Texas Governor Leads The Charge

[OKTexas]

Why do you keep ignoring the fact the applications don't expire and the don't need to be on the same subject.

I didn't ignore it. I addressed it specifically:

Unless there's some reference to previous calls, specifically....you're going to have a hard time arguing that NY in 1789 was calling for the same convention that say, Tennessee called for in 1989. As the wording was radically different, nor did one make reference to the other. And are merely similarly themed.

Which you ignored completely. You're assuming that if a call has even a vaguely similar theme, its the call for a convention on the exact same amendment. That's a huge assumption.

And given that your premise was how the States would react to Congress as they 'keep ignoring their calls for conventions'.....the fact that literal CENTURIES separate these calls would have an enormous impact that reaction. As a balanced budget amendment for congress isn't a major priority for NY state legislatures today.

And of course, your number plummeted from 700......to 2. With those two requiring some rather serious stretching to work.

No wonder you wouldn't tell me where to find the link. You didn't want me checking it.

All smoke, mirrors and deflection, and the fact that you hadn't yet seen the link is purely a reflection on your not reading the thread before jumping in, I wanted everyone in the thread to see it, that's why I posted it, duhhhhhhhhhhhh!! I'm not going to repost a link for one ignorant person.

Laughing.....says the guy whose number of instances where the congress had 'ignored' 2/3rds of the State legislatures call for a constitutional convention dropped from 700...

....to 2. And even those 2 are a stretch. Where you have to assume that a calls for vaguely similar themes separate by CENTURIES are a call for the same convention.

Now it makes sense why you wouldn't tell me where the link was. You didn't anyone fact checking it.

You opinion on which applications are currently valid is just that, any opinion, the only question you need to answer is, have a sufficient number of States submitted an application for a convention. Nothing more nothing less. The when, the where, the why is irrelevant in Article V.

There's 0.0% chance that you'll get more than 1 democratically controlled legislatures to vote with conservatives on this. As its beyond obvious that this is just a power play by conservatives to strip citizens of rights.

You simply don't have the numbers. That's not an opinion. That's math. You'll need about 5 to pass the amendment. You'll almost certainly get 0.

0 < 5 is why this is a mere fantasy. The odds of you getting even convention are ludicrously slim. As history itself has demonstrated. If this particular issue genuinely had legs, it would have already passed Congress and the Senate.

What about the other 8 proposals, any comments on them? No need for you to stay stuck on stupid on just 1 of the 9.

 

[Skylar]

I didn't ignore it. I addressed it specifically:

Unless there's some reference to previous calls, specifically....you're going to have a hard time arguing that NY in 1789 was calling for the same convention that say, Tennessee called for in 1989. As the wording was radically different, nor did one make reference to the other. And are merely similarly themed.

Which you ignored completely. You're assuming that if a call has even a vaguely similar theme, its the call for a convention on the exact same amendment. That's a huge assumption.

And given that your premise was how the States would react to Congress as they 'keep ignoring their calls for conventions'.....the fact that literal CENTURIES separate these calls would have an enormous impact that reaction. As a balanced budget amendment for congress isn't a major priority for NY state legislatures today.

And of course, your number plummeted from 700......to 2. With those two requiring some rather serious stretching to work.

No wonder you wouldn't tell me where to find the link. You didn't want me checking it.

All smoke, mirrors and deflection, and the fact that you hadn't yet seen the link is purely a reflection on your not reading the thread before jumping in, I wanted everyone in the thread to see it, that's why I posted it, duhhhhhhhhhhhh!! I'm not going to repost a link for one ignorant person.

Laughing.....says the guy whose number of instances where the congress had 'ignored' 2/3rds of the State legislatures call for a constitutional convention dropped from 700...

....to 2. And even those 2 are a stretch. Where you have to assume that a calls for vaguely similar themes separate by CENTURIES are a call for the same convention.

Now it makes sense why you wouldn't tell me where the link was. You didn't anyone fact checking it.

You opinion on which applications are currently valid is just that, any opinion, the only question you need to answer is, have a sufficient number of States submitted an application for a convention. Nothing more nothing less. The when, the where, the why is irrelevant in Article V.

There's 0.0% chance that you'll get more than 1 democratically controlled legislatures to vote with conservatives on this. As its beyond obvious that this is just a power play by conservatives to strip citizens of rights.

You simply don't have the numbers. That's not an opinion. That's math. You'll need about 5 to pass the amendment. You'll almost certainly get 0.

0 < 5 is why this is a mere fantasy. The odds of you getting even convention are ludicrously slim. As history itself has demonstrated. If this particular issue genuinely had legs, it would have already passed Congress and the Senate.

What about the other 8 proposals, any comments on them? No need for you to stay stuck on stupid on just 1 of the 9.

I'm apparently smart enough to recognize that your ilk don't have anywhere near the numbers they'll need to pass the amendment. Which puts me head and shoulders above you, Abbot, or pretty much any conservative in this thread.

And if you have a point to make about any other Abbot proposal, make it.

 

[OKTexas]

All smoke, mirrors and deflection, and the fact that you hadn't yet seen the link is purely a reflection on your not reading the thread before jumping in, I wanted everyone in the thread to see it, that's why I posted it, duhhhhhhhhhhhh!! I'm not going to repost a link for one ignorant person.

Laughing.....says the guy whose number of instances where the congress had 'ignored' 2/3rds of the State legislatures call for a constitutional convention dropped from 700...

....to 2. And even those 2 are a stretch. Where you have to assume that a calls for vaguely similar themes separate by CENTURIES are a call for the same convention.

Now it makes sense why you wouldn't tell me where the link was. You didn't anyone fact checking it.

You opinion on which applications are currently valid is just that, any opinion, the only question you need to answer is, have a sufficient number of States submitted an application for a convention. Nothing more nothing less. The when, the where, the why is irrelevant in Article V.

There's 0.0% chance that you'll get more than 1 democratically controlled legislatures to vote with conservatives on this. As its beyond obvious that this is just a power play by conservatives to strip citizens of rights.

You simply don't have the numbers. That's not an opinion. That's math. You'll need about 5 to pass the amendment. You'll almost certainly get 0.

0 < 5 is why this is a mere fantasy. The odds of you getting even convention are ludicrously slim. As history itself has demonstrated. If this particular issue genuinely had legs, it would have already passed Congress and the Senate.

What about the other 8 proposals, any comments on them? No need for you to stay stuck on stupid on just 1 of the 9.

I'm apparently smart enough to recognize that your ilk don't have anywhere near the numbers they'll need to pass the amendment. Which puts me head and shoulders above you, Abbot, or pretty much any conservative in this thread.

And if you have a point to make about any other Abbot proposal, make it.

So you do chose to stay stuck on stupid on just one proposal, good job.

 

[Dovahkiin]

Hooray for Gov. Abbot. We have enough Republican governors to exact some much needed changes.


AUSTIN (CBSDFW.COM/AP) — Texas Governor Greg Abbott is joining the ranks of Republicans who are pushing for the first U.S. constitutional convention in more than 200 years.

Abbott on Friday called on Texas to take the lead in pushing for constitutional amendments that would give states power to ignore federal laws and override decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The idea isn’t new, and successfully assembling a constitutional convention is a long shot.

Doing so would require approval from 34 states, and over the past four decades, more than two dozen states have endorsed the idea at one time or another.


Texas Governor Calls For Convention Of States

Texas Governor Greg Abbott is joining the ranks of Republicans who are pushing for the first U.S. constitutional convention in more than 200 years.

Yeah, because completely useless things such as a "constitutional convention" 200 years later will fix a "problem" that republicans are just as "guilty" of as the democrats.

that would give states power to ignore federal laws and override decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Oh.. what a great idea.. Only in the mind of a fool.

 

[Skylar]

Laughing.....says the guy whose number of instances where the congress had 'ignored' 2/3rds of the State legislatures call for a constitutional convention dropped from 700...

....to 2. And even those 2 are a stretch. Where you have to assume that a calls for vaguely similar themes separate by CENTURIES are a call for the same convention.

Now it makes sense why you wouldn't tell me where the link was. You didn't anyone fact checking it.

You opinion on which applications are currently valid is just that, any opinion, the only question you need to answer is, have a sufficient number of States submitted an application for a convention. Nothing more nothing less. The when, the where, the why is irrelevant in Article V.

There's 0.0% chance that you'll get more than 1 democratically controlled legislatures to vote with conservatives on this. As its beyond obvious that this is just a power play by conservatives to strip citizens of rights.

