ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 27th June 2018, 10:36 PM   #161
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,164
We really do need more justices, don't we? As soon as the Democrats take control of Congress, let's all push our representatives for more SCOTUS justices.

YES, push them.

McConnell thinks he's so clever using his power to steal a justice from Obama. Well fudge, let's outsmart the bastard.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2018, 11:11 PM   #162
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,123
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
Elections have consequences.

Thank the DNC and Hillary for this.
THere's a few groups that are actually responsible. Mitch McConnell, Dolt 45, the people who actually voted for Dolt 45, either at the booths, the RNC, or the electors. Clinton and the DNC fit into none of these groups - and the idea that it's "their fault" that Sanders (who isn't really a dem, and who basically ran a poor campaign, refusing to even bother with major groups) "would have won" is a simple contrafactual.

Now, the people who screamed "Stop trying to guilt trip me!" every time Clinton pointed out Dolt 45's numerous character deficits, and the importance of election, made an absolutely idiotic decision in the face of facts, as did the Jimmy Dore "Just wait for the amazing revolution in the streets!" bet, but they still aren't directly at fault here.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
We really do need more justices, don't we? As soon as the Democrats take control of Congress, let's all push our representatives for more SCOTUS justices.

YES, push them.

McConnell thinks he's so clever using his power to steal a justice from Obama. Well fudge, let's outsmart the bastard.
That's my view. If you wish to outright break the process, then why bother being "the good guys"? "When they go low we go high" is a good message for presidents, and especially for first ladies, but short term, this would do.

(as I said, in the long-term, I'd gut the US election system and replace it with something that could withstand gerrymandering, make voting a right without exceptions for former felons and a national holiday, and would encourage more than 2 political parties, but that would be very tough to do in most theoretical cases in the US.)

Last edited by Mumbles; 27th June 2018 at 11:22 PM.
Mumbles is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2018, 11:21 PM   #163
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,164
duplicate
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2018, 11:46 PM   #164
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,430
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
walk us through how gerrymandering impacted the presidential election?

Because the leftists gerrymandered the living **** out of Illinois.
Really? That doesn't seem to track with the evidence. See the objective of Gerrymandering is to give yourself as many distracts as possible so you make a bunch of +5 districts to you, and group your opponents into really safe districts for them, resulting in +10, +20 for them in those districts, yet that simply isn't the case in Illinois. In fact in their last elections just 1 Democratic district was below +5, and that was mostly a Rural area. 4 of then are +6 to +10, and the rest are far higher, being the likes of +18, +20, +33, +38. Meanwhile on the Republican side, 4 of their districts are below +5, the other three, all of which are Rural, being +8, +15, and +28, so that's not really surprising.

The numbers just don't agree with you.

Of course I know what you're about to claim. Look at the 4th District. Okay, let's look at it. It currently stands at D +33, while the 7th District, which sits inside it stands at D +38 which those bordering it, the 3rd and 5th have D +6 and +20 respectively.

So why is the 4th such an unusual shape, it's in a very strong Dem area, and all the districts around it are strongly Democratic? The answer is simple when you look at the Demographics. the 4th District has a high number of Hispanic residents who live to both the north and south of the 7th, which has a very high African American population. The 4th is designed to group the two high Hispanic populations together, and allow for a high Hispanic population District and a high African American population District, that generally allow for one Hispanic Representative and one African American Representative, rather than having two very mixed Hispanic/African American districts and one of the groups likely losing out on representation.

It's "gerrymandered" not towards Party, but towards Race and making sure that they get fair representation in Government.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 27th June 2018 at 11:49 PM.
PhantomWolf is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 12:11 AM   #165
The Great Zaganza
Illuminator
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 4,578
McConnell's refusal to allow Garland a hearing is paying of in spades: no matter who gets on the Supreme Court next, SCOTUS is compromised by the Legislative Branch.
At the present, the US no longer has a working system of Separation of Power.

Inflating the number of Supreme Court Judges for a rebalance might be the only way through this mess, since there is no turning back.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 12:30 AM   #166
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,511
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
IAt no time did I worry about US democracy during the Bush presidency.
Nancy Pelosi hears you:

ďThe future of our democracy is at stake.Ē

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018...cal-earthquake
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 12:49 AM   #167
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 10,546
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Nancy Pelosi hears you:

ďThe future of our democracy is at stake.Ē

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018...cal-earthquake
How long will the process take? Elections are taking place just over 4 months from now and he'll retire at the end of July. Can they make a vote after the elections but before the new Congress is sworn in? If no, will the Republicans force a controversial vote like this during the election campaign? It seem a bit risky if you ask me.

How does this work anyway?

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 12:58 AM   #168
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,905
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
McConnell's refusal to allow Garland a hearing is paying of in spades: no matter who gets on the Supreme Court next, SCOTUS is compromised by the Legislative Branch.
At the present, the US no longer has a working system of Separation of Power.

Inflating the number of Supreme Court Judges for a rebalance might be the only way through this mess, since there is no turning back.
What McConnell did sounds a lot like separation of power.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 01:24 AM   #169
The Great Zaganza
Illuminator
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 4,578
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
What McConnell did sounds a lot like separation of power.
no.
he took over power that Congress doesn't have.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 01:35 AM   #170
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 21,136
https://twitter.com/AriMelber/status...82579606994950

Quote:
Does POTUS have to turn over evidence in a criminal probe, like the Nixon tapes?

Must a POTUS testify before a grand jury?

Can a POTUS be indicted?

These are questions only SCOTUS decides, making this vacancy especially pivotal given the criminal probe into the Trump WH.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 01:57 AM   #171
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 15,644
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
I'm not that pessimistic, I guess. This used to be a center-right country, and I think it's moved to the center, and I think the government will reflect that by 2020. I think SCOTUS knows this as well, so their rulings won't be the worst-cases that people think they'll be. The major civil rights victories that have occurred over the years won't be rolled back.
Good god, really?
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 02:04 AM   #172
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 6,123
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
The major civil rights victories that have occurred over the years won't be rolled back.
They've already done so as far as voting rights, rights versus law enforcement, and the like go, and less so as far as reproductive rights. You're already wrong.
Mumbles is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 02:12 AM   #173
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 15,644
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
And that the Dems are developing their own left wing version of the Tea Party (hard line ideologues for whom compromise is a dirty word) is not comforting.
Can you show me examples of this?
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 02:16 AM   #174
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 7,746
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
At the present, the US no longer has a working system of Separation of Power.
It doesn't, except that there may be rifts within parties that can be capitalized on. The Senate technically has a rubber stamp, but there's a slight chance the near-even split may yet yield unexpected results.

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Inflating the number of Supreme Court Judges for a rebalance might be the only way through this mess, since there is no turning back.
Even at 9, some may turn out to be somewhat independent thinkers. Not Thomas, obviously. You don't want to make it 10, so the panel would have to grow by at least a couple.

What would be interesting is to have a judge with a more libertarian bent - there would still be 5-4 splits I disagree with but the arguments might get more interesting. It's probably not want what most people at this forum want, but I can think of someone it would please.
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 02:36 AM   #175
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 7,746
Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
That's my view. If you wish to outright break the process, then why bother being "the good guys"? "When they go low we go high" is a good message for presidents, and especially for first ladies, but short term, this would do.
On the whole I think I still prefer the high road. Negativity can backfire. But that doesn't mean lying down and playing dead.

Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
(as I said, in the long-term, I'd gut the US election system and replace it with something that could withstand gerrymandering, make voting a right without exceptions for former felons and a national holiday, and would encourage more than 2 political parties, but that would be very tough to do in most theoretical cases in the US.)
I've heard there is a risk to gerrymandering in that the margins aren't necessarily huge. Maximizing the number of safe districts means you have to spread the margin somewhat thin in some areas instead of "wasting" too many Republican (or Democratic) voters in massively safe districts.

