Yes, unanimously endorsed because Bush appointed him for quid pro quo reasons, and Republicans don’t generally block judges for political reasons and look to see if a judge is truly disqualified and respects the President’s role in choosing judges.
A better litmus test of a judge’s politics is to observe the voting of Democrats. They all loved this guy. If he had wanted to uphold the Constitution, however, believe me, every Democrat would have opposed him vehemently.
Jackson? More of a free-trader. He was known as a populist, but he wasn’t really, he held certain offices before becoming president. Trump is much more an outsider.
Eh, at first he was Hitler now he’s similar to Andrew Jackson. In a few weeks I guess we’ll start to see comparisons between Trump and Saddam Hussein, then Trump and Stalin and Trump and Tito.
Jackson got rid of the second national bank of USA because of inflationary tendencies and financial crises like we’re suffering today. (Jefferson dissolved the first.) I wish Trump could dissolve our Fed similarly , but that’s a long shot. If he can put an anti-inflationist Volcker and raise interest rates, I’d take that for a happy substitute.
I see Donald Trump more as the love child of the Joker and Zippy the Pinhead. A man of action with the mind of a child, combined with flamboyant sartorial taste and a burning desire to shake up the established order. In short, the perfect person for the job of president.
Off topic, kind of. Yesterday I saw half of the debate between Bernie and Ted. While I think Cruz is unbearably slimy at times, I give him credit for doing a debate with Sanders, after the election. And there is my problem, why AFTER the election? Why not do a whole bunch of these debates, each about one single topic, lasting an hour or more, featuring different match-ups between candidates of different parties BEFORE the nomination has been decided. Imagine Donald has to debate Bernie on Obamacare for ONE hour. That’s when you have to show what you really know about issues and you can’t escape with vagueness and bullshit without looking ridiculous to even the most gullible low-information voter.
It would have been the same as yesterday’s debate. Instead of Cruz there would have been Trump talking about numbers and statistics, and Sanders would have still mentioned the 1%, millionares/billionares etc etc.
The question from the lady (hairdresser?) who asked him how is she supposed to run a succesful business if she has to pay for her employees healthcare, Sanders’ response was:“Well you have to”. Thanks Bernie, that would surely help the working class and would NEVER force employers to reduce salaries or fire people or close their business.
Employers make contributions to their employees healthcare contributions all around the world. No biggie.
The problem in the US is the exorbitant cost of healthcare.
But meanwhile the US governnent is busy tilting at windmills…
No it wouldn’t. Apart from saying that Obamacare is a total mess, Trump would not have been able to get into any details, because A, he hasn’t studied it, B, he is not going to so in order to prepare for such a debate (because watching TV with or without a bathrobe on is more important), and C, he would have never accepted to take part in such a debate, because of A and B.
Trump was always well prepared for his debates, what makes you think that he would have joined an healthcare debate with no preparation, just improvising? He had a good team behind him, it wouldn’t have been hard to collect some data and facts to debate the constant “1%/99%, millionares billionares” from Sanders.
Well it just so happened that war intervened and he could take advantage, fast-tracked it through the Emancipation Proclamation, which wouldn’t have been possible otherwise. Later was able to shepherd the 13th amendment through Congress before Southerners returned, and would have 14th and 15th it he weren’t assassinated. These were to permanently replace the Emancipation Proclamation, enshrined in the Constitution.
What do you mean it didn’t work out well? Didn’t he appoint a number of judges to the Supreme Court, as well as lower courts?
[quote=“hannes, post:247, topic:157785, full:true”]
And there is my problem, why AFTER the election? Why not do a whole bunch of these debates, each about one single topic, lasting an hour or more, featuring different match-ups between candidates of different parties BEFORE the nomination has been decided. Imagine Donald has to debate Bernie on Obamacare for ONE hour. [/quote]
Because Obamacare is about to get repealed. It’s one of his campaign promises, or at least lots of people are expecting this.
Probably Trump asked Cruz to prepare the way, get discussions going, educate people about the inefficiencies of socialism no matter where it’s applied. Bernie probably agreed to put in his cents’ worth coz he knows its coming too. Trump is already going to be arguing points as President.
Here is an interesting quote by Lincoln 1) criticizing courts when they decide critically important issues in the 1st paragraph, and 2) judges like Robart, who decide critically important issues according to politics instead of merit in the 2nd paragraph.
[quote=“Lincoln, post:256, topic:157785, full:true”] “At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.
"Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.” Lincoln[/quote]
