But Trump was a threat to democracy
Comments
-
What does fresh view mean? Either the Constitution is a written document with words that have meaning or it isn't. Either you have 2A rights or you don't. Either you have 1A rights or you don't. Not hard to appoint 6 more wise Latinas and then the Constitution has no meaning. Just like in Oregon the Supreme Court just granted permanent executive order privileges to the Governor out of thin air.
-
We have added Amendments to the Constitution so I do think it’s disingenuous to say either we have a Constitution or not. It’s important to merge the spirit if the Constitution and the modern application.WestlinnDuck said:What does fresh view mean? Either the Constitution is a written document with words that have meaning or it isn't. Either you have 2A rights or you don't. Either you have 1A rights or you don't. Not hard to appoint 6 more wise Latinas and then the Constitution has no meaning. Just like in Oregon the Supreme Court just granted permanent executive order privileges to the Governor out of thin air.
I’m not against the idea of having a discussion on term limits for justices ... difference between discussions and enacting.
Likewise, I think it’d be good to streamline officially what the actual justice count is going forward. It’s had fluctuations up and down throughout history.
Lastly, I’d be ok with having discussions on whether or not having justices with subject matter expertise makes sense.
Finding ways to make the judicial system less political wouldn’t be a bad thing IMO -
And there is a clear process to Amend the Constitution. If you want to get rid of the 2nd Amendment there is a way to do so.Tequilla said:
We have added Amendments to the Constitution so I do think it’s disingenuous to say either we have a Constitution or not. It’s important to merge the spirit if the Constitution and the modern application.WestlinnDuck said:What does fresh view mean? Either the Constitution is a written document with words that have meaning or it isn't. Either you have 2A rights or you don't. Either you have 1A rights or you don't. Not hard to appoint 6 more wise Latinas and then the Constitution has no meaning. Just like in Oregon the Supreme Court just granted permanent executive order privileges to the Governor out of thin air.
I’m not against the idea of having a discussion on term limits for justices ... difference between discussions and enacting.
Likewise, I think it’d be good to streamline officially what the actual justice count is going forward. It’s had fluctuations up and down throughout history.
Lastly, I’d be ok with having discussions on whether or not having justices with subject matter expertise makes sense.
Finding ways to make the judicial system less political wouldn’t be a bad thing IMO -
It would be a good thing if the justices would actually read and follow the document.Tequilla said:
We have added Amendments to the Constitution so I do think it’s disingenuous to say either we have a Constitution or not. It’s important to merge the spirit if the Constitution and the modern application. Why? If so, then pass a Constitutional Amendment. Think booze is bad, then pass a Constitutional Amendment banning booze in the US. If that turns out to be a big phucked up mistake, then pass an amendment repealing it.WestlinnDuck said:What does fresh view mean? Either the Constitution is a written document with words that have meaning or it isn't. Either you have 2A rights or you don't. Either you have 1A rights or you don't. Not hard to appoint 6 more wise Latinas and then the Constitution has no meaning. Just like in Oregon the Supreme Court just granted permanent executive order privileges to the Governor out of thin air.
I’m not against the idea of having a discussion on term limits for justices ... difference between discussions and enacting. I agree. I would support a Constitutional amendment for a term limit of say 15 years.
Likewise, I think it’d be good to streamline officially what the actual justice count is going forward. It’s had fluctuations up and down throughout history. Agree. Make it 9. The only movement off 9 has been dems trying to destroy the Court.
Lastly, I’d be ok with having discussions on whether or not having justices with subject matter expertise makes sense. Define subject matter expertise? Patent law? Tax law? How does that work? All the big cases are not that hard if you can read. The four justices that voted that making a movie about PIPS wasn't protected by the first amendment have subject matter expertise in what? Suppressing speech?
Finding ways to make the judicial system less political wouldn’t be a bad thing IMO
-
I couldn't agree with you more on thatSFGbob said:
And there is a clear process to Amend the Constitution. If you want to get rid of the 2nd Amendment there is a way to do so.Tequilla said:
We have added Amendments to the Constitution so I do think it’s disingenuous to say either we have a Constitution or not. It’s important to merge the spirit if the Constitution and the modern application.WestlinnDuck said:What does fresh view mean? Either the Constitution is a written document with words that have meaning or it isn't. Either you have 2A rights or you don't. Either you have 1A rights or you don't. Not hard to appoint 6 more wise Latinas and then the Constitution has no meaning. Just like in Oregon the Supreme Court just granted permanent executive order privileges to the Governor out of thin air.
I’m not against the idea of having a discussion on term limits for justices ... difference between discussions and enacting.
Likewise, I think it’d be good to streamline officially what the actual justice count is going forward. It’s had fluctuations up and down throughout history.
Lastly, I’d be ok with having discussions on whether or not having justices with subject matter expertise makes sense.
Finding ways to make the judicial system less political wouldn’t be a bad thing IMO
Regardless of where one's political leanings are, the blatant movement of this Administration to leverage Executive Power at a moment's notice should be alarming for all of us regardless of which side you lean to -
My first comment was tied to people that are very much the Constitution is the Constitution and you can't change it ... the literal interpretation folksWestlinnDuck said:
It would be a good thing if the justices would actually read and follow the document.Tequilla said:
We have added Amendments to the Constitution so I do think it’s disingenuous to say either we have a Constitution or not. It’s important to merge the spirit if the Constitution and the modern application. Why? If so, then pass a Constitutional Amendment. Think booze is bad, then pass a Constitutional Amendment banning booze in the US. If that turns out to be a big phucked up mistake, then pass an amendment repealing it.WestlinnDuck said:What does fresh view mean? Either the Constitution is a written document with words that have meaning or it isn't. Either you have 2A rights or you don't. Either you have 1A rights or you don't. Not hard to appoint 6 more wise Latinas and then the Constitution has no meaning. Just like in Oregon the Supreme Court just granted permanent executive order privileges to the Governor out of thin air.
I’m not against the idea of having a discussion on term limits for justices ... difference between discussions and enacting. I agree. I would support a Constitutional amendment for a term limit of say 15 years.
Likewise, I think it’d be good to streamline officially what the actual justice count is going forward. It’s had fluctuations up and down throughout history. Agree. Make it 9. The only movement off 9 has been dems trying to destroy the Court.
Lastly, I’d be ok with having discussions on whether or not having justices with subject matter expertise makes sense. Define subject matter expertise? Patent law? Tax law? How does that work? All the big cases are not that hard if you can read. The four justices that voted that making a movie about PIPS wasn't protected by the first amendment have subject matter expertise in what? Suppressing speech?
Finding ways to make the judicial system less political wouldn’t be a bad thing IMO
Directionally, I think you're following what I was saying on subject matter expertise. I don't have a good feeling for how that would work out and I tend to fall into the mindset that you have. That said, I know that there are proponents out there of having more of a focal expertise out of the Supreme Court and I'd at least be willing to entertain the discussion. -
This motherfucking this.Tequilla said:
I couldn't agree with you more on thatSFGbob said:
And there is a clear process to Amend the Constitution. If you want to get rid of the 2nd Amendment there is a way to do so.Tequilla said:
We have added Amendments to the Constitution so I do think it’s disingenuous to say either we have a Constitution or not. It’s important to merge the spirit if the Constitution and the modern application.WestlinnDuck said:What does fresh view mean? Either the Constitution is a written document with words that have meaning or it isn't. Either you have 2A rights or you don't. Either you have 1A rights or you don't. Not hard to appoint 6 more wise Latinas and then the Constitution has no meaning. Just like in Oregon the Supreme Court just granted permanent executive order privileges to the Governor out of thin air.
I’m not against the idea of having a discussion on term limits for justices ... difference between discussions and enacting.
Likewise, I think it’d be good to streamline officially what the actual justice count is going forward. It’s had fluctuations up and down throughout history.
Lastly, I’d be ok with having discussions on whether or not having justices with subject matter expertise makes sense.
Finding ways to make the judicial system less political wouldn’t be a bad thing IMO
Regardless of where one's political leanings are, the blatant movement of this Administration to leverage Executive Power at a moment's notice should be alarming for all of us regardless of which side you lean to
If the pea brain leftists can't grasp this the fundamental basis for EVERYTHING the Throbber rails against, that the @RaceBannons and everyone they (the pea brains) perceive as being "Alt-Right" will go to the mat over the process in place, then they (again, the peabrains) should just go fuck themselves.
If the leftists don't like the way things are, call the Constitutional Convention and amend it. You'll either get what you want (unlikely) or cause the Republic to implode.
Do it.gif
-
The cheating in the election was pretty clearly worth it, iyam.