You simply don't have the numbers. That's not an opinion. That's math. You'll need about 5 to pass the amendment. You'll almost certainly get 0.

0 < 5 is why this is a mere fantasy. The odds of you getting even convention are ludicrously slim. As history itself has demonstrated. If this particular issue genuinely had legs, it would have already passed Congress and the Senate.

What about the other 8 proposals, any comments on them? No need for you to stay stuck on stupid on just 1 of the 9.

I'm apparently smart enough to recognize that your ilk don't have anywhere near the numbers they'll need to pass the amendment. Which puts me head and shoulders above you, Abbot, or pretty much any conservative in this thread.

And if you have a point to make about any other Abbot proposal, make it.

So you do chose to stay stuck on stupid on just one proposal, good job.

So I choose to pick a topic and discuss it. And because I'm right.....you try and change the topic.

I've invited you to pick any Abbot proposal you like. And you starkly refuse to discuss the very topic you bring up. You were saying about 'stuck on stupid'?

 

[OKTexas]

You opinion on which applications are currently valid is just that, any opinion, the only question you need to answer is, have a sufficient number of States submitted an application for a convention. Nothing more nothing less. The when, the where, the why is irrelevant in Article V.

There's 0.0% chance that you'll get more than 1 democratically controlled legislatures to vote with conservatives on this. As its beyond obvious that this is just a power play by conservatives to strip citizens of rights.

You simply don't have the numbers. That's not an opinion. That's math. You'll need about 5 to pass the amendment. You'll almost certainly get 0.

0 < 5 is why this is a mere fantasy. The odds of you getting even convention are ludicrously slim. As history itself has demonstrated. If this particular issue genuinely had legs, it would have already passed Congress and the Senate.

What about the other 8 proposals, any comments on them? No need for you to stay stuck on stupid on just 1 of the 9.

I'm apparently smart enough to recognize that your ilk don't have anywhere near the numbers they'll need to pass the amendment. Which puts me head and shoulders above you, Abbot, or pretty much any conservative in this thread.

And if you have a point to make about any other Abbot proposal, make it.

So you do chose to stay stuck on stupid on just one proposal, good job.

So I choose to pick a topic and discuss it. And because I'm right.....you try and change the topic.

I've invited you to pick any Abbot proposal you like. And you starkly refuse to discuss the very topic you bring up. You were saying about 'stuck on stupid'?

I've already expressed my opinion on the States having the authority to overturn the supremes, I'm all for it, I'd prefer the threshold be set a 3/5ths instead of 2/3rds but I could live with it. What else is there to discuss, I've given my opinion, you gave yours and we disagree, so be it. Move on.

 

[Skylar]

There's 0.0% chance that you'll get more than 1 democratically controlled legislatures to vote with conservatives on this. As its beyond obvious that this is just a power play by conservatives to strip citizens of rights.

You simply don't have the numbers. That's not an opinion. That's math. You'll need about 5 to pass the amendment. You'll almost certainly get 0.

0 < 5 is why this is a mere fantasy. The odds of you getting even convention are ludicrously slim. As history itself has demonstrated. If this particular issue genuinely had legs, it would have already passed Congress and the Senate.

What about the other 8 proposals, any comments on them? No need for you to stay stuck on stupid on just 1 of the 9.

I'm apparently smart enough to recognize that your ilk don't have anywhere near the numbers they'll need to pass the amendment. Which puts me head and shoulders above you, Abbot, or pretty much any conservative in this thread.

And if you have a point to make about any other Abbot proposal, make it.

So you do chose to stay stuck on stupid on just one proposal, good job.

So I choose to pick a topic and discuss it. And because I'm right.....you try and change the topic.

I've invited you to pick any Abbot proposal you like. And you starkly refuse to discuss the very topic you bring up. You were saying about 'stuck on stupid'?

I've already expressed my opinion on the States having the authority to overturn the supremes, I'm all for it, I'd prefer the threshold be set a 3/5ths instead of 2/3rds but I could live with it. What else is there to discuss, I've given my opinion, you gave yours and we disagree, so be it. Move on.

And the idea is utterly foolish, as we both know that the republican legislatures would go after rights, seeking to strip them from their own citizens and turn them into crimes. Its beyond naive to assume that the states would *only* strip those rights that you think the people shouldn't have. There's a reason why the threshold is set so high.

If a State wants to *extend* rights that the federal government doesn't protect, they generally can. So the consequence of a higher threshold has very little detrimental effect on rights within a State. If however the States want to *strip* rights that the federal government does protect, a lower threshold would make this much easier to do. And would have a very detrimental effect on rights within a State.

Conservatives may favor government power over individual rights.....but I don't.

Thankfully, there's virtually no chance Abbot's absurdly stupid proposal will become an amendment. And very little chance there will even be a convention. With math and history respectively demonstrating each.

 

[OKTexas]

What about the other 8 proposals, any comments on them? No need for you to stay stuck on stupid on just 1 of the 9.

I'm apparently smart enough to recognize that your ilk don't have anywhere near the numbers they'll need to pass the amendment. Which puts me head and shoulders above you, Abbot, or pretty much any conservative in this thread.

And if you have a point to make about any other Abbot proposal, make it.

So you do chose to stay stuck on stupid on just one proposal, good job.

So I choose to pick a topic and discuss it. And because I'm right.....you try and change the topic.

I've invited you to pick any Abbot proposal you like. And you starkly refuse to discuss the very topic you bring up. You were saying about 'stuck on stupid'?

I've already expressed my opinion on the States having the authority to overturn the supremes, I'm all for it, I'd prefer the threshold be set a 3/5ths instead of 2/3rds but I could live with it. What else is there to discuss, I've given my opinion, you gave yours and we disagree, so be it. Move on.

And the idea is utterly foolish, as we both know that the republican legislatures would go after rights, seeking to strip them from their own citizens and turn them into crimes. Its beyond naive to assume that the states would *only* strip those rights that you think the people shouldn't have. There's a reason why the threshold is set so high.

If a State wants to *extend* rights that the federal government doesn't protect, they generally can. So the consequence of a higher threshold has very little detrimental effect on rights within a State. If however the States want to *strip* rights that the federal government does protect, a lower threshold would make this much easier to do. And would have a very detrimental effect on rights within a State.

Conservatives may favor government power over individual rights.....but I don't.

Thankfully, there's virtually no chance Abbot's absurdly stupid proposal will become an amendment. And very little chance there will even be an convention. With math and history respectively demonstrating each.

Once again, your opinion, I disagree, next.

 

[Agit8r]

Democrats need to be serious about voting in state and local races.

31 state legislatures are controlled by republicans.

List of United States state legislatures - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That;s too close to 34 for comfort. These reptile brains could dismantle the Union if we aren't careful

 

[Skylar]

I'm apparently smart enough to recognize that your ilk don't have anywhere near the numbers they'll need to pass the amendment. Which puts me head and shoulders above you, Abbot, or pretty much any conservative in this thread.

And if you have a point to make about any other Abbot proposal, make it.

So you do chose to stay stuck on stupid on just one proposal, good job.

So I choose to pick a topic and discuss it. And because I'm right.....you try and change the topic.

I've invited you to pick any Abbot proposal you like. And you starkly refuse to discuss the very topic you bring up. You were saying about 'stuck on stupid'?

I've already expressed my opinion on the States having the authority to overturn the supremes, I'm all for it, I'd prefer the threshold be set a 3/5ths instead of 2/3rds but I could live with it. What else is there to discuss, I've given my opinion, you gave yours and we disagree, so be it. Move on.

And the idea is utterly foolish, as we both know that the republican legislatures would go after rights, seeking to strip them from their own citizens and turn them into crimes. Its beyond naive to assume that the states would *only* strip those rights that you think the people shouldn't have. There's a reason why the threshold is set so high.

If a State wants to *extend* rights that the federal government doesn't protect, they generally can. So the consequence of a higher threshold has very little detrimental effect on rights within a State. If however the States want to *strip* rights that the federal government does protect, a lower threshold would make this much easier to do. And would have a very detrimental effect on rights within a State.

Conservatives may favor government power over individual rights.....but I don't.

Thankfully, there's virtually no chance Abbot's absurdly stupid proposal will become an amendment. And very little chance there will even be an convention. With math and history respectively demonstrating each.

Once again, your opinion, I disagree, next.

You haven't even addressed my arguments.....as you know I'm right. For example, that republican legislatures would go after rights. You know this would happen. You refuse to discuss it. And what option do you have? They've made it ludicrously clear that's exactly what they do.

You don't dispute my point on the detrimental effect on rights having such a low threshold for overturning USSC rulings would have. As you know I'm right again.

And lastly, you don't dispute that the odds of this passing is virtually nil. As math works against you. You'll need 38 states. At best, you'll have 33.

Avoiding the decimation of your argument by refusing to discuss it doesn't make these valid and unrefuted points disappear. Plus, its kinda chickenshit.

 

[IsaacNewton]

I'm waiting for Governor Costello to respond, then we have a bit!

 

[OKTexas]

So you do chose to stay stuck on stupid on just one proposal, good job.

So I choose to pick a topic and discuss it. And because I'm right.....you try and change the topic.

I've invited you to pick any Abbot proposal you like. And you starkly refuse to discuss the very topic you bring up. You were saying about 'stuck on stupid'?

I've already expressed my opinion on the States having the authority to overturn the supremes, I'm all for it, I'd prefer the threshold be set a 3/5ths instead of 2/3rds but I could live with it. What else is there to discuss, I've given my opinion, you gave yours and we disagree, so be it. Move on.

And the idea is utterly foolish, as we both know that the republican legislatures would go after rights, seeking to strip them from their own citizens and turn them into crimes. Its beyond naive to assume that the states would *only* strip those rights that you think the people shouldn't have. There's a reason why the threshold is set so high.

If a State wants to *extend* rights that the federal government doesn't protect, they generally can. So the consequence of a higher threshold has very little detrimental effect on rights within a State. If however the States want to *strip* rights that the federal government does protect, a lower threshold would make this much easier to do. And would have a very detrimental effect on rights within a State.

Conservatives may favor government power over individual rights.....but I don't.

Thankfully, there's virtually no chance Abbot's absurdly stupid proposal will become an amendment. And very little chance there will even be an convention. With math and history respectively demonstrating each.

Once again, your opinion, I disagree, next.

You haven't even addressed my arguments.....as you know I'm right. For example, that republican legislatures would go after rights. You know this would happen. You refuse to discuss it. And what option do you have? They've made it ludicrously clear that's exactly what they do.

You don't dispute my point on the detrimental effect on rights having such a low threshold for overturning USSC rulings would have. As you know I'm right again.

And lastly, you don't dispute that the odds of this passing is virtually nil. As math works against you. You'll need 38 states. At best, you'll have 33.

Avoiding the decimation of your argument by refusing to discuss it doesn't make these valid and unrefuted points disappear. Plus, its kinda chickenshit.

OK dumb ass let's take this point by point.

You haven't even addressed my arguments.....as you know I'm right. For example, that republican legislatures would go after rights. You know this would happen. You refuse to discuss it. And what option do you have? They've made it ludicrously clear that's exactly what they do.

The above is not an argument, it's nothing but an assumption on your part which you have absolutely no evidence to back up, except your own opinion and prejudice. Try actually making a real argument then we might have something to discuss. My option is to disagree, which I have done.

You don't dispute my point on the detrimental effect on rights having such a low threshold for overturning USSC rulings would have. As you know I'm right again.

Once again the above is your opinion, that it would be detrimental, and I don't know that you're right, because I disagree.

And lastly, you don't dispute that the odds of this passing is virtually nil. As math works against you. You'll need 38 states. At best, you'll have 33.

Once again above you're assuming facts not in evidence, you have no idea what arguments for or against the proposal might be made, and who might be swayed by those arguments.

Avoiding the decimation of your argument by refusing to discuss it doesn't make these valid and unrefuted points disappear. Plus, its kinda chickenshit.

As far as the above, you have decimated nothing, because all you have done is express opinion, bias, prejudice and speculation, that's not an argument. But feel free to carry on, you're definitely good for a belly laugh or two. BTW there are times I have things to do other than sit here and act like a babysitter for your mommy. Now go to sleep, it's past your bedtime, I know it's way past mine.

 

[The Rabbi]

So I choose to pick a topic and discuss it. And because I'm right.....you try and change the topic.

I've invited you to pick any Abbot proposal you like. And you starkly refuse to discuss the very topic you bring up. You were saying about 'stuck on stupid'?

