Hillary Clinton Uses Personal Email for State Business

[RockyTop85]

Lol.

Bush gave us Roberts, useless wars, Dodd Frank, and ushered in Obama.

He is Obama light.

What is your point?

They our judges appointed by the 2 worst presidents in modern times since Carter.

Both were horrible Presidents and his daddy was too....who gave us NAFTA by the way.

I stand by my comment.

And your comment is still devoid of any actual evidence. Bush, Roberts, and probably Griffith are all conservatives. Just because you’re currently mad about some court decisions doesn’t change that.

 

[RockyTop85]

I honestly havent read. What was the reasoning?

It’s FOIA litigation. The stated purpose for her deposition was irrelevant to whether the state department had done a thorough search for the records.

 

[LouderVol]

It’s FOIA litigation. The stated purpose for her deposition was irrelevant to whether the state department had done a thorough search for the records.

Ok now I am confused. Maybe I am getting my facts wrong here.

1. She had previously been deposed.
2. Not "everything" was found at the time.
3. The FOIA request came in on Hilary? (Or was it for the state) can you FOIA a private citizen?
4. The FOIA request was now rejected because the State didnt have the info to give?

3 &4 are where I am confused. I think. I dont care enough to dig into this as well, so I am asking.

 

[RockyTop85]

Ok now I am confused. Maybe I am getting my facts wrong here.

1. She had previously been deposed.
2. Not "everything" was found at the time.
3. The FOIA request came in on Hilary? (Or was it for the state) can you FOIA a private citizen?
4. The FOIA request was now rejected because the State didnt have the info to give?

3 &4 are where I am confused. I think. I dont care enough to dig into this as well, so I am asking.

1. Had she previously been deposed? I have no idea.
2. I guess not.
3. Tom Fitton is suing the state department for FOIA access to records of any talking points given to Susan Rice before she went on the Sunday shows about Benghazi. He sought to depose Hillary to find out about her motives for using a private server and her knowledge of state department policy Regarding private email usage.
4. I don’t know. All this court did was say he can’t depose Hillary. He can depose somebody else, who I assume works at the state department.

 

[NEO]

I disagree with you about George 1. He wasn't bad.

Gulf war

NAFTA

Raised taxes


What's to like?

 

[NEO]

And your comment is still devoid of any actual evidence. Bush, Roberts, and probably Griffith are all conservatives. Just because you’re currently mad about some court decisions doesn’t change that.

Robert's isn't a conservative.

Remotely.

When the conservative judges are declining cases because they fear you are going to side with the liberals again you clearly are not a conservative.

Bush was just an empty seat who had no idea what to do after 911 in any aspect. His political affiliation doesnt matter cause he was a loser.

He was Carter 2.0

 

[midnight orange]

Robert's isn't a conservative.

Remotely.

When the conservative judges are declining cases because they fear you are going to side with the liberals again you clearly are not a conservative.

Bush was just an empty seat who had no idea what to do after 911 in any aspect. His political affiliation doesnt matter cause he was a loser.

He was Carter 2.0

Disagree. Roberts is the epitome of conservatism. Conservatives are always fighting against against new institutions but once adapted, conservatives defend them. Conservatives are defenders of the national security state, military industrial complex, strict allegiance to flags and loyalty oaths, social security, the safety net, etc. things they fought until adapted. These all have their roots in early 20th century progressivism. Roberts wants to preserve the respect and authority of the the court above all else, making him the shining example of conservatism.

 

[NEO]

Disagree. Roberts is the epitome of conservatism. Conservatives are always fighting against against new institutions but once adapted, conservatives defend them. Conservatives are defenders of the national security state, military industrial complex, strict allegiance to flags and loyalty oaths, social security, the safety net, etc. things they fought until adapted. These all have their roots in early 20th century progressivism. Roberts wants to preserve the respect and authority of the the court above all else, making him the shining example of conservatism.

I see your logic and while I disagree and understand you are purposely twisting it still somewhat is true.....but he did not uphold a law with Obamacare but upheld Obamacare by calling it a tax even when the attorneys for obamacare were stating it was not a tax as they feared this would cause them to lose in court.

Basically, he went completely left field and came up with bogus reason to keep it.

 

[RockyTop85]

Robert's isn't a conservative.

Remotely.

When the conservative judges are declining cases because they fear you are going to side with the liberals again you clearly are not a conservative.

Bush was just an empty seat who had no idea what to do after 911 in any aspect. His political affiliation doesnt matter cause he was a loser.

He was Carter 2.0

He sided with the majority in Heller
and again in Hobby Lobby.
He dissented in Obergefell.
He wrote the damn opinion in Shelby County v. Holder.
Dissented in Hall v. Florida.
He dissented from Brown v. Plata.
Was with the majority in Gamble


When you’re done googling all of those, we can talk about 2020, when he voted three times in favor of an expansive doctrine of religious liberty that expands funding for religious schools, prevents states from telling those schools who to hire and fire, and allows an exemption from birth control mandates on religious grounds.

But sure, you can cherry pick a few cases that show absolutely nothing except his unwillingness to side with a tribal, white-grievance populist administration at the expense of the court’s credibility or to allow the partisan bickering to result in institutions being pulled out from under people. Even in the (maybe) six cases where he’s been a swing vote to go against conservatives, he’s generally done so in a way that limited the progressive agenda, in some way.

Then there’s his Martin-Quinn score that shows him to be well to the right of Kagan, right of Anthony Kennedy, and only slightly left of Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. Other attempts to quantify the justices records have him even further to the right.

I assume you were trying to channel the football forum in this post. If so, we’ll done.

 

[NEO]

He sided with the majority in Heller
and again in Hobby Lobby.
He dissented in Obergefell.
He wrote the damn opinion in Shelby County v. Holder.
Dissented in Hall v. Florida.
He dissented from Brown v. Plata.
Was with the majority in Gamble


When you’re done googling all of those, we can talk about 2020, when he voted three times in favor of an expansive doctrine of religious liberty that expands funding for religious schools, prevents states from telling those schools who to hire and fire, and allows an exemption from birth control mandates on religious grounds.

But sure, you can cherry pick a few cases that show absolutely nothing except his unwillingness to side with a tribal, white-grievance populist administration at the expense of the court’s credibility or to allow the partisan bickering to result in institutions being pulled out from under people. Even in the (maybe) six cases where he’s been a swing vote to go against conservatives, he’s generally done so in a way that limited the progressive agenda, in some way.

Then there’s his Martin-Quinn score that shows him to be well to the right of Kagan, right of Anthony Kennedy, and only slightly left of Kavanaugh and Gorsuch. Other attempts to quantify the justices records have him even further to the right.

I assume you were trying to channel the football forum in this post. If so, we’ll done.

Glad you were able to basically copy and paste his wiki page. We are all amazed.

Fact is he still was the deciding vote on Obamacare and his reasoning was idiotic and vastly anti-conservative.

He has also gotten much more liberal with every single case now to the point the conservative judges are denying cases due to their fear of him.

If Ruth dies and is replaced with a true conservative you will suddenly see these cases brought up again as his vote will no longer matter.

 

[midnight orange]

Disagree. Roberts is the epitome of conservatism. Conservatives are always fighting against against new institutions but once adapted, conservatives defend them. Conservatives are defenders of the national security state, military industrial complex, strict allegiance to flags and loyalty oaths, social security, the safety net, etc. things they fought until adapted. These all have their roots in early 20th century progressivism. Roberts wants to preserve the respect and authority of the the court above all else, making him the shining example of conservatism.

I see your logic and while I disagree and understand you are purposely twisting it still somewhat is true.....but he did not uphold a law with Obamacare but upheld Obamacare by calling it a tax even when the attorneys for obamacare were stating it was not a tax as they feared this would cause them to lose in court.

Basically, he went completely left field and came up with bogus reason to keep it.

The Obamacare that was inspired by the Heritage Foundation?

 

[NEO]

The Obamacare that was inspired by the Heritage Foundation?

This is very misleading.

The leader of the Heritage foundation during the Clinton administration was Stuart Butler. At this time Clintoncare was being kicked around and Stuart stated that for this to work their needed to be tax credits.

He never once purposed a penalty or mandate.

This is far from what Obamacare enacted.

There are other details if you want to get into the weeds but the fact is this is a myth started by media outlets like msnbc.

 

[midnight orange]

This is very misleading.

The leader of the Heritage foundation during the Clinton administration was Stuart Butler. At this time Clintoncare was being kicked around and Stuart stated that for this to work their needed to be tax credits.

He never once purposed a penalty or mandate.

This is far from what Obamacare enacted.

There are other details if you want to get into the weeds but the fact is this is a myth started by media outlets like msnbc.

Stuart Butler’s proposal on the individual mandate was published in June, 1989. Clinton was president from 1993 - 2001.

"The degree of financial protection can be debated, but the principle of mandatory family protection is central to a universal health care system in America." - Stuart Butler

"As far as I have been able to find, Stuart's 1989 brief is the first published proposal of an individual mandate in the context of private-sector-managed health systems." - Avik Roy

That bastion of progressive thought, The Wall Street Journal, called Butler out on his B.S. denial.

Heritage Rewrites History

 

[RockyTop85]

Glad you were able to basically copy and paste his wiki page. We are all amazed.

Fact is he still was the deciding vote on Obamacare and his reasoning was idiotic and vastly anti-conservative.

He has also gotten much more liberal with every single case now to the point the conservative judges are denying cases due to their fear of him.

If Ruth dies and is replaced with a true conservative you will suddenly see these cases brought up again as his vote will no longer matter.

Solid rebuttal.

“The facts don’t help me, so I’ll just state my opinion again.”

The Obamacare decision was only surprising to crybabies who wanted the court to overcome their inability to garner a political majority. In reality, the court’s jurisprudence looks more like this (particularly from the conservative justices):

“Applying the presumption, the Court invalidates and severs unconstitutional provisions from the remainder of the law rather than razing whole statutes or Acts of Congress. Put in common parlance, the tail (one unconstitutional provision) does not wag the dog (the rest of the codified statute or the Act as passed by Congress). Constitutional litigation is not a game of gotcha against Congress, where litigants can ride a discrete constitutional flaw in a statute to take down the whole, otherwise constitutional statute. If the rule were otherwise, the entire Judiciary Act of 1789 would be invalid as a consequence of Marbury v. Madison.”

-super liberal Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

 

[NEO]

Solid rebuttal.

“The facts don’t help me, so I’ll just state my opinion again.”

The Obamacare decision was only surprising to crybabies who wanted the court to overcome their inability to garner a political majority. In reality, the court’s jurisprudence looks more like this (particularly from the conservative justices):

“Applying the presumption, the Court invalidates and severs unconstitutional provisions from the remainder of the law rather than razing whole statutes or Acts of Congress. Put in common parlance, the tail (one unconstitutional provision) does not wag the dog (the rest of the codified statute or the Act as passed by Congress). Constitutional litigation is not a game of gotcha against Congress, where litigants can ride a discrete constitutional flaw in a statute to take down the whole, otherwise constitutional statute. If the rule were otherwise, the entire Judiciary Act of 1789 would be invalid as a consequence of Marbury v. Madison.”

-super liberal Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

The sc ruling was a shock to the Obama lawyers also because Robert's used tax as the basis for his reasoning even when the actual Obama lawyers had stated it wasn't a tax. They accepted his ruling because it benefited them but it was out of left field.

At this point you are just doing circles....

You are also taking snipets and using them out of context.

Stuart Butler has stated on record multiple times his mandate comment was taken out of context and that he was for tax credits but not a penalty. He has stated this on multiple occasions in the past 2 decades.

I would also state, as he did, that for universal healthcare to work, a mandate would need to be required.....but I am not for universal healthcare.

 

[NEO]

Solid rebuttal.

“The facts don’t help me, so I’ll just state my opinion again.”

The Obamacare decision was only surprising to crybabies who wanted the court to overcome their inability to garner a political majority. In reality, the court’s jurisprudence looks more like this (particularly from the conservative justices):

“Applying the presumption, the Court invalidates and severs unconstitutional provisions from the remainder of the law rather than razing whole statutes or Acts of Congress. Put in common parlance, the tail (one unconstitutional provision) does not wag the dog (the rest of the codified statute or the Act as passed by Congress). Constitutional litigation is not a game of gotcha against Congress, where litigants can ride a discrete constitutional flaw in a statute to take down the whole, otherwise constitutional statute. If the rule were otherwise, the entire Judiciary Act of 1789 would be invalid as a consequence of Marbury v. Madison.”

-super liberal Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Also...stop cherry picking paragraphs.

Brett wasn't even on the court at this time so why take a statement of his and use it out of context?

How about you do your copying and paste thing and put Scalia's dissenting opinion on here for all to read. Cause dude ripped the decision.

Hell, even Ted Cruz is calling Robert's a traitor to his own beliefs now.

I stand by my comment.

Robert's is a major disappointment to conservatives.

 

[NEO]

Solid rebuttal.

“The facts don’t help me, so I’ll just state my opinion again.”

The Obamacare decision was only surprising to crybabies who wanted the court to overcome their inability to garner a political majority. In reality, the court’s jurisprudence looks more like this (particularly from the conservative justices):

“Applying the presumption, the Court invalidates and severs unconstitutional provisions from the remainder of the law rather than razing whole statutes or Acts of Congress. Put in common parlance, the tail (one unconstitutional provision) does not wag the dog (the rest of the codified statute or the Act as passed by Congress). Constitutional litigation is not a game of gotcha against Congress, where litigants can ride a discrete constitutional flaw in a statute to take down the whole, otherwise constitutional statute. If the rule were otherwise, the entire Judiciary Act of 1789 would be invalid as a consequence of Marbury v. Madison.”

-super liberal Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Lastly....

Kavanaugh dissented in Seven-Sky v. Holder in 2011 and stated the Anti Injuction Act as his reasoning against a mandate.

This alone is why the dems were scared he would overturn Obamacare if given the chance.

Robert's held a different view and instead of viewing Obamacare on the merits of a commerce clause made it about taxes and felt somehow the Anti Injuction act did not apply.

Basically, they view it differently.

So again.... Brett rule against a mandate in 2011 and ALL conservative judges voted against Roberts.

My point stands. Robert's is a Rino.

 

[RockyTop85]

Lastly....

Kavanaugh dissented in Seven-Sky v. Holder in 2011 and stated the Anti Injuction Act as his reasoning against a mandate.

This alone is why the dems were scared he would overturn Obamacare if given the chance.

Robert's held a different view and instead of viewing Obamacare on the merits of a commerce clause made it about taxes and felt somehow the Anti Injuction act did not apply.

Basically, they view it differently.

So again.... Brett rule against a mandate in 2011 and ALL conservative judges voted against Roberts.

My point stands. Robert's is a Rino.

You can tell somebody knows they’re getting their ass kicked when they start invoking “we” and “everyone.” Begging for others to come offer you some affirmation is weaksauce.

At this point, your entire argument for Wilkins (Was it Wilkins, I don’t even remember at this point) being a liberal judge is that one Bush Supreme Court appointee made a ruling that you didn’t like in one case. Now, as part of your argument, you cite that, in that one decision, another Bush appointee (Alito) disagreed with him. So tell me again how I’m the one going in circles?

For ****’s sake, I didn’t take anything out of context.Your ignorance and inability to think critically does not invalidate the thoughts of those of us who can. Kavanaugh was restating a judicial doctrine that has been generally accepted by virtually all members of the court, subject to some individual differences as to specifics, such as the requirement of a severability clause, for over 100 years. The way Roberts views severability was a problem for the Obamacare challenge in 2012 because of Roberts‘ other beliefs, (And will likely continue to be with the latest round of challenges.)

I’ve provided a simplified statement of the doctrine and others have explained Roberts’ jurisprudence, generally. A person of even average intelligence ought to be able to put those two things together and figure out how they interact and why a conservative institutionalist wouldn’t have been keen to strip the individual mandate from Obamacare.

The problem here is that you can’t separate whatever squirrel Republican politicians happen to be chasing at the moment from “conservatism,” the meaning of which does not change simply because elected republicans abandon it.

 

[NEO]

You can tell somebody knows they’re getting their ass kicked when they start invoking “we” and “everyone.” Begging for others to come offer you some affirmation is weaksauce.

At this point, your entire argument for Wilkins (Was it Wilkins, I don’t even remember at this point) being a liberal judge is that one Bush Supreme Court appointee made a ruling that you didn’t like in one case. Now, as part of your argument, you cite that, in that one decision, another Bush appointee (Alito) disagreed with him. So tell me again how I’m the one going in circles?

For ****’s sake, I didn’t take anything out of context.Your ignorance and inability to think critically does not invalidate the thoughts of those of us who can. Kavanaugh was restating a judicial doctrine that has been generally accepted by virtually all members of the court, subject to some individual differences as to specifics, such as the requirement of a severability clause, for over 100 years. The way Roberts views severability was a problem for the Obamacare challenge in 2012 because of Roberts‘ other beliefs, (And will likely continue to be with the latest round of challenges.)

I’ve provided a simplified statement of the doctrine and others have explained Roberts’ jurisprudence, generally. A person of even average intelligence ought to be able to put those two things together and figure out how they interact and why a conservative institutionalist wouldn’t have been keen to strip the individual mandate from Obamacare.

The problem here is that you can’t separate whatever squirrel Republican politicians happen to be chasing at the moment from “conservatism,” the meaning of which does not change simply because elected republicans abandon it.

Dude I havent insulted you once yet you keep trying to pick a fight.

When you wanna stop the insults we can do this again.

Have a good day.

 

[RockyTop85]

Dude I havent insulted you once yet you keep trying to pick a fight.

When you wanna stop the insults we can do this again.

Have a good day.

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

Glad you were able to basically copy and paste his wiki page. We are all amazed.

At this point you are just doing circles....

You are also taking snipets and using them out of context.

People who think any judge who decides against them is [insert political affiliation] are morons and should be insulted for being morons until they stop being morons or at least stop spreading their moronic pestilence.

There can be difference opinion within a political ideology as broad as conservatism and other conservatives, like John McCain, held similar views to Roberts, re: ACA. Not everybody is out to get you. Grow up and think things through.

 

[Carl Pickens]

And your comment is still devoid of any actual evidence. Bush, Roberts, and probably Griffith are all conservatives. Just because you’re currently mad about some court decisions doesn’t change that.

What has Roberts ruled on conservatively?

 

[RockyTop85]

What has Roberts ruled on conservatively?

I provided “copied and pasted from Wikipedia” a list of about 10 cases a few posts back.

 

[Carl Pickens]

I provided “copied and pasted from Wikipedia” a list of about 10 cases a few posts back.

I see now ..... but I think I’ll pass on looking up the content of the cases and take your word for it.

 

[RockyTop85]

I see now ..... but I think I’ll pass on looking up the content of the cases and take your word for it.

He sided with the majority in Heller - Clarence Thomas opinion. (Significantly Expanded the second amendment.)
and again in Hobby Lobby. (Religious freedom case.)
He dissented in Obergefell. (Majority extended Same sex marriage to gay couples)
He wrote the damn opinion in Shelby County v. Holder. (Overturned portions of the voting rights act)
Dissented in Hall v. Florida. (Limited the death penalty)
He dissented from Brown v. Plata. (Constitutional challenge regarding overcrowding in state prisons)
Was with the majority in Gamble (Upholding the ability of the federal government to charge someone with a crime they’ve been convicted of in state court)
He also dissented from whole women’s health, a case that added to the abortion test in Casey. I didn’t include that because in 2020 he ruled against an identical law from Louisiana, but it should be noted that he did so as a matter of maintaining the court’s consistency and predictability and in his concurrence he applied the law as it was stated in Casey, so he backtracked off of Whole Women’s Health.
As I said, the 2020 term also included 3 religious freedom cases. He sided with the conservAtive majority in all 3.
It also included the expansion of the civil rights act to sexual Orientation (or at least found that discrimination on the basis of sexual Orientation cannot be separated from discrimination on the basis of sex) but, IIRC, he dissented and Gorsuch wrote that opinion. Maybe Gorsuch isn’t a conservative, either, since he has at least one case where he didn’t agree with all the other conservatives.

 

[NEO]

Liar, liar, pants on fire.





People who think any judge who decides against them is [insert political affiliation] are morons and should be insulted for being morons until they stop being morons or at least stop spreading their moronic pestilence.

There can be difference opinion within a political ideology as broad as conservatism and other conservatives, like John McCain, held similar views to Roberts, re: ACA. Not everybody is out to get you. Grow up and think things through.

You realize my statements werent personal attacks while you cant post a single thing without a personal attack.

Now you are telling me to grow up because we disagree.

You done yet? Because I was more than happy to debate facts with you but the personal slams are getting old.

You dont want to debate. You want to lecture and be condescending. Hence, we are done.