's vote, given that there has never been a female US Vice President.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.