Merrick Garland nominated for Supreme Court

[LumRaiderFan]

4 hours ago, westend1 said:

Nah.  We need to move right fiscally and left socially.  Not sure why this is so hard to understand..

Nah, we need to move right fiscally and leave the social part to the states.

Left socially on the federal level always costs lots of taxpayer money.

[TxHoops]

3 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Nah, we need to move right fiscally and leave the social part to the states.

Left socially on the federal level always costs lots of taxpayer money.

Serious question because I am not opposed to your statement in general.  Just genuinely curious as to your thoughts (and feel free to tell me you'd rather not answer):

This position is uncommon, especially among many I know on the "right."  I get the basis and reasoning of it.  But are you okay with a state legalizing marijuana?  Or same sex marriage?  Especially if it is passed by proposition?

[smitty]

5 hours ago, TxHoops said:

Serious question because I am not opposed to your statement in general.  Just genuinely curious as to your thoughts (and feel free to tell me you'd rather not answer):

This position is uncommon, especially among many I know on the "right."  I get the basis and reasoning of it.  But are you okay with a state legalizing marijuana?  Or same sex marriage?  Especially if it is passed by proposition?

I don't think I'd be opposed to letting the states decide.

[westend1]

9 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Nah, we need to move right fiscally and leave the social part to the states.

Left socially on the federal level always costs lots of taxpayer money.

We already leave the social part to the states, unless they try and take away some constitutionally protected right.  We might disagree on what is protected, but the Supreme Court resolves those issues.

[LumRaiderFan]

20 hours ago, TxHoops said:

Serious question because I am not opposed to your statement in general.  Just genuinely curious as to your thoughts (and feel free to tell me you'd rather not answer):

This position is uncommon, especially among many I know on the "right."  I get the basis and reasoning of it.  But are you okay with a state legalizing marijuana?  Or same sex marriage?  Especially if it is passed by proposition?

Yep...all that should be decided by the states.  If someone doesn't like the laws a state is putting in place, there are 49 others to choose from.

I am a social conservative but I don't want gov forcing my views on anyone, but I also don't want liberal views forced on me.

[LumRaiderFan]

15 hours ago, westend1 said:

We already leave the social part to the states, unless they try and take away some constitutionally protected right.  We might disagree on what is protected, but the Supreme Court resolves those issues.

So welfare, obamacare, medicare and social security is left to the states?  No.

The fed gov has no constitutional business in any of this...I know, I know, it's the way it is, but they really don't.

I would rather take care of my own financial future, but the fed gov says no, and confiscates funds from me for my "social security" and medical insurance as well as inflated taxes to pay for all the other social programs (aka welfare) that I have to fund.

The fed gov is neck deep in social programs.

[TxHoops]

1 hour ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Yep...all that should be decided by the states.  If someone doesn't like the laws a state is putting in place, there are 49 others to choose from.

I am a social conservative but I don't want gov forcing my views on anyone, but I also don't want liberal views forced on me.

Fair enough

[Hagar]

22 hours ago, TxHoops said:

Serious question because I am not opposed to your statement in general.  Just genuinely curious as to your thoughts (and feel free to tell me you'd rather not answer):

This position is uncommon, especially among many I know on the "right."  I get the basis and reasoning of it.  But are you okay with a state legalizing marijuana?  Or same sex marriage?  Especially if it is passed by proposition?

Hoops, maybe you can explain something for me.  You mentioned legalizing marijuana.  Since it's against federal law, how do States legalize it with impunity?

Don't get me wrong, I'm for states rights, and good for them.  I just wonder why in this case.  Oh, I guess illegal immigrants and sanctuary cities would be another example.  Is it simply pick and choose?  I'm baffled!

[TxHoops]

29 minutes ago, REBgp said:

Hoops, maybe you can explain something for me.  You mentioned legalizing marijuana.  Since it's against federal law, how do States legalize it with impunity?

Don't get me wrong, I'm for states rights, and good for them.  I just wonder why in this case.  Oh, I guess illegal immigrants and sanctuary cities would be another example.  Is it simply pick and choose?  I'm baffled!

You hit the nail on the head basically with pick and choose.  Technically, all those operators of marijuana joints (no pun intended) could be prosecuted federally and most, if not all, are well aware of it.  Although I don't believe (unless I've missed something) that there has been an official position released by the Feds that they won't prosecute, it's basically understood at this point.  Of course, if that were to happen, there would be a prolonged battle in the courts about whether the states have the right to legalize something that is illegal under the federal statutes, or whether the federal government is overstepping its bounds in prosecuting an activity that is mandated legal by a particular state.  

Although we undoubtedly differ in our views on particular issues, I fall more in line with LRF's position above.  I know a local judge who often tells people who are arrested and charged with marijuana possession, "if you feel you have to have marijuana in your life, move to Colorado." And he's right.  

On a somewhat related note, the courts have ruled that there is no double jeopardy in state and federal prosecutions for the same offense. For example, I have seen a person charged and convicted of bank robbery in a federal court, and to be likewise indicted by the state.  Fortunately for this person, the DA in that county ultimately dismissed his case, but he certainly didn't have to.  This particular "nuance" in the law drives me absolutely crazy. 

[Hagar]

Thanks for that!

The biggest irony is DC.  Legal to use, but evidently, Congress doesn't allow selling.  That would send an alien back to his home planet scratching his, hmmmm, whatever.

Half asleep and didn't get the "joints", until the "no pun intended" LOL

[nappyroots]

If Hillary Clinton wins the white house, republicans will regret not voting on merrik garland

[LumRaiderFan]

2 hours ago, nappyroots said:

If Hillary Clinton wins the white house, republicans will regret not voting on merrik garland

Wow...how profound...lol.

 

[stevenash]

3 hours ago, nappyroots said:

If Hillary Clinton wins the white house, republicans will regret not voting on merrik garland

I guess you are saying that Mr. Garland is a better prospect for the conservatives than whom Mrs. Clinton would nominate?  If so, why?

[nappyroots]

3 minutes ago, stevenash said:

I guess you are saying that Mr. Garland is a better prospect for the conservatives than whom Mrs. Clinton would nominate?  If so, why?

 

3 minutes ago, stevenash said:

I guess you are saying that Mr. Garland is a better prospect for the conservatives than whom Mrs. Clinton would nominate?  If so, why?

If clinton wins the dems will probably win the senate also and clinton will nominate someone thats not as neutral as Merrick garland

[stevenash]

3 hours ago, nappyroots said:

 

If clinton wins the dems will probably win the senate also and clinton will nominate someone thats not as neutral as Merrick garland

Mr. Obama won the most recent election and it did not help with the Senate

[nappyroots]

43 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Mr. Obama won the most recent election and it did not help with the Senate

Mr Obama won the last two elections, because of this years republican circus the dems could win the senate, its too bad our only choice for pres may be hillary and donald , I know you guys love anyone under the republican ticket. but i cant vote for either

[stevenash]

If you had your "druthers" what two candidates would you prefer to be competing against each other?

[nappyroots]

this year I would take kasich on the republican side and none on the dem side

[nappyroots]

When Obama was elected in 2008 the republican congressman had a meeting and agreed that they would not support anything that he proposed or tried to do, even the things that they previously agreed upon and liked, if he proposed some of there ideas they would block it. These votes do not care about the country only their own agendas, and looking at the dems, they are the evil twin of your republicans. All of these folks congressman will get paid for life after 8yrs of service, they will get pay and healthcare for doing absolutely nothing(thats welfare and free stuff folks) They argue and fight in dc and keep the dumb..... arguing and fighting so that they may keep getting elected to their cush free stuff jobs. Congress has a lower approval rating than the president. Just wait for Hill or Donald, I predict that either four year stint will be worse than Obama. These to can't even speak well when they lie to us. 2016 election will be a joke either way. 

[nappyroots]

They could have just done their job and voted, didn't have to vote to accept, just vote. The republicans hate for Obama outweighs the love of the country.

[nappyroots]

Do your job republicans, do your job