Herschel Walker and son

[Distancefix]

Blacks are dying from the Trump-virus at an alarming rate. He is not going to do well with them. Kanye and Herschel don’t represent the black race. Bahahahahaha. Hillary got a high percentage of black votes in 2016, however a lot of them didn’t vote at all in the rust belt states so Trump eked out victories. This is 2020. Trump is in deep doo.

Fixed
The democrats-media (DMST) is doing a great job exploiting the COVID deaths of black Americans.

No one except you and the left claims that Kanye and Herschel represents a collective group.

I read an art. yesterday, it cited the obesity rate of black and white Americans (obesity is the #1 condition that kills COVID19 patients) and pointed to the statistical information that although blacks and white Americans have similar obesity problems, black Americans are still dying from C19 at a higher rate.

I won't go into the problems with this hypothesis and tear it to shreds. But long story short, like everything else the, left writes, it is really dumb and dishonest.

 

[hoopsrus6]

The framers of the constitution clearly intended for it to be a changing, evolving document. The first 10 amendments, the Bill of Rights, were added after the original document.

You are correct. That is why there is a defined process in place for amending it.

That process does not include commie leftist wackjob "justices" rewriting it from the bench.

 

[SadButTrue]

You have mental issues.

 

[kaskaskiakid]

That process does not include commie leftist wackjob "justices" rewriting it from the bench.

But if a fascist right wing nutjob justice rewrites it to suit your agenda, then that's OK.

 

[Veerman_12]

But if a fascist right wing nutjob justice rewrites it to suit your agenda, then that's OK.

That's the point, conservative justices typically don't re-write the constitution, they just follow it and make rulings.

I'll ask you since 3R appears unable or unwilling to answer;

What does "conserve" mean?

 

[kaskaskiakid]

"Typically"

I don't take your pop quizzes

 

[Veerman_12]

"Typically"

I don't take your pop quizzes

Yes typically. I try not to speak in absolute.

It's a simple question. What does "conserve" mean?

It's not a "gotcha" thing, I just want to lead you to the conclusion. I feel you'll learn better if you teach yourself. The Socratic method is my favorite, ask questions until you get to the answer. Only works if the subject is honest with themselves though.

 

[hoopsrus6]

That's the point, conservative justices typically don't re-write the constitution, they just follow it and make rulings...

Yes, bingo, nailed it.

Exactly the point.

 

[hoopsrus6]

But if a fascist right wing nutjob justice rewrites it to suit your agenda, then that's OK.

Perfect illustration of the problem...those on the left think adhering to the founding documents is fascism and agenda-driven. That doesn't even begin to make sense.

A judge that is a strict constructionist doesn't rewrite the Constitution, they follow it. And that pisses the progressives off, they want new law written from the bench. You can admit it, it's ok, it's obvious to anyone that pays any attention whatsoever.

It's scary to think what kind of activist legal trash that Dementia Joe's string-pullers have lined up for the SC, if he was able to stagger into the Presidency.

 

[Arkansas_Laserback]

Activist judges would do something like, I don’t know, overturn clearly set precedent by the SC. Something like, Roe v Wade. Now that would be an activist judgement.

 

[3Rfan]

That's the point, conservative justices typically don't re-write the constitution, they just follow it and make rulings.

I'll ask you since 3R appears unable or unwilling to answer;

What does "conserve" mean?

It means drive slower to save gas or eat less if your food supply is low.

 

[Veerman_12]

It means drive slower to save gas or eat less if your food supply is low.

Ok...sure...

If you're CONSERVING something you're trying to keep it like it is or keep more of it. That's a fair assessment. Since we agree on that definition;

What would a CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court Justice be trying to CONSERVE in their rulings?

 

[MGHS]

The framers of the constitution clearly intended for it to be a changing, evolving document. The first 10 amendments, the Bill of Rights, were added after the original document.

James Madison Quote...Do Not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution which can only end in a distorted bastardized for of illegitimate government.

Yeah your idea is Bunk...unless you actually add to the constitution then it's not a living breathing changing document. Other Framers have quotes that support this as well.

Also if you do a little history research or recall back to a High School American History class there was a very legit reason why the separated the two..

 

[MGHS]

But if a fascist right wing nutjob justice rewrites it to suit your agenda, then that's OK.

Never it they some how wanted to start housing Troops or Gov. officials in your house without consent by judicial law that would not Be OK it would be reason to take up arms against the oppressive gov.

 

[3Rfan]

Ok...sure...

If you're CONSERVING something you're trying to keep it like it is or keep more of it. That's a fair assessment. Since we agree on that definition;

What would a CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court Justice be trying to CONSERVE in their rulings?

II guess all those things called 'amendments' don't exist. Now I know why you guys complain our education system.

 

[Veerman_12]

II guess all those things called 'amendments' don't exist. Now I know why you guys complain our education system.

Who amends the Constitution? What is the process?

Here's a hint, it's not supposed to be the Supreme Court.

Still waiting on my last question:

What would a CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court Justice be trying to CONSERVE in their rulings?

 

[MGHS]

II guess all those things called 'amendments' don't exist. Now I know why you guys complain our education system.

Amendments are part of the constitution...Don't try and twist this. But to many activist judges interpret the constitution,bill of rights and amendments to fit their ideology and group think of that era. That was not the intent of the founding fathers..

Madison and Jefferson where stead fast in the idea that the Constitution was the Cardinal law that would serve as the Foundation of government, that it would limit all branches of gov. and that was unalterable by legislative authority. That was different from the English Liberty Documents which limited the Crown but not the legislative power. This allowed Parliament to legalize any form of tyranny it pleased.

Jefferson wanted a separate Bill of Rights for this reason he worried that without them legislative tyranny would be an imminent danger going forward. It took 2 years of debate before they Bill of Rights was added to the constitution but thank GOD it was.

But even then Madison and others feared Quote: that Parchment barriers against overbearing majorities would have limited effect. We see this now as the legislative branch takes away rights and the progressive judges either ignore or interpret the whole of the constitution as they see fit.

 

[3Rfan]

Amendments are part of the constitution...Don't try and twist this. But to many activist judges interpret the constitution,bill of rights and amendments to fit their ideology and group think of that era. That was not the intent of the founding fathers..

Madison and Jefferson where stead fast in the idea that the Constitution was the Cardinal law that would serve as the Foundation of government, that it would limit all branches of gov. and that was unalterable by legislative authority. That was different from the English Liberty Documents which limited the Crown but not the legislative power. This allowed Parliament to legalize any form of tyranny it pleased.

Jefferson wanted a separate Bill of Rights for this reason he worried that without them legislative tyranny would be an imminent danger going forward. It took 2 years of debate before they Bill of Rights was added to the constitution but thank GOD it was.

But even then Madison and others feared Quote: that Parchment barriers against overbearing majorities would have limited effect. We see this now as the legislative branch takes away rights and the progressive judges either ignore or interpret the whole of the constitution as they see fit.

Why did they allow them in there if it's not meant to be a living, changing document?

 

[Veerman_12]

Why did they allow them in there if it's not meant to be a living, changing document?

Let's see if you can figure this out for yourself...

Who amends the Constitution? What is the process of making an Amendment? Does the Supreme Court have ANY part in amending the Constitution?

What would a CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court Justice be trying to CONSERVE in their rulings