uncle bernard

You're so close to getting it....lol

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!

Is the constitution an infallible document? Is it an extension of Holy Scripture?

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!

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!

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!

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.

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!

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?

President whose popularity plummets after he's elected is going to get fewer votes the next time around? Stop the presses!

Third time's the charm?

Just to address this since the rule no longer applies, they voted no because any member of Hamas is already banned from entering the US by law - obviously. It was a BS messaging bill that accomplished nothing. Might as well have passed a bill making murder illegal while they were at it.

When does your ban for life start? lol

that’s not how a one-party nation works. dems could flip texas and the republicans would still control around half the governorships, state houses, congress, etc…. plus a near permanent majority on the supreme court. presidency is only 1/3 of the federal government (and only one party has been winning it while losing the popular vote)

you can keep trying to straw man me all you want because you know you can’t address my actual position because it reveals the barbarism behind yours. hamas is bad. that doesn’t mean you get to kill civilians with mass bombings. we decided that as a global community after the horror of the world wars and for good reason.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2024/jan/30/how-war-destroyed-gazas-neighbourhoods-visual-investigation The tweet allowed you to see the map without clicking on a link. The actual article is much more detailed and horrifying. It would have been pretty easy for you to google "Guardian Gaza map" if you were actually interested.

Their starter is a 3x AA and title contender.

that is not the actual definition of genocide. "the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group." 25,000+ dead and rising and almost all of Gaza levelled including most of their civil infrastructure. This campaign is clearly aimed at ethnically cleansing Gaza for Israeli settlement, dispersing the survivors into neighboring countries.

multiple war crimes on camera in this one instance

why?

Palestinians /= Hamas. 25,000 dead, overwhelmingly civilians, is genocidal behavior. The ICJ just found South Africa’s charge of genocide to be plausible in its preliminary hearing and ordered Israel to prevent further genocidal actions/incitement and also preserve evidence for hearings to come.

*taps sign*