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 28th June 2018, 11:15 AM   #281
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 44,737
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
None of this would be an issue if American would just get over their paranoid kneejerk objection to a national ID.

By resisting anything resembling a national ID card we've forced a situation where things which were never meant to be used as an ID card have to be used as one.

We're so scared of a "You vill show me your papers Sir" scenario that we've created the worst of both worlds where we have to "show our papers" but don't have papers to show.

I have a Florida State Drivers License (issued by the State of Florida's Highway Safety and Motor Vehicle Department), a US Passport (issued by the United State's Department of State), a Social Security Card (Issued by the Social Security Administration), an official stamped copy of my birth certificate (issued by the county in NC where I was born), a United States Navy retiree ID card (issued by the Department of Defense),and a loose smattering of other various things (A Florida concealed carry permit, a Florida Salt and Fresh Water fishing license, a library card, a university ID, a couple of different work security badges...) none of which are an ID in every possible scenario. Some are an ID in some cases, some are in ID in other cases, some are an ID when combined with another one but not this other one and so forth and so on. Due to the RealID act some states drivers license don't count as anything outside the state they were issued in so they are useless for dealing with the Federal government. Most Americans don't have a passport and fewer still have a military ID for obvious reason.

The only two documents pretty much everybody is going to have issued to them in some manner; a birth certificate and a Social Security card, are useless for identification because they contain no identifying information, generally aren't carried on your person and in many cases not even retained by the individual.
It will be great for rounding up and deporting those that trump wishes to, they can't even prove they are american citizens and he is doing away with the whole due process before deportation anyway.
__________________
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, 11:17 AM   #282
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 44,737
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The filibuster isn't part of the constitution. And the constitution doesn't require the Sentate to vote on any nominee.
Yes it doesn't require their approval either. They are only vaguely in the whole advise and when they refused to hold hearings they abdicated that responsibility.
__________________
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, 11:18 AM   #283
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,458
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Yes they simply appoint them, and the senate can advise on it. Obama should simply have bypassed the senate as they were refusing to even hold hearings. So the senate abdicated their power to advise on supreme court seats.
Obama should have bypassed the Senate how? What constitutional remedy actually exists, for what you propose? As I asked The Great Zaganza:

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
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?
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, 11:18 AM   #284
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,381
Originally Posted by autumn1971 View Post
Also can't wait to see the right realize that leftists have guns and actually read and understand history. They might want to ask the French aristocracy about that... oh, ****, you can't.
The left is threatening violence and terror, but Trump is supposed to be the enemy of democracy?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you don't understand history.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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, 11:19 AM   #285
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,381
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Yes they simply appoint them, and the senate can advise on it. Obama should simply have bypassed the senate as they were refusing to even hold hearings. So the senate abdicated their power to advise on supreme court seats.
You're correct, Obama should totally have done that. That's a precedent that couldn't possibly come back to bite Democrats on the ass.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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, 11:21 AM   #286
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,458
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Yes it doesn't require their approval either. They are only vaguely in the whole advise and when they refused to hold hearings they abdicated that responsibility.
Or look at it this way: The Senate Majority Leader advised the President that the Senate would not consent to confirm his nominee. Far from abdicating their responsibility, the Senate fulfilled it.
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, 11:21 AM   #287
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 44,737
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You're correct, Obama should totally have done that. That's a precedent that couldn't possibly come back to bite Democrats on the ass.
Of course not, as long as they actually held hearings why would it?

Why shouldn't an unprecedented reaction be the result of an unprecedented action?

Democrats need to stop being so worried of pushing back at the republicans constitutional crises.
__________________
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, 11:30 AM   #288
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,898
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Of course not, as long as they actually held hearings why would it?

Why shouldn't an unprecedented reaction be the result of an unprecedented action?

Democrats need to stop being so worried of pushing back at the republicans constitutional crises.
Democrats need to stop being so worried of pushing back at the republicans BY CREATING MASSIVE constitutional crises by crazy schemes like PACKING THE COURT or having Obama just, you know BYPASS the Senate.

fixed that for you
__________________
Justice for Flynn!
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, 11:30 AM   #289
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That you describe a conservative court as "unacceptable" rather than "undesirable" gives the game away.

There are no actual principles at stake here, only partisanship.
A distinction only a few years old, actually. Undesirable was not too long ago, able to be dealt with, accepted and debated.

That's not where we are today. Today, republicans are untrustworthy. They're liars. They're cheats. They willfully carry the water of a russian installed puppet president, who is headed to Helsinki to get his new marching orders. Today, republicans cup the balls of a autocrat wannabe who makes friends with our enemies and enemies of our friends. Nice legacy.
NoahFence 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, 11:32 AM   #290
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
The left is threatening violence and terror, but Trump is supposed to be the enemy of democracy?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you don't understand history.
The left is defending democracy. I'm sure we'd rather not get to the point of armed conflict but it depends on how far you people push. Roll back a major civil rights victory or two and we'll see what we see.
NoahFence 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, 11:44 AM   #291
sir drinks-a-lot
Illuminator
 
sir drinks-a-lot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cole Valley, CA
Posts: 3,497
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
That's not where we are today. Today, republicans are untrustworthy. They're liars. They're cheats. They willfully carry the water of a russian installed puppet president, who is headed to Helsinki to get his new marching orders. Today, republicans cup the balls of a autocrat wannabe who makes friends with our enemies and enemies of our friends. Nice legacy.
What do you think about the Democrats?
__________________
I drink to the general joy o' th' whole table. --William Shakespeare
sir drinks-a-lot 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, 11:46 AM   #292
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,607
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Looks like Obama* decided the Senate's "advice" was constitutional. And it looks like the Democrats in the Senate aren't in any rush to say differently--certainly they're not pushing for rules changes along those lines.
*Constitutional Scholar Obama
__________________
"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, 11:49 AM   #293
Sherkeu
Muse
 
Sherkeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 971
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
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.
This is an interesting question of authority. In the dispute of Executive and Legislative, where the dispute is about the Supreme Court confirmation process, who has authority to make an impartial judicial interpretation of the constitution?
Would not the entire SCOTUS be obligated to recuse themselves?
Sherkeu 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, 11:50 AM   #294
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,381
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
The left is defending democracy.
Narrator: they aren't.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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, 11:51 AM   #295
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,607
If anyone wants to stop this from happening, i'd suggest winning the Senate.
No gerrymandering there.

I would totally understand a majority Dem senate not approving a Trump pick.
It would force him to nominate someone more appealing to the Dems.

I would also say if the Republicans get to 52 in the Senate, then I guess kids will be reading about the Trump Judiciary in history books in 50 years.
__________________
"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, 11:52 AM   #296
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot View Post
What do you think about the Democrats?
Feckless and spineless.
NoahFence 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, 11:53 AM   #297
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Narrator: they aren't.
Remind me again who was installed by Russia?

beuller?

beuller?
NoahFence 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, 11:53 AM   #298
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,381
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Democrats need to stop being so worried of pushing back at the republicans constitutional crises.
There is no constitutional crisis here regarding the Supreme Court. There's just a lot of liberal butt hurt.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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, 11:55 AM   #299
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,381
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Remind me again who was installed by Russia?

beuller?

beuller?
I always wondered what the leftist version of the birtherism nonsense would look like. Now I know.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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, 11:55 AM   #300
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 27,898
Originally Posted by Sherkeu View Post
This is an interesting question of authority. In the dispute of Executive and Legislative, where the dispute is about the Supreme Court confirmation process, who has authority to make an impartial judicial interpretation of the constitution?
Would not the entire SCOTUS be obligated to recuse themselves?
No, not only because they are already conformed (so it would not impact them) but also because:

Breyer said, “The Supreme Court is different in one respect. In every other court, if I decided in a close matter to recuse myself, that’s the easy decision. That’s one fewer case I have to decide, and besides, they’ll bring in somebody else to decide it. If I recuse myself on the Supreme Court, there is no one else and that could switch the result.”
__________________
Justice for Flynn!
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, 11:59 AM   #301
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,463
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Your alternative is the status quo. A non-starter.

You people should hold on to your hats if Democrats win in 2018 - it ain't gonna be pretty, this payback you've been begging for.
We don't need payback, we need to stop the hemorrhaging.
__________________
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 28th June 2018, 12:06 PM   #302
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
I always wondered what the leftist version of the birtherism nonsense would look like. Now I know.
LOL 'Cuz there's no evidence AT ALL for Russian interference and trump / trump campaign collusion.

pathetic.
NoahFence 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, 12:07 PM   #303
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,381
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
We don't need payback, we need to stop the hemorrhaging.
If only there was some organization that could rally the opposition.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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, 12:10 PM   #304
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,381
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
LOL 'Cuz there's no evidence AT ALL for Russian interference and trump / trump campaign collusion.

pathetic.
Mueller will indict Trump any day now. Things are gonna change, I can feel it.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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, 12:16 PM   #305
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Mueller will indict Trump any day now. Things are gonna change, I can feel it.
Your reply has nothing to do with the post you replied to.

That's totally never happened before.
NoahFence 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, 12:21 PM   #306
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 24,013
A Supreme Court justice is retiring, as often happens, and will be replaced by another justice nominated by the president and approved by the Senate. This is the normal way of things, is it not?

Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
So, seriously: why not pack the court?
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
It has an excellent chance of happening after the 2020 elections, if Democrats are able to do what they did in 2008, and they're looking at a Court with right-wing replacements for Souter and Ginsberg. I would be surprised if they didn't pack the court.
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.
This seems like a really dangerous idea, and impractical as the Democrats do not control the necessary positions to make it happen.

But can I ask, if Republicans were pushing their representatives, YES pushing them, to add more justices (because we really do need more, don't we!) and the President and Senate agreed that it was a good idea to pack the court, then wouldn't we now be talking about a tyrannous power grab?
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba 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, 12:21 PM   #307
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,463
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Mueller will indict Trump any day now. Things are gonna change, I can feel it.
Mueller does not indict, the Grand Jury does.

It's the evidence that will matter, not the action taken or not taken based on the evidence. We know the corrupt GOP controlled House might ignore evidence of serious wrong-doing. But the public will see the evidence. It won't be possible to suppress it.
__________________
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 28th June 2018, 12:23 PM   #308
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,463
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
...
This seems like a really dangerous idea, and impractical as the Democrats do not control the necessary positions to make it happen.

But can I ask, if Republicans were pushing their representatives, YES pushing them, to add more justices (because we really do need more, don't we!) and the President and Senate agreed that it was a good idea to pack the court, then wouldn't we now be talking about a tyrannous power grab?
Don't you think it was a dangerous move by McConnell to refuse to grant Garland a hearing?

How was that OK?
__________________
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 28th June 2018, 12:23 PM   #309
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
But can I ask, if Republicans were pushing their representatives, YES pushing them, to add more justices (because we really do need more, don't we!) and the President and Senate agreed that it was a good idea to pack the court, then wouldn't we now be talking about a tyrannous power grab?
The power grab is already happening, with what McConnell did to Obama.
NoahFence 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, 12:24 PM   #310
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 24,013
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Which is why I think armed resistence to a tyranny is becoming a realistic possibility?
Is this supposed to be serious?

Did I miss the bit where it was a normal part of the political process for a Supreme Court Justice to retire and be replaced by another?

So, what are the responses to this normal process:

Calls to pack the courts
Calls to arms to...what? Start shooting people in the government? What the ****?
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba 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, 12:24 PM   #311
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,381
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Your reply has nothing to do with the post you replied to.
Sure it does. Mueller is investigating the Trump/Russia collusion allegations you refer to. Since you're obviously right that Trump conspired with the Russians to steal the election, Mueller will prove this, Trump will be impeached, Pence will resign, Ryan becomes President, appoints Hillary VP, then Ryan resigns. Voila, President Hillary.

It will totally happen.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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, 12:25 PM   #312
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 70,463
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
If anyone wants to stop this from happening, i'd suggest winning the Senate.
No gerrymandering there....


Clinton got 3 million more votes than Trump. The EC is gerrymandered. There are more GOP Senators than the actual sentiment of the voters because a person in Wyoming has a vote that counts more than a person in California.
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 28th June 2018 at 12:58 PM.
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 28th June 2018, 12:26 PM   #313
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 24,013
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Don't you think it was a dangerous move by McConnell to refuse to grant Garland a hearing?

How was that OK?
Let's agree that it was. What are you advocating as a response? A call to pack the court? Who has the power to do that right now?
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba 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, 12:27 PM   #314
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,381
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
The power grab is already happening, with what McConnell did to Obama.
He didn't do anything to Obama. In fact, the complaint is that he didn't do anything.

But l'etat, c'est Obama, I guess.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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, 12:27 PM   #315
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 24,013
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
The power grab is already happening, with what McConnell did to Obama.
Do you have no objections, in principle, to packing the Court?
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba 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, 12:28 PM   #316
sir drinks-a-lot
Illuminator
 
sir drinks-a-lot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cole Valley, CA
Posts: 3,497
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Is this supposed to be serious?

Did I miss the bit where it was a normal part of the political process for a Supreme Court Justice to retire and be replaced by another?

So, what are the responses to this normal process:

Calls to pack the courts
Calls to arms to...what? Start shooting people in the government? What the ****?
Please don't look on Twitter.
__________________
I drink to the general joy o' th' whole table. --William Shakespeare
sir drinks-a-lot 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, 12:29 PM   #317
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Sure it does. Mueller is investigating the Trump/Russia collusion allegations you refer to. Since you're obviously right that Trump conspired with the Russians to steal the election, Mueller will prove this, Trump will be impeached, Pence will resign, Ryan becomes President, appoints Hillary VP, then Ryan resigns. Voila, President Hillary.

It will totally happen.
LOL
Nice straw.
NoahFence 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 PM   #318
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 24,013
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post


Clinton got 3 million more votes than Trump. The EC is gerrymandering. There are more GOP Senators than the actual sentiment of the voters because a person in Wyoming has a vote that counts more than a person in California.
What? No! The EC is NOT gerrymandering. Can we at least use the words correctly instead of how they line up with our feelings?
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba 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, 12:33 PM   #319
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,883
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
What? No! The EC is NOT gerrymandering. Can we at least use the words correctly instead of how they line up with our feelings?
Huh? Are you arguing she should have gerrymandered instead?
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy 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, 12:33 PM   #320
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Do you have no objections, in principle, to packing the Court?
Sure I do, in general.

But I have big objections to packing the court with people like Trump and people who will take loyalty pledges to Trump.


Highlighted because it's apparent people want to read any anti-trump sentiment into an anti-republican sentiment. You people need to start realizing that being Anti-Trump is being PRO-American, not Anti-Republican.
NoahFence 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 12:58 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.