(06-26-2018 09:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:24 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Cruz is another terrible purely ideological choice.

please explain why......

curious minds want to know.....

hell, I'm a dayum centrist for cryin' out loud.....

I want to hear this one....

He's an avowed ideologue.

That's not a good thing to have on a court, especially if you are a fan of applying the law regardless of outcome as opposed to manipulating it.

So your solution is to appoint someone who says he doesn't consider the law while hearing cases?

(06-26-2018 09:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:24 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Cruz is another terrible purely ideological choice.

please explain why......

curious minds want to know.....

hell, I'm a dayum centrist for cryin' out loud.....

I want to hear this one....

He's an avowed ideologue.

That's not a good thing to have on a court, especially if you are a fan of applying the law regardless of outcome as opposed to manipulating it.

I trust the average conservative ideologue to be more objective when it counts than the average liberal ideologue.

(06-26-2018 09:31 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:24 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Cruz is another terrible purely ideological choice.

please explain why......

curious minds want to know.....

hell, I'm a dayum centrist for cryin' out loud.....

I want to hear this one....

He's an avowed ideologue.

That's not a good thing to have on a court, especially if you are a fan of applying the law regardless of outcome as opposed to manipulating it.

So your solution is to appoint someone who says he doesn't consider the law while hearing cases?

Considering Richard Posner's long and illustrious career I'm not going to hang his entire career on a single quote, probably misplaced.

(06-26-2018 09:31 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:24 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Cruz is another terrible purely ideological choice.

please explain why......

curious minds want to know.....

hell, I'm a dayum centrist for cryin' out loud.....

I want to hear this one....

He's an avowed ideologue.

That's not a good thing to have on a court, especially if you are a fan of applying the law regardless of outcome as opposed to manipulating it.

I trust the average conservative ideologue to be more objective when it counts than the average liberal ideologue.

That sounds fun but it is astronomically stupid as both groups operating within that context destroy the whole damn thing.

(06-26-2018 09:34 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:31 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:24 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Cruz is another terrible purely ideological choice.

please explain why......

curious minds want to know.....

hell, I'm a dayum centrist for cryin' out loud.....

I want to hear this one....

He's an avowed ideologue.

That's not a good thing to have on a court, especially if you are a fan of applying the law regardless of outcome as opposed to manipulating it.

I trust the average conservative ideologue to be more objective when it counts than the average liberal ideologue.

That sounds fun but it is astronomically stupid as both groups operating within that context destroy the whole damn thing.

Well if your ideology is following the constitution and the law, you will be more objective in deciding a case. You will follow the law, not make it up to fit the desired result.

(06-26-2018 09:31 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:24 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Cruz is another terrible purely ideological choice.

please explain why......

curious minds want to know.....

hell, I'm a dayum centrist for cryin' out loud.....

I want to hear this one....

He's an avowed ideologue.

That's not a good thing to have on a court, especially if you are a fan of applying the law regardless of outcome as opposed to manipulating it.

I trust the average conservative ideologue to be more objective when it counts than the average liberal ideologue.

XACLY!

I'm not buying into HOD's rhetoric.......and I know he understands the concept(s)......he's no dummy....

I see Cruz becoming something similar to Clarence Thomas.....

(06-26-2018 09:34 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:31 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:24 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Cruz is another terrible purely ideological choice.

please explain why......

curious minds want to know.....

hell, I'm a dayum centrist for cryin' out loud.....

I want to hear this one....

He's an avowed ideologue.

That's not a good thing to have on a court, especially if you are a fan of applying the law regardless of outcome as opposed to manipulating it.

I trust the average conservative ideologue to be more objective when it counts than the average liberal ideologue.

That sounds fun but it is astronomically stupid as both groups operating within that context destroy the whole damn thing.

c'mon man....do you honestly believe that???

interpretation is the entire game, eh?

if it wasn't, there wouldn't be a need for SCOTUS to begin with......

(06-26-2018 09:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Cruz is another terrible purely ideological choice.

No, but like former justice Scalia, he believes in originalism when interpreting the constitution.

I'd much prefer that to the liberals that create law from the bench.

(06-26-2018 09:33 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:31 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:24 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Cruz is another terrible purely ideological choice.

please explain why......

curious minds want to know.....

hell, I'm a dayum centrist for cryin' out loud.....

I want to hear this one....

He's an avowed ideologue.

That's not a good thing to have on a court, especially if you are a fan of applying the law regardless of outcome as opposed to manipulating it.

So your solution is to appoint someone who says he doesn't consider the law while hearing cases?

Considering Richard Posner's long and illustrious career I'm not going to hang his entire career on a single quote, probably misplaced.

If the quote was misplaced then he's had ample time to correct it and failed to do so.

Cruz probably wouldn’t be confirmed. No one from congress would. Trump found one good one. Who’s to say there’s not another one out there none of us know yet. Cruz needs to stay where he is.

(06-26-2018 10:45 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Cruz probably wouldn’t be confirmed. No one from congress would. Trump found one good one. Who’s to say there’s not another one out there none of us know yet. Cruz needs to stay where he is.

which makes it even more important in the 121162038756096574963d game of 'exposure chess'.....

either way it works in the land of 'muppets'......

edit: in other words, dems block and lose, Cruz is appointed dems lose......

it's an easy win either way.....

and I'm comfortable (unlike HOD) with Cruz donning the robe.....I'd also rather see someone else in his senate position......

(06-26-2018 10:50 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 10:45 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Cruz probably wouldn’t be confirmed. No one from congress would. Trump found one good one. Who’s to say there’s not another one out there none of us know yet. Cruz needs to stay where he is.

which makes it even more important in the 121162038756096574963d game of 'exposure chess'.....

either way it works in the land of 'muppets'......

edit: in other words, dems block and lose, Cruz is appointed dems lose......

it's an easy win either way.....

and I'm comfortable (unlike HOD) with Cruz donning the robe.....I'd also rather see someone else in his senate position......

Oh I do agree he would be an excellent choice....just ain’t happening.

(06-26-2018 11:02 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 10:50 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 10:45 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Cruz probably wouldn’t be confirmed. No one from congress would. Trump found one good one. Who’s to say there’s not another one out there none of us know yet. Cruz needs to stay where he is.

which makes it even more important in the 121162038756096574963d game of 'exposure chess'.....

either way it works in the land of 'muppets'......

edit: in other words, dems block and lose, Cruz is appointed dems lose......

it's an easy win either way.....

and I'm comfortable (unlike HOD) with Cruz donning the robe.....I'd also rather see someone else in his senate position......

Oh I do agree he would be an excellent choice....just ain’t happening.

hence, lends to both our points......

he's the logical win/win guy either way......

(06-26-2018 10:45 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Cruz probably wouldn’t be confirmed. No one from congress would. Trump found one good one. Who’s to say there’s not another one out there none of us know yet. Cruz needs to stay where he is.

I agree.

In fact he should probably just start with his original list of candidates from his first selection as there were a number of good choices there.

(06-26-2018 11:10 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 10:45 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Cruz probably wouldn’t be confirmed. No one from congress would. Trump found one good one. Who’s to say there’s not another one out there none of us know yet. Cruz needs to stay where he is.

I agree.

In fact he should probably just start with his original list of candidates from his first selection as there were a number of good choices there.

which is easily another way to play it......

I simply would like to see him leave capitol hill and find his niche on the bench or let the dippos continue to choke on their phlegm......I'm just a sadist like that when the choice is solid and the others are equal......

I want to squash every ounce 'left' from the piss-ants.......I'm just a mean ol' bastard like that when I got the mincy ones' in me hands.......

If we can't have Cruz, Don Willett would be an outstanding SC justice. Willett serves on the Texas SC and was appointed to the 5th circuit on Jan. 2, 2018.

(06-26-2018 10:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:33 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:31 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:24 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  please explain why......

curious minds want to know.....

hell, I'm a dayum centrist for cryin' out loud.....

I want to hear this one....

He's an avowed ideologue.

That's not a good thing to have on a court, especially if you are a fan of applying the law regardless of outcome as opposed to manipulating it.

So your solution is to appoint someone who says he doesn't consider the law while hearing cases?

Considering Richard Posner's long and illustrious career I'm not going to hang his entire career on a single quote, probably misplaced.

If the quote was misplaced then he's had ample time to correct it and failed to do so.

Again, considering the course of his career I'm not concerned with that quote and neither should you be.

(06-27-2018 07:58 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 10:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:33 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:31 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  He's an avowed ideologue.

That's not a good thing to have on a court, especially if you are a fan of applying the law regardless of outcome as opposed to manipulating it.

So your solution is to appoint someone who says he doesn't consider the law while hearing cases?

Considering Richard Posner's long and illustrious career I'm not going to hang his entire career on a single quote, probably misplaced.

If the quote was misplaced then he's had ample time to correct it and failed to do so.

Again, considering the course of his career I'm not concerned with that quote and neither should you be.

I'm not concerned at all because nobody is going to nominate a 79 year old (who championed for mandatory retirement for all federal judges at age 80 BTW) for the Supreme Court. His on the record comment is just the icing on the cake.

(06-27-2018 08:12 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-27-2018 07:58 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 10:28 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:33 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-26-2018 09:31 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  So your solution is to appoint someone who says he doesn't consider the law while hearing cases?

Considering Richard Posner's long and illustrious career I'm not going to hang his entire career on a single quote, probably misplaced.

If the quote was misplaced then he's had ample time to correct it and failed to do so.

Again, considering the course of his career I'm not concerned with that quote and neither should you be.

I'm not concerned at all because nobody is going to nominate a 79 year old (who championed for mandatory retirement for all federal judges at age 80 BTW) for the Supreme Court. His on the record comment is just the icing on the cake.

You have a point on his age.

I'm simply saying what many jurists have been saying for decades that he is the kind of person we need.

Maybe RBG will check out too