6 minutes ago, simple1 said:

You do know the Democrats represent 20 million more US citizens than the Republicans in the Senate? I would not be surprised if there were a complete overhaul of the current antiquated US electoral representation process in the coming years. At the very least it would stop the gloating of those in power representing the minority.

Last I checked the electoral college is in the Constitution. You should try reading it, the US version, not the aussie version. Only radical leftists who support Antifa want to shred the constitution, destroying electoral college among other things.

23 minutes ago, RoadWarrior371 said:

Yeh, kinda brutal like "to the victor go the spoils", or "Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of the women!" ????

 

So fellow Americans are the 'enemy' now? Sad.

Just now, RoadWarrior371 said:

Funny, I was under the impression the electoral process was enacted to keep the toothless mobs from attempting to grab power.  Antiquated to who?  LOL

 

There are many debates / articles talking to the matter which I am sure you would be well aware. if by some quirk you are not, Google is your friend.

32 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

That is not an "interpretation" that is the exact wording.

And that would make sense to a liberal, but to a constitutionalist who goes by historical context and supporting documents (plus the numerous Supreme Court rulings on the matter already) it just means you’re once again revisiting and rewriting history. 

29 minutes ago, simple1 said:

The majority do not agree with the process proposed by the trump administration.

The people who voted Trump in agree and that's all that matters, again, go read the Constitution.

8 minutes ago, bluehippie said:

Last I checked the electoral college is in the Constitution. You should try reading it, the US version, not the aussie version. Only radical leftists who support Antifa want to shred the constitution, destroying electoral college among other things.

 

recommend you take a tiffy and calm down.

Edited September 21, 20205 yr by simple1

10 minutes ago, bluehippie said:

Last I checked the electoral college is in the Constitution. You should try reading it, the US version, not the aussie version. Only radical leftists who support Antifa want to shred the constitution, destroying electoral college among other things.

The electoral college doesn't elect the Senate.  Didn't you know that?

2 minutes ago, bluehippie said:

The people who voted Trump in agree and that's all that matters, again, go read the Constitution.

Not when it comes to conducting the census.

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The electoral college doesn't elect the Senate.  Didn't you know that?

Not when it comes to conducting the census.

Senate, census, Something eludes, and is confusing you.

On 9/20/2020 at 4:15 AM, Sujo said:

Biden says he is chosing a woman as running mate. Trump supporters deride him.

 

Trump says he is chosing a woman for supreme court, trump supporters, crickets.

A prudent decision in light of the leftist who would do anything and everything to destroy by false pretenses, the character of a male SC as in the case of Kavanaugh. Lets see them attack Barret, not going to happen. Trump's on the right track, not to worry.

27 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

And that would make sense to a liberal, but to a constitutionalist who goes by historical context and supporting documents (plus the numerous Supreme Court rulings on the matter already) it just means you’re once again revisiting and rewriting history. 

Which is the exact opposite to what you earlier claimed.

 

That is not what a constitutionalist does.

37 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Not when it comes to conducting the census.

That’ll be settled soon enough. Get this last conservative judge in the SC and get some rulings on illegal aliens being counted for representation and budgeting. Get some sanity back into the country. 

7 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

That’ll be settled soon enough. Get this last conservative judge in the SC and get some rulings on illegal aliens being counted for representation and budgeting. Get some sanity back into the country. 

Once again, you lack the integrity to reply to my complete post and only reply to an out of context edited snippet.

 

Regarding your reply, you clearly expect conservative justices to ignore the wording of the US Constitution.  Isn't that against the conservative claim that they want to strictly follow the Constitution?

Edited September 21, 20205 yr by heybruce

48 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

And that would make sense to a liberal, but to a constitutionalist who goes by historical context and supporting documents (plus the numerous Supreme Court rulings on the matter already) it just means you’re once again revisiting and rewriting history. 

I do not rewrite history but I am a student of history. Yes, the SCOTUS, which allow the restrictions on the 2nd Amendment and I would agree with. Do understand, I am a gun owner in the US and have held a CDWL so I support the 2nd ... within reason. I certainly do not support nitrates running around armed in state houses nor Walmart’s. If, indeed, the USA is currently in need of this ... the country is already lost.

2 hours ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

I think putting a conservative judge in that seat IS what's best for the people of the united states, and many millions and millions of americans agree with me. 

 

Majority of Americans, including many Republicans, say wait for election to replace Ginsburg - Reuters poll

https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-ginsburg-poll/majority-of-americans-including-many-republicans-say-wait-for-election-to-replace-ginsburg-reuters-poll-idUSKCN26B0TN

“There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.” Ruth Bader Ginsberg July 10 , 2016. New York Times

1 hour ago, BadBouy said:

“There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.” Ruth Bader Ginsberg July 10 , 2016. New York Times

Correct. Mcconnell did the wrong thing.

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Regarding your reply, you clearly expect conservative justices to ignore the wording of the US Constitution.  Isn't that against the conservative claim that they want to strictly follow the Constitution?

 

Does not say in the constitution that people who are unlawfully living in the country should be used for representation and budgeting. 

A total of 61 SCOTUS Justices have been nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court since 1900.  70%, or 43 Justices, were confirmed in under 46 days (the number of days remaining until the election).  I'd call that good odds.  We'll have to see what Nancy has in her quiver.

8 minutes ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Does not say in the constitution that people who are unlawfully living in the country should be used for representation and budgeting. 

The Constitution uses the words "The actual Enumeration...", which means everyone actually in the US.  You are not allowed to change the clear meaning of the words used.

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

A total of 61 SCOTUS Justices have been nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court since 1900.  70%, or 43 Justices, were confirmed in under 46 days (the number of days remaining until the election).  I'd call that good odds.  We'll have to see what Nancy has in her quiver.

The length of time to confirm has increased significantly since 1975.

 

Also, how many of those confirmations took place less than two months before a Presidential election?

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The Constitution uses the words "The actual Enumeration...", which means everyone actually in the US.  You are not allowed to change the clear meaning of the words used.

 

Thats rich coming from you, but nonetheless wrong. The thing is centered on the assumption that people are lawfully living in the country in the first place. 

 

But never mind, we will get that bit of debate settled once and for all after that new SC Judge gets seated, along with many more that have been waiting on the back burner. 

1 minute ago, Mama Noodle said:

 

Thats rich coming from you, but nonetheless wrong. The thing is centered on the assumption that people are lawfully living in the country in the first place. 

 

But never mind, we will get that bit of debate settled once and for all after that new SC Judge gets seated, along with many more that have been waiting on the back burner. 

Nothing rich about my insisting the words used in the US Constitution be taken at face value.  It's pretty consistent of me.  Not surprising since I've taken an oath to defend the Constitution.  Have you?

 

"The thing is centered on the assumption that people are lawfully living in the country in the first place." has no basis in fact and no legal merit.

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The length of time to confirm has increased significantly since 1975.

 

Also, how many of those confirmations took place less than two months before a Presidential election?

Since '75:

 

John Paul Stevens - 19

John Roberts - 23

Sandra Day O'Connor - 33

Ruth Bader Ginsburg - 42

12 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Since '75:

 

John Paul Stevens - 19

John Roberts - 23

Sandra Day O'Connor - 33

Ruth Bader Ginsburg - 42

Wrong on every one. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm Do you know when Presidential elections are held?

28 minutes ago, heybruce said:

44 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

55 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The length of time to confirm has increased significantly since 1975.

 

Also, how many of those confirmations took place less than two months before a Presidential election?

Since '75:

 

John Paul Stevens - 19

John Roberts - 23

Sandra Day O'Connor - 33

Ruth Bader Ginsburg - 42

Wrong on every one. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm Do you know when Presidential elections are held?

I replied to your first statement.  I passed on answering your question.  Feel free to say, "Sorry for my confusion."

 

Edited September 21, 20205 yr by Tippaporn

10 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I replied to your first statement.  I passed on answering your question.  Feel free to say, "Sorry for my confusion."

 

In other words, none of the minority of quick confirmations occurred during an election campaign.

Here's a program of judicial reform that I will urge the Democratic Congress to undertake.  One persistet problem in American society has been the Supreme Court which has in almost all periods been a strongly reactionary influence on governance from the Dred Scott Decision to Plessy v. Ferguson to Citizens United v. Holder.  The brief exception was the Warren Court of the 60's.  In the Marbury v. Madison case of 1803 the non-elected Court claimed the right to annul laws passed by the democratically elected Congress,  creating the "judicial review" function for which the Constitution makes no provision.  The Court exercised this newly claimed power under its appellate jurisdiction.  It also has an original jurisdiction to decide cases with foreign diplomats, other nations, and between the states.

 

Under the Exceptions Clause of the Constitution (Article 33, Paragraph 2, Clause 2) "the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."   Therefore, the new Democratic Congress with a Democratic president can create an exception to strip most or all of the appellate jurisdiction from the Supreme Court, and assign that jurisdiction to a newly created court, Supreme Appellate Court of the United States, which might consist of fifteen or twenty-five newly appointed judges each of whom serves for a five or seven year term.

 

We must recognize that the US Constitution simply cannot be amended.  It was designed to be very difficult to amend since doing so requires hitting the super-majority trifecta of 67% of the House, 67% of the Senate, and 75% of the states, something that no one reading this will ever live to see.  By creating this new Supreme Appellate Court of the United States, the problem of the reactionary Supreme Court can be solved at the same time that its current radical political views are out of step with the American public and about to become more so.

A long series of bickering, off-topic, trolling and other such posts and replies to them have been removed.

 

Please stay on topic re this thread, and avoid the personal accusations and jibes.

 

A continuation of this by the bickering members here will resulting in warnings and suspensions.

 

 

9 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Even if I fully subscribed to your take - complete with the conspiracy implied and the almost blind partisanship it exhibits - even then it would still fail to address the point made, which basically was shoving policies down people's throats ain't a good way to decrease animosity.

 

Obviously, I do not accept the notion that all of the USA's woes, especially those related to the partisan divide can be quite as clearly, or solely, attributed to things referred to in your post.

Please note at no point did I say anything about "all of the USA's woes."  I only referred to the polarization of politics that makes a landslide election now impossible when during the eight-year period of 1964 to 1972 the Electoral College vote went from fifty-three states for the Democrat to forty-nine states for the Republican.  The fact that either outcome is impossible now means a big change has occurred in politics, but that is not "all of the USA's woes."

 

Nevertheless, if you have a better explanation for how the current antagonism between left and right reached this point, I am interested to hear.

31 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

Please note at no point did I say anything about "all of the USA's woes."  I only referred to the polarization of politics that makes a landslide election now impossible when during the eight-year period of 1964 to 1972 the Electoral College vote went from fifty-three states for the Democrat to forty-nine states for the Republican.  The fact that either outcome is impossible now means a big change has occurred in politics, but that is not "all of the USA's woes."

 

Nevertheless, if you have a better explanation for how the current antagonism between left and right reached this point, I am interested to hear.

 

If your objections are limited to a single phrase in my post, does it imply you accept the rest? I don't have no magic answer as to how things got the way they are - and I do not think it can be pinned on a single issue or be blamed solely on one side of the partisan divide. It takes two to tango. There are any number of economic, social, political, technological etc. which can be brought into this discussion, with almost each providing a different point of view and/or answers.

 

My main issue was that dealing with this divide is unlikely to yield much positive results if handled along partisan lines, as in we-are-right-they-are-wrong-we-know-best-we'll-decide. There's got to be a level of give and take. Conservatives will not turn into liberals/progressives and vice versa. And yet, they need to find a way of living in the same country.

 

On this score, I actually expect Biden to do better than others. Precisely because he's not an ideologue, not too strongly attached to agendas, and because he doesn't really generate much antagonism.