NY Times Proudly Proclaims America Should be Governed by Mob Rule

[hadit]

From the NYT article mentioned by the thread headline: "But now, in an age of 5-4 partisan decisions, we’re on the verge of having a five-member majority who figure to radically rewrite our nation’s laws. And four of them will have been narrowly approved by senators representing minority will."-Michael Tomasky (a columnist for The Daily Beast, the NYT):
Scalia had balanced the court. Appointments of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh do not necessarily unbalance the court. It is the loss of the next justice that could unbalance the court especially if that is a Trump effort at replacing Ginsburg. The whole point of a balanced court is to respect both our constitution and our society.
The NYT writer is completely wrong in ascertaining that the Senate vote represented minority will. The Senate confirmation votes for the last 2 justices reflect a majority will- so the writer contradicts himself.
Opinion | The Supreme Court’s Legitimacy Crisis
"It’s not about Brett Kavanaugh’s alleged behavior. It’s about justices who do not represent the will of the majority" - Michael Tomasky

The writer is simply wrong. The court is NOT supposed to represent the will of the majority. It is supposed to interpret laws in the light of the Constitution, which inevitably will make it unpopular. Remember that the laws they are adjudicating are written and passed by legislators who DO represent the will of the majority of those who elected them. The court is not supposed to consider the popularity of the laws placed before them.

And yes, if Trump gets a chance to replace Ginsburg and nominates a conservative judge, it will get very ugly, very fast. What they did to Kavanaugh will seem like a walk in the park.

 

[danielpalos]

that is their only "rebuttal"; the fallacy of ad hominems. nothing but fallacy is all they have.

even promiscuous women are more conservative than those guys.

That is the only rebuttal for you since you don’t want to discuss issues and only want give out cliches instead of explaining yourself. Many of us have given up on trying to decipher your lack of communication skills.

You only beg the question and plead, so specially; you aren't trying to discuss the merits of the concepts.

nothing but repeal is all the right wing usually has.

What question? What merit of what concepts? What repeal? I have no clue what you are talking about, however it seems like you have problems communicating with many people as I read through this thread. If it was just me, then I have the issue, however there at least a dozen people her that have told you the same thing, so it’s your issue.

you guys have nothing but fallacy; even promiscuous women are more conservative.

Solving simple poverty in a market friendly manner both promotes and provides for the general welfare.

You follow the Law and now complain that you followed the Law, the Law is consistent and it is you that is inconsistent, now use the Law to gain your consistency.

The power to provide for the general welfare is general, not limited to any specific powers.

 

[danielpalos]

Employment is at-will in our at-will employment State. Only capital has to work under Capitalism not Labor. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment for Labor not capital. Are you for "laborism" where Labor has to work; but employers don't have to hire?

Your random phrase generator is broken. Do you realize you just spouted off a bunch of things that mean nothing? Admit it, what you want is to get paid even though you choose not to work.

simple rejection is a fallacy; nothing but spam for your alleged Cause, right wingers?

No, you don't get to not address the question, then act surprised when I reject what you wrote. You wrote nonsense. Now, be honest and tell everyone what you really want, to be paid even when you choose not to work.

If you're expecting anything besides nonsense from daniel, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Oh, I'm well aware of that. It's just entertaining to find the point where it all just dissolves into gibberish.

i resort to the fewest fallacies; for fun and practice.

 

[danielpalos]

Employment is at-will in our at-will employment State. Only capital has to work under Capitalism not Labor. Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployment for Labor not capital. Are you for "laborism" where Labor has to work; but employers don't have to hire?

Your random phrase generator is broken. Do you realize you just spouted off a bunch of things that mean nothing? Admit it, what you want is to get paid even though you choose not to work.

simple rejection is a fallacy; nothing but spam for your alleged Cause, right wingers?

No, you don't get to not address the question, then act surprised when I reject what you wrote. You wrote nonsense. Now, be honest and tell everyone what you really want, to be paid even when you choose not to work.

Only capital has to work under capitalism in our First World economy.

Anymore questions, right wingers?

Then I must be capital, because I do meaningful work.

In another thread, we could be Action, not mere men.

 

[dblack]

From the NYT article mentioned by the thread headline: "But now, in an age of 5-4 partisan decisions, we’re on the verge of having a five-member majority who figure to radically rewrite our nation’s laws. And four of them will have been narrowly approved by senators representing minority will."-Michael Tomasky (a columnist for The Daily Beast, the NYT):
Scalia had balanced the court. Appointments of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh do not necessarily unbalance the court. It is the loss of the next justice that could unbalance the court especially if that is a Trump effort at replacing Ginsburg. The whole point of a balanced court is to respect both our constitution and our society.
The NYT writer is completely wrong in ascertaining that the Senate vote represented minority will. The Senate confirmation votes for the last 2 justices reflect a majority will- so the writer contradicts himself.
Opinion | The Supreme Court’s Legitimacy Crisis
"It’s not about Brett Kavanaugh’s alleged behavior. It’s about justices who do not represent the will of the majority" - Michael Tomasky

The writer is simply wrong. The court is NOT supposed to represent the will of the majority. It is supposed to interpret laws in the light of the Constitution, which inevitably will make it unpopular. Remember that the laws they are adjudicating are written and passed by legislators who DO represent the will of the majority of those who elected them. The court is not supposed to consider the popularity of the laws placed before them.

And yes, if Trump gets a chance to replace Ginsburg and nominates a conservative judge, it will get very ugly, very fast. What they did to Kavanaugh will seem like a walk in the park.

There's a lot of confusion about this on both sides of the aisle. You're right. The Court is supposed to deny the will of the majority when it oversteps the Constitution. There's a reason why Supreme Court justices aren't elected by majority rule.

 

[AZGAL]

Yet a majority of Senators confirm- elect a justice.

 

[dblack]

Yet a majority of Senators confirm- elect a justice.

Yes. It's a level of abstraction, designed to insulate the selection from the fickle whim of the relatively uninformed voters. That's why we have a representative democracy and not a direct democracy. Unfortunately, democracy advocates have been working hard to flatten that abstraction and push Senators to act on the "will of the people" rather than their professional judgement. It's also worth noting that the confirmation process is intended to expose any glaring reasons the nominee should not be confirmed - it's not a vote of approval, and certainly not supposed to be representing voters desires.

 

[hadit]

Your random phrase generator is broken. Do you realize you just spouted off a bunch of things that mean nothing? Admit it, what you want is to get paid even though you choose not to work.

simple rejection is a fallacy; nothing but spam for your alleged Cause, right wingers?

No, you don't get to not address the question, then act surprised when I reject what you wrote. You wrote nonsense. Now, be honest and tell everyone what you really want, to be paid even when you choose not to work.

If you're expecting anything besides nonsense from daniel, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Oh, I'm well aware of that. It's just entertaining to find the point where it all just dissolves into gibberish.

i resort to the fewest fallacies; for fun and practice.

You resort to gibberish.

 

[hadit]

Your random phrase generator is broken. Do you realize you just spouted off a bunch of things that mean nothing? Admit it, what you want is to get paid even though you choose not to work.

simple rejection is a fallacy; nothing but spam for your alleged Cause, right wingers?

No, you don't get to not address the question, then act surprised when I reject what you wrote. You wrote nonsense. Now, be honest and tell everyone what you really want, to be paid even when you choose not to work.

Only capital has to work under capitalism in our First World economy.

Anymore questions, right wingers?

Then I must be capital, because I do meaningful work.

In another thread, we could be Action, not mere men.

Your connection to reality is very thin right now.

 

[hadit]

Yet a majority of Senators confirm- elect a justice.

Yes, Senators, not the voting public.