Please explain to me how what you are saying is any different from what I am saying? When someone says that a justice is "legislating from the bench" they are saying that they disagree with that judges opinion. Both sides have historically done this so this isn't, and shouldn't be, political. I have heard my liberal friends whine about "legislating from the bench" for years now while the court has had a conservative tilt. Gumborue pointed out that the Citizens United decision was a heavily conservative position and Obama called them out during a state of the union address for it. What was Obama saying then? Let me help....that he disagreed with the decision. No different than Shane or Bengal disagreeing with any other court decision. So, once again, let me go back to my original statement that there is no such thing as "legislating from the bench." Justices accept cases, review them, hear the evidence and precedent, and then issue a ruling. The term "legislating from the bench" is nothing more than one side or the other disapproving of a particular ruling. Sure they put it through the filter of their own ideology.....as I pointed out, why else would we all be worried about who gets to appoint the next 2-3 justices. http://harvardpolitics.com/online/legislating-from-the-bench/ "Accordingly, the phrase “legislating from the bench” is at best misleading, and analysis of its historical application reveals its necessity." http://concurringopinions.com/archives/2005/10/what_exactly_do.html Currently, the phrase “legislating from the bench” means little more than “I know it when I see it.”
Yes, that's what dumb people say when the disagree but can't use big words (hey, kinda like trump with his 6th grade word usage).
Seriously.....what the hell is going on with her. If Trump is going to show his tax returns, then Hillary needs to show medical records.
Unfortunately DT is totally self destructing. His tax records are lost in the noise of his own voice. He proves he is not worthy every second. I agree she is not much more fit than him and in any other election she would be eviserated for her issues. With all he's done is it possible that he is conspiring with her to throw the election? His past is a democrat who supported HRC in 2008 and he bragged how he could fool RW extremists to supporting him. Regardless this election is the worst we've had in my life.
My post was more tongue in cheek....it does seem to appear that Hillary may have some medical issues. Either that or she's a long lost relative of Gerald Ford.
regardless what donald says or doesnt, the media is in it for hillary and nothing matters all that much. they gloss over her hordes of indiscretions along with all the idiots who fall in line doing the same never questioning a thing. free shit trumps all. the party of feel good is a disease much greater than donald trump.
Yes they are but that doesn't excuse Trump or make him an acceptable candidate. BTW HRC did the same thing in 2008. When asked why she wasn't dropping out of the race she said "who knows what will happen. Obama may get assassinated like Bobby Kennedy". Maybe it's time to say none of the above and look at Alternatives. The Libertarian party isn't perfect but much better than the others. Rather than vote for the least objectionable vote for a positive.
