If justices followed the Constitution there would be no swing votes.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-146 last
To: yesthatjallen
It isn’t supposed to have swing votes, it is supposed to be a fact based determinative body not a political one.
196 posted on
10/06/2018 6:01:47 AM PDT by
dila813
(Voting for Trump to Punish Trumpets!)
To: yesthatjallen
Kagan and the other leftist will actually have to make legal arguments now rather than just figure out how they are expected to vote and justifying with a political statement. Being in a permanent minority is going to suck for them.
197 posted on
10/06/2018 7:57:33 AM PDT by
Tallguy
To: yesthatjallen
Which of The Federalist Papers discusses the swing vote on the Supreme Court? Anyone know? It must be in there somewhere since it is such an important concept.
To: yesthatjallen
202 posted on
10/06/2018 1:31:55 PM PDT by
Neidermeyer
(Show me a peaceful Muslim and I will show you a heretic to the Koran.)
To: yesthatjallen
The justices take an oath to obey the Constitution,don’t they? Not following it should be cause for immediate dismissal or at least a recusal under certain circumstances for certain cases. In a capital punishment situation,I can understand a person’s beliefs not aligning with what the law calls for & a recusal might be the answer to such a situation. Any justice not going along with the idea of following the Constitution after taking the oath of office should be dismissed.
203 posted on
10/06/2018 4:20:19 PM PDT by
oldtech
To: yesthatjallen
She talks like that’s a bad thing.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-146 last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson