refuses to hear case challenging NY law that holds gun manufactures liable if/when guns cause harm in crimes.
The left’s lies about SCOTUS, the weaponization of courts by both right and left, and now the NCAA ineffectiveness at law, have reduced respect for the judicial branch from top to bottom - SCOTUS to state trial courts.
But despite the usual non-partisan results that flow regularly out of those courts, the average American idiot holding their iPropaganda device knows in their soul-deep virtue-signalled self that the courts are against their side and should be disembowelled.
I miss the United States. It was a helluva country.
Im in favor of any law that would take a piece out of gun immunity. I’m thinkin SCOTUS would hear this case in the event of an actual verdict against the gun industry.
refuses to hear case challenging NY law that holds gun manufactures liable if/when guns cause harm in crimes.
The left’s lies about SCOTUS, the weaponization of courts by both right and left, and now the NCAA ineffectiveness at law, have reduced respect for the judicial branch from top to bottom - SCOTUS to state trial courts.
But despite the usual non-partisan results that flow regularly out of those courts, the average American idiot holding their iPropaganda device knows in their soul-deep virtue-signalled self that the courts are against their side and should be disembowelled.
I miss the United States. It was a helluva country.
Apparently you have missed all of the hyper partisan results coming out of SCOTUS as well. Such as getting rid of roe vs wade, allowing minorities to be gerrymandered out of having a voice among others.
If SCOTUS wasn't partisan, mcturtle wouldn't have stolen a seat and no one would bother giving bribes to the corrupt thomas
Horrible decision not to hear it IMO. The idea that a manufacturer can be found liable for the illegal use of their product is chilling at best.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
refuses to hear case challenging NY law that holds gun manufactures liable if/when guns cause harm in crimes.
The left’s lies about SCOTUS, the weaponization of courts by both right and left, and now the NCAA ineffectiveness at law, have reduced respect for the judicial branch from top to bottom - SCOTUS to state trial courts.
But despite the usual non-partisan results that flow regularly out of those courts, the average American idiot holding their iPropaganda device knows in their soul-deep virtue-signalled self that the courts are against their side and should be disembowelled.
I miss the United States. It was a helluva country.
Apparently you have missed all of the hyper partisan results coming out of SCOTUS as well. Such as getting rid of roe vs wade, allowing minorities to be gerrymandered out of having a voice among others.
If SCOTUS wasn't partisan, mcturtle wouldn't have stolen a seat and no one would bother giving bribes to the corrupt thomas
you hurried past the law … or clearly don’t know what you are talking about.
Gerrymandering has never been unconstitutional and both parties do it regularly.
Same with Merrick Garland. Just because a president wants to have a nominee get a vote, the Constitution gives the Senate has the power to “advise and consent” - it has never said “must consent” and has never been interpreted to mean that. Refusing the vote was a political act - not an illegal act. Once the ignorance and hate-based radical left learns the difference, the nation will be better off.
If you had read the Dobbs decision, you would also better understand the doctrines of “substantive due process” and “stare decisis” and would stop claiming everything you don’t like or understand is “unConstitutional.”
“Waaaaah” is not a legal argument.
Im in favor of any law that would take a piece out of gun immunity. I’m thinkin SCOTUS would hear this case in the event of an actual verdict against the gun industry.
I agree they will eventually hear a case after actual liability is assessed. The intervening years will be wild.
Horrible decision not to hear it IMO. The idea that a manufacturer can be found liable for the illegal use of their product is chilling at best.
There is a case here (workplace shooting) where the manufacturer was let out, but the seller remains a defendant based on “questions of fact” about sale/use of mechanisms bypassing “semi-automatic” “safety” mechanisms, and giving rubber-stamp treatment to the background check application.
Same with Merrick Garland. Just because a president wants to have a nominee get a vote, the Constitution gives the Senate has the power to “advise and consent” - it has never said “must consent” and has never been interpreted to mean that. Refusing the vote was a political act - not an illegal act.
Speaking only for myself, I've never said McConnell's play was unconstitutional. I have said it was extra-constitutional, in the sense that for our entire history, the Senate has always given a nominee a vote (barring withdrawal). I don't think anyone contemplated the Senate refusing to even participate in its "advice & consent" responsibility. Mitch is right up there with Trump on my Most Reviled list. His refusal to vote to convict on the 2nd impeachment ("let the courts deal with it") is why we're here today.
Same with Merrick Garland. Just because a president wants to have a nominee get a vote, the Constitution gives the Senate has the power to “advise and consent” - it has never said “must consent” and has never been interpreted to mean that. Refusing the vote was a political act - not an illegal act.
Speaking only for myself, I've never said McConnell's play was unconstitutional. I have said it was extra-constitutional, in the sense that for our entire history, the Senate has always given a nominee a vote (barring withdrawal). I don't think anyone contemplated the Senate refusing to even participate in its "advice & consent" responsibility. Mitch is right up there with Trump on my Most Reviled list. His refusal to vote to convict on the 2nd impeachment ("let the courts deal with it") is why we're here today.
100%
Same with Merrick Garland. Just because a president wants to have a nominee get a vote, the Constitution gives the Senate has the power to “advise and consent” - it has never said “must consent” and has never been interpreted to mean that. Refusing the vote was a political act - not an illegal act.
Speaking only for myself, I've never said McConnell's play was unconstitutional. I have said it was extra-constitutional, in the sense that for our entire history, the Senate has always given a nominee a vote (barring withdrawal). I don't think anyone contemplated the Senate refusing to even participate in its "advice & consent" responsibility. Mitch is right up there with Trump on my Most Reviled list. His refusal to vote to convict on the 2nd impeachment ("let the courts deal with it") is why we're here today.
We’re here today because enough Americans are tired of jealous have-nots trying to remake the country by remaking the electorate.
