And again, I have named more than five. I have named Constitutional Carry in 16 states, so go suck on you Democrat masters dick. Of course, any rational person would also understand that the absence of new bad legislation is a good in itself, but that is too high a bar for you to grasp, so I will just go with what I have already mentioned.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Court-packing ...will they succeed?
- Thread starter UKDslayer
- Start date
Again, why Tennessee over CA? CA is much nicer. At lest the other morons here who think that Republican governance and Democrat governance are the same, like pmclaine, have the decency to live in a Democrat shithole with their mind masters. I am wondering why you have chosen differently.
Situation: We're winning and getting what we want.
Status: Supreme Court is perfect. No changes required.
Situation: We're losing.
Status: Engage Operation Change Rules of the Game. Execute with extreme prejudice.
Status: Supreme Court is perfect. No changes required.
Situation: We're losing.
Status: Engage Operation Change Rules of the Game. Execute with extreme prejudice.
We know Biden introduced a committee to investigate packing the Supreme Court...know the Democrats have announced this:
And trying to get Supreme Court Justice Breyer - who is a liberal but against court-packing to retire early..
Liberals ramp up calls for Supreme Court Justice Breyer to retire after he panned court packing in speech
Many on the left had quietly hoped that Justice Stephen Breyer would retire in 2021, opening up a seat on the Supreme Court for President Biden to fill — but now some are waging a public campaign to pressure the liberal stalwart to step down.www.foxnews.com
I sure hope Justice Breyer is planning any hunting trips...
Even their saint RBG was against it.
Ginsburg warned against court packing, said it would make Supreme Court 'look partisan'
The confirmation battle over Judge Amy Coney Barrett has reignited calls to expand the U.S. Supreme Court should Democrats capture the White House and Senate in the November election — even though Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a strong opponent to the practice.
What if they succeed on to find out that we have created a society in which courts do not matter anymore.
I forsee less and less cases that have to do with real infringements and more cases that deal with stuff like Trannys demanding service from a female only spa,
I was like.. WTF? Then scrolled up to see who posted it. Ah, now it makes sense.
Have you seen the still mounting evidence? Have you heard about the still on-going and continuous fighting tooth and nail to prevent physical audits of the elections?
LOL, LOL, LOL, LOL!!!
Even what were previously nice parts of California are becoming total shit holes, the natural land is being ravaged by illegals and homeless, and the urban areas are unlivable, period.
People are fleeing CA in droves for flyover country because the cost of living and just the livability completely suck. I would live in San Diego again if I had to, but anything North of Escondido is "Northern California" as far as I'm concerned, and it resembles any other totalitarian hellhole on Earth. Leftists have destroyed California.
Well, thank you for making my point. According to him, there is no difference between Republican and Democrat governance, but clearly you understand that there is. California IS nicer than Tennessee, from the standpoint of the topography and weather, but it is the dominance of Democrats there that has made it unlivable. And Escondido south pretty much sucks to hell now too.
He's no different from guys like Obama and Kerry, who drone on about climate change and low lying areas being under water, then buying houses in Martha's and Hawaii. Same shit. Just watch what they do, not what they say.
@Choid seems like you're stirring the pot (can be fun I know) buy choosing to not deny that the Republican party, while not to the same extent as the Democratic party, is by and large not of the people by the people and for the people. In short, do you still have faith in the current Republican party?
Btw, I'm of the opinion that neither side of the isle (at the federal level at least) is doing anything other than what allows them to stay on gov welfare available only to congressmen. Like it or not, our system tends to create a two party race and that is not best for the people over the long run as we are seeing.
ETA: Court packing will succeed only if it has to. I don't think it has to and we are in for a wild ride if the filibuster goes away. I just hope the American people are willing to stand up and do something about it. Ideally a few states would make this decision and that would give people common ground (literally) to be on to give liberty back to American citizens.
Btw, I'm of the opinion that neither side of the isle (at the federal level at least) is doing anything other than what allows them to stay on gov welfare available only to congressmen. Like it or not, our system tends to create a two party race and that is not best for the people over the long run as we are seeing.
ETA: Court packing will succeed only if it has to. I don't think it has to and we are in for a wild ride if the filibuster goes away. I just hope the American people are willing to stand up and do something about it. Ideally a few states would make this decision and that would give people common ground (literally) to be on to give liberty back to American citizens.
No, I don't have faith in the current Republican party. But then again, I don't have faith in much. However, I have strong faith that, in every circumstance, voting for a Republican is better than voting for a Democrat. There are too many important issues where there is a stark dividing line between the two parties, and I can't find myself on the Democrat side on either. Being an adult is being able to understand that, in most things in life, choices are not ideal, and choosing the least bad choice is the responsible move.
I probably am more favorably disposed to the institutional Republican party than many here, and that is likely because of my career and life experience being my own. That said, I fail to see how voting for people who actively look to infringe on the rights and interests of people here is in any way equal to voting for a party that is generally against further infringement, even if they don't immediately rush to undo past bad laws. I've used many analogies, but how about this one. Imagine you have to go 100 miles to the east. One initial route takes you 100 miles west, and the other takes you three miles east. Which one do you choose?
I'll take the lesser of two evils all day but that doesn't mean I will give up on a better option coming along (or trying to make that happen). I agree that I don't think I'll ever find myself aligning with a Democrat on anything other than marijuana (and that's only because that stance is giving people the choice to choose for themselves).
Our world is imperfect so to get idealistic is good for casting vision but usually isn't possible in practice. I don't think our current system will be able to take much more division and continue to function (if you would call it functioning today). To me, orange man mostly good, republicans mostly ok at best and democrats mostly bad. We are being polarized by the media and the more we recognize that, the more we will realize our country needs change starting at the top. But then again, they got voted in by people so maybe the problem needs to be fixed on the personal level.
As for the analogy, I think I would see it as 100 miles east to go, one initial route takes you 100 miles west and the other initially takes you 10 miles west. I'll take the lesser detour all day but I still don't think the republican party will ever get us to the 100 mile west destination. There might be a few in there that would do that, but Republicans had control for 2 years and other than passing a half hearted wall bill and confirming a lot of justices, not much happened that I saw.
I think that is sensible, and I wouldn't argue with much, other than I think Trump was basically an ineffectual turd. Mostly, though, what goes unsaid in "Republicans had full power for two years..." is that they too would have had to jettison the filibuster to do much legislatively. I would not have been OK with that from either side, because I think it is generally bad for the country as a whole. It is also as far from "conservative" as far as governance, as you can get. So they did judges. And those judges are a lot better than what would have been confirmed if Democrats had held the senate.
Trump was a selfish prick out of New York but he's the one I happily voted for because the only game he played was one to make himself look good and then help our country. I think he managed to do both for a while and at least he was consistent. I do think he loves our country and I don't know how we can incentivize more people to do what he did. Give up the life we build for ourselves and take a few years to serve in government. The barriers to entry are high and the cost is often great from a reputation standpoint. A government of the people means normal (whatever that means) people need to be sitting in those seats, not lifetime politicians (I say that as I am represented by one of the oldest congressmen in Grassley).
Totally agree on the filibuster and changing the framework of our governance system. If that goes away, we will start having tyrannical laws passed wholesale and if the states don't do something about it, things could get interesting.
I don't know why you guys feed that troll known as Choid. Put him on your ignore list and life will be good again. All he does is take a contrary point of view just to get you to argue with him. I think he's a post count whore and all you're doing is feeding him.
Hearing opinions other than my own hurts my feelings too.
We don't have to agree on everything (that would be boring and end badly), but getting divided over something small is not the way to go when we should all be rowing in the same direction towards liberty for all. I would argue that you and Choid have more in common than at least half of the country.
We don't have to agree on everything (that would be boring and end badly), but getting divided over something small is not the way to go when we should all be rowing in the same direction towards liberty for all. I would argue that you and Choid have more in common than at least half of the country.
Probably have more in common than 95% of the country. I don't get the quest for total doctrinal agreement. People are going to disagree on shit, and that should help us all grow.
Similar threads
