another reason to vote Trump

Yeah, pretty much. They both make rules for short-term convenience and then cry when it is used against them. Gotta love politics! :D

Well, doesn't obstruction of justice need to have an actual crime?

The Mueller Report didn't really accuse him of anything, so he couldn't obstruct a false investigation. I don't know much about your other claims. 

Well, I support how it is for the reason most people support it. I think lifetime appointments shield them from backlash for making unpopular, yet correct interpretations. If a liberal judge made a good interpretation of the law which a conservative president had personal problems with, he shouldn't be able to fire them. That would give the president supreme power over the judicial system.

The Second Amendment, from how I interpret it, is to prevent government tyranny and infringement on rights. Preventing us from having rifles would make that essentially impossible.

They don't have to vote a certain way, though, because they don't have to worry about appeasing the president for job security. Bernie said he wanted to rotate them because of Roe v. Wade overturning. If that isn't a call to ideologically alter the court in the liberal direction, I don't know what it.

I don't appreciate when liberals wipe their ass with the Constitution every time it gets in the way of their excessive government intervention.

I didn't see any liberals complaining about the liberally stacked courts before because they cared about ideological balance. I don't care for partisan BS.

exactly and also cry when precedent isn't followed or things are bipartisan, go figure.

1) we know there was crimes before the obstruction. 

2) no. If they are investigating and you obstruct that investigation, that is in and of itself a crime. If you obstruct an investigation, you are committing a crime even if what they were looking into wasn't a crime. 

I'm pretty sure you are lying, either to me or to yourself. If the court was packed with liberal judges reinterpreting the law against what you wanted, you would want reform. But because it has been packed with conservative judges you are totally fine with it. 

But that was not how it was intended at all. That was a later interpretation. The start of that amendment makes it clear that the purpose is for a "well regulated militia". It had nothing to do with preventing tyranny. It was to prevent america needing a regular military. 

The point is that if it is a life long appointment and you only appoint hard right (or left) wing ideologies, then they will continue to rule one way for decades. And that is exactly what the republicans are doing. They put hard right wing people on it who will never (or rarely) stray from the republican interpretation. 

This is a really weird thought process. You appear to be advocating for never updating laws or rules beyond what a group of upper middle class white men wrote hundreds of years ago, despite those laws having been changed dozens of times already. When society or technology advances and the constitution is no longer doing what is needed, you update the law. You don't use it as a weapon to fight against progress. 

I'm not aware of liberals doing that. It is extremely clear the republicans have been. but you seem to be fine with that. 

I don't think we knew of any crimes before the obstruction.

Schiff said there was clear evidence of obstruction

When something is used against liberals they get pissed and change everything to suit their whims at the moment. The whole point of being a conservative is to conserve things. So... not lying to anyone.

You don't think a bunch of guys who just fought off a tyrannical government using guns would intend this law to prevent tyranny via guns?

You would think they would have done away with it then, since it was no longer needed for that purpose.

And we have had long periods of radically liberal appointments. Your activist judges have done so much damage in federal courts, and now that some people are going to reverse that, you automatically have a problem with it.

You just support whatever gets the ends you want. If that means having a stacked liberal court, you would support life terms.

I am not against change, I am against upending something the second you have a problem with.

There is a huge difference between simply updating versus doing the opposite of what it was intended to do

and gut it so the federal government can control most aspects of our lives.

In 2018, of the 13 federal appeals courts, 4 had Republican-appointed majorities. 

If you mean in the mueller investigation then I would agree. We didn't know if a crime had been committed. If you mean in the Ukraine scandal, then that isn't true. The call transcript shows a crime. 

Meuller detailed multiple counts of obstruction. There is alot of evidence for those. For the ukraine scandal, trump has openly ordered people not to testify, they hid documents, they threatened witnesses etc. The obstruction is pretty clear there too. 

I don't want the courts to be a weapon. They weren't intended to be one. They are currently being used as one by the republicans. So it is the republicans who have changed the nature of the court by packing it with young, ideologues. Even going so far as to breach precident and refuse to hold hearings to help them do this. Trying to restore the court is the right thing to do. Trying to "conserve" the corrupted version the republicans are working to make is the exact opposite of what was intended. 

They might have. But the amendment doesn't say anything about that. It explicitly says it is for a well regulated militia. So you are arguing we should ignore what the amendment says in favor of what you want to interpret they meant. Even though they didn't say what you want to believe they meant.

