You Don't Get To Choose (1 Viewer)

[tshade]

 

[Peter]

The first thing I'd do as President is ban flag waving.

That'd really make Fox news go bonkers and just be amusing to watch.

 

[Helix]

People and their stupid mother****ing boomy toys. Boom boom, and yee haw. I have a safe full of them. Doesn't do me a damned bit of good. Maybe I'll get a wild hair up my ass and pop a few rounds one weekend. I think I'd rather do nine holes of golf, though.

 

[humbolt]

There are always choices - right up through your last breath. I’m heartened that the left has recently rediscovered the constitution. You must’ve lost it when you were targeting parents, religion, and the first amendment a short while ago.

 

[Bum]

Ignoring the courts is a bad precedent, and neither side of the political spectrum should be doing it or advocating for it.

 

[Visbek]

Your analysis is missing a few key points.

Authoritarians don't concentrate power into a single executive officer with the expectation that they will peacefully transfer power to the next elected official.

Second, regressive do not care in the slightest about being consistent. Thus, if a Democrat with authoritarian tendencies did get into office, and acted in the same way as Trump, regressives would have no qualms whatsoever screaming about how that Democrat is a dictator, how they're a threat to democracy, and doing everything they can to stop it.

They absolutely do not give a shit about contradicting themselves -- as we can already see with the way the Trump administration ignores SCOTUS rulings made during the Biden years that favored regressive causes, when those rulings get in the way of these naked power grabs.

Similarly, we've already seen multiple examples of Republican-majority state legislators gutting the powers of the governor when a Democrat was elected to office.

 

[Blue Dog]

This is why reactionary nihilists do not belong in power.

 

[Hip octogenarian]

There are always choices - right up through your last breath. I’m heartened that the left has recently rediscovered the constitution. You must’ve lost it when you were targeting parents, religion, and the first amendment a short while ago.

You seem confused. It's the Left that has always respected and upheld the Constitution.

 

[Visbek]

You seem confused. It's the Left that has always respected and upheld the Constitution.

Well....

Historically, that's not accurate. Both left and right have had authoritarian strains, and periods of total rejection of the current political system.

During the 1930s and 1960s, the left was often pushing socialist, Communist or anarchist political philosophies, and were often critical of the existing socioeconomic and political structures. There was quite a bit of anarchist anti-globalism on the left as recently as the 1990s. Occupy Wall Street was a small, and ultimately ineffectual, paroxysm of this in 2008 or so. These groups weren't interested in mainstream politics, though, so they were rarely elected to office.

FDR was also somewhat problematic in this respect. Just to name a few items, the SCOTUS shot down a lot of his policies, and it got to the point where he threatened to appoint more justices so that he could get his way. He didn't increase the size of the court, but definitely cowed them into being more compliant. He also set up internment camps for Japanese-Americans during WWII.

In addition, it's not exactly clear what it means to "respect and uphold the Constitution," as there are almost as many interpretations of that document as there are interpreters. What one person sees as "upholding the Constitution" may seem to someone else as ripping it apart.

 

[tshade]

There are always choices - right up through your last breath. I’m heartened that the left has recently rediscovered the constitution. You must’ve lost it when you were targeting parents, religion, and the first amendment a short while ago.

?????????? I have always seen the "left" defending the constitution MUCH more than the "right". Please give even one instance that you are talking about.

 

[tshade]

Well....

Historically, that's not accurate. Both left and right have had authoritarian strains, and periods of total rejection of the current political system.

During the 1930s and 1960s, the left was often pushing socialist, Communist or anarchist political philosophies, and were often critical of the existing socioeconomic and political structures. There was quite a bit of anarchist anti-globalism on the left as recently as the 1990s. Occupy Wall Street was a small, and ultimately ineffectual, paroxysm of this in 2008 or so. These groups weren't interested in mainstream politics, though, so they were rarely elected to office.

FDR was also somewhat problematic in this respect. Just to name a few items, the SCOTUS shot down a lot of his policies, and it got to the point where he threatened to appoint more justices so that he could get his way. He didn't increase the size of the court, but definitely cowed them into being more compliant. He also set up internment camps for Japanese-Americans during WWII.

Okay---but where is the constitution NOT being respected ?????

In addition, it's not exactly clear what it means to "respect and uphold the Constitution," as there are almost as many interpretations of that document as there are interpreters. What one person sees as "upholding the Constitution" may seem to someone else as ripping it apart.

agree

 

[OrphanSlug]

Forget it, we can tit for tat all day long on who did what to whatever Constitutional concern outcome. Too easy to argue each passing President has found a way to extend some sort of government power despite the Constitution towards whatever political goal.

Just because Trump is pushing that to a breaking point does not alleviate and forgive some other President(s) for their wants and actions. What is more concerning is Congress seems to inept for reasonable legislation and the Supreme Court / Judicial Branch seems more corrupt than the other two.

Even if you agree the outcome was favorable, or align to the political goal, "you don't get to choose" when the Constitution is important and when it can somewhat not be. I cannot think of a single President in the modern era, perhaps even going back to the days of Lincoln and before even, where one of them along the way did not do something at some point that exceeded the bounds of the Constitution.

So, is severity of stepping out of bounds important? I could be, not all actions and results are equal.

But we should quit pretending that in our lifetimes there was some wonderful President who start to end, from elected to inauguration to walking out the door, acted the entire time as if the "Constitution matters."

Trump, Biden, Trump, Obama, Bush 43, Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, Carter even, Ford, Nixon... who was this Constitutional respecting champion?

 

[tshade]

Forget it, we can tit for tat all day long on who did what to whatever Constitutional concern outcome. Too easy to argue each passing President has found a way to extend some sort of government power despite the Constitution towards whatever political goal.

Just because Trump is pushing that to a breaking point does not alleviate and forgive some other President(s) for their wants and actions. What is more concerning is Congress seems to inept for reasonable legislation and the Supreme Court / Judicial Branch seems more corrupt than the other two.

Even if you agree the outcome was favorable, or align to the political goal, "you don't get to choose" when the Constitution is important and when it can somewhat not be. I cannot think of a single President in the modern era, perhaps even going back to the days of Lincoln and before even, where one of them along the way did not do something at some point that exceeded the bounds of the Constitution.

So, is severity of stepping out of bounds important? I could be, not all actions and results are equal.

But we should quit pretending that in our lifetimes there was some wonderful President who start to end, from elected to inauguration to walking out the door, acted the entire time as if the "Constitution matters."

Trump, Biden, Trump, Obama, Bush 43, Clinton, Bush 41, Reagan, Carter even, Ford, Nixon... who was this Constitutional respecting champion?

Just the Dems here.........

 

[OrphanSlug]

Just the Dems here.........

I don't buy it, we are only arguing severity and political goals.

 

[humbolt]

You seem confused. It's the Left that has always respected and upheld the Constitution.

In spite of the facts mentioned. Those facts were not the only constitutional transgressions. You must wear blinders.

 

[Bodecea]

There are always choices - right up through your last breath. I’m heartened that the left has recently rediscovered the constitution. You must’ve lost it when you were targeting parents, religion, and the first amendment a short while ago.

 

[Bum]

You seem confused. It's the Left that has always respected and upheld the Constitution.

Eh...lets be honest; there has been more than one that advocated to ignore court rulings.....

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) argued that the Biden administration should simply ignore a judicial decision she dissented from during an appearance on CNN in 2023.

AOC says Biden White House should ignore abortion pill ruling. Can that happen?

New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called on the White House to ignore a judge's ruling halting FDA approval of mifepristone.

www.yahoo.com

 

[Hip octogenarian]

Well....

Historically, that's not accurate. Both left and right have had authoritarian strains, and periods of total rejection of the current political system.

During the 1930s and 1960s, the left was often pushing socialist, Communist or anarchist political philosophies, and were often critical of the existing socioeconomic and political structures. There was quite a bit of anarchist anti-globalism on the left as recently as the 1990s. Occupy Wall Street was a small, and ultimately ineffectual, paroxysm of this in 2008 or so. These groups weren't interested in mainstream politics, though, so they were rarely elected to office.

FDR was also somewhat problematic in this respect. Just to name a few items, the SCOTUS shot down a lot of his policies, and it got to the point where he threatened to appoint more justices so that he could get his way. He didn't increase the size of the court, but definitely cowed them into being more compliant. He also set up internment camps for Japanese-Americans during WWII.

In addition, it's not exactly clear what it means to "respect and uphold the Constitution," as there are almost as many interpretations of that document as there are interpreters. What one person sees as "upholding the Constitution" may seem to someone else as ripping it apart.

You make some good points, but historically the political left has been more of a champion of the Bill of Rights than the Right has. Look at what Trump is doing now, ignoring the constitutional right to due process, with the Right not complaining at all.

 

[Hip octogenarian]

Eh...lets be honest; there has been more than one that advocated to ignore court rulings.....

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) argued that the Biden administration should simply ignore a judicial decision she dissented from during an appearance on CNN in 2023.

AOC says Biden White House should ignore abortion pill ruling. Can that happen?

New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called on the White House to ignore a judge's ruling halting FDA approval of mifepristone.

www.yahoo.com

Ever heard of the exception that proves the rule?

 

[Bum]

Ever heard of the exception that proves the rule?

Senator (D) Ron Wyden of Oregon also argued for ignoring the courts; once may be an exception, but twice or more begins to form a pattern....so, no; neither party gets a pass from me.

 

[Hip octogenarian]

Senator (D) Ron Wyden of Oregon also argued for ignoring the courts; once may be an exception, but twice or more begins to form a pattern....so, no; neither party gets a pass from me.

Fair enough, but it really is just a matter of degree.