Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, January 17, 2018

Trump has set the record for most federal appeals judges confirmed in the first year of a presidency. Those lifetime appointments are conservative judges, who support the causes of the 1% regardless of law, or the constitution. Republican obstruction in the final years of Obama's presidency boosted the record number of vacancies. A significant number of Supreme Court justices are approaching retirement or mortality, the highest chamber threatens to tilt just as dramatically to the right. The Senate has confirmed 19 of Trump's nominees, which includes one Supreme Court justice, 12 circuit court judges, and six district court judges. The only way to stop the seizure of the judiciary is for Democrats to win the Senate in November.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

He's politicising the judiciary.

We are screwed.

#1 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-01-17 01:41 PM | Reply

I guess all you libs know elections have consequences. OK, all you republicans go to the back of the buss. I suppose you all forgot that one. How about, I won and you lost. Mot exactly what he said but you all forgot that one too.

#2 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-01-17 04:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

From the wapo

A visibly frustrated President Obama delivered a blunt message to Republicans with whom he had feuded over the government shutdown and the debt ceiling over the past month on Tuesday: Elections matter. I won; you lost. Deal with it.

That's a paraphrase -- obviously. Here's what Obama actually said:

"You don't like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election. Push to change it. But don't break it. Don't break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building. That's not being faithful to what this country's about."

#3 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-01-17 04:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

By any democratic measure, Hilary won.

#4 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-01-17 07:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Bay,

"The only way to stop the seizure of the judiciary is for Democrats to win the Senate in November."

Now you know what conservatives have been feeling for years now.

#5 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2018-01-17 10:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#5 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

The difference being a literal seizure now versus an imagined seizure then.

#6 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-01-17 10:53 PM | Reply

#3 | POSTED BY SNIPER

It says "go win an election" not "go steal an election with foreign assistance". Но продолжай пить, Куллайд, Снайпер.

#7 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2018-01-17 10:55 PM | Reply

"Now you know what conservatives have been feeling for years now."

The Federal judiciary has been heavily packed with Republican over the past few decades.
Your problem is with the Constitution itself.

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 01:58 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Massive"

Seriously, Mr. Editor? Nineteen appointments is massive?

In the past few decades Obama had 334, Bush II 340, Clinton 387, about 10% less than Reagan's all time high of 404, and Bush I 197. www.uscourts.gov

Perhaps you should shift out of hyperbole gear for a little while. Or, at least reserve it for all the Buffoon's s--t that deserves it.

#9 | Posted by et_al at 2018-01-18 04:29 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

What is not represented by Et Al's attempt to make nice is that Republicans appoint strict ideologues while Democrats try their best to appoint fair minded jurists. In the spectrum of beliefs Republicans go far, far right while Democrats generally choose moderates. Obama appoint zero left wing radicals but Trump is appoint some right wingers who have never even argued a case in court but who are ideological aligned with the Tea Party.

#10 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-18 08:01 AM | Reply | Funny: 5

Advertisement

Advertisement

What is not represented by Et Al's attempt to make nice is that Republicans appoint strict ideologues while Democrats try their best to appoint fair minded jurists

That is absurd.

#11 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-18 10:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The fact is, if the Constitution wasn't viewed as a "living and breathing document" the judiciary would be no big deal and cultural and political change would be focused in Congress, where it belongs.

#12 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-18 10:36 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It says "go win an election" not "go steal an election with foreign assistance". Но продолжай пить, Куллайд, Снайпер.

#7 | Posted by IndianaJones

Explain to me how he could steal it. Seems the foreign assistance came to hiltabeast.

#13 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-01-18 10:40 AM | Reply

The Federal judiciary has been heavily packed with Republican over the past few decades.
Your problem is with the Constitution itself.

#8 | Posted by snoofy

8 years of clinton and 8 years of o'bummer and they both appointed conservative judges? WOW!!!! I would have never guesses that.

#14 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-01-18 10:42 AM | Reply

"That is absurd."

Were it not for Republican SC appointments money would now be free speech and corporations would not be people. The absurdity of both is shameful and absolutely contrary to the views of the founders of the nation.

#15 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-18 10:49 AM | Reply

Oops, should have been:

"Were it not for Republican SC appointments money would NOT now be free speech and corporations would not be people. The absurdity of both is shameful and absolutely contrary to the views of the founders of the nation."

#16 | Posted by danni at 2018-01-18 10:50 AM | Reply

By any democratic measure, Hilary won.

#4 | Posted by bayviking

Thank God we are NOT a Democracy, where the minority gets outshouted by the masses, thus ensuring they have no say in anything.

#17 | Posted by boaz at 2018-01-18 10:54 AM | Reply

Republicans appoint strict ideologues while Democrats try their best to appoint fair minded jurists.

Are you trolling?

#18 | Posted by boaz at 2018-01-18 10:55 AM | Reply

The Federal judiciary has been heavily packed with Republican over the past few decades.

B.S.

Those liberal hippy activist judges Obama put in San Fran and California have been trying to stop anything the American public is doing in individual states.

#19 | Posted by boaz at 2018-01-18 10:57 AM | Reply

I guess all you libs know elections have consequences. OK, all you republicans go to the back of the buss. I suppose you all forgot that one. How about, I won and you lost. Mot exactly what he said but you all forgot that one too.

#2 | POSTED BY SNIPER

So I assume that if Dems take the House or Senate, you won't have an issue with them doing whatever they want, right?

After all, elections have consequences.

#20 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-18 11:17 AM | Reply

Those liberal hippy activist judges Obama put in San Fran and California have been trying to stop anything the American public is doing in individual states.

#19 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Name one and what specific issues you have with them.

Seriously, we'll wait.

#21 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-18 11:18 AM | Reply

"OK, all you republicans go to the back of the buss. I suppose you all forgot that one."

Feel free to post the actual quote, if you'd truly like to remind us.

#22 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-18 11:19 AM | Reply

The grave consequence of current shifts in our Courts has little or nothing to do with religion or economics. The grave consequence is that conservatives are transforming the judiciary into a rubber stamp for a police State. There is virtually no unconstitutional behavior, on the part of police, that judges and juries will condemn.

In the police state being erected around us, the police and other government agents can probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts.

Whether it's police officers breaking through people's front doors and shooting them dead in their homes or strip searching motorists on the side of the road, these instances of abuse are continually validated by a judicial system that kowtows to virtually every police demand, no matter how unjust, no matter how in opposition to the Constitution.

These are the hallmarks of the emerging American police state: where police officers, no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace, are part of an elite ruling class dependent on keeping the masses corralled, under control, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens.

#23 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-01-18 11:22 AM | Reply

So Rcade's headline editing has a basis which eludes etal.

#24 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-01-18 11:29 AM | Reply

Name one and what specific issues you have with them.

Seriously, we'll wait.

#21 | Posted by Sycophant

www.abajournal.com

The issue I have? They are just too damn liberal...

Which is why Trump is so important..

#25 | Posted by boaz at 2018-01-18 12:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And actually I meant for that to be the Ninth Court.

#26 | Posted by boaz at 2018-01-18 12:14 PM | Reply

"The fact is, if the Constitution wasn't viewed as a "living and breathing document"

If its not a living breathing document how can it speak on issues that never faced the Founders, like cyber law?

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 01:22 PM | Reply

So I assume that if Dems take the House or Senate, you won't have an issue with them doing whatever they want, right?

After all, elections have consequences.

#20 | Posted by Sycophant

o'bummer did....................

#28 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-01-18 01:42 PM | Reply

Name one and what specific issues you have with them.

Seriously, we'll wait.

#21 | Posted by Sycophant

Pull your head out of the sand syc, The 9th circuit has been overturned 80% of the time.

#29 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-01-18 01:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"OK, all you republicans go to the back of the buss. I suppose you all forgot that one."

Feel free to post the actual quote, if you'd truly like to remind us.

#22 | Posted by Danforth

He said Republicans had driven the economy into a ditch and then stood by and criticized while Democrats pulled it out. Now that progress has been made, he said, "we can't have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."

Happy now dan?

#30 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-01-18 01:48 PM | Reply

"The fact is, if the Constitution wasn't viewed as a "living and breathing document"

If its not a living breathing document how can it speak on issues that never faced the Founders, like cyber law?

#27 | Posted by snoofy

You don't get it yet sno.

#31 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-01-18 01:49 PM | Reply

And your problem with not letting the people who crashed the bus drive it any more is what, exactly, Sniper?

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 01:55 PM | Reply

"Happy now dan?"

Yeah; you misquoted and misunderstood. No "back of the bus" at all. Happy now?

