• 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!

The Supreme Court's historic opportunity

Helix said:
They have a historic (not an historic) opportunity to read a clearly written section of an amendment and decide that it says what it says.
Click to expand...
I agree with the latter (not with the former). ;)
 
LetsGoBrandon said:
For heavens sake, get a grip. What I saw at the Capitol on 1/6 was primarily Q-Anon and Proud Boy activists
Click to expand...
You've made that up. They didn't wear labels. Many of them were rank-and-file Republicans. You just can't bring yourself to admit it. Open your eyes.
LetsGoBrandon said:
and at least one BLM activist rioting at the Capitol.
Click to expand...
Not that I've heard about. Something you heard from Fox?
LetsGoBrandon said:
None of them were typical rank and file Trump supporters and last time I checked, Trump was not there.
Click to expand...
Typical Republicans. Didn't you see the labels they were wearing. As for Trump, yeah, he lied about going with them.
LetsGoBrandon said:
Perhaps your very partisan eyes are lying to you.
Click to expand...
I'm dead in the middle. Therefore, your very partisan eyes are lying to you.
 
tshade said:
AND THOSE ARE HIS GOOD QUALITIES, AND ANY MORON COULD SEE IT WAY BEFORE 2016. NOW THEN, WHAT DOES SAY ABOUT THOSE WHO ELECTED HIM????
Click to expand...
Nothing good.

The GOP has had three off-ramps from Trump that they failed to take. They have failed as a party. This may be their, and our, last hope.
 
Helix said:
Do you pronounce it "history" or "istory?"
Click to expand...
Off topic, but there are two reasons: First, the accent on historic is on the second syllable, not the first. (So, essentially, "hiSTORic" is closer to accurate.) Second "ahistorical" is a word. Using "an" avoids making a mistake in understanding. I do say/ write "a" history, because neither of those conditions apply. ;)
 
From RFK:
I’m not a Trump supporter (if I were, I wouldn’t be running against him!) But I want to beat him in a fair election, not because he was kicked off the ballot. Let the voters choose, not the courts! #Kennedy24
— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) December 20, 2023
Click to expand...
 
NWRatCon said:
Off topic, but there are two reasons: First, the accent on historic is on the second syllable, not the first. (So, essentially, "hiSTORic" is closer to accurate.) Second "ahistorical" is a word. Using "an" avoids making a mistake in understanding. I do say/ write "a" history, because neither of those conditions apply. ;)
Click to expand...
I pronounce the H in history, so it's "a historic" for me. If one drops the H, I suppose "an" would make sense. However, I don't think that I've ever said "istory" unless I was trying to replicate a cockney accent for some reason. I prefer to imitate a Liverpool accent. If anyone from England heard it, they would be like, "That's rubbish." However, I did pull it off for an entire party in college in which I pretended to be from Liverpool. Luckily for me, everyone else there was drunk.
 
NWRatCon said:
I should have added, "Do they want to rehabilitate their dismal reputation?"
Click to expand...
….if “reputation” was only a concern in this age!
 
Helix said:
I pronounce the H in history, so it's "a historic" for me. If one drops the H, I suppose "an" would make sense. However, I don't think that I've ever said "istory" unless I was trying to replicate a cockney accent for some reason. I prefer to imitate a Liverpool accent. If anyone from England heard it, they would be like, "That's rubbish." However, I did pull it off for an entire party in college in which I pretended to be from Liverpool. Luckily for me, everyone else there was drunk.
Click to expand...
Did you get lucky?
 
A history lesson.

An historic event.


paging @nota bene
 
Rexedgar said:
Did you get lucky?
Click to expand...
No. My friend laughed his ass off about it, though, and I talked to two cute girls for a while. I had to pretend to be a bit shy so that I didn't overdo it. This is the accent I was going for :

 
Helix said:
No. My friend laughed his ass off about it, though, and I talked to two cute girls for a while. I had to pretend to be a bit shy so that I didn't overdo it. This is the accent I was going for :

Click to expand...

Did you favor George in the looks department?
 
Rexedgar said:
Did you favor George in the looks department?
Click to expand...
My nose is more like John's. I did wear a turtleneck and Beatle-esque clothes to the party, though. I was all in.

I still like the Beatles. I listened to their latest release on Tuesday.
 
I'm just giddy that SCOTUS will have to actually work during the holidays to come up with a decision by January 4. Great move, Jack Smith!
 
Here’s my opinion. One of the things missing with the members of the Supreme Court, and with politicians in general today, is a long term view of the effects of their decisions. It’s all focused on the here and now. None of them really cares about what the country may look like in twenty or thirty years or more. Legacy no longer matters. That flows against what I learned working with the judiciary in my final five years of work.

The Supreme Court, by their decisions, have shown an arrogance in that they just determine constitutional issues and it’s up to society and the people to adjust. Like in Bruen. In the process of covering for themselves for politically motivated poor decisions, they seem to shun their own responsibility as an important piece of the equation of how our country functions.

Are they up to the challenge? Great question. They’ve had no problem with managing to lay waste to various precedents while legislating from the bench. They’ve expanded rights on cases they ideologically agreed with and eliminated rights on cases they ideologically disagreed with. They’ve also given lip service to accepting any kind of judicial ethics standards. So yeah, they’re up to the challenge if they’re inclined.

Do they care to reinvigorate the Constitution? The way that they have ruled recently, no. They have shown no compunction in bending or making up doctrine to suit their rulings. So, no.

Do they want to save the union? Like in my initial comments, I don’t think they care if the world burns around them, as long as they’re comfortable with their rulings and in how they operate. They believe they’re insulated.

Yeah, I’m pretty cynical where this Supreme Court is concerned.
 
Well, one leg of that three-legged stool has been eliminated, and we know what that does to stability....
 
NWRatCon said:
I am not one to defend the current Supreme Court, although I revere the institution. Too many of the current Justices are political and ideological hacks and/or just plain corrupt, and some got their positions extra-constitutionally. They do, however, have an historic opportunity to save the union, and I wonder if they'll take it (or at least the majority).

Donald Trump is an acute danger to the country. He is a megalomaniac, a serial criminal, an authoritarian wannabe, and an all-around corrupt sleazeball. He's also a candidate for President, and bullying his way to the Republican nomination. I also have no respect for the Republican party and, particularly, the leaders who have allowed this to happen. It has become a party of lawless extremists. That is unlikely to change in the near term. Unless...

Pending before the Supreme Court are two - about to be three - cases that can reestablish the rule of law, the constitutional order, and, potentially, save the union. Supreme Court takes center stage in the Trump legal battles (NBC). The first is the appeal of Jack Smith seeking certiorari in United States v. Trump, the Election interference case, wherein Trump is asserting a claim of absolute immunity. The second, already pending, is Fischer et al. v US. Supreme Court will hear challenge to Jan. 6 obstruction charge (The Hill), where Defendants are asserting that the "obstruction of an official proceeding" charge is inappropriately applied to the Jan 6 insurrection.

The third case, of course, is Anderson v. Griswold, Colorado Supreme Court rules Trump is disqualified from presidency for Jan. 6 riot (CBS), which has not yet been appealed.

That trio of cases presents the Supreme Court with a unique opportunity to reestablish the rule of law, save the union, and, not coincidentally, save their party from itself. They can 1) rule conclusively that the riot was an element of the insurrection; 2) that Trump was a participant in insurrection; 3) that is purpose and effect was to obstruct an official proceeding; and 4) disqualify Trump from serving again, as well as establish the standards under which such review is undertaken.

Are they up to the challenge? Do they care to reinvigorate the Constitution? Do they want to save the union?
Click to expand...

I wish they would rule against Donald. Taht would be the best thing which could happen for the reputation of the SCOTUS and United States of America.
 
NWRatCon said:
I am not one to defend the current Supreme Court, although I revere the institution. Too many of the current Justices are political and ideological hacks and/or just plain corrupt, and some got their positions extra-constitutionally. They do, however, have an historic opportunity to save the union, and I wonder if they'll take it (or at least the majority).

Donald Trump is an acute danger to the country. He is a megalomaniac, a serial criminal, an authoritarian wannabe, and an all-around corrupt sleazeball. He's also a candidate for President, and bullying his way to the Republican nomination. I also have no respect for the Republican party and, particularly, the leaders who have allowed this to happen. It has become a party of lawless extremists. That is unlikely to change in the near term. Unless...

Pending before the Supreme Court are two - about to be three - cases that can reestablish the rule of law, the constitutional order, and, potentially, save the union. Supreme Court takes center stage in the Trump legal battles (NBC). The first is the appeal of Jack Smith seeking certiorari in United States v. Trump, the Election interference case, wherein Trump is asserting a claim of absolute immunity. The second, already pending, is Fischer et al. v US. Supreme Court will hear challenge to Jan. 6 obstruction charge (The Hill), where Defendants are asserting that the "obstruction of an official proceeding" charge is inappropriately applied to the Jan 6 insurrection.

The third case, of course, is Anderson v. Griswold, Colorado Supreme Court rules Trump is disqualified from presidency for Jan. 6 riot (CBS), which has not yet been appealed.

That trio of cases presents the Supreme Court with a unique opportunity to reestablish the rule of law, save the union, and, not coincidentally, save their party from itself. They can 1) rule conclusively that the riot was an element of the insurrection; 2) that Trump was a participant in insurrection; 3) that is purpose and effect was to obstruct an official proceeding; and 4) disqualify Trump from serving again, as well as establish the standards under which such review is undertaken.

Are they up to the challenge? Do they care to reinvigorate the Constitution? Do they want to save the union?
Click to expand...
So you have reverence for the institution of the supreme Court but you want them to tear apart democracy and don't understand that they ruled with the Constitution over the last couple of years?

One of these things can't be true.
 
CaughtInThe said:
Well Clarence Thomas and his wife wanted the insurrection. So that's one vote automatically lost.
Click to expand...
You mean protest. That's good he understands the First amendment. If you want supreme Court judges that selectively apply the First amendment then you want the dictatorship more specifically a fascist dictatorship.
 
Peacenik said:
I wish they would rule against Donald. Taht would be the best thing which could happen for the reputation of the SCOTUS and United States of America.
Click to expand...
They won't rule for or against anybody they'll rule with the Constitution. That's what they're supposed to do they're not partisan.

And if it turns out all the false accusations against Trump are shown to be false then that's what will happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom