- Joined
- Jan 24, 2017
- Messages
- 24,771
- Reaction score
- 24,160
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Who’s the guy you’re referring to who loves Reagan? Certainly not this guy.
With respect:
This guy's trying to pretend that Republicans haven't been the most dishonest politicians for at least the past 50 years. He's probably a Nixon, Reagan, and T**** fan. Conservatives adore political criminals. And they believe that they're entitled to rule.
@Winston
Who’s the guy you’re referring to who loves Reagan? Certainly not this guy.
With respect:
The person I quoted.
If you want to talk about "egregious manipulation" it doesn't get any worse than FDR replacing the entire Supreme Court - all nine justices - between 1937 and 1943 because they held 11 of his 15 New Deal programs unconstitutional in 1936. Since everyone of those justices were FDR's stooges, no Supreme Court ruling between 1937 and 1945 (the year of FDR's death) can be considered credible or constitutional.Below are the succession of Justices over the last 32 years, including non-confirmations. Consider for a moment how the Court would have looked if the process had not been so egregiously manipulated by McConnell. Merrick Garland would have made the Court more moderate than Scalia. Gorsuch would replace Kennedy/Kavanagh. Ketanji Brown Jackson would replace Barrett/Ginsburg, and Biden would be appointing his second Justice to replace Breyer.
.View attachment 67399351
Ironically you'd be wrong. The founders felt that the senators would be rich white guys that had achieved success in America and would benevolently make decisions for the betterment of the country, not themselves or their party (which was not a thing at the time).Ironically, your poor image of Mitch is exactly how the Founders imagined politicians would act, which is exactly why they sought to limit the power and scope of government, and force what power remained to be held in check by balancing it against the ambitions of other politicians.
FDR only replaced 8, one of his picks resigned (Byrnes) and he filled it again. Ironically, the only seat FDR didn't fill was Owen Roberts, the only SC Justice from Pennsylvania, who resigned after FDR died.If you want to talk about "egregious manipulation" it doesn't get any worse than FDR replacing the entire Supreme Court - all nine justices - between 1937 and 1943 because they held 11 of his 15 New Deal programs unconstitutional in 1936. Since everyone of those justices were FDR's stooges, no Supreme Court ruling between 1937 and 1945 (the year of FDR's death) can be considered credible or constitutional.
Checks and balancesTwo items:
1. Firstly, thank you, @tacomancer. I am also, however, somewhat consistent (though I reserve my right to become a better person over time, and to change my mind when the supporting data changes, or I am given better arguments). I supported McConnel's use of the Biden rule at the time, and still do so today. I would not say it is dishonorable - dishonor involves acting dishonorably (such as hyperbolically attempting to destroy the character of nominated judges in an attempt to get them to quit, an attempt to "put an asterisk next to their name in case they ever rule in a way you don't like", or an attempt to intimidate others from going through the process); the Biden rule is not that. What happened to Kavanaugh was dishonorable. What happened to Garland was checks and balances between the branches of government.
2. Abortion is a slavery-level evil; it is one that permeates our society, and which involves horrific abuse of the innocent en masse. That means it would be worth burning several states to the ground in a civil war that kills off 2% of our population if necessary to end it. If we can avoid that by using Constitutional legal processes instead, that's a good thing.
Um no. The founders did not imagine “the destroyer of bills” to have an iron fist over the senate. I thought you were better than this. Saying “i will never agree to any nomination”while dishonorably forbidding a hearing using a “rule” that was never used or even agreed to by the senate is dishonest.Ironically, your poor image of Mitch is exactly how the Founders imagined politicians would act, which is exactly why they sought to limit the power and scope of government, and force what power remained to be held in check by balancing it against the ambitions of other politicians.
Obergefel was about equal rights to marriage. Would you like to pull this same bullshit stunt with Brown?Hm. A minor point: "Ideology" is another word for "things we think are true"; respectfully, I think you may be confusing "that which I think is true" with "that which is definitively true"
Disengenuous is deliberately deceptive. This is an anonymous internet debate forum; nothing here is worth lying about. However, I agree that whether an unborn human child is an unborn human child is something we are likely to vehemently disagree on - the trick is, can we disagree vehemently without disagreeing venomously
Which ( see point above ) is another way of saying "I don't like this formulation".
Roe - like Obergefell - was a judicial seizure of power with the intent of deciding a political matter for the rest of the country. Roe also meant that the opposition would have to go through the court - the same body the left had used - in order to make that opposition effectual.
Roe was absolutely an attempt by the left to settle a political question via the court, and a breathtaking one at that - as even Justice Ginsburg recognized. Her preference for their conclusion did not obviate her recognition of the flaws in their methods, any more than my disagreement with their conclusion makes my recognition of the flaws in their methods somehow illegitimate.
The accusation you are levying seems to be "Yeah, well, but you disagree with them!". Well, yes, however, respectfully, that's an ad hominem, and not terribly convincing.
On the contrary, it is consistent with the history of the past half century. When you seek your political victories via the court instead of through the political process, your opposition will begin to do the same.
It is not patently untrue, which is why Justice Roberts was the only Justice on SCOTUS who accepted that it might be true. Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, Alito, Comey-Barrett, Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Gorsuch did not all - for separate reasons and independently - come to a legal conclusion that was patently untrue.
It is not, which is why the Mississippi law in question directly challenged Roe, and, again, why 8 of the 9 Justices (including those who agree with you) came to the conclusion it was not.
Griswold is an apt comparison. Roe made it's dependence on magical penumbras of emanations of the facio quod volo doctrine less explicit than Griswold, but, both - as you allude to - started with their preferred political conclusion, and worked backwards to construct an argument for it.
With respect:
I find very few people on DP to be intellectually honest. I find that most of them don't answer when they can't answer questions. Or, I suppose that some don't have the intellectual capacity to go further than they do, which isn't very deep at all. I'm sure that everyone is smart in many ways, but I find that DP is over-represented by people on the left side of those kinds of bell curves, ethically and politically.
Most people say the same thing about you.
You give your own intellectual capacity far to much credit while being totally unaware of your own prejudices on every issue you chime in on.
With respect:
The huge difference is that I can and do back up my commentary with good evidence and reasoning.
Confirmation biased cut & paste posts seem to be your strong point to be honest.
There is a whole world out there past the end of your nose and you seem not to notice.
You are a team player at all costs............even when it make you appear foolish.
With respect:
Your comment says nothing of substance.
What is constitutional about this courtA court that is more likely to rule in favor of bigger government instead of the constitution is radical, not moderate.
They did not use the rules, they cheatedWell too darn bad. The system is what it is and the Senate was in control of the republicans and they just used the rules to get their nominees. Garland isn't a moderate, he's a extreme liberal as is seen by the terrible job he is doing of enforcing the law.
At least something to agree on. The problem is, that is an ahistorical formulation.However, I agree that whether an unborn human child is an unborn human child is something we are likely to vehemently disagree on - the trick is, can we disagree vehemently without disagreeing venomously
That's just partisan blather, and inaccurate to boot. Roe was not a political decision, although the opposition to it clearly is. It was a pragmatic legal decision based upon established rights and legal precedent.Roe - like Obergefell - was a judicial seizure of power with the intent of deciding a political matter for the rest of the country.
True. Legal decisions have to be addressed to courts... but the personnel of the court should not be determinative, rather legal principles. That is not the case with Dobbs.Roe also meant that the opposition would have to go through the court - the same body the left had used - in order to make that opposition effectual.
No, you are wrong and are deliberately mischaracterizing my statements. I won't allow you to do so.The accusation you are levying seems to be "Yeah, well, but you disagree with them!".
Yes, it is. As is obvious. Roe addressed a balancing of State and personal interests. The whole 3-trimester approach is based upon scientific and legal understandings as to stages of development and legal traditions.It is not patently untrue,
Nope. They designed the system to have checks and balances exactly because they expected them to be self-interested actors who at most would represent the interests of the State governments who at that time appointed them. There were no philosopher kings in their worldview, and looking for them led to tyranny.Ironically you'd be wrong. The founders felt that the senators would be rich white guys that had achieved success in America and would benevolently make decisions for the betterment of the country, not themselves or their party (which was not a thing at the time).
Checks and balancesmmmkay.
Uh yes, the Founders absolutely designed the system assuming that they had to build in a series of checks and balances because they were keenly aware of the danger of faction. Mitch McConnell with an iron fist over the Senate?Um no. The founders did not imagine “the destroyer of bills” to have an iron fist over the senate. I thought you were better than this. Saying “i will never agree to any nomination”while dishonorably forbidding a hearing using a “rule” that was never used or even agreed to by the senate is dishonest.
Obergefel was about equal rights to marriage.
Would you like to pull this same bullshit stunt with Brown?
If he filled it again, then he replaced all nine justices. This is a common theme among fascists. When the courts disagree with you, replace the entire court - whether they want to be replaced or not - until they do agree with you. Which is precisely what the fascist FDR did between 1937 and 1943.FDR only replaced 8, one of his picks resigned (Byrnes) and he filled it again. Ironically, the only seat FDR didn't fill was Owen Roberts, the only SC Justice from Pennsylvania, who resigned after FDR died.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?