I take it back, USCVball is just overly impressed with herself and thinks she knows what she cannot. You are the idiot. Appointing Supreme Court justices is entirely Constitutional. You want read my copy? Explain how it is constitutional for Republican presidents to name them but it is "usurping the reigns of government" if a Democrat does it. Never mind, you can't do it. You will just toss out another insult. Donald Trump was made for people like you two.

Thanks for making my point.

No, appointing justices is not unconstitutional. If you could think past the end of your nose you would understand I am talking about the justices that WC will appoint, like barackmed the judges that despise the document and want to "fundamentally change" our way of life. They are haters of freedom and will stop at nothing until its dead and you are just fueling their fire.

how can you support getting military advice from the shows? answer or deflection?

Tin foil hat.

This is such a crock of shit. All you are saying is that if a judge doesn't think like you then they should be disqualified from consideration. That's fascism, not democracy.

That is where your wrong sc justices are supposed to verify
a law is valid in relation to what's in the constitution not make new laws based on their opinion.

Exactly, don't legislate from the bench

Here, here! Down with citizens united.

the whole notion of "legislating from the bench" is absurd by it's very nature. supreme court justices do not have the power to create court cases or legislation. in fact, they simply decide upon the cases they will hear and then pass judgement as to whether the case passes the constitutional mustard or not. furthermore, the justices are going to put any case through the filter of their own politics. if not, none of us would be concerned about who wins this election and gets to appoint the next 2-3 supreme court justices. so let me go back to my original statement that if you do not like a ruling it is because you do not agree with the outcome.

Horseshit. Laws are always written with a certain amount of ambiguity. It's up to the courts to determine what and how to interpret them. If courts weren't involved with making laws, then we would have no precedent and we would have no reason to question laws.

It goes beyond political lens-viewing. It's about interpretation and reflecting current social attitudes. How many times has the Court had to interpret or rule on the 2nd Amendment? What happened to the Court's opinions during the Civil Rights era? It goes beyond described lib or con courts, both have done it.