• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Biden’s Cynical Pattern

NatMorton said:
That is entirely incorrect. You're just assuming that I take the same approach to the courts as do you, and that's simply not true.

An example of what I mean here:

Troubling words from our new Supreme Court Justice

I responded to your thread, on the merits, multiple times. You hand waved the comments away, or ignored them, for more of ^^^^^ crap, because you have nothing interesting to say on your own OP or her words, in context. “Nothing interesting,” and yet here you stay reply after reply.
debatepolitics.com debatepolitics.com

I'm not willing to compromise the separation of powers just to get a policy I favor. I don't believe you can credibly say the same thing.
Click to expand...
That very odd given your position on numerous issues that went before the courts during the Trump admin. Some might think you are HAPPY compromise your “principles” depending on the party in power.
 
NatMorton said:
That is a ridiculous position. Of course there's a Constitutional question. The Executive branch does not have the authority to make appropriations.
Click to expand...

That was not the ruling in either decision I mentioned. They had nothing to do with appropriations.

You are being deliberately obtuse at this point so I am left to assume you are trolling.
 
Greenbeard said:
Declining to save the economy (not to mention millions of lives) to appease a handful of GOP politicians stacked onto an illegitimate Court would've been unforgivable.
Click to expand...
So that’s a a yes, the ends justify the means, right?
 
dairyair said:
Which was struck down. Happens all the time.
IMO, that was just a political move to show he tried to make a campaign promise come true.

What politician doesn't promise their voters they will do what they campaigned on?
Click to expand...
What does the separation of powers mean to you?
 
BlueTex said:
Odd.. I don’t tecall the kind of streaming line of bullshit when the Trump admin git their ass handed to them over and over in the courts..
Click to expand...
You probably weren’t looking. What case are you referring to?
 
BlueTex said:
Shall we remind you of the NUMEROUS times Trump git his ass handed to him by the courts?
Click to expand...
By all means, go ahead, but also please include a statement on why you think it’s relevant to this discussion.
 
BlueTex said:
That very odd given your position on numerous issues that went before the courts during the Trump admin. Some might think you are HAPPY compromise your “principles” depending on the party in power.
Click to expand...
Why don’t you skip the vague accusations and say something specific. Concerned you won’t be able to defend it?
 
Bok Tuklo said:
That was not the ruling in either decision I mentioned. They had nothing to do with appropriations.

You are being deliberately obtuse at this point so I am left to assume you are trolling.
Click to expand...
Then be specific about a case you think was wrongly decided, and why. If you can’t do that with brevity, it’s your problem, not mine.
 
NatMorton said:
Then be specific about a case you think was wrongly decided, and why.
Click to expand...

I did. Specific cases and why. Even contracted with other controversial cases.

NatMorton said:
If you can’t do that with brevity, it’s your problem, not mine.
Click to expand...

Yeah. You’re trolling. And I fell for II.
 
dairyair said:
It means that what happened worked.
Click to expand...
No, it means you haven’t the slighted idea how our federal government is meant to world, don’t care to, and that exchanging ideas with you is a waste of time.

Have a lovely day.
 
NatMorton said:
Get back to me when you want to state your case clearly. I’ll be here.
Click to expand...

Should the court just throw Stare Decisis out the door? When the court eventually turns left again, should they throw out the decisions of this court?
 
NatMorton said:
Do you believe these fact-free proclamations work outside of the echo chamber?
Click to expand...

We’ve got a rogue, illegitimately stacked Court that occasionally pulls itself away from wooing its billionaire sponsors and from its political engagements to invent standing, leverage its shadow docket, and/or deploy contorted, specious reasoning to deliver the political results its party desires. And here you are feigning concern about “cynical patterns.”
 
Loulit01 said:
Na etanutrofnu, dna etiuq lacinyc nrettap sah depoleved nihtiw eht Nedib noitartsinimda, dna oot wef era gnilliw ot llac meht tuo revo ti.

Ti strats htiw sih noitartsinimda gnicnuonna emos noitca ot rednap ot sih esab dna eno taht neve yeht wonk yeht kcal eht ytirohtua ot od. Yeht neht edir eht ragus hgih morf taht tnemecnuonna rof lareves (ro ynam) wen selcyc litnu eht stluda ni eht moor, i.e. eht Emerpus Truoc, ekam na suoivbo dna yrassecen gnilur taht eht Evitucexe skcal eht ytirohtua ot od eht gniht desoporp. Dna neht, sa rehtruf pos ot eht raf tfel, ew erudne skeew fo eht Tnediserp dna sih aidem slap gnihsab “AGAM segduj” rof gniod gnihton rehto naht rieht sboj dna gniniatniam eht elur fo wal.

Ew’ev nees siht yalp tuo lareves semit won, dna yllaicepse os yb gnikat egatnavda fo eht cimednap. Ereht saw eht eniccav tnemyolpme tnemeriuqer. Ereht saw eht noitcive muirotarom. Dna tsom ylsuoigerge, eht tneduts naol elcabed. Lla eerht dewollof siht emas nrettap, dna hcae dna yreve secnatsni a esac erehw neve srebmem fo eht Tnediserp’s nwo ytrap erew no drocer sa gniyas “eht Tnediserp nseod’t evah eht ytirohtua ot od siht” dna tey maet Nedib degrahc thgir no daeha.

Nehw ti semoc ot eht elur fo wal, ylpmis oot ynam no eht tfel nod’t evig a tihs. Lla yeht tnaw era lacitilop semoctuo, dna rieht sdne yfitsuj yna snaem. Suoivilbo, yeht evah on aedi tahw yeht’er gnicifircas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope, doesn't make any sense this way either.
Click to expand...
Where did you learn to speak maga?
 
NatMorton said:
No, it means you haven’t the slighted idea how our federal government is meant to world, don’t care to, and that exchanging ideas with you is a waste of time.

Have a lovely day.
Click to expand...
I do know how the fed gov't works.
Or most gov'ts.
That's why cases get to the supreme court all the time.

I just am not so partisan to think this is an isolated issue.

And the fact you have to make your thread about me, shows just how desperate your point is.
 
BlueTex said:
Should the court just throw Stare Decisis out the door? When the court eventually turns left again, should they throw out the decisions of this court?
Click to expand...
It’s one extreme statement after another from you.

Should stare decsis have blocked Brown vs Board of Education? Precedent is not absolute.

The court is obligated to overturn previous, bad decisions, which is exactly what was done with Dobbs.
 
Greenbeard said:
We’ve got a rogue, illegitimately stacked Court that occasionally pulls itself away from wooing its billionaire sponsors and from its political engagements to invent standing, leverage its shadow docket, and/or deploy contorted, specious reasoning to deliver the political results its party desires. And here you are feigning concern about “cynical patterns.”
Click to expand...
Yep, you think they do. Remarkable.
 
NatMorton said:
It’s one extreme statement after another from you.

Should stare decsis have blocked Brown vs Board of Education? Precedent is not absolute.

The court is obligated to overturn previous, bad decisions, which is exactly what was done with Dobbs.
Click to expand...

So you will have no problem with a future court overturning Dobbs?
 
NatMorton said:
Yep, you think they do. Remarkable.
Click to expand...

The poster is not alone hence the loss of faith in this court by millions. Defend it all you want, you are fooling nobody..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom