• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the Constitution strong enough to survive the current Supreme Court?

If you think Barrett is an institutionalist, you need to be institutionalized. She and Alito are carrying the torches for the institutions, unless, by institutions you mean corporations and the Christian church. If you think that the conservatives are not hostile to representative government and voting rights, you must have been institutionalized.
 
natman said:
You don't seem to understand how rights work. DC v Heller was a strong pro-rights decision. You may not like the result, but that doesn't change that it was an affirmation of constitutional rights.
Click to expand...
And you don't seem to understand that just one decision of a court in one circumstance does not make for "law". Rights are not always what we think they may be because the law can be complex.

natman said:
By the same token, if SCOTUS affirms free speech, it's a pro-rights decision, regardless of whether you agree with the speaker or not.
Click to expand...
Of course it affirms Free Speech. But there is also the First Amendment that guarantees our freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. Also, the "FA" guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely.

Nobody needs to have a Supreme Court to underline what is stipulated above. But, a court may be necessary in those areas where Free Speech may seem to interfere with someone's desire to utter Objectionable Malignations publicly of another person.

Maligning publicly has its limits even for elected politicians. Written defamation is called "libel," while spoken defamation is called "slander." Defamation is not necessarily criminal. But it is a "tort", that is, a civil wrong rather than a criminal wrong. A person defamed can sue the person who did the defaming for damages.

What's the point of the above? Simply to say Free Speech does not mean one can say of another person just anything, anywhere and any time ...
 

We all know the above from First-grade.

You are adding nothing to the exchange. Try harder ... !
 
This is random gibberish. I don't know why you are unable to grasp what rights are and how they work, but that seems to be the case. We're done.
 
NWRatCon said:
If you think that the conservatives are not hostile to representative government and voting rights, you must have been institutionalized.
Click to expand...

One cannot be conservative in any other manner because they will do their utmost to manipulate whoever and whatever to obtain their ends.

Think of the difference in the most simple way: The Conservatives will do nothing to change and adapt. For them, what happened in the past is "good enough". Meaning they refuse both change and progress - which means less megabucks for them more for the rest of the population.

It's the worst of any existing political representation. The equivalent in Europe is the bunch of Modern Day Nazis from Russia that are trying to manipulate events in Eastern Europe. Because the are scared shatless of the future and the past will do just fine. They've already filched their wealth from Russia and placed it in the West. Where they bought their properties and settled their "newly rich families".

natman said:
This is random gibberish. I don't know why you are unable to grasp what rights are and how they work, but that seems to be the case. We're done.
Click to expand...

We never even got started. Your "rights" are not my "rights".

The US is still wrapped in a Dreamland where money is the principal fixation - the more one has the "better-off" one supposedly is. And to hell with the rest of the nation.

Wrong yardstick for measuring. Dead wrong ... !
 
natman said:
This is random gibberish. I don't know why you are unable to grasp what rights are and how they work, but that seems to be the case. We're done.
Click to expand...
Oh, thank God!
 

The alarming prospect raised by the Supreme Court rulings (CNN, Opinion)​

"The US Supreme Court issued its opinions Thursday about whether two Biden administration Covid-19 vaccine mandates should be allowed to take effect while litigation over their legal validity proceeds. In doing so, it raised a frightening prospect about the future of federal regulations and protections in America."

I was contemplating putting this in a new thread, but it seems particularly relevant to this topic. I'll start with my own opinion: The per curiam opinions are devoid of judicial acumen, principle, or constraint and are a clear and present danger to the rule of law and of effective government at all. They represent a naked exercise of power by the Trump appointees.

Congress, in OSHA, created an agency specifically for the purpose of creating a safe and healthy work environment for all workers in the United States. They endowed it with specific and broad authority to accomplish this task. The rules proposed by the agency as an Emergency Temporary Standard are on all fours with Congress' intent and delegation of that authority. This is of no moment to the conservatives. Neither existing case law, principles of judicial deference, or the structure of the Constitution animate the majority, and they made that abundantly clear. Like with the a Texas abortion decisions, they put down a marker.

That is why I believe this particular court is such a danger to democracy. We are witnessing the worst Supreme Court in US HISTORY, bar none. And they're just getting started.
 
I mean its so silly a concept to think the corporation speaks for all that are a part of it when the workers dont have any control over corporations democratic or otherwise.
 
bomberfox said:
I mean its so silly a concept to think the corporation speaks for all that are a part of it when the workers dont have any control over corporations democratic or otherwise.
Click to expand...
Admittedly this favors my position, but you touch on what I believe is the primary difference between corporate and union political speech.
 

I'll give your ignorance a pass as you are not an American and clearly not educated in American politics. Our Supreme Court Justices are nominated by the president and confirmed in the Senate. Sometimes a republican presidents gets to fill vacancies....sometimes a democrat president does. It's that simple. Trump merely took advantage of the three vacancies that came up while he was president and yes at a time when republicans controlled the Senate. The only way a party in power is not going to have the power to fill such vacancies is if we were to elect the justices directly. And that is not going to happen. And once again, the act of packing the court would be passing a bill to add more then the current 9 justices because you want to even the odds for your given party.. The problem with that would be that it would destroy the independence of the court. Study "American Government "Separation of Powers" and you may understand.
 

If ignorance were bliss you'd be in heaven about the Supreme Court.

I'm saying tha the parties SHOULD NOT HAVE THE POWER
 
THAT'S THE WAY THE COOKIE CRUMBLES?


If ignorance were bliss you'd be in heaven about the Supreme Court.

I'm saying that political-parties SHOULD NOT HAVE THE POWER to choose life-term members to the SC! By doing so what happens is the stagnation that we see today in that court. Let's change the law to make the terms on the SC finite in time!

You-plural like it the way it is because the stagnation is purposefully Right-wing and that factor has lasted since JFK made the mistake of first lowering upper-income taxation in order to please his daddy! And it suits you-plural on the Rabid-Right just fine because you-plural a Wealth-Junkeys!

America has to open up - it is one of the least open and most blindly selfish supposedly "advanced nations" on earth with today a bunch of unelected Rich-Replicant hardheads controlling who sits and does not sit on the Supreme Court! What in hell kind of Fair-Justice is that in such a important body affecting directly American lawmaking!

The reason America has so many billionaires is because upper-income taxation since JFK started its trek to lower tax-percentages. (See the historic rate-chart below!) And this factor has created an inherent unfairness in terms of sharing America's wealth-riches - they are mostly all Right-wingers whose funding goes to supporting financially the election of Replicants to Congress!

You refuse to accept the historical change in upper-income taxation in the US that looks like this:


Put that taxation of upper-incomes back to the 90% that existed before JFK and we-the-sheeple will see more parity in Congress elected by money-fairness in our representatives to that political-body!

And, of course, the Replicants will fight that outcome bitterly to maintain the presently unfair status-quo in the Supreme Court .... !
 
Lafayette said:
I'm saying that political-parties SHOULD NOT HAVE THE POWER to choose life-term members to the SC!
Click to expand...
The long and short of it is that you do not have any say in the matter. If Americans wanted to change it bad enough, they would ultimate do so through the amendment process.
 
Lafayette said:
If ignorance were bliss you'd be in heaven about the Supreme Court.

I'm saying tha the parties SHOULD NOT HAVE THE POWER
Click to expand...
The parties only have the power to confirm an appointment or not. The president makes the nomination. It's worked for us since the nation was founded.
 
GO FOR IT!

LetsGoBrandon said:
The long and short of it is that you do not have any say in the matter. If Americans wanted to change it bad enough, they would ultimate do so through the amendment process.
Click to expand...

I will "say in the matter" whatever I like. I'm a Yank!

Moreover what plagues America today is just the kind of inane-mentality you demonstrate above. Everything is just hunky-dory as it is - so what if 14% of the population is condemned to live below the Poverty Line!

I'll remind all-and-sundry a promise made by Uncle Joe, that goes like this:

That promise is still in the making, but, then, nobody expected Covid when he made it. Patience, it will likely still happen ... and it will be the most fundamental change in America since its inception.

There is no excuse whatsoever why only the rich should go to university. (That's only their belief!) A formal post-secondary education is a sacred-gift that can change individuals literally overnight. It magically opens horizons.

So, just sit back and watch it happen. Then GO FOR IT BOYZ-'N-GIRLZ ... !
 
Lafayette said:
I will "say in the matter" whatever I like. I'm a Yank!
Click to expand...

Then talk to your congressman or start your own movement. If you are really a yank, then you are aware of the Constitutional Amendment process, especially if you have the post-secondary education you are babbling about. Though any chances of changing the process for SCOTUS justices are pretty much nil.
 
BILLIONAIRE WEALTH IS A HUMAN MENTAL ILLNESS


That in red above is about the only item for which you are anywhere near correct. The rest us just rambling.

Well worth a read: Should we restructure the Supreme Court?

Excerpt:

Yes, it IS time to change the structure of the Supreme Court. It having been fouled by the institution of three new arch-rightist justices as members.

Biden will get around to it. It's just finding the right people (nether Rightist nor Leftist) to do it.

Which is what the American-SC needs. But the Replicants can't do anything without finagling it in their favor. They must dominate and especially so to assure that those low Upper-income Taxation Rates remain low, low, low.

That is due to a Millionaire/Billionaire Mindset that infects the rich and super-rich warping their sense of values. A megabuck in the bank isn't enough! Money is the only significance of their lives. Millionaire-money has especially that effect on some people making them extremely selfish individuals - but superbly-rich ... !
 
Last edited:
Lafayette said:
That is red above is about the only item for which you are correct.
Click to expand...
Wise Americans understand and accept that the Constitutional Amendment process was written in a way that making changes is a slow and difficult process and must have broad support at the federal and state level. Three fourths of the states must ratify any Amendment. It was done that way so that we do not mindlessly make snap judgements and changes based on the emotions of the moment, such as when New Zealand fairly recently held a parliamentary vote and instantly outlawed most guns, based on one active shooter incident at a mosque.
 
POVERTY THRESHOLDS


What makes you think we "do things that way"? Where has it ever happened on a national-scale that "we do things that way"?

Pure foolishness and deprecation of the ability of we humans to treat the impoverished with a bit of help. Otherwise, in order to survive, yes!, the commit crimes. Allowing the poor the ability to at least "survive" helps prevent most from pillaging others.

Do you have the slightest notion of why penitentiaries are full of the poor? Well, it's because knotheads like you think they are Lazy-Bastards and resort to crime to live.

From here:

Some facts about the Poverty Threshold in America (from here): Poverty Threshold in America

Many middle-class people seem to think that people poorer than they must revert to crime in order to survive. They think (wrongly) that everybody should be living like them earning perhaps the Minimum Wage or some higher multiple.

Well, life in America doesn't work that way! Eleven percent of Americans live at or below the Poverty Threshold, which is about $13K per year of income! And close to 14% of America poor-families live at or below the family poverty-threshold ... !
 
The SCOTUS is a political shit show made up of partisan hacks.
It is laughable that in a society that is supposed to be built on justice for all the supreme body is a political one with lifetime appointments.
Justice, if it actually is supposed to be blind demands an apolitical body, not tethered to any political party or organization.
 
You just posted a large quantity of absolutely nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.