POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

[The Sicatoka]

Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

Minds have been won. You looked at any polling recently?

The polling that matters happens on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in years evenly divisible by four.

Amazing things happen when the curtain closes and theory becomes practice.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

Amen.

Sik, to be consistent, I want to hear you say that SCOTUS got Loving v. Virginia wrong and that they should have ruled that Virginia had every right to enforce its anti-miscegenation law. After all, there's nothing in the Constitution declaring anti-miscegenation laws illegal, so that decision should be left to the several states (and the marketplace of ideas) to resolve, right? How DARE the Supreme Court invent the right to marry someone with a different skin color! Legislating from the bench!!!

Well?

If Virginia wanted to live that way it's on them. And I'd expect a corresponding outflux of population from Virginia, as should be.

[Handyman]

If Virginia wanted to live that way it's on them. And I'd expect a corresponding outflux of population from Virginia, as should be.

Why should people be forced to leave a state to get their full rights. That is where the bs fallacy always does. Their rights don't supercede mine.

States Rights only extend so far.

[Handyman]

If it's only the husbands beating their significant others to death, I'm just impressed with how progressive Puerto Rico is with all their gay marriages!

I thought that too! Or maybe the women are just super aggressive

[alfablue]

Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

If Virginia wanted to live that way it's on them. And I'd expect a corresponding outflux of population from Virginia, as should be.

What about the people who do not have the means to leave? Poor people don't get to vote with their feet like you do.

BTW, if you think that each state can treat people like that, I'm curious why you think states can't regulate arms. The 2nd clearly says that a well regulated militia is needed, and basically NOBODY with guns qualify for a militia (nor is it even needed- each state has a National Guard). If the base document that even founded this state that says that "all men are created equal" can be made so that states cans say otherwise, well then the 2nd is easily in the realm of interpretation.

[burd]

Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

If Virginia wanted to live that way it's on them. And I'd expect a corresponding outflux of population from Virginia, as should be.

By that do you mean the Supremes decided Loving wrongly--that states should be able to prohibit interracial marriages?

Did they also get Marbury v. Madison wrong?

[aparch]

Or maybe the women are just super aggressive

Well, they *are* Puerto Rican...

[unofan]

Garland is not on the court because of politics and not credentials. And that is wrong.

So many forget that one day the tables will be turned. Just look at what Reid did for McConnell with the nuclear option.

Nothing Reid did affected a single thing McConnell has done.

[rufus]

Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

The polling that matters happens on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in years evenly divisible by four.

Amazing things happen when the curtain closes and theory becomes practice.

And when the other side is fixing the game so it helps them. Gerrymandering and voter suppression being just a couple of their major tactics.

[alfablue]

Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

Roe v. Wade, and the constitutional protections set out in it, have basically been the law of the land for what, nearly a half century? Yes, states and courts have nibbled around the edges of it to see how far those rights go, but the basic rights set forth by the Supreme Court continue to exist.

The Supreme Court has overturned earlier cases, basically reversing themselves. There have been other instances where subsequent Supreme Court decisions haven't explicitly overruled an earlier decision, but effectively did. But can anyone think of an example where the Supreme Court has declared a constitutional right to exist for an individual, and then had a subsequent Court say "no, it doesn't?"

Cases enumerating constitutional rights are not overruled by subsequent Supreme Courts. Roe will never be overruled. The edges will continue to be nibbled at, and cases will be decided about who should be notified and what needs to be stated to the patient, but that constitutional right is as solid as if it were written into the document itself. No different than the right to an attorney, etc...

Depends on what side you are on.

For the people who fought for the right of separation of the races, they won multiple SC cases to give them the legal right to segregate, only to have that overturned, in more than once case.

People look at the gay marriage decision of their religious rights being taken from them.

[5mn_Major]

Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

Win minds.

Districting, the electoral college and voter suppression trump 'win minds'.

[aparch]

Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

M.A.G.A!


These seem like nice folk who can see things even keeled from both sides...

[burd]

Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

Have any trump supporters here identified which 10-or 20-year period of time trump wants to return us to. Has he?

[SJHovey]

Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

Depends on what side you are on.

For the people who fought for the right of separation of the races, they won multiple SC cases to give them the legal right to segregate, only to have that overturned, in more than once case.

People look at the gay marriage decision of their religious rights being taken from them.

No. Those aren't even close.

[alfablue]

Re: POTUS 45.41: We Need More Tax Cuts to pay for the Tax Cut

No. Those aren't even close.

LOL- not according to the people who have had "their rights trampled" on. They are exactly the same thing.

One person's right is another persons non right. That's how all of these fights have shaped over history. Ok, not all.

You just keep going on how rights always get expanded on- when it's only expanded to specific people, which then "narrows" others- according to them.