Hillary's Attack On the Constitution

[Dashinka 24,999]

When criticism starts off praising Herr Komrad Rump's grasp of the Constitution it tends to lend itself to criticism.

Not really sure what you are saying here, but I think it is fairly well known that the Dems and Hillary included feel the Constitution is too restrictive to the Federal Government. Trump's grasp really doesn't come into play here as he did not write the opinion piece I originally posted.

[Teddy B 17,252]

I thought they (the Clintons) were distancing themselves from Obama when Bill went out and criticized ObamaCare?

I'm sure that was the intent, but I think it was a mistake for Bill Clinton to come out and say that because it's not really a fight that needs to be fought by Hillary before the election. She was a champion for universal healthcare during Bill's presidency, and most dems are in favor of universal healthcare. No need to stir that pot right now.

[smilesammich 10,727]

i think that's a fairly well known notion for folks who get their info from rw publications. it certainly isn't anything i've heard from the horse's mouth..

Edited October 21, 2016 by smilesammich

[Dashinka 24,999]

I'm sure that was the intent, but I think it was a mistake for Bill Clinton to come out and say that because it's not really a fight that needs to be fought by Hillary before the election. She was a champion for universal healthcare during Bill's presidency, and most dems are in favor of universal healthcare. No need to stir that pot right now.

I completely agree with your thought here. I thought that was a misstep by their campaign.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Not really sure what you are saying here, but I think it is fairly well known that the Dems and Hillary included feel the Constitution is too restrictive to the Federal Government. Trump's grasp really doesn't come into play here as he did not write the opinion piece I originally posted.

The statement opens the piece and is so ludicrous it sully's anything else that follows. Hillary Clinton attacking the Constitution being just another example of the writer's over the top bias.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Even if, a presidential candidate wanted to repeal an amendment, they can't because that is what courts do. Also, Congress passes laws, not presidents. So this whole argument is just to stoke irrational fear.

[Dashinka 24,999]

Even if, a presidential candidate wanted to repeal an amendment, they can't because that is what courts do. Also, Congress passes laws, not presidents. So this whole argument is just to stoke irrational fear.

Last I heard, there is still a vacancy in SCOTUS.

The statement opens the piece and is so ludicrous it sully's anything else that follows. Hillary Clinton attacking the Constitution being just another example of the writer's over the top bias.

Interesting thought. That is the same feeling I get when reading stories on HuffPuff, NYTs, WaPo,etc.

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Last I heard, there is still a vacancy in SCOTUS.

Interesting thought. That is the same feeling I get when reading stories on HuffPuff, NYTs, WaPo,etc.

Ah, so you think she is going to fill the spot, with Congress's approval mind you, with a judge that is going to ignore all precedent and abolish the second amendment. All by themselves. Is that the plan?

Edited October 21, 2016 by Harpa Timsah

[Jacque67 7,328]

As an interesting side note the writer of the op, David B Rivkin Jr. was one of Carroll "Beau" Correll's lawyers ( the latter being an anti-Trump GOP delegate) .

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/gop-delegate-seeking-to-vote-his-conscience-in-cleveland-scores-symbolic-win/2016/07/11/39b99862-47a6-11e6-acbc-4d4870a079da_story.html

Edited October 21, 2016 by Jacque67

[Rob L 3,811]

Last I heard, there is still a vacancy in SCOTUS.

Article 3 establishes the supreme court makes provision for ties in deferring to the lower court. Article 3 does not specify the size of the court or the odd/even nature. The 9 justice court size is set by congress.

[Dashinka 24,999]

Article 3 establishes the supreme court makes provision for ties in deferring to the lower court. Article 3 does not specify the size of the court or the odd/even nature. The 9 justice court size is set by congress.

You are absolutely correct. FDR tried to stack the court in his favor back in 1937, which of course did not work. The Judiciary Act of 1869 set the current make-up of the court.

Edited October 21, 2016 by Bill & Katya

[Dashinka 24,999]

Ah, so you think she is going to fill the spot, with Congress's approval mind you, with a judge that is going to ignore all precedent and abolish the second amendment. All by themselves. Is that the plan?

This assumes the current make-up of the congress will remain the same. Beyond that, I assume she would propose a justice in the same mold as Ginsburg, Sotomayor, or Kagan. As to SCOTUS doing this all on their own, certainly they have to follow procedure, but I imagine the Hillary team will position a case to get there even though it may take a year or more. Edited October 21, 2016 by Bill & Katya

[Rob L 3,811]

This assumes the current make-up of the congress will remain the same. Beyond that, I assume she would propose a justice in the same mold as Ginsburg, Sotomayor, or Kagan. As to SCOTUS doing this all on their own, certainly they have to follow procedure, but I imagine the Hillary team will position a case to get there even though it may take a year or more.

Here is my bet: Not on this open spot but the next available position: President Obama will be nominated for the Supreme Court.

Edited October 21, 2016 by Rob L

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

This assumes the current make-up of the congress will remain the same. Beyond that, I assume she would propose a justice in the same mold as Ginsburg, Sotomayor, or Kagan. As to SCOTUS doing this all on their own, certainly they have to follow procedure, but I imagine the Hillary team will position a case to get there even though it may take a year or more.

What's wrong with those justices? Is the problem that they're women? I might have thought the problem was that they were liberal, but you don't mention Breyer.

And how does Hillary get a case to the court, she makes up a lawsuit and then forces the lower courts to disagree on it?

[yuna628 9,758]

Here is my bet: Not on this open spot but the next available position: President Obama will be nominated for the Supreme Court.

This is not the first time I've heard this suggestion floated around. The thing is I'm not sure he'd go for such a position. That's just my own personal observation of the man. You ever get the feeling that sometimes, he seems so weary of political life in general, he'd rather do something more fulfilling or teaching related again? The rumblings going around of late in conservative circles seem to imply, that the republicans may actually take a gamble to finally approve Garland with the knowledge that their comfortable control may get wiped out this election... and they'd rather have someone 'moderate' than someone Hillary might appoint (not necessarily Garland).