If justices followed the Constitution there would be no swing votes.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-146 next last
To: yesthatjallen
2 posted on
10/05/2018 7:02:34 PM PDT by
sevlex
To: yesthatjallen
From Kagan's mouth to God's ears …
3 posted on
10/05/2018 7:02:45 PM PDT by
Governor Dinwiddie
(I don't know nothin' 'bout birthin' babies!)
To: yesthatjallen
She should quit if it bothers her so.
4 posted on
10/05/2018 7:03:26 PM PDT by
mrmeyer
(You can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him. Robert Heinlein)
To: yesthatjallen
The law is the law - no “swing” votes needed or wanted.....
To: yesthatjallen
“Kagan warns that Supreme Court may not have a swing vote anymore”
That's kind-of what we are working for.
To: yesthatjallen
“It’s not so clear, that I think going forward, that sort of middle position — it’s not so clear whether we’ll have it,” Kagan said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here is an idea from a white uneducated deplorable, follow the Constitution ( read it sometime, it’s pretty cool ) and follow the law.
To: yesthatjallen
8 posted on
10/05/2018 7:04:19 PM PDT by
vmpolesov
To: yesthatjallen
Associate Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said Friday she fears the high court may lack a justice going forward who would serve as a swing-vote on cases There isn't supposed to be a swing vote. Just 9 justices supporting the Constitution.
9 posted on
10/05/2018 7:04:28 PM PDT by
NutsOnYew
To: yesthatjallen
The court jester squeaks.....
10 posted on
10/05/2018 7:04:35 PM PDT by
clintonh8r
(Truth is hate speech to those who hate the truth.)
To: yesthatjallen
I’m sure the left will be outraged at her blatantly partisan and inappropriate comments unworthy of a supreme Court Justice and demand her impeachment.
To: yesthatjallen
12 posted on
10/05/2018 7:04:57 PM PDT by
keving
(We the government)
To: yesthatjallen
She sounds awfully partisan there.
13 posted on
10/05/2018 7:05:02 PM PDT by
dfwgator
(Endut! Hoch Hech!)
To: yesthatjallen
Said by Kagan, who invariably swings the other way.
14 posted on
10/05/2018 7:05:12 PM PDT by
Pearls Before Swine
("It's always a party when you're eating the seed corn.")
To: yesthatjallen
So now they’re using these evil witches as their last desperate try to derail SC JUSTICE KAVANUAGH...justice kavanuagh GOSH that sounds so awesome!!
To: yesthatjallen
Nothing is stopping her from ruling like O’Connor...other than hating America the way it was founded and all.
16 posted on
10/05/2018 7:05:36 PM PDT by
TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig
(We need a consent decree for the FBI like Obama was slapping on all those police agencies.)
To: yesthatjallen
Shut your pie hole, Kaka. The only reason you’re on the court is because Obozo wanted a dyke on the bench.
17 posted on
10/05/2018 7:05:40 PM PDT by
50mm
To: yesthatjallen
Two words....John Roberts.
18 posted on
10/05/2018 7:05:54 PM PDT by
HChampagne
(Cruz supporter but I will support and vote for Trump.)
To: yesthatjallen
If justices followed the Constitution there would be no swing votes.
Exactly.
To: yesthatjallen
She all buy admits she’s a farr left hack
To: yesthatjallen
So why can’t she be the swing vote? Oh because she’s a liberal partisan hack!!!
Why must the conservatives yeild a vote to the lunatic lockstep leftists?
They would do no such kindness to conservatives.
Plain and simple, she exposed herself as a partisan, and she herself undermines the legitimacy of the leftist justices on the high court.
They are bought and paid for Dem votes.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-146 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson