We all know that for the non-college educated males; Make America Great Again is REALLY code for Make America White Again !! Hopefully,
that will remain at 40 percent in the election results !!!!
We all know that for the non-college educated males; Make America Great Again is REALLY code for Make America White Again !! Hopefully,
that will remain at 40 percent in the election results !!!!
As an unbiased observer, I don’t think it wise to tinker with structure to suit yourself. Structure belongs to all—it benefits and hinders all equally, over time.
So does these D threats give license to the R’s to pack the court when they are in a position to do so? What if Trump wins? What happens when administrations change? 7,279 justices in 2030? Ridiculous.
If you are going to deal with structure, maybe the best way to go about it is to dismantle a structure completely and replace it with another. Tinkering is net-zero, because what goes around, comes around.
Almost There wrote:
CarbonFiberJoe wrote:
Yeah you should probably read up on history then. Article 1 second 2 and the first amendment respectively.
I like your 7th grade understanding of the constitution. I'm sure it serves you well on Facebook Q groups.
"The people" is not the same as a corporation. Otherwise, there would be no need for a legal entity. Futhermore, decisions like Heller affirmed an INDIVIDUAL right. A corporation in not an individual. (it is a single entity but that is not a person)
Great self own
Thelf own! Fathebook Q groupth! You sound like a child.
I'm not the one making 5 accounts to defend an asinine point , Joe
am legit intersted wrote:
For people excited that this will be the most conservative court since the 1930s or maybe ever, why are you excited?
I am not looking for a general I want originalist judges.
What types of cases and areas of law do you want the court to rule on and what cases do want the court to overturn?
I would like to see the court rein in the use of executive power. For the good of the country, leave Roe v. Wade alone, or perhaps merely prohibit 3rd trimester abortions.
RSTUV Anon wrote:
For all the talk, and excuses and dragging about the old quotes one thing remains. The Republicans denied a sitting president a Supreme Court pick. They denied the voters of that president a pick.
That’s all we need to know. The rest is just talk
The President was not denied his pick. The Senate, as is their right, chose not to confirm. Whether they voted or not, the practical effect was the same.
Trump is no conservative wrote:
dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:
After the losses in 2008 and 2012 they redefined the party to be even more conservative. They are pretty far off to the right currently but there is still room to move over some more.
No, they didn't become more conservative after 2012. They became more authoritarian.
There is nothing conservative about being shameless power grubber with no conscience or decency. There is nothing conservative about weakening the Western Alliance and cozying up with the dictators. There is nothing conservative about being anti-trade, anti-foreign investment and anti-immigration. There is nothing conservative about abandoning fiscal discipline. There is nothing conservative about justifying sexual assault and harassment.
Ronald Reagan must be turning over in his grave. If he were alive today, he would have to switch back to being a Democrat, because he would not recognize the party he once led.
Um, what dictators did we cozy up to? Taking jobs back from China is not anti-trade. Improving from NAFTA to USMCA is not anti-trade. Stopping illegal immigration is not anti-immigration. And the vast majority of those we seeing getting caught in the "Me, Too" movement are liberals and mostly in Hollywood. Similarly with those caught up in the Epstein case.
Fiscal discipline has not been adhered to - that I fully agree with you on.
Probably 90% of those on the left are completely enslaved to the hivemind and have no exposure at all to conservative media. Obvious reason being that there are only a few right-leaning outlets and you've got to go out of your way to watch or read them. As a conservative, I don't have the same problem as whenever I read a newspaper or look at Yahoo, there is no way to avoid getting the viewpoints of the other side.
Victor David Hanson is especially insightful. I read Douglas Murray's "The Strange Death of Europe" a few years ago and he really laid out how the left's false accusations of racism over the last number of decades has led to the illegal alien mess that is now Europe. And to think we are now heading in that same dangerous direction...
trollism wrote:
YMMV wrote:
Typically, the inverted-logic "progressive" is projecting their own, as well as their candidates' profound cognitive disability onto others as that represents their deep-seated fear and reality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9Pp3YXiLRwSo sorry to see that your vegan, protein-starved brain has rendered you utterly unable to form a coherent counterargument. Try a nice juicy 16 oz. ribeye and get back to us when your brain fog and anxiety subside.
Do you think that everyone who doesn't support the low-IQ, low-energy president is a vegan?
The American dairy and meat industry must really be struggling.
Slow your roll there Sparky, I wouldn't go calling the Biden zombie president just yet. Moreover, I think when you call him low-energy you're massively overstating his capabilities.
Republican hypocrisy when it comes to Supreme Court nominations knows no bounds.
I remember when Bush nominated Harriet Miers. There was a lot of pushback -- even from conservatives -- because many felt she lacked qualifications. Bush urged an "up or down vote". She never got one, he pulled the nomination.
Yet Garland never got the "up or down vote" Republicans urged for their nominees, because he was nominated by Obama.
Now, of course, with a Republican president and Senate, it's important again to get that vote in..
I consider McConnell's actions in 2016 the worst example of partisan politics I've ever seen.
At this point, I would support a Biden judge-packing scheme. The Republicans change the rules to suit their needs, maybe it's time for Democrats to do the same.
..that should be "court packing scheme", although if he wants to pack a bunch of judges in, I guess I might be ok with that, too.
Sprintgeezer wrote:
As an unbiased observer, I don’t think it wise to tinker with structure to suit yourself. Structure belongs to all—it benefits and hinders all equally, over time.
So does these D threats give license to the R’s to pack the court when they are in a position to do so? What if Trump wins? What happens when administrations change? 7,279 justices in 2030? Ridiculous.
If you are going to deal with structure, maybe the best way to go about it is to dismantle a structure completely and replace it with another. Tinkering is net-zero, because what goes around, comes around.
Nine men & women on U.S. Supreme Court is too few. Appellate Courts have far more than nine judges. U.S. needs 29, not 9 justices on U.S. Supreme Court. More judges on supreme court means the death of one judge has less impact.
Sure... in that case, would you support Trump picking 3 more right now?
If not then let's not pretend you're concerned there are "too few" judges. Lol.
Why 29? Each death would have less effect if there were 209.
Not all cases are heard en banc, usually a lesser number than 9 suffices. Not all USSC cases are entirely politically-decided.
A greater number might permit them to support a greater caseload, because as it is many petitions for cert are denied. IDK if that would be a good thing.
Maybe 7 would be better, convening panels of no less than 5.
There is much scholarship on this topic, btw.
Timmy Treadwell wrote:
I consider McConnell's actions in 2016 the worst example of partisan politics I've ever seen.
Then you must not have been looking when Obama spied on conservative journalists. Or when Obama had the IRS target conservative organizations. You clearly weren't paying attention when Obama and Biden spied on the campaign of the opposition party (Trump). You must have forgotten about the FAKE russian dossier that was bought and paid for by Clinton. You must have been asleep when the Democrats tried to remove a democratically elected president for a perfectly legitimate phone call. You must have missed when the democrats tried to ruin the life and career of Trump's pick Kavanaugh based on a CLEARLY FRAUDULENT allegation (remember - Blaisey-Ford sent it to Rep. Ashoo (Dem) and did not want it to go public, but Ashoo gave it to Feinstein and Feinstein made it public against Blaisey-Ford's will).
But no, McConnell voting no on Garland was the worst! As if the Dems never blocked a republican nominee before. You are an IDIOT.
Sprintgeezer wrote:
Why 29? Each death would have less effect if there were 209.
Not all cases are heard en banc, usually a lesser number than 9 suffices. Not all USSC cases are entirely politically-decided.
A greater number might permit them to support a greater caseload, because as it is many petitions for cert are denied. IDK if that would be a good thing.
Maybe 7 would be better, convening panels of no less than 5.
There is much scholarship on this topic, btw.
You did not address the fact that federal appellate courts already have as many as 29 judges. You mentioned 7 judges on supreme court You may know, Republicans limited U.S. Supreme Court to 7 judges while Andrew Johnson was president. It has been too long since Democrats have had an opportunity to rule U.S. Senate. Senator McConnell and his wife need time to prepare for the multi-billion fortune she will inherit. McConnell needs to calm down.
Untrue. If that were true then you would be wrong in believing that it’s no different now than it ever was.
Concerned Senior wrote:
We all know that for the non-college educated males; Make America Great Again is REALLY code for Make America White Again !! Hopefully,
that will remain at 40 percent in the election results !!!!
Trump had 8% of the black vote in 2016. He is now polling at 25%. Hispanic vote is up too.
But condescending white regressives will blame "Ray-cyst Founding Fathers!", and pull down more statues.
BLtheKid wrote:
Probably 90% of those on the left are completely enslaved to the hivemind and have no exposure at all to conservative media. Obvious reason being that there are only a few right-leaning outlets and you've got to go out of your way to watch or read them. As a conservative, I don't have the same problem as whenever I read a newspaper or look at Yahoo, there is no way to avoid getting the viewpoints of the other side.
Victor David Hanson is especially insightful. I read Douglas Murray's "The Strange Death of Europe" a few years ago and he really laid out how the left's false accusations of racism over the last number of decades has led to the illegal alien mess that is now Europe. And to think we are now heading in that same dangerous direction...
And 90% of the right are brainwashed by right wing media.
I am going to share a personal story to give you a different perspective.
I have never had a huge interest in politics nor do I have a lot of respect for politicians in general. With that said, I grew up in a blue state where I received an excellent public school education. I lived near an excellent cities, outdoor activities, hospitals, museums, and sports programs just to name some of the highlights.
For job reasons, I moved away and have lived in different areas of the country. I have enjoyed my time in all the places I have lived.
I married when I was 28 years old to a person who shared many of my interests. He was and is a great person. About 7 years into the marriage, my spouse began to throw himself into right wing media. He only watched right wing news, visited right wing websites, and immersed himself in right wing radio. Week after week, books with themes of liberals destroying America and left wing evil began arriving in the mail.
At first, I shrugged it off. But as the months and years passed, I began to see how brainwashed my husband was on every single issue. He doesn't see how incredibly one sided he is. He only gets his information from right wing media.
I have reached a point where it is causing me concern for our marriage. I am fairly moderate/apolitical but it hurts to see what a hateful political environment has done to a person I care about.
I am sure I will be attacked for my post, but perhaps someone who reads this will have some good advice. I have read some helpful posts in general on Let's Run over the years.
Timmy Treadwell wrote:
Republican hypocrisy when it comes to Supreme Court nominations knows no bounds.
I remember when Bush nominated Harriet Miers. There was a lot of pushback -- even from conservatives -- because many felt she lacked qualifications. Bush urged an "up or down vote". She never got one, he pulled the nomination.
Yet Garland never got the "up or down vote" Republicans urged for their nominees, because he was nominated by Obama.
Now, of course, with a Republican president and Senate, it's important again to get that vote in..
I consider McConnell's actions in 2016 the worst example of partisan politics I've ever seen.
At this point, I would support a Biden judge-packing scheme. The Republicans change the rules to suit their needs, maybe it's time for Democrats to do the same.
With regards to nominating and confirming a SCOTUS the Republicans changed ZERO rules. It is up to the President to nominate a candidate and it is up to the Senate to confirm that candidate - or not. That's what happened in 2016 and that's what's going to happen in 2020. Quit your whining.