When people ask me why I voted for Trump, I simply state I wanted a President to appoint a judge that interprets the law and constitution as it was written ergo after reviewing Trumps picks he was clearly the better choice.
Spot on. What would be wore than either one as president would be having yet more liberal Constitution-shredding "make it up as you want it to be" justices appointed by Clinton. This country could probably survive a Clinton presidency (and probably a Trump presidency), but I don't think this country could survive an even more leftist anti-Constitution Supreme Court. About the only up-side to be found in any of that whole election circus and charade is to potentially get back a Constitution upholding Supreme Court.
I'm surprised Trump picked such a "conservative" judge in the first place. I thought we'd get a Souter+ situation where the President is unpredictable and we get a Left-wing judge.
I think Trump has been surprisingly conservative on most moves he's made. Not everything, but most. Seems he may be so set on properly wrecking Obama's legacy, he's quashed his own massive ego and put the controls in the hands of his cabinet members.
Can someone please make a car horn that every time you press it you get a Ben Shapiro rant? I would buy that horn. I would buy the hell out of that horn!
Could not make it past that introduction. The whole thing about handguns not existing in the eighteen century made me hyperventilate and I woke up on the ground.
Gorsuch looks like an amazing nominee, that being said. Chris Mathews has the right idea sadly. Republicans blocked Obama's nominee so why would Democrats not block Trump's nominee?
"I'd have walked out" Well, honestly, I think that's a bit strong, but I'd rather have a judge whose overly dogmatic with regards to neutrality, than one who is insufficiently concerned with that.
Re. 4:45, wow, Ben was incorrect on the US Constitution. It's actually the tenth amendment that addresses the states and the people. The ninth amendment says the people only (with "enumeration"). (He seems to be textually melding the 9th and 10th amendments together.) He's still correct in his other positions in this video.
Even as some one who leans towards liberalism, I love listening to this guy. I just dont follow his perspective on global warming. How can a smart dude like this guy take the anti science route on this one. It will forever be the one thing keeping him from being taken completely serious.
1. If the first part of the 2nd Amendment is a justifying clause, why does the right to keep and bear arms apply to those who would not and cannot be part of a well-regulated militia (the elderly, disabled people etc)? If you're going to say that the first sentence is a justifying clause, but then accept that the right covers persons to whom the justification does not apply, you're arguing on the basis that the 2nd Amendment contains a drafting error. 2. What's the originalist justification for partial restrictions on guns? Either 'arms' means what the Founders thought of as 'arms' back in the day (flintlock muskets, single-shot pistols, primitive rifles) or it just means 'arms'. I know you don't accept the former, so why no right to fully-automatic weapons and RPGs?
Chris Mathews sounds like he thinks the Supreme Court is like an amusement park ride or something. He sounds like some whiny kid who got cur in front of in line for that amusement park ride. "Boo hoo, you cut in front, it's not your turn, you have to go to the back of the line." As if there's a line for Supreme Court justice. Obama had his shot, now it's Trumps "turn" to appoint justices, as is it's in the job description, which he now has and Obama does not. But for that matter, it's Congress's job to affirm the President's nomination...or not. That's according to the Constitution. Now, it doesn't say that Congress has to decline to confirm by asserting the negative. It's my understanding that they only have give consent. There's no stipulation that Congress has some obligation to some formally specified means or procedure to not give consent. Seems to me that not giving consent to confirm is not giving consent, regardless of formally voting or not. Which is to say, Congress did not confirm Obama's nomination, so Obama's appointment was not confirmed. Next... (You can whine all you want about they _should_ have put it to a vote, and maybe they should have, but that doesn't change the fact that it is not compulsory to do so.) Which then brings us to the current nomination by the president, who now happens to be Trump and as such is his right to nominate. Which getting back to Chris Mathews...so what exactly does he think should happen as he thinks it's not Gorsuch's "turn"? Construct a time machine to go back in time and somehow continue to refight the nomination of Garland? He sounds like the whiny kid, who having lost playing a game, whines about he should get a do-over.
"On Tuesday, renowned legal journal Cosmopolitan magazine..." at this point I knew this was going to be a good show.
TheStarToursTraveler love that it takes him 10 sec to drop the HAMMER :)
The end was gold: "The Constitution should have more positions than Cosmo and it will all be less satisfying!"
You're awesome Ben
Oh my god your Chris Mathews impression is by far your best one. You should open the show with that every time from now on.
Geez Ben...I didn't expect to laugh loudly within the first 10 seconds
"because judges don't fit through hoops..." bwahahahaaa!!!! pure gold, shapiro!
THAT IMPRESSION IN THE LAST 5 KILLED ME BEN BRAVO SIR
I love the Matthews impression!
When people ask me why I voted for Trump, I simply state I wanted a President to appoint a judge that interprets the law and constitution as it was written ergo after reviewing Trumps picks he was clearly the better choice.
Spot on. What would be wore than either one as president would be having yet more liberal Constitution-shredding "make it up as you want it to be" justices appointed by Clinton. This country could probably survive a Clinton presidency (and probably a Trump presidency), but I don't think this country could survive an even more leftist anti-Constitution Supreme Court. About the only up-side to be found in any of that whole election circus and charade is to potentially get back a Constitution upholding Supreme Court.
I'm surprised Trump picked such a "conservative" judge in the first place. I thought we'd get a Souter+ situation where the President is unpredictable and we get a Left-wing judge.
I think Trump has been surprisingly conservative on most moves he's made. Not everything, but most. Seems he may be so set on properly wrecking Obama's legacy, he's quashed his own massive ego and put the controls in the hands of his cabinet members.
The book, Reasons to vote Democrat, is one of the best books I have ever read. I encourage everyone to get a copy.
Can someone please make a car horn that every time you press it you get a Ben Shapiro rant? I would buy that horn. I would buy the hell out of that horn!
Moshe Hellman what about an alarm clock that triggers a TRACKR, LYFT, or Blue Apron ad every morning
Nah I need a car alarm because I live in a very liberal town and I need them to listen to Ben
Moshe Hellman good point, the truth will scare them off faster than a loud car horn tho
+Moshe Hellman you live in a liberal town, that must be rough.
No, but there's a channel that beeps a horn when he hits a home run - Ben Shapiro Thug Life.
100% Correct Period.
Chris Mathews impression is spot on lol
I love you Ben, never change.
Trump 2020
Actually, the first question Cruz asked him was, "What is the meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything", Gorsuch answered "42".
I think they should have just stopped right there and confirmed him.
this supreme court pick on its own makes trumps election worthy of all the drama nd chances of failure in the future
Ed Negron he still has to destroy the doe
Ive got a great feeling about Gorsuch. If he makes it, i think he will go down in history.
I always laugh at the Chris Matthews shtick. Hilarious!
Im'ere on de SHOW! Am real ek CITED!
"and I'm telling you I don't" - he sounded like Clint Eastwood. Give him a Magnum and let him clear DC the way it should be.
Today I learned: Judges don't fit through hoops.
I have 20,000 onion sets to plant in the next month. Is this the right site for planting information?
My favourite shekel lord is back!
Chris Mathews is old enough to know better. Is he Keith Obermans Dad?
Could not make it past that introduction. The whole thing about handguns not existing in the eighteen century made me hyperventilate and I woke up on the ground.
22:00 what a freak, what the hell is in his head?
4:45 *10th Amendment
Not first
Gorsuch looks like an amazing nominee, that being said. Chris Mathews has the right idea sadly. Republicans blocked Obama's nominee so why would Democrats not block Trump's nominee?
I love Ben's impressions he makes me giggle
"I'd have walked out"
Well, honestly, I think that's a bit strong, but I'd rather have a judge whose overly dogmatic with regards to neutrality, than one who is insufficiently concerned with that.
Sines314 i like gorsuch cuz from what ive seen of him he doesnt deliberate a lot on right and wrong but just applies the laws as they are
"There were no handguns in the 1700s."-The opposition to orginalism
All I have learned is that Chris Matthews knows absolutely nothing about basketball
who's the qt behind gorsuch in that interview?
Is ben gonna talk about the London attack soon?
You're off the mark on precedent Ben
Re. 4:45, wow, Ben was incorrect on the US Constitution. It's actually the tenth amendment that addresses the states and the people. The ninth amendment says the people only (with "enumeration"). (He seems to be textually melding the 9th and 10th amendments together.) He's still correct in his other positions in this video.
Even as some one who leans towards liberalism, I love listening to this guy. I just dont follow his perspective on global warming. How can a smart dude like this guy take the anti science route on this one. It will forever be the one thing keeping him from being taken completely serious.
Trump is about to do a reverse dunk like Kobe Bryant with Gorsuch , LMAO
Joe should go then..
What does Shapiro think about term limits for supreme court justices?
Flintlock pistols
My audio is out of sync so Ben is sounding like Cruz. Ha ha.
is it tru blacks r the ORIGINAL jews?
No.
Im pretty sure im top jew
1. If the first part of the 2nd Amendment is a justifying clause, why does the right to keep and bear arms apply to those who would not and cannot be part of a well-regulated militia (the elderly, disabled people etc)? If you're going to say that the first sentence is a justifying clause, but then accept that the right covers persons to whom the justification does not apply, you're arguing on the basis that the 2nd Amendment contains a drafting error.
2. What's the originalist justification for partial restrictions on guns? Either 'arms' means what the Founders thought of as 'arms' back in the day (flintlock muskets, single-shot pistols, primitive rifles) or it just means 'arms'. I know you don't accept the former, so why no right to fully-automatic weapons and RPGs?
3
Why is he wearing a yamaka?
lol ben love your stuff but get it right, its "god emperor"
Chris Mathews sounds like he thinks the Supreme Court is like an amusement park ride or something. He sounds like some whiny kid who got cur in front of in line for that amusement park ride. "Boo hoo, you cut in front, it's not your turn, you have to go to the back of the line." As if there's a line for Supreme Court justice.
Obama had his shot, now it's Trumps "turn" to appoint justices, as is it's in the job description, which he now has and Obama does not. But for that matter, it's Congress's job to affirm the President's nomination...or not. That's according to the Constitution. Now, it doesn't say that Congress has to decline to confirm by asserting the negative. It's my understanding that they only have give consent. There's no stipulation that Congress has some obligation to some formally specified means or procedure to not give consent. Seems to me that not giving consent to confirm is not giving consent, regardless of formally voting or not. Which is to say, Congress did not confirm Obama's nomination, so Obama's appointment was not confirmed. Next... (You can whine all you want about they _should_ have put it to a vote, and maybe they should have, but that doesn't change the fact that it is not compulsory to do so.)
Which then brings us to the current nomination by the president, who now happens to be Trump and as such is his right to nominate.
Which getting back to Chris Mathews...so what exactly does he think should happen as he thinks it's not Gorsuch's "turn"? Construct a time machine to go back in time and somehow continue to refight the nomination of Garland? He sounds like the whiny kid, who having lost playing a game, whines about he should get a do-over.
Who the hell disliked this? And why? Was he being too offensive for some suggested video viewers?
bullblip
Second
fart
so thats what that smell is...
bull bleep? grow up