A Radical Proposal To Unite The Country
I wrote an article recently about civility in politics. There were significant questions about how we might go about re-establishing some sort of civility. Since I wrote that article, the SCOTUS has been the central point of almost all of our political discussions. Almost every ruling ended in a 5-4 decision which truly indicates a SCOTUS divided, especially on the cultural issues of the day. It was then capped off with the announcement of the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was widely looked upon as the swing vote on the court.
That announcement led to apoplexy on the part of the left and smugness on the right over the future direction of the court. The prevailing view is that the nominee for this position will be a political ideologue who will bring the nation further to the right for the next 40 years. So, even before the nominee is named, the battle lines are being drawn. On the republican side, how do we ram this nominee through with minimal aggravation to the party and minimal sentiment being built up in the electorate against the positions of that candidate, whatever they may be. On the democratic side, how do we hold up this nominee and provide maximal angst for the candidate and the republican party to the point that the nomination has to be withdrawn. The stage is set for an epic political battle.
But it doesn't have to be this way. I see this as an opportunity for a tremendously unifying action on the part of the President. Forget about the base for once, and try to have a SCOTUS that represents the entire United States. Have a SCOTUS where a 5-4 vote is going to be one that has real impact because it isn't arrived at ideologically. How can the president do that?
The actual answer is simple. Consensus! Ask six senators to meet, confer, interview, and come to a consensus on a truly independent jurist {yes, they are out there}. How do you find these senators. Here's a list that could be identified that hits all the markers.
Name State Gender Party Pro-Choice Pro- Life Political Leaning
Bob Casey PA Male Dem X moderate
Shelly Moore Capito WV Female Rep X conservative
Susan Collins Maine Female Rep X moderate
Kamala Harris California Female Dem X liberal
Richard Blumenthal Conn Male Dem X liberal
John Cornyn Texas Male Rep X conservative
Six senators, 3 male and 3 female, 3 democratic and three republican, 3 pro-life and 3 pro-choice, 2 conservative and 2 moderate and 2 liberal. A truly balanced committee. The nominee that comes out of this committee could be trusted by the American people.
Rather than this nomination process becoming the most divisive issue of the 21st century, President Trump could instantly change the view of America from he being a bully to his being a great uniter. This could be a moment in time that changes a terrible course that this nation is currently on. One man, one nomination, an opportunity to make history. Maybe our President should take a chance.
Tags
Who is online
47 visitors
Ah, the left's version of comprise for Supreme Court politics. The left confirms zealots when they have power and then choose the nominee when Republicans win, too.
Would you propose this if Hillary Clinton were President and the Democrats controlled the Senate?
The truth is that no "independent" or "compromise" candidate exists and you've hit on the reason. Since the Court created a Constitutional right and removed the issue of abortion from the state legislatures where it belongs, every judicial confirmation has to viewed through the prism of abortion. Your post and it's division of Senators by their stances on abortion demonstrates how disastrous Roe has been to our judicial system. Now that the Court acts as a super legislature rather than a legal body, once a candidate is perceived to have a position on Roe v Wade, they are completely unacceptable to the other half of the country, case closed. The Country will never unite because the question is binary. You can't be a little bit pregnant and you can't be acceptable to both the pro-life and pro choice movements.
The solution is much simpler. Overturn Roe, let political questions be decided by political bodies so the states that want abortion can have abortion and those that don't don't. California can allow abortion till the moment of birth, Utah can ban it and other states will adopt the European model that bans abortion after 12 weeks or so. The founders understood that federalism is how you unite a large country with different cultures and disparate beliefs. Let Texas be Texas and California be California and we can go back to the days when Judges were Judges and not abortion proxies.
to answer your question....I'd support this method of choosing SCOTUS nominees if Hillary or Bernie or anyone else were president.....the judiciary is supposed to be an independent branch of government. Justices should also have a term....no more than 10 years.....that type of turnover keeps the nation vibrant......not political here....not left or right....just common sense. BTW.....just because I'm suggesting a process, there would be no guarantee that Roe v. Wade wouldn't be overturned or upheld by a larger majority, nor would there be a guarantee that a swing judge would vote one way or another.
I'll take your word for it. I just only see these sort of proposals from Democrats when they are not in control.
I frankly don't get that at all and that has nothing to do with partisanship. The benefit of having laws and legal system is stability and predictability. Besides the chaos of fighting over nominations every year or so, we'd lose the benefit of consistency as new Judges would constantly overturn the work of the previous one in their quest to make a mark in their limited time on the bench. Term limits for judges would aggravate everything that's currently wrong with our judicial system and not offer any benefit that I've seen articulated.
ust because I'm suggesting a process, there would be no guarantee that Roe v. Wade wouldn't be overturned
But in effect you are. Your committee still boils down to politicians making making choices as politicians. For instance, by choosing Bob Casey as the "moderate" "pro lifer", you've essentially guaranteed a justice selected who will be pro-choice, because Casey is votes neither politically moderate or pro-life (however he describes himself.) sO instead of allowing the President to exercise his Conditional powers of nomination, you'd defer that choice to whoever chooses the committee. All a committee does is take the nomination out of the public hands of the President, and turns into the choice of the smoke filled room where the strongest and most motivated personalities will prevail. Your committee, for instance, would almost certainly choose a nominee who would be just as unpalatable to Republicans as one chosen by Hillary Clinton. And if the election had been different and the personnel of your committee changed, you could end up with Hillary Clinton nominating a Justice her party would hate.
What's the point of that? Half the country would still be pissed and the process of allowing the public a say in who gets nominated, which is already convoluted enough, would be further obfuscated by the work of a committee they would presumably have no role in selecting.
exactly, spot on.
the supreme court, the very core of our constitution/legal system is not meant to be changed swiftly.
and those who would "fundamentally change our country" into something else? hate that.
trump picking two or three justices? that is simply awesome.
luckily the "originalists" interpretations will stand another few generations into the future
cheers
Abortion rights do not belong at the state level.
We have Roe v. Wade, Obergefell and Loving, among many others because there were 50 different state-level rulings. We are a country and the needs to be a unified 50-state ruling. If we were going to permit every state to have a different ruling on subjects then we wouldn't need a federal Supreme Court. This idea also violates the civil rights of many people who are denied what people in other states are permitted.
This country would look more like the E.U. than the US if this is permitted to occur.
You should probably read the federalist papers, your response Indicates a total lack of awareness of the reasoning behind the constitution.
I have read the Federalist Papers many times. The US states are not in any way sovereign entities unto themselves. If that were true then the US Supreme Court decisions could not be enforced if they contravened state-level supreme courts. Obviously, that is not the case.
Federal law overrides state law almost always. This is a basic concept of US government.
We are a country and the needs to be a unified 50-state ruling.
If that's what you took from the Federalist Papers, you must have been reading something else. That's like believing Mein Kampf is a testament to Hitler's love for the Jewish people.
Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that I took that from the Federalist Papers because the job and power of the SCOTUS were undefined at that point. The power of the SCOTUS was undefined up until the landmark ruling in Marbury v. Madison decision by Chief Justice John Marshall.
The states certainly have the right to act because they are more responsive to the people's wants than the federal government is, but when the states act to restrict the rights of people, they should not be surprised when the federal courts step in and quash that action.
The basic idea of freedom is that the people have the right to act without asking permission until there is a valid reason to restrict that activity. That freedom to act isn't to be decided by the majority of the people not agreeing, because the rights of the minority are not up to vote by the majority.
Emphatically.
The problem is oppression operating under the guise of liberty. States' Rights is not a bad thing in theory - it is a 'disaster' in practice (by an immature majority). States and local principalities were setting up customs, mores, traditions, and laws which served to 'encircle' people to conformity, shame, or worse. There was limited uniformity in regulation structure - a hodge podge - which hampered and literally got citizens of this country injured or killed—emotionally, mentally, and physically. Moreover, citizens of one state were 'entrapped' for extremely long periods under vague and transient laws of other 'sister' states--without any legal relief. Such a system was, and continues, to be unmanageable and unsustainable.
I have a real problem with conservatives who have maintained for 'a thousand years' that such a form of governance as that was fair and equitable and to be desired.
What rights would be taken away with democratic market socialism that includes the current Bill of Rights? It seems that most people wrongly assume that any mention of socialism automatically includes a brutal dictator and an economy that is planned and managed by the government.
Socialism is purely an economic concept of worker/consumer control of the means of production, so it can easily co-exist wth our current constitutional protections.
Well yeah, socialism is defined by central planning. Venezuela is a socialist state. Norway, for example, is a welfare state attached to an essentially free market economy.
Moreover, our current economic system is a hybrid of the best of several systems. Extreme capitalism = sordid greed. Let's face it! In extreme capitalist situations, people could have their star 'crash' and never, ever, bottom-out! Just keep going down, down, down, . . . .
we already have states with different laws on subjects... just saying
that is the idea behind the "50 laboratories of democracy" they have different laws and try different things
but some issues do require federal intervention and this is probably one of them ( civil rights )
cheers
I like Norway and abhor Venezuela.
That living wage helps you because there is more money in the economy flowing. Some of that money flows uphill to boat owners who pay you to fix their boats.
Macroeconomics is more unknown among Americans than quantum physics.
What states rights are being taken away?
Why should the individual states be able to restrict the inherent rights of women in determining our medical decisions? What is the compelling state interest that is necessary to ban abortion? The core concept of freedom is that we have an unquestioned right to act unless there is a compelling reason to prohibit that action. That compelling reason cannot be based on religious belief without violating the separation of church and state.
BTW, Socialism is an economic idea of ownership of the means of production by the people, which is irrelevant to this issue of personal freedom and privacy rights. Socialism by itself is not in any way authoritarian. The word that you should have used is the balance between authoritarian state power and civil-libertarian individual rights.
Why do you refuse to explain what is the compelling state interest to deny a woman the right to make that decision to terminate a pregnancy? I am not asking if you agree with abortion but instead the idea that we have then right to make that decision for ourselves, if you can understand that difference
Do you feel that the states have then right to ignore the freedoms that we are guaranteed in the US Constitution under the guise of "States Rights"?
What has the federal government taken away from the states? I have to wonder why you continue to dance around directly answering my previous questions. It seems that you are hiding something with your intellectual dishonesty.
Each state was never considered to be a sovereign and independent entity separate from the federal government. The states are administrative districts with some latitude to act in the good interests of their citizens, but in the end the power of the federal government is superior to that of the state. The US Constitution and the decisions US Supreme Court would be unenforceable if it were otherwise. That concept is certain because of the switch from the Articles of Confederation, where the states and federal government were more equal, to the US Constitution which places the federal government's power as being superior to that of the states.
How so?
No, you simply claimed Roe takes away states rights. You didn't explain how. last I checked, the states still have say over abortion that is not otherwise determined by SCOTUS ruling. I have yet to see a compelling state interest in why a woman should or should not be allowed to have an abortion.
States are not entirely independent or overruling of the federal government. States have autonomy, but it is not absolute.
What right of the states has the government taken away?
Why don't you stop tapdancing around and instead answer a few of the questions that have been asked of you?
No, you didn't. you simply made an empty claim.
Nice idea. But not such luck. Donald Trump is not the image that comes to mind, my mind anyway, when I think of negotiation. That man's idea of negotiating is give Trump what he wants, or he will flip over the table and walk!
Moreover, Hal A Lujah is right. Republican Evangelicals (Fundamentalists) want what they want and have been waiting for this occasion since the 1980's and Francis Schaeffer's Christian Manifesto! This "thang is golden" in their eyes. No way are they going to stop ignoring liberals when they are looking their prize in the eyeballs.
This is fundamentalist Evangelicalism's chance to 'kill' liberalism in its resting stage. Golden! Nevermind the point other believers' will be trotted underfoot! Fundamentalist Evangelicals do not consider liberal Christians as relevant to God anyway!
Fundamentalist evangelicalism. The reach of The Deceiver is long. His Shadow is longer.
In its search for purity and power, the affluence of christianity walks in The Shadow.
There first needs to be a desire to unite the country. I don't see that happening yet.
No, there will be more heat than light in coming months and years. 'Lines' just got more expressed, clearer, and truncated. Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, and Fundamentalist Evangelicals do not play by fair rules. There has been a great amount of subterfuge happening in the Republican Party. It is just about to pour out unabated into the open. . . . It takes a lot to sadden the spirits of liberal Christians, and our fundamentalists brothers and sisters are just about to manufacture a breach. . . .
I'd love to believe otherwise but unfortunately I dont see Americans uniting on much of anything for the foreseeable future. Too many people are to infested in their own personal ideology to even consider another ideological point of view. And ideology has perminated almost every current topic and issue.
The politicians and media certainly are no help, they actually gain power and profit from the division. So there's No incentive for change there.
Unless we have a major threat to the country from an outside source I just dont see America coming together for much of anything for some time if ever again.
I guess we just may find out how much truth there is to united we stand, divided we fall.
I say Good Luck To America. I know we're gonna need it.
I agree with Sean. The Court was intended to be a non-political body in contrast to the legislative and executive branches. It’s supposed to interpret the law as the legislature intended not step into the shoes of the legislature under the guise of interpreting the law and then impose the judge ‘s personal views on everybody else. By legislating from the bench and politicizing itself, the Court has ensured that it’s proper function will be impeded.
The constitution is not a panacea for all ills and some things are simply not addressed. Roe v Wade is an example of judicial overreach and is a preposterous interpretation of the constitution (and I would say that no matter how I felt about abortion). The court basically made up a right to privacy that doesn’t exist. Another is gay marriage. The court determined that the constitution requires all 50 states to recognize a right to something that was not only unaddressed in the constitution but is also based on a sexual act that was illegal in every state. Gay marriage is not a constitutional requirement just because somebody wants one. Based on the unsound reasoning in both cases, people should have a right to polygamy or (as a right to privacy) the freedom to engage in prostitution (the point is that the constitution doesn’t require it not that you’d be ok with polygamy and prostitution).
