• 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

ajn678 said:
That's because you made a bad point in the first place. You doubled down on your bad point again and still don't understand. Not surprising.
Click to expand...

Explain to us why the existence of a wiki page that discusses holocaust denial disproves the contents of a wiki page that discusses voter fraud
 
aociswundumho said:
If I provide you with links showing the similarities between the New Deal and Fascism you will dismiss them as conservative propaganda. So instead I'll give you three verified quotes:
Click to expand...

The problem with the discussion I will certainly regret having here is caused by the same thing every time. Namely, the ever fluid, dishonest and perpetually self-serving conservative dictionary. Three quotes, no matter what they are, will NEVER prove what you claim. The new deal is fascism in the same way that every fat moron with bad hair is Donald Trump. Fascism is not defined as social services, even if they are a promised benefit thereof.

Mussolini may have desired to draw parallels between fascism and the new deal but, again, that's no different than a car salesman comparing a Chevy to a Porsche. It really means NOTHING of substance.

Whether you comprehend or not, during the thirties there were a lot of Americans who thought fascism was a great idea (and still do, if you listen to Republicans). For Roosevelt to compliment Mussolini does NOT prove that the new deal was fascism, it demonstrates that fascism was not yet associated with the jewish genocide. It was the libertarianism of the time with many rubes believing it was possible for hatred of undesirables and the love of money to manifest as moral politics. It can't and never will.

I hope that helps you understand how wrong you are. Good day.
 
Anthony60 said:
The Democrats are threatening the SC that they will take action if the current justices don't give in to political pressure and make decisions based on what the left wants, and not what our Constitution requires. A path to tyranny, nothing remotely related to liberty.
Click to expand...

Threatening to take actions which is permitted by the Constitution is not a threat to tyranny. Again, if the "people" give the Democrats the power to do it, there should not be a problem.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The way I understand it, you can carve out a tortuous and completely irrational district to create a say majority black district.

But when redistricting, you can't structure them so as to dissect, separate, and thereby dilute the power of a minority voing bloc so that say the black community has no chance to put one of their own on the city council or state legislature or whatever.
Click to expand...

Correct, you are not allowed to deliberately suppress the voting power of a minority group.

I ... don't see why that is controversial.
 
Anthony60 said:
The Democrats are threatening the SC that they will take action if the current justices don't give in to political pressure and make decisions based on what the left wants, and not what our Constitution requires. A path to tyranny, nothing remotely related to liberty.
Click to expand...

False, the left is insisting they make decisions based on what our constitution requires. The right wants them to make partisan ideological decisions deliberately suppressing the rights and power of minority groups.
 
ajn678 said:
If you're too lazy to get an ID, something required to practically live in society these days, or drive 10 minutes instead of 2, its probably better for our nation that you don't vote.
Click to expand...

White privilege.txt

Weird that you think the only reason minorities wouldn't get the required ID is laziness.
 
Deuce said:
Correct, you are not allowed to deliberately suppress the voting power of a minority group.

I ... don't see why that is controversial.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that it was controversial.

That you aren't allowed not to do it didn't stop our state from doing it though.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I like to think we are more decent than that though.

I have spent a total of 11 hours sitting in doctors' offices waiting for the patients I drove there this week that gave me a lot of time on my Kindle. And one little book I picked up on a daily deal or something was an excellently researched and detailed observation of Alinsky inspired tactics of the left to silence or destroy all conservative thought and conservatives in general, and how we can win simply by using their own game against them. He admits though that we just aren't wired that way--we are not able to be that dishonest, that cruel, that mean.

So I like to think that Mitch wasn't willing to put a really decent guy like Garland through the process, even though the Republicans would have been in no way as vicious as the Democrats were, when the Senate would not confirm him. Garland didn't deserve that any more than Gorsuch and Kavanaugh did. But at least there were sufficient votes to confirm Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and bless them both, they stuck it out through the worst the Democrats could throw at them.
Click to expand...


Thanks Owl...Deep down I know you're right, but in reading some of the offerings today in here, it really makes the worst in me come out....
 
aociswundumho said:
Reminds me of FDR's threats to pack the court in order to prevent them from striking down parts of his fascist new deal. It's the same with all this talk about abolishing the electoral college. When the left can't win by the rules the solution is always to change the rules rather than concede that their ideas are just terrible.
Click to expand...
Moscow McConnell drew first blood by refusing even to consider Obama’s qualified nominee, Merrick Garland. Then, as soon as Trump took office, he rushed through his nominee.

So, I have no sympathy for the OP’s outrage. It’s just fine when they bend the rules to deny Democrats legitimate rights and then appoint radical right wing justices, but if Dems try to right the wrong they created, they cry crocodile tears. The right wing is first to foul and first to cry foul.
 
pamak said:
Threatening to take actions which is permitted by the Constitution is not a threat to tyranny. Again, if the "people" give the Democrats the power to do it, there should not be a problem.
Click to expand...

The Dems are demanding SCOTUS justices violate their oath as justices and vote the way some partisan pantywaist wants them to vote. That is WRONG! SCOTUS rules through the interpretation of the CONSTITUTION, not partisan politics.

The Democrats are OVERSTEPPING THEIR AUTHORITY through this demand. It's violating the SEPERATION OF POWERS.
 
MTAtech said:
Moscow McConnell drew first blood by refusing even to consider Obama’s qualified nominee, Merrick Garland. Then, as soon as Trump took office, he rushed through his nominee.
Click to expand...

Boo ****ing hoo. That doesn't justify what the Dems are doing.
 
AlbqOwl said:
I didn't say that it was controversial.

That you aren't allowed not to do it didn't stop our state from doing it though.
Click to expand...

That's way too many negatives for me to parse.
 
Roadvirus said:
The Dems are demanding SCOTUS justices violate their oath as justices and vote the way some partisan pantywaist wants them to vote. That is WRONG! SCOTUS rules through the interpretation of the CONSTITUTION, not partisan politics.

The Democrats are OVERSTEPPING THEIR AUTHORITY through this demand. It's violating the SEPERATION OF POWERS.
Click to expand...

No, Democrats are demanding they stop violating their oaths.
 
Roadvirus said:
Where are these judges violating their oaths? Prove it.
Click to expand...

Like you've proven Democrats want them to violate their oaths? Sure.

Your logic is based entirely on the misconception that your interpretation of the constitution is the only valid interpretation and anyone who thinks differently somehow hates the constitution.

I'm not interested in "proving" anything in a conversation based on that nonsense.
 
Roadvirus said:
Boo ****ing hoo. That doesn't justify what the Dems are doing.
Click to expand...
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Click to expand...
what exactly do the Democrats propose that violates the constitution?
 
Napoleon said:
Well, here is the reality of the situation. The process of selecting Supreme Court Justices has become so partisan and poisonous that it threatens the stability of the Court and the decisions it makes.
Click to expand...

And it's the democrats who are making it partisan and poisonous. Look at what they attempted to do to Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas. Look at the threat the democrats made to the Court just days ago. Go back a ways and look at what they did to Robert Bork.



It hast to stop and not just the Court but the entire appointment process must be reformed. I’m partial to Buttigieg’s suggestion that the Court be expanded to include 5 Justices selected by a Democrat, 5 by a Republican, and 5 selected on a rotating basis from the Appellate Courts by unanimous agreement of those 10.
Click to expand...

I am ofcourse not buying it. The democrats were delighted with how the justices are picked when they controlled the court. They did not turn this sour on the court until Trump was given the opportunity for two picks and will probably get at least one more. The democrats were also fine with the gerrymandering tool regarding forming congressional districts when they had control of it for virtually seven decades. Suddenly since the 2010 state elections gave that advantage to republicans, they hate it.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
If a Republican can't finish in the top two in the primary when Democrats are presumably splitting the rest of the vote, how does that make it a "scam." Our city elections are going on right now and the "top two" format in place will likely produce Republicans in every general election race at stake if not the top two, because the area is pretty red.

What I don't like about the format is that it introduces opportunities to game the system. That's not necessarily good or bad for either party. A primary with 10 Democrats and only 1 republican should help to guarantee that the republican makes the general, and vice versa.
Click to expand...

It's very easy.

First, you gerrymander the districts so they are heavily Democrat.

Second, you coordinate with the public employee unions to split the vote. If there are too many Democrats running in any one district you get the extras to drop out.

Third, you pass legislation that supports what other states are banning, and engage in vote harvesting on election day.

There are 46 Democrats in the California House delegation, only 7 Republicans. Republicans represent more than 13% of registered voters in California, yet only 7 seats?

In the state itself, the New Democratic Party hold a veto proof majority in the Assembly and in the Senate. The Governor is superfluous, and the few Republicans left don't even have to show up.
 
iguanaman said:
If the SC fails to keep step with the population their legitimacy is threatened. If they don't realize that it is Congress's duty to remind them. History is full of such reminders.
Click to expand...

You are 100% making it up as you go along.....as usual. It's not the SCOTUS job to keep in step with the population. Their job is to interpret the law based strictly on the US Constitution. And the only duty congress has regarding the court is for the Senate to confirm or not confirm their appointments... or if a particular justice commits an impeachable offense, then congress can follow through on that. otherwise, threatening the court to heal itself because they do not like the political makeup of the court is stepping well over the line. You need to study the Separation of Powers.
 
Roadvirus said:
The Dems are demanding SCOTUS justices violate their oath as justices and vote the way some partisan pantywaist wants them to vote. That is WRONG! SCOTUS rules through the interpretation of the CONSTITUTION, not partisan politics.

The Democrats are OVERSTEPPING THEIR AUTHORITY through this demand. It's violating the SEPERATION OF POWERS.
Click to expand...

They do not demand anything. They just tell them to pause and rethink their attitude. Do not give the lecture about oaths when most SCOTUS decisions are decided based on the judges' clear partisan affiliation. The SCOTUS judges are as much hacks as the senators (who also give an oath to do their duty).
 
j-mac said:
Thanks Owl...Deep down I know you're right, but in reading some of the offerings today in here, it really makes the worst in me come out....
Click to expand...

Well you have a lot of good company in that syndrome. Me too. :)
 
pamak said:
They do not demand anything. They just tell them to pause and rethink their attitude. Do not give the lecture about oaths when most SCOTUS decisions are decided based on the judges' clear partisan affiliation. The SCOTUS judges are as much hacks as the senators (who also give an oath to do their duty).
Click to expand...

That is true except when it comes to the true constitutionalists who evaluate according to the existing LAW and not what they wish the law said or try to twist things to get around the existing law. So we have true constitutionalist in Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. Roberts tends to be wishy washy on some issues and it is too soon to judge Kavanaugh but I am hoping he too is a pure constitutionalist. Such are not instructed by partisanship or political correctness or activist motivations but stick to the law as the court was intended to do.

The court was never intended to be an unelected and largely unaccountable oligarchy that would make the law whatever it wanted it to be. When that happens we might as well be a totalitarian dictatorship.
 
ObamacareFail said:
You are 100% making it up as you go along.....as usual. It's not the SCOTUS job to keep in step with the population. Their job is to interpret the law based strictly on the US Constitution. And the only duty congress has regarding the court is for the Senate to confirm or not confirm their appointments... or if a particular justice commits an impeachable offense, then congress can follow through on that. otherwise, threatening the court to heal itself because they do not like the political makeup of the court is stepping well over the line. You need to study the Separation of Powers.
Click to expand...

First of all the SC is not a "political body"and politics must not be used to make decisions. Second the issue of legitimacy is real and if the court loses it it will fail. We cannot allow that to happen.
No institution can long survive the gradual erosion and crumbling of its bedrock foundation, the public’s perception of its legitimacy. A court seen as overly partisan and result-driven would erode that legitimacy. This past October, Justice Elena Kagan, a reliable “liberal” vote on the bench, made this plea at a Princeton conference: “All of us... need to realize how precious the Court’s legitimacy is. It’s an incredibly important thing for the Court to guard this reputation of being impartial, being neutral and not simply being an extension of a polarizing process.”
Click to expand...

Has the Supreme Court lost its legitimacy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom