Ginsburg Has Liver Cancer

[Samm]

@PurpnGold

@Samm

No … it is not a made up reason, that is exactly what McConnell said. Had Hillary won the Presidency, Garland (or Obama) would probably be on the Court.

So we agree, it would not have mattered because a Democrat would have picked a more liberal judge than a republican. It didn’t matter if it was Hillary or Obama

Of course it mattered. Had Obama’s pick been allowed to move forward and selected, Trump would have never had his choice installed instead.

[WuWei]

@PurpnGold

@WuWei

I am. Nothing has changed the Constitution can’t handle nor will it.

BS. It’s all up to interpretation. Modern technology or cultures don’t fit nicely into the constitution.

No it’s not.

What do you think doesn’t fit?

[BillBrown]

@FreeAndClear

@BillBrown

@FreeAndClear

@BillBrown

@PurpnGold

@BillBrown

He’s been told that’s a bad decision. Five will get you ten he doesn’t have a clue what it says.

I was refuting his claim that conservatives don’t act on emotion or make things up.

Citizens United is an example of that not being true

Not true. Citizens United held that limiting Corporation campaign contributions was a violation of Free Speech.

Is having all that money in an election good or bad

A justice shouldn’t worry about good or bad. He should simply interpret the laws and constitution. That’s the difference between a judicial conservative and a judicial liberal.

Yeah ok. Bush won the election fair and square no doubt in mind. The decision that came down was purely political and it was not make sure that Bush was President it was to make sure that the transfer of power was not affected. It was a terribly written decision not because a democrat lost because they restricted a judicial decision and stated that it cannot he used as precedent. Emotion.

Bush v Gore was a terrible decision. It was purely politically motivated. The Florida election belonged to Florida, not to a federal court. SCOTUS should have refused to hear it.

[WuWei]

@FreeAndClear

@conan

Has it? Fundamentals are still there.

That’s an excellent way of making the constitution a living document. By saying that fundamentals or roots are there you are opening up a slew of nonsense to be created. Like brown vs. board of Ed, or citizens united or extending the commerce clause. Hey fundamentals!

I am not trying to belittle anything honestly just saying it opens up a can of worms. The high court is politicized not in the sense that every decision is political but that they are making us based in current events. Plessy is another one. So is obergfell.

You are incorrect. Brown violated the 14th Amendment.

Citizens United adhered to the 1st. You might want to read the decision.

It is precisely because the Constitution us not adhered to that causes these problems.

[FreeAndClear]

I have read it. The descent is important.

[WuWei]

@PurpnGold

@BillBrown

Not true. Citizens United held that limiting Corporation campaign contributions was a violation of Free Speech.

Corporations aren’t people

You might want to look at the etymology of the word and read the opinion.

[WuWei]

@FreeAndClear

@BillBrown

@PurpnGold

@BillBrown

He’s been told that’s a bad decision. Five will get you ten he doesn’t have a clue what it says.

I was refuting his claim that conservatives don’t act on emotion or make things up.

Citizens United is an example of that not being true

Not true. Citizens United held that limiting Corporation campaign contributions was a violation of Free Speech.

Is having all that money in an election good or bad

Bad. Pass an amendment.

And stop making me defend ephors.

[FreeAndClear]

@WuWei

@FreeAndClear

@BillBrown

@PurpnGold

@BillBrown

He’s been told that’s a bad decision. Five will get you ten he doesn’t have a clue what it says.

I was refuting his claim that conservatives don’t act on emotion or make things up.

Citizens United is an example of that not being true

Not true. Citizens United held that limiting Corporation campaign contributions was a violation of Free Speech.

Is having all that money in an election good or bad

Bad. Pass an amendment.

And stop making me defend ephors.

Hey you kinda like Heller too .

[WuWei]

@PurpnGold

@BillBrown

Go argue that before the Court. I’m telling you the gist of the decision.

I know the decision. It was based on BS.

Conservatives made up their own interpretation.

Might want to look at who did it.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@BillBrown

Not true. Citizens United held that limiting Corporation campaign contributions was a violation of Free Speech.

While that may be the end result of the decision, that was not part of the holding in Citizen’s United.

[BillBrown]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@BillBrown

Not true. Citizens United held that limiting Corporation campaign contributions was a violation of Free Speech.

While that may be the end result of the decision, that was not part of the holding in Citizen’s United.

Yes it was.

In the court’s opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that limiting “independent political spending” from corporations and other groups violates the First Amendment right to free speech.

Citizens United Explained

[WuWei]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@BillBrown

Not true. Citizens United held that limiting Corporation campaign contributions was a violation of Free Speech.

While that may be the end result of the decision, that was not part of the holding in Citizen’s United.

You might want to check that. I believe Kennedy wrote that very thing.

[BillBrown]

@WuWei

@TheDoctorIsIn

@BillBrown

Not true. Citizens United held that limiting Corporation campaign contributions was a violation of Free Speech.

While that may be the end result of the decision, that was not part of the holding in Citizen’s United.

You might want to check that. I believe Kennedy wrote that very thing.

He did. I just posted it.

[WuWei]

Stevens’ dissent was based on “common sense”, not the Constitution.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

I know that it looks like I’m picking a nit here - but although it may not appear to be, I think this is an important distinction.

There is an important difference - at least in the context of campaign finance law - between campaign contributions and independent expenditures.

[WuWei]

@TheDoctorIsIn

I know that it looks like I’m picking a nit here - but although it may not appear to be, I think this is an important distinction.

There is an important difference - at least in the context of campaign finance law - between campaign contributions and independent expenditures.

I will agree with that, but you knew what he was talking about.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@WuWei

Stevens’ dissent was based on “common sense”, not the Constitution.

Stevens’ dissent was his retirement announcement. It was his speech from Half Baked that I can’t post here.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@WuWei

I will agree with that, but you knew what he was talking about.

I did. I won’t deny that I was being a little annoyingly pedantic.

But I do think the distinction is important.

[WuWei]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@WuWei

Stevens’ dissent was based on “common sense”, not the Constitution.

Stevens’ dissent was his retirement announcement. It was his speech from Half Baked that I can’t post here.

It was the correct ruling. Nobody dislikes money in politics more than I do.

[WuWei]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@WuWei

I will agree with that, but you knew what he was talking about.

I did. I won’t deny that I was being a little annoyingly pedantic.

But I do think the distinction is important.

Then explain it, not “no it wasn’t.”