Horrible decision not to hear it IMO. The idea that a manufacturer can be found liable for the illegal use of their product is chilling at best.
There is a case here (workplace shooting) where the manufacturer was let out, but the seller remains a defendant based on “questions of fact” about sale/use of mechanisms bypassing “semi-automatic” “safety” mechanisms, and giving rubber-stamp treatment to the background check application.
If the seller was not following the law and failed to perform the background check as required, then that would make total sense. I'd need to know more about the other stuff.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
All reasonable points.Same with Merrick Garland. Just because a president wants to have a nominee get a vote, the Constitution gives the Senate has the power to “advise and consent” - it has never said “must consent” and has never been interpreted to mean that. Refusing the vote was a political act - not an illegal act.
Speaking only for myself, I've never said McConnell's play was unconstitutional. I have said it was extra-constitutional, in the sense that for our entire history, the Senate has always given a nominee a vote (barring withdrawal). I don't think anyone contemplated the Senate refusing to even participate in its "advice & consent" responsibility. Mitch is right up there with Trump on my Most Reviled list. His refusal to vote to convict on the 2nd impeachment ("let the courts deal with it") is why we're here today.
Same with Merrick Garland. Just because a president wants to have a nominee get a vote, the Constitution gives the Senate has the power to “advise and consent” - it has never said “must consent” and has never been interpreted to mean that. Refusing the vote was a political act - not an illegal act.
Speaking only for myself, I've never said McConnell's play was unconstitutional. I have said it was extra-constitutional, in the sense that for our entire history, the Senate has always given a nominee a vote (barring withdrawal). I don't think anyone contemplated the Senate refusing to even participate in its "advice & consent" responsibility. Mitch is right up there with Trump on my Most Reviled list. His refusal to vote to convict on the 2nd impeachment ("let the courts deal with it") is why we're here today.
Partially reasonable points, but ... They DID participate. They used backchannels and media to warn Obama that Garland was an unacceptable nominee. Obama forced their hand and they played those cards. (Which is an example of EXACTLY why the Constitutional compromise language did not force Senate votes - it intentionally left the political checks and balances "in play." You think the Founders did not know HOW to force a vote if everyone agreed THT was goal?)
Again - like the Garland vote (and history shows multiple SCOTUS nominees withdrawn before a Senate vote was had/forced, so the shock and surprise requires ignoring history) a Senate Majority Leader voting against impeachment of a President of his own party (even one they might hate, and might have publicly chastised, and might have publicly opposed on multiple policy issues) - is a POLITICAL act, and not really much of a surprise. Yes, the possessors of hand-held propaganda/radicalization devices can be ginned up into frenzied hate over a political act, but among the political hoi-poloi, a party so weak it needs the opposing Senate Majority Leader to vote WITH them might want to look internally for the source of their political problems.
The Democratic Party was handed a tremendous opportunity after Obama was elected. They misread their strength and tried to use unprecedented support from GOP voters to enact (to quote a guy) "radical fundamental" change. Instead of a presidency that could have healed the nation's worst scar a little, what we got turned into a hate campaign that spread and has lasted to this day. And lies that the Court will just support anything Trump wants is an attack on democracy and the fabric of the society and social contracts we have always lived by. It ignores our ACTUAL history and is simply unwise.
Losing with grace was something even Nixon understood.
I agree with your sentiments regarding the judiciary and both parties' attacks on its legitimacy are terrible.Same with Merrick Garland. Just because a president wants to have a nominee get a vote, the Constitution gives the Senate has the power to “advise and consent” - it has never said “must consent” and has never been interpreted to mean that. Refusing the vote was a political act - not an illegal act.
Speaking only for myself, I've never said McConnell's play was unconstitutional. I have said it was extra-constitutional, in the sense that for our entire history, the Senate has always given a nominee a vote (barring withdrawal). I don't think anyone contemplated the Senate refusing to even participate in its "advice & consent" responsibility. Mitch is right up there with Trump on my Most Reviled list. His refusal to vote to convict on the 2nd impeachment ("let the courts deal with it") is why we're here today.
Partially reasonable points, but ... They DID participate. They used backchannels and media to warn Obama that Garland was an unacceptable nominee. Obama forced their hand and they played those cards. (Which is an example of EXACTLY why the Constitutional compromise language did not force Senate votes - it intentionally left the political checks and balances "in play." You think the Founders did not know HOW to force a vote if everyone agreed THT was goal?)
Again - like the Garland vote (and history shows multiple SCOTUS nominees withdrawn before a Senate vote was had/forced, so the shock and surprise requires ignoring history) a Senate Majority Leader voting against impeachment of a President of his own party (even one they might hate, and might have publicly chastised, and might have publicly opposed on multiple policy issues) - is a POLITICAL act, and not really much of a surprise. Yes, the possessors of hand-held propaganda/radicalization devices can be ginned up into frenzied hate over a political act, but among the political hoi-poloi, a party so weak it needs the opposing Senate Majority Leader to vote WITH them might want to look internally for the source of their political problems.
The Democratic Party was handed a tremendous opportunity after Obama was elected. They misread their strength and tried to use unprecedented support from GOP voters to enact (to quote a guy) "radical fundamental" change. Instead of a presidency that could have healed the nation's worst scar a little, what we got turned into a hate campaign that spread and has lasted to this day. And lies that the Court will just support anything Trump wants is an attack on democracy and the fabric of the society and social contracts we have always lived by. It ignores our ACTUAL history and is simply unwise.
Losing with grace was something even Nixon understood.
But defending McConnell not voting to convict Trump on the impeachment because Trump was in his own party is weak, weak sauce. Party over country, eh? Nah, that's what has led to so much damage to the nation, and the warnings against it are as old as the Republic: