inso, lol.

If there's a Republican congress Hillary probably won't be able to help this. But it's not her fault if congress shuts down the government every other week.

It hasn't always been like this. The Republicans elected a slew of Tea Party idiots in 2010 and congress has been FUBAR ever since.

Scalia wrote about gays sitting on flagpoles in an official Supreme Court decision for christsakes! That may pass for brilliant thinking compared to the derposhere the GOP has devolved into but lol at acting like liberals are obligated to defer to his opinions as brilliant scholarly work.

bernie voters that are going for trump are doing it for the same reason people on disability or welfare might vote for trump: they're completely uninformed

Why not guy was a perfectly moderate justice? Inso0 if laws are so easy to interpret why do you think there are so many 5-4 decisions? And why was Scollia always on the conservative side?

So shrinking labor force because all the dumbass boomers are all retiring. But hey, apparently the shrinking labor force is goosing salaries for the rest of us. You know supply vs. demand?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...ges-accelerate



Ins0 and friends, I know how much you hate good news. Take some time, go to drudge to re-enrage yourselves, it will be ok.

Thanks for the citations. I was pretty sure this was the case but on my phone and didn't want to pass along incorrect information

Yeah all the moderates and RINOs got primaried out, leaving enough true believer nutjobs to grind everything to a halt.

But TBF - the 2001-2006 Republican congress was an orgy of corrupt pork-barrel spending while giving only lip service to any conservative causes. So the RINOs definitely helped bring it on themselves.

Sad truth is though that it's not that (some) Republicans don't think government works, it's that they want it to not work and they do what they can explicitly to sabotage it.

Too busy to follow the thread and polls. Is it safe to stop panicking?

Speaking as a lawyer and Supreme Court amateur historian and interested observer, Merrick Garland is as middle of the road as you could find without the DEMOCRATS throwing a fit about him being too centrist. He's exactly what you're saying should be nominated, Ins0, and that's why he was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit by a 76-23 vote by a Republican Senate. Note that the votes against him were because the Republicans did not agree that the seat needed to be filled at all - to my knowledge, not a single Republican Senator voiced significant concerns or doubts about his qualifications.

It may help to know that the avatar of "balls and strikes" jurisprudence, Chief Justice John Roberts, loves him and views his disagreement as a proof that the side Garland disagrees with is probably wrong.

You spelled "Obama refused to compromise and shoved his hot throbbing agenda down America's throat" wrong.

Or putting it differently, it's literally impossible to come at Merrick Garland's qualies or fairness as a Judge in good faith.

Comparing homosexuality to bestiality is an unpopular opinion (for now, but give Tumblr some time to fight for the right to love your pets in new and interesting ways, they'll get there) but deciding to leave those laws in the hands of the states, where they belong, is an acceptable conservative judicial opinion.

The constitution was written that way. You are entitled to be pissed off about guys like Scalia doing their job and upholding the constitution, but that doesn't mean he's an ******* or doing it wrong. Therein lies the difference between how conservatives view the role of SCOTUS, and what you think that role should be.

It's pretty weird that you're blaming some abstract idea instead of the actual individuals for their actions. There are actual Senators, that we can name, that are currently ignoring their duties. Why can't we say it's their fault?

This, right here, is you having no earthly clue what you're talking about.

If you could afford it, would you pay $10M to improve your chances of becoming POTUS and gaining access to everything that goes along with the office? Don't be daft. You would.

Scalia was a cancer and awful for the U.S. Have to keep judges like him away from the SCOTUS.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...oking-backward

trump wouldn't. probably because he can't actually afford it lol

At this point I'd probably settle for endless SCOTUS gridlock, since Conservative justices are doing all the activism these days.

last two georgia polls published have drumpf up by 2 and drumpf up by 1

not that its especially meaningful, but just imagine the panic itt if we were talking about a solidly blue state like minnesota or something going C+2 and C+1 in the last cpl days

I mean first of all you just flippantly referred to "how conservatives view the role of SCOTUS" in a narrow way that is both functionally wrong and completely impossible - conservatives fight tooth and nail to restrict liberty in violation of the "strict interpretation" of the Constitution in the realms of personal behavior, belief, and voting, to name a few, and to broaden the interpretation of the Second Amendment to truly absurd proportions in a way that directly contradicts their own "strict interpretation" of that Amendment from as recently as the 1950s.

I mean it's a howler to consider whatever generic "conservative" understanding of SCOTUS you're ascribing to conservatives en masse as coherent, but it would be even worse to mistakenly believe that you're right about that. Even the Federalist Society often admits that the "balls and strikes" metaphor is lollllllllllllllllllll and impossible.

true story

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...-policy-213955