Ginsberg says she will stay till 2020...despite not able to show up.

[iceberg]

well she does keep in shape, i wonder what she benches? 135?

135.
136.

whatever it takes.

 

[DOTR]

She embodies why we need to pop the hood open on the Constitution and tinker with it.

20 year term? I don't think we can get away with age discrimination by putting an age limit on the term.

i don't think we should.

the new rage is to jack with the constitution and tweak it to how we "feel" and this is the worst state of mind to be in when making said changes. both sides would do it for THEIR side, not the collective whole that it was written for.

ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!!
why? cause they think it will make their side win more often and more easily. however doing so negates the voice of many americans, both right and left minded but hey - the vocal juvenile leadership must have *their* way and the other side just needs to learn to deal with it. at least that how it comes across to me.

as for popping the hood of what has gotten us 243 years and "tinkering" - we're not collectively smart enough to do that right now as again, people who want to do this want to do it for selfish reasons, not collective.

That is why it is so hard to amend the constitution. And why the left now amends it by court fiat. It was designed to remain as it was written unless there was a huge and clear desire for a change that had been well thought out. For the left they know they are completely at odds with the country and New York and Kalifornia alone cant amend the constitution.
For instance the Founders, in their wisdom, did not provide for women voting. The nutty progressives of the early 20th century didnt like that. But give them this....they presented it to the people and changed the Constitution legally. So there you go. No sneaky court rulings (in fact the Supreme Court had already ruled that the Constitution did not provide for female suffrage Minor vs Happersett ). No end runs. Voila a new constitution!

I think this really started changing in the 1970's. The people rejected Equal Rights and defeated an amendment. So the liberals went to court and pretended that we had passed the amendment. And they said "hey this works better than facing the citizens in a vote!".

I think everyone realizes the only way to change or abolish the electoral college is through constitutional amendment. However how each state determines the allocation of its electoral vote is up that individual state. A state could divide it proportionately or winner take all, for example. All fifty states could, theoretically, agree that all their votes go to the winner of the popular vote. Whatever method the state chooses will ultimately be decided by the electorate in that state by whom they choose to put into office. I do not see any changes occurring in the system in the near future. I do not rule out that if we have a series of presidents losing the popular vote by 3 to 4 million but winning the presidency, public opinion may change.

well the rules for voting change from state to state in how it's done and counted. if we do 1 man 1 vote or try to "popularize" it, the problems you run into are not insignificant. you'd be creating a brand new system of complexities and compensations. you simply can't say "popular vote, you won" cause it's nowhere near that simple but so many on the left have not thought it through from stem to stern.

Our country was designed to elect Representatives by popular vote, Senators by state legislatures and the President by appointees of each state. Its called "Federalism". And it was exquisitely designed.
So what do we do when some liberal says "the people never voted for Gorsuch in a popular vote..he is illegitimate"? Do you try and explain that Supreme Court justices..like Presidents..are not subject to popular votes? Or do you just exterminate liberals?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

LOL, since when does an endorsement from a Congress Critter mean anything?

You realize that most of 'em couldn't tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth if their lives depended on it, right?

It's like Satan saying "Joe The Used Car Salesman, he's a really honest guy, trust him."

It is the epitome of naivety to believe than ANY politician is honest and truthful.

 

[iceberg]

20 year term? I don't think we can get away with age discrimination by putting an age limit on the term.

i don't think we should.

the new rage is to jack with the constitution and tweak it to how we "feel" and this is the worst state of mind to be in when making said changes. both sides would do it for THEIR side, not the collective whole that it was written for.

ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!!
why? cause they think it will make their side win more often and more easily. however doing so negates the voice of many americans, both right and left minded but hey - the vocal juvenile leadership must have *their* way and the other side just needs to learn to deal with it. at least that how it comes across to me.

as for popping the hood of what has gotten us 243 years and "tinkering" - we're not collectively smart enough to do that right now as again, people who want to do this want to do it for selfish reasons, not collective.

That is why it is so hard to amend the constitution. And why the left now amends it by court fiat. It was designed to remain as it was written unless there was a huge and clear desire for a change that had been well thought out. For the left they know they are completely at odds with the country and New York and Kalifornia alone cant amend the constitution.
For instance the Founders, in their wisdom, did not provide for women voting. The nutty progressives of the early 20th century didnt like that. But give them this....they presented it to the people and changed the Constitution legally. So there you go. No sneaky court rulings (in fact the Supreme Court had already ruled that the Constitution did not provide for female suffrage Minor vs Happersett ). No end runs. Voila a new constitution!

I think this really started changing in the 1970's. The people rejected Equal Rights and defeated an amendment. So the liberals went to court and pretended that we had passed the amendment. And they said "hey this works better than facing the citizens in a vote!".

I think everyone realizes the only way to change or abolish the electoral college is through constitutional amendment. However how each state determines the allocation of its electoral vote is up that individual state. A state could divide it proportionately or winner take all, for example. All fifty states could, theoretically, agree that all their votes go to the winner of the popular vote. Whatever method the state chooses will ultimately be decided by the electorate in that state by whom they choose to put into office. I do not see any changes occurring in the system in the near future. I do not rule out that if we have a series of presidents losing the popular vote by 3 to 4 million but winning the presidency, public opinion may change.

well the rules for voting change from state to state in how it's done and counted. if we do 1 man 1 vote or try to "popularize" it, the problems you run into are not insignificant. you'd be creating a brand new system of complexities and compensations. you simply can't say "popular vote, you won" cause it's nowhere near that simple but so many on the left have not thought it through from stem to stern.

Our country was designed to elect Representatives by popular vote, Senators by state legislatures and the President by appointees of each state. Its called "Federalism". And it was exquisitely designed.
So what do we do when some liberal says "the people never voted for Gorsuch in a popular vote..he is illegitimate"? Do you try and explain that Supreme Court justices..like Presidents..are not subject to popular votes? Or do you just exterminate liberals?

my usual approach is to try and talk it out. when i find people are not wanting to really do that but instead bitch, complain, and get shots in, i leave 'em alone in their stupidity.

while there will always be a segment of our society willing to twist reality into their world, i don't have to follow along.

 

[DOTR]

20 year term? I don't think we can get away with age discrimination by putting an age limit on the term.

i don't think we should.

the new rage is to jack with the constitution and tweak it to how we "feel" and this is the worst state of mind to be in when making said changes. both sides would do it for THEIR side, not the collective whole that it was written for.

ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!!
why? cause they think it will make their side win more often and more easily. however doing so negates the voice of many americans, both right and left minded but hey - the vocal juvenile leadership must have *their* way and the other side just needs to learn to deal with it. at least that how it comes across to me.

as for popping the hood of what has gotten us 243 years and "tinkering" - we're not collectively smart enough to do that right now as again, people who want to do this want to do it for selfish reasons, not collective.

That is why it is so hard to amend the constitution. And why the left now amends it by court fiat. It was designed to remain as it was written unless there was a huge and clear desire for a change that had been well thought out. For the left they know they are completely at odds with the country and New York and Kalifornia alone cant amend the constitution.
For instance the Founders, in their wisdom, did not provide for women voting. The nutty progressives of the early 20th century didnt like that. But give them this....they presented it to the people and changed the Constitution legally. So there you go. No sneaky court rulings (in fact the Supreme Court had already ruled that the Constitution did not provide for female suffrage Minor vs Happersett ). No end runs. Voila a new constitution!

I think this really started changing in the 1970's. The people rejected Equal Rights and defeated an amendment. So the liberals went to court and pretended that we had passed the amendment. And they said "hey this works better than facing the citizens in a vote!".

I think everyone realizes the only way to change or abolish the electoral college is through constitutional amendment. However how each state determines the allocation of its electoral vote is up that individual state. A state could divide it proportionately or winner take all, for example. All fifty states could, theoretically, agree that all their votes go to the winner of the popular vote. Whatever method the state chooses will ultimately be decided by the electorate in that state by whom they choose to put into office. I do not see any changes occurring in the system in the near future. I do not rule out that if we have a series of presidents losing the popular vote by 3 to 4 million but winning the presidency, public opinion may change.

well the rules for voting change from state to state in how it's done and counted. if we do 1 man 1 vote or try to "popularize" it, the problems you run into are not insignificant. you'd be creating a brand new system of complexities and compensations. you simply can't say "popular vote, you won" cause it's nowhere near that simple but so many on the left have not thought it through from stem to stern.

I think everyone is aware, or should be aware, of the law of unintended consequences no matter what actions may be taken now or in the future. I also agree that terms need to be clearly defined.

So what if the Radical Republicans who pushed through the 14th Amendment had been told "and this will be used to impose gay marriage and abortion, which you consider abominations, one day". Do you think they would have backed off and abandoned short term political advantage?
(Hint...the Senate and House debates on the 14th Amendment are available online.)

BTW the states rejected the 14th Amendment..wiser heads prevailed there. But bayonets trumped "wiser"

 

[DOTR]

57% of voters will not be voting for Trump in 2020.

Sorry but we’ll be building a wall. Those voters are never going to show up.

The wall isn't going to happen

Trump is getting ready to be indicted

Congress regulates the court

If necessary more Justices will be appointed to end conservative rule

This issue is a loser for right tard America

If Trump leaves, President Pence appoints Buzzy's replacement. That's how it works. Think he would pick a raging liberal when he has a chance to put an actual Constitution respecting justice on the bench?

If Buzzy leaves for any reason before 2020, a Republican picks her replacement. That's why the democrats panic every time she sneezes.

They will do full retard if Trump gets to replace her.

We already saw full retard twice now.

 

[DOTR]

I would guess Pence's pick would be much worse than Trump's .

You'll find out

 

[JimH52]

So....she won't be there physically.....trump is not there mentally...

Actually a congressman on CNN this morning said Trump is very cerebral regarding the US direction in Syria. That was a pleasant surprise.

Yup....and the families of the four service people who were just killed there would like some input...

 

[rightwinger]

i don't think we should.

the new rage is to jack with the constitution and tweak it to how we "feel" and this is the worst state of mind to be in when making said changes. both sides would do it for THEIR side, not the collective whole that it was written for.

ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!!
why? cause they think it will make their side win more often and more easily. however doing so negates the voice of many americans, both right and left minded but hey - the vocal juvenile leadership must have *their* way and the other side just needs to learn to deal with it. at least that how it comes across to me.

as for popping the hood of what has gotten us 243 years and "tinkering" - we're not collectively smart enough to do that right now as again, people who want to do this want to do it for selfish reasons, not collective.

That is why it is so hard to amend the constitution. And why the left now amends it by court fiat. It was designed to remain as it was written unless there was a huge and clear desire for a change that had been well thought out. For the left they know they are completely at odds with the country and New York and Kalifornia alone cant amend the constitution.
For instance the Founders, in their wisdom, did not provide for women voting. The nutty progressives of the early 20th century didnt like that. But give them this....they presented it to the people and changed the Constitution legally. So there you go. No sneaky court rulings (in fact the Supreme Court had already ruled that the Constitution did not provide for female suffrage Minor vs Happersett ). No end runs. Voila a new constitution!

I think this really started changing in the 1970's. The people rejected Equal Rights and defeated an amendment. So the liberals went to court and pretended that we had passed the amendment. And they said "hey this works better than facing the citizens in a vote!".

I think everyone realizes the only way to change or abolish the electoral college is through constitutional amendment. However how each state determines the allocation of its electoral vote is up that individual state. A state could divide it proportionately or winner take all, for example. All fifty states could, theoretically, agree that all their votes go to the winner of the popular vote. Whatever method the state chooses will ultimately be decided by the electorate in that state by whom they choose to put into office. I do not see any changes occurring in the system in the near future. I do not rule out that if we have a series of presidents losing the popular vote by 3 to 4 million but winning the presidency, public opinion may change.

well the rules for voting change from state to state in how it's done and counted. if we do 1 man 1 vote or try to "popularize" it, the problems you run into are not insignificant. you'd be creating a brand new system of complexities and compensations. you simply can't say "popular vote, you won" cause it's nowhere near that simple but so many on the left have not thought it through from stem to stern.

I think everyone is aware, or should be aware, of the law of unintended consequences no matter what actions may be taken now or in the future. I also agree that terms need to be clearly defined.

to me, the left doesn't care about unattended consequences. they deal with them when they get there. the right, again to me, can see where things are headed and are more prone to try and drive, even if taking the long way, to get somewhere and land in a better place.

not mocking AOC but her statement of fact don't matter when i feel this way (paraphrased yes) sum up the left today to a T. i don't discount their emotional state as a driver, but i don't drive big matters by emotion. i tend to think them through and see where it would lead in the future.

Isn’t that “unintended”?

 

[JimH52]

i don't think we should.

the new rage is to jack with the constitution and tweak it to how we "feel" and this is the worst state of mind to be in when making said changes. both sides would do it for THEIR side, not the collective whole that it was written for.

ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!!
why? cause they think it will make their side win more often and more easily. however doing so negates the voice of many americans, both right and left minded but hey - the vocal juvenile leadership must have *their* way and the other side just needs to learn to deal with it. at least that how it comes across to me.

as for popping the hood of what has gotten us 243 years and "tinkering" - we're not collectively smart enough to do that right now as again, people who want to do this want to do it for selfish reasons, not collective.

The Electoral College negates the voice of Americans who clearly wanted Al Gore and Hillary to be President

it negates mob rules.

pros and cons were heavily discussed when writing the constitution. not like your pre-filled out que cards are going to say something on this topic our founding fathers didn't already cover. so when you show you can comprehend WHY they made it this way, then you'd be qualified to discuss potential changes.

going WAH WE DIDN'T WIN isn't a valid reason to change the system.

It negates one man, one vote
Some votes count more than others and it encourages minority rule

again - you are not saying anything here that wasn't blown up day 1 of writing the constitution. you are sitting here parroting your party bullet points and when confronted, you just parrot another and pretend your side thought this out.

the left is all about WE DIDN'T WIN and that's it. period. end of story. now you must find excuses and consolation prizes and don't see your short term vision can and will backfire in time.

which is why the founding fathers didn't this the emo-way the left wants to redo it now.

Republicans right now, are built around minority rule

They didn’t win the Presidency
They lost the House by nine million votes...despite their gerrymander
They hold the Senate by winning in lowly populated states, while states like NY and California get two Senators each

Over time, they will be unable to win anything. That is why they are so obsessed with stocking the courts......their last vestige of minority rule

Even trump said during his campaign that if he did not win, he didn't know when the next GOP president would be elected....But he is a serial liar....soooo

 

[Silhouette]

So what if the Radical Republicans who pushed through the 14th Amendment had been told "and this will be used to impose gay marriage and abortion, which you consider abominations, one day". Do you think they would have backed off and abandoned short term political advantage?
(Hint...the Senate and House debates on the 14th Amendment are available online.)

BTW the states rejected the 14th Amendment..wiser heads prevailed there. But bayonets trumped "wiser"

The problem is that the intent of the 14th is to be fully inclusive. So if its used to give specialness to one deviant behavior, it can’t shut out others.

That’s why polygamy & incest marriage are already legal in all 50 states according to the pure distillation of Obergefell using the 14th in its rationale.

 

[Fang]

Ginsburg knows the deal with politics and the SCOTUS these days. (highly unfortunate that the SCOTUS is so politicized, but it is) Can't believe anyone thought she might retire soon.

 

[22lcidw]

i don't think we should.

the new rage is to jack with the constitution and tweak it to how we "feel" and this is the worst state of mind to be in when making said changes. both sides would do it for THEIR side, not the collective whole that it was written for.

ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!!
why? cause they think it will make their side win more often and more easily. however doing so negates the voice of many americans, both right and left minded but hey - the vocal juvenile leadership must have *their* way and the other side just needs to learn to deal with it. at least that how it comes across to me.

as for popping the hood of what has gotten us 243 years and "tinkering" - we're not collectively smart enough to do that right now as again, people who want to do this want to do it for selfish reasons, not collective.

The Electoral College negates the voice of Americans who clearly wanted Al Gore and Hillary to be President

it negates mob rules.

pros and cons were heavily discussed when writing the constitution. not like your pre-filled out que cards are going to say something on this topic our founding fathers didn't already cover. so when you show you can comprehend WHY they made it this way, then you'd be qualified to discuss potential changes.

going WAH WE DIDN'T WIN isn't a valid reason to change the system.

It negates one man, one vote
Some votes count more than others and it encourages minority rule

again - you are not saying anything here that wasn't blown up day 1 of writing the constitution. you are sitting here parroting your party bullet points and when confronted, you just parrot another and pretend your side thought this out.

the left is all about WE DIDN'T WIN and that's it. period. end of story. now you must find excuses and consolation prizes and don't see your short term vision can and will backfire in time.

which is why the founding fathers didn't this the emo-way the left wants to redo it now.

Republicans right now, are built around minority rule

They didn’t win the Presidency
They lost the House by nine million votes...despite their gerrymander
They hold the Senate by winning in lowly populated states, while states like NY and California get two Senators each

Over time, they will be unable to win anything. That is why they are so obsessed with stocking the courts......their last vestige of minority rule

And then when you establish progressive socialist communist edicts we will know the wars of Europe on our territory to start. The Western Hemisphere will finally get its first major conflict that will drastically reduce the population. Finally....

 

[mdk]

So what if the Radical Republicans who pushed through the 14th Amendment had been told "and this will be used to impose gay marriage and abortion, which you consider abominations, one day". Do you think they would have backed off and abandoned short term political advantage?
(Hint...the Senate and House debates on the 14th Amendment are available online.)

BTW the states rejected the 14th Amendment..wiser heads prevailed there. But bayonets trumped "wiser"

The problem is that the intent of the 14th is to be fully inclusive. So if its used to give specialness to one deviant behavior, it can’t shut out others.

That’s why polygamy & incest marriage are already legal in all 50 states according to the pure distillation of Obergefell using the 14th in its rationale.

Here is the list of states where polygamy and incest are legal:

1.
2.

The last case dealing with polygamy was the Brown family. They never cited the 14th in their arguments. They cited denying them was a violation of their privacy and their religious liberties. Why don’t you support their religious liberties? You have be fully inclusive, no? Apparently you can’t pick and choose for the 14th, but you can for the 1st.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

 

[Silhouette]

So what if the Radical Republicans who pushed through the 14th Amendment had been told "and this will be used to impose gay marriage and abortion, which you consider abominations, one day". Do you think they would have backed off and abandoned short term political advantage?
(Hint...the Senate and House debates on the 14th Amendment are available online.)

BTW the states rejected the 14th Amendment..wiser heads prevailed there. But bayonets trumped "wiser"

The problem is that the intent of the 14th is to be fully inclusive. So if its used to give specialness to one deviant behavior, it can’t shut out others.

That’s why polygamy & incest marriage are already legal in all 50 states according to the pure distillation of Obergefell using the 14th in its rationale.

Here is the list of states where polygamy and incest are legal:

1.
2.

The last case dealing with polygamy was the Brown family. They never cited the 14th in their arguments. They cited denying them was a violation of their privacy and their religious liberties. Why don’t you support their religious liberties? You have be fully inclusive, no? Apparently you can’t pick and choose for the 14th, but you can for the 1st.

If they had cited the 14th they would’ve won. Makes you wonder what Turley is up to.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

 

[Crixus]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg will stay on Supreme Court until after 2020 election and people are delighted

There is the source.
There needs to be able to be a change where someone who ages passed the point of ability.

She is incompetent and unable to do her job. They should remove her .

 

[LordBrownTrout]

i don't think we should.

the new rage is to jack with the constitution and tweak it to how we "feel" and this is the worst state of mind to be in when making said changes. both sides would do it for THEIR side, not the collective whole that it was written for.

ABOLISH THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE!!!
why? cause they think it will make their side win more often and more easily. however doing so negates the voice of many americans, both right and left minded but hey - the vocal juvenile leadership must have *their* way and the other side just needs to learn to deal with it. at least that how it comes across to me.

as for popping the hood of what has gotten us 243 years and "tinkering" - we're not collectively smart enough to do that right now as again, people who want to do this want to do it for selfish reasons, not collective.

The Electoral College negates the voice of Americans who clearly wanted Al Gore and Hillary to be President

it negates mob rules.

pros and cons were heavily discussed when writing the constitution. not like your pre-filled out que cards are going to say something on this topic our founding fathers didn't already cover. so when you show you can comprehend WHY they made it this way, then you'd be qualified to discuss potential changes.

going WAH WE DIDN'T WIN isn't a valid reason to change the system.

It negates one man, one vote
Some votes count more than others and it encourages minority rule

again - you are not saying anything here that wasn't blown up day 1 of writing the constitution. you are sitting here parroting your party bullet points and when confronted, you just parrot another and pretend your side thought this out.

the left is all about WE DIDN'T WIN and that's it. period. end of story. now you must find excuses and consolation prizes and don't see your short term vision can and will backfire in time.

which is why the founding fathers didn't this the emo-way the left wants to redo it now.

Republicans right now, are built around minority rule

They didn’t win the Presidency
They lost the House by nine million votes...despite their gerrymander
They hold the Senate by winning in lowly populated states, while states like NY and California get two Senators each

Over time, they will be unable to win anything. That is why they are so obsessed with stocking the courts......their last vestige of minority rule

Whenever you make statements like, they didn't win the presidency, your credibility diminishes significantly. Trump won the presidency. That is a fact. Over time, these two parties will come back again and again like herpes.

 

[DOTR]

So what if the Radical Republicans who pushed through the 14th Amendment had been told "and this will be used to impose gay marriage and abortion, which you consider abominations, one day". Do you think they would have backed off and abandoned short term political advantage?
(Hint...the Senate and House debates on the 14th Amendment are available online.)

BTW the states rejected the 14th Amendment..wiser heads prevailed there. But bayonets trumped "wiser"

The problem is that the intent of the 14th is to be fully inclusive. So if its used to give specialness to one deviant behavior, it can’t shut out others.

That’s why polygamy & incest marriage are already legal in all 50 states according to the pure distillation of Obergefell using the 14th in its rationale.

Correct. The lawsuits are already working their way upwards. These bigot liberals think they can limit marriage to a union of two people. What nerve.