Paul158 Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 17 minutes ago, Offthemat said: You suggest that the court is illegitimate because the president isn’t elected by popular vote - which would be unconstitutional - then support packing it to delegitimize it. Illogical. Uncle Bernard doesn't understand the Constitution or what is legal. It is Greek to him. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul158 Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 Just watched Old Joe Biden speech.. I would say 85 percent of what Joe said were lies. I know he has speech writers but he lies continually without even blinking. Well at least he didn't mention he was talking to the Former President of France Mitterrand who has been dead for 28 years AGAIN!!!! 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ionel Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 32 minutes ago, Paul158 said: Just watched Old Joe Biden speech.. I would say 85 percent of what Joe said were lies. I know he has speech writers but he lies continually without even blinking. Well at least he didn't mention he was talking to the Former President of France Mitterrand who has been dead for 28 years AGAIN!!!! Its possible you are understating but sure that's a pretty good guess. I watched some and after hearing continuous lies had to turn it off. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle bernard Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 1 hour ago, Offthemat said: You suggest that the court is illegitimate because the president isn’t elected by popular vote - which would be unconstitutional - then support packing it to delegitimize it. Illogical. 1) The court isn't "illegitimate." It's just a bad idea. It's premise is founded on the idea that the judges are impartial jurors and that's not the case, nor has it ever been the case. It gives an irresponsible amount of power to unelected, partisan judges to impact the governance of the country that didn't elect them. 2) Yes, the composition of the current court is a problem because it doesn't represent the majority will of the people and our government should do that imo. In a rational world, a party that's won the popular vote once since 1992 shouldn't be able to build a 6-3 majority on the court. That's minority rule. Why not just go back to feudalism at that point? 3) Electoral college is stupid. I don't care if it's "constitutional." Our Constitution isn't scripture. It's a fallible document written by fallible men. The best part about it is that it's amendable and we should amend it as we have done many times before. 4) Packing it serves two purposes: Short term - adding liberal justices rebalances the court to reflect the voting results of the actual people who live here. Long term - The next time conservatives win, they would obviously repack the court in their favor. Good! People need to see the obvious truth that they don't see now - the Supreme Court is a tool of partisan political power, not a fair arbiter of justice. It's not an institution that makes our country a better place. If the result is that the court is totally delegitimized and the governance of our country rests more on the people we elect to represent us, that would be a good thing in my opinion. One more thing to consider: Our Supreme Court is not normal! We are an outlier! Most other developed democracies have far less powerful court systems and guess what! They function far more democratically and major decisions affecting their citizens lives don't come down to whether a 90 year old woman survives until her party is back in power! It's insanity! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyBT Posted February 6 Author Share Posted February 6 2 hours ago, uncle bernard said: The problem it solves is that the court is not functioning in a politically neutral manner and the composition of the court does not reflect voter will. Republicans have won the presidential popular vote only once this century. It functions as a way to enforce conservative minority rule. The reality is that the court was always a political entity and the idea that it was an independent branch meant to regulate the government was always one of many myths about our "great" political system. The result of packing the court is to delegitimize it which I think would be a good thing. Why should 9 unelected, highly partisan judges on lifetime appointments get to have such a large impact on our "democratic" system? Because it’s part of the checks and balances our founding fathers created to ensure the minority always has a say. Who cares about the popular vote as were a Republic for a reason. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyBT Posted February 6 Author Share Posted February 6 Just now, uncle bernard said: 1) The court isn't "illegitimate." It's just a bad idea. It's premise is founded on the idea that the judges are impartial jurors and that's not the case, nor has it ever been the case. It gives an irresponsible amount of power to unelected, partisan judges to impact the governance of the country that didn't elect them. 2) Yes, the composition of the current court is a problem because it doesn't represent the majority will of the people and our government should do that imo. In a rational world, a party that's won the popular vote once since 1992 shouldn't be able to build a 6-3 majority on the court. That's minority rule. Why not just go back to feudalism at that point? 3) Electoral college is stupid. I don't care if it's "constitutional." Our Constitution isn't scripture. It's a fallible document written by fallible men. The best part about it is that it's amendable and we should amend it as we have done many times before. 4) Packing it serves two purposes: Short term - adding liberal justices rebalances the court to reflect the voting results of the actual people who live here. Long term - The next time conservatives win, they would obviously repack the court in their favor. Good! People need to see the obvious truth that they don't see now - the Supreme Court is a tool of partisan political power, not a fair arbiter of justice. It's not an institution that makes our country a better place. If the result is that the court is totally delegitimized and the governance of our country rests more on the people we elect to represent us, that would be a good thing in my opinion. One more thing to consider: Our Supreme Court is not normal! We are an outlier! Most other developed democracies have far less powerful court systems and guess what! They function far more democratically and major decisions affecting their citizens lives don't come down to whether a 90 year old woman survives until her party is back in power! It's insanity! It’s a bad idea to you. A wokester. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyBT Posted February 6 Author Share Posted February 6 1 minute ago, uncle bernard said: 1) The court isn't "illegitimate." It's just a bad idea. It's premise is founded on the idea that the judges are impartial jurors and that's not the case, nor has it ever been the case. It gives an irresponsible amount of power to unelected, partisan judges to impact the governance of the country that didn't elect them. 2) Yes, the composition of the current court is a problem because it doesn't represent the majority will of the people and our government should do that imo. In a rational world, a party that's won the popular vote once since 1992 shouldn't be able to build a 6-3 majority on the court. That's minority rule. Why not just go back to feudalism at that point? 3) Electoral college is stupid. I don't care if it's "constitutional." Our Constitution isn't scripture. It's a fallible document written by fallible men. The best part about it is that it's amendable and we should amend it as we have done many times before. 4) Packing it serves two purposes: Short term - adding liberal justices rebalances the court to reflect the voting results of the actual people who live here. Long term - The next time conservatives win, they would obviously repack the court in their favor. Good! People need to see the obvious truth that they don't see now - the Supreme Court is a tool of partisan political power, not a fair arbiter of justice. It's not an institution that makes our country a better place. If the result is that the court is totally delegitimized and the governance of our country rests more on the people we elect to represent us, that would be a good thing in my opinion. One more thing to consider: Our Supreme Court is not normal! We are an outlier! Most other developed democracies have far less powerful court systems and guess what! They function far more democratically and major decisions affecting their citizens lives don't come down to whether a 90 year old woman survives until her party is back in power! It's insanity! Yes we are an outlier. Which is Exactly why people want to come here in masses. Obviously the outlier is popular for a reason. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyBT Posted February 6 Author Share Posted February 6 (edited) 4 minutes ago, uncle bernard said: 1) The court isn't "illegitimate." It's just a bad idea. It's premise is founded on the idea that the judges are impartial jurors and that's not the case, nor has it ever been the case. It gives an irresponsible amount of power to unelected, partisan judges to impact the governance of the country that didn't elect them. 2) Yes, the composition of the current court is a problem because it doesn't represent the majority will of the people and our government should do that imo. In a rational world, a party that's won the popular vote once since 1992 shouldn't be able to build a 6-3 majority on the court. That's minority rule. Why not just go back to feudalism at that point? 3) Electoral college is stupid. I don't care if it's "constitutional." Our Constitution isn't scripture. It's a fallible document written by fallible men. The best part about it is that it's amendable and we should amend it as we have done many times before. 