I've already expressed my opinion on the States having the authority to overturn the supremes, I'm all for it, I'd prefer the threshold be set a 3/5ths instead of 2/3rds but I could live with it. What else is there to discuss, I've given my opinion, you gave yours and we disagree, so be it. Move on.

And the idea is utterly foolish, as we both know that the republican legislatures would go after rights, seeking to strip them from their own citizens and turn them into crimes. Its beyond naive to assume that the states would *only* strip those rights that you think the people shouldn't have. There's a reason why the threshold is set so high.

If a State wants to *extend* rights that the federal government doesn't protect, they generally can. So the consequence of a higher threshold has very little detrimental effect on rights within a State. If however the States want to *strip* rights that the federal government does protect, a lower threshold would make this much easier to do. And would have a very detrimental effect on rights within a State.

Conservatives may favor government power over individual rights.....but I don't.

Thankfully, there's virtually no chance Abbot's absurdly stupid proposal will become an amendment. And very little chance there will even be an convention. With math and history respectively demonstrating each.

Once again, your opinion, I disagree, next.

You haven't even addressed my arguments.....as you know I'm right. For example, that republican legislatures would go after rights. You know this would happen. You refuse to discuss it. And what option do you have? They've made it ludicrously clear that's exactly what they do.

You don't dispute my point on the detrimental effect on rights having such a low threshold for overturning USSC rulings would have. As you know I'm right again.

And lastly, you don't dispute that the odds of this passing is virtually nil. As math works against you. You'll need 38 states. At best, you'll have 33.

Avoiding the decimation of your argument by refusing to discuss it doesn't make these valid and unrefuted points disappear. Plus, its kinda chickenshit.

OK dumb ass let's take this point by point.

You haven't even addressed my arguments.....as you know I'm right. For example, that republican legislatures would go after rights. You know this would happen. You refuse to discuss it. And what option do you have? They've made it ludicrously clear that's exactly what they do.

The above is not an argument, it's nothing but an assumption on your part which you have absolutely no evidence to back up, except your own opinion and prejudice. Try actually making a real argument then we might have something to discuss. My option is to disagree, which I have done.

You don't dispute my point on the detrimental effect on rights having such a low threshold for overturning USSC rulings would have. As you know I'm right again.

Once again the above is your opinion, that it would be detrimental, and I don't know that you're right, because I disagree.

And lastly, you don't dispute that the odds of this passing is virtually nil. As math works against you. You'll need 38 states. At best, you'll have 33.

Once again above you're assuming facts not in evidence, you have no idea what arguments for or against the proposal might be made, and who might be swayed by those arguments.

Avoiding the decimation of your argument by refusing to discuss it doesn't make these valid and unrefuted points disappear. Plus, its kinda chickenshit.

As far as the above, you have decimated nothing, because all you have done is express opinion, bias, prejudice and speculation, that's not an argument. But feel free to carry on, you're definitely good for a belly laugh or two. BTW there are times I have things to do other than sit here and act like a babysitter for your mommy. Now go to sleep, it's past your bedtime, I know it's way past mine.

See you dont get it. In LiberalLand things are different. "Fact" is what everyone knows. So everyone knows George Bush lied us into a war in Iraq to get even with Saddam and allow Dick Cheney to make millions from Halliburton. And everyone knows conservatives are racists and hate Obama just because he's black. These are "facts" in liberalland.
To refute a conservative's point all you have to do is point out a fact, like Obama is the greatest president in history. That trumps any argument. When confronted with evidence you simply dismiss it as being biased.
That's how this works.
And that's why galactic level stupids like Skylar are on my iggy list.

 

[rdean]

The New BS GOP is certifiable. They may recover when the black president is succeeded....

They are afraid the next Democratic president will be able to appoint some reasonable people. Unlike Scalia or Thomas.

aka Crony Judges who are nothing more than Liberal Hacks..............

Then you will use Judicial Activism to get your way. No fucking thanks.

And what way is that?

The idea behind the Court is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Just because Republicans want gays executed doesn't mean it right.

 

[The Rabbi]

The New BS GOP is certifiable. They may recover when the black president is succeeded....

They are afraid the next Democratic president will be able to appoint some reasonable people. Unlike Scalia or Thomas.

aka Crony Judges who are nothing more than Liberal Hacks..............

Then you will use Judicial Activism to get your way. No fucking thanks.

And what way is that?

The idea behind the Court is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Just because Republicans want gays executed doesn't mean it right.

That is not the idea behind the Supreme Court. You fail because you are RDean.

 

[imawhosure]

Logical thought process starts now------------->

1. There can and will be a convention, and the blue states will attend.

2. Horse trading between all states will happen to get definitive small/medium changes, because to assume that all blue controlled states are happy with the feds power is a ridiculous, pie in the sky assumption of the left.

3. That is exactly why no rights will be addressed except for the strengthening of them. EXAMPLE: Improved states and gun rights for gay rights. Blue states will agree, which is why horsetrading will be the order of the day here. Both sides win, which is why the left can't have that, as far as the paid pointy heads on this board.

4. The states will impose spending limits on Washington, and a fed tax cap. All states will go for this, as the pressure on them from their constituents will be unbearable, and if they try and block, even blue states will then change their local reps.

5. They will all probably try and vote in a reversal of SCOTUS amendment; even blue states want a mechanism to do this, and rightfully so.

6. They will also force the congress to be the ones who change laws and regulations, instead of allowing unelected officials from doing it that they can't vote out. That is what the constitution calls for, and many blue states aren't happy with the way things are today. (think coal states) If Washington wants to do something like that, then CONGRESS should put their re-election on the line and vote for it, not allow people we can not vote out do it for them.

Finally, to GOPers--------------> You want to insure an article 5 convention ASAP? Then get Trump or Cruz elected as POTUS. Watch how fast the DNC decides it wants an article 5 if that happens! Understand that if one of these 2 men get elected, if the Democrats do NOT get back the senate, they will control NOTHING, including most state legislatures, and if one of them does get elected, more than likely their coat tails will hold the senate. That is the dirty little secret the Democrats do not want to talk about, and why they are FORCED today to use the "pen and phone" technique to govern. AGAIN-----> if the Democrats do not win the White House, they have no control of ANYTHING! Think about that, and let it sink in!

But, still work for an article 5 if that happens, even harder than before, because with blue state help then, you will be able to "cut Washington DCs wings" as it were, for a generation to come. It will no longer be totally about Presidential politics, but a much broader swath that every person in this country will have more power to have an impact on. Right now, it is about convincing Florida, Ohio, and one or two others, correct? Imagine that even if you don't convince them, and some new duffus uses his pen and phone from either party, you just call up the rest of the states and most of them tell that duffus to go pound sand!

Now, that is the way it is supposed to be, no matter what the left wants you to believe!

 

[OKTexas]

I've already expressed my opinion on the States having the authority to overturn the supremes, I'm all for it, I'd prefer the threshold be set a 3/5ths instead of 2/3rds but I could live with it. What else is there to discuss, I've given my opinion, you gave yours and we disagree, so be it. Move on.

And the idea is utterly foolish, as we both know that the republican legislatures would go after rights, seeking to strip them from their own citizens and turn them into crimes. Its beyond naive to assume that the states would *only* strip those rights that you think the people shouldn't have. There's a reason why the threshold is set so high.

If a State wants to *extend* rights that the federal government doesn't protect, they generally can. So the consequence of a higher threshold has very little detrimental effect on rights within a State. If however the States want to *strip* rights that the federal government does protect, a lower threshold would make this much easier to do. And would have a very detrimental effect on rights within a State.

Conservatives may favor government power over individual rights.....but I don't.

Thankfully, there's virtually no chance Abbot's absurdly stupid proposal will become an amendment. And very little chance there will even be an convention. With math and history respectively demonstrating each.

Once again, your opinion, I disagree, next.

You haven't even addressed my arguments.....as you know I'm right. For example, that republican legislatures would go after rights. You know this would happen. You refuse to discuss it. And what option do you have? They've made it ludicrously clear that's exactly what they do.

You don't dispute my point on the detrimental effect on rights having such a low threshold for overturning USSC rulings would have. As you know I'm right again.

And lastly, you don't dispute that the odds of this passing is virtually nil. As math works against you. You'll need 38 states. At best, you'll have 33.

Avoiding the decimation of your argument by refusing to discuss it doesn't make these valid and unrefuted points disappear. Plus, its kinda chickenshit.

OK dumb ass let's take this point by point.

You haven't even addressed my arguments.....as you know I'm right. For example, that republican legislatures would go after rights. You know this would happen. You refuse to discuss it. And what option do you have? They've made it ludicrously clear that's exactly what they do.

The above is not an argument, it's nothing but an assumption on your part which you have absolutely no evidence to back up, except your own opinion and prejudice. Try actually making a real argument then we might have something to discuss. My option is to disagree, which I have done.

You don't dispute my point on the detrimental effect on rights having such a low threshold for overturning USSC rulings would have. As you know I'm right again.

Once again the above is your opinion, that it would be detrimental, and I don't know that you're right, because I disagree.

And lastly, you don't dispute that the odds of this passing is virtually nil. As math works against you. You'll need 38 states. At best, you'll have 33.

Once again above you're assuming facts not in evidence, you have no idea what arguments for or against the proposal might be made, and who might be swayed by those arguments.

Avoiding the decimation of your argument by refusing to discuss it doesn't make these valid and unrefuted points disappear. Plus, its kinda chickenshit.

As far as the above, you have decimated nothing, because all you have done is express opinion, bias, prejudice and speculation, that's not an argument. But feel free to carry on, you're definitely good for a belly laugh or two. BTW there are times I have things to do other than sit here and act like a babysitter for your mommy. Now go to sleep, it's past your bedtime, I know it's way past mine.

See you dont get it. In LiberalLand things are different. "Fact" is what everyone knows. So everyone knows George Bush lied us into a war in Iraq to get even with Saddam and allow Dick Cheney to make millions from Halliburton. And everyone knows conservatives are racists and hate Obama just because he's black. These are "facts" in liberalland.
To refute a conservative's point all you have to do is point out a fact, like Obama is the greatest president in history. That trumps any argument. When confronted with evidence you simply dismiss it as being biased.
That's how this works.
And that's why galactic level stupids like Skylar are on my iggy list.

I know all that, but I don't use an ignore list, fucking with regressives is the only reason I come to this site, it's great entertainment and it's virtually free.

 

[OKTexas]

The New BS GOP is certifiable. They may recover when the black president is succeeded....

They are afraid the next Democratic president will be able to appoint some reasonable people. Unlike Scalia or Thomas.

aka Crony Judges who are nothing more than Liberal Hacks..............

Then you will use Judicial Activism to get your way. No fucking thanks.

And what way is that?

The idea behind the Court is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Just because Republicans want gays executed doesn't mean it right.

That's only one function of the court, unfortunately they are venturing in to powers they don't have, that's why there needs to be checks placed on them and who better to do it than the entities that created the court in the first place?

 

[rdean]

The New BS GOP is certifiable. They may recover when the black president is succeeded....

They are afraid the next Democratic president will be able to appoint some reasonable people. Unlike Scalia or Thomas.

aka Crony Judges who are nothing more than Liberal Hacks..............

Then you will use Judicial Activism to get your way. No fucking thanks.

And what way is that?

The idea behind the Court is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Just because Republicans want gays executed doesn't mean it right.

That's only one function of the court, unfortunately they are venturing in to powers they don't have, that's why there needs to be checks placed on them and who better to do it than the entities that created the court in the first place?

Any time the majority doesn't like a Supreme Court ruling, they ALWAYS say "they are venturing in to powers they don't have". Always.

But right wingers better be careful. Their numbers are shrinking. Soon, they will wish they hadn't changed the constitution because they will have no protection.

Like the birther thing they tried to use against Obama. Now it's being effectively used against Rafael Edwardo Cruz because he wasn't actually born in this country.

Republicans have fucked over so many Americans. Gays, blacks, Hispanics, veterans, Muslims, women and so on. If they aren't careful, soon, it will be their turn.

 

[rdean]

The New BS GOP is certifiable. They may recover when the black president is succeeded....

They are afraid the next Democratic president will be able to appoint some reasonable people. Unlike Scalia or Thomas.

aka Crony Judges who are nothing more than Liberal Hacks..............

Then you will use Judicial Activism to get your way. No fucking thanks.

And what way is that?

The idea behind the Court is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Just because Republicans want gays executed doesn't mean it right.

That is not the idea behind the Supreme Court. You fail because you are RDean.

Really, keep reading nitwit. Seems a few of these other right wingers are smarter than you.