normalfreak2

Users Admin

Always on the side of logic and reason.

normalfreak2 wrote:
kalron The only part of Season 2 I didn't like was Eleven going to the city, that seemed REALLY out of place.
normalfreak2 wrote:
This is why we can't get anything done.  Our Political leaders are retarded and we elect them.
normalfreak2 wrote:
normalfreak2 wrote:
daegog I think the "an attack on one is an attack on all" is the deterrent, mostly because it would involve the United States so it forces a stalemate.
normalfreak2 wrote:
mikesex I don't think anyone thought these protests were anti American.  But i could be wrong..
normalfreak2 wrote:
bearbear01 He's going in for his Yearly review, afterall he needs to know what his boss wants from him now.
normalfreak2 wrote:
layla_wilson The world would be safer than NATO?  Please tell me you were joking?  NATO is the most successful peace initiative ever invented.  NATO is the reason we haven't had World War 3.
normalfreak2 wrote:
casaledana Sorry I was being sarcastic.
normalfreak2 wrote:
Draculya What do you know?  You are from Hong Kong, isn't that a British city?  ;)
normalfreak2 wrote:
mikesex Why is that Relevant?
normalfreak2 wrote:
johncourage Then no decision is legislating from the bench then, you can't have it both ways friend.
normalfreak2 wrote:
casaledana https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf

Nothing to do with opinion, it's a fact, the law they were arguing over has 2 cases of Previous precedent which usually means someone that respects precedence follows that precedence, instead he's reinterpreting law to fit his belief structure, that is legislating from the bench.

Gorsuch overruled previous 2 rulings which were found "lawful" and was cemented as precedence, instead sided with his personal corporation loving beliefs and decided to legislate from the bench.
normalfreak2 wrote:
johncourage Seeing as how Gorsuch has already legislated from the bench your analogy has no truth behind it.
normalfreak2 wrote:
megrendel 

And when congress is complicit in doing whatever the current President wants what then?  Pray that the people supporting their Congressperson to do the right thing and vote for someone else?
normalfreak2 wrote:
DuckBoy87 I don't think he's someone that both sides can agree on.  His nomination changes the court's jurisprudence entirely.  Instead of having 9 impartial judges we are going to have "5 Conservatives and 4 Liberals" Don't get me wrong Kennedy was also a Conservative but there were some cases you weren't sure what side he was going to come down on, now You know what sides they will come down on.
normalfreak2 wrote:
There's nothing cool about bulldogs,  they are genetically prone to problems with obstructed airways due to the way we breed them.  Should be illegal to breed them.
normalfreak2 wrote:
kalron Ajit Pai must have a raging boner now...
normalfreak2 wrote:
someguy01 The democrats and republicans are turning the court into a twisted reflection of themselves. I for one believe all judges should be moderates who interrupt the constitution as literally as possible while also performing the "common sense" test. Like the government should not allow criminals to have guns and the government should not be allowed to spy on its citizens. 

I agree with you on all Judges should be moderates with common sense, 100% agree.  I do NOT believe both parties are trying to twist judges into reflections of themselves.  Merrick Garland WAS NOT and IS NOT an Ideologue.
normalfreak2 wrote:
daegog Trump Elected a Corporatist Ally judge that believes in the Executive power of the President.  Perfect "conservative Judge" Someone that will shit on the rights of the individual but will side on the side of the very wealthy in 95% of the cases. Trump loves loyalty this is nothing but a loyalty pick.
normalfreak2 wrote:
Shelworth Well seeing as how Gorsuch has committed judicial activism already in his first year I doubt that this pick will do anything BUT be a judicial activist.  It's clear in his previous rulings in the DC court he isn't doing anything as the Constitution Reads or the Law as read.  He clearly has misinterpreted it in the past, what's to stop him in the future?


Even if the bulk collection of telephony metadata constitutes a search, cf. United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945, 954-57 (2012) (Sotomayor, J., concurring), the Fourth Amendment does not bar all searches and seizures. It bars only unreasonable searches and seizures. And the Government’s metadata collection program readily qualifies as reasonable under the Supreme Court’s case law. The Fourth Amendment allows governmental searches and seizures without individualized suspicion when the Government demonstrates a sufficient “special need” – that is, a need beyond the normal need for law enforcement – that outweighs the intrusion on individual liberty.

That sounds like reading the law as read as the Constitution as Read?  If you think so you need your head checked.
normalfreak2 wrote:
Income Inequality guns and depression are a terrible mix
normalfreak2 wrote:
This guy is completely mental.
normalfreak2 wrote:
RIP to a Legend.
normalfreak2 wrote:
Draculya Not bad there friend, not bad at all.
normalfreak2 wrote:
megrendel Those are Sofa's.  USA! USA! USA! #1