4) Packing it serves two purposes: Short term - adding liberal justices rebalances the court to reflect the voting results of the actual people who live here. Long term - The next time conservatives win, they would obviously repack the court in their favor. Good! People need to see the obvious truth that they don't see now - the Supreme Court is a tool of partisan political power, not a fair arbiter of justice. It's not an institution that makes our country a better place. If the result is that the court is totally delegitimized and the governance of our country rests more on the people we elect to represent us, that would be a good thing in my opinion. One more thing to consider: Our Supreme Court is not normal! We are an outlier! Most other developed democracies have far less powerful court systems and guess what! They function far more democratically and major decisions affecting their citizens lives don't come down to whether a 90 year old woman survives until her party is back in power! It's insanity! Our constitution is scripture. Sorry comrade Edited February 6 by JimmyBT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyBT Posted February 6 Author Share Posted February 6 5 minutes ago, uncle bernard said: 1) The court isn't "illegitimate." It's just a bad idea. It's premise is founded on the idea that the judges are impartial jurors and that's not the case, nor has it ever been the case. It gives an irresponsible amount of power to unelected, partisan judges to impact the governance of the country that didn't elect them. 2) Yes, the composition of the current court is a problem because it doesn't represent the majority will of the people and our government should do that imo. In a rational world, a party that's won the popular vote once since 1992 shouldn't be able to build a 6-3 majority on the court. That's minority rule. Why not just go back to feudalism at that point? 3) Electoral college is stupid. I don't care if it's "constitutional." Our Constitution isn't scripture. It's a fallible document written by fallible men. The best part about it is that it's amendable and we should amend it as we have done many times before. 4) Packing it serves two purposes: Short term - adding liberal justices rebalances the court to reflect the voting results of the actual people who live here. Long term - The next time conservatives win, they would obviously repack the court in their favor. Good! People need to see the obvious truth that they don't see now - the Supreme Court is a tool of partisan political power, not a fair arbiter of justice. It's not an institution that makes our country a better place. If the result is that the court is totally delegitimized and the governance of our country rests more on the people we elect to represent us, that would be a good thing in my opinion. One more thing to consider: Our Supreme Court is not normal! We are an outlier! Most other developed democracies have far less powerful court systems and guess what! They function far more democratically and major decisions affecting their citizens lives don't come down to whether a 90 year old woman survives until her party is back in power! It's insanity! Insanity is Marxism, socialism, communism and progressivism. People leave those places in droves to come here for a reason. It doesn’t work. Never has never will. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle bernard Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 1 hour ago, Paul158 said: Uncle Bernard doesn't understand the Constitution or what is legal. It is Greek to him. I can almost guarantee you I know more about it than you do. That's how I know which parts of it I disagree with. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigbrog Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 3 minutes ago, uncle bernard said: I can almost guarantee you I know more about it than you do. That's how I know which parts of it I disagree with. Instant zero credibility when an internet key board warrior says something like this...LOL Next you will list your degree's, your work history, how smart you are without anyone being able to confirm or deny it...what a freaking weak argument...but not totally unexpected from you. Go read a book and then come back and tell us how you are instantly now an expert...LOL 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle bernard Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 10 minutes ago, JimmyBT said: Yes we are an outlier. Which is Exactly why people want to come here in masses. Obviously the outlier is popular for a reason. People from developed countries aren't coming here "in masses." lol The US has a lower net migration rate than half of Europe. That must mean all those "communist" countries have a better system than us! Welcome aboard Comrade! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lipdrag Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 (edited) 17 minutes ago, JimmyBT said: Because it’s part of the checks and balances our founding fathers created to ensure the minority always has a say. I have a slight disagreement with you here. No one is ensured a "say". The checks and balances are in place to ensure the government protects the rights of every individual (we are all a minority of 1). The right to be left alone, not to be infringed, mandated, etc. is the main point of the checks and balances and the whole idea of a limited government. Having a "say" is not as important as other people (even the majority) not having a "say" about me. summing it up - "I'm not the boss of you and you, even you ALL, are not the boss of me or anyone else." Edited February 6 by Lipdrag 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle bernard Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 1 minute ago, Bigbrog said: Instant zero credibility when an internet key board warrior says something like this...LOL Next you will list your degree's, your work history, how smart you are without anyone being able to confirm or deny it...what a freaking weak argument...but not totally unexpected from you. Go read a book and then come back and tell us how you are instantly now an expert...LOL As opposed to you and the other guy doing the exact same thing? lol all you're doing is saying "I'm dumb" without giving any reasoning as to why you disagree except "but, but, but...the constitution." My argument already concedes that I disagree with the Constitution! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigbrog Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 5 minutes ago, uncle bernard said: As opposed to you and the other guy doing the exact same thing? lol all you're doing is saying "I'm dumb" without giving any reasoning as to why you disagree except "but, but, but...the constitution." My argument already concedes that I disagree with the Constitution! Enough said... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle bernard Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 2 hours ago, Bigbrog said: So again, what is the problem?? How is your life adversely effected? Because YOU feel there is a political majority?? You are right the idea is that the court should be an independent branch meant to regulate the CONSITUTION and when a courts decision goes against what you personally believe it does not mean the decision made was done for political reasons. And why do you want to delegitimize it?? That is an asinine way to think of it no matter what your political lean is. Would you feel this way if the majority was "left" right now? I think we all know the answer. To me if it was...again, would it effect me personally...nope! As for it not reflecting voter will...what, you want to have the Supreme Court changed every election period?? Seriously?? SMH Still waiting to hear what problem the current system is and how changing the number is a solution to any sort of root cause other then someone's political believe. If you can argue the LEGALITY of any of the Supreme Court decisions and how they are completely wrong....LEGALLY...go for it...we all will wait! I laid this out clearly in my following post. Feel free to respond to the arguments there. How my life is affected? What if I live in a red state and one of my loved ones is raped and forced to carry her rapist's baby to term? That would have a pretty big impact on our lives. There are tons of way the court affects the lives of everyday people. That's truly a bizarre argument to make. Just because you don't think it affects you, and maybe it doesn't, doesn't mean it has no affect on anybody. And the political majority I'm referring to the fact that the last time a Republican won the Presidential popular vote, this year's college freshmen wrestlers weren't even alive! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle bernard Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 Just now, Bigbrog said: Enough said... Is the constitution an infallible document? Is it an extension of Holy Scripture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigbrog Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 Just now, uncle bernard said: Is the constitution an infallible document? Is it an extension of Holy Scripture? It's the freaking basis and what grounds us a country...holy crap! You hate that murder is illegal because it says so in the bible?? SMH.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle bernard Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 Just now, Bigbrog said: It's the freaking basis and what grounds us a country...holy crap! You hate that murder is illegal because it says so in the bible?? SMH.... Huh? lol You think I was citing the Bible as a bad thing? lmao Is it a perfect, fallible document or not? If it's not perfect, that means it has mistakes (here's a hint: slavery). If it has mistakes, you can't use it as the sum total of your argument, which means.... If you think the Supreme Court is a good institution that makes sense as a part of a system of government, you should be able to say so without mentioning the constitution. Why does it make sense to have an unelected panel of judges on lifetime appointments decide the validity of our laws? What makes our Judicial system better than Germany's? Or Denmark's? Or [insert X country}? Make your argument! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigbrog Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 11 minutes ago, uncle bernard said: Huh? lol You think I was citing the Bible as a bad thing? lmao Is it a perfect, fallible document or not? If it's not perfect, that means it has mistakes (here's a hint: slavery). If it has mistakes, you can't use it as the sum total of your argument, which means.... If you think the Supreme Court is a good institution that makes sense as a part of a system of government, you should be able to say so without mentioning the constitution. Why does it make sense to have an unelected panel of judges on lifetime appointments decide the validity of our laws? What makes our Judicial system better than Germany's? Or Denmark's? Or [insert X country}? Make your argument! THE CONSTITUTION!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle bernard Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 3 minutes ago, Bigbrog said: THE CONSTITUTION!!! Should slavery be legal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mspart Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 36 minutes ago, uncle bernard said: 1) The court isn't "illegitimate." It's just a bad idea. It's premise is founded on the idea that the judges are impartial jurors and that's not the case, nor has it ever been the case. It gives an irresponsible amount of power to unelected, partisan judges to impact the governance of the country that didn't elect them. It is a bad idea to have a Judicial Branch of the government, separate and divorced from the legislative and administrative branches of government? I don't follow you. This is part of the checks and balances designed in the constitution. I'm sure the Founders felt that justices who were legal scholars and had proved their ability to judge impartially would be those that would be on the court. But as you have said, that is not the case. Which is why we have a left and a right side on the court. If the justices applied the Constitution and the law, there would be no left or right. It is when they go outside that and make up their own stuff that it gets to be a problem. 2) Yes, the composition of the current court is a problem because it doesn't represent the majority will of the people and our government should do that imo. In a rational world, a party that's won the popular vote once since 1992 shouldn't be able to build a 6-3 majority on the court. That's minority rule. Why not just go back to feudalism at that point? There is no requirement for the court to represent the majority or minority will. They are there to be impartial jurists to apply the Constitution and applicable laws in their jurisprudence. 3) Electoral college is stupid. I don't care if it's "constitutional." Our Constitution isn't scripture. It's a fallible document written by fallible men. The best part about it is that it's amendable and we should amend it as we have done many times before. Yes the Constitution is amendable and that has been exercised many times over the years. However there would have been no Constitution without the setup of representatives that we have and the following electoral college makeup. Small states would not have gone for the whole representation by population only. It is the way it is and it will be next to impossible to change given we have many many small states that want a say in the election of the President and Vice President. 4) Packing it serves two purposes: Short term - adding liberal justices rebalances the court to reflect the voting results of the actual people who live here. Rebalances it to what exactly? With partisans? That is what you want in a justice system. You have to be of the right persuasion to get the justice? That is wrong and why lady justice is blind folded. This is just flat out wrong thinking. Long term - The next time conservatives win, they would obviously repack the court in their favor. Good! People need to see the obvious truth that they don't see now - the Supreme Court is a tool of partisan political power, not a fair arbiter of justice. It's not an institution that makes our country a better place. If the result is that the court is totally delegitimized and the governance of our country rests more on the people we elect to represent us, that would be a good thing in my opinion. You would have to amend the Constitution to change life terms for the justices to limited terms so an incoming President can do what you want them to do, which is pack the court they want. But then we have no continuity in the court system. It will change every 4 years. That's the kind of stability you want? Again, this is just flat out wrong thinking. One more thing to consider: Our Supreme Court is not normal! We are an outlier! Most other developed democracies have far less powerful court systems and guess what! They function far more democratically and major decisions affecting their citizens lives don't come down to whether a 90 year old woman survives until her party is back in power! It's insanity! If that 90 year old woman didn't want to hang on so long, she could abdicate so younger person of the right persuasion can be picked. Responses in RED above. It looks like what you want is a Supreme Court and Appellate Courts to be stacked with "liberal" justices and you are trying to convince yourself how this could be done in a way that makes sense. Sorry but your wisdom and reasoning is faulty as noted above. How about we pack the court with impartial justices who will look at the Constitution and applicable case law to determine the just course of action to take? Wouldn't that be better that stacking with ideologues? mspart 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigbrog Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 Just now, uncle bernard said: Should slavery be legal? You are a moron...what a freaking stupid question... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle bernard Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 Just now, Bigbrog said: You are a moron...what a freaking stupid question... BUT THE CONSITUTION!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mspart Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 Just now, uncle bernard said: Should slavery be legal? It is Constitutionally illegal for slavery to be legal. The Constitution states in the 13th amendment: Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. mspart 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Ramirez Walnut, California Class of 2025 Committed to Oklahoma State Projected Weight: 125, 133
Landon Robideau St. Michael-Albertville, Minnesota Class of 2025 Committed to Oklahoma State Projected Weight: 149, 157
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now