homeagain wrote: BOLDED....OH PLEASE ALLOW ME THE PATIENCE AND FORTITUDE TO PUT THIS IN IT;S PROPER PERSPECTIVE.
...HE HAS LOYALIST ON THE SCOTUS WHO PREVENTED THAT FROM HAPPENING....U R NOT THAT UNINTELLIGENT AND UNINFORMED....I HAVE BEEN MORE THAN GRACIOUS ABOUT THE
INANE COMMENTS,,,,I AM TRULY TIRED OF THE LACK OF COHESIVE THOUGHT... AND I AM QUITE CAPABLE OF CLAPPING BACK ON AUDACIOUS ATTACKS...THE FOURTH TURNING IS WHAT U R WITNESSING AND I HAVE POSTED THAT PROBABILITY MANY TIMES.
The "loyalists" you refer to are loyal to the Constitution, not a president. The last mid-term during a Trump presidency is when the meltdown began and the collectivists abandoned the Constitution in favor of lawfare. Not just the targeting of Trump with 2 wholly ridiculous impeachments, but continuing onto debanking entities based upon political ideology, squandering federal spending based upon political ideology, attacking educational institutions because of their religious foundations, branding parents who came to school board meetings as potential terrorists, trying to overwhelm the system by removing any rational restraint at the borders . . . it's a pretty long list.
If the Democrats again control one of the houses of Congress, it will all start again. The only hope of avoiding a catastrophe at the conclusion of the 4th Turning (2028, right?) will be for the Republicans to retain the trifecta of federal power.
WHEN TRUMP HAS APPOINTED ABOUT A THIRD OF THE SCOTUS AND HE DEMANDS LOYALISTS
HOW NEUTRAL DO U THINK THE OPINIONS WILL BE...AFTER ALL U KNOW REVENGE IS BEST SERVED COLD....I TAKE EXCEPTION TO YOUR ANALYSIS.
homeagain wrote: WHEN TRUMP HAS APPOINTED ABOUT A THIRD OF THE SCOTUS AND HE DEMANDS LOYALISTS
HOW NEUTRAL DO U THINK THE OPINIONS WILL BE...AFTER ALL U KNOW REVENGE IS BEST SERVED COLD....I TAKE EXCEPTION TO YOUR ANALYSIS.
The thing you keep overlooking in your rush to paint them as "loyalists" is that they were nominated because of their prior rulings and writings which were indicative of their judicial style . . . originalists, textualists.
If you want to talk about loyalists to an ideology . . . the prime example is Brown, who is so out of touch with actual laws and judicial conduct that she was the only, repeat only, dissenter in a recent ruling that favored the administration. That means even Sotomayor and Kagan were "loyalists" to Trump if we follow your line of illogic.
homeagain wrote: WHEN TRUMP HAS APPOINTED ABOUT A THIRD OF THE SCOTUS AND HE DEMANDS LOYALISTS
HOW NEUTRAL DO U THINK THE OPINIONS WILL BE...AFTER ALL U KNOW REVENGE IS BEST SERVED COLD....I TAKE EXCEPTION TO YOUR ANALYSIS.
The thing you keep overlooking in your rush to paint them as "loyalists" is that they were nominated because of their prior rulings and writings which were indicative of their judicial style . . . originalists, textualists.
If you want to talk about loyalists to an ideology . . . the prime example is Brown, who is so out of touch with actual laws and judicial conduct that she was the only, repeat only, dissenter in a recent ruling that favored the administration. That means even Sotomayor and Kagan were "loyalists" to Trump if we follow your line of illogic.
OH, I WELL AWARE OF THEIR RULINGS AND THE REASON THEY R ON THE BENCH....THAT WEASEL K IS A PRIME AND PERFECT EXAMPLE.
And even if we were to humor you and pretend that there was a shred of accuracy somewhere within your "loyalist" screed . . . those who would owe loyalty to Trump are a decided minority of the justices. What "loyalty" would Chief Justice Roberts owe? Or Alito? Or Thomas? Trump is no more responsible for their position on the court than he is for Sotomayor, or Kagan, or Brown.
Which is only one of the numerous reasons why your "loyalist" screed is totally unhinged from reality as it exists.
