We do not need a “Kind heart on the Supreme Court.” We seem to have four kind hearts in the Liberal members who will bend over backwards to give away the store. We need hard headed constructionists who will give away NOTHING, but will decide cases on the question of “Is it constitutional?” not on the question of “Is it fair?” That should be the only question that should come to their attention.
“We seem to have four kind hearts in the Liberal members who will bend over backwards to give away the store. “
I know what you’re saying, but I don’t want to propagate the image of the left as ‘kind’ hearts. The left is full of hateful ideologues, including some members of the Supreme Court. If you want to know who has a kind heart, ask yourself who you would trust to babysit your children and to put your children’s welfare before their own. Unfortunately, I’m not sure many politicians fit that criterion.
I suggest you read Thomas’ dissent
The logic on THIS forum is so lacking at times. And it is most annoying I must say
And you think the two are mutually exclusive because...???
I'd be hard pressed to think of a time when Justice Thomas didn't exercise sound constitutional jurisprudence in deciding a case. Most of the readers here understand that he can be kind to that young person and hand down constitutional decisions. I find it odd that you are conflicted on this.
Dude, you’re all wrong....liberals are “bleeding hearts” - not really kind hearts at all. They are hateful, hiding behind phony compassion.
“Constructionists”?
What Robert Bork was, and Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are, is “originalists.” Originalism is the ONLY way of reading the Constitution and statutes that preserves SELF-GOVERNMENT.
People who have spent their careers promoting the shredding of babies do not have “kind hearts.”
Liberals are not kind in the true sense of the word as in Biblical kindness.
When Liberals are kind there is a political or agenda behind it.