Democrats are digging their own grave
Comments
-
Mouthpiece for Trump.
-
Anything from the media that's a shill for Trump but states the media is out to get Trump is perfect fodder for Derek.
-
They do look like total morons at the moment. To sum it up in one word, snowflakes. I guess that may appeal to a portion of their base and many on this bored.
-
Laughable bullshit.
"Still, we can assume, based on past performance, that Trump will learn from the mistakes."
Can we? YES WE CAN!
-
To be fair, the only mistake Trump made was thinking he made a mistake. He did learn from that.BearsWiin said:Laughable bullshit.
"Still, we can assume, based on past performance, that Trump will learn from the mistakes."
Can we? YES WE CAN! -
The tenor of WaPo, NYT, NPR, etc. is very similar to Rush and other AM talk radio 8 years ago. Fear sells.
-
NY post is a trash publication
-
The entire Republican platform has been built on fear for 16 years. Stop.GrundleStiltzkin said:The tenor of WaPo, NYT, NPR, etc. is very similar to Rush and other AM talk radio 8 years ago. Fear sells.
-
Oh for fucksakes, that's all of politics.AlCzervik said:
The entire Republican platform has been built on fear for 16 years. Stop.GrundleStiltzkin said:The tenor of WaPo, NYT, NPR, etc. is very similar to Rush and other AM talk radio 8 years ago. Fear sells.
-
DerekJohnson said:
They are doubling-down on RETARD!!!! -
It's nice to see an alleged journalist like @DerekJohnson openly supporting fake news.
-
You can't be the rank imbecile who calls a column or op/ed fake news.TierbsHsotBoobs said:It's nice to see an alleged journalist like @DerekJohnson openly supporting fake news.
-
You think I clicked the link?GrundleStiltzkin said:
You can't be the rank imbecile who calls a column or op/ed fake news.TierbsHsotBoobs said:It's nice to see an alleged journalist like @DerekJohnson openly supporting fake news.
-
Studies show that NY Post readers are 81% Pro Bowl viewers. So, yes.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
You think I clicked the link?GrundleStiltzkin said:
You can't be the rank imbecile who calls a column or op/ed fake news.TierbsHsotBoobs said:It's nice to see an alleged journalist like @DerekJohnson openly supporting fake news.
-
This country has some serious gerrymandering and electoral vote issues that need to get addressed. Stacking the deck with judges who serve your party long after your political party decays, isn't new. If these issues don't get fixed, there will be more and more states, not named Wyoming, threatening to secede every year.
There needs to be term limits for senators, house of representatives, and the Supreme Court. Some members of the Supreme Court even fall asleep during sessions.
The Supreme Court gave themselves power in Marbury v Madison. It's not in the Constitution for the Supreme Court to be in the "checks and balances" system we learned in elementary. Judicial Review was created.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwciUVLdSPk
The Supreme Court needs some checks, which were never given. -
the constitution gave congress the authority to limit the scope of the SC not including rights specifically laid in by the constitution. Congress has basically chosen to give them this power without any checks. Now they're able to just make law unilaterally largely based on their political views without any consequence.priapism said:This country has some serious gerrymandering and electoral vote issues that need to get addressed. Stacking the deck with judges who serve your party long after your political party decays, isn't new. If these issues don't get fixed, there will be more and more states, not named Wyoming, threatening to secede every year.
There needs to be term limits for senators, house of representatives, and the Supreme Court. Some members of the Supreme Court even fall asleep during sessions.
The Supreme Court gave themselves power in Marbury v Madison. It's not in the Constitution for the Supreme Court to be in the "checks and balances" system we learned in elementary. Judicial Review was created.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwciUVLdSPk
The Supreme Court needs some checks, which were never given.
If you're a conservative see Roe v Wade, gay marriage, etc.
If you're a liberal see Citizens United, and the voting rights case from 2 years ago.
Agree on term limits, gerrymandering, and scrapping the EC -
The unchecked power of SCOTUS is the biggest probrem wiff America.
-
Competitive redistricting and campaign finance reform would go a long way toward solving the problems in Washington. Mixed feelings about term limits. Incumbents tend to get re-elected unless they really screw up, which favors them over challengers, but you don't want to screw over people (or their constituencies) who do a good job by not letting them keep their job. You also want to keep a shadow of the future; we see presidents have trouble getting things done in their last terms because there's no threat of their re-election. Lame-duck congressmen would have a similar problem.priapism said:This country has some serious gerrymandering and electoral vote issues that need to get addressed. Stacking the deck with judges who serve your party long after your political party decays, isn't new. If these issues don't get fixed, there will be more and more states, not named Wyoming, threatening to secede every year.
There needs to be term limits for senators, house of representatives, and the Supreme Court. Some members of the Supreme Court even fall asleep during sessions.
The Supreme Court gave themselves power in Marbury v Madison. It's not in the Constitution for the Supreme Court to be in the "checks and balances" system we learned in elementary. Judicial Review was created.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwciUVLdSPk
The Supreme Court needs some checks, which were never given. -
Could you sound any younger? Don't think so.AlCzervik said:
The entire Republican platform has been built on fear for 16 years. Stop.GrundleStiltzkin said:The tenor of WaPo, NYT, NPR, etc. is very similar to Rush and other AM talk radio 8 years ago. Fear sells.
-
Fuck. Judicial review exists as a safeguard against the tyranny of the majority, ensuring that the Constitution protects liberty as well as democracy. The courts cannot fulfill that role if they behave too deferentially to the other elected branches of government. While I understand the slippery slope arguments, too much judicial activism is always better than too little. History supports this. Furthermore, as we all know, the arguments for judicial restraint are almost always in reality another form of judicial activism in sheep's clothing. It's an academic shell game.
Checks and balances and such. -
It's not too much at this point. It's gone way overboard. I'm not saying I disagree with Marbury v Madison. But there needs to be limitsAlCzervik said:Fuck. Judicial review exists as a safeguard against the tyranny of the majority, ensuring that the Constitution protects liberty as well as democracy. The courts cannot fulfill that role if they behave too deferentially to the other elected branches of government. While I understand the slippery slope arguments, too much judicial activism is always better than too little. History supports this. Furthermore, as we all know, the arguments for judicial restraint are almost always in reality another form of judicial activism in sheep's clothing. It's an academic shell game.
Checks and balances and such. -
You seem fine to be drinking from that warm Coke. I'm glad you didn't look at it too closely.AlCzervik said:Fuck. Judicial review exists as a safeguard against the tyranny of the majority, ensuring that the Constitution protects liberty as well as democracy. The courts cannot fulfill that role if they behave too deferentially to the other elected branches of government. While I understand the slippery slope arguments, too much judicial activism is always better than too little. History supports this. Furthermore, as we all know, the arguments for judicial restraint are almost always in reality another form of judicial activism in sheep's clothing. It's an academic shell game.
Checks and balances and such.
-
You somehow know how to hurt me. If I were going to change my view, Thomas would have been the reason. Or Scalia - and I've been to that fucker's house. It's a hard argument to make as either side can quickly come up with examples of judicial activism gone awry. Nevertheless ...priapism said:
You seem fine to be drinking from that warm Coke. I'm glad you didn't look at it too closely.AlCzervik said:Fuck. Judicial review exists as a safeguard against the tyranny of the majority, ensuring that the Constitution protects liberty as well as democracy. The courts cannot fulfill that role if they behave too deferentially to the other elected branches of government. While I understand the slippery slope arguments, too much judicial activism is always better than too little. History supports this. Furthermore, as we all know, the arguments for judicial restraint are almost always in reality another form of judicial activism in sheep's clothing. It's an academic shell game.
Checks and balances and such.
I said better, not perfect. The benefits of a strong independent judiciary outweigh even my outrage over Thomas' so-called jurisprudence.