#33 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-18 01:55 PM | Reply

"The 9th circuit has been overturned 80% of the time." - #29 | Posted by stupid snippy at 2018-01-18 01:44 PM

[snip] In the 2014-2015 term, the 9th Circuit's reversal rate was about 60 percent, below the average rate of 72 percent. In the 2015-2016 term, the latest year of data available, the 9th Circuit court's reversal rate was 80 percent, and the average rate was 67 percent. This is the figure that Trump cites.

But the 80 percent figure represents a small fraction of the cases that the 9th Circuit hears in a given term -- roughly one-tenth of 1 percent.

[snip] Although the reversal rate is one way to measure a court's record, using figures such as 80 percent or one-tenth of 1 percent does not add much to the debate. The 9th Circuit is not the most overturned court by the annual reversal rate.

source

Oops.

#34 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-18 01:56 PM | Reply

"Those liberal hippy activist judges Obama put in San Fran and California have been trying to stop anything the American public is doing in individual states."

How would they even do that, it's out of their jurisdiction.

Boaz, try thinking for once in your life.

It's gonna hurt, but no pain, no gain.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 01:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The fact is, if the Constitution wasn't viewed as a "living and breathing document" the judiciary would be no big deal and cultural and political change would be focused in Congress, where it belongs.

#12 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-01-18 10:36 AM | FLAG:

That idiotic approach to structuring a political system would erase virtually all meaningful social progress your country has enjoyed for the last century... not that you'd mind, of course.

#36 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-01-18 02:53 PM | Reply

That idiotic approach to structuring a political system would erase virtually all meaningful social progress your country has enjoyed for the last century

There is no way to prove that. None.

#37 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-18 02:55 PM | Reply

The fact is, if the Constitution wasn't viewed as a "living and breathing document" the judiciary would be no big deal and cultural and political change would be focused in Congress, where it belongs.
#12 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

There is no way to prove that. None.

#38 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-01-18 03:02 PM | Reply

"There is no way to prove that. None"

How is there a way to prove anything in the political realm, though?

Your "objection" is meaningless, JeffJ.

Is that why you made it? I think it is. You are fooling yourself; by setting an unattainable standard of proof, you dismiss the facts.

That's what you're doing, right? If not then what's your angle???

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 03:02 PM | Reply

There is no way to prove that. None.

#37 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-01-18 02:55 PM | FLAG:

You mean besides by looking at history? Face it: you are fine with a world in which abortion and gay marriage (etc) remain illegal (both overturned by the courts). Throw in your usual screed about "following the law until it is changed" and you can throw out minority and women's rights as well (and, of course, there was plenty of judicial intervention in these cases as well). And you are fine with all of that.

#40 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-01-18 03:04 PM | Reply

"cultural and political change would be focused in Congress, where it belongs."

Since when is it the business of Congress to legislate culture?

Where specifically in the Constitution do you see that assigned duty???

#41 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 03:04 PM | Reply

#41

Jeff is only a strict constructionist when it suits his regressive agenda...

#42 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-01-18 03:07 PM | Reply

#40

Segregation - forced segregation - was clearly unconstitutional. I have no problem with the courts overruling unconstitutional laws.

#43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-18 03:08 PM | Reply

Laws affect our culture, but if you want to nitpick, please remove "cultural" from the post you are responding to.

#44 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-18 03:09 PM | Reply

My point is that because the judiciary (this goes back to FDR's failed court-packing scheme which failed, but it put enough fear into the judges to rubber-stamp his unconstitutional agenda) is now a political institution, the judicial "philosophy" of judges matters greatly. For over 150 years nominating and approving judges was a boring and uncontentious process. But, when it was realized that political battles could be won in the courts in lieu of the difficult process of legislating, a new judicial philosophy arose under the notion that the constitution is malleable.

It's the logical by-product of a toxic judicial philosophy.

#45 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-18 03:18 PM | Reply

Segregation - forced segregation - was clearly unconstitutional. I have no problem with the courts overruling unconstitutional laws.

#43 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-01-18 03:08 PM | FLAG:

Then what, exactly, are you whining about again? Desegregation was a political and social change brought about by court action.

As for it being clearly unconstitutional, your opinions on that subject hardly matter...

#46 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-01-18 03:18 PM | Reply

#45

Nice story. I see no signs at all that it is true. Political battles have been fought in the courts since almost the very beginning. To pretend otherwise is just fuzzy headed nostalgia (a common rightist affliction).

#47 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-01-18 03:21 PM | Reply

"Segregation - forced segregation - was clearly unconstitutional."

Men's rooms are unconstitutional. Clearly. JeffJ says so.

#48 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 03:21 PM | Reply

"It's the logical by-product of a toxic judicial philosophy."

You are a toxic judicial philosophy.

And you wouldn't have existed without Heritage Foundation to groom your intellect.

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 03:23 PM | Reply

Laws affect our culture, but if you want to nitpick, please remove "cultural" from the post you are responding to.

#44 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-01-18 03:09 PM | FLAG:

Again, what exactly are you worried about?

#50 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-01-18 03:23 PM | Reply

You guys are long on ad hominem and short on substance.

#51 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-18 03:39 PM | Reply

Okay, let's get to substance.

Substantiate how what you call a "clearly unconstitutional" law stood for a century, JeffJ.

Was that the judicial activism that so worries you? Judges allowing Jim Crow to stand for a hundred years was the activism? LOL.

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 03:58 PM | Reply

Massive damage lmao no massive damage is putting people on the bench who think they have the authority to make laws. Face it that's how the left gets their fringe ideas past they run to a court who will agree with them 9th circuit anyone

#53 | Posted by WTFIGO at 2018-01-18 03:58 PM | Reply

You guys are long on ad hominem and short on substance.

#51 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-01-18 03:39 PM

Are you new here? That's all they ever have, I think that is the entirety of the SJW playbook.

#54 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-18 04:01 PM | Reply

Case in point:

Okay, let's get to substance.

Substantiate how what you call a "clearly unconstitutional" law stood for a century, JeffJ.

Goofy asks Jeff to "substantiate" something after he has been called out for not providing any substance whatsoever in any of his posts. Here's an idea, why don't you make a point and support it with a link to back it up.

It's not very difficult, a former defense contractor with a physics degree should be able to accomplish this on a regular basis.

#55 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-18 04:06 PM | Reply

"Here's an idea, why don't you make a point and support it with a link to back it up."

Answer #52 and the point will be made.
It's called the Socratic Method.
Don't they teach lawyers that???

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 04:09 PM | Reply

Yeah; you misquoted and misunderstood. No "back of the bus" at all. Happy now?

#33 | Posted by Danforth

Here is the actual quote dan. So I got a couple words wrong.

"They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."

#57 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-01-18 04:14 PM | Reply

#56

Socrates knew what he was talking about and would give a substantive response after the student tried to answer the question.

The difference is, you are no Socrates.

#58 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-18 04:16 PM | Reply

But the 80 percent figure represents a small fraction of the cases that the 9th Circuit hears in a given term -- roughly one-tenth of 1 percent.

#34 | Posted by Hans

80% is the percent overturned that went to a higher court.
Oops.

#59 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-01-18 04:16 PM | Reply

How would they even do that, it's out of their jurisdiction.

Boaz, try thinking for once in your life.

It's gonna hurt, but no pain, no gain.

#35 | Posted by snoofy

It is called judge shopping sno. They do it.

#60 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-01-18 04:17 PM | Reply

"after the student tried to answer the question"

Something nobody did.
Because you're -----------, just like JeffJ.

#61 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 04:18 PM | Reply

You mean besides by looking at history? Face it: you are fine with a world in which abortion and gay marriage (etc) remain illegal (both overturned by the courts). Throw in your usual screed about "following the law until it is changed" and you can throw out minority and women's rights as well (and, of course, there was plenty of judicial intervention in these cases as well). And you are fine with all of that.

#40 | Posted by DirkStruan

The bench has been writing law for a long time and congress doesn't have the guts to do anything about it.

#62 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-01-18 04:20 PM | Reply

"cultural and political change would be focused in Congress, where it belongs."

Since when is it the business of Congress to legislate culture?

Where specifically in the Constitution do you see that assigned duty???

#41 | Posted by snoofy

Who made it the job of a judge?

#63 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-01-18 04:21 PM | Reply

I don't answer dumb questions.

There's your answer.

#64 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-18 04:22 PM | Reply

If I thought you were genuinely trying to understand my POV and your questions were geared toward understanding, I'd patiently answer them.

But you're not.

You're in attack mode and I have better things to do.

#65 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-18 04:23 PM | Reply

Then what, exactly, are you whining about again? Desegregation was a political and social change brought about by court action.

#46 | Posted by DirkStruan

Wrong lib breath.

Amendment XIV
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.
Amendment XV
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or
previous condition of servitude.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.

#66 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-01-18 04:30 PM | Reply

"You're in attack mode"

Loose, unflunded accusations of "judicial activism" is actually your attack mode.

And it's just you parroting a Heritage Foundation attack on the civil liberties gains that have been won since the end of Jim Crow.

But I don't think you realize that about yourself, or about Heritage Foundation.

So I'm asking you the questions that will make it clear, should you one day grow a set and face up to what you really believe, and why.

And you don't want to do that, so you claim I'm being mean, and then you take your toys and run home.

I guess that's a lot easier and more satisfying than explaining how Jim Crow stood for a century despite being "clearly unconstitutional."

Bye Felicia.

#67 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 04:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"80% is the percent overturned that went to a higher court." - #59 | Posted by stupid snippy at 2018-01-18 04:16 PM

You mean 80% of the one-tenth of 1 percent that went to a higher court, stupid snippy?

That means more then 99% of the decisions were either not reviewed or were upheld by a higher court, effectively affirming or upholding the more than 99% of the decisions of that court.

Just another example of your stupidity, such as you believing that someone with an IQ of 45 is smart.

#68 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-18 05:23 PM | Reply

And it's just you parroting a Heritage Foundation

I've never visited the Heritage Foundation site. Not once. But you just can't help yourself. It's inconceivable to you that someone could come to a conclusion that differs from yours unless it's borne out of ignorance, stupidity, brainwashing or evil.

Look up the word humility and then consider purchasing some, especially considering that your caricature of my position is so far off-base that it's risible.

#69 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-18 05:50 PM | Reply

You mean 80% of the one-tenth of 1 percent that went to a higher court,

I would think that any court that has their decision go to a higher court would have a pretty high overturn rate. The reason the higher court would agree to the case in the first place is they feel the appeal has some merit.

#70 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-18 05:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I would think that any court that has their decision go to a higher court would have a pretty high overturn rate." - #70 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-18 05:52 PM

Excellent observation, Jeff.

The article I linked to in my #34 makes a very similar point about all of the district courts.

#71 | Posted by Hans at 2018-01-18 05:57 PM | Reply

"It's inconceivable to you that someone could come to a conclusion that differs from yours unless it's borne out of ignorance, stupidity, brainwashing or evil."

Someone? You.

You can't tell me how Jim Crow stood for a century despite being "clearly unconstitutional."

Because you're an intellectual featherweight.

But feel free to show us all how you can punch above your weight class, okay?

#72 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 05:57 PM | Reply

"So I got a couple words wrong."

You got the entire reference wrong. "You can't drive" isn't the same historically as "back of the bus". Not even close, except in your fevered dreams.

#73 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-01-18 06:10 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Something nobody did.
Because you're -----------, just like JeffJ.

#61 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2018-01-18 04:18 PM

Nope, just not playing your game, Snoofcrates. Answer your own damned question, if you have one.

#74 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2018-01-18 06:20 PM | Reply

I love how angry Snoofy is that I'm not playing his little game.

#75 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-18 07:04 PM | Reply

It's ridiculous for you to act this way, Snoofy. Dirk has an excuse but you should know better.

#76 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-01-18 07:06 PM | Reply

It's ridiculous that you cant say why a "clearly unconstitutional" law stood for a century.

If you don't know why, just say you don't know why.

But I dont think ignorance is what's making you clan up. Oops I mean clam up, honest mistake I swear! ;)

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 07:11 PM | Reply

The bench has been writing law for a long time and congress doesn't have the guts to do anything about it.

#62 | POSTED BY SNIPER AT 2018-01-18 04:20 PM | FLAG:

Why should they do anything about it? The examples I gave are examples of social progress facilitated by the courts. Why do you think that this is a problem?

#78 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-01-18 07:20 PM | Reply

I love how angry Snoofy is that I'm not playing his little game.

#75 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2018-01-18 07:04 PM | FLAG:

The little game known as explaining your position?

I am still waiting for you to explain how social change being left with the legislative would be in any way better than the system currently in place. Or are you indeed fine with reversing all the progress that has come from judicial decisions?

#79 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-01-18 07:24 PM | Reply

#66

Really? So the court never ruled on separate but equal?

#80 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-01-18 07:27 PM | Reply

As usual, the questions got too damn hard and confusing for JeffJ.

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-01-18 09:38 PM | Reply

Which is why Trump is so important..

#25 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2018-01-18 12:12 PM | FLAG: hates America

#82 | Posted by jpw at 2018-01-19 12:17 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort