Hillary's Attack On the Constitution

[Dashinka 24,999]

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?

It has nothing to do with the fact that they are women, it has everything to do with the way they interpret the Consititution. By comparison, I greatly admired Sandra Day O'Conner in her interpretations.

When I speak of the Hillary team getting a case there, I am referring to the collective Democratic Party which she would lead as the president if she were elected. Now of course they cannot simply walk into the court and get them to hear a case, but the Democrat political machine will certainly be looking for cases to challenge the decisions from Heller, Citizens United and others they deem wrong in their eyes.

[Dashinka 24,999]

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

That would be an interesting development and certainly not unprecedented.

[TBoneTX 46,445]

William Howard Taft, who admittedly hated politics and who came in third in a 3-man presidential race during his re-election year, was highly praised when he later became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

[JayJayH 546]

I have a hard time wrapping my head around the whole Syria thing in general. I honestly don't see Assad stepping down/vaporizing anytime soon...and let's say, if he did fall/disappear/vanish/etc.....wouldn't it just be like Iraq, Part II? If the US then pulled out, there would be a power vacuum (minus Assad) and then another can of worms would open up?

I just don't get what the goal is because it's pretty darned obvious that Assad/Russia are NEVER going to stop supporting each other. And Russia is willing to throw it's economy into the toilet/sacrifice their own people in order to do what Mr. P wants. Yes, it's that bad here.

So, in that case, maybe Hillary's "no fly zone" sounds sort of like some kind of temporary fix or improvement to the situation, but it won't actually solve anything in the long run. Am I correct in my thought here?

No fly zone in Syria would be practically impossible in practice at this point. We're not going to impose a "no-fly order" on the Russian Air Force. If Bush went too far in his unilateralism, Obama has been too naive in his multilateralism. Syria today is a cluster#### of epic proportions, and likely, the only solutions will come from an awkward handshake between Assad and some rebel leader. Or the obliteration of Syrian rebel forces altogether.

But first we have to be grant the entirety of ISIS their wish and send them to their maker.

maybe we americans need to stop thinking we can always hop in and 'fix or improve' situations. history shows, we actually accomplish the opposite.

That's sort of a half-truth. if we go in, the anti-war crowd will object/ If we don't go in, our sins of omission will linger for eternity.

If we're talking about Iraq and Libya, we haven't really "improved" much, if anything at all. W's insane idea of eliminating Iraq's version of Assad was.. I have no words..

That being said, there is no reason to think Libya wouldn't have turned into what is now Syria. Qaddafi was doing the exact same 'thing' Assad was doing.

We stopped a bloodbath in Bosnia, a bloodbath in Kosovo, and lord knows how many Rwandans could have been alive today if we had actually rolled up our sleeves in '94.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

maybe we americans need to stop thinking we can always hop in and 'fix or improve' situations. history shows, we actually accomplish the opposite.

I know right . If we had just left Hitler and Tojo alone What History shows is we have had some screw ups but also kept oppression and tyranny at bay.

Edited October 23, 2016 by Nature Boy Flair

[millefleur 5,047]

I know right . If we had just left Hitler and Tojo alone What History shows is we have had some screw ups but also kept oppression and tyranny at bay.

Erm.....not really comparable. First of all, Germany and Japan after the war both transitioned extremely well into modern democracies with the help of good ol' Uncle Sam (minus the dust-up that was the DDR) whereas the Middle East.....

Not to mention, Hitler and Tojo both lost their wars big time, with Germany being practically obliterated by the Red Army (plus all the allies pummeling them in addition to that) and the US dropping two atomic bombs on Japan. I mean, unless you're suggesting we step up the war games to that level, I'm not sure there's going to be a clear "winner"/peaceful democracies blossoming out of the rubble anytime anytime soon.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Erm.....not really comparable. First of all, Germany and Japan after the war both transitioned extremely well into modern democracies with the help of good ol' Uncle Sam (minus the dust-up that was the DDR) whereas the Middle East.....

Not to mention, Hitler and Tojo both lost their wars big time, with Germany being practically obliterated by the Red Army (plus all the allies pummeling them in addition to that) and the US dropping two atomic bombs on Japan. I mean, unless you're suggesting we step up the war games to that level, I'm not sure there's going to be a clear "winner"/peaceful democracies blossoming out of the rubble anytime anytime soon.

I didnt compare anything A poster said history showed we made the situation worse when we intervened.

I showed that is not always the case.