You just brought up Clinton and sniper fire. Not sure why you keep bringing up gc while your own posts here are so pointless a large majority of the time

The world is filled with people who think they know how things should work, I'm more interested in figuring out how they work, and even moreso when they don't work.
I'm just not a fan of dogmatic worldviews of any stripe. Do I really have to identify myself with one brand? I don't have the stomach for strict adherence to the rambling of what our founding fathers strung together between episodes of getting black-out wasted. If you want to know what I think of originalism / textualism, look at the bar tab that 55 delegates ran up 2 nights before signing the constitution, "54 bottles of Madeira, 60 bottles of claret, eight of whiskey, 22 of porter, eight of hard cider, 12 of beer and seven bowls of alcoholic punch." Our laws were simply not written based on resilient game theory between zero sum partisan interests. But I'm not going to endorse radical judicial constructs that would lead that 'wailing and gnashing of teeth' scenario I always rattle on about when talking about abandoning precedent and tempered rationalism for full retard activism would get our judges grinding all law in the country to a halt. I'd sooner have them settle cases with trial by combat in American Gladiator arenas.

lol
thank you Portugal

That doesn't seem to be a solid foundation for a consistent judicial philosophy.

Honestly all I get from this is "I'm not going to make a recommendation, I'm just going to criticize everybody else's"

you say that, but I think you're underestimating Ruth Bader Ginsburg's prowess. She may be small, but she lifts. Give her a paddle and put her on the stump and Clarence Thomas will go down like Long Dong Silver



sounds about right

This post was edited by Goomshill on Jun 27 2018 05:42pm

"Time to rename this country Trumpistan"

PLS

Irony

bahhahahahhahahhahahahhahah