[BartSimpson]

Tricks Tricks:

I'm surprised this was even a thing. What were the arguments from the other side? To me as I see it the Supreme Court made the right call.

The issue originated with a liberal Supreme Court in the 1977 Abood case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abood_v._ ... _Education

Sorry it took me a while to look it up.

[BartSimpson]

Tricks Tricks:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

This just in: US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy just announced that he's retiring!

That means we get to replace the lone moderate on the court with a conservative!

So... a moderate is a bad thing to you? I would think a Supreme court consisting of as many moderates would be the ideal one.

Yes, a moderate who would think that Constitutionally enumerated rights are somehow up for grabs is not ideal to me.

I prefer strict constructionists on the court and conservatives in the legislatures.

I used to say 'moderates' but the goal posts have been moved so far to the left these days that yesterday's moderate is today's conservative.

Case in point: The Democrats 1996 Platform is essentially Donald Trump's policy package.

Read for yourself:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29611

There's tax cuts in there, economic priorities, balanced budgets, cutting wasteful spending, cutting illegal immigration, securing the borders, and etc.

But where Bill Clinton was a moderate-left President Trump is considered a Nazi for having pretty much the same policy package as Clinton had.

So with Bill Clinton as more or less my benchmark of 'conservative' then yes, I prefer conservatives.

See, truth be told, I'm a 1992 vintage Democrat. I never left the Democrats; they left me behind.

[BeaverFever]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Tricks Tricks:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

This just in: US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy just announced that he's retiring!

That means we get to replace the lone moderate on the court with a conservative!

So... a moderate is a bad thing to you? I would think a Supreme court consisting of as many moderates would be the ideal one.

Yes, a moderate who would think that Constitutionally enumerated rights are somehow up for grabs is not ideal to me.

I prefer strict constructionists on the court and conservatives in the legislatures.

I used to say 'moderates' but the goal posts have been moved so far to the left these days that yesterday's moderate is today's conservative.

Case in point: The Democrats 1996 Platform is essentially Donald Trump's policy package.

Read for yourself:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29611

There's tax cuts in there, economic priorities, balanced budgets, cutting wasteful spending, cutting illegal immigration, securing the borders, and etc.

But where Bill Clinton was a moderate-left President Trump is considered a Nazi for having pretty much the same policy package as Clinton had.

So with Bill Clinton as more or less my benchmark of 'conservative' then yes, I prefer conservatives.

See, truth be told, I'm a 1992 vintage Democrat. I never left the Democrats; they left me behind.

Clinton era pretty much marks the point where the establishment Democrats including the Clintons stopped being Liberals. They’re just Republicans who don’t have open grudges against women, gays or brown people, ala “fiscal conservatives”.

So far we haven’t seen any Republican governments balance a budget or cut wasteful apent even though under Bush and now Trump they've controlled all branches of government. Far. What are they waiting for?

The reality is Republicans actually just ratchet up the spending and the debt and use it the cuts to social services to beat up on poor people. They know that to geyser the support if the useful idiots thry don’t actually have to do what they promise, they just need to keep promising. Their base never asks questions

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I prefer strict constructionists on the court and conservatives in the legislatures.

Are you sure? I seem to remember your support for Roy Moore blatantly violating the Establishment clause. That's pretty far from constructionist.

[BartSimpson]

Tricks Tricks:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I prefer strict constructionists on the court and conservatives in the legislatures.

Are you sure? I seem to remember your support for Roy Moore blatantly violating the Establishment clause. That's pretty far from constructionist.

Acknowledging the Ten Commandments as a part of our civilization's history of law doesn't violate the Establishment Clause. If it did then the US Supreme Court would remove them from their own chamber.

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Tricks Tricks:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I prefer strict constructionists on the court and conservatives in the legislatures.

Are you sure? I seem to remember your support for Roy Moore blatantly violating the Establishment clause. That's pretty far from constructionist.

Acknowledging the Ten Commandments as a part of our civilization's history of law doesn't violate the Establishment Clause. If it did then the US Supreme Court would remove them from their own chamber.

I've already told you in the past you're wrong about it. Sorry. No where in the supreme court are the Ten Commandments posted. Zero places. You're wrong. Again. It violates the establishment clause which is why he was forced to remove them. And when he didn't, was removed himself.

So how can you claim you like constructionists, when you flagrantly defend someone who is the opposite of them?

[BartSimpson]

Tricks Tricks:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Acknowledging the Ten Commandments as a part of our civilization's history of law doesn't violate the Establishment Clause. If it did then the US Supreme Court would remove them from their own chamber.

I've already told you in the past you're wrong about it. Sorry. No where in the supreme court are the Ten Commandments posted. Zero places. You're wrong. Again. It violates the establishment clause which is why he was forced to remove them. And when he didn't, was removed himself.

So how can you claim you like constructionists, when you flagrantly defend someone who is the opposite of them?

You're nworng. The Ten Commandments are posted in the chamber. They're also on the FRONT of the fucking building.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm ... Gk#imgrc=_

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Tricks Tricks:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Acknowledging the Ten Commandments as a part of our civilization's history of law doesn't violate the Establishment Clause. If it did then the US Supreme Court would remove them from their own chamber.

I've already told you in the past you're wrong about it. Sorry. No where in the supreme court are the Ten Commandments posted. Zero places. You're wrong. Again. It violates the establishment clause which is why he was forced to remove them. And when he didn't, was removed himself.

So how can you claim you like constructionists, when you flagrantly defend someone who is the opposite of them?

You're nworng. The Ten Commandments are posted in the chamber. They're also on the FRONT of the fucking building.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm ... Gk#imgrc=_

I guess you've never seen the front of it. Those tablets are blank.



Any other false statements?

[BartSimpson]

Who do you think that is and what do you think those tablets represent?

I'll give you a hint:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... t_Building

$1:

The Moses frieze depicts him holding the Ten Commandments

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Who do you think that is and what do you think those tablets represent?

I'll give you a hint:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... t_Building

$1:

The Moses frieze depicts him holding the Ten Commandments

You really can't admit you're wrong ever can you?

You said this.

$1:

If it did then the US Supreme Court would remove them from their own chamber.

Not only did you not post an example from the chamber, but you posted something where they are not posted, as I had claimed. Also, that's on the back of the building, not the front. Small point. I said this:

$1:

No where in the supreme court are the Ten Commandments posted.

You're response is to posted a picture of blank tablets. Solon and Confucius are also on the building. They are there to represent the primary law givers of history that the United States drew from. They are not there to represent any sort of religious context. The sculptor explained it himself.

$1:

Law as an element of civilization was normally and naturally derived or inherited in this country from former civilizations. The “Eastern Pediment” of the Supreme Court Building suggests therefore the treatment of such fundamental laws and precepts as are derived from the East. Moses, Confucius and Solon are chosen as representing three great civilizations and form the central group of this Pediment.

The 10 Commandments undoubtedly contributed to basic law in Society, but so did many other facets, and that's why Moses isn't the only one featured.

So again, I ask for an instance of the 10 commandments being posted in the Supreme Court.

Or admit you're wrong. I think we both know it won't be this one.