Irvinecommuter
New member
Kings said:
I will respond once that sentence makes sense.
SCOTUS
- Thread starter Perspective
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
I will respond once that sentence makes sense.
all three branches of government have multiple roles...it's a feature...not a defect.
The Dems changed the rules to only require 51 votes to confirm a justice because they were convinced Hillary would be president, the 2016 election being a mere formality since the DNC had already anointed Her Majesty.
Another example of Dems doing dumb shit that comes back to bite them in the ass.
Now, now...? the dems are going to be in control after Trump is gone. They will inherit quite a mess, lots of debt, an even larger divide between the haves and have nots. I anticipate that the bear market will be over (no I think the ultimate low is not in) and we'll have new highs.
What is the fed supposed to do in that case? They can't keep the not raise rate thing going forever and the debt is going to be a real problem for the dems who will of course try to redistribute that wealth and means test everything.
I got my plan in place though...?. been offloading my wealth so they can't take it from me.
Really ?
Then what are all these MAGA circle jerk pronouncements about
The (Trumps) economy ?
Trade Policy ?
Why is the market up or down ?
Bond bubble ?
Housing market ?
The only thing I have done is exposed the hucksterism of people who claim to know it all but aren?t held accountable
And yes , my advice is pretty simple and free of financial advisor comissions. That?s the whole point ? to expose the scam of the so called ?experts ?
And those who have followed my advice have made a nice chunk of change on every front ? be it interest rates , stock market , or bonds . You can hold me accountable
I will respond once that sentence makes sense.
sgip
Well-known member
"Sorry...courts are supposed to legislate from the bench...it's part of their job. Co-equal branches of government"
It seems like you're saying this is Schr?dinger's SCOTUS - it's a judiciary and a legislature, sometimes at the same time and sometimes not. OK.
I continue to lean on a 9-0 SCOTUS concurring opinion that means what it says.
It seems like you're saying this is Schr?dinger's SCOTUS - it's a judiciary and a legislature, sometimes at the same time and sometimes not. OK.
I continue to lean on a 9-0 SCOTUS concurring opinion that means what it says.
Irvinecommuter
New member
Soylent Green Is People said:
all three branches of government have multiple roles...it's a feature...not a defect.
morekaos
Well-known member
Here we go again...
Trump White House urging allies to prepare for possible RBG departure
After an ailing Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg missed oral arguments, the Trump team began early groundwork for another potential confirmation battle.
"It would be a brutal confirmation,? said John Malcolm, director of the Heritage Foundation's Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. ?The first two were not easy at all, but this would be much harder in this respect: When Neil Gorsuch was the nominee, you were replacing a conservative with a conservative. With Kavanaugh, you were replacing the perennial swing voter, who more times than not sided with the so-called conservative wing, so that slightly solidified the conservative wing.?
?But if you are replacing Justice Ginsburg with a Trump appointee, that would be akin to replacing Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas,? Malcolm added. ?It would mark a large shift in the direction of the court."
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/10/trump-white-house-urging-allies-to-prepare-for-possible-rbg-departure-1096102
Trump White House urging allies to prepare for possible RBG departure
After an ailing Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg missed oral arguments, the Trump team began early groundwork for another potential confirmation battle.
"It would be a brutal confirmation,? said John Malcolm, director of the Heritage Foundation's Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. ?The first two were not easy at all, but this would be much harder in this respect: When Neil Gorsuch was the nominee, you were replacing a conservative with a conservative. With Kavanaugh, you were replacing the perennial swing voter, who more times than not sided with the so-called conservative wing, so that slightly solidified the conservative wing.?
?But if you are replacing Justice Ginsburg with a Trump appointee, that would be akin to replacing Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas,? Malcolm added. ?It would mark a large shift in the direction of the court."
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/10/trump-white-house-urging-allies-to-prepare-for-possible-rbg-departure-1096102
The Kavanaugh victory and Trump's conservative RGB replacement is entirely the result of the spectacular arrogance of the dems.Kings said:
The Dems changed the rules to only require 51 votes to confirm a justice because they were convinced Hillary would be president, the 2016 election being a mere formality since the DNC had already anointed Her Majesty.
Another example of Dems doing dumb shit that comes back to bite them in the ass.
morekaos
Well-known member
In addition to notorious RBG getting replaced there are now rumblings that Clarence Thomas will voluntarily retire in the coming year so Trump can safely replace him with a conservative jurist. Something RBG should have done while Obama was President, another miscalculation on the Dems part. #winning Nice
this thread is now a bonafide circle jerk among the same few republicans -- all gloating and gushing over their good fortune that an old lady is about to pass away and be replaced by another "guy who likes beer, a lot of beer "
what happened to "not legislating from the bench" ?
seems like after losing popular votes , the house , being out of step with a vast majority of the country's mood and values and now likely the presidency in 2020, all they have left is nursing the fantasy of "owning " the supreme court forever -- as if it is going to make a twit of a difference in their lives .
what happened to "not legislating from the bench" ?
seems like after losing popular votes , the house , being out of step with a vast majority of the country's mood and values and now likely the presidency in 2020, all they have left is nursing the fantasy of "owning " the supreme court forever -- as if it is going to make a twit of a difference in their lives .
Ready2Downsize
Well-known member
Happiness said:
Now, now...? the dems are going to be in control after Trump is gone. They will inherit quite a mess, lots of debt, an even larger divide between the haves and have nots. I anticipate that the bear market will be over (no I think the ultimate low is not in) and we'll have new highs.
What is the fed supposed to do in that case? They can't keep the not raise rate thing going forever and the debt is going to be a real problem for the dems who will of course try to redistribute that wealth and means test everything.
I got my plan in place though...?. been offloading my wealth so they can't take it from me.
morekaos said:You're the only one who presumes to give investment advice on this site (maybe Panda), but you are right, anyone who would take investment advice from an anonymous web site posting is a fool.
Really ?
Then what are all these MAGA circle jerk pronouncements about
The (Trumps) economy ?
Trade Policy ?
Why is the market up or down ?
Bond bubble ?
Housing market ?
The only thing I have done is exposed the hucksterism of people who claim to know it all but aren?t held accountable
And yes , my advice is pretty simple and free of financial advisor comissions. That?s the whole point ? to expose the scam of the so called ?experts ?
And those who have followed my advice have made a nice chunk of change on every front ? be it interest rates , stock market , or bonds . You can hold me accountable
