Before you throw stones from your glass house, you may want to look at Cruz, Cornyn and McConnell.
yes, like garland.
More on this tomorrow, getting late. 
If you actually believe that Merrick Garland was not even given a hearing because he was too liberal, then you havenât reviewed his record.
to replace Scalia? too liberal
1 Like
Thatâs your benchmark? Similar ideology? Riiight. Cuz Kennedy and Kavanaugh are two peas in a pod. 
Iâm not throwing stones Iâm stating a fact.
The entire 9th circuit needs to be uprooted, torn apart, many new judgeships and courts need to be established to cover the load and it needs to be broken into at least two separate circuits.
This is a problem thatâs more than a decade old.
Three people are two peas in a pod?
Math is not your strong suit.
They should all have the same originalist/constructionist philosophy or be barred from the bench.
Itâs not the function of the judiciary to establish policy, write laws, or rewrite The Constitution.
nope, just when a justice who respects the constitution more than his own opinion is being replaced. far as iâm concerned they can refuse to seat anybody for as long as it takes to get 9 scalia clones grown and on the court
2 Likes
Scalia wasnât even perfect but he was a hell of an improvement over most of the court.
Thomas continues to impress me.
1 Like
i probably agree with thomas more than i did scalia, but i know i ainât always right and i had to respect scaliaâs intellect. imo, he was about as perfect a sc justice as you can get.
He was an intellectual giant for sure but a few too many progressive/liberal inklings that screwed up some important decisions from time to time.
His poor wording of a single paragraph in Heller has created a lot of problems that continue to plague us.
Nor does reading comprehension appear to be yours. 
i think theres more politicking going on in the court than people realize. perhaps he went as far as he could go and still keep kennedy on board. just as i believe roberts traded off with kennedy to get his no vote so he could keep ginsburg from writing the opinion on obamcare.
1 Like
Comprehension is fine, eyes are tired. My mistake I read âCuzâ as âCruzâ.;
I think thereâs some truth there and he was afraid that actually speaking the truth was going to be too big of a shock.
Thatâs not the lace of the courts, it is their job to render the proper decision based on The Facts and The Constitution, not to make policy or appease the public.
At least youâre honest. More than McConnell, at any rate.
read his opinion on obamacare, he basically shredded it. the only thing he said justifying his vote was âits a taxâ. reading his opinion its obvious he wanted to vote against it, but couldnât. i think he couldnât because if he did kennedy would have gone the other way, and then ginsburg would have written the opinion. that would have been far worse.
I have, it was nauseating.
Obamaâs own lawyers argued to the court that it wasnât a tax.