They were afraid that a large military could be abused. They wanted to keep the military as small as possible to prevent this abuse. And now people who claim to respect the founding fathers are doing the exact opposite. 

Who, when, what damage? I'm guessing you think "damage" is upholding people's rights.

No I don't. I don't think using the courts as a weapon is a good idea. I think that stacking them either way is bad. 

These 2 ideas are contradictory. You aren't against change, but you are against changing things that you have a problem with. That is why you would change it. 

If it isn't working for people, it should be changed. The founding fathers were intelligent men, but they lived a long, long time ago. They lived in a world where slavery was considered good and women weren't considered people. Letting them decide how we should live is dumb. If their ideas don't work any more, they need to be discarded. 

That is a nice idea in theory. But in practice what that means is that the rich control our lives. If the government doesn't decide what the rules are, the rich and powerful will decide it instead. I would much rather have a government, that I have a say in, deciding things than some billionaire asshole deciding things and having no say in what the rules are. 

That isn't evidence of stacking. i don't disagree that it is possible there is stacking there, but that just shows who appointed them. If the people appointing them weren't picking ideologues then who appointed them is completely irrelevant. We know for a fact that republicans have actively been working to stack the courts with hard right wing people and picking young candidates so that they will stay there a long time. That is stacking. 

I was referring to the Mueller investigation. 

That was a typo. I meant Schiff said there was clear evidence of collusion. I usually listen to conservatives, who are obviously biased, but I heard he didn't really impede the investigation. I think Mueller said something to that effect at the hearings.

They shouldn't be used as a weapon. The Republicans shouldn't be doing it now and the liberals shouldn't have done it before. It is more retaliatory than anything, which doesn't absolve them.

Militias consist of citizens. Militias can be used to fight of a tyrannical government or foreign threats. I think it was intended for both.

Well, we have bigger militias(more people with guns) to keep our bigger military in check. I do think our military is a bit too large, though. 

No, they are blocking essentially everything Trump tries to do on immigration. They are abusing the system of checks and balances. Some should be stopped (I'm sure you'll point to the supposed Muslim ban), but many others shouldn't yet are because they disagree.

Good, we agree. But, currently the Supreme Court is tied, with Roberts very slightly leaning our way. Trump may very well pick a moderate if a spot opens to replace far-left Ginsburg, but I kinda doubt it. The country is too partisan for that right now.

Things should be how they were intended to be.

Slavery wasn't considered good....that was where the 3/5 Compromise came in.

Well, we are in agreement that lobbying/special interests are a huge issue. If we curtail their ability to manipulate politicians or at the very least, take away power from politicians, how can they control our lives?

So you acknowledge the courts are being used inappropriately, and you want to do absolutely nothing about it?

Even if i accepted that you were right, it expressly says that the weapons are for a well organized militia. That vast, vast, majority of gun owners in the US do not belong to any kind of militia. The 2nd amendment was not intended to apply to them. 

Technology has changed too much for this to even matter any more. Drones and MBTs beat red necks with an AR 15. 

So you are fine with the courts blocking anything progressive, but when they block attempts to attack minorities you consider that abuse?

Trump has had 2 chances to appoint judges that would be fair. He has appointed ideologues both times. He doesn't care about what is right. He only cares about winning. Which is the same reason the republicans have been trying to stack the courts for years. 

It was intended to be a slave state where women and natives had no rights. I assume you are fine with ending slavery and giving women rights. So you obviously don't want it to be what it was intended to be, you just want the exclusive right to determine what should and shouldn't be changed. 

So you are acknowledging that the founding fathers planned for slavery to be a part of america. That was part of how it was "intended to be"

If the government doesn't have the power to set labor laws, employers will abuse their workers. They do now, but no where near the levels they did before the government started regulating. If you want to have a particular medical procedure and your employer decides they don't want you to have it, they could just deny you health coverage. If the government regulates that, or better provides the health insurance themselves, you cannot be denied care. I can keep going, but essentially, any power the government gives up will be taken by someone else. If you actually succeeding in shrinking the government you would just be handing that power to the rich and powerful and would lose any say in the matter. 

My point was to avoid the "Muslim Ban" conversation. It was banning immigration from countries with high levels of terrorism, which tend to be Muslim countries. Check out France and tell me Trump's idea was bad.

The implementation was certainly bad. Some of the countries that were banned are relatively low risk for terrorism and there are some glaring omissions in terms of countries with terrorism risk. I mean, at the very least I'd expect a ban for the country of the nationals that caused 9/11. That and Trump previously calling for a muslim ban certainly does make you think