Also, gerrymandering is not a direct factor affecting Supreme Court nominees but I guess it comes into play with statehouse elections, which in turn influences whether redistricting maps are approved.

Am I understanding these issues correctly?
Minoosh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 02:59 AM   #176
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 44,154
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Errr... questionable.

The 2000 Bush/Gore election came down to Florida. While it is true that the supreme court cut short the time allowed to do recounts, that doesn't necessarily mean that Bush wouldn't have won had recounts proceeded. Whether he did or not depends on several factors... recount the entire state or just those requested by the Democrats; how certain 'spoiled' ballots are counted, etc., but there appears to be a body of evidence that he did (or should have) won the state fair and square.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/31/polit...ies/index.html

On the other hand, while you didn't have any of the recount issues with Trump, you did have:
- Russian interference
- Voter suppression. (some of that probably existed under Bush, but has gotten worse over time)

It should also be pointed out that while Bush lost the popular vote, he was still closer to Gore (only losing by less than 1 million) than Trump was to Clinton (where he lost by ~3 million).
There was also some aggressive cleaning of the voter rolls that resulted in many people being disenfranchised in florida, particularly blacks. Really showed the republicans the way forward.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 03:03 AM   #177
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 44,154
Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
Collins voted for the nuclear option and for Gorsuch. It's not like a potential judge is going to say "I'm going to overturn Roe v. Wade".
Hell it isn't like they are going to answer any questions about anything, it isn't like Gorsuch had to.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 03:38 AM   #178
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,331
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
We might have to consider taking the stuggle out of politics an dinot the streets.

Your eventual surrender is accepted now
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 03:41 AM   #179
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,331
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Serously, A lot of the despair and wallowing in extensitanal misery we are getting on this site is just what Trump and the GOP want.
So stop giving it to them
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 03:43 AM   #180
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,331
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
To be honest, I'm really surprised that someone hasn't yet attempted to assassinate the fat, sociopathic pig in the White House.
Time we'll spent
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 03:56 AM   #181
lionking
In the Peanut Gallery
 
lionking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42,260
Gilead seems no longer remote fiction.
__________________
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

Sir Winston Churchill
lionking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 04:33 AM   #182
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,331
Some Fantastic Fiction being written here though
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 04:40 AM   #183
SuburbanTurkey
Critical Thinker
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 496
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
The major civil rights victories that have occurred over the years won't be rolled back.
They won't be outright overturned, but they'll be curtailed by a series of small decisions. I expect that Roe v. Wade won't be overturned, but increasing restrictions will likely be upheld to the point of making abortion de facto prohibited in certain states. I also doubt gay marriage will be overturned, but the "right" to discriminate gays on religious grounds may be upheld.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 04:45 AM   #184
The Great Zaganza
Illuminator
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 4,578
Just in case it hasn't been mentioned:

Screw Kennedy!

The court has just avoided making a couple of critical decisions, and it seems Kennedy never wants to make an actual decision on Gerrymandering or LGBT. Well guess what: quitting when your successor is likely to to be far more right-wing is pretty much the same thing as voting right wing yourself.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 05:10 AM   #185
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,905
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
no.
he took over power that Congress doesn't have.
You are simply in the minority of legal minds that think the senate is compelled to vote.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 05:15 AM   #186
The Great Zaganza
Illuminator
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 4,578
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
You are simply in the minority of legal minds that think the senate is compelled to vote.
Got some link for that?

Because it would be surprising that the Founders believed that Congress is doing its job when it is doing nothing.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 06:11 AM   #187
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,321
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
If you believe millions of votes need to be suppressed, you so don't understand the issue.

This is the wrong thread. And I doubt my explaining it will matter anyway.
The one sure thing that suppressed the Democrat turnout, and was measured in low voter turnout in Detroit and other urban areas, was Trump asking African American voters, after having an African American President in office for 8 years, 'What do you have to lose?'.

He did not win many votes, but he sure gave them a reason to NOT vote for Hillary.

That was your voter suppression right there.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 06:14 AM   #188
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 12,483
There is a "Boy Who Cried Wolf" aspect to political discourse to be sure.

Both sides always act like the other side gaining any more power is the "ALL IS LOST" MOMENT so... yeah the world is ending. This is the end for... whatever your side is a booster for. And this time we really, really mean it.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 06:15 AM   #189
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 25,269
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
How long will the process take? Elections are taking place just over 4 months from now and he'll retire at the end of July. Can they make a vote after the elections but before the new Congress is sworn in? If no, will the Republicans force a controversial vote like this during the election campaign? It seem a bit risky if you ask me.

How does this work anyway?

McHrozni
He retires on 31 July. If the GOP can have his successor ready to confirm on August 1 - and get them confirmed then there's a good two months for people to forget about it and/or be distracted by other ****.
The Don is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 06:18 AM   #190
carlitos
"mŠs divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,352
No kidding.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 06:18 AM   #191
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,298
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
The one sure thing that suppressed the Democrat turnout, and was measured in low voter turnout in Detroit and other urban areas, was Trump asking African American voters, after having an African American President in office for 8 years, 'What do you have to lose?'.

He did not win many votes, but he sure gave them a reason to NOT vote for Hillary.

That was your voter suppression right there.
No. That is not voter suppression. It is merely campaigning. (Although I doubt many people didn't go to the polls just because of what as racist orangutan said.)

Voter suppression involves the government making it comparatively harder for potential voters of one party to vote Even though they want to on voting day.

Sent from my LG-K121 using Tapatalk
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 06:29 AM   #192
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,905
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Got some link for that?

Because it would be surprising that the Founders believed that Congress is doing its job when it is doing nothing.
There isn't a link because it is my claim based on my assessment. But it probably has a lot of skewing based on my regard of who is a legal mind.

We can see if it applies to your basis for legal minds. Can you name three legal minds who you respect? We will see their stance on it.

I don't think your argument makes sense. It does define how advising must take place, and it explicitly gives Congress power to make their own rules.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 06:43 AM   #193
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,321
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
No. That is not voter suppression. It is merely campaigning. (Although I doubt many people didn't go to the polls just because of what as racist orangutan said.)

Voter suppression involves the government making it comparatively harder for potential voters of one party to vote Even though they want to on voting day.

Sent from my LG-K121 using Tapatalk
It was sarcasm.

I just think 'voter suppression' is being misapplied, using it as the reason someone didn't vote, instead of a candidate giving a voting block a legitimate reason to not vote for his opponent.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 06:44 AM   #194
The Great Zaganza
Illuminator
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 4,578
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
There isn't a link because it is my claim based on my assessment. But it probably has a lot of skewing based on my regard of who is a legal mind.

We can see if it applies to your basis for legal minds. Can you name three legal minds who you respect? We will see their stance on it.
What would that have anything to do with the issue? How is my respect relevant?

To be clear, there are some experts I find competent who believe that Congress is supposed to do the job the constitution says it should. There are even more I have never heard of who support this view.
Your assessment is entirely based on your confirmation bias - as is probably mine.
Which probably means that McConnell was on thin ice at least, since his (lack of) action was unprecedented.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 06:49 AM   #195
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,905
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
What would that have anything to do with the issue? How is my respect relevant?

To be clear, there are some experts I find competent who believe that Congress is supposed to do the job the constitution says it should. There are even more I have never heard of who support this view.
Your assessment is entirely based on your confirmation bias - as is probably mine.
Which probably means that McConnell was on thin ice at least, since his (lack of) action was unprecedented.
We both agree that it is confirmation bias. But I don't agree that something unprecedented in on thin ice.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 06:52 AM   #196
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,321
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
There is a "Boy Who Cried Wolf" aspect to political discourse to be sure.

Both sides always act like the other side gaining any more power is the "ALL IS LOST" MOMENT so... yeah the world is ending. This is the end for... whatever your side is a booster for. And this time we really, really mean it.
Exactly.

We have forgotten that despite having someone in an office that a large segment of the population doesn't like, we always have the power to fix this. Our constitution has us reelect the Executive every 4 years, and allows detractors to vote in enough Legislative to remove the Executive every two years if necessary.

Quote:
"Should things go wrong at any time, the people will set them to
rights by the peaceable exercise of their elective rights."
--Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1806.

Quote:
"Elective government is...the best permanent corrective of the
errors or abuses of those entrusted with power.
--Thomas
Jefferson: Reply to Address, 1801.

Quote:
"The Legislative and Executive branches may sometimes err, but
elections and dependence will bring them to rights."
--Thomas
Jefferson to Archibald Thweat, 1821.

Quote:
"[It is] by their votes the people exercise their sovereignty."
--Thomas Jefferson: written note in Montesquieu's Spirit of the
Laws.

In other words, if Trump's opponents can get him out through an election, then that is the best way to do it. I will stand by the will of the electorate. However, does it go both ways? Will his opponents, if they get clobbered at the next election, realize this?
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 07:10 AM   #197
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,321
If he nominates a minority/woman Justice, then I would think they will try to force a vote before the midterms, attempting to show that the Dems don't want a person of color, or woman in such a powerful position.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 07:42 AM   #198
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 26,078
Right now Trump is in the oval office reading all these tweets and howls about packing the court.

Then Trump got an idea. An awful idea! The Trump got a wonderful, awful idea!

"I know just what to do!" as The Trump shook his fist.
And he made up a quick conservative list.
And he chuckled, and clucked, "What a yummy Trump snack
"With this list I have now got a US supreme court to pack!"
__________________
A proud member of a dissident religious group.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 07:58 AM   #199
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 29,053
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
To be clear, there are some experts I find competent who believe that Congress is supposed to do the job the constitution says it should. There are even more I have never heard of who support this view.
Your assessment is entirely based on your confirmation bias - as is probably mine.
Which probably means that McConnell was on thin ice at least, since his (lack of) action was unprecedented.
Can you cite one of your competent experts?

What's more interesting to me is, what do the experts have to say about a remedy?

Suppose the President believes he is constitutionally entitled to a timely up-or-down vote of the Senate on his nominee. Suppose further that the president believes that, constitutionally, the absence of a timely vote is either equivalent to "consent"; or else that it is a de facto, constitutional delegation of authority from the Legislative to the Executive. And suppose further that the president believes that the constitution gives a clear interpretation of what "timely vote" means? What then?

Well, first there's the question of where the president gets all these constitutional beliefs from. I could ask you the same question, since you seem to share these beliefs, or hold beliefs that are very similar. But let's put that question aside for a moment.

What's the remedy? Does the president simply declare that absent a timely vote by the Senate, he has the constitutional authority to confirm his own nominee? Does he sign an Executive Order confirming the justice, and tell them to show up to work on Monday?

Then what? The Supreme Court itself is a separate and equal branch of the government. They're not bound by Executive Orders. If the Chief Justice bars the new justice from the Court, have they really been confirmed? Are they really a justice? Can the Supreme Court rule on the question, and in so ruling, confirm the nominee? Would that be more or less constitutional than confirmation by Executive Order? What if Congress begins impeachment proceedings of the President and the Justices, for arrogating to themselves constitutional authority which is clearly and exclusively vested in the Legislature?

And where do you find a jurist who wants to cap their distinguished and sober legal career with this clown show?

And coming back to the question of our hypothetical president's constitutional beliefs, how would the Supreme Court rule on the dispute between the Executive and the Legislature? Would they uphold the president's beliefs? Would they find implied rules in the Constitution, about timely up-or-down votes? Would they agree that, absent a timely vote, the president has the authority to confirm nominees by Executive Order?

If the experts you find competent have answers to those questions, I'd love to hear them.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th June 2018, 07:58 AM   #200
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 30,922
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
If he nominates a minority/woman Justice, then I would think they will try to force a vote before the midterms, attempting to show that the Dems don't want a person of color, or woman in such a powerful position.
Are you for real?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:13 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.