In both of these cases, the Court should have said that the constitution does not prohibit state action (because it doesn’t). Now, instead of requiring that a judge be unbiased in reviewing the law, people are requiring that judges commit to preserving rulings in these cases no matter what anybody argues in a future case. In effect, we are requiring our courts to be filled with political ideologues and, in doing so, have turned every appointment into a partisan fight.
To me, the solution is not to find centrist candidates through partisan committee fights but rather to depoliticize the Court by backing it out of areas that it never should have enetered.
This is the fallacy: Perhaps we should look up the fool or group of fools who misnamed us all: "The United States."
Because, there has been a bunch of states moaning about this connectiveness ever since they got involved in this federal 'marriage.' Nag! Nag! Nag!
[It is not enough to "Let GOD" work out the separation of peoples at the 'end of the age' - God has these voluntary 'helpers' who will weed the fields of this nation—early and prematurely. As if God needs helpers!]
Here is the deal. The Supreme Court wanted to finalize the 'hard questions,' because state and local NAGGERS were with limted or even no rhyme or reason writing their laws to 'capture' and harass individual citizens, or classes of their populations in local "crimes" which did not proper fairly fit circumstances, were inappropriate in other constitutional ways, and then there were the constant MISERY of legal imbalances. That is, a citizen of the Union would appeal to the federal system, for relief from 'the majority locals' breaking their balls!
The complaints to the High Court were ceaseless scenarios of damages. Incidentally, if conservatives do not learn from the past we all, conservatives included, are doomed to repeat it!
The Past: READY > SET > > REPEAT.
We are the United States, a Constitutional Republic of 50 Sovereign States
John Adams noted that, “I expressly say that Congress is not a representative body but a diplomatic body, a collection of ambassadors from thirteen sovereign States….”
Hamilton made this clear in Federalist 32
If we had 50 sovereign states then we wouldn't thave a workable federal government that can govern. That was the problem with the previous Articles of Confederation because they created strong states and a weak federal government, which that proved unworkable in practice. The Civil War is also proof to the contrary of the states being sovereign because Lincoln fought to keep the union together.
You need to read and understand Article 6 of the US Constitution also known as the Supremacy Clause.
First of all the Federalist papers were in support of the new Constitution, not the Articles of Confederation.
They were written to assure Anti-Federalists like Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine, and many others that the new Constitution would continue the sovereignty of the States.
Secondly the Supremacy Clause does nothing to reduce or eliminate that Sovereignty. It applies only to establish that Federal Law supercedes State laws which by nature do not have anything to do with the role of the Federal Government
"James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, clarified the authority of the federal government in the Federalist Papers #45:
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground that 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power not longer susceptible of any definition."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank, February 15, 1791
"I see,... and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that, too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power... It is but too evident that the three ruling branches of [the Federal government] are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1825. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors, ME 16:146
Statists always ignore the 10th Amendment except when they think it might be stretched to their favor
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
In 1819, Chief Justice Marshall (McCulloch v. Maryland) ruled: "This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers.
You have a firm grasp of the shockingly obvious. The Federalist Papers were written by Madison, Jay and Hamilton under the pen name of Publius in 1787-78. The Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1781 and had proven unworkable soon after that.
I do not know if I should laugh or cry. (Wagging the head.)
Pastor, are you taking a trip down memory lane, or do you not understand the transformed nation and world surrounding you? We've changed! There have been many resolutions, leaders, and impactful wars! I daresay that were the founder's alive today, they would not delude themselves into a vain cramming all of the 21st century into an 18th century worldview.
The concept of states rights in which the states are equal in power to the federal government and being sovereign entities unto themselves died in April of 1865 at Appomattox Courthouse. Conservatives have been trying to ignore the significance of that day for the past 150 years.
Not exactly. It’s true that the articles of confederation created a federal government that was too weak to be functional. However, that was changed with a constitution that recognized a union of 50 sovereign states, each independent of the other, but subordinate to the federal government in those instances specifically delineated in the constitution. Powers not specifically delegated to the federal government by the constitution were reserved for the individual states under the 10th amendment. The question that arose prior to the civil war was not state sovereignty. Instead, the issue was whether a sovereign state or group of them can simply walk out of the union (the south’s position) or whether the union can only be desolved the same way it was created i.e. by convention (the north’s position). Obviously, the north had no intention of agreeing to hold s convention to dissolve the union so the south walked out. The dispute was resolved through war, not litigation, and the north imposed its view on a defeated south. The sovereignty of each state to govern itself within its own borders and be independent of any other state has never been challenged either before or after the civil war.
Please define the 'blackened' text. How independent are you suggesting?
One state’s laws and governance end’s ends at its border. So the legislature and governor of New York can pass no laws or take any action that changes the laws and actions of Alabama and vice versa. They, and every other state, are completely independent of each other.
I understand your point here. Thank you.
And here we have a partial 'heart' of the Conservative Movement's discontentment. Women and Gays should know their places in the large scheme of the states as planned long ago by the Colonies.
Your comment reads like a stream of consciousness where you mix up issues in a way that I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
I am not responsible for the harsh realities of past U.S. colonialism. Explore what this country was about in the 18th century. We were not all creme peaches and lilac water when our 'cherished' constitutional relic was given it vaulted status. The Constitution is a great document, but its aged and tearfully cries and wrings its folds for material enchantments—it shall not get any such 'updates and improvements' from conservative states which forlornly gaze after the day when they can love the Constitution again, 'as is.'
deleted
That is ad hominem—not a meaningful rebuttal. Put some spirit into your responses, as if your personal freedom depends on it!
Ok, you made strawman ad hominem attacks on conservative values and character and I responded with the appropriate dismissal of a juvenile attack by you.
We can get into your conservative values, up to and touching your fundamentalist Evangelical Christian views - which should be your life's guiding principles as a faith leader, any time you feel 'froggy,' my brother in Christ. Let's do so with some respect, shall we: Set labels aside.
I am not a Fundamentalist nor or most Evangelicals. Most Fundamentalists consider an Arminist Evangleica, Pentecostal like myself to be a heretic.
Liberals including liberal Christians throw around the term Fundamentalist without even knowing its meaning or history
See 11.1.18 . Moreover, I understand you are a conservative Christian and possibly one with dominionist tendencies. But no matter the label: Jesus Messiah is One Lord.
We are brothers in Spirit. You shall not use the U.S. Constitution to divide yourself or us any farther than the Oneness of our Lord! God is above man and mankind's laws, or God is worthless. What say you?
Domionism is a heresie promoted by less than 2% of Evangelicals
i have consistently opposed anything that would lead to a theocracy or anything approaching it
im a Christian Minarchist a form of libertarianism
Further the biggest divide between us is your embrace of the heresie of liberation theology including making the state “god” on earth. You will likely deny it but the policies and role of government you embrace is reflected in that heresy
Let me say that you can be a "Christian Minarchist" to your heart's contentment. Because it may work out for you in theory and its practice. But, what about the homosexual, persons of color, and newly-minted 'alien' washed up on our shores or living here- all individually and collectively trapped in minority statuses and outcast societies? What does faith have to do with this, Pastor?
Christian Minarchist is the only political philosophy that agrees with the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.
i have spent the last 36 years in ministry not just preaching, but practicing bringing liberty to all mankind
as to spiritual liberation, that only comes from being born again in Jesus.
socialism is diametrically opposed to Christian teachings. It is an ideology based upon forced rather than voluntary collectivism
statist socialism makes the state the grantor of rights and arbiter of morality rather than God
your so called hybrid capitalism and socialism. It’s been tried with disastrous results. Nazism and Fascism both embraced that hybrid
nowhere does Jesus or the Apostles teach that the work of compassion and caring should ever come through government. First of all, it’s idolatry. We are to trust God as the provider and give out of our hearts for the compassion of the body of Christ and as if directly unto Jesus and to glorify God. Your model instead glorifies another “god” which is government.
Then you do not "get" me at all! It sounds to me that you are reading something into what I have stated. I am rushing this morning and will be away most of the day. More later.
Livefreeordie! Pastor, It is late night now. Gone most of Saturday too. Surely Sunday will share more.
Where do you get this wild claim from? Our secular laws are not based on the Bible.
I'm back. Please explain to me, what "disastrous results" you are referencing. And, how in the heaven does what our country do in the present look like Nazism and fascism? Bring details, please.
This strikes at the heart of this issue-discussion. Explain to me clearly what you mean by this:
"We are to trust God as the provider and give out of our hearts for the compassion of the body of Christ and as if directly unto Jesus and to glorify God."
While I think I know what you mean, I want to understand it from you.
actually doc, that is what we voted for. somethings have no compromise and this is one of them.
trump will pick from a list of "originalists" and shove them thru the process as fast as possible.
chances are he will do it again (ginsburg)
one of the top reasons people voted for trump was HIS supreme court picks... the left is not invited to that process.
but your right... this one is going to burn the lefts hide for many years to come
good day
and soon 🤞
Careful what you wish for. Conservatives are old and wear-out too! Or even young and destruction-prone. Wishing other people misfortune can backfire—badly.
I’m impressed that you could keep your mouth shut, as you pushed past the millions of liberals hoping to get rid of Trump, just so you could save your sage advice for me.
You're the bold one choosing to cross your fingers to punctuate a 'death-wish.' I can wish Donald Trump a great many thing and none of that would involve professional/personal harm or danger. But, that's just me.
I assume you’re aware that Trump is replacing Kennedy without anybody needing to die. All I said was I hope it happens again soon. You turned it into a death wish.
Well, I hope Justice Ginsburg does not retire just to make Trump gleeful. 🤞 Oh, and I am glad you are not wishing her . . . . Thanks for the clarification, 1of many!
No problem. Because she didn’t retire under Obama, she now has to wait until the next democrat president or her seat will be filled by a conservative. I imagine she would rather preside over cases while on life support than allow Trump to appoint her replacement.
I feel so strongly for such people in their eighties being in the loop of 'need and leave.' It is a great honor to be in demand so late in life, it is fearful also. Because we're all owed a peaceful, quiet, rest from the hustle and bustle. At least, we're taught to expect one. This nation- all around-should have more maturity pouring forth out of its leaders. I am sad for all of us. In my opinion, we are squandering what really matters in this world - the best of 'worlds' for petty abuses of each other. Disturbing.
LOL, the solution to uniting the country will have to be a lot more extreme than the suggestions made here. If civility and unity cannot be universally maintained in a microcosm like thenewstalkers, there is absolutely no chance of success for the country. If you praise diversity and multiculturism and extreme PC to the extent that it is here, unity is an impossibility. With the gun proliferation, a civil war of neighbour vs neighbour might be the only solution - i.e. one side totally obliterates the other.
Nothing like that will ever work as long as a partisan power monger like McConnell is calling the shots and he definitely is. They might as well say President McConnell because Trump and McConnell are lock step. Not unlike the way Republicans rubber stamped the Bush/Cheney agenda to our peril.
McConnell will NOT allow any civil discussion only partisan one way politics so he can get what he wants.
America has been held hostage to no one but McConnell and seeing Trump elected just allowed all the rug pulling, the moving the goal posts to allow nothing but McConnell's own partisan choice which aligns with Trump.
Republicans already won't stand up for the American people, the Constitution, or fairness. They allow McConnell to grab power, change the rules and make sure no other political party has a say.
Forget Independents or Libertarians or any other political party having a say, Republicans, Trump and McConnell want to make sure it is nothing but one party rule over everyone.
So for 8 years we suffered under the marxist totalitarianism of Obama. And for much of it the marxist fascism of Harry Reid.
We are liberating this country from the oppression of the marxist fascist democrats
You're a broken record with your laughable claims of marxist-fascism and totalitarianism.
you laugh out of ignorance, not fact
1.) You cannot possibly be both a Marxist and a fascist because they are competing ideas of opposites. You cannot toss around those words like childish insults without understanding the formal definitions.
2.) If Obama was such a totalitarian then you and many others would have been jailed for your opposition to him.
If I am so ignorant of the subject then why was I approached to teach it at my alma mater? I doubt that your knowledge of government would permit you to pass a high school civics class.
Republicans will rue the day they as a group allowed DJ© Trump to redefine and unclasp this nation's politics and policies from the wholesomeness of truth: We are a 'blended' people - a gem - set under the spotlight of the world. We draw our beauty from all the peoples surrounding us. But, somehow, our well-heeled and sophisticate president traveled surrounding places only to return to us jaded by his past experiences of our international friends. But keen on our enemies budding in his hands.
This nation's citizens will lose faith with fundamentalist Evangelicals. Such folks will have ruined their reputation for a generation, perhaps generations. The people will lose faith with all of government while it is in the hands of religious legalism and its intellectually dishonest president. A fake leader, who gorges his purse, as he snorts and mocks the truth. Our status, as an inviting people, will surely be lost for a time. May be even swept away for good. We will be stepped down - put down. The United States. . .of memory.
For all that glitters afar off is not gold once standing up close.
Fundamentalist Christians, you may have achieved a hollow victory once the conclusion catches up. You may have sold out your political party, your personal souls, and this nation's ranking in the world - as other nation's turn their backs on us in hurt, disgust, and distrust. Thus, turning to and embracing the second greatest nation and shining favor on its friendly, open, and inviting 'arms.' You, evangelicals, may have given up your high rank for the diminishing returns of standing in the center of an 'outburst' for one measly hour!
Jesus-Messiah said: ". . . don’t cry for me; cry for yourselves and your children! For if they do these things when the wood is green, what is going to happen when it’s dry?”
Luke 23:27 Large numbers of people followed, including women crying and wailing over him. 28 Yeshua turned to them and said, “Daughters of Yerushalayim, don’t cry for me; cry for yourselves and your children! 29 For the time is coming when people will say, ‘The childless women are the lucky ones — those whose wombs have never borne a child, whose breasts have never nursed a baby!
30 Then They will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us!’
and to the hills, ‘Cover us!’
31 For if they do these things when the wood is green, what is going to happen when it’s dry?”
COC Violation!
Fascism has always been a leftist ideology. Fascists separated themselves from the Communists over Statism.
Marx wrote that socialism should be the transition from capitalism to communism. Communism is ultimately according to marx a form of anarchy (absence of government) where the workers are an entity unto themselves and no government is needed.
The Fascists agreed with much of Marx's views on socialism but being Statists, believed that they could instead control capitalism to support a dominant central government that redistributed the wealth which in turn would continue to give them the populist support to rule.
The American "Progressives" were the first Fascists of the 20th century
By John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)
On May 7, 1933, just two months after the inauguration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the New York Times reporter Anne O’Hare McCormick wrote that the atmosphere in Washington was “strangely reminiscent of Rome in the first weeks after the march of the Blackshirts, of Moscow at the beginning of the Five-Year Plan.… America today literally asks for orders.” The Roosevelt administration, she added, “envisages a federation of industry, labor and government after the fashion of the corporative State as it exists in Italy.”
As early as 1912, FDR himself praised the Prussian-German model: “They passed beyond the liberty of the individual to do as he pleased with his own property and found it necessary to check this liberty for the benefit of the freedom of the whole people,” he said in an address to the People’s Forum of Troy, New York.
Roosevelt himself called Mussolini “admirable” and professed that he was “deeply impressed by what he has accomplished.” The admiration was mutual. In a laudatory review of Roosevelt’s 1933 book Looking Forward, Mussolini wrote, “Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices.… Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism.” The chief Nazi newspaper, Volkischer Beobachter , repeatedly praised “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” and “the development toward an authoritarian state” based on the “demand that collective good be put before individual self-interest.”
FDR adviser Rexford Guy Tugwell said of Italian fascism: “It’s the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I’ve ever seen. It makes me envious,” adding that, “I find Italy doing many of the things which seem to me necessary … Mussolini certainly has the same people opposed to him as FDR has.”
NAACP co-founder W. E. B. DuBois viewed the Nazi rise positively, saying that Hitler’s dictatorship had been “absolutely necessary to get the state in order.” In 1937, DuBois stated: “there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.”
New Republic editor George Soule, who avidly supported FDR, noted approvingly that the Roosevelt administration was “trying out the economics of fascism.” Now, New Republic pages are full of outright defamation accusing Trump of being a fascist.
modern liberals are completely ignorant of history
Stalinism was not communism- It was socialist fascism which is why Hitler admired Stalin
Fascism is the ideology of the left and always has been
What socialism, fascism and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people -- like themselves -- need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat.
The left's vision is not only a vision of the world, but also a vision of themselves, as superior beings pursuing superior ends. In the United States, however, this vision conflicts with a Constitution that begins, "We the People..."
That is why the left has for more than a century been trying to get the Constitution's limitations on government loosened or evaded by judges' new interpretations, based on notions of "a living Constitution" that will take decisions out of the hands of "We the People," and transfer those decisions to our betters.
The self-flattery of the vision of the left also gives its true believers a huge ego stake in that vision, which means that mere facts are unlikely to make them reconsider, regardless of what evidence piles up against the vision of the left, and regardless of its disastrous consequences.
Only our own awareness of the huge stakes involved can save us from the rampaging presumptions of our betters, whether they are called socialists or fascists. So long as we buy their heady rhetoric, we are selling our birthright of freedom.
And let us look to Hitler himself on the matter:
Fascism and the American Left
Obama considered himself a practical marxist revolutionary
I was no threat to his power. i run no national organization; I hold no political power; I don't run a large media organization.
Practical marxist totalitarians like Obama concentrate on their primary opposition knowing that their overall power renders all others powerless and of no significance
That's why he used the IRS to go after opponents. That's why he went after conservative journalists; that's why Obama directed the US of intelligence agencies to administer a frame up against Trump with the phony "Russian Collusion" charge (a crime that doesn't even exist in the legal code)
leftists often resort to falsely accusing all Evangelicals of being fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are a small segment of Evangelicalism. I am not a Fundamentalist and as a Pentecostal Evangelical am considered a heretic by Fundamentalists (especially by Calvinists).
It serves leftists as a powerful propaganda tool because the word Fundamentalist (though wrongly applied) is now identified with Islamists and thus conjures up images of brutality and oppression.
It is a typical marxist propaganda tool and easily recognized as a substitute for legitimate debate.
And your scripture verse applies to the Great Tribulation when Born Again Christians will not even be in this world. Also typical of false propaganda.
You should write for The Onion. Many people should get the chance to laugh at your hyperbolic nonsense.
I can't help your ignorance if quoting history is called "hyperbolic nonsense".
Some people are determined to remain ignorant and brainwashed while ignoring the facts of written history. you evidently are such an individual
You constantly create strawmen by taking ideas out on context. If I were as wrong as consistently as you are I would spend much more time learning and less time making outrageous claims that you cannot defend. Having fewer beliefs but more facts would be a very good place to start.
i can confidently state that my weekly study and collection of facts dwarfs any that you might have. I have been engaged in my studies for nearly 65 years.
I began my Constitutional studies and US history studies a little more than 60 years ago
Are you aware of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
Is that a problem for you or anyone else? I work with computers so I come here while I am waiting for the computer to finish running a program.
I'd rather be working outside today but it's too hot (mid 90s) in the middle of the afternoon.
And we love having you here.
If they want me to leave then take a poll. I'll leave if they can achive 2/3s of the members or 1/2s of the moderators are no votes.
Take a break.
Here, watch the lap record at the Ring shattered by 52 seconds. I don't think shattered is strong enough a word.
Thanks for finally 'volunteering' some description of your spirituality: Pentecostal Evangelical. Noted. You are right, fundamentalist Evangelicals may even consider you liberal. So Evangelical republican, why and how do you keep your faith wholly separate from your politics? (You shared that tidbit with me recently.)
Okay brother, let me kindly ask you throw out the labels and let us reason together through our spiritual understanding and connection.
My scripture reference? Yeah, I know it was a bit of a stretch (risk) to put it there. But, it informs me. Again noted.
I saw that news on Jalopnik a few days ago. That version of the 'Ring is actually about 5 meters longer than what Steffan Bellof drove in the 956.
I saw just yesterday and recalled you would like to do some hot laps there.
Beating a lap record by a couple seconds is a pretty good accomplishment, but 52 seconds!!! ?
Then again, the way they approached that effort is akin to bringing a modern day Group 7 car. They weren't constrained by world sports car rules. The cockpit view was a treat.
I wonder what the last iteration of the Audi R18 would do if it was an unlimited engine? The ACO keep trying to reign that car in at LeMans, so letting it all hang out at the 'Ring could be amusing, if they could find a driver crazy enough to drive it.
I would like to see one of the hybrid cars make the switch to the Goodenough-Barga battery tecknology. From what is toughted, it is all over LI or power density, charge rate, discharge rate, recharge cycles and uses sodium in place of Lithium.
Thanks for that news. I had not heard of it before.
I’m not a Republican. I left them in 1970 for being too socialist. Since then I’ve been an independent and the only Republican I’ve voted for was Reagan. I have never voted for a Democrat because of their even more radical leftist ideology. I would have voted for Bobby Kennedy if he had not been assassinated
As free men we are supposed to be informed in our politics by our faith
Message from John Adams to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massacusetts
John Adams
October 11, 1798
"we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, • would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. "
From George Washington's Farewell Address 1796
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
I watched a song presentation about John Adams yesterday authored by John Adams, and I literally read this section of Washington's farewell on July 4th, before opting not to post it for the day due to its 'sad' commentary. Why do you post it at this point to me, in answer to what? Curious.
Adams and Washington both posited that our faith must shape our politics or the Republic will fall (as I believe it is close to realizing)
John Adams was a Unitarian. Geo. Washington was a Deist and a Mason.
.
Wrong! faith and politics is and should be separate. That separation should be absolute, as was intended by the Founding Fathers.
then why do they say a prayer in Congress?
religion even has a .gov address.. lol
the founders did not intend for the politicians or the people to check their religion at the door before voting on issues. that would be impossible to enforce. a person's beliefs shape every decision they make and every vote they cast, regardless of what others think about that belief.
that is how our faith shapes our politics - daily
freedom of religion is not freedom from religion.
They shouldn't. It's a waste of time. Even James Madison took issue with prayer in Congress.
But they did expect decisions to have a secular purpose. Religion could not be favored over other religions or over non-religion. The government is supposed to be religiously neutral.
And look at the state of politics today. It hardly speaks well of faith or politicians.
Wrong! We have both. You cannot have one without the other!
you will get over it. or bitch about it your whole life. (your choice)
politics may not force a religion on us... but the effects of religion in politics is felt daily, and you will never remove religion from politics or stop the prayers in congress.
cheers
took issue with? LOL
a founding father could not stop prayer in congress...
but you still assert there is no religious influence in politics?
too funny
Nah, I'll bitch about it. Thanks.
No, I said there should not be religious influence in politics. And for good reason.
I get that.
but there is a religious influence on politics, has been from the word go...
and it will not stop (for good reason.)
what did we learn here?
you have freedom OF religion but you have no freedom FROM religion as long as voters and politicians believe in god (they will vote their beliefs)
while they pray in congress? your argument is moot.
There should be religious influences in politics, but only well within its discipline as adviser (conscience); not enforcer! The church should never allow itself to become 'weaponized.' 'For those who live by the sword, shall die by the sword (a scripture reference).
I stand against what the late Francis Schaeffer and dominionists are doing today to our system of government. I will not support the 'take-over' our government by the Religious-Right as the 'arm' of religion in the United States - nor can I support the complete ignoring of faith-based concepts in government, either.
No, there shouldn't be! That would violate the separation of church and state.
Even that is too much. Just because someone is religious doesn't make their "conscience" automatically worthy of trust or the basis of rational decision making in politics.
To best avoid that, the church should remain outside of the political sphere.
Good!
We can not "do away" with religious points of view in the political sphere. So stop with the pretense. It is just this type of non-compromise that has powered the rise of an 'unchurched' and unbridled businessman riding and steering the country away from diversity—hailed by the Christian-Right for what he lacks in morals and having his conscience-seared right alongside their own. For years, Donald Trump read the Christian-Right's and Conservative's mail and dialogued with them on Twitter about he could do defeat the extremists on the Left!
Be pragmatic. Win something for the good and stop simply punching for purity which is impossible in our lifetime on either side! You will only punch yourself out!
BTW, I feel strongly that people of faith can work in government and serve in public office, just simply by acting with the same level of diversity and integrity to the rule of law as they expect of others without faith. We can all be good to one another. It is not that complicated. Especially considering the 'make-up' of the country, which is not going anywhere else anytime soon! (At least, I think we-they are not going out of the country anytime soon! Image of people fleeing from "destruction" pops into my mind.)
I have no problem with people of various faiths in public office, as long as they can keep their faith separate from their secular duties of a civil servant. It is not a requirement of the citizens that we can be forced to live by the beliefs and tenents of anyone's religion. This possibility is why we have the concept of strict separation of church and state in the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The Lemon test of SCOTUS constitutionality goes a long way to preventing religious beliefs that do not have a vast majority of secular good from being passed by Congress or enforced by the state. The religious views of everyone else, and especially the religious beliefs or lack thereof of the minority are not subservient to the beliefs of the politically powerful or the social majority.
I can agree to all of this in principle and practice. Christianity (Christ-likeness) is not a sharp pointed or blunt-force weapon. Our "warfare" is of the spirit!
Political office and the work of civil servants is not be connected in any way to religious conversion.
I have not implied it was or is. (Smile.)
It is the President's constitutional right to appoint Supreme Court Judges. After appointing a nominee to the SCOTUS, the Senate Judiciary Committee interviews and investigates the President's nominee. If the nominee makes it through the Senate Judiciary Committee he or she is either approved or disapproved by the Senate.
I suspect anyone appointed by President Trump will have difficulty in the Senate Judiciary Committee as well as gain approval in the Senate. This is not unusual to Trump, except it is even more difficult. Republican Presidents have always had much more difficulty in getting their nominees approved by Democrat Senators than Democrat Presidents have with Republican Senators.
In the end the nominee is either approved or disapproved. The Republicans somewhat have the advantage at this time, but it is not a sure bet that any of Trump's nominees will be approved. We can only thank the Democrats for setting the precedent under the leadership of Harry Reid and Barack Obama even though they were warned at the time it would come back to bite them in the ass. It will come back to bite the Republicans in the ass as well.
It is my opinion It doesn't matter whether these nominees are qualified or not to the Democrats. It doesn't matter whether these nominees will use the Constitution to guide them in there decisions. In fact the Democrats don't want people in power who will use the Constitution to guide them in making their decisions. They say they are afraid these nominees will reverse Roe v Wade, but that's just an excuse to keep the President from having one of them approved. When the Democrats are in power, they don't compromise with the Republicans and when they aren't in power they use the different Federal Judiciaries to maintain their control.
The Democrats have been hijacked by the radical left, alienating the average Democrats from their party and they don't care. With the election of Hillary Clinton they would have been in the position to appoint whoever they wanted to the SCOTUS and they would have pushed citizenship on as many people as they could to assure them the Democrats would have no competition from the Republicans or any member of their own party who wasn't as radical as themselves.
Someone should have explained that same idea to Mitch McConnell in the summer of 2016. Republicans are very obvious hypocrites at this point. If the GOP seek to have any respect they need to make Obama's nominee Merrick Garland the next SCOTUS Justice.
The only republicans worth uniting with are those who left the Republican party, imo. The rest are not worth a second glance. They are not redeemable and are anti American in almost every way. Reading this thread has only reinforced my belief that we need a civil war to purge this sickness they have in their hearts and minds. They have taken mental illness to a whole new level.
Now that's kind of funny, epistte. I think there is a zero chance of that happening. The way I look at it, although I hate it has turned out the way it has turned out in Washington, the Republicans should do everything they can to put as many conservative constructionist on the bench as they can possibly do while they have a chance. It's for the children so they may not have to grow up in a government run by Socialists.
Now I don't blame the Democrats for carrying on their fight for what they want and you and I know, if the tables were turned around, we know what the Democrats would do. I think we should do what the Democrats would do if it was their President and their Senate in the majority at this time and they had the potential of losing that majority.
We're not replacing Ginsburg, who is definitely a Party Justice. We're replacing a Conservative Justice who was appointed by a Republican President. If it was Ginsburg resigning instead of Kennedy, then I would be a little more inclined to agree with the idea of waiting until after the election. This is not what is considered an election year. If we considered it an election year, every year would be an election year.
I keep reading that comment scattered around PJ. Do you have any idea what a civil war would do to this country? Stop wishing or thinking it's time for a civil war in this country, if I were you, because a civil war in this country would be devastating, end up putting this country into Anarchy followed by a Totalitarian government. And I should hope none of us want that.
You'll survive Trump like we survived Obama and if you don't let your emotions control you then you'll come out of it in a lot better physical and mental state.
Yeah, apparently, some people would rather kids die than just win an election. It's sickens me that people are bloodthirsty enough to root for a civil war. But advocating the spilling of blood in pursuit of an imaginary utopia is a common characteristic of leftists.
And here I am, viewing some "documents" which explain that it is Fundamentalist Evangelicals (A.K.A., Right-wing Evangelical Republicans) who are seeking a world-wide utopia, including the United States, its government and private sector.
And that was the norm until 2016. Now the norm has changed. Now the Senate has decided that SCOTUS nominees are theirs exclusively to determine based entirely upon political leanings.
Glad you understand it Thrawn. You know the old saying, "ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES". Do you honestly think if the Democrats were faced with the same circumstances they wouldn't do the same thing? Like I said, we're not replacing a Justice appointed by a Democrat President.
President Obama was not some 'fire-breathing demon' despite the pitchfork and fire rhetoric spit at him for eight years by Conservative-Republicans, while he was repairing Republican George W. Bush's eight-years drive to a recession economy. More to the point: Judge Merrick Garland was President Obama's righteous and justified choice for the Court.
(Technically, the conservatives lost two justices in sucession. But, suffer no consequences. How the heaven is that remotely right?)
President Obama was such a fair man and leader that he withstood liberals to their faces in offering up Justice Merrick Garland:
Garland nonetheless has the most important criterion the President identified for his nominee “ experience that suggests he or she views the law not only as an intellectual exercise, but also grasps the way it affects the daily reality of people’s lives in a big, complicated democracy, and in rapidly changing times ” ( The New Yorker - middle of the page.)
Nothing about fairness, righteousness, or justification mattered to republicans then as it does not now. Time for truth: Shame the Devil.
In other words rather than interpret in accordance with the Constitution as is his responsibility, he would be led by his emotions and popular trends.
thank God He is not on the Supreme Court
And you would "thank God" and Jesus Messiah for having a static and clearly 'underdeveloped' document rule over a such a great people as we have become in 240 plus years? Stunning. In addition, are you aware that the Supreme Court is not violating the constitution in order to render current ("modern") results to this citizenry in the 21st century. If Congress sats on its majority 'hands' and the citizens in majority states join in doing the same—grievances will elevate, that is, rise to "high heaven" and the Judge must act eventually. It is a 'safety' valve designed to release social and cultural pressures.
Pastor, let other people believe in what they want to believe in—you do. All you truly need is space for your liberties - not superfluous excess. Jesus Messiah explains this one thing to us who will listen: "The earth's is the Lord's and the fullness thereof." — Psalm 24:12. Vanity has no place in this.
And how could you invoke God in a republican senate miscarriage of justice! Outrageous. All that you can be sure of is this: God 'called' Scalia away at an appointed time in order for another course in fairness and prudence to be established. Stifle your glee! You approve of misappropriation of a supreme court seat—a display of ungodliness. Darkness!
Our Founders provided an amendment process whereby it could be changed to reflect changes that necessitate amending it.
But they made that process specifically difficult so that it’s not changed with every popular whim or fad.
The Constitution is not some mere guideline but is the Supreme Law of the Land. The “living Constitution” ideology is an oxymoron that violates the Constitution
The living constitution ideology is itself unconstitutional. You cannot expand the powers of the Federal Govt without trampling upon the 10th amendment. The provision for Amending the Constitution is our legal means of changing to meet new needs. This interpretation conflicts with the 10th Amendment, Article V (amending the Constitution), and Article VI Clause 2 (Constitution Supreme Law of the Land)
"[The purpose of a written constitution is] to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws, which, when they transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender those rights." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Queen.XIII, 1782. ME 2:178
For Justice Antonin Scalia, the Constitution is not a living document, but a dead one.
The Supreme Court's conservative torchbearer says he believes the Constitution's meaning cannot change over time. It was meant, he says, to impose rigid rules that cannot be altered, except by the difficult process of constitutional amendment.
"If you somehow adopt a philosophy that the Constitution itself is not static, but rather, it morphs from age to age to say whatever it ought to say — which is probably whatever the people would want it to say — you've eliminated the whole purpose of a constitution. And that's essentially what the 'living constitution' leaves you with," Scalia says.
Jefferson warned us correctly in my view of the dangers from the judiciary
“Nothing in the Constitution has given them [the federal judges] a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them. . . . The opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” (Letter to Abigail Adams, September 11, 1804
“Our Constitution . . . intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent that they might check and balance one another, it has given—according to this opinion to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of others; and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. . . . The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” (Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Sept. 6, 1819)
“You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so . . . and their power [is] the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.” (Thomas Jefferson Letter to William Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820)
Because the left ignores both the Constitution and their own history
I give you the words of former Senate Majority leader, Democrat Harry Reid. I have almost never agreed with him, but he got this one Constitutionally correct
Harry Reid on advice and consent spoken on the Senate Floor in 2005?
"HARRY REID: "And sadly now, the President of the United States has joined the fray and become the latest to rewrite the Constitution and reinvent reality. Speaking to fellow Republicans on Tuesday night , two days ago, he said that the Senate and I quote, 'has a duty to promptly consider each nominee on the Senate floor, discuss and debate their qualifications, and then give them the up or down vote they deserve.'
The duties of the United States Senate are set forth in the Constitution of the United States. Nowhere in that document does it say the Senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote. It says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the Senate. That is very different than saying that every nominee receives a vote."
qq
The Godless darkness are those antiAmerican justices like Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor. I prayer that we can expeditiously be rid of them
True. Very true. And how about this one:
The Constitution of the United States:
Article 1
Section 8
The Congress shall have Power:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Livefreeordie, what does this 'clause' say to you about congresses' and the courts' capacity to govern and perform on the behalf of citizens? Or, do you wish me to think that anytime a question of law came up outside of a clear pronouncement in the constitution - a constitution convention or amendment effort was the only recourse to the citizens in need of a 'judicious' and timely response?
And yet you are comfortable with Trump turning the country back into an asylum of all the dregs, generations washed and mopped up! More on this later.
And you seem to think judges - people - citizens are simple biological cogs and widgets in very old machinery to follow the dictates of 'wooden' dogmas and bygone standards of living and laws. Surely the framers of the constitution created 'clues' and 'tunnels' in the document leading the way out - into the future - say 200 plus years later? How out of step with time and space are some of us! Even the framers knew they were 'framing' a foundational document to be further developed, enhanced, and in accordance with its times. Thus, the "catch-all" clause/s.
Livefreeordie, the document can not be good for just you and yours. The Constitution has to manifest to 'all' of us! I digress.
Running. Back later.
And I, too, give you the words of Harry Reid from the same source:
1. Livefreeordie, Pastor, is it fair to change the scope of Senator Reid's words and meaning? (See blue writing.) Are you exampling intellectual integrity just now? Did Merrick Garland, SCOTUS nominee get an "up or down vote" from the Senate?
Then, there is this:
Our ruling
Reid said Senate Democrats "have never held up a Supreme Court nomination."
Reid steps a little too far in saying Democrats "have never held up" a nomination. They were chiefly responsible for Bork’s failed nomination, a turning point in the political nature of Supreme Court nominations, and they at least symbolically attempted to hold up Alito’s confirmation in 2005.
However, we can't find a time when a Democratic Senate refused to hear a Republican president's nominee. Even if they were opposed, they allowed the nominee to come to a comfirmation vote.
We rate the statement Mostly True . More. . . .
Such expressions come from my "exterminator." Conscience seared.
They can only act within the authorities and powers enumerated in the Constitution. The moment they step beyond that we have tyranny.
He’s doing no such thing. He’s reversing 80 plus years of Marxist fascism
Please elaborate. You can not charge this nation courts with a blanket charge of "tyranny." After all, our courts are charged with making sense of the Constitution, as it related to the times it was written and as to reconciling those truths from the past with times now. Our courts are its number #1 protector. Court critics noted, nevertheless.
This 'colony' of states you want this great nation to be, how will/can it operate in today's world? Please
illustrate.picture it briefly. Surely, you have a model in mind.1 2.2.13 calbab
Livefreeordie, Pastor, is it fair to change the scope of Senator Reid's words and meaning? (See blue writing.) Are you exampling intellectual integrity just now? Did Merrick Garland, SCOTUS nominee get an "up or down vote" from the Senate?
I haven’t changed the meaning at all. A refusal to give a floor vote in every respect is a no vote.
the senate has NO Constitutional obligation to record an up or down vote to reject a nominee
There is no enumeratedpower for the SupremeCourt to do any such thing
in Marburg v Madison they invented that power for themselves
you may consider them our “number one protector”, but I hold no such view
I have never advocated for a colony of states. That is ludicrous. I advocate for what the Constitution states and our founders stated, a Federal Republic of Sovereign states
Federalism is a hierarchical system of government under which two levels of government exercise a range of control over the same geographic area. This system of exclusive and shared powers is the opposite of "centralized" forms of governments, such as those in England and France, under which the national government maintains exclusive power over all geographic areas.
In the case of the United States, the U.S. Constitution establishes federalism as the sharing of powers between the U.S. federal government and the individual state governments.
During America’s Colonial Period, federalism generally referred to a desire for a stronger central government. During the Constitutional Convention , the Party supported a stronger central government, while "Anti-Federalists" argued for a weaker central government. The Constitution was created largely to replace the Articles of Confederation, under which the United States operated as a loose confederation with a weak central government and more powerful state governments.
Explaining the new Constitution’s proposed system of federalism to the people, James Madison wrote in “ Federalist No. 46 ,” that the national and state governments “are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers.” Alexander Hamilton, writing in “ Federalist No. 28 ,” argued that federalism’s system of shared powers would benefit the citizens of all of the states. “If their [the peoples'] rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress,” he wrote
So Senate customs and agreements are so much hog-wash? "All gloves are off now?" Do you yearn for a country destabilized at its core? A county lacking in leadership integrity? You would expose the children in this country (all over again) to politicians willing to 'work deceit' by operating without standards and respect for order?
Pastor, if you can play 'loosey-goosey' with established customs, how the heaven can you expect others to simply dismiss your traditions? Why should we believe you will not change the rules to suit you and nobody else?
Marbury v. Madison pitted Jefferson against James Madison. Don't you think that if the SCOTUS didn't function properly the way the founding fathers wanted that they would have passed an amendment to fix any problem that they perceived with how the SCOTUS functioned?
Pastor, I agree, our constitution is a truly exceptional device: What corrupted it and when?
DEPARTMENT OF OOPS!
our constitution is not corrupt, the political process is though and in my opinion that started being really corrupted when money coming to the politicians became more important that the votes the money helped secure.
Well, it certainly is not good form: What was the justified reason for failing to grant the up or down vote, Pastor? What rationale did Senator McConnell, in his role as Majority Leader, offer for not granting Justice Merrick Garland a vote? Please be clear in your answer.
Jesus Messiah would have labeled that as a "working of deceit." Consequently, in the spiritual realm - the selection of Gorsuch will end in 'dust.' J. Scalia died outright in 2016. Conservatives took the cheap way out through trickery. I have 'upset' processing that a majority leader in the Senate would break down the customs and rules so underhandedly, evermore I am confused when a saint of God agrees with tactics, he or she would not like to happen in the reverse!
Pastor, you say that the Supreme Court has no "enumerated powers," why should it?
Pastor?
Well, I guess Pastor is 'gone away' on a tide of celebration in Washington, D. C. Tsk. No matter, plenty of time ahead another day.
Wow! That was written as if tapping a vein in John Gray's imaginary book: "Republicans are from Venus, Democrats are from Mars!"
Ideally it let the Dems know that Hillary was a massive fuck up and they will go with someone who is more likable in the future. And I said for months that the Dems should nominate Sanders, he would wipe the floor with Trump etc. and that Hillary was a horrid choice making people choose between someone they don't like, and someone else they don't like. Trump just promised more shiny things.
Trump promised all people a better economic future which would allow them to find jobs that would provide them with the money to buy shiny things.
Sanders promised all people shiny things for free. Big difference.
If you believe Trump's claims I have a bridge I'll sell you cheap.
Bernie didn't promise anyone anything for free, so drop the strawman.
You're right. someone would have to pay for it, but not the people getting it for free. 70 billion dollars per year for free college education. Who is going to pay for that, because you are right, it's not free.
LMFAOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! Please, come back to reality for a moment:
Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) has promised voters a lot of free stuff if he is elected president. He has proposals to make public colleges free for all students, raise the national minimum wage to $15 per hour, and nationalize health insurance by putting everyone on Medicare. Of course, free government handouts are not free, and Sen. Sanders provides details of an enormous array of taxes that he will raise in order to pay for all this “free” stuff. We now have enough analyses of his plans to judge where the cost burden falls and (surprise!) the vast majority of the freebies will be paid for by the rich.
Senator Sanders proposes a financial transactions tax to fund his free college plan and then an employer payroll tax of 6.2%, an increase in all income tax brackets of 2.2% (for example, from a 10 to 12.2% marginal rate), the resumption of full payroll taxes on income above $250,000 per year, taxing capital gains the same as wage income, limits on deductions of 28%, and a higher estate tax to pay for Medicare for all. The details of all these taxes can be found on his very helpful campaign website. Give Sen. Sanders credit, he is telling everyone exactly who he will raise taxes on and by how much.
You seem to honestly believe the lies you are spreading so I hope this helps