Why are Americans so angry?

[RobDownSouth]

Can you name a single law that was made in the SCOTUS....just 1.

Griswold v. Connecticut is the closest I've seen to the court legislatin' from the bench. There was no "right to privacy" per se.

Griswold was also cited as precedent for Roe v. Wade as I recall.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Griswold v. Connecticut is the closest I've seen to the court legislatin' from the bench. There was no "right to privacy" per se.

Griswold was also cited as precedent for Roe v. Wade as I recall.

I get what people mean when they say it...because interpretation/ruling on laws have very real world implications.

But I still maintain that ruling on law is not the same as creating it no matter how far reaching/drastic the consequences or how much the piss off a particular partisan group. And those screaming about legislatin' from the bench and activist judges are just pissed the ruling didn't land in their favor. Because none of them make a fuckin' peep when that activist judge is on their side.

 

[RUlookingup]

Don't see your point.
Is he or is he not telling his supporters that the right way to treat protesters is to beat the shit out of them?
Did he or did he not offer to cover the defence costs of anyone that did so?

No wonder Russian TV stations are supporting him.

In the real world when you go parading around with your finger in the air telling everyone to go fuck themselves. Elbows show up at your jaw. Can't handle it? Stay in your safe space cupcake.

 

[BotanyBoy]

In the real world when you go parading around with your finger in the air telling everyone to go fuck themselves. Elbows show up at your jaw. Can't handle it? Stay in your safe space cupcake.

No...they don't.

It's simply something sane mature adults don't do.

In the real world that's called assault and it's illegal.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I get what people mean when they say it...because interpretation/ruling on laws have very real world implications.

But I still maintain that ruling on law is not the same as creating it no matter how far reaching/drastic the consequences or how much the piss off a particular partisan group. And those screaming about legislatin' from the bench and activist judges are just pissed the ruling didn't land in their favor. Because none of them make a fuckin' peep when that activist judge is on their side.

Fair Enough, I suppose.

I would point out we've had an exceptionally conservative Supreme Court for the past 20-30 years, starting with Clarence Thomas replacing Thurgood Marshall and most likely ending with the timely death of Scalia.

About time for some librul activists, methinks.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Fair Enough, I suppose.

I would point out we've had an exceptionally conservative Supreme Court for the past 20-30 years, starting with Clarence Thomas replacing Thurgood Marshall and most likely ending with the timely death of Scalia.

About time for some librul activists, methinks.

Oh yea I'm all for it. Esp if it means they tell KS/OK to quit being such whiny bitches about losing the war on drugs.

God damn I can't wait for more boomers to get their Reagan worshiping asses the fuck out of DC so we can start un-doing some of the damage they have done but it seems they aren't done yet.

Unfortunately it looks like we will have to deal with the Goldman Sachs Golden girl Hillary holding our ass cheeks wide for Walls St. for 4-8 more years before progress gets made I also can't wait for the day Democrats grow a fucking spine and quit worshiping Reaganomics.