SCOTUS

The odds are excellent that you will leave this forum hating someone.
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
Posts: 25756
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by MDlaxfan76 »

Another lie from our stupid gator troll.

Do away with the filibuster entirely, Pete, not SCOTUS.

She's made that argument many times before.
User avatar
RedFromMI
Posts: 5023
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2018 7:42 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by RedFromMI »

Maybe some serious reading comprehension problems here...
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
Posts: 25756
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by MDlaxfan76 »

RedFromMI wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:55 am Maybe some serious reading comprehension problems here...
a fan will chime in and say it was that socialist education he received. ;)
Peter Brown
Posts: 12878
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:19 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Peter Brown »

MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:58 am
RedFromMI wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:55 am Maybe some serious reading comprehension problems here...
a fan will chime in and say it was that socialist education he received. ;)



Are you ‘long-sighted’ elites then good with a Republican-controlled Senate simply undoing any laws passed under a Democratic-controlled Senate? We just pass then reverse laws every time one party gets 50 votes?

Seems unwieldy. But you do you.
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
Posts: 25756
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by MDlaxfan76 »

Though you conveniently ignore how dumb your first attack on AOC was, I'll take this as a serious question and respond (I know, I know, it's just another troll post... :shock: )

I'm quite fine on removal of the filibuster altogether. It's history of usage to deny the popular will of the people is fraught, and its benefits in an era of greater diversity of view within each party enabling more bi-partisanship and general goodwill are unfortunately not applicable today.

The Senate is just one body needed to get legislation enacted into law. Also needed are the House and the POTUS, and any law is then subject to Constitutional challenge.

So, the change in power in the Senate does not automatically mean a change in legislation.

In order to accomplish a House, Senate, and POTUS in alignment on a piece of legislation, the voters will have needed to express their preferences in a consistent way, in multiple elections. And if such alignment occurs, then subsequent elections enable the voters to change this outcome to one which they prefer instead.

This puts policy differences at the forefront of elections.

I'd also be in favor of an adjustment to the # of Senators from each state to a closer to proportionate to population formula, which would mean that states like California, Texas, and Florida would have more than two Senators...but that would require a Constitutional Amendment, and I don't think that will happen. I wouldn't take away Senators from small states, but I'd want to better recognize that the size of state is an artifact of long ago and gets in the way of democratic representation. Again, unlikely to ever occur, but it would be my preference.

Basically, I'd like to see government be more responsive to the will of the majority of citizens governed, while remaining protective of individuals' rights. I don't believe the minority of people in the country should control how the majority are governed. I don't want a tyranny of the majority, but that's what the separation of powers, checks and balances, are designed to prevent.

They can do so without the artifact of the filibuster.
ggait
Posts: 4073
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2018 1:23 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by ggait »

Per the Constitution, laws require (i) House majority, (ii) Senate majority, and (iii) Presidential signature.

The Founders thought that was a pretty high bar and were good with that.

Handing all three levers to one party requires super-majority voting by the voters over several election cycles. Especially when you add in the effects of gerry-mandering. So it seems pretty reasonable that if the voters have handed all three levers to one party via super majority votes, that should be enough to govern.

The counter majority structure of SCOTUS and the Senate and the Electoral College are more than adequate to protect against tyranny of the majority. So the filibuster really only serves to inflict the tryanny of an ever shrinking minority on the ever growing majority.

And the way the filibuster is now used is completely inconsistent with historical precedent. It was never (until recently) used as an over-ride to the Constitutional requirement of Senate majority. With the filibuster in place, for example, Clarence Thomas was confirmed by a 52-48 vote with Dems in control of the Senate. The 48 was not permitted to over-ride the 52. Lots of legislation (under the previous filibuster norms) passed with less than 60 votes.

As it is now, the filibuster does not apply to things that the GOP cares about -- judges, tax cuts. Long overdue for it to be eliminated for everything.

#democracy
Boycott stupid. If you ignore the gator troll, eventually he'll just go back under his bridge.
jhu72
Posts: 13883
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:52 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by jhu72 »

Peter Brown wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:43 am
CU88 wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:31 am
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 12:54 pm
Peter Brown wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 12:36 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 12:09 pm
Peter Brown wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:58 am
jhu72 wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:34 am
a fan wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 11:17 am
Peter Brown wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 10:46 am The world is literally laughing at us.
:lol: World leaders made direct speeches, offering to help if our women need health care, Petey. Every. single. person. I know that's from the EU & UK ask "what the F is going on in your country?" And they're sure as sh*t not talking about some piddly gay pride parade, Petey.
Peter Brown wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 10:46 am Do nude bicyclists at a Pride Parade, attended by children, offend you?
Not even a little.

Petey----you should be thrilled! They got your note about how offended you were by drag queens....so they took their dresses off, fixing your problem.

All thanks to you. Take a bow, Pete!
... same in Canada for the business folks I know. Can't believe this revanchist sh*t. :roll:




Just amazing that you three gleefully admit that naked parade-goers in front of minors is totes cool.

If ever there was an example why Democrats have lost touch with American parents and why they will be roundly shellacked this Fall, these posts are it.

Man o man. The willful separation of leftist lunacies from common morality, the bizarre elevation of Democratic virtue signalling above civic normalcy, is truly something else. They hate Trump because they are Trump.

Imagine the actual lunatics of the left, not just rando lacrosse fans who in theory aren’t crazy, imagine how far out on the spectrum of lunacy the far left is. Jeebus.
You really are as dumb as a bag of rocks. First, no one said anything like "totes cool" (maybe because we are grown-ups and don't talk like middle schoolers). MDLax said he thought it was silly. I actually think that the performative aspect of this is intentional, and with my help, my kids can handle it. And second, I am "an American parent." I actually raised two pretty decent, well-adjusted and self-sufficient children to adulthood. They were exposed to -- shivers Pete? -- gay folks and black folks and trans folks, and really came to understand that the hearst of those people are what mattered, not the stuff that appears to consume you and your Foxy News narrative brain. My kids don't hate Trump. They are astonished and disappointed that so many people have been taken over by this sociopathic carnival barker. Can we just agree that you are a narrow-minded, insulated little dogpile, and let you go off to the bars to "hang wiff bros?"




What fascinates me seacoaster is that instead of saying ‘silly’ or it’s ‘intentional’, why wouldn’t you simply say it’s disgusting and shouldn’t be around kids? This isn’t an evening event like NYC’s Halloween Parade…this is a daytime event with young children in attendance.

How can you possibly slough it off like it’s no big deal because you ‘have two well adjusted adult daughters’ (like that’s relevant)?

You guys wink at plainly inappropriate stuff. I recall being amazed how casually blasé the Fanlax FLP was about drag queens in lower schools. This is the same stuff that alienates right-minded Americans who can equally be Democrats as they are Republicans.

By refusing to ever take a stand against purposeful in-your-face cultural affronts, you’ll wake up one day so far down the rabbit hole of lunacy you won’t remember which direction to crawl back out.
Happy to "fascinate" you. The bar for fascination is, for you, really low. I understand.

I have a son and a daughter. And I'm not Herschel: I know and admit to all my kids

I am not affronted or disturbed by any of this sort of stuff. It's not disgusting. And parents can decide what their kids are "around." To use one of your more hackneyed statements here, it is "revealing" to me that you have such a hard on for this sort of display and performance.
What until petey figures out that his own socialist governement is a HUGE sponsor of nude art!
Here in DC you can find tours of such art for citizens of all ages!

https://www.washingtonian.com/2009/02/1 ... res-in-dc/





AOC, a Democratic sitting member of Congress, just called to abolish the Supreme Court, an indispensable branch of government that checks and balances her abuse of power.

What's the word for this type of thing... remind me.


8DEEAA75-97F6-4606-B1E1-0DCFE74C858B.jpeg
... sorry it takes a phrase

...Triggered idiot that can't read :lol: :lol: :lol:
Image STAND AGAINST FASCISM
jhu72
Posts: 13883
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:52 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by jhu72 »

ggait wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:48 pm Per the Constitution, laws require (i) House majority, (ii) Senate majority, and (iii) Presidential signature.

The Founders thought that was a pretty high bar and were good with that.

Handing all three levers to one party requires super-majority voting by the voters over several election cycles. Especially when you add in the effects of gerry-mandering. So it seems pretty reasonable that if the voters have handed all three levers to one party via super majority votes, that should be enough to govern.

The counter majority structure of SCOTUS and the Senate and the Electoral College are more than adequate to protect against tyranny of the majority. So the filibuster really only serves to inflict the tryanny of an ever shrinking minority on the ever growing majority.

And the way the filibuster is now used is completely inconsistent with historical precedent. It was never (until recently) used as an over-ride to the Constitutional requirement of Senate majority. With the filibuster in place, for example, Clarence Thomas was confirmed by a 52-48 vote with Dems in control of the Senate. The 48 was not permitted to over-ride the 52. Lots of legislation (under the previous filibuster norms) passed with less than 60 votes.

As it is now, the filibuster does not apply to things that the GOP cares about -- judges, tax cuts. Long overdue for it to be eliminated for everything.

#democracy
+1
Image STAND AGAINST FASCISM
a fan
Posts: 17723
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 9:05 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by a fan »

Peter Brown wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 11:43 am AOC, a Democratic sitting member of Congress, just called to abolish the Supreme Court, an indispensable branch of government that checks and balances her abuse of power.

What's the word for this type of thing... remind me.


8DEEAA75-97F6-4606-B1E1-0DCFE74C858B.jpeg
:lol: :lol: Ah, Pete. NEVER change, my man.
Peter Brown
Posts: 12878
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:19 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Peter Brown »

MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:37 pm Though you conveniently ignore how dumb your first attack on AOC was, I'll take this as a serious question and respond (I know, I know, it's just another troll post... :shock: )

I'm quite fine on removal of the filibuster altogether. It's history of usage to deny the popular will of the people is fraught, and its benefits in an era of greater diversity of view within each party enabling more bi-partisanship and general goodwill are unfortunately not applicable today.

The Senate is just one body needed to get legislation enacted into law. Also needed are the House and the POTUS, and any law is then subject to Constitutional challenge.

So, the change in power in the Senate does not automatically mean a change in legislation.

In order to accomplish a House, Senate, and POTUS in alignment on a piece of legislation, the voters will have needed to express their preferences in a consistent way, in multiple elections. And if such alignment occurs, then subsequent elections enable the voters to change this outcome to one which they prefer instead.

This puts policy differences at the forefront of elections.

I'd also be in favor of an adjustment to the # of Senators from each state to a closer to proportionate to population formula, which would mean that states like California, Texas, and Florida would have more than two Senators...but that would require a Constitutional Amendment, and I don't think that will happen. I wouldn't take away Senators from small states, but I'd want to better recognize that the size of state is an artifact of long ago and gets in the way of democratic representation. Again, unlikely to ever occur, but it would be my preference.

Basically, I'd like to see government be more responsive to the will of the majority of citizens governed, while remaining protective of individuals' rights. I don't believe the minority of people in the country should control how the majority are governed. I don't want a tyranny of the majority, but that's what the separation of powers, checks and balances, are designed to prevent.

They can do so without the artifact of the filibuster.



Democrats in 2022: YES! We need to change the filibuster!

Democrats in 2025 after President DeSantis signs national constitutional carry: NO! That's not fair!
Peter Brown
Posts: 12878
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:19 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Peter Brown »

jhu72 wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:03 pm
ggait wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 12:48 pm Per the Constitution, laws require (i) House majority, (ii) Senate majority, and (iii) Presidential signature.

The Founders thought that was a pretty high bar and were good with that.

Handing all three levers to one party requires super-majority voting by the voters over several election cycles. Especially when you add in the effects of gerry-mandering. So it seems pretty reasonable that if the voters have handed all three levers to one party via super majority votes, that should be enough to govern.

The counter majority structure of SCOTUS and the Senate and the Electoral College are more than adequate to protect against tyranny of the majority. So the filibuster really only serves to inflict the tryanny of an ever shrinking minority on the ever growing majority.

And the way the filibuster is now used is completely inconsistent with historical precedent. It was never (until recently) used as an over-ride to the Constitutional requirement of Senate majority. With the filibuster in place, for example, Clarence Thomas was confirmed by a 52-48 vote with Dems in control of the Senate. The 48 was not permitted to over-ride the 52. Lots of legislation (under the previous filibuster norms) passed with less than 60 votes.

As it is now, the filibuster does not apply to things that the GOP cares about -- judges, tax cuts. Long overdue for it to be eliminated for everything.

#democracy
+1


Democrats in 2022: Change the filibuster! Codify Roe!

Democrats in 2025 after President DeSantis signs national Right to Work legislation: huh?
a fan
Posts: 17723
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 9:05 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by a fan »

Peter Brown wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:47 pm
Democrats in 2022: Change the filibuster! Codify Roe!

Democrats in 2025 after President DeSantis signs national Right to Work legislation: huh?
It's almost like they'll do whatever it takes to win.

Sound familiar?
Peter Brown
Posts: 12878
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:19 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Peter Brown »

a fan wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:54 pm
Peter Brown wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 1:47 pm
Democrats in 2022: Change the filibuster! Codify Roe!

Democrats in 2025 after President DeSantis signs national Right to Work legislation: huh?
It's almost like they'll do whatever it takes to win.

Sound familiar?


Actually it doesn’t sound ‘familiar’. It sounds like Democrats are yet again playing for today, ignoring tomorrow.


President Donald Trump continues to plead for the end of the legislative filibuster, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell keeps saying no.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/ ... ump-678817
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2982
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:20 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by admin »

No personal attacks...
a fan
Posts: 17723
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 9:05 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by a fan »

Peter Brown wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 2:02 pm Actually it doesn’t sound ‘familiar’. It sounds like Democrats are yet again playing for today, ignoring tomorrow.
Says the team that packed the SCOTUS playing games with Obama's choice.

Result? Voters who don't pay attention to politics now know that if you vote Republican for ANYTHING, they'll take your rights away if they win.

Now THAT is some sweet long term thinking, Pete.
Peter Brown
Posts: 12878
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:19 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Peter Brown »

a fan wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 2:21 pm
Peter Brown wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 2:02 pm Actually it doesn’t sound ‘familiar’. It sounds like Democrats are yet again playing for today, ignoring tomorrow.
Says the team that packed the SCOTUS playing games with Obama's choice.

Result? Voters who don't pay attention to politics now know that if you vote Republican for ANYTHING, they'll take your rights away if they win.

Now THAT is some sweet long term thinking, Pete.




You realize that would never have been possible without Harry Reid (D-Nev) nuking the judicial filibuster, right? McConnell begged him not to do it.
User avatar
NattyBohChamps04
Posts: 2202
Joined: Tue May 04, 2021 11:40 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by NattyBohChamps04 »

If McConnell hadn't held up judicial appointments, we wouldn't have needed to.

If McConnell hadn't set up Citizens United, we'd be much better off as a country.

McConnell has been absolutely terrible for America in so many ways. Hard to think of many others who have damaged our great country so much, directly and indirectly.
a fan
Posts: 17723
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 9:05 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by a fan »

Peter Brown wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 2:50 pm
a fan wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 2:21 pm
Peter Brown wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 2:02 pm Actually it doesn’t sound ‘familiar’. It sounds like Democrats are yet again playing for today, ignoring tomorrow.
Says the team that packed the SCOTUS playing games with Obama's choice.

Result? Voters who don't pay attention to politics now know that if you vote Republican for ANYTHING, they'll take your rights away if they win.

Now THAT is some sweet long term thinking, Pete.
You realize that would never have been possible without Harry Reid (D-Nev) nuking the judicial filibuster, right? McConnell begged him not to do it.
:lol: So you're crediting Reid with making American voters associate Republicans as the party that takes your rights away?

I'm sure he'll take your compliment, Pete.
Peter Brown
Posts: 12878
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:19 am

Re: SCOTUS

Post by Peter Brown »

a fan wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 3:09 pm
Peter Brown wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 2:50 pm
a fan wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 2:21 pm
Peter Brown wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 2:02 pm Actually it doesn’t sound ‘familiar’. It sounds like Democrats are yet again playing for today, ignoring tomorrow.
Says the team that packed the SCOTUS playing games with Obama's choice.

Result? Voters who don't pay attention to politics now know that if you vote Republican for ANYTHING, they'll take your rights away if they win.

Now THAT is some sweet long term thinking, Pete.
You realize that would never have been possible without Harry Reid (D-Nev) nuking the judicial filibuster, right? McConnell begged him not to do it.
:lol: So you're crediting Reid with making American voters associate Republicans as the party that takes your rights away?

I'm sure he'll take your compliment, Pete.



‘Taking our rights away’. Are you confusing when judges send laws back to the states to legislate, with ‘taking rights away’?

Go vote.
a fan
Posts: 17723
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 9:05 pm

Re: SCOTUS

Post by a fan »

Peter Brown wrote: Thu Jun 30, 2022 3:36 pm ‘Taking our rights away’. Are you confusing when judges send laws back to the states to legislate, with ‘taking rights away’?
:lol: Yes. Taking away a Federal right, Pete. What the heck do you think the SCOTUS is in charge of, Pete? Our Federal Laws, or Delaware's?

Do I need to break out the puppets again?
Post Reply

Return to “POLITICS”