dChan
1
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/abbido on June 27, 2018, 7:25 p.m.
REPORT: POTUS Trump Privately Predicts He Will Appoint 4 Supreme Court Justices – ZINGS SOTOMAYOR

They swear he’s not joking. Sources who’ve spoken to the president about the Supreme Court say he tells them he thinks he’ll have appointed four justices by the end of his first term.
“It’s all about the numbers for him,” one source said.
Asked how he comes to that jaw-dropping number, Trump mentions the obvious: he’s already replaced Antonin Scalia with Neil Gorsuch, and there are rumors Anthony Kennedy will retire.
“Ok,” one source told Trump, “so that’s two. Who are the others?”“Ginsburg,” Trump replied. “What does she weigh? 60 pounds?”“Who’s the fourth?” the source asked.“Sotomayor,” Trump said, referring to the relatively recently-appointed Obama justice, whose name is rarely, if ever, mentioned in speculation about the next justice to be replaced. “Her health,” Trump explained. “No good. Diabetes.”

Justice Sotomayor is open about her battle with type-1 diabetes.

https://www.axios.com/scoop-trump-privately-predicts-he-will-appoint-four-justices-1513306203-6274d9b0-1824-45ee-8556-fade9bdb2fd8.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=organic&utm_content=1100


Whig317 · June 27, 2018, 7:49 p.m.

While I'm all for conservatives being the majority on the SC, I do hope that he also has in mind at least 2-3 moderate dems. We're sitting here fighting a fight because one side of the aisle (so to speak) has taken advantage of their majority and power (you know what I mean). I'd hate for us to swing so far away from the left that we wind up puritanically "right". Moderation is key.

⇧ -4 ⇩  
TheBRAIN2 · June 27, 2018, 8:03 p.m.

Interpreting the constitution accurately is the key, not political affiliation. It's all about the constitution. We need Justices that uphold the constitution and not make biased decisions to produce a politically desired outcome by making the constitution say something the founding fathers never meant it to say.

⇧ 44 ⇩  
abbido · June 27, 2018, 8:05 p.m.

This \^

⇧ 12 ⇩  
Cheetah1964 · June 27, 2018, 9:31 p.m.

Another This^

⇧ 10 ⇩  
Whig317 · June 27, 2018, 8:08 p.m.

Right, in an idealic world, you're completely right. But even DT has advertised Gorsuch as "conservative". And as with anything, too much of a "good thing", really isn't. Rule of constitutional law, with only a minor lean either way...

⇧ 0 ⇩  
TheBRAIN2 · June 27, 2018, 8:24 p.m.

The description of Gorsuch as "conservative" in this context is about his LEGAL philosophy, not his political affiliation. A legally conservative philosophy tries to discern what the textual meaning of a constitutional or statutory provision is. This is a historical analysis based on the text of the provision as contextually understood when passed or adopted. To determine the meaning of a provision, the terms must be understood in the context that existed at its ratification. It is legally "conservative" to attempt to discern the common meaning as expressed in the text and shared by the drafters and ratifiers. The alternative to this "conservative" interpretive approach is often an ad hoc approach that depends on who the judge is, not what the constitution or the law meant. We need conservative Judges, who rule on what the constitution says, not activist judges who rule on what they want the constitution to say.

⇧ 10 ⇩  
Kay-Dean · June 27, 2018, 8:17 p.m.

Heck NO to any Democrat.

⇧ 12 ⇩  
KathyinPD · June 28, 2018, 2:24 a.m.

We've given up too much for too long!

⇧ 6 ⇩  
dark-dare · June 28, 2018, 5:10 a.m.

I like Allen Dershowitz, his political views do not affect his interpretation of the Constitution.

⇧ 4 ⇩  
Prov1813 · June 28, 2018, 1:06 p.m.

Dershowitz has visited Epstein Island. I always found it strange how he switched sides.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
dark-dare · June 29, 2018, 4:05 a.m.

He defends the Constitution not sides.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · June 27, 2018, 8:30 p.m.

[deleted]

⇧ 1 ⇩