• 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

AlbqOwl said:
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.
Click to expand...

And the first amendment was never intended to become a tool of the rich to corrupt the republic by the pumping of their money, and the House of Representatives was meant to be the only political institution that expresses democracy in the US and was not meant to become the object of partisan gerrymandering manipulation (in 2012 it came to the point that the GOP won the House even though it lost the popular vote (2012 United States House of Representatives elections - Wikipedia ).

If judges want to find excuses to legalize all the above they are not "constitutionalists." They are hacks and their decision corrupts the republic!
 
Last edited:
Frank Howard, one of the all time great college coaches, coached at Clemson. Once during practice, Howard continued to call for the offense to run the ball off tackle. Again and again, the defense would jam the hole and the play went nowhere. Coach Howard finally had had enough. He ripped the whistle off his neck, spit out a big wad of chewing tobacco, grabbed the offensive tackle who was responsible for opening the hole, handed him the whistle and said, "Son, you get over there on the sideline and watch me. I'm going to show you what you are doing wrong."

Coach Howard, in his shorts and t-shirt, got down in a 3 point stance in the offensive tackle position and told the offense to run the play again. Looking at the tackle on sideline Howard screamed, "Godammit, son, you watch me and learn how to do it!" :shock:

The QB called the count and the offense ran the play off tackle. The opposing defensive lineman knocked Coach Howard flat on his ass and once again the play ended at the line of scrimmage.

Coach Howard jumped up, ran over to the offensive tackle on the sidelines, grabbed him by the facemask, yanked him around and screamed, "You see that, boy? Did you see what happened? You got the position so ****ed up can't nobody play it." :2rofll:

Neither ruling party in Washington is worth all the silly partisan bickering. It is a waste of time. Neither party has the answer. Partisans certainly don't have any answers. Neither party is capable. The government in Washington is so ****ed up can't nobody play it.

America ain't coming back, y'all.

How much worse will it become before Canada begins to grant political asylum to Americans who are independents?
 
Deuce said:
White privilege.txt

Weird that you think the only reason minorities wouldn't get the required ID is laziness.
Click to expand...

Please give me an actual reason as to why someone would not get an ID in 2019. There is literally no reason other than being lazy and not caring at this point.
 
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...

You could say voting more power to the government and amending the Constitution to take away free speech, privacy, right to assembly, etc... isn't against the Constitution either. Sure sounds like tyranny to me though. You know what's a good way to get there? Threaten the Supreme Court to rule in favor of steps towards tyranny.
 
Deuce said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sure, keep dreaming.
 
Anthony60 said:
You could say voting more power to the government and amending the Constitution to take away free speech, privacy, right to assembly, etc... isn't against the Constitution either. Sure sounds like tyranny to me though. You know what's a good way to get there? Threaten the Supreme Court to rule in favor of steps towards tyranny.
Click to expand...

If you amend it in the way you say, you have a point.
However, the act of amending the Constitution up until now has in general broaden freedom, and even though we added many more new amendments to the original Bill of Rights, we did not end up with tyranny, yet.
 
ObamacareFail said:
How did they play dirty? Can you be specific?
Click to expand...

Held up Garland's nomination.

Yes, it was legal. Yes, it is within the power of Congress to do so.
It is within the power of Congress to pack the court. Republicans wanted to play like this, they should get it.
 
ajn678 said:
Please give me an actual reason as to why someone would not get an ID in 2019. There is literally no reason other than being lazy and not caring at this point.
Click to expand...

Cost. Transportation difficulties. Lack of appropriate documentation due to age. Lack of time due to cost of living. That's four. Satisfied?
 
pamak said:
If you amend it in the way you say, you have a point.
However, the act of amending the Constitution up until now has in general broaden freedom, and even though we added many more new amendments to the original Bill of Rights, we did not end up with tyranny, yet.
Click to expand...

The dangerous part is when the Supreme Court amends the Constitution through their decisions, which the Democrats are using threats to encourage.
 
Deuce said:
Cost. Transportation difficulties. Lack of appropriate documentation due to age. Lack of time due to cost of living. That's four. Satisfied?
Click to expand...

1. They are free if you make under a certain amount of money.
2. There are services to bring you to a DMV if you are unable to.
3. This is literally true for about 5 people. In these circumstances, they usually work it out.
4. No one has such little time that they cannot afford to go the DMV.

Four awful reasons that are shot down easily by the truth. Try again.
 
Conservative said:
So was the Court the arm of the Democratic Party when it was predominately run by Democrat appointed Justices?
Click to expand...

I'm wasting my time because conservatives are not human beings and are incapable of reason. But, I'll try. The point is that millions of dollars were spent to put Kavanaugh on the bench with the promise. The NRA itself raised 1.2 million dollars and said flat-out, "Four liberal justices oppose your right to selfdefense,” the NRA claimed, “four justices support your right to self-defense. President Trump chose Brett Kavanaugh to break the tie. Your right to selfdefense depends on this vote.” This is the definition of politicization of the Court. All of the conservatives belong to legal association, the Federalist Society, which grooms lawyers to become judges that'll rule in the conservative fashion. Further, as the brief points out, faith in the Supreme Court is at historical lows and 55% of Americans believe that the Supreme Court is influenced by politics and 51% of Americans believe that the Supreme Court should be restructured. This merits repeating. 51% of Americans believe the Supreme Court should be restructured. (Cite: National (US) Poll - May 22, 2019 - U.S. Voter Support For Abortio | Quinnipiac University Connecticut) The other problem is conservatives deliberately prevented Obama from filling in court vacancies including Supreme Court nominations (i.e. Merrick Garland). Here are the things Democrats need to do immediately:

1. Get rid of the filibuster. It's over.
2. Grant Statehood to Puerto Rico, Guam, Marshall Islands, and DC. Allow them a 1 year lag to elect their US Reps
3. Expand the Court to 15.
4. Impeach Kavanaugh
5. Enact laws against gerrymandering
6. Go after Trump and his family. Lock them all up.
7. Institute the Fairness Doctrine to kill off Fox News
8. Confiscate guns and throw people who refuse in jail. (Funny how white folks are about "law and order" except when they don't like the law)
9. Make DUI's a federal crime punishable by life imprisonment (white folks need to stop drinking and driving)
10. Allow healthcare providers to refuse care based on political affiliation. I'm a nurse and don't feel that I should be forced to care for conservative patients who secretly hate because of the color of my skin.


The only tool against conservatism is dehumanization. These animals have to be dehumanized because they have already dehumanized us. Don't believe me? Just yesterday, a white man ran over peaceful protestors with his vehicle. Some of them are injured and one has a broken limb. Do you think this man is in jail? No, he is not in jail. He's not in jail because he's white and privileged.
 
Last edited:
ajn678 said:
Please give me an actual reason as to why someone would not get an ID in 2019. There is literally no reason other than being lazy and not caring at this point.
Click to expand...

Licenses are not free, getting to the DMV is not free, and having access to public (or private) transportation is often not free. Getting off work, especially in the service industry, can be difficult if not impossible. Other responsibilities including poor health, poor mobility, and complex family situations may make it difficult. In some places in Georgia, after white people deliberately closed the DMVs, residents need to make a 50 mile journey to their nearest DMV. That's insane. Why should we go inside the DMV anyway? If it is important like you say, make IDs and driver's licenses like social security cards: you get them for free in the mail. The only reason this isn't the case is because white folks just want to take a picture of people's faces.
 
Last edited:
ajn678 said:
1. They are free if you make under a certain amount of money.
2. There are services to bring you to a DMV if you are unable to.
3. This is literally true for about 5 people. In these circumstances, they usually work it out.
4. No one has such little time that they cannot afford to go the DMV.

Four awful reasons that are shot down easily by the truth. Try again.
Click to expand...

1. This is not true. Point out five states with free driver's licenses with specific income requirements. Also, include the median income of that State with each requirement.
2. This is not true. Point out five states that bring people to the DMV.
3a. First, who the **** are you to judge? No, for real. Who are you to judge? I'd really like an answer to that question.
3b. Where is your citation that there are only 5 people out of >320 million citizens who lack appropriate documentation?
4. This is demonstrably false and you have no proof to back up your claim.
 
Last edited:
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...

No different. The so called intellectual Federal Lynching KKK churchstate of hate cops super egos of SCOTUS Rehnquist's immaculate drug conception national religion Christiananality pedophilia mentality dictate it's not Arab "death to the infidels" threatening POTUS, but AL Qaeda "death to the infidels" threatening to nuke Temple Mount for 9/11; with some Mengele concentration camp baptize thine eyes by urinations defamations of one of Ike's WW II Pentagon staff sergeants prior to exterminations diatribe of theirs where Al + the Spanish que = duh to these suicidal klues klucks duh klans homicidal sociopsychopathilogical human farming techniques Al Qaeda health care patriot act as law of the land while those burning Bush's "man is God" crooks on Capital Hill just made jokes.
 
Huey Freeman said:
I'm wasting my time because conservatives are not human beings and are incapable of reason. But, I'll try. The point is that millions of dollars were spent to put Kavanaugh on the bench with the promise. The NRA itself raised 1.2 million dollars and said flat-out, "Four liberal justices oppose your right to selfdefense,” the NRA claimed, “four justices support your right to self-defense. President Trump chose Brett Kavanaugh to break the tie. Your right to selfdefense depends on this vote.” This is the definition of politicization of the Court. All of the conservatives belong to legal association, the Federalist Society, which grooms lawyers to become judges that'll rule in the conservative fashion. Further, as the brief points out, faith in the Supreme Court is at historical lows and 55% of Americans believe that the Supreme Court is influenced by politics and 51% of Americans believe that the Supreme Court should be restructured. This merits repeating. 51% of Americans believe the Supreme Court should be restructured. (Cite: National (US) Poll - May 22, 2019 - U.S. Voter Support For Abortio | Quinnipiac University Connecticut) The other problem is conservatives deliberately prevented Obama from filling in court vacancies including Supreme Court nominations (i.e. Merrick Garland). Here are the things Democrats need to do immediately:

1. Get rid of the filibuster. It's over.
2. Grant Statehood to Puerto Rico, Guam, Marshall Islands, and DC. Allow them a 1 year lag to elect their US Reps
3. Expand the Court to 15.
4. Impeach Kavanaugh
5. Enact laws against gerrymandering
6. Go after Trump and his family. Lock them all up.
7. Institute the Fairness Doctrine to kill off Fox News
8. Confiscate guns and throw people who refuse in jail. (Funny how white folks are about "law and order" except when they don't like the law)
9. Make DUI's a federal crime punishable by life imprisonment (white folks need to stop drinking and driving)
10. Allow healthcare providers to refuse care based on political affiliation. I'm a nurse and don't feel that I should be forced to care for conservative patients who secretly hate because of the color of my skin.


The only tool against conservatism is dehumanization. These animals have to be dehumanized because they have already dehumanized us. Don't believe me? Just yesterday, a white man ran over peaceful protestors with his vehicle. Some of them are injured and one has a broken limb. Do you think this man is in jail? No, he is not in jail. He's not in jail because he's white and privileged.
Click to expand...

These ideas are loony and the people of American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands agree.
 
TurtleDude said:
How else do I prove that Reagan didn't sign the brady bill? You lie and then you deny any fact that proves you lied
Click to expand...

You can't prove your idiotic assertions yet again.

You're completely discredited.
 
JasperL said:
They're not allowed to run? Shocking!!

Oh, yeah, they do run, they just lose. :roll:
Click to expand...
Not much of a reader, eh?

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
 
cpwill said:
Not much of a reader, eh?
Click to expand...

No, I read fine. I also know Republicans are NOT "[kept]... off the ballot in Senatorial races" they just lose elections because the state is heavily democratic.
 
jet57 said:
You can't prove your idiotic assertions yet again.

You're completely discredited.
Click to expand...

So you are admitting you lost. Ok thanks
 
AliHajiSheik said:
These ideas are loony and the people of American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands agree.
Click to expand...

If this is true, good. These territories can reject Statehood after we conditionally grant it to them.
 
j-mac said:
My God....This is what passes for acceptable debate in here?
Click to expand...

Why would I "debate" with a conservative? For what? The same people who believe in Q? The same people who believe climate change and global warming are hoaxes? The same people who believe in a mysterious "deep state" in the federal government? The same people who reject science and fact for conspiracy theories and innuendo? The same people who believe Hillary Clinton was involved in the transfer to uranium to the Russians? The same people who voted for a white supremacist? The same people who dehumanize liberals by calling them NPCs? The same people who run over people with cars (e.g. ice protesters, heather heyer, etc)? The same people who claim Trump is NOT a racist though he says racist **** every week? There's no point in debating with people who are incapable of debate. Your mileage may vary.
 
Last edited:
AliHajiSheik said:
Who is "we"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
Click to expand...

This is why I don't debate conservatives. Even a pronoun stumps them.

I meant WE as in the United States of America. When conservatives say "In God WE trust", no one claims the U.S Treasury has a "mouse in [their] pocket". Do they? The pronoun "We" in this case is used to denote the will of the people. But, let me slow it down and rewrite the sentence for you:

"If this is true, good. These territories can reject Statehood after the United States conditionally grant citizenship to them."

If you can't comprehend the sentence after the revision. Tough. I'm not engaging any further, it's pointless to try.
 
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...

Facist New Deal?

I live in a street that was paved because of the facist New Deal.

Until recently, I picked up mail in the post office the WPA built during the Facist New Deal.

The hospital down the street was built by the PWA, during the Facist New Deal.

The four lane “dual highway” and the steel cantilevered arch bridge that carries it across the river was build during the Facist New Deal.

All these things gave jobs in the short run, raised the standard of living and the public health in the years afterwards.

And, 80 years later, they’re all still contributing to our lives today.

So, if that’s “Facism”, we can stand for more of it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom