Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 91

Thread: Day-After Thoughts on the Election So Far

  1. #81
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,006
    Quote Originally Posted by LDAHL View Post
    What better way to “other” people than to liken them to Nazis?
    The correlation is there.

  2. #82
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,006
    Quote Originally Posted by iris lilies View Post
    Those who value freedom and democracy?

    Is there something wrongvwith providing transparancy for these important votes?

    Am I the only one who remembers the year 2000 when we still didn’t know was president at Thanksgiving time? I remember that distinctly because we traveled down to Texas to visit my mother over that holiday and we went through Austin. We stopped at the governor’s mansion and saw all of the national news crews hanging around GW and Laura Bush. It was an exciting time.
    There were watchers of both parties.... ridiculous to have more people insisting they need to be there. trump put that stupid idea into his base’s heads just to sow more division.... as is his intent.

  3. #83
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    The court may contain more jurists nominated by Republicans but based upon several of their records I'd have a hard time believing their potential conservative ideologies got in the way of justice. Maybe a President Harris will have better luck when she increases the number of jurists to 12 or 15 and does a mass nomination of judges who've promised to decide cases in the way Democrats demand.
    That is because you are a conservative. You have a tendency to look the other way (or bury your head in the sand) when you don’t want to see or face something.

    Your inference of president Harris is folly. Albeit, if she should become president, it is an improvement of what we have now. IMO there should be, at least, a comparable number of judges from both parties to have a fair assessment of the issues.

  4. #84
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    7,602
    Quote Originally Posted by frugal-one View Post
    IMO there should be, at least, a comparable number of judges from both parties to have a fair assessment of the issues.
    That's the problem with our tendency to politicize the Supreme Court. Their decisions should be based upon a non-biased interpretation of the law and the constitution rather than a governing philosophy. It's a bad idea to try and 'balance' the court using our ideological preferences.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  5. #85
    Senior Member razz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    6,601
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    That's the problem with our tendency to politicize the Supreme Court. Their decisions should be based upon a non-biased interpretation of the law and the constitution rather than a governing philosophy. It's a bad idea to try and 'balance' the court using our ideological preferences.
    Does Mitch McConnell not try to ensure that conservative justice/court appointments only as his goal. Why?
    “The medium is the message. This is merely to say that the personal and social consequences of any medium – that is, of any extension of ourselves – result from the new scale that is introduced into our affairs by each extension of ourselves, or by any new technology.” (Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, 1964)

  6. #86
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    7,602
    Quote Originally Posted by razz View Post
    Does Mitch McConnell not try to ensure that conservative justice/court appointments only as his goal. Why?
    Mitch McConnell doesn't nominate anyone to the judiciary but does currently oversee the Senate's 'Advise and Consent' function along with the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. It used to be a fairly straightforward process which required bi-partisan support due to the rules requiring a 60 vote majority for confirmation of those nominated to the federal judiciary and other executive branch appointments. This changed in 2013 when the then Democratic Majority Leader, Harry Reid, changed the Senate rules to only require a simple majority (51 votes) which made it easier for one party to confirm judicial nominees and other appointments without bi-partisan support. I think that was a bad move but find it interesting to watch Democrats today protest Republicans taking advantage of something they did for their own benefit.

    When the Democrats changed the rules to make it easier to make partisan appointments it was called the 'Nuclear Option' by Republicans. I think it was short sighted for Democrats to expose themselves to the same radioactive fallout they imposed on the Republicans.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  7. #87
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,091
    Alan, I agree that the 51 votes is ridiculous and dangerous. It's why we are so divided. If the Senate had to have 60 votes, the nominees would be less "radical" and perhaps less inclined to "owe" one party or the other. We're in a mess and I am afraid we are too far gone to recover.

  8. #88
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    3,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    That's the problem with our tendency to politicize the Supreme Court. Their decisions should be based upon a non-biased interpretation of the law and the constitution rather than a governing philosophy. It's a bad idea to try and 'balance' the court using our ideological preferences.
    I believe EVERYONE has biases whether they realize it or not.

    Why was it imperative for trump to get Barrett in during an election instead of waiting for the newly elected President to nominate their choice? Why was Garland not allowed to be sworn in? This was politicizing the Supreme Court to the extreme! You are talking out the side of your mouth.

  9. #89
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    7,602
    Quote Originally Posted by frugal-one View Post
    I believe EVERYONE has biases whether they realize it or not.

    Why was it imperative for trump to get Barrett in during an election instead of waiting for the newly elected President to nominate their choice? Why was Garland not allowed to be sworn in? This was politicizing the Supreme Court to the extreme! You are talking out the side of your mouth.
    It is a President's duty to nominate replacements when an opening comes up and it is the Senate's duty to fulfill their 'Advise and Consent' function. I'm not aware of any time limits on that function although I do wish the Republicans had not refused to consider Garland in a timely manner. It wasn't that Garland was not allowed to be sworn in as if a simple nomination was the only requirement, it was that the confirmation process did not take place, although I'm not aware of any requirement for it to be completed.

    If I was to be overly concerned about any of this it would be in the way the Senate has been politicized since ratification of the 17th Amendment. George Washington once told Thomas Jefferson that the Senate was meant to 'cool' the passions of the House and Executive branch in the same way that hot coffee may be transferred from a cup into a saucer before sipping. I think the direct election of Senators took away the saucer.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  10. #90
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    6,251
    Quote Originally Posted by frugal-one View Post
    The correlation is there.
    Only in the minds of people who can convince themselves or be convinced that sixty or seventy million of their countrymen are Nazis, and see no further than that.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •