• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate Dems deliver stunning warning to Supreme Court: ‘Heal’ or face restructuring

RedSunRising said:
I agree. The two-party system has completely mugged, raped, slit the throat of, and gutted American society. What's worse is that the political and economic elite are scraping the sides of the bowl while the manipulated electorate goes to war against each other.
Click to expand...

Exactly the way I see it too.
 
apdst said:
We aren't powerless. An up-hill climb, but not powerless.
Click to expand...

What would you suggest aside from Constitutional amendment? Nothing forces the SCOTUS to limit federal government powers from continuing to expand - nearly anything can be argued to be (at least?) related to taxation, commerce and, of course, the general welfare. Just as it is said that no right is absolute, no federal power is absolutely limited.
 
RedSunRising said:
I agree. The two-party system has completely mugged, raped, slit the throat of, and gutted American society. What's worse is that the political and economic elite are scraping the sides of the bowl while the manipulated electorate goes to war against each other.
Click to expand...

Yep, we the sheeple are left to vote for (choose among?) the viable candidates from the party for a bigger federal government or the party for a huge federal government.
 
Conservative said:
Senate Dems deliver stunning warning to Supreme Court: ‘Heal’ or face restructuring | Fox News





Radicals ought to be ashamed of themselves as this is absolutely radical behavior over losing an election. Radical liberalism gone crazy
Click to expand...

Even Ginsberg is against adding more judges to the court. I wonder what Dems want the justices to do? After all, they don't make any laws at all, so, what can they do? About the only thing they can do is be blackmailed, bullied, or something similar into changing the decisions that they would normally make, which is supposed to be interpreting laws, not making them. "You either decide more cases with a liberal slant or we are going to do something about it"!
 
Lisa said:
How many people are killed with lead sinkers, rubber worms or a #12 Adams fly?
Click to expand...
When was freedom from tyranny last defended with fishing gear? Not much for an iron-fisted government to worry about, eh?

There is no need for an assault weapon for hunting. Most states ban then for sport hunting. If you are hunting squirrels use a 410 shotgun or a 22. What is the use of open carry an AR15 variant if you admit that the 2nd is for hunting? Did you see a squirrel or a buck in the parking lot of Trader Joes?
Click to expand...

You need to reread my post. I don't know how you interpret "it wasn't so they could shoot squirrels" as "if you admit that the 2nd is for hunting".

In other words, I said the opposite.
 
Moderate Right said:
Even Ginsberg is against adding more judges to the court. I wonder what Dems want the justices to do? After all, they don't make any laws at all, so, what can they do? About the only thing they can do is be blackmailed, bullied, or something similar into changing the decisions that they would normally make, which is supposed to be interpreting laws, not making them. "You either decide more cases with a liberal slant or we are going to do something about it"!
Click to expand...

That is exactly the problem with our political system today, the 24/7 anal exam each candidate and potential Justice gets when nominated for a position in the Congress or on the Court. Why would anyone want their family put through this meat grinder as the purpose with no sin should be the first one to cast the stone!

Democrats have become the party of radicals and their ideology, "if it feels good just do it" and cannot win the issues battle so they participate in the politics of personal destruction. The Constitution and laws are irrelevant for their radical ideology. No matter what the issue if it is Republican or Democrat the same group of people on each side will show up to bash the others.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the SC with 9 Justices but the Democrats now want to expand the court as they want it political and cannot stand losing national elections. To them a D is like the Scarlet Letter and someone to support legal activism thus making laws instead of interpreting laws. Just like the media is making the news and not just reporting the news.

Our country is in a mess and i don't see a positive outcome, Expanding the court just makes things worse. When one side lose the political issues debate they always resort to Politics of personal destruction on top of the major Democratic issues of class envy, jealousy, and going against the Constitution for a small limited Central gov't!
 
uptower said:
Good, all hail King Donald I then ;)

Actually in its spirit and many judicial interpretations since it does consider a broad consensus, which Leo pointed out is a much better word to describe what I'm getting at than a simple majority.
Click to expand...

The only relevant broad consensus here would be the broad consensus of the states required to amend the constitution. The moment they start trying to determine what some broad consensus is on their own, they have strayed from their constitutionally defined role.
 
bomberfox said:
Hell gutting the voting rights act was based on “oh trust me the south is no longer controlled by brutal white supremacy anymore! States rights and all that jazz.
Click to expand...

No, it was the evidence that blacks in the south voted at a higher rate than blacks in the north.
 
Moderate Right said:
Even Ginsberg is against adding more judges to the court. I wonder what Dems want the justices to do? After all, they don't make any laws at all, so, what can they do?
Click to expand...

They make the laws all the time. Thats what the liberals want them to do.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What would you suggest aside from Constitutional amendment? Nothing forces the SCOTUS to limit federal government powers from continuing to expand - nearly anything can be argued to be (at least?) related to taxation, commerce and, of course, the general welfare. Just as it is said that no right is absolute, no federal power is absolutely limited.
Click to expand...

The ballot box.
 
Conservative said:
Give me a fricken break, that is nothing more than a bull**** argument that doesn't address the real issue of Democrats wanted judicial activists on the Court. The 9 Justices worked quite well the decades when the Democrats controlled the House and the Congress.
Click to expand...
And then Trump's bitch ****ed it up.
 
Barnacle said:
There is no voter suppression and gerrymandering has benefited both parties at various times for god knows how many years now.
The dems are only whining because they can't rig all the gerrymandering in their favour.
Click to expand...
So you are OK with it as long as it serves you and your kind.
 
Conservative said:
Got it, whatever your political view is determines the accuracy of court decisions. So why don't you tell us what court decisions that this court has made that really bothers you? It seems to be the Democrats that focus on R or D and not the Constitution
Click to expand...
Hobby lobby, citizens united. Now you name some that bothers you.
 
So, Democrats want to pack the court with leftists that will ignore our Constitutional protections and overwhelm any justices that want to enforce the Constitution.

What the hell else do you need to know about what that party wants to do?


Sent from my iPhone XX Turbo using Tapacrap
 
apdst said:
The ballot box.
Click to expand...

Yep, our ability to choose between the viable candidates from the party for a bigger federal government and the party for a huge federal government is hardly likely to produce the type of change which I am looking for - reversing (or at least limiting) the federal government's constant increase in power and expense over time.

The latest government power grab is by enacting "red flag" laws, although currently not a federal matter, which allow imposing a sentence, not for any violent criminal act actually committed, but for the adjudged "high probability" that some violent crime would be more likely to occur if a sentence is not imposed in advance in order to (possibly?) help prevent some potential for future violent crime.

The "logic" that we are supposed to (blindly and obediently?) accept is that if a judge orders (or sanctions) the sentence imposed for a possible future crime that satisfies the "due process of law" mandated by the Constitution before property or other rights may be taken from an individual by the government.
 
ludin said:
actually i have no issue with people to own one of those, but those are currently illegal to own.
in order to own something like that you need to pass a FTA class 3 weapons background check
that takes a year or more.

next the weapon must be manufactured before 1986 or at least the lower receiver.
so please educate yourself on what you are talking about before hand.

the next guy can engage in whatever mass slaughter he wants and he doesn't need a gun to do it.
the boston marathon proved that to be the case.

bad people meant on going what they are going to do will find a way to do it.
Click to expand...

True. Very special license required to own it.

I missed what it was at first, because generally someone shows a dressed up AR 15 or similar. I didn't realize till closer examination it was a SAW 249.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom