http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bobby-jindal-...m_fb_msnbc

Let's just get rid of the court. That'll make things better!

Jindal is a clown.

I guess he wasn't serious about running. Lol

(06-27-2015 01:00 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bobby-jindal-...m_fb_msnbc

Let's just get rid of the court. That'll make things better!

Well, it certainly wouldn't make it worse.

(06-27-2015 01:33 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 01:00 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bobby-jindal-...m_fb_msnbc

Let's just get rid of the court. That'll make things better!

Well, it certainly wouldn't make it worse.

Yeah because the articles of confederation was a wonderful form of government. LMFAO

(06-27-2015 02:47 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 01:33 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 01:00 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bobby-jindal-...m_fb_msnbc

Let's just get rid of the court. That'll make things better!

Well, it certainly wouldn't make it worse.

Yeah because the articles of confederation was a wonderful form of government. LMFAO

Your glib response to my very valid point offers absolutely nothing to this thread.

Well of course he wasn't being serious. The problem is that if you are going to run for office you can't just say things in jest. It will obviously be exploited by opponents if he becomes a threat to the front runners.

(06-27-2015 01:33 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 01:00 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bobby-jindal-...m_fb_msnbc

Let's just get rid of the court. That'll make things better!

Well, it certainly wouldn't make it worse.

It wouldn't? Name one country without a supreme court entity. We would descend into chaos without a supreme court to have the final say on the Constitutionality of laws.

(06-27-2015 04:07 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 01:33 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 01:00 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bobby-jindal-...m_fb_msnbc

Let's just get rid of the court. That'll make things better!

Well, it certainly wouldn't make it worse.

It wouldn't? Name one country without a supreme court entity. We would descend into chaos without a supreme court to have the final say on the Constitutionality of laws.

Name one thing that will be better if we get rid of the court? See, I can play this game too.

They should be required to pledge to interpret the law and not just decide a case based on what's "fair".

And Jindal is what passes as a thinking man's conservative in today's GOP. He was the one who had the dumb party line.

(06-27-2015 03:03 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 02:47 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 01:33 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 01:00 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bobby-jindal-...m_fb_msnbc

Let's just get rid of the court. That'll make things better!

Well, it certainly wouldn't make it worse.

Yeah because the articles of confederation was a wonderful form of government. LMFAO

Your glib response to my very valid point offers absolutely nothing to this thread.

And your comment does? LMFAO

(06-27-2015 04:19 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 04:07 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 01:33 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-27-2015 01:00 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bobby-jindal-...m_fb_msnbc

Let's just get rid of the court. That'll make things better!

Well, it certainly wouldn't make it worse.

It wouldn't? Name one country without a supreme court entity. We would descend into chaos without a supreme court to have the final say on the Constitutionality of laws.

Name one thing that will be better if we get rid of the court? See, I can play this game too.

I think you just had a Freudian slip.

There is still a chance Obama ends up with the opportunity to historically impact the makings of the Supreme Court, but barring a catastrophic illness, the chances are pretty good the next president is the one who is going to be able to replace some folks ready to retire (Ginsberg, Kennedy and possibly Scalia). So far all Obama has done is replace some liberal justices with liberal justices.

I posted a link in another thread overnight that reviewed all of the major SC cases of this year. It's disturbing to me to see the four liberal justices vote together on every single issue. I didn't realize that Kennedy, Thomas and Roberts had moved to the left on a few issues this year (more so Kennedy than the others). I applaud them for their ability to go against the flow on specific issues, and I wish Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan would break from the pack and side with the conservative judges on an isolated topic or two if they feel strongly about that argument.

Maybe that happens if one more conservative justice is replaced with a moderate or liberal justice, but the track record certainly isn't looking that way currently.

(06-27-2015 05:42 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  There is still a chance Obama ends up with the opportunity to historically impact the makings of the Supreme Court, but barring a catastrophic illness, the chances are pretty good the next president is the one who is going to be able to replace some folks ready to retire (Ginsberg, Kennedy and possibly Scalia). So far all Obama has done is replace some liberal justices with liberal justices.

I posted a link in another thread overnight that reviewed all of the major SC cases of this year. It's disturbing to me to see the four liberal justices vote together on every single issue. I didn't realize that Kennedy, Thomas and Roberts had moved to the left on a few issues this year (more so Kennedy than the others). I applaud them for their ability to go against the flow on specific issues, and I wish Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan would break from the pack and side with the conservative judges on an isolated topic or two if they feel strongly about that argument.

Maybe that happens if one more conservative justice is replaced with a moderate or liberal justice, but the track record certainly isn't looking that way currently.

Breyer is a true liberal. He doesn't vote "liberal" positions. He believes in a flexible constitution, but he also believes in the rights of people against the government. The other 3 twist the law to suit whatever "liberal" position they want.

I'd like to see them get one twenty year term. After so long on the bench, they lose touch with the real world. And all (or almost all) were appellate judges before becoming Supreme Court judges.

(06-27-2015 01:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Jindal is a clown.

Considering the way the white house was lit up he may be the right man for the job

Yes! Damn right! Get rid of them!!!

(06-27-2015 01:00 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/bobby-jindal-...m_fb_msnbc

Let's just get rid of the court. That'll make things better!

"Now that the president has admitted lying to the American people, I think he should resign." --William J. Clinton, 1973.

(06-27-2015 01:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Jindal is a clown.

(06-27-2015 02:47 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Yeah because the articles of confederation was a wonderful form of government. LMFAO

(06-27-2015 04:07 PM)Ole Blue Wrote:  It wouldn't? Name one country without a supreme court entity. We would descend into chaos without a supreme court to have the final say on the Constitutionality of laws.

(06-27-2015 04:39 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  And Jindal is what passes as a thinking man's conservative in today's GOP. He was the one who had the dumb party line.

Yet, you all support a President who has repeatedly argued that oversight for the executive branch's program of ASSASSINATING AMERICAN CITIZENS WITHOUT A TRIAL - the absolute most radical power a President can seize - should be provided entirely by...wait for it...the EXECUTIVE branch, and who has asked the secret FISA court to IGNORE the public court's decisions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/20/us/pol...lings.html
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree...t-doj-memo
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/ju...ne-records

But Jindal makes a joke = OUTRAGE!!!

Git rid